Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 312

Authorizing cities and towns, and expanding the authority of villages, to create combined protective services departments

Topics: Fire department, Legislature: Retirement Systems, Joint Survey Committee on, Police

Stopped before the full Assembly voted

The recommended passing it, but the full Assembly never voted on it. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Jun 9, 2009

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Assembly never voted on it.

  4. Senate vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

Read the bill

Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.

What it would have done

Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.

Generally under current law a village with a population of at least 5,000 is required to provide police protection services by creating its own police department, by contracting for police protection services with a city, village, town, or county or by creating a joint police department with another city, village, or town. Also under current law, in general, a village with a population of at least 5,500 is required to provide fire protection services by creating its own fire department, by contracting for fire protection services with a city, village, or town, or by creating a joint fire department with another city, village, or town.

Current law also authorizes any village to provide police and fire protection services in one of two additional ways. The first way is by using a combined protective services department, which is neither a police department nor a fire department, which was created before January 1, 1987, and in which the same person may be required to perform police protection and fire protection duties, subject to some limitations on consecutive hours that may be worked in police protection. The second way is by requiring persons in a police department or fire department, alone or in combination with persons designated as police officers or fire fighters, to perform police protection and fire protection duties, subject to some limitations on consecutive hours that may be worked in police protection and subject to the limitation that those persons were required to perform those duties before January 1, 1987. In either case, the village may designate any person required to perform police protection and fire protection duties as primarily a police officer or fire fighter for purposes related to presumptions related to certain employment-related diseases.

Read the full summary

Generally under current law, 2nd, 3rd, and 4th class cities (presently all cities other than Milwaukee) with populations of at least 4,000 must have police departments and fire departments, and may have joint departments with other cities, villages, or towns. Such cities are generally required to have a board of police and fire commissioners, which appoint the police and fire chiefs who, in turn, appoint subordinates subject to approval by the board. Current law also authorizes a city to abolish its police department if it enters into a contract with a county under which the sheriff provides law enforcement services to the city.

Under a decision of the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Local Union No. 487, IAFF-CIO, v. City of Eau Claire , 147 Wis. 2d 519 (1989), cities may not create combined protective services departments or require persons in a police department or fire department, alone or in combination with persons designated as police officers or fire fighters, to perform police protection and fire protection duties.

This bill authorizes 2nd, 3rd, and 4th class cities, and towns, to provide police and fire protection services in the same two additional ways that villages may do so, either by creating a combined protective services department which is neither a police department nor a fire department and in which the same person may be required to perform police protection and fire protection duties, or by requiring persons in a police department or fire department, alone or in combination with persons designated as police officers or fire fighters, to perform police protection and fire protection duties. The bill also removes the limitations on villages relating to the creation of a department, and the requirement relating to the performance of duties, before January 1, 1987.

Under the bill, cities, villages, and towns may designate any person who is required to perform police protection and fire protection duties as primarily a police officer or fire fighter for purposes relating to rest days, consecutive hours worked, hours of labor, rules for leaving the city, and presumptions related to certain employment-related diseases. These requirements and limitations that apply to persons designated as primarily a police officer or fire fighter under the bill apply to police officers and fire fighters under current law. If a city creates a combined protective services department, the city must create a chief of the department and must abolish the offices of chief of police and fire chief. The chief of a combined protective services department has the same authority as the chief of police and fire chief had.

Because this bill relates to public employee retirement or pensions, it may be referred to the Joint Survey Committee on Retirement Systems for a report to be printed as an appendix to the bill.

Who's behind it

23 lawmakers are its ⁠. 16 are Republicans, 5 are Democrats and 2 are independents.

6 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 29 names

Authors (23)

Signed on in support (6)

What it would cost

State agencies filed a . Each opens as a PDF from the Legislature.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote to recommend it

Passed, 6 to 2 · Apr 15, 2010

No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.

Official motion: “Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 6, Noes 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Apr 28, 2010

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Apr 15, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  3. Apr 15, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 6 to 2.

  4. Oct 22, 2009

    The committee held a public hearing.

  5. Aug 6, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  6. Jun 30, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  7. Jun 29, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  8. Jun 26, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  9. Jun 25, 2009

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  10. Jun 9, 2009

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  11. Jun 9, 2009

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jun 9, 2009 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Ziegelbauer, Hintz, Kessler, Roys, A. Williams, Ballweg, Bies, Gottlieb, Mason, Gunderson, Gundrum, Kaufert, Knodl, LeMahieu, Lothian, Montgomery, Nass, Ripp, Spanbauer, Townsend, Van Roy, Vos and Wood;Cosponsored by Senators Cowles, Darling, Kapanke, A. Lasee, Lazich and Schultz

  2. Jun 9, 2009 · Assembly

    Read first time and referred to committee on Urban and Local Affairs

  3. Jun 25, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Jun 26, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Jun 29, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Jun 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  7. Jun 30, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Aug 6, 2009 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  9. Oct 22, 2009 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  10. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  11. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 6, Noes 2

  12. Apr 15, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  13. Apr 28, 2010 · Assembly

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

More in the glossary

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1. More in the glossary

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis. More in the glossary

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor. More in the glossary

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor. More in the glossary

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate. More in the glossary

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote. More in the glossary

From the Wisconsin Legislature's official record, checked Sep 15, 2026. See the source

Committee

A small group of lawmakers that looks at a bill first. Most bills never leave committee.

Senate Joint Resolution 1

The session's calendar. Any bill not passed by its last voting day dies.

Official term: Failed to pass pursuant to SJR 1

Legislative Reference Bureau

The Legislature's nonpartisan office that drafts bills and writes the summary at the top of each one.

Official term: LRB analysis

Author

A lawmaker who formally puts a bill forward. The text itself is drafted by the Legislative Reference Bureau.

Official term: Author, coauthor

Signed on in support

Lawmakers who back a bill without being one of its authors, often from the other chamber.

Official term: Cosponsor

Cost estimate

A state agency's estimate of what a bill would cost or save.

Official term: Fiscal estimate

Roll call

A vote where each lawmaker's yes or no is recorded by name.

Official term: Roll call vote