Skip to content
Bills from the 2009–10 session

Senate Bill 590

Petitions and management plans for the designation of managed forest land; transferrals of ownership of managed forest land; establishing stumpage values, filing cutting reports, and estimating withdrawal taxes under the managed forest land program; signatures and authentication requirements for orders under the forest croplands program; granting rule-making authority; making an appropriation; and providing a penalty

Topics: Forestry, Forestry: Taxation, Natural Resources, Department of: Environmental protection, Real estate transfer fee, Revenue, Department of

Stopped before the full Senate voted

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

  1. Introduced, passed

    Mar 4, 2010

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Senate vote, stopped here

    Stopped here. The full Senate never voted on it.

  4. Assembly 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.

Under current law, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) administers the managed forest land (MFL) program and a similar program called the forest croplands program. The MFL program exempts an owner of land that is designated MFL from payment of municipal property taxes on the land in exchange for a lower payment per acre. In exchange, the owner must comply with certain forestry practices and must allow the public on the land under certain circumstances unless the landowner elects to pay an extra amount per acre to keep a limited number of acres closed. In addition, an owner of MFL must pay a withdrawal tax when the owner withdraws the land from the program before the order designating the land as MFL expires. Orders are for 25 or 50 years. This bill makes various changes to the MFL program, including the following:

1. The words "applicant" and "application" are substituted for "petitioner" and "petition" in the subchapter related to the MFL program. This change is nonsubstantive.

Read the full summary

2. The dates before which DNR must act on applications under the MFL program are changed, and the deadline for owners to file applications to renew MFL orders is changed.

3. A forestry management plan for the MFL must accompany the application, and the requirement that DNR prepare the plan upon the request of the applying landowner is eliminated. Under the bill, DNR must prepare the plan only if DNR determines that the applicant is unable to have a proposed management plan prepared by a certified independent plan writer. DNR must promulgate rules establishing the criteria for when DNR will prepare the plan.

4. The Department of Revenue, upon the request of an MFL landowner, with the assistance of DNR, must prepare an estimate of the withdrawal tax that would be due if the MFL is withdrawn.

5. The requirement that the stumpage value used to determine the amount of yield taxes and withdrawal taxes under the MFL program be established by rule is eliminated.

6. The bill clarifies that when MFL is transferred to another owner, the person purchasing or otherwise receiving the land pays the transfer fee.

7. Under the forest croplands program, facsimile signatures are allowed and documents are exempted from register of deeds authentication requirements. These provisions exist for the MFL program under current law.

8. The penalties and procedures that apply to persons who file false reports also apply for assessing the yield tax to persons who fail to file cutting reports.

9. An owner selling MFL must disclose to prospective buyers that the land is designated as such under an MFL order.

Who's behind it

2 senators are its ⁠. All 2 are Democrats.

4 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 6 names

Authors (2)

Signed on in support (4)

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.

Senate Committee on Transportation vote to recommend it

Passed, 7 to 0 · Apr 9, 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 Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources, 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

    “Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)” (the official wording)

  3. Apr 14, 2010

    Sent to the Joint Committee on Finance.

  4. Apr 9, 2010

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

  5. Apr 1, 2010

    The committee held a public hearing.

  6. Mar 17, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  7. Mar 15, 2010

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  8. Mar 4, 2010

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources.

  9. Mar 4, 2010

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Holperin and Taylor;Cosponsored by Representatives Clark, Friske, Mursau and Turner

  2. Mar 4, 2010 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources

  3. Mar 15, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Mar 17, 2010 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Apr 1, 2010 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  6. Apr 8, 2010 · Senate

    Executive action taken

  7. Apr 9, 2010 · Senate

    Report passage recommended by committee on Transportation, Tourism, Forestry, and Natural Resources, Ayes 7, Noes 0

  8. Apr 9, 2010 · Senate

    Available for scheduling

  9. Apr 14, 2010 · Senate

    Referred to joint committee on Finance by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)

  10. Apr 14, 2010 · Senate

    Withdrawn from joint committee on Finance and made Available for Scheduling by committee on Senate Organization pursuant to Senate Rule 41 (1)(e)

  11. Apr 14, 2010 · Senate

    Placed on calendar 4-15-2010 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)

  12. Apr 15, 2010 · Senate

    Read a second time

  13. Apr 15, 2010 · Senate

    Laid on the table

  14. Apr 28, 2010 · Senate

    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