The Wisconsin TaxpayerThe Wisconsin TaxpayerA SERVICE OF THE WISCONSIN TAXPAYERS ALLIANCE

Also in this issue:

In Their Words: Wisconsin Supreme Court Candidates

wis March 2011 Vol. 79 No. 3wis tax

Property Assessment & Appeals • Below-Average

County Tax Increase • Venture Capital Investment

Up • Average Hourly Earnings

Wisconsin voters face important decisions on April 5.

They will elect local officials and also a new supreme court

justice to serve until 2021. There were also contested

supreme court races in 2007, 2008, and 2009. This year’s

contest is between Justice David Prosser, who has served

on the supreme court since his appointment in 1998, and

state Assistant Attorney General JoAnne Kloppenburg. The

candidates were the top vote-getters in a four-person Feb-

ruary primary.

In an effort to help citizens learn more about the can-

didates and make an informed decision, the Wisconsin Tax-

payers Alliance sent both candidates a questionnaire asking

about their background, experience, and judicial philoso-

phy. Their answers, unedited, are published in this issue

of The Wisconsin Taxpayer.

THE SUPREME COURT

The Wisconsin Constitution originally divided the state

into five judicial districts. Once annually, each district’s

chief judge traveled to Madison, and the five judges would

sit as the supreme court. Often, the judges would rule on

cases they previously presided over.

Since 1903, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has com-

prised seven justices—the chief justice and six associate

justices. Justice Shirley Abrahamson currently serves as

chief justice, as she is the court’s longest-serving member

(see Table 1).

The supreme court is the state’s highest court, mean-

ing that for state issues, the court’s ruling is final. The

court receives cases from lower courts, though it also hears

original actions. The majority of cases, however, are heard

on appeal. In recent years, the court has been closely

divided on many important issues, including tribal gaming,

school finance, medical malpractice, product liability, and

criminal rights.

In addition to ruling on cases, the Wisconsin Supreme

Court also administers the state judicial system. The court

appoints the director of state courts and directs the Board

of Bar Examiners, which regulates lawyers in the state.

Mural at Wisconsin Supreme Court. Photo credit: Amanda Todd.

Page 2 The Wisconsin Taxpayer

Publication Number USPS 688-800

Periodical postage paid at Madison, Wisconsin

Subscription Price:One Year, $17.97; Three Years, $36.97

Published each month, except July, by the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance,

401 North Lawn Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53704-5033

Postmaster:Send address changes to The Wisconsin Taxpayer,

401 North Lawn Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin 53704-5033

phone: 608.241.9789 fax: 608.241.5807

e-mail: wistax@wistax.org website: www.wistax.org

Officers and Board of Directors:Carol Ward Knox, Chair, Jefferson; J.R. Riordan, Vice-Chair, Madison;

Jere D. McGaffey, Secretary-Treasurer, Milwaukee

J.L. Adams, Beloit; M.D. Bugher, Madison; C.D. Fortner, Milwaukee;

S.D. Loehr, La Crosse; J.D. Quick, Manitowoc; D.R. Schuh, Stevens Point;

M.D. Simmer, Green Bay; T.L. Spero, Milwaukee; J.B. Williams, Milwaukee

Staff:Todd A. Berry, President; Kyle Christianson, Research Analyst; Dale J.

Knapp, Research Director; Sandra Mumm, Business Manager; Kelly

Pfeifer; Susan Ryan; Sharon Schmeling, Communications Director

The Wisconsin Taxpayer

March 2011 Vol. 79 No. 3

DATA SOURCES:

American Bar Association; National Conference of State Legislatures;Wisconsin Legislative Reference Bureau; Wisconsin Supreme Court.

Selection Method

In Wisconsin, justices are elected for 10 years in non-

partisan spring elections. However, the governor appoints

a justice if there is a mid-term opening. The appointee serves

until the first available spring election. Because only one

justice can be elected in any one year, an appointment can

sometimes last for multiple years. For example, Governor

Doyle appointed Louis Butler in 2004. Because the seats

of other justices were up for reelection in 2005, 2006, and

2007, Butler could not stand for election until 2008. Of

the 75 justices since 1853, 45 (60%) were initially ap-

pointed rather than elected.

Fourteen states select justices through nonpartisan elec-

tions, though other methods include partisan elections,

gubernatorial appointments, and professional committees.

Some states also give justices lifetime appointments—simi-

lar to the U.S. Supreme Court—while others require them

to run in uncontested retention elections. In retention elec-

tions, justices must receive support from a majority of

voters.

Session Review

The court received 717 petitions of review in 2009-

10, asking that the court review the decision of the Court

Table 1:Wisconsin Supreme Court Justice Profile

*At time of first election or appointment.

Figure 1:Opinions Issued by the Wisconsin Supreme Court

Opinions by Term and Area, 2008-09 and 2009-10

of Appeals. Fifty-one petitions were granted, with 192

pending at the end of the term.

During the 2009-10 session, the Wisconsin Supreme

Court issued opinions resolving 103 cases, according to

the clerk’s office. Forty of those cases dealt with civil

matters, while 39 involved attorney discipline. Criminal

cases accounted for less than one-quarter of opinions is-

sued by the court. Figure 1 shows a breakdown of cases

decided by the court in the 2008-09 and 2009-10 sessions.

CAMPAIGN FINANCE

The 2011 supreme court campaign differs from prior

years in that public financing is now available for candi-

dates. Because of a law passed by the state legislature in

2009, supreme court candidates opting for public financ-

ing are provided $100,000 in the spring primary and

$300,000 in the general election. Those amounts could be

as high as $300,000 in the primary and $900,000 in the

general, depending on the level of independent expendi-

tures.

The 2009 law also made changes to candidate contri-

bution limits. Prior to this year, individuals could contrib-

ute a maximum of $10,000 to a supreme court candidate

and $8,625 to a committee making a contribution to a can-

didate. The new law reduced the maximum contribution

amounts to $1,000. Both Prosser and Kloppenburg re-

ceived public financing in the primary and general elec-

tions.

Justice

Tenure

Began

Term

Ends Residence*

Shirley S. Abrahamson 1976 2019 Madison

Ann Walsh Bradley 1995 2015 Wausau

N. Patrick Crooks 1996 2016 Green Bay

David T. Prosser 1998 2011 Appleton

Patience D. Roggensack 2003 2013 Madison

Annette Kingsland Ziegler 2007 2017 West Bend

Michael J. Gableman 2008 2018 Webster

0

43

21

39

1

40

2323

0

20

40

Attorney

Discipline

Judicial

Discipline

Civil Cases Criminal Cases

2008-09 2009-10

Page 3March 2011 Vol. 79 No. 3

“Early on, I set

my sights on a

career in public

service.”

— David

Prosser

I am a litigator and pros-

ecutor at the Department

of Justice (1989-Present)

having served under Attorneys General from

both parties. My legal background is broad

and deep and includes constitutional, appel-

late, civil, environmental, administrative, and

criminal law. I’ve extensive courtroom ex-

perience in Circuit Court, Appeals Court and

Supreme Court. I was a law clerk for Chief

Judge Barbara Crabb, and interned for Chief

Justice Shirley Abrahamson. I’ve taught at

the UW Law School since 1990.

Early on, I set my sights

on a career in public ser-

vice. My career evolved

as follows: law school lecturer; staff attor-

ney, Office of Criminal Justice, United States

Department of Justice; administrative as-

sistant to Congressman; private attorney;

elected district attorney, 1977-78; represen-

tative, Wisconsin Assembly, 1979-96; As-

sembly Speaker 1995-96; Wisconsin Tax

Appeals Commissioner 1997-98; Justice,

Wisconsin Supreme Court 1998-Current.

No other candidate has this breadth of ex-

perience or been a judge.

Awards and distinctions

n Received major awards as a legislator

from American Medical Association,

Wisconsin Independent Business

Association, National Federation of

Small Business, Wisconsin Farm

Bureau, Wisconsin American Legion,

Wisconsin Counties Association,

Wisconsin Chiefs of Police,

Wisconsin Court Reporters

Association, Wisconsin Council

on Welfare Fraud

n Appleton West High School Hall of Fame

(2005)

n John W. Forster Vision Award,

Friends of the Fox (2009)

n Who’s Who in America

n Three commencement addresses at UW

campuses

Memberships

n Wisconsin Bar Association

n Milwaukee Bar Association

n Outagamie County Bar Association

n National Conference of

Commissioners on Uniform State Laws

(1982-1996, 2005-07)

n James E. Doyle Inn of Court, Madison

“My legal

background is

broad and deep

and includes

constitutional,

appellate, civil,

environmental,

administrative,

and criminal

law.”

— JoAnne

Kloppenburg

JoAnneKloppenburg

Professionalexperience

Awards and distinctions

n Graduated with honors from UW Law

School

n University Award for scholarship and

service

n Order of the Coif

n Graduated with honors from Yale

University (1974)

Memberships

n Regent Neighborhood Association

n Legal Association of Women

n Wisconsin State Attorneys Association

n Dane County Bar

n Wisconsin State Bar

DavidProsser

Professionalexperience

Page 4 The Wisconsin Taxpayer

“My

background,

experience, and

perspective are

different from

others and

sometimes very

useful in

addressing

issues.”

— David

Prosser

Why are you running for the WisconsinSupreme Court?

Prosser: After serving 18 years in the leg-

islature, rising to the position of Assembly

Speaker, I determined that it was time to move

on. Some of my friends thought I had the tem-

perament and scholarship to become a judge;

and when Justice Janine Geske resigned from

the Supreme Court, these friends urged me to

apply to Governor Tommy Thompson for an

appointment. Although the Supreme Court had

never been a goal, I got the appointment. For

the past 12 years, I have had the privilege of

serving as a Justice.

The Supreme Court is hard work. The

cases are mentally challenging and the reading

and writing can drain one’s energy. Working

with six highly intelligent but sometimes con-

tentious colleagues is also demanding.

I would not seek re-election to the Court if

I did not love the work and did not believe that

my presence there is constructive and valuable.

My background, experience, and perspective are

different from others and sometimes very use-

ful in addressing issues.

Over 12 years I have written 132 majority

opinions, plus many concurrences and dissents,

and participated in more than 900 published de-

cisions. Many of my opinions have significantly

influenced Wisconsin law.

I can also help the judiciary deal with the

other two branches of government. That’s why

I’m running.

Kloppenburg: People around the state

urged me to run and are supporting my candi-

dacy because Wisconsin residents want a Su-

preme Court that is fair, impartial and focused

on the important work justices are elected to

do. Every Wisconsin resident deserves a fair

day in Court. My broad legal background, my

extensive courtroom experience, my indepen-

dence and my commitment to running a cam-

paign free of special interest money and big

spending uniquely qualify me to serve on the

Court.

The Supreme Court decides cases that help

establish precedent, resolves significant legal

issues and provides guidance to other courts

and attorneys throughout the state. It is impor-

tant to remember, however, that in every case—

behind the dry legal language and the legal

arguments—there are people: people and fami-

lies whose lives are affected by the actions

judges take and the decisions judges make. The

effect of the law on people’s lives is profound

and powerful. American democracy is, in many

ways, built upon our willingness to accept the

decisions our courts reach as lawful, whether

we agree with those decisions or not.

That is why it is imperative Wisconsin resi-

dents have confidence in the judiciary as inde-

pendent decision makers, not beholden to special

interests or tied to partisan causes. Supreme

Court Justices should and must be well versed

in the law and committed to applying it fairly.

That is the kind of justice I pledge to be: the

kind of justice you would want hearing your

case.

What was the most significant exper-ience in your legal career? Why?

Kloppenburg: My legal career is an evolv-

ing series of significant experiences, from work-

ing on special projects with the late Professor

Gordon Baldwin and interning with Chief Jus-

tice Abrahamson in law school and clerking for

Chief Judge Crabb, all of whom set the highest

standards while recognizing that real people and

lives lie behind every case, to serving the inter-

ests of the people of Wisconsin and striving to

do justice as an Assistant Attorney General at

the Department of Justice, arguing multiple times

before the Wisconsin Supreme Court and help-

ing to codify fundamental principles of consti-

tutional law in those cases, winning one of the

longest civil trials in DOJ history, helping im-

prove the quality of life for people and commu-

nities around the state, and gaining experience

with an ever-increasing number of new legal

issues.

Prosser: In 1969, I began work in the Of-

fice of Criminal Justice, United States Depart-

ment of Justice. In this capacity, I did research

on criminal justice issues, wrote speeches for

the Deputy Attorney General, and acted as a De-

partment liaison with Congress and the District

of Columbia government. I also met several

major actors in the forthcoming Watergate con-

troversy.

Six months after leaving Justice, I became

administrative assistant to Congressman Harold

Froehlich, a member of the House Judiciary

committee during the Watergate impeachment

inquiry. I was involved with Congressman

Froehlich during the entire impeachment process

“People around

the state urged

me to run and

are supporting

my candidacy

because Wiscon-

sin residents

want a Supreme

Court that is

fair, impartial

and focused on

the important

work justices are

elected to do.”

— JoAnne

Kloppenburg

Page 5March 2011 Vol. 79 No. 3

“My judicial

philosophy is

derived from my

extensive

experience

appearing

before judges

around the

state, at the trial

and appellate

levels.”

— JoAnne

Kloppenburg

and was present in the room when the

committee voted to impeach President Nixon. I

was extremely proud of Harold Froehlich’s

exemplary conduct and deeply saddened when

he was not re-elected because of his role.

The following year I worked for

Congressman Louis Wyman of New Hampshire

who had run for the Senate in 1974. Wyman

was not seated and eventually became another

victim of the Watergate controversy.

The Watergate experience had a profound

impact on my views about government power—

how it can be used and abused and how it can

harm innocent people. The stakes and stresses

of that experience have made succeeding

controversies seem inconsequential. Watergate

taught me that a public office is a public trust—

and that all public officials should act

accordingly. They should do their best and level

with the people. It has taught me that “reforms”

can have unintended, sometime adverse,

consequences. So beware—overreaction!

Who or what most influenced yourjudicial philosophy? Why?

Prosser: When I worked at the United

States Department of Justice in Washington, the

Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal

Counsel was a man named William Rehnquist.

I never met him face to face, but he was widely

known in the Department as a regular guy with

awesome intelligence. His style of writing—

which we saw in his speeches and testimony—

was simple and straightforward. His legal

analysis was insightful, linear, and easy to fol-

low.

One day, sitting in my office, I received atelephone call from William Rehnquistcomplimenting me on some testimony I hadwritten for the Deputy Attorney General. Hisunexpected call left an indelible impression on ayoung attorney. It reminds me today of the im-portance of acknowledging and complimentingthe excellent work of young colleagues.

A few months after this incident, whenRehnquist was nominated for a seat on the Su-preme Court, I became an even bigger fan. Ididn’t realize until years later that Rehnquist hadbeen born in Milwaukee, and I did not suspect

that he would go on to become Chief Justice.

William Rehnquist affected my judicial phi-

losophy—because he distrusted the concentra-

tion of power in government—and affected my

writing style. Another justice I met, Hugo Black,

also influenced my writing style. He wrote with

passion and had the ability to sum up a legal

principle in a pithy aphorism.

Kloppenburg: My judicial philosophy is de-

rived from my extensive experience appearing

before judges around the state, at the trial and

appellate levels. It is that people deserve a fair

day in court. That starts with campaigns free

of special interest money and big spending and

partisan attacks, so that people are confident

that the judges who are elected are independent

and impartial. It continues with judges who are

committed to the rule of law and upholding the

State and U.S. Constitutions. Practically it

means listening to arguments of parties and other

justices, applying the law free of politics or per-

sonal views, and writing decisions that are well

developed and well grounded, that make com-

mon sense and are clear, so judges and attor-

neys and Wisconsin citizens know what the

Court is saying and what the law is.

When you think about state SupremeCourt decisions in the past 10 years, isthere one that stands out asexceptionally wise or unwise?

Kloppenburg: The people I’ve met around

the state tell me that they perceive the Court’s

tied decision on the Gableman campaign ad, an

ad which people saw as unfair and untrue, fell

along partisan lines. They also tell me that it

wasn’t right for the Court to adopt verbatim

the recusal rule written by entities that appear

before the Court. Both decisions have dam-

aged the Court’s image as an independent and

impartial branch of government. The Court

needs new blood, and I will bring a new and

respectful dynamic to the Court and help re-

store public confidence in the Court’s indepen-

dence and impartiality.

Prosser: In the Wisconsin Supreme Court,

majority opinions are assigned by lot. On Oc-

tober 4, 2000, the case of Wisconsin Profes-

sional Police Association v. Lightbourn, 2001

WI 59, 243 Wis 2d 512, 627 N.W. 2d 807, was

argued, decided, and assigned to me. It turned

out to be the longest, most complicated case I

have ever had—the constitutionality of a $4 bil-

lion increase in pension benefits for public em-

ployees passed by the legislature.

The case was argued for more than two hours

and involved multiple attacks on the legislation.

“The Watergate

experience had

a profound

impact on my

views about

government

power—how it

can be used and

abused and how

it can harm

innocent

people.”

— David

Prosser

Page 6 The Wisconsin Taxpayer

Property Tax Assessment and Appeals

All had to be answered, including a challenge

that the bill failed to pass by a three-quarters

vote of all the members elected to both houses

of the legislature. See Article IV, Section 26,

Wisconsin Constitution.

My opinion upheld the constitutionality of the

legislation. It is a primer on public pension law,

articulates the basis for pension protections, and

discusses both state and federal constitutional

law. The case will serve as a guide in future

pension litigation and provided important author-

ity for my decision in Wisconsin Medical Soci-

ety v. Morgan, 2010 WI 94, 328 Wis 2d 469,

787 N.W. 2d 22, involving the $200 million trans-

fer from the Injured Patients and Families Com-

pensation Fund. o

Every December, property owners receive

a property tax bill in the mail. When the bill

amount increases, they are likely to blame

changes in home value or in local levies. But,

by then, it’s too late: Opportunities to appeal an

assessment or change a local budget are gone.

EQUALIZED VALUES

In reality, Wisconsin’s property tax process

begins in January, when the state begins its es-

timation of equalized values. Equalized values

are fair market property values estimated by the

Wisconsin Department of Revenue (DOR). In

contrast to a local assessment (see below), which

places a value on an individual property, DOR

estimates the fair market value for an aggrega-

tion of properties in a particular area. It begins

this process on January 1 and releases equal-

ized values for all taxing districts on August 15.

Equalized values are used to fairly distribute

total county, school, and technical college prop-

erty taxes among the municipalities within those

taxing districts. Because municipalities may not

update their local assessments every year, their

assessed values may not all be kept at 100% of

market value. Since their equalized values are

estimates of full market value, they can be used

to distribute property taxes among underlying

municipalities, ensuring that each taxpayer pays

their “fair share” based on the most current es-

timate of value.

Taxpayers cannot affect this part of the prop-

erty tax process. However, they may be able to

impact the assessed value of their individual prop-

erty or the size of the municipal, county, or

school tax levy.

LOCAL ASSESSMENTS

Local revaluation of property occurs annu-

ally in some municipalities and less frequently in

others. Wisconsin law requires municipalities

to reassess properties at least once every five

years. An assessor is responsible for valuing all

property other than manufacturing property,

which is assessed by DOR. The assessor,

elected or appointed, is required to pass an ex-

amination and be state certified. Assessment

usually takes place in the spring and is generally

finished by April or May.

When property is reassessed, its value may

increase, decrease, or stay the same. Several

factors affect value. Property improvements,

such as a new room or garage, would likely

increase value. In many municipalities, a build-

ing permit alerts the assessor to property im-

provements. A contaminated water supply or

failing septic system might adversely affect

property value.

In most cases, change in value reflects the

real estate market in the area. During the 1990s

and early 2000s, property values rose due largely

to a strong housing market. More recently, val-

ues have fallen as a result of the real estate mar-

ket decline.

It is important to note that an increased/de-

creased assessment does not mean more/less is

owed in property taxes. The tax levy is distrib-

uted based on an individual property’s share of

the municipality’s total value. If all properties

increase or decrease by the same amount and

the levy is unchanged, the tax on that property

will be unchanged. However, if the value of a

property increases or decreases more than other

properties, the tax on that property will rise or

fall.

APPEALS

When a municipal revaluation is complete,

property owners receive a notice of the new

assessed value. If the property owner feels the

assessment is too high, he or she can appeal,

but it must be done in a timely manner. Written

Page 7March 2011 Vol. 79 No. 3

DATA SOURCES:

Wisconsin Department of Revenue, Legislative FiscalBureau; WISTAX calculations.

or verbal notice of intent to file an objection must

be provided to the board of review’s clerk at

least 48 hours prior to the board’s first meeting.

A taxpayer who waits until property tax bills

arrive in mid-December has no recourse. Also,

property owners who refuse an assessor’s writ-

ten request by certified mail to view the prop-

erty cannot contest their assessment. For a

complete description of the process, Wisconsin’s

Property Assessment Appeal Guide can be found

online at www.revenue.wi.gov.

Board of Review

The board of review hears and decides prop-

erty assessment appeals. The board must sched-

ule its first meeting in the 30 days after the second

Monday in May (May 9th in 2011), but it may

schedule a later date if assessments are not com-

pleted.

A property owner who is unhappy with his

or her assessment should first talk with the lo-

cal assessor. Municipalities hold an “open book,”

during which assessments may be reviewed and

the assessor questioned. The assessment roll

must be open for a minimum of two hours prior

to the board of review’s first meeting. An indi-

vidual who believes a property is not fairly as-

sessed must file an objection during these two

hours.

Preparation. In making the decision to ap-

peal, the taxpayer should be aware that the

assessor’s value is presumed correct unless

proved otherwise by factual evidence presented

at the hearing. Also, small percentage differ-

ences in value are not sufficient to warrant a

change.

The property owner is expected to estab-

lish what he or she feels is the fair market value

of the property during the appeal. If the owner’s

property was recently purchased, the purchase

price is the best evidence of fair market value.

The next best indicator of current market value

is sale of comparable properties in the area.

These properties are affected by similar factors,

such as proximity to schools, parks, shopping,

or employment.

Taxpayers considering an appeal should call

their municipal clerk to verify dates for the open

book period and the board of review meeting.

Those pursuing an appeal must follow appeals

process guidelines.

Other Appeal Options

Individuals dissatisfied with the decision of

the board of review have two additional appeal

options. First, they may ask DOR to review the

board’s decision. Requests must be filed within

20 days of the board’s decision.

Second, taxpayers can also challenge the

board of review’s decision or DOR’s ruling with

the circuit court. The court does not hear new

evidence; rather, it looks at the prior record and

either upholds or invalidates the assessment.

That is why it is important to present all evi-

dence relating to the property assessment dur-

ing the board of review meeting.

PROPERTY TAX LEVIES

Although challenging an assessment is one

way to impact an individual’s property taxes,

taxpayers can also influence local property tax

levies by attending municipal, county, or school

board meetings and by contacting local officials.

It is the elected members of these boards that

determine property tax levies. Each year, local

officials budget their expenditures, then reduce

that amount by expected revenues (e.g., state

and federal aids). The remaining amount is lev-

ied through the property tax.

Budget Discussions

The property tax is the largest single rev-

enue source for local governments in Wiscon-

sin. Although the tax levy is not finalized until

the fall, local government budget discussions

usually begin in June, and sometimes earlier. It

is during this time that board members begin

developing budgets for the following year.

In Wisconsin, property tax bills that arrive

in December provide government revenues for

the following year. For example, property tax

bills mailed in December 2011 are to pay for

services provided by local governments in 2012.

For school districts, December 2011 property taxes

fund expenditures for the 2011-12 school year.

In the spring, summer, and fall, taxpayers

should attend local budget meetings if they want

to influence the tax levy—and December tax

bills. During that time, taxpayers can voice their

concerns to their local officials. However, be-

cause the budget process begins more than six

months before property tax bills arrive, few tax-

payers get involved. o

DecemberProperty tax

bills arrive

Oct./Nov.Local budgets

finalized/tax

levies set

AugustEqualized values

released by DOR

JuneLocal budget

process begins

May/JuneBoard of review

convenes

April/MayLocal

assessments

usually

completed

JanuaryDOR begins

equalization

process

PERIODICALS

USPS 688-800

Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance401 North Lawn Avenue • Madison, WI 53704-5033

608.241.9789 • www.wistax.org

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance, founded in 1932, is the state’s oldest and most respected private government-research organization. Through its publications, civic

lectures, and school talks, WISTAX aims to improve Wisconsin government through citizen education. Nonprofit, nonpartisan, and independently funded, WISTAX is not

affiliated with any group—national, state, or local—and receives no government support.

WISTAX NOTES

n Below-Average County Tax Increase. Recently re-

leased 2010-11 county property tax levies show a below-

average increase this year (see graph, right). Statewide,

county tax levies were up 2.0%, the smallest one-year

increase since a 1.1% drop in 1983.

Eleven of 72 counties reduced their levy from the prior

year, with Brown County (-2.2%) reporting the largest drop

from 2009-10. An additional 14 counties increased their

levies less than one percent, while 21 had increases be-

tween one and three percent. Door and Marquette coun-

ties had the largest tax levy hikes, rising 8.9% and 10.2%,

respectively. A complete list of current and prior year

county tax levies is available online at www.wistax.org/

facts.

n Venture Capital Investment Up. Wisconsin com-

panies attracted $122 million in venture capital funding in

2010. According to figures from PricewaterCoopers, in-

vestments were up over 400% from just $24 million in

2009. Promising young companies often turn to venture

capital investors, rather than traditional lenders, for start-

up funding. Growth in venture capital disbursements is

one indication of the entrepreneurial health of an economy.

Nationally, venture capital funding totalled $21.8 billion,

19% above 2009 amounts. California companies received

over half of all venture capital funding in the U.S.

n Average Hourly Earnings. Wisconsin private sector

workers earned an average of $21.35 per hour in 2010.

That amount was up from $21.12 in 2009 and $20.67 in

2008, according to figures from the Bureau of Labor Sta-

tistics. Wisconsin’s average hourly rate was below that

of all neighboring states except Iowa ($20.38). Minne-

sota ($23.84) was highest, followed by Illinois ($23.08)

and Michigan ($22.25). Compared nationally, hourly earn-

ings here averaged 5.6% below the U.S. ($22.61).

wis tax

2011 County Property Tax Increase Below AverageAnnual Change in Statewide County Property Tax Levies

4%

3%

2%

1%

3.53.2

4.5

3.1 3.2

2.0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

n E-Filing Tax Returns. Wisconsin Department of Rev-

enue (DOR) officials are encouraging people to file their

2010 income tax returns electronically to receive a faster

refund. According to DOR, electronic filing is free, is

confidential, and can help eliminate mistakes. Filers using

the state’s e-filing website can receive their tax refund in a

few days. More than 75% of taxpayers are expected to e-

file this year.

WISTAX FOCUS

n New Administration, New Priorities. With every new

governor comes new priorities and goals. “Pendulum

swings, priorities shift, big promises made” (Focus #1-

11) reviews and compares Republican Governor Scott

Walker’s inaugural address with that of Democratic Gov-

ernor Jim Doyle’s eight years ago.

Both governors called for bipartisanship, job creation,

quality education, and a clean environment. Both also prom-

ised to put an end to recurring budget deficits without in-

creasing taxes. However, while Doyle stressed the

importance of public service and the need for “clean and

honest government,” the theme of Walker’s address was

jobs—specifically his goal to create 250,000 new jobs by

2015. o