The bill requires DNR to administer a program to provide grants to municipalities for eligible expenditures for equipment critical to winter road safety. The bill requires DNR to promulgate rules necessary to administer the program, including rules that specify criteria for determining eligible recipients and expenditures.
Fee for high capacity well approvals
Under current law, no person may construct a high capacity well, which is a well with a capacity of more than 100,000 gallons per day, without prior approval of DNR and payment of a $500 fee. The bill increases that fee to $1,000.
Fee for CAFO permits
Under current law, a person who operates a concentrated animal feeding operation (CAFO) must have a WPDES permit from DNR. A CAFO is a livestock operation that contains at least 1,000 animal units, that discharges pollutants to a navigable water, or that contaminates a well. Current law requires a CAFO operator with a WPDES permit to pay an annual fee of $345 to DNR. The bill increases the amount of this annual fee to $545.
Fee for WPDES general permits
Under current law, a person may not discharge a pollutant into waters of the state without a WPDES permit issued by DNR. In addition to site-specific individual permits, DNR is authorized to issue a general permit that authorizes specified discharges in a designated area of the state. The bill requires DNR to charge a $425 processing fee for these permits.
Storm water permit appropriation
Under current law, a person may need to obtain a permit from DNR to discharge storm water. Current law appropriates money annually from the general fund for the administration of the storm water discharge permit program. Storm water permit fees collected by DNR are credited to the storm water permit appropriation.
The bill changes the storm water permit appropriation from an annual to a continuing appropriation. An annual appropriation is expendable only up to the amount shown in the schedule and only for the fiscal year for which made. A continuing appropriation is expendable until fully depleted or repealed.
Lead service line replacement appropriation
Under current law, DOA and DNR administer the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program (SDWLP), which provides financial assistance from the environmental improvement program to local governmental units and to the private owners of community water systems that serve local governmental units for projects for the planning, designing, construction, or modification of public water systems. DNR establishes a funding list for SDWLP projects and DOA allocates funding for those projects.
The bill creates a continuing appropriation from the general fund to the environmental improvement program for projects involving forgivable loans to private users of public water systems to replace lead service lines.
Environmental improvement fund revenue bonding limit
Current law authorizes the issuance of revenue bonds for the Clean Water Fund Program and the SDWLP under the environmental improvement fund but limits the principal amount of those revenue bonds to $2,597,400,000. The bill increases that limit by $725,900,000, to $3,323,300,000.
Bonding for urban storm water, flood control, and riparian restoration
Under current law, the state may contract up to $61,600,000 in public debt to provide financial assistance for projects that manage urban storm water and runoff and for flood control and riparian restoration projects. The bill increases the bonding authority for these projects by $11,000,000.
Bonding for nonpoint source water pollution abatement
Under current law, the state may contract up to $57,050,000 in public debt to provide financial assistance for projects that control pollution that comes from diffuse sources rather than a single concentrated discharge source in areas that qualify as high priority due to water quality problems. The bill increases the bonding authority for these projects by $10,000,000.
Bonding for Great Lakes contaminated sediment removal
Under current law, the state may contract up to $40,000,000 in public debt to provide financial assistance for projects to remove contaminated sediment from Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, or a tributary of Lake Michigan or Lake Superior, if DNR has identified the body of water as being impaired by the sediment. The bill increases the bonding authority for sediment removal projects by $9,000,000.
Air quality
Fee for stationary source operation permits
Under current state and federal law, certain stationary sources that emit air contaminants are required to receive an operation permit from DNR. Current law requires DNR to promulgate rules for the payment and collection of fees by the owner or operator of a stationary source for which an operation permit is required under the federal Clean Air Act. The bill increases the fee from $35.71 per ton of emissions to $63.69 per ton of emissions.
General environment
Environmental impacts to covered communities
Under current law, DNR issues various permits for the operation of facilities as part of DNR’s regulation of air and water pollution and hazardous and solid waste. Under the bill, DNR may not issue permits for those facilities located in covered communities unless the permit applicant 1) prepares a report assessing the environmental impact of the facility, 2) makes the report available to the public and provides the report to DNR and to the municipality in which the covered community is located, and 3) conducts a public hearing in the municipality in which the covered community is located. Under the bill, “covered community” means a census tract that is at or above the 65th percentile for share of households with a household income at or below 200 percent of the federal poverty level and that meets any other criteria from a specified list.
Water resources account lapses
The bill lapses $1,000,000 to the conservation fund in fiscal year 2025–26. Of that amount, $386,500 is lapsed from the DNR appropriation for state recreational boating projects that provide public access to inland waters; $436,600 is lapsed from the DNR appropriation for state recreational boating projects that provide public access to lakes; and $176,900 is lapsed from the DNR appropriation for river management activities for habitat and recreational projects on the Mississippi and lower St. Croix Rivers and for environmental and resource management studies on the Mississippi and lower St. Croix Rivers.
FIREARMS AND PUBLIC SAFETY
Background checks on all transfers of firearms
Under current law, a federally licensed firearms dealer may not transfer a handgun until the dealer has requested DOJ to perform 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 following are excepted from that prohibition: a transfer to a firearms dealer or to a law enforcement or armed services agency; a transfer of a firearm classified as antique; or 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.
Waiting period for handgun purchases
Under current law, a federally licensed firearms dealer may not transfer a handgun until the dealer has requested DOJ to perform 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 prohibits the dealer from transferring a handgun to the transferee until 48 hours have passed since the firearms dealer requested the background check.
Self-assigned firearm exclusion
The bill requires DOJ to allow individuals to prohibit themselves from purchasing a firearm. Under the bill, DOJ must maintain a database of individuals who voluntarily prohibit themselves from purchasing a firearm. An individual may request inclusion in the database by submitting a request to DOJ that indicates the length of the prohibition they are requesting: a one-year, irrevocable prohibition; a five-year prohibition, the first year being irrevocable; or a 20-year prohibition, the first year being irrevocable. During a revocable period, an individual may remove the prohibition by submitting to DOJ a request for removal, and DOJ must wait 48 hours and remove the individual from the list. The bill also requires DOJ, when responding to a request for a background check from a licensed firearms dealer regarding an individual who is in the database, to indicate that the individual is prohibited from purchasing a firearm.
Extreme risk protection injunctions
Under current law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm, and must surrender all firearms, if the person is subject to a domestic abuse injunction, a child abuse injunction, or, in certain cases, a harassment or an individuals-at-risk injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to one of those injunctions, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm. A person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under such an injunction is guilty of a Class G felony for violating the prohibition.
The bill creates an extreme risk protection temporary restraining order (TRO) and injunction to prohibit a person from possessing a firearm. Under the bill, either a law enforcement officer or a family or household member of the person may file a petition with a court to request an extreme risk protection injunction. The petition must allege facts that show that the person is substantially likely to injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm.
Under the bill, the petitioner may request the court to consider first granting a temporary restraining order. If the petitioner requests a TRO, the petitioner must include evidence that there is an immediate and present danger that the person may injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm and that waiting for the injunction hearing increases the immediate and present danger.
If the petitioner requests a TRO, the court must hear the petition in an expedited manner. The judge must issue a TRO if, after questioning the petitioner and witnesses or relying on affidavits, the judge determines that it is substantially likely that the petition for an injunction will be granted and the judge finds good cause to believe there is an immediate and present danger that the person will injure themself or another if the person has a firearm and that waiting for the injunction hearing may increase the immediate and present danger. If the judge issues a TRO, the TRO is in effect until the injunction hearing, which must occur within 14 days of the TRO issuance. The TRO must require a law enforcement officer to personally serve the person with the order and to require the person to immediately surrender all firearms in their possession. If a law enforcement officer is unable to personally serve the person, then the TRO requires the person to surrender within 24 hours all firearms to a law enforcement officer or a firearms dealer and to provide the court a receipt indicating the surrender occurred.
At the injunction hearing, the court may grant an extreme risk protection injunction ordering the person to refrain from possessing a firearm and, if the person was not subject to a TRO, to surrender all firearms he or she possesses if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the person is substantially likely to injure themself or another if the person possesses a firearm. An extreme risk protection injunction is effective for up to one year and may be renewed. A person who is subject to an extreme risk protection injunction may petition to vacate the injunction. If a person surrenders a firearm because the person is subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction, the firearm may not be returned to the person until a court determines that the TRO has expired or the injunction has been vacated or has expired and that the person is not otherwise prohibited from possessing a firearm.
A person who possesses a firearm while subject to an extreme risk protection TRO or injunction is guilty of a Class G felony. In addition, a person who files a petition for an extreme risk protection injunction, knowing the information in the petition to be false, is guilty of the crime of false swearing, a Class H felony.
Persons prohibited from possessing a firearm following a conviction for a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence
Under federal law, a person is prohibited from possessing a firearm if he or she has been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. Under state law, a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under federal or state law may not purchase a firearm or be issued a license to carry a concealed weapon. State law requires DOJ, before approving a handgun purchase or issuing a license, to conduct a background check on the prospective purchaser or applicant to determine if the person is prohibited from possessing a firearm. To determine if the person is prohibited under federal law, DOJ must review court records of all of the person’s criminal convictions to identify if any conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law. DOJ must review the record to determine if the relationship between the offender and the victim qualifies as a domestic relationship and if the offender engaged in violent conduct when committing the crime. The bill reorganizes two statutes—the crime of disorderly conduct and the definition of domestic abuse—so that DOJ is able to more easily determine if a conviction qualifies as a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence under federal law.
First, under current law, a person is guilty of disorderly conduct if the person engages in violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, unreasonably loud, or otherwise disorderly conduct and if the conduct tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. A person who has been convicted of disorderly conduct is prohibited from possessing a firearm if the disorderly conduct was a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence—that is, if the person engaged in violent conduct and if the relationship between the person and the victim was domestic. The bill reorganizes the disorderly conduct statute to separate “violent” conduct from the other types of disorderly conduct so that the court record clearly indicates that the crime was a violent crime.
Second, under current state law, “domestic abuse” is defined as certain actions taken against a victim if the victim is related to the actor, has a child in common with the actor, or currently resides or has resided with the actor. Unlike state law, federal law does not define a crime as domestic violence if the only relationship is that the victim currently resides or has resided with the actor. The bill reorganizes the statute defining domestic abuse so that a court record would indicate the exact nature of the relationship. Therefore, under the bill, the court record would indicate when a person who is guilty under state law of a crime of domestic abuse is not guilty under federal law of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.
Undetectable firearms
The bill prohibits the manufacture, transportation, sale, possession, and carrying of firearms that cannot be detected by metal detectors or airport x-ray machines or scanners. Federal law currently has a comparable prohibition; under the bill, the person would violate state law as well. A person who violates the state prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony.
The bill prohibits the sale, posting, provision, or possession of plans for manufacturing an undetectable firearm. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class H felony.
The bill also prohibits the possession of a frame or a receiver of a firearm that is not marked with a serial number. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class I felony.
Prohibition on firearm accessories that accelerate the rate of fire
The bill prohibits the sale, manufacture, transfer, use, or possession of any firearm accessory that is designed to accelerate or functions to accelerate the rate of fire of a semiautomatic firearm. A person who violates the prohibition is guilty of a Class G felony.
Reporting a lost or stolen firearm
Under the bill, a person who owns a firearm that is stolen or missing must report the theft or loss to a law enforcement agency within 24 hours of discovering the theft or loss. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and guilty of a Class I felony for a subsequent offense. A person who falsely reports a stolen or lost firearm is guilty of the current-law crime of obstructing an officer and is subject to a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to nine months, or both.
The bill also requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee a written notice of the requirement, created in the bill, to report a theft or loss of a firearm within 24 hours of discovering it. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both.
Containers and trigger locks at sale
The bill requires a person who commercially sells or transfers a firearm to provide the purchaser or transferee with either a secure, lockable container that is designed to store a firearm or a trigger lock for the firearm. A seller or transferor who violates this requirement is subject to a fine of up to $500 or imprisonment for up to 30 days, or both.
Firearms in unattended retail facilities
The bill requires that a retail business that sells firearms must secure all firearms when the business is unattended. Under the bill, the firearms must be secured in one of the following ways: in a locked fireproof safe, locked steel gun cabinet, or vault; in a steel-framed display case with specified reinforcements; with a hardened steel rod or cable; in a windowless, internal room that is equipped with a steel security door; or behind a steel roll-down door or security gate.
Storing a firearm when a child is present
The bill prohibits a person from storing or leaving a firearm at his or her residence if the person resides with a child who is under the age of 18, or knows a child who is under the age of 18 will be present in the residence, unless the firearm is in a securely locked box or container or other secure locked location or has a trigger lock engaged. A person who violates this prohibition is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class I felony for a subsequent offense. This prohibition replaces the current law that penalizes a person who recklessly stores or leaves a loaded firearm within reach of a child who is under 14 if the child obtains it and does one of the following: 1) discharges the firearm and causes bodily harm or death (Class A misdemeanor); or 2) possesses or exhibits the firearm in a public place or endangers public safety (Class C misdemeanor).
Storing a firearm in a residence at which a prohibited person resides
The bill requires a person to store any firearm he or she possesses in a securely locked box or container or other secure locked location or with a trigger lock engaged if the person resides with a person who is prohibited from possessing a firearm under state law. A person who violates this requirement is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class I felony for a repeat offense. State law currently prohibits the following persons from possessing a firearm: persons who have been convicted of a felony; persons found not guilty of a felony by reason of mental disease or defect; persons who are subject to certain injunctions such as a domestic abuse or child abuse injunction or, in certain cases, a harassment or an individuals-at-risk injunction; and persons who have been involuntarily committed for mental health treatment and ordered not to possess a firearm.
GAMBLING
Bingo and raffle fees
Under current law, an organization that conducts bingo and raffles must obtain a license from the Division of Gaming within DOA and pay all related license fees. Bingo licensees, generally, must pay a $10 license fee for each bingo occasion, meaning a single gathering or session at which a series of successive bingo games is played, and a $5 license fee for an annual license for the designated member of the organization responsible for the proper utilization of gross receipts. A bingo licensee that is a community-based residential facility, a senior citizen community center, or an adult family home that conducts bingo as a recreational or social activity must pay a $5 license fee. Raffle licensees must pay a $25 license fee. The bill doubles all bingo and raffle license fees.
Also, under current law, a 1 percent occupational tax is imposed on the first $30,000 in gross receipts derived from the conduct of bingo by a licensed organization in a year. In gross receipts during a year that exceed $30,000, a 2 percent occupational tax is imposed. Under the bill, a 2 percent occupational tax is imposed on all gross receipts derived from the conduct of bingo by a licensed organization.
Gaming regulation and enforcement
Under current law and tribal gaming compacts, tribes make payments to the state to reimburse the state for costs relating to the regulation of certain gaming activities. This revenue, called Indian gaming receipts, may be expended for various purposes. The bill requires DOA to transfer portions of Indian gaming receipts to DOR to support DOR’s gaming regulation and enforcement activities.
GENDER NEUTRAL TERMINOLOGY
Making references in the statutes gender neutral
The bill recognizes same-sex marriage by making references in the statutes to spouses gender-neutral, with the intent of harmonizing the Wisconsin Statutes with the holding of the U.S. Supreme Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584, 192 L. Ed. 2d 609 (2015), which recognizes that same-sex couples have a fundamental constitutional right to marriage. The bill also recognizes legal parentage for same-sex couples under certain circumstances and adopts gender-neutral parentage terminology.
The bill provides that marriage may be contracted between persons of the same sex and confers the same rights and responsibilities on married persons of the same sex that married persons of different sexes have under current law. The bill defines “spouse” as a person who is legally married to another person of the same sex or a different sex and replaces every reference to “husband” or “wife” in current law with “spouse.” The bill makes applicable to married persons of the same sex all provisions under current law that apply to married persons of different sexes. These provisions relate to such diverse areas of the law as income tax, marital property, inheritance rights, divorce, child and spousal support, insurance coverage, family and spousal recreational licenses, consent to conduct an autopsy, domestic abuse, and eligibility for various types of benefits, such as retirement or death benefits and medical assistance.
In addition to making statutory references to spouses gender-neutral, the bill specifies ways in which married couples of the same sex may be the legal parents of a child and, with some exceptions, makes current references in the statutes to “mother” and “father,” and related terms, gender-neutral.
Under current law, all of the following may adopt a child: a husband and wife jointly, a husband or wife whose spouse is the parent of the child, and an unmarried adult. Because the bill makes references in the statutes to spouses gender-neutral, same-sex spouses jointly may adopt a child and become the legal parents of the child, and a same-sex spouse of a person who is the parent of a minor child may adopt the child and become the legal parent of his or her spouse’s child.
Under current law, if a woman is artificially inseminated under the supervision of a physician with semen donated by a man who is not her husband and the husband consents in writing to the artificial insemination of his wife, the husband is the natural father of any child conceived. Under the bill, one spouse may also consent to the artificial insemination of his or her spouse and is the natural parent of the child conceived. The artificial insemination is not required to take place under the supervision of a physician, but, if it does not, the semen used for the insemination must have been obtained from a sperm bank.
Under current law, a man is presumed to be the father of a child if he and the child’s natural mother 1) were married to each other when the child was conceived or born or 2) married each other after the child was born but had a relationship with each other when the child was conceived and no other man has been adjudicated to be the father or is presumed to be the father because the man was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born. The paternity presumption may be rebutted in a legal action or proceeding by the results of a genetic test showing that the statistical probability of another man’s parentage is 99.0 percent or higher. The bill expands this presumption into a parentage presumption, so that a person is presumed to be the natural parent of a child if he or she 1) was married to the child’s established natural parent when the child was conceived or born or 2) married the child’s established natural parent after the child was born but had a relationship with the established natural parent when the child was conceived and no person has been adjudicated to be the father and no other person is presumed to be the child’s parent because he or she was married to the mother when the child was conceived or born. The parentage presumption may still be rebutted by the results of a genetic test showing that the statistical probability of another person’s parentage is 99.0 percent or higher. Expanding on current law, the bill allows for a paternity action to be brought for the purpose of rebutting the parentage presumption, regardless of whether that presumption applies to a male or female spouse.
Current law provides that a mother and a man may sign a statement acknowledging paternity and file it with the state registrar. If the state registrar has received such a statement, the man is presumed to be the father of the child. Under current law, either person who has signed a statement acknowledging paternity may rescind the statement before an order is filed in an action affecting the family concerning the child or within 60 days after the statement is filed, whichever occurs first. Under current law, a man who has filed a statement acknowledging paternity that is not rescinded within the time period is conclusively determined to be the father of the child. The bill provides that two people may sign a statement acknowledging parentage and file it with the state registrar. If the state registrar has received such a statement, the people who have signed the statement are presumed to be the parents of the child. Under the bill, a statement acknowledging parentage that is not rescinded conclusively establishes parentage with regard to the person who did not give birth to the child and who signed the statement.
The bill defines “natural parent” as a parent of a child who is not an adoptive parent, whether the parent is biologically related to the child or not. Thus, a person who is a biological parent, a parent by consenting to the artificial insemination of his or her spouse, or a parent under the parentage presumption is a natural parent of a child. The definition applies throughout the statutes wherever the term “natural parent” is used. In addition, the bill expands some references in the statutes to “biological parent” by changing the reference to “natural parent.”
Gender neutral references on birth certificates
Generally, the bill substitutes the term “spouse” for “husband” in the birth certificate statutes and enters the spouse, instead of the husband, of the person who has given birth on the birth certificate at times when a husband would currently be entered on a birth certificate. The name of the person who has given birth is entered on a birth certificate when the person gives birth to a child, and current law specifies when another name should be entered on the birth certificate. Current law requires that if a birth mother is married at any time from the conception to the birth of a child, then her husband’s name is entered on the birth certificate as the legal father of the child. Under the bill, if a person who gives birth is married at any time from the conception to the birth of the child, then that person’s spouse’s name is entered as a legal parent of the child. The bill also specifies that, in the instance that a second parent’s name is initially omitted from the birth certificate, if the state registrar receives a signed acknowledgement of parentage by people presumed to be parents because the two people married after the birth of the child, the two people had a relationship during the time the child was conceived, no person is adjudicated to be the father, and no other person is presumed to be the parent, then the state registrar must enter the name of the spouse of the person who gave birth as a parent on the birth certificate.
HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Public assistance
Presumptive eligibility for Wisconsin Shares
Under current law, an individual is eligible to receive a child care subsidy under the Wisconsin Shares program if DCF determines that the individual meets certain requirements, including requirements related to age of the child, income of the individual, and the individual’s participation in certain eligible activities.
Under the bill, DCF may find an individual presumptively eligible for a child care subsidy while DCF verifies the individual’s actual eligibility. If DCF finds an individual presumptively eligible for the child care subsidy, DCF must immediately begin issuing benefits to the individual. If DCF determines that the individual is actually ineligible, DCF must discontinue issuing benefits. To be found presumptively eligible for the subsidies, an individual must submit a report to DCF that includes information establishing the individual’s actual eligibility and, based on the report, DCF must be able to plausibly assume that the individual is actually eligible for the subsidies.
Wisconsin Shares copayment increase structure
Under current law, if an individual is already receiving a Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy and the individual’s family income exceeds the maximum eligible income of 200 percent of the poverty line, the individual will continue to be eligible for the subsidy until or unless the individual’s family income exceeds 85 percent of the state median income. Until that time when the individual’s income exceeds 85 percent of the state median income, the individual’s copayment minimum for the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy will increase on a sliding scale based on the amount that the individual’s family income increases.
