Skip to content
Bills from the 2011–12 session

Senate Bill 225

Comprehensive planning and making an appropriation

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

Stopped in committee

It never got a ⁠, so it never came up for a vote. To try again, a lawmaker would have to start a new bill.

  1. Introduced, passed

    Oct 6, 2011

  2. Committee, stopped here

    Stopped here. No public hearing was held.

  3. Senate vote, not reached

  4. Assembly vote, not reached

  5. Governor, not reached

  6. Law, not reached

Latest entry in the official record, Mar 23, 2012: “Failed to pass pursuant to ⁠”

It never got a hearing in the Senate Committee on Economic Development and Veterans and Military Affairs. See every bill that never got a hearing this session.

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

3 senators are its ⁠. All 3 are Republicans.

12 more lawmakers ⁠.

See all 15 names

Authors (3)

Signed on in support (12)

What it would cost

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

What happened

  1. Mar 23, 2012

    The session ended, and the bill died with it.

  2. Oct 24, 2011

    A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.

  3. Oct 6, 2011

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

  4. Oct 6, 2011

    Introduced in the Senate.

See the official record, word for word
  1. Oct 6, 2011 · Senate

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

  2. Oct 6, 2011 · Senate

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

  3. Oct 24, 2011 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Mar 23, 2012 · 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

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

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

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.

Public hearing

A meeting where anyone can speak to a committee about a bill, or send written comments.

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