MADISON – Today the Wisconsin State Assembly passed an amendment to the fraught and long negotiated, shared revenue bill. The original bill passed in the Assembly on May 17 and amended and passed in the Senate today, June 14. The amendment bill which passed the Assembly today provides a 20% increase to municipalities with a population of over 110,000. Under the agreement, Appleton will receive a 20% increase, Menasha a 24.6% increase, and Fox Crossing a 138.1% increase from the state’s shared revenue.
The bill, while more beneficial to mid-sized municipalities than the original agreement voted on in May, still attaches a number of problematic policy items which inhibit local control over certain government departments from police & fire to health officers. Democrats again introduced an amendment on the floor to remove those policy items but it failed to garner support from their Republican colleagues who only support revenue increases with policy-based strings attached.
Representative Snodgrass released the following statement:
“Republicans are the reason that for the last twelve years our local communities have been forced to do more with less. As costs increased and levy limits prohibited new revenue, municipalities like Appleton, Fox Crossing and Menasha have been forced to do more with less while the Republican majority ignored their pleas. For years Democrats have been sounding the alarm of the impacts of this stagnation of shared revenue, noting cuts in municipal budgets from funding for roads, public safety, parks, transit and more. I’m glad to support this positive first step in funding for communities across Wisconsin, however for most municipalities the increase doesn’t begin to cover inflationary costs so we must continue to work to ensure local funding needs are met.
“Additionally, while I supported this bill for the funding increase, I share my colleagues’ deep concerns with the inclusion of policy items which are politically motivated and unnecessarily encroach on local government’s ability to govern themselves. Nowhere else in the country is a state tying shared revenue payments to policy requirements. This is wildly inappropriate and removes the right of local governments to act based on their firsthand understanding of their communities’ needs.”
