Skip to content

Bills · 2017-2018 Regular Session

SB 141

Died at session end Official bill text Atom feed

Relating to: revenue limit adjustment for a school district for costs incurred to remediate lead contamination in drinking water and exceptions from local levy limits for lead pipe water service line replacement purposes. (FE)

Property tax Public health School — Finance Water supply

  1. Introduced, stopped here
  2. Passes Senate, not reached
  3. Passes Assembly, not reached
  4. Governor signs, not reached
  5. Law, not reached

Unfamiliar terms? Glossary

What this bill does

Plain-language analysis by the nonpartisan Legislative Reference Bureau

This bill creates a revenue limit adjustment for a school district that incurs

costs to remediate lead contamination in water used for drinking and food

preparation in the school district, including costs to test for the presence of lead in

the water, provide potable water, and replace pipes, drinking fountains, and

plumbing fixtures. Current law generally limits the total amount of revenue per

pupil a school district may receive from general school aids and property taxes in a

school year to the amount of revenue received per pupil in the previous school year.

Under the bill, a school district that adopts a resolution to undertake a project to

remediate lead contamination may increase its revenue limit by the amount the

school district spends on the improvements in a school year, including amounts spent

for debt service on a bond, note, or state trust fund loan used to finance the project.

The term of the bond, note, or trust fund loan may not exceed 20 years.

This bill also creates an exception to the levy limits for cities, villages, towns,

and counties for amounts levied for purposes related to the replacement of lead pipe

water service lines owned by the political subdivision.

Generally under current law, local levy limits are applied to the property tax

levies that are imposed in December of each year. Current law prohibits any political

subdivision from increasing its levy by a percentage that exceeds its “valuation

factor," which is defined as the greater of either zero percent or the percentage change

in the political subdivision's equalized value due to new construction, less

improvements removed. In addition, the calculation of a political subdivision's levy

does not include any tax increment that is generated by a tax incremental district.

Current law contains a number of exceptions to the levy limit, such as amounts

a county levies for a countywide emergency medical system, for a county children

with disabilities education board, and for certain bridge and culvert construction and

repair. In addition, a political subdivision may exceed the levy limit that is otherwise

applicable if its governing body adopts a resolution to do so and if that resolution is

approved by the electors in a referendum.

This bill creates another exception to local levy limits. Under the bill, amounts

levied by a political subdivision for purposes related to certain lead pipe water

service lines do not apply to the levy limit that is otherwise applicable. The bill first

applies to a levy that is imposed in December 2017.

What it would cost

Fiscal estimates filed by state agencies, as official PDFs

Sponsors

Introduced by: Bewley (D) , C. Larson (D) , Carpenter (D) , Miller (D) , Ringhand (D) , Wirch (D)

17 cosponsors

Anderson (D) , Berceau (D) , Billings (D) , Bowen (D) , C. Taylor (D) , Considine (D) , Horlacher (R) , Kolste (D) , Milroy (D) , Pope (D) , Sargent (D) , Sinicki (D) , Spreitzer (D) , Subeck (D) , Vruwink (D) , Wachs (D) , Young (D)

Full history

  1. Mar 29, 2017 · Senate

    Introduced by Senators Carpenter, C. Larson, Wirch, Bewley, Ringhand and Miller; cosponsored by Representatives Sargent, Horlacher, Spreitzer, Anderson, Berceau, Milroy, Sinicki, Pope, Kolste, Vruwink, C. Taylor, Billings, Wachs, Young, Bowen, Subeck and Considine

  2. Mar 29, 2017 · Senate

    Read first time and referred to Committee on Government Operations, Technology and Consumer Protection

  3. Apr 13, 2017 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  4. Apr 17, 2017 · Senate

    Fiscal estimate received

  5. Mar 28, 2018 · Senate

    Failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1