Wisconsin 2019-2020 Regular Session Status: In Committee Bipartisan · 5 R · 2 D cosponsors

AB 229 — Relating to: creation of a Joint Committee on State Mandates and required funding of state mandates. (FE)

Last action — Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Track this bill free

No card. One bill, free forever — alerts when it moves.

  1. ✓
    Introduced
  2. 2
    In Committee
  3. 3
    Passed Assembly
  4. 4
    Passed Senate
  5. 5
    To Executive
  6. 6
    Enacted

This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.

This bill is no longer active — its legislative session has ended, so there is no live prognosis. It would have to be reintroduced in the current session to move again.

Bill Text

How this bill changes current law

6 changes Share ↗

Compared against current U.S. Code AI-generated reading aid — verify against the official bill.

The bill amends existing law to establish a Joint Committee on State Mandates and requires funding for state-imposed mandates on local governmental units.

  • 13.093(2)(b)

    Executive budget bills introduced under s. 16.47 (1) are exempt from the fiscal estimate requirement under par. (a) but shall, if they contain a provision affecting a public retirement fund or providing a tax exemption, be analyzed as to those provisions by the respective joint survey committee. → Executive budget bills introduced under s. 16.47 (1) are exempt from the fiscal estimate requirement under par. (a) but shall, if they contain a provision affecting a public retirement fund or, providing a tax exemption, or imposing a mandate, as defined in s. 13.59 (1) (b), be analyzed as to those provisions by the respective joint survey committee or the joint committee on state mandates.

    The bill expands the criteria for analysis of executive budget bills to include those imposing mandates.

  • 13.093(2)(b)

    the bill shall be simultaneously referred to the joint survey committee on tax exemptions and the joint committee on finance. → If such a bill imposes a mandate, as defined in s. 13.59 (1) (b), the bill shall be simultaneously referred to the joint committee on state mandates and the joint committee on finance.

    The bill requires that any executive budget bill imposing a mandate also be referred to the newly created Joint Committee on State Mandates.

  • 13.59

    Joint committee on state mandates. (1) DEFINITIONS. In this section: (a) 'Local governmental unit' has the meaning given in s. 19.42 (7u). (b) 'Mandate,' except in sub. (6), means a statutory provision placing a requirement on a local governmental unit and, in sub. (6), has the meaning given in s. 227.112 (1) (b). (2) CREATION. There is created a joint committee on state mandates, consisting of 3 majority party and 2 minority party senators and 3 majority party and 2 minority party representatives to the assembly appointed as are the members of standing committees in their respective houses. At least one member of the majority party of each house who is appointed to the joint committee on state mandates must also be a member of the joint committee on finance.

    The bill establishes a new Joint Committee on State Mandates with specific definitions and membership requirements.

  • 13.591

    Funding of state-imposed mandates. (1) DEFINITION. In this section, 'mandate' has the meaning set forth in s. 13.59 (1) (b). (2) APPROPRIATION INCREASE. The legislature may not enact a bill on or after the effective date of this subsection .... [LRB inserts date], that contains a mandate unless the bill has had a public hearing before the joint committee on state mandates or contains an appropriation to provide for reimbursement under s. 16.59 for the current fiscal biennium, and requires that an appropriation be provided in all subsequent fiscal years in which the mandate is imposed, by the applicable amount specified in the report prepared under s. 13.59 (5), to provide for reimbursement under s. 16.59.

    The bill mandates that any future bill imposing a state mandate must either be heard by the Joint Committee on State Mandates or include funding for that mandate.

  • 13.591

    ENFORCEMENT PROHIBITED IF UNFUNDED. If a bill that contains a mandate is enacted after the effective date of this subsection .... [LRB inserts date], and is not in compliance with sub. (2), or if the legislature does not provide an appropriation as required by sub. (2) for the mandate, the mandate contained in the enacted bill may not be enforced until the required appropriation is provided.

    The bill prohibits the enforcement of mandates unless they are funded.

  • 16.59

    State funding of mandates. (1) In this section: (a) 'Local governmental unit' has the meaning given in s. 19.42 (7u). (b) 'Mandate' has the meaning given in s. 227.112 (1) (b). (2) From the appropriation under s. 20.505 (1) (bm) or such other appropriations designated by law for such purpose, on the basis of the report prepared under s. 13.59 (5) and other relevant information available to the department, the department shall reimburse local governmental units for their approximate costs not otherwise funded by the state that are attributable to mandates that are subject to the funding requirements under s. 13.591 or 227.112.

    The bill introduces a new requirement for reimbursement to local governmental units for costs associated with mandates.

Action History

  1. Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

  2. Fiscal estimate received

  3. Fiscal estimate received

  4. Fiscal estimate received

  5. Fiscal estimate received

  6. Fiscal estimate received

  7. Fiscal estimate received

  8. Fiscal estimate received

  9. Fiscal estimate received

  10. Read first time and referred to Committee on State Affairs

  11. Introduced by Representatives Gundrum, Doyle, Brandtjen, Brooks, Considine, Murphy, Ramthun, Sinicki, Steffen, Vruwink and Wichgers; cosponsored by Senators Jacque and Carpenter

Sponsors

Sponsorship breakdown

Export CSV (upgrade) →

11 sponsors · 0 co-sponsors · 121 not signed on

Sponsors (11)

Co-sponsors (0)

None.

Not signed on (121)

121 members have not signed on to this bill.

Show all 121 →

"Not signed on" means a member has not sponsored or co-sponsored this bill — it does not imply opposition. Members flagged Voted No have a recorded No vote on this bill.

Whip count is in markup. Polling the chamber and every recorded vote this session. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Calling the roll · Tallying · Engrossing

Subjects

Cross-referencing the record. Reading this bill against every other bill in the corpus by meaning, not keywords. Only the first open is slow. It’s instant for you after this. Matching · Ranking · Engrossing

Frequently asked questions

Who sponsors AB 229?
AB 229 is sponsored by Doyle, Steve (Democrat), Brandtjen, Considine, Murphy, David (Republican), Ramthun, Sinicki, Christine (Democrat), Steffen, David (Republican), Vruwink, Wichgers, Chuck (Republican), Gundrum, Rick (Republican), and Brooks, Robert (Republican).
What is the current status of AB 229?
This bill died with 2019-2020 Regular Session. It reached “In Committee” and never advanced before the session ended, so it can no longer move — a new version would have to be reintroduced in the current session.
Where can I track AB 229?
Track AB 229 free on One Click Politics — get push/email alerts when it moves.

Make your voice heard on AB 229

Find the representatives who decide this bill and tell them where you stand — for yourself, or mobilize your whole list in one click with One Click Politics advocacy software.

Stay ahead of AB 229

Last checked for changes 3 months ago · updated continuously

One Click Politics tracks every bill in Congress and all 50 states.

Track this bill →