Assembly Bill 113
Operating implements of husbandry and agricultural commercial motor vehicles on highways and transporting implements of husbandry by trailer on highways. (FE)
Became law
The governor signed it on Apr 29, 2015. It's .
-
Introduced, passed
Mar 26, 2015
-
Committee, passed
Approved
-
Assembly vote, passed
Passed Apr 14, 2015
-
Senate vote, passed
Passed Apr 21, 2015
-
Governor, passed
Signed
-
Law, here now
2015 Wisconsin Act 15
Latest entry in the official record, Apr 29, 2015: “Published 4-30-2015”
Following saves it on this device. New actions show on your Following page. You can also get updates in a feed reader.
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
What it does
Summary by the , the Legislature's nonpartisan drafting office. It's their wording, not ours.
Current law includes various provisions relating to the operation on highways of implements of husbandry and agricultural commercial motor vehicles (agricultural CMVs). An implement of husbandry is a self-propelled or towed vehicle that is manufactured, designed, or reconstructed to be used and that is exclusively used in the conduct of agricultural operations. An implement of husbandry may include a farm tractor or a towed vehicle such as a farm trailer or manure trailer. An implement of husbandry may also include such farm equipment as a self-propelled combine; a self-propelled forage harvester; self-propelled fertilizer or pesticide application equipment (but not including manure application equipment); a power unit towing tillage, planting, or cultivation equipment; or another self-propelled vehicle that directly engages in harvesting farm products, directly applies fertilizer, spray, or seeds (but not manure), or distributes feed to livestock (hereafter "farm equipment"). An implement of husbandry may also be a combination of vehicles in which each vehicle in the combination is an implement of husbandry or in which a towed implement of husbandry, such as a farm trailer, is towed by a farm truck, farm truck tractor, or motor truck. An agricultural CMV is a commercial motor vehicle that: 1) is substantially designed or equipped, or materially altered from its original construction, for the purpose of agricultural use;
2) was designed and manufactured primarily for highway use and, with an exception, was manufactured to meet federal motor vehicle highway safety standards; 3) is used exclusively in the conduct of agricultural operations; and 4) is directly engaged in harvesting farm products, directly applies fertilizer, spray, or seeds to a farm field, or distributes feed to livestock. An agricultural CMV is not an implement of husbandry.
Read the full summary Show less
This bill makes changes to the definitions of implement of husbandry and agricultural CMV. Under the bill, a combination of vehicles is an implement of husbandry if the combination consists of any implement of husbandry towed by a farm truck, farm truck tractor, or motor truck. The bill also specifies that a power unit towing harvesting equipment is an implement of husbandry of the farm equipment type and that a grain cart is an implement of husbandry of the same type as a farm trailer. The bill clarifies that, if an implement of husbandry consists of a power unit towing tillage, planting, harvesting, or cultivation equipment, the power unit may be a farm tractor. The bill also specifies that a vehicle directly applying lime to a farm field may be an agricultural CMV. Under the bill, an agricultural CMV includes a vehicle assisting a harvesting vehicle by receiving farm products as they are harvested and includes a vehicle off-loading manure when field conditions do not permit manure application directly to the field.
Under current law, no person may operate on a highway any vehicle or combination of vehicles that exceeds certain statutory size or weight limits unless the person obtains a permit issued by the Department of Transportation (DOT) or a local highway authority or unless an exception applies. Statutory restrictions on vehicle size and weight generally apply to the vehicle as loaded. The general statutory weight limits on vehicles and vehicle combinations operated on a highway include weight limits per wheel, axle, and group of axles (based on the number and spacing of axles). DOT and local highway authorities may also impose, by posting highway signs on weakened highways, special weight limits that are less than the general statutory weight limits. In addition, local authorities may designate highways under their jurisdiction as class "B" highways, which results, with exceptions, in the maximum permissible weight for vehicles on these highways being reduced to 60 percent of the otherwise applicable statutory weight.
Under current law, increased statutory per-axle and per-axle group weight limits for implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs are approximately 15 percent higher than the general statutory weight limits. However, an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV operated on a highway may not, without a permit, have a gross weight of more than 92,000 pounds, subject to limited exceptions. The increased weight allowance for implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs, and the gross weight limit of 92,000 pounds, expires on January 1, 2020, at which time the general statutory weight limits again apply to implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs.
Under current law, there are additional weight limit exceptions applicable to implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs operated on a highway, which also expire on January 1, 2020. For example, there is no weight limit per wheel, axle, or group of axles for any of the following implements of husbandry: 1) an empty potato harvester if certain conditions are met; 2) farm equipment traveling between fields, or between a farm and a field, on the highway for a distance of 0.5 miles or less; or 3) farm equipment operated on a highway under the jurisdiction of a county or municipality, unless the county or municipality has adopted an ordinance designating statutory weight limits for the highway. A potato harvester identified in item 1), above, and farm equipment identified in item 3), above, is subject to the gross weight limit of 92,000 pounds, but farm equipment identified in item 2), above, is not. These implements of husbandry identified in items 1) to 3), above, are subject to posted special weight limits but are not subject to a reduction of permissible weight on class "B" highways. In addition, there is no weight limit per wheel, axle, or group of axles, and no gross weight limit, for an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV being operated or transported by an implement dealer or farmer for repair, servicing, or delivery if certain conditions are met, but these vehicles are subject to posted special weight limits. If a county or municipality has adopted an ordinance designating statutory weight limits for farm equipment as provided in item 3), above, the ordinance must be valid for at least one calendar year and must be adopted on or before January 15 of the calendar year in which it takes effect. The county or municipality must also forward to DOT a copy of the ordinance and DOT must publish it on DOT's Internet site.
This bill provides that the additional weight limit exceptions identified in items 2) and 3), above, also apply to an agricultural CMV except when being used to apply or offload manure or assist a harvester. The bill expands the increased weight limit for implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs operated on a highway to also apply to two-vehicle combinations transporting by trailer or semitrailer an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm. Subject to the exceptions discussed below, the 92,000 pound gross weight limit also applies to these two-vehicle combinations transporting implements of husbandry or agricultural CMVs, and this increased weight allowance also expires on January 1, 2020. The bill further provides that the additional weight limit exceptions identified in items 1) to 3), above, also apply to a two-vehicle combination transporting by trailer or semitrailer such an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV (with respect to items 2) and 3)) from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm. Under the bill, an ordinance designating statutory weight limits for farm equipment as provided in item 3), above, and any amendment to such an ordinance, must be adopted on or before November 30 of the year before the ordinance or amendment takes effect and must be forwarded to DOT no later than January 20 of the year it takes effect. The bill also removes a limitation under current law that provisions applicable to potato harvesters apply only if the potato harvester is a self-propelled vehicle.
Under current law, a "maintaining authority" of a highway may issue a "no-fee permit" authorizing operation on the highway of implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs that exceed statutory weight limits. These permits may be issued, and remain valid, only until January 1, 2020. Current law defines a "maintaining authority" of a highway as: 1) DOT or its designee, with respect to a state trunk highway; or 2) the municipality or county responsible for maintenance of the highway or its designee (local authority), with respect to a highway that is not a state trunk highway. An application for a no-fee permit must be accompanied by a listing or map of the highways that may potentially be traveled under authorization of the permit. With limited exceptions, information in the permit application must be kept confidential. If a no-fee permit is issued, upon application, the no-fee permit may be amended by the maintaining authority to reflect changes in the applicant's circumstances, including a change in the highways to be traveled.
If a maintaining authority denies an application for a no-fee permit, it must notify the applicant in writing of the denial and the notice must include a reasonable and structurally based explanation of the denial that relates to the preservation of the roadway. If the application is made with respect to farm equipment and the only basis to deny the application is the listing or map of highways accompanying the application, the maintaining authority must modify the application to include an approved alternate route or map of highways for operation of the farm equipment and approve the application. This approved alternate route or map of highways may include highways that are not under the jurisdiction of the maintaining authority issuing the permit only upon prior approval of the maintaining authority having jurisdiction over those highways. If a no-fee permit application is denied, the applicant has a right to administrative review of the decision.
This bill allows a no-fee permit to be issued for a two-vehicle combination transporting by trailer or semitrailer an implement of husbandry or agricultural CMV from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm. In addition, for purposes of permit issuance, the bill treats agricultural CMVs in a manner similar to farm equipment. The bill also specifies that a vehicle or vehicle combination operating under a no-fee permit on a highway under the jurisdiction of the maintaining authority that issued the permit may cross any intersecting highway.
Under the bill, a municipality is not subject to open meetings requirements in making its initial determination on an application for a no-fee permit. The bill further requires a local authority, in a meeting to review the denial of a no-fee permit application, to deliberate or conduct any proceeding related to the review in closed session, with the permit applicant present for any evidentiary hearing or argument.
The local authority must keep confidential all information provided by the permit applicant during the proceeding, but this information may be included in the written decision and may be disclosed in any court proceeding for judicial review of the decision.
Under current law, a county or municipality may, by ordinance, authorize operation of implements of husbandry and agricultural CMVs exceeding statutory length or weight limitations on any or all highways under the county's or municipality's jurisdiction. The ordinance serves as a no-fee permit. The ordinance must be valid for at least one calendar year and must be adopted on or before January 15 of the calendar year in which it takes effect. The county or municipality must also forward to DOT a copy of the ordinance and DOT must publish it on DOT's Internet site. Under the bill, the ordinance, and any amendment to the ordinance, must be adopted on or before November 30 of the year before the ordinance or amendment takes effect and must be forwarded to DOT no later than January 20 of the year it takes effect.
Under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any vehicle having a total width in excess of 8 feet 6 inches. However, there is generally no width limitation for implements of husbandry operated on a highway, although certain wide implements of husbandry are subject to lighting and marking requirements. There is also no width limitation if the implement of husbandry is being operated or transported by an implement dealer or farmer for repair, servicing, or delivery and certain conditions are met.
Under this bill, there is no width limitation for implements of husbandry being transported by trailer or semitrailer on a highway from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm, at times other than hours of darkness, although certain wide implements of husbandry are subject to lighting and marking requirements.
Under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any single vehicle with an overall length in excess of 45 feet or any combination of two vehicles with an overall length in excess of 70 feet.
Under one exception, an implement of husbandry operated on a highway without a permit may not exceed 60 feet in length if the implement of husbandry is a single vehicle or 100 feet in length if the implement of husbandry is a two-vehicle combination. These same length limits also apply if the implement of husbandry is being operated or transported by an implement dealer or farmer for repair, servicing, or delivery and certain conditions are met.
Under this bill, these same length limits also apply to an implement of husbandry being transported by trailer or semitrailer on a highway from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm. The bill also provides for an overall length limit of 100 feet for a two-vehicle combination transporting by trailer or semitrailer an implement of husbandry from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm.
Under current law, unless an exception applies, a person may not, without a permit, operate on a highway any vehicle having an overall height in excess of 13.5 feet. Under one exception, there is no height limit for an implement of husbandry.
However, with an exception, the operator of the implement of husbandry is responsible for ensuring that there is adequate height clearance between the implement of husbandry and overhead structures or obstructions.
Under this bill, there is no height limit for a two-vehicle combination transporting by trailer or semitrailer an implement of husbandry from farm to field, from field to field, or from farm to farm, but the operator of the two-vehicle combination is, with an exception, responsible for ensuring that there is adequate height clearance between the implement of husbandry being transported and any overhead structure or obstruction.
Under current law, vehicle equipment requirements do not apply to implements of husbandry unless application is expressly specified by statute.
Current law prohibits a person from operating on a highway any vehicle, including an implement of husbandry, that has on the periphery of its tires any flange, cleat, or other protuberance of any material other than rubber that projects beyond the tread of the traction surface of the tire, except that implements of husbandry may be operated with metal tires or tires having protuberances that will not injure the highway.
This bill specifies that an implement of husbandry having rubber tracks or tracks made of equivalent material may be operated on a highway if it will not injure the highway.
Under current law, if any bill introduced in either house of the legislature directly or indirectly establishes an exception to vehicle weight limits, DOT must prepare a report, containing specified information, relating to the bill within six weeks after the bill is introduced and before any vote is taken on the bill.
This bill directs DOT not to prepare such a report on this bill.
Who's behind it
23 lawmakers are its . 19 are Republicans and 4 are Democrats.
10 more lawmakers .
See all 33 names Hide the names
Authors (23)
- Alvin Ott · Republican, Assembly
- Kathleen Bernier · Republican, Senate
- Mark Born · Republican, Assembly
- Dave Considine · Democrat, Assembly
- Chris Danou · Democrat, Assembly
- Edward Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- James Edming · Republican, Assembly
- John Jagler · Republican, Senate
- Robb Kahl · Democrat, Assembly
- Joel Kitchens · Republican, Assembly
- Debra Kolste · Democrat, Assembly
- Jesse Kremer · Republican, Assembly
- Scott Krug · Republican, Assembly
- Bob Kulp · Republican, Assembly
- Jeff Mursau · Republican, Assembly
- Lee Nerison · Republican, Assembly
- Todd Novak · Republican, Assembly
- Rob Brooks · Republican, Assembly
- Keith Ripp · Republican, Assembly
- John Spiros · Republican, Assembly
- Thomas Larson · Republican, Assembly
- Nancy VanderMeer · Republican, Assembly
- Thomas Weatherston · Republican, Assembly
Signed on in support (10)
- Janet Bewley · Democrat, Senate
- Richard Gudex · Republican, Senate
- Sheila Harsdorf · Republican, Senate
- Howard Marklein · Republican, Senate
- Meyers, Barca, Jorgensen and Mason
- Terry Moulton · Republican, Senate
- Luther S. Olsen · Republican, Senate
- Jerry Petrowski · Republican, Senate
- Janis Ringhand · Democrat, Senate
- Kathleen Vinehout · Democrat, Senate
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 5 votes on this bill.
Assembly Committee on Transportation vote on an amendment
Passed, 14 to 0 · Apr 8, 2015
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 Transportation, Ayes 14, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly Committee on Transportation vote on an amendment
Passed, 14 to 0 · Apr 8, 2015
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 14, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly Committee on Transportation vote to recommend it
Passed, 15 to 0 · Apr 8, 2015
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 15, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Assembly vote to pass it
Passed, 99 to 0 · Apr 14, 2015
See how each of the 99 representatives voted Hide the names
D: Democrat, R: Republican
Yes (99)
- Adam Jarchow (R, 28)
- Adam Neylon (R, 15)
- Alvin Ott (R, 3)
- Amanda Stuck (D, 57)
- Amy Loudenbeck (R, 31)
- André Jacque (R, 1)
- Andy Jorgensen (D, 43)
- Beth Meyers (D, 74)
- Bob Gannon (R, 58)
- Bob Kulp (R, 69)
- Chris Danou (D, 92)
- Chris Kapenga (R, 33)
- Chris Taylor (D, 76)
- Christine Sinicki (D, 20)
- Cody Horlacher (R, 33)
- Cory Mason (D, 66)
- Dale Kooyenga (R, 5)
- Dan Knodl (R, 24)
- Dana Wachs (D, 91)
- Daniel Riemer (D, 7)
- Dave Considine (D, 81)
- Dave Murphy (R, 56)
- David Bowen (D, 10)
- David Craig (R, 28)
- David Heaton (R, 85)
- David Steffen (R, 4)
- Dean Knudson (R, 30)
- Debra Kolste (D, 44)
- Dianne Hesselbein (D, 27)
- Edward Brooks (R, 50)
- Eric Genrich (D, 90)
- Evan Goyke (D, 18)
- Frederick Kessler (D, 12)
- Gary Hebl (D, 46)
- Gary Tauchen (R, 6)
- Gordon Hintz (D, 54)
- James Edming (R, 87)
- Janel Brandtjen (R, 22)
- Jeff Mursau (R, 36)
- Jeremy Thiesfeldt (R, 52)
- Jesse Kremer (R, 59)
- Jessie Rodriguez (R, 21)
- Jill Billings (D, 95)
- Jim Ott (R, 23)
- Jim Steineke (R, 5)
- JoCasta Zamarripa (D, 8)
- Joan Ballweg (R, 14)
- Joe Sanfelippo (R, 15)
- Joel Kitchens (R, 1)
- Joel Kleefisch (R, 38)
- John Jagler (R, 13)
- John Macco (R, 88)
- John Murtha (R, 29)
- John Nygren (R, 89)
- John Spiros (R, 86)
- Jonathan Brostoff (D, 19)
- Josh Zepnick (D, 9)
- Kathleen Bernier (R, 23)
- Katrina Shankland (D, 71)
- Keith Ripp (R, 42)
- Ken Skowronski (R, 82)
- Kevin Petersen (R, 57)
- LaTonya Johnson (D, 6)
- Lee Nerison (R, 96)
- Leon Young (D, 16)
- Lisa Subeck (D, 79)
- Mandela Barnes (D, 11)
- Mark Born (R, 37)
- Mark Spreitzer (D, 15)
- Mary Czaja (R, 35)
- Melissa Sargent (D, 48)
- Michael Schraa (R, 53)
- Mike Kuglitsch (R, 84)
- Mike Rohrkaste (R, 55)
- Nancy VanderMeer (R, 70)
- Nick Milroy (D, 73)
- Paul Tittl (R, 25)
- Peter Barca (D, 64)
- Rob Brooks (R, 59)
- Rob Hutton (R, 5)
- Rob Swearingen (R, 34)
- Robb Kahl (D, 47)
- Robin Vos (R, 33)
- Romaine Quinn (R, 25)
- Samantha Kerkman (R, 61)
- Scott Allen (R, 82)
- Scott Krug (R, 72)
- Sondy Pope (D, 80)
- Steve Doyle (D, 94)
- Terese Berceau (D, 77)
- Terry Katsma (R, 26)
- Thomas Larson (R, 67)
- Thomas Weatherston (R, 62)
- Tod Ohnstad (D, 65)
- Todd Novak (R, 51)
- Travis Tranel (R, 49)
- Tyler August (R, 31)
- Tyler Vorpagel (R, 27)
- Warren Petryk (R, 93)
Official motion: “Read a third time and passed, Ayes 99, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
Senate vote
Passed, 5 to 0 · Apr 20, 2015
No member-by-member record exists for this vote. Committee votes and some older sessions record totals only.
Official motion: “Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 5, Noes 0”. Official record · This vote on its own page
What happened
-
Apr 29, 2015
The new law was published.
-
Apr 29, 2015
The governor signed it. It became 2015 Wisconsin Act 15.
-
Apr 28, 2015
Sent to the governor.
-
Apr 21, 2015
The Senate passed it too.
-
Apr 21, 2015
1 more senator signed on in support.
-
Apr 20, 2015
“Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 5, Noes 0” (the official wording)
-
Apr 17, 2015
Sent to the Senate Committee on Senate Organization.
-
Apr 15, 2015
The Senate received it.
-
Apr 14, 2015
4 more representatives signed on in support.
-
Apr 14, 2015
The Assembly passed it, 99 to 0.
-
Apr 14, 2015
The Assembly adopted it.
-
Apr 8, 2015
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Rules.
-
Apr 8, 2015
The committee voted to recommend passing it, 15 to 0.
-
Apr 7, 2015
A state agency sent in its estimate of the cost.
-
Mar 31, 2015
The committee held a public hearing.
-
Mar 26, 2015
Sent to the Assembly Committee on Transportation.
-
Mar 26, 2015
Introduced in the Assembly.
See the official record, word for word Hide the official record
- Mar 26, 2015 · Assembly
Introduced by Representatives Ripp, Bernier, Born, E. Brooks, R. Brooks, Considine, Danou, Edming, Jagler, Kahl, Kitchens, Kolste, Kremer, Krug, Kulp, T. Larson, Mursau, Nerison, Novak, A. Ott, Spiros, VanderMeer and Weatherston; cosponsored by Senators Petrowski, Gudex, Harsdorf, Marklein, Moulton, Olsen, Ringhand and Vinehout
- Mar 26, 2015 · Assembly
Read first time and referred to Committee on Transportation
- Mar 31, 2015 · Assembly
Public hearing held
- Apr 2, 2015 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 offered by Representative A. Ott
- Apr 6, 2015 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 2 offered by Representative Ripp
- Apr 7, 2015 · Assembly
Fiscal estimate received
- Apr 7, 2015 · Assembly
Executive action taken
- Apr 8, 2015 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 1 adoption recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 14, Noes 0
- Apr 8, 2015 · Assembly
Report Assembly Amendment 2 adoption recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 14, Noes 0
- Apr 8, 2015 · Assembly
Report passage as amended recommended by Committee on Transportation, Ayes 15, Noes 0
- Apr 8, 2015 · Assembly
Referred to committee on Rules
- Apr 9, 2015 · Assembly
Placed on calendar 4-14-2015 by Committee on Rules
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Read a second time
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 1 adopted
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Assembly Amendment 2 adopted
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Rules suspended
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Read a third time and passed, Ayes 99, Noes 0
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Representatives Meyers, Barca, Jorgensen and Mason added as coauthors
- Apr 14, 2015 · Assembly
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 15, 2015 · Senate
Received from Assembly
- Apr 17, 2015 · Senate
Read first time and referred to committee on Senate Organization
- Apr 17, 2015 · Senate
Available for scheduling
- Apr 20, 2015 · Senate
Public hearing requirement waived by committee on Senate Organization, pursuant to Senate Rule 18 (1m), Ayes 5, Noes 0
- Apr 20, 2015 · Senate
Placed on calendar 4-21-2015 pursuant to Senate Rule 18(1)
- Apr 21, 2015 · Senate
Senator Bewley added as a cosponsor
- Apr 21, 2015 · Senate
Read a second time
- Apr 21, 2015 · Senate
Ordered to a third reading
- Apr 21, 2015 · Senate
Rules suspended
- Apr 21, 2015 · Senate
Read a third time and concurred in
- Apr 21, 2015 · Senate
Ordered immediately messaged
- Apr 21, 2015 · Assembly
Received from Senate concurred in
- Apr 28, 2015 · Assembly
LRB correction
- Apr 28, 2015 · Assembly
Report correctly enrolled on 4-28-2015
- Apr 28, 2015 · Assembly
Presented to the Governor on 4-28-2015
- Apr 29, 2015 · Assembly
Report approved by the Governor on 4-29-2015. 2015 Wisconsin Act 15
- Apr 29, 2015 · Assembly
Published 4-30-2015
Terms on this page
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act. 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
Wisconsin Act
The number a bill gets when it becomes law, like 2025 Wisconsin Act 12.
Official term: Act
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
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