Wisconsin Senate Bill SB819

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/14/26
• Refer: 1/14/26
• Report Pass: 3/2/26
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 86.31 (1) (b), 86.31 (2) (b) and 86.31 (2) (e); to repeal and recreate 86.31 (2) (h); to create 86.31 (1) (an), 86.31 (1) (g), 86.31 (2) (hm), 86.31 (2) (hs), 86.31 (2) (i), 86.31 (2) (j), 86.31 (2) (k) and 86.31 (2) (L) of the statutes; Relating to: administration of town road improvements under the local roads improvement program. (FE)

Summary

SB819 revises the administration of Wisconsin’s Local Roads Improvement Program (LRIP), with a particular focus on town road projects. The bill creates a new statewide town road improvement committee within the Department of Transportation (DOT), county-level town road improvement committees in each county, and regional town road improvement committees tied to Wisconsin Towns Association districts. These bodies would set selection criteria, rank projects, recommend projects for funding, and coordinate project facilitation for LRIP’s discretionary and supplemental grant components. The bill also adds a series of application, ranking, and contract deadlines that structure the program on an odd-year/even-year cycle. The bill also changes eligibility and oversight rules for LRIP projects. It removes additional statutory limits on funding double seal coat projects and bars DOT from using categorical assumptions about paving materials or construction methods when deciding whether a project has a projected design life of at least 10 years. Instead, any finding that a project lacks a 10-year design life must be based on a review of the particular project by a registered professional engineer or county highway commissioner. SB819 further restricts county involvement by prohibiting counties from contracting for projects when they prepared the estimate, from preparing estimates for projects in other counties, and from starting work before required notifications and bidder review periods are met; counties that violate these rules can be barred from contracting with towns for LRIP projects for two years.

Impact

SB819 would amend Wisconsin Statutes section 86.31 governing the Local Roads Improvement Program, changing how town road improvement projects are selected, ranked, facilitated, and contracted. It would shift more formal authority into newly created statewide, county-level, and regional committees, impose mandatory timelines on towns, counties, facilitators, and DOT, and alter the standards DOT may use to evaluate whether a project qualifies as an eligible improvement. The bill also affects counties, town boards, county highway commissioners, DOT, and town officials by tightening contracting and estimate-preparation rules and by creating a two-year penalty for certain county violations.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been introduced as a program-administration measure aimed at giving towns a more structured role in LRIP decision-making and reducing DOT discretion in project eligibility determinations. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no direct evidence of debate or bipartisan support in the materials supplied. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1, indicating it did not advance to enactment despite being formally introduced.

Contention

The main points of potential contention are the bill’s redistribution of control over LRIP projects and its limits on DOT and county discretion. Supporters would likely view the committee structure, deadlines, and project-facilitation rules as improving local input and predictability for town road funding. Opponents could object to the added administrative layers, the mandatory use of designated facilitators, the restrictions on county contracting and estimate preparation, and the removal of DOT’s ability to rely on general design-life assumptions or to apply stricter limits to double seal coat projects. The bill’s penalty that bars counties from town contracting for two years after certain violations may also be seen as a significant enforcement measure.