Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 192

Provision of police or fire protection services by a county sheriff or municipality

Topics: Fire department, Milwaukee: City, Municipality, Police, Sheriff, Town: Board, Village

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Mar 15, 2012, 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

    Jun 23, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Mar 15, 2012

  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, Mar 23, 2012: “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, cities, villages, and towns (municipalities) and county sheriffs are subject to varying requirements regarding the provision of police and fire protection services. They are as follows:

1. A town board must provide fire protection services for the town and may provide law enforcement services for the town or any portion of the town.

Read the full summary

2. A village with a population of 5,500 or more must provide fire protection services for the village. A village with a population of 5,000 or more must provide police protection services for the village and a village with a population of less than 5,000 may provide police protection services.

3. A city must provide police and fire protection services for the city.

4. A county sheriff must provide law enforcement services for the county.

Also under current law, a city or village may, subject to certain requirements, abolish its police department and contract with the county for the county sheriff to provide police protection services for the city or village.

Under this bill, a municipality may not condition the provision of fire or police protection services and a sheriff may not condition the provision of law enforcement services on a person's payment of a fee, charge, or tax. Also, a contract between a city or village and a county for the county sheriff to provide law enforcement services for the city or village must require that the county sheriff not condition the provision of police protection services in the city or village on a person's payment of a fee, charge, or tax.

Who's behind it

13 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 13 are Democrats.

5 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 18 names

Authors (13)

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 1 · Oct 3, 2011

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

Official motion: “Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 1”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Mar 19, 2012

    The Senate received it.

  3. Mar 15, 2012

    The Assembly passed it.

  4. Mar 15, 2012

    The Assembly adopted it.

  5. Oct 3, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  6. Oct 3, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 7 to 1.

  7. Aug 30, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  8. Jul 14, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  9. Jun 23, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  10. Jun 23, 2011

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Jun 23, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Pocan, Barca, Berceau, Bewley, Hintz, Hulsey, Jorgensen, Mason, Pasch, Pope-Roberts, Ringhand, Roys and Sinicki;Cosponsored by Senators Hansen, Lassa, Risser, Schultz and Taylor

  2. Jun 23, 2011 · Assembly

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

  3. Jul 14, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Aug 30, 2011 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  5. Sep 27, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Pocan

  6. Sep 27, 2011 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  7. Oct 3, 2011 · Assembly

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

  8. Oct 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 1

  9. Oct 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  10. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Rules suspended to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up

  11. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  12. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Assembly substitute amendment 1 adopted

  13. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  14. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  15. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed

  16. Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly

    Ordered immediately messaged

  17. Mar 19, 2012 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  18. Mar 23, 2012 · 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

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