The battle over Wisconsin’s Shared Revenue Program has been simmering for decades, but over the last week that simmer turned to a boil with the release of the legislature's proposed changes to the program. Although the proposal would increase funding to communities throughout the state, these funds come with some major strings attached, including changes to how local democracy works in Milwaukee.
Philip Rocco is an associate professor of political science at Marquette University, and he’s been studying the GOP proposal along with a dueling proposal from Governor Evers.
He explains that shared revenue from the state is the second largest source of revenue for local governments behind the property tax and is used to fund services including: police, fire departments, libraries and parks. The fund was originally created as a compromise between the state and local governments, allowing the state to control the majority of tax funds in Wisconsin, but redistributing the money to communities most impacted by this loss of local tax control.
"Shared revenue is not like a gift that the state gives to local governments because it wants to, it’s actually part of this overall bargain between the local governments and the state about how they’re going to share access to those sorts of revenues," says Rocco.
"Shared revenue is not like a gift that the state gives to local governments because it wants to, it’s actually part of this overall bargain between the local governments and the state."Phil Rocco
But since 2003, the amount given back to communities through the program has remained unchanged. If it had risen with inflation, Rocco says the program would be giving an additional $819 M in aid. Neither the plan proposed by Republicans in the legislature, nor the plan proposed by Gov. Evers, include funding that much funding. The plan from Republicans includes strict rules on how these funds can be spent, which is counter to the original intent of the program.
Rocco explains, "[Gov. Evers] released a plan that adds about $576 Million. Over half of that is general purpose [that] governments can use it for what they need. The Republican Assembly plan adds about half of that only about $ 277 M, and none of that money is general purpose. It is all restricted purpose ... that is where the similarities between the two plans end. They are different in almost every other important respect."
Most areas in the state wouldn't receive nearly as much money through the legislature's proposal as they would through Gov. Evers' counterproposal. Under the GOP proposal, the amount of money per-person varies drastically among communities.
"Under thee Republican bill, we can take one town: the small town of Cedar Rapids, which is in Rusk County and has a population of about 36. It would get about $865 per capita [per person] in aid. By contrast, the City of Milwaukee, population 577,000ish: it would get about $414 per capita in aid," says Rocco.
One of the main issues of contention is the stipulations put on how Milwaukee can spend its funds and the requirements it must meet in order to be eligible for this money. In its current form, the legislature's bill would, among other things, remove power from Milwaukee's civilian-led Fire and Police Commission, require police to maintain the number of arrests from previous years (arrest quotas), remove municipalities' ability to have advisory referendums, and bar Milwaukee from using these funds on upkeep for The Hop.
Despite the difference in opinion between lawmakers in the state, Rocco believes there may be room for compromise, but it's unclear what a final plan may look like.
Rocco says, "I think we're going to see that shake out in the next week or two. We'll get some clarity on what is the most important to both [Governor] Evers, local officials, of course, around the state as well as Assembly Republicans themselves."
_
