Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Assembly Bill 703

Correcting errors in the assessment of counties and taxation districts by the Department of Revenue

Topics: County: Taxation, Municipality: Taxation, Property tax, Revenue, Department of

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Apr 13, 2010, but the Senate never voted on it. A bill has to ⁠. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Feb 5, 2010

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Apr 13, 2010

  4. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The Senate never voted on it.

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Apr 28, 2010: “Failed to concur in 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.

Under current law, the Department of Revenue (DOR) annually completes an assessment of the property located in each county or taxation district. That assessment becomes the county's and taxation district's "equalized value" for the year of the assessment. If DOR discovers an error in its equalized value for any county or municipality, DOR, generally, corrects the error by adjusting the equalized value for the year after the year in which the error occurred.

Under this bill, DOR must recertify a taxation district's equalized value in the same year that an error is discovered if all of the following apply:

Read the full summary

1. DOR discovers the error before October 1 of the year for which the error relates.

2. The amount of the error increases or decreases the equalized value by more than $10,000,000.

3. The amount of the error exceeds an amount equal to 7.5 percent of the taxation district's corrected equalized value, excluding any value attributable to value increments in tax incremental districts.

Who's behind it

6 representatives are its ⁠. 3 are Democrats and 3 are Republicans.

5 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 11 names

Authors (6)

Signed on in support (5)

What it would cost

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

Versions and amendments

Every text the Legislature printed for this bill, including proposed changes. Each opens on the Legislature's site.

How lawmakers voted

There was one vote on this bill.

Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote on an amendment

Passed, 7 to 0 · Mar 29, 2010

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

Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0”. 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 14, 2010

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue.

  3. Apr 14, 2010

    The Senate received it.

  4. Apr 13, 2010

    The Assembly passed it.

  5. Apr 13, 2010

    The Assembly adopted it.

  6. Mar 29, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  7. Mar 29, 2010

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 0.

  8. Feb 24, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  9. Feb 19, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  10. Feb 5, 2010

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  11. Feb 5, 2010

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Feb 5, 2010 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Hixson, Davis, Kaufert, Turner, Benedict and Townsend;Cosponsored by Senators Robson, Schultz, Lassa, Erpenbach and Coggs

  2. Feb 5, 2010 · Assembly

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

  3. Feb 19, 2010 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Feb 23, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Hixson

  5. Feb 24, 2010 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  6. Mar 17, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by Representative Hixson

  7. Mar 23, 2010 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  8. Mar 29, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  9. Mar 29, 2010 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  10. Mar 29, 2010 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  11. Mar 29, 2010 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  12. Apr 7, 2010 · Assembly

    Placed on calendar 4-13-2010 by committee on Rules

  13. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  14. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 adopted

  15. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 adopted

  16. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  17. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  18. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  19. Apr 13, 2010 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  20. Apr 14, 2010 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  21. Apr 14, 2010 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Health, Health Insurance, Privacy, Property Tax Relief, and Revenue

  22. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1

Terms on this page

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence. 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

Second chamber's vote

A bill has to pass both the Assembly and the Senate in the same form before it goes to the governor.

Official term: Concurrence

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