Bills · 2011-2012 Regular Session
provision of police or fire protection services by a county sheriff or municipality.
- Introduced, stopped here
- Passes Assembly, not reached
- Passes Senate, not reached
- Governor signs, not reached
- Law, not reached
Unfamiliar terms? Glossary
What this bill does
Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau
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.
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.
What it would cost
Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs
Sponsors
Votes
Assembly: Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 1
Passed 7–1 Oct 3, 2011 official source full pageNo individual roll call was recorded for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Full history
- 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
- Jun 23, 2011 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to committee on Urban and Local Affairs
- Jul 14, 2011 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Aug 30, 2011 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Sep 27, 2011 · Assembly
Assembly substitute amendment 1 offered by Representative Pocan
- Sep 27, 2011 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Oct 3, 2011 · Assembly
Report Assembly Substitute Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 1
- Oct 3, 2011 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 7, Noes 1
- Oct 3, 2011 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Assembly substitute amendment 1 adopted
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Mar 15, 2012 · Assembly
Rules suspended to withdraw from committee on Rules and take up
- Mar 19, 2012 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Mar 23, 2012 · Senate
Failed to concur in pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1