Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Assembly Bill 303

Comprehensive planning and making an appropriation

Topics: Administration, Department of: Agency and general functions, Land use planning and control, Municipality: Planning

Passed the Assembly, then stopped

The Assembly passed it on Nov 3, 2011, 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

    Oct 5, 2011

  2. Committee, passed

    Approved

  3. Assembly vote, passed

    Passed Nov 3, 2011

  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 the current law commonly known as the "Smart Growth" statute, if a city, village, town, county, or regional planning commission (local governmental unit) creates a development plan or master plan (comprehensive plan) or amends an existing comprehensive plan, the plan must contain certain planning elements. The required planning elements include the following: housing; transportation; utilities and community facilities; agricultural, natural, and cultural resources; economic development; land use; and intergovernmental cooperation.

Also under current law, unless certain conditions apply, beginning on January 1, 2010, certain ordinances enacted or amended by a local governmental unit that affect land use must be consistent with that local governmental unit's comprehensive plan. The ordinances to which this requirement applies are official mapping, local subdivision regulation, and zoning ordinances, including zoning of shorelands or wetlands in shorelands. Also under current law, beginning on January 1, 2010, if a local governmental unit enacts or amends any of these specified ordinances, the comprehensive plan must contain at least all of the required planning elements.

Read the full summary

Under this bill, a local governmental unit is authorized to repeal its comprehensive plan. Correspondingly, the ordinances that under current law must be consistent with a local governmental unit's comprehensive plan must, under the bill, be consistent with the local governmental unit's comprehensive plan only if the local governmental unit has a comprehensive plan in effect.

Under current law, the Department of Administration provides grants to local governmental units to assist in financing the cost of planning activities. This bill eliminates this grant program.

Who's behind it

12 lawmakers are its ⁠. All 12 are Republicans.

4 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 16 names

Authors (12)

Signed on in support (4)

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 were 4 votes on this bill. Taking a bill up right away needs two-thirds of the members, a higher bar than passing it, so that vote can draw more yeses than the final one.

Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs vote on an amendment

Passed, 9 to 0 · Oct 25, 2011

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 9, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote on an amendment

Passed, 58 to 36 · Nov 3, 2011

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

Official motion: “Assembly amendment 3 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 36”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to pass it

Passed, 56 to 38 · Nov 3, 2011 · 2 didn't vote

See how each of the 96 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (56)

No (38)

Didn't vote (2)

Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 56, Noes 38, Paired 2”. Official record · This vote on its own page

Assembly vote to take it up right away

Passed, 58 to 36 · Nov 3, 2011 · 4 didn't vote

See how each of the 98 representatives voted

D: Democrat, I: Independent, R: Republican

Yes (58)

Didn't vote (4)

Official motion: “Refused to suspend rules to order immediately messaged, Ayes 58, Noes 36”. Official record · This vote on its own page

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Feb 16, 2012

    The committee held a public hearing.

  3. Jan 27, 2012

    Sent to the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs.

  4. Jan 26, 2012

    The Senate received it.

  5. Jan 25, 2012

    “Messaged pursuant to Assembly Rule 50 (1)” (the official wording)

  6. Nov 3, 2011

    The Assembly passed it, 56 to 38.

  7. Nov 3, 2011

    The Assembly adopted it.

  8. Oct 27, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  9. Oct 25, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.

  10. Oct 25, 2011

    The committee voted to recommend passing it, 5 to 4.

  11. Oct 19, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  12. Oct 13, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  13. Oct 11, 2011

    The committee held a public hearing.

  14. Oct 10, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  15. Oct 5, 2011 to Oct 6, 2011

    1 more representative and 1 senator signed on in support.

  16. Oct 5, 2011

    Sent to the Assembly Committee on Urban and Local Affairs.

  17. Oct 5, 2011

    Introduced in the Assembly.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Oct 5, 2011 · Assembly

    Introduced by Representatives Williams, Suder, Petrowski, Tiffany, Bernier, Brooks, Ballweg, Wynn, Knilans, Thiesfeldt, Endsley and Craig;Cosponsored by Senators Galloway and Moulton

  2. Oct 5, 2011 · Assembly

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

  3. Oct 5, 2011 · Assembly

    Senator Lasee added as a cosponsor

  4. Oct 6, 2011 · Assembly

    Representative Jacque added as a coauthor

  5. Oct 10, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  6. Oct 11, 2011 · Assembly

    Public hearing held

  7. Oct 13, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  8. Oct 17, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 offered by Representative Williams

  9. Oct 19, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  10. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Executive action taken

  11. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 offered by committee on Urban and Local Affairs

  12. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 9, Noes 0

  13. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 9, Noes 0

  14. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Report passage as amended recommended by committee on Urban and Local Affairs, Ayes 5, Noes 4

  15. Oct 25, 2011 · Assembly

    Referred to committee on Rules

  16. Oct 27, 2011 · Assembly

    Fiscal estimate received

  17. Nov 1, 2011 · Assembly

    Withdrawn from committee on Rules and placed on calendar 11-3-2011 pursuant to Assembly Rule 45 (1)

  18. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a second time

  19. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 1 adopted

  20. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 2 adopted

  21. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 offered by Representative Bernard Schaber

  22. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Assembly amendment 3 laid on table, Ayes 58, Noes 36

  23. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Ordered to a third reading

  24. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Rules suspended

  25. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Read a third time and passed, Ayes 56, Noes 38, Paired 2

  26. Nov 3, 2011 · Assembly

    Refused to suspend rules to order immediately messaged, Ayes 58, Noes 36

  27. Jan 25, 2012 · Assembly

    Messaged pursuant to Assembly Rule 50 (1)

  28. Jan 26, 2012 · Senate

    Received from Assembly

  29. Jan 27, 2012 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs

  30. Feb 16, 2012 · Senate

    Public hearing held

  31. 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