Beginning in 2025, the bill directs the commissioner to annually adjust the annual expenditure limit based on the increase, if any, in the medical care index of the consumer price index. The bill also specifies that OCI’s authority includes the authority to operate WIHSP under any waiver extension approvals.
Prescription drug importation program
The bill requires the commissioner of insurance, in consultation with persons interested in the sale and pricing of prescription drugs and federal officials and agencies, to design and implement a prescription drug importation program for the benefit of and that generates savings for residents of this state. The bill establishes requirements for the program, including all of the following: 1) the commissioner must designate a state agency to become a licensed wholesale distributor or contract with a licensed wholesale distributor and to seek federal certification and approval to import prescription drugs; 2) the program must comply with certain federal regulations and import from Canadian suppliers only prescription drugs that are not brand-name drugs, have fewer than four competitor drugs in this country, and for which importation creates substantial savings; 3) the commissioner must ensure that prescription drugs imported under the program are not distributed, dispensed, or sold outside of Wisconsin; and 4) the program must have an audit procedure to ensure the program complies with certain requirements specified in the bill. Before submitting the proposed program to the federal government for certification, the commissioner must submit the proposed program to JCF for its approval.
State prescription drug purchasing entity
The bill requires OCI to conduct a study on the viability of creating or implementing a state prescription drug purchasing entity.
Short-term, limited duration plan coverage requirements
The bill sets certain coverage requirements on individual health plans that are short-term, limited duration plans. Under current law, a short-term, limited duration plan is individual health benefit plan coverage that is marketed and designed to provide short-term coverage as a bridge between other coverages and that has a term of not more than 12 months and an aggregate term of all consecutive periods of coverage that does not exceed 18 months. Under current law, an insurer generally must renew individual health coverage at the option of the insured, but an insurer is not required to renew a short-term, limited duration plan.
The bill requires an insurer that offers a short-term, limited duration plan to accept each individual who applies for coverage, regardless of whether the individual has a preexisting condition. The bill also prohibits a short-term, limited duration plan from imposing a preexisting condition exclusion. Under current law, a short-term, limited duration plan may impose a preexisting condition exclusion, but the plan must reduce the length of time of the exclusion by the aggregate duration of the insured’s consecutive periods of coverage. Under current law, a preexisting condition exclusion is a period of time during which a plan will not cover a medical condition for which the insured received some medical attention before the effective date of coverage.
Under the bill, an insurer that offers a short-term, limited duration plan may not vary premium rates for a specific plan except on the basis of 1) whether the plan covers an individual or a family; 2) area in this state; 3) age; and 4) tobacco use, as specified in the bill. An insurer that offers a short-term, limited duration plan is prohibited under the bill from establishing rules for the eligibility of any individual to enroll based on certain health status-related factors, which are specified in the bill, and from requiring an enrollee to pay a greater premium, contribution, deductible, copayment, or coinsurance amount than is required of a similarly situated enrollee based on a health status-related factor. Under the bill, a short-term, limited duration plan may not establish lifetime limits or limits for the duration of the coverage on the dollar value of benefits for an enrollee or a dependent of an enrollee under the plan.
Finally, the bill reduces the maximum allowable term of a short-term, limited duration plan from 12 months to three months and reduces the maximum aggregate duration from 18 months to six months.
Eliminate obsolete OCI appropriation
The bill eliminates an obsolete appropriation. The 2021-23 biennial budget act required the transfer of $1,520,300 in each fiscal year of that biennium from the unencumbered balance of the program-revenue-funded general program operations appropriation of OCI to an interagency and intraagency operations appropriation created in the act for the purpose of general program operations. The bill eliminates that appropriation.
JUSTICE
Grant programs
Treatment alternatives and diversion grants
Under current law, DOJ, in collaboration with DOC and DHS, awards grants to counties and tribes that have established qualifying treatment alternatives and diversion (TAD) programs that offer substance abuse or mental health treatment services as alternatives to prosecution or incarceration in order to reduce recidivism, promote public safety, and reduce prison and jail populations.
Under current law, in order to qualify for a TAD grant, a county’s or tribe’s program is required to match 25 percent of the grant and to charge participants a fee to participate. A county or tribe that receives a TAD grant must create an oversight committee to administer and evaluate its program. DOJ is required to make grants available to any county or tribe on a competitive basis every five years. At the end of the five-year grant cycle, DOJ is required to prepare a comprehensive report on the grant program based on annual reports and other data it collects from the counties and tribes.
Under current law, one of the appropriations used to fund the TAD grant program provides that DOJ may use that appropriation to provide a TAD grant to counties that were not a recipient of a TAD grant as of September 23, 2017.
The bill makes several changes to the TAD grant program. Under the bill, a program funded by a TAD grant need not focus solely on alcohol and other drug treatment, but must employ evidence-based practices targeted to the population served by the program. The bill changes the match requirement from 25 percent to 10 percent and changes the competitive grant process to a four-year cycle. The bill allows, but does not require, an eligible program to charge participants a fee for their treatment. The bill also eliminates certain requirements pertaining to exposure of genitals during drug testing. The bill also provides that the appropriation that was formerly limited to providing a TAD grant to a county that had not received one as of September 23, 2017, may be used to provide a TAD grant to a county that is not a recipient of a TAD grant on the effective date of the bill.
Under current law, when a person pleads or is found guilty of certain drug offenses, the court is required to order a substance use assessment. Under current law, the court does not have to order an assessment if the person is already covered by such an order, has recently completed an assessment under such an order, or is participating in a TAD program. The bill specifies that if a person is participating in any evidence-based substance use disorder treatment program as determined by DOJ, regardless of its status relating to the TAD program, the court does not need to order an assessment.
Community policing and community prosecution program grants
Under current law, DOJ awards grants to local governments for many purposes, including for community-oriented policing-house programs and to increase beat patrol officers. The bill adds that DOJ must award grants to cities, villages, towns, counties, and tribes to fund community policing and community prosecution programs.
Sexual assault victim services grants for the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault
Under current law, DOJ administers a grant program to provide grants to organizations that provide services to victims of sexual assault. The bill requires that, in addition to the other grants under the program, DOJ must provide an annual grant of $343,000 to the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault. Under the bill, the Wisconsin Coalition Against Sexual Assault may also apply for additional grants under the program.
Law enforcement recruitment, retention, and wellness grants
Under current law, DOJ awards grants for many purposes, including for community-oriented policing-house programs and to increase beat patrol officers. The bill adds that DOJ must award grants to law enforcement agencies and tribal law enforcement agencies in this state to fund programs that recruit and retain law enforcement officers and that promote officer wellness.
Crime victims services grants
Under current law, DOJ awards grants for many purposes, including grants to organizations to provide services for sexual assault victims. The bill adds that DOJ must award grants to organizations that provide services for crime victims.
Elder abuse grants and hotline
Under current law, DOJ awards grants for many purposes, including grants to organizations to provide services for sexual assault victims. The bill adds that DOJ must award grants to organizations that promote the protection of elders. The bill also appropriates money to fund a statewide elder abuse hotline.
Attorney general and litigation
Powers of the attorney general
The bill repeals changes made to the powers of the attorney general in 2017 Wisconsin Act 369 relating to the power to compromise or discontinue civil actions prosecuted by DOJ and the power to compromise and settle actions in cases where DOJ is defending the state. The bill reestablishes these settlement powers as they existed under the law before 2017 Wisconsin Act 369 was enacted. The bill allows the attorney general to compromise or discontinue actions prosecuted by DOJ 1) when directed by the officer, department, board, or commission that directed the prosecution or 2) with the approval of the governor when the action is prosecuted by DOJ on the initiative of the attorney general or at the request of any individual. The bill eliminates the requirement for approval of a compromise or discontinuance from a legislative intervenor or JCF. It also eliminates the requirement for the attorney general to obtain approval of a compromise or discontinuance by the Joint Committee on Legislative Organization in certain circumstances before submitting a proposed plan to JCF.
Under the bill, when DOJ is defending the state, the attorney general may compromise and settle the action as the attorney general determines to be in the best interest of the state. The bill eliminates the requirement under current law that, in actions for injunctive relief or if there is a proposed consent decree, the attorney general must 1) obtain the approval of any legislative intervenor or 2) if there is no intervenor, submit a proposed plan to JCF and, in certain circumstances, obtain approval of JCF. The bill also eliminates the requirement for the attorney general to obtain approval from JCLO in certain circumstances before submitting a proposed plan of settlement or compromise to JCF.
Gifts and grants and disposition of settlement funds
The bill repeals certain changes made by 2017 Wisconsin Act 369 relating to gifts and grants and certain proceeds received by DOJ, specifically reversing provisions that changed a DOJ gifts and grants appropriation and a DOJ gifts, grants, and proceeds appropriation from continuing appropriations to annual appropriations. Second, the bill repeals the requirement that the attorney general must deposit all settlement funds into the general fund. The bill restores procedures relating to discretionary settlement funds under which the attorney general could expend certain settlement funds not committed under the terms of a settlement after submitting a plan to JCF for passive review only if either 1) the cochairpersons of JCF do not schedule a meeting or 2) a meeting is scheduled and JCF approves a plan for expenditure.
Certain legal expenses related to the tobacco settlement agreement
The bill establishes an appropriation from which DOJ may expend moneys for its legal expenses related to participation in arbitration or other alternative dispute resolution processes arising from payments under the Attorneys General Master Tobacco Settlement Agreement of November 23, 1998. In 1998, numerous states and territories including Wisconsin agreed to a settlement with the major U.S. tobacco companies regarding dozens of state lawsuits brought to recover health care costs associated with treating smoking-related illnesses. Under the agreement, the state receives annual payments from U.S. tobacco product manufacturers in perpetuity.
General justice
Background checks on all transfers of firearms
Current law provides that a federally licensed firearms dealer may not transfer a handgun after a sale until the dealer has performed a background check on the prospective transferee to determine if he or she is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state or federal law. The bill generally prohibits any person from transferring any firearm, including the frame or receiver of a firearm, unless the transfer occurs through a federally licensed firearms dealer and involves a background check of the prospective transferee. Under the bill, the prohibition does not apply to 1) a transfer to a firearms dealer or to a law enforcement or armed services agency; 2) a transfer of a firearm classified as antique; 3) a transfer for no more than 14 days for the purpose of hunting or target shooting that involves no more than nominal consideration; or 4) a transfer that is by gift, bequest, or inheritance to a family member. A person who is convicted of violating the prohibition is guilty of a misdemeanor and must be fined not less than $500 nor more than $10,000, may be imprisoned for not more than nine months, and may not possess a firearm for a period of two years.
Creating the Office of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women
The bill creates within DOJ the Office of Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women, which is tasked with providing certain services to crime victims, their families, witnesses, and others who are members of a tribe; providing training relating to missing and murdered indigenous women, including search, rescue, and response training; and establishing a grant program related to missing and murdered indigenous women.
Hate crimes reporting portal
The bill requires DOJ to develop an Internet-based reporting system and a telephone hotline for the reporting of hate crimes. Under the bill, DOJ must conduct a public education campaign on hate crimes and where to report them and must collect data relating to the reporting of hate crimes.
Relator appropriation
The bill creates a continuing appropriation to hold all money received by DOJ that is owed to a relator, to provide payments to relators. A relator is a type of party in a legal action in whose name an action is brought by a state.
Repeal of report on field prosecutor positions
2017 Wisconsin Act 261 created two field prosecutor attorney positions in DOJ to assist the Division of Criminal Investigation and district attorneys. Act 261 also required DOJ to submit annual reports to JCF on the activities and effectiveness of the attorneys. The project positions terminate on April 11, 2023. The bill repeals the requirement that DOJ submit the corresponding annual report. Name of Shot Spotter Program
Under current law, DOJ provides money to the Shot Spotter Program in the city of Milwaukee. The bill changes the name of the program to the “Gunfire Detection Program.”
LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Levy limits
Local levy overview
Generally, under current law, local levy increase limits are applied to the property tax levies that are imposed by political subdivisions in December of each year. Current law prohibits a political subdivision from increasing its levy by a percentage that exceeds its valuation factor, which is defined as the greater of either 0 percent or the percentage change in the political subdivision’s equalized value due to new construction, less improvements removed.
Current law contains a number of exceptions to these levy increase limits, such as amounts a county levies for a countywide emergency medical system, for a county children with disabilities education board, and for certain bridge and culvert construction and repair. In addition, a political subdivision may exceed the levy increase limit that is otherwise applicable if its governing body adopts a resolution to do so and if that resolution is approved by the voters in a referendum.
Alternative minimum valuation factor increase
The bill increases the alternative minimum valuation factor used to calculate local levy limits from 0 percent to 2 percent, beginning with levies imposed in December 2023.
Reduction for certain service revenues
Under current law, a political subdivision must reduce its allowable levy by the estimated amount of any revenue from fees or payments in lieu of taxes if the revenue is received for providing certain covered services that were funded with property tax revenues in calendar year 2013. The covered services are certain garbage collection, fire protection, snow plowing, street sweeping, and storm water management.
The bill repeals the requirement that a political subdivision must reduce its allowable levy by the estimated amount of revenues received for providing covered services that were funded with property tax revenues in calendar year 2013.
Reduction for service transfers
Under current law, if a political subdivision transfers to another governmental unit the responsibility to provide a service that it provided in the previous year, the levy increase limit otherwise applicable in the current year is decreased to reflect the cost that the political subdivision would have incurred to provide that service. The bill repeals that provision.
Approval of use of unused capacity
Current law provides two exceptions allowing a political subdivision to use previously unused levy capacity. Under these exceptions, if a political subdivision’s allowable levy in prior years was greater than its actual levy in those years, the otherwise applicable levy increase limit for the next succeeding year may be increased by the difference between the allowable levy and the actual levy, up to a specified maximum increase. These increases, in some cases, must be authorized by a supermajority vote of the political subdivision’s governing body. The bill eliminates the supermajority requirements and, instead, requires only a simple majority vote of the political subdivision’s governing body for use of either of these unused levy capacity exceptions.
Joint emergency services levy limit exception modification
Among the current law exceptions to local levy limits is an exception for the amount that a municipality levies to pay for charges assessed by a joint fire department or joint emergency medical services district organized by any combination of two or more municipalities. This exception applies only to the extent that the amount levied to pay for such charges would cause the municipality to exceed the otherwise applicable levy limit and only if the charges assessed by the department or district increase in the current year by an amount not greater than the rate of inflation over the preceding year, plus 2 percent, and if the municipality’s governing body adopts a resolution in favor of exceeding the otherwise applicable levy limit.
Under the bill, the exception is expanded to include joint fire services or joint emergency medical services provided by a combination of two or more municipalities through a joint district, joint ownership, joint purchase of services from a nonprofit corporation, or joint contracting with a public or private services provider. The exception is also expanded to cover all fees charged to a municipality by the joint fire services or joint emergency medical services.
Exception for cross-municipality transit routes
The bill creates an exception to local levy limits for certain transit services. Under the bill, amounts levied by a political subdivision for costs related to new or enhanced transit services that cross adjacent county or municipal borders do not apply to the limit if the political subdivisions between which the routes operate have entered into an agreement to provide for the services and if the agreement is approved in a referendum.
Exception for regional planning commission contributions
The bill creates a local levy increase limit exception for the amount a political subdivision levies to pay for the political subdivision’s share of the budget of a regional planning commission (RPC). An RPC’s budget is determined annually by the RPC. The RPC then charges all political subdivisions within its jurisdiction a proportional amount to fund the budget based on the equalized value of property in the political subdivision and the total amount of equalized value of property within the RPC’s jurisdiction.
Tax incremental financing
Tax incremental financing overview
Under current law, cities and villages may use tax incremental financing (TIF) to encourage development in the city or village. In general, under TIF, a city or village pays for improvements in a tax incremental district (TID) and then collects tax moneys attributable to all taxing jurisdictions on the increased property value in the TID for a certain period of time to pay for the improvements. Ideally, after the period of time, the city or village will have been repaid for its initial investment and the property tax base in the TID will have permanently increased in value.
In general and in brief, a city or village makes use of TIF using the following procedure:
1. The city or village designates an area as a TID and creates a project plan laying out the expenditures that the city or village will make within the TID.
2. DOR establishes the base value of the TID. This value is the equalized value of all taxable property within the TID at the time of its creation.
3. Each year thereafter, the value increment of the property within the TID is determined by subtracting the base value from the current value of property within the TID. The portion of taxes collected on any positive value increment is collected by the city or village for use solely for the project costs of the TID. The taxes collected by the city or village on positive value increments include taxes that would have been collected by other taxing jurisdictions, such as counties or school districts, were the TID not created.
4. Tax increments are collected until the city or village has recovered all of its project costs or until the TID reaches its statutory termination date.
Workforce housing initiatives
The bill authorizes workforce housing initiatives and makes changes that affect TIDs and state housing grants. The bill creates a definition for “workforce housing,” changes the definition of a “mixed-use development” TID, increases the maximum number of years a city or village may extend the life of a TID to improve its affordable and workforce housing, requires a TID’s project plan to contain alternative economic projections, and changes the method of imposing certain impact fees.
Under the bill, a political subdivision may put into effect a workforce housing initiative by taking one of several specified actions and posting on its website an explanation of the initiative. Workforce housing initiatives include the following: reducing permit processing times or impact fees for workforce housing; increasing zoning density for a workforce housing development; rehabilitating existing uninhabitable housing stock into habitable workforce housing; or implementing any other initiative to address workforce housing needs. Once an initiative takes effect, it remains in effect for five years. After June 30, 2024, if a political subdivision has in effect at least three initiatives at the same time, DOA must give priority to housing grant applications from, or related to a project in, the political subdivision.
The bill defines “workforce housing” to mean the following, subject to the five-year average median costs as determined by the U.S. Bureau of the Census:
1. Housing that costs a household no more than 30 percent of the household’s gross median income.
