Month: June 2026

While Wisconsin will need less new housing than previously projected to maintain the status quo, a new Forward Analytics report argues the state should set its sights higher than “building for a low-end estimate.”

The report shows the state will need around 84,000 new housing units by 2030 to match its working-age population trend. That’s a substantial decline from earlier estimates, which put the number around 140,000 in 2023 based on less dramatic forecasts of Wisconsin’s working-age population decline.

While building 84,000 new units by 2030 is the minimum needed to match slowing workforce growth, authors say setting a high-end goal of 228,000 units would “allow for the full reversal of working-age population loss” through in-migration. It would also help address demand among younger would-be buyers who’ve been unable to purchase housing.

“This is the level of ambition Wisconsin’s housing policy should reflect,” authors wrote.

The group’s call to action comes as Wisconsin’s working-age population is now projected to fall by 6.6% or nearly 200,000 people between 2020 and 2030, a larger drop than previously expected. The majority of that decline will be among those aged 55-64, the report shows.

Despite the demographic challenge ahead, permitting trends show some promise for meeting housing targets, according to the report. From 2020-2025, the state issued 138,424 permits for housing units, “far outpacing” the low-end estimate of about 84,000 units by 2023.

“If the state maintains this average permit issuance through 2030, even the highest-level estimate is within reach,” authors wrote.

But other factors are also constraining housing growth, as lot creation acts as a bottleneck for further development. From 2020-2025, the state had an average of 5,600 lots created per year, up from 4,600 per year over the prior five years.

But authors note that’s far below the pre-Great Recession era when that figure exceeded 14,000 per year on average, even as the latest figure reached its highest level since 2007 just last year.

And while Wisconsin is generally keeping up with housing demand, authors say, they argue doing that alone “is not the same” as making progress.

“The next few years of lot creation and permit data will signal which path Wisconsin is on … Permitting has increased in recent years as well, but these incremental increases may not be enough to make up for years of lower construction and underdevelopment,” authors wrote.

The Universities of Wisconsin Board of Regents approved a plan on Thursday to increase tuition across the state’s public university system for the fourth time in as many years.

The Board of Regents voted 15-1 to approve the proposal. It will raise in-state undergraduate tuition by 2 percent and student fees by an average of 3.5 percent for the upcoming school year.

Regent Timothy Nixon voted against the increase, saying he felt raising tuition would burden students and parents with higher costs.

He also said he worried it could come back to bite the university system in future state budget cycles.

“The only thing that the people who control the checkbook and the people that vote for the people that control the checkbook will hear is that we’re increasing tuition four years in a row,” Nixon said at the finance committee meeting. “I think this $22 million will cost us hundreds of millions of dollars in the budget cycle. I don’t think it’s worth it.”

Republicans at the state Capitol have already taken issue with the proposal.

The presumptive GOP nominee for governor, U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, was critical of the university system on social media Tuesday, saying he would implement a tuition freeze if elected.

Republican former Gov. Scott Walker implemented a tuition freeze in 2013, which kept in-state tuition for undergraduates flat. It ended in 2023.

On Monday, the Wisconsin Department of Safety and Professional Services (DSPS) announced new state safety codes for electrical and plumbing work will take effect September 1. Beginning on that date, any electrical or plumbing plans submitted for review to DSPS or its delegated agents must adhere to the new code requirements.

The interim update to Wisconsin’s plumbing code provides clarity for stakeholders by addressing inconsistencies between the current state plumbing code, other DSPS rules, and some national standards the department has adopted.

The electrical code update adopts 2023 National Electrical Code (NEC) standards, with specific changes and omissions to ensure it conforms to Wisconsin statutes and is consistent with DSPS procedure. The current Wisconsin electrical code is based on 2017 NEC standards.

The new plumbing and electrical codes are set to be published on June 29, 2026 and take effect
September 1, 2026.

Starting October 1, the code changes will be reflected in questions on the trades exams offered by Wisconsin DSPS and third-party testing company Pearson Vue.

On Monday, The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) released an Interim Final Rule with Comment (IFC) requiring that certain adult Medicaid applicants and enrollees must, as a condition of Medicaid eligibility, meet an 80 hours per month work requirement, through employment, education, work programs, or community service. The rule establishes a nationwide operational framework designed to promote economic stability, self-sufficiency, and independence.

Issued under Public Law 119-21, which CMS refers to as the Working Families Tax Cut (WFTC) legislation, the rule establishes the standards states must use to implement the statutory work requirement, including clear expectations for eligibility determinations, exemptions, verification, and state reporting requirements. It reflects extensive coordination with states and builds on CMS’ ongoing work to modernize eligibility systems and improve beneficiary interactions with states, while improving accountability.

This rule defines which adults ages 19 through 64 will be required to demonstrate work requirement activities. The rule also defines which individuals are not subject to the requirement because of health-related needs and other qualifying circumstances. These exemptions include, but are not limited to, individuals who are pregnant, postpartum, disabled, medically frail, American Indian or Alaska Native, parents or caregivers of young children and people with disabilities, and those who are already complying with similar requirements through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.

The rule also includes state data reporting requirements and establishes requirements for how states must assess and verify compliance and communicate the new requirement to Medicaid applicants and beneficiaries. These provisions are expected to promote transparency, reduce administrative burden, and ensure states provide clear, actionable guidance to new applicants and Medicaid beneficiaries on how to meet the new eligibility requirement.

CMS is supporting states as they implement the requirement through a combination of federal resources, technical assistance, and private-sector collaboration. This includes $200 million in Government Efficiency Grants authorized under the WFTC legislation to support state system modernization and administrative capacity, as well as more than $600 million in committed support from private-sector technology vendors to help states update eligibility and enrollment systems, and support for outreach to Medicaid beneficiaries. These investments build on CMS’ broader modernization efforts, including expanding the use of automation, data integration, and real-time verification to improve efficiency, strengthen oversight, and enhance the beneficiary experience.

The work requirement must be implemented no later than January 1, 2027, in applicable states, although some states—such as Nebraska —has already implemented, and other states are considering early implementation.

President Trump on Monday adjusted tariffs on some aluminum, copper and steel imports.

In a proclamation, the president lowered tariffs on some aluminum and steel derivative products, including agricultural equipment and certain heating, air conditioning and ventilation systems, from 25 percent to 15 percent.

President Trump initially imposed 25 percent tariffs on aluminum and steel derivative products on April 2. In doing so, he cited Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 — which gives the president the authority to impose restrictions on imports under national security grounds.

The president stated Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recommended that he reduce those tariffs, citing “recent circumstances” that “have affected and are affecting” domestic industries that use the aforementioned equipment.

“These products also serve an important role in productive domestic economic activity,” the proclamation states. “For example, American farmers use agricultural equipment to produce the food upon which our Nation relies; construction equipment is essential for the continued reindustrialization of our Nation; and material-handling equipment enables industrial logistics and factory operations.”

Under the order, companies from certain foreign countries can qualify for a 10 percent tariff on products “composed” entirely of aluminum or steel that was melted and poured in the U.S.

That provision applies to companies located in Argentina, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Japan, Liechtenstein, South Korea, Switzerland, Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the European Union.

As for Canadian and Mexican products “that qualify for preferential tariff treatment” under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement on trade, 25 percent tariffs will apply “only to the non-U.S. content” of the product.

“For purposes of this clause, ‘non-U.S. content’ means the total value of the product minus the value attributable to parts produced in the United States,” the proclamation reads.

President Trump first implemented Section 232 tariffs on aluminum and steel imports in 2018, during his first term in office.

The U.S. Department of Labor’s Wage and Hour Division today issued four opinion letters designed to promote clarity, consistency, and transparency in the application of federal wage and hour standards under the Fair Labor Standards Act.

The opinion letters provide official written interpretations from the division that address real-world questions from individuals, companies, or organizations. They explain how the FLSA applies to the specific factual circumstances presented and may also have a broader interest to others impacted by the same or similar issues.

“Opinion letters explain how the laws enforced by the division apply in specific situations and circumstances that are faced by employees, employers, and others every day across America,” said Wage and Hour Division Administrator Andrew Rogers. “The letters issued today explicate important and longstanding principles under the Fair Labor Standards Act, including compensable time, exemptions, and bonuses included in the regular rate of pay.”

The following opinion letters were issued today:

• FLSA2026-5: Whether an employee exempt pursuant to paragraph 13(a)(1) of the FLSA can perform additional work in a secondary role at an hourly rate, and, if so, what overtime implications may arise.
• FLSA2026-6: Whether a bonus calculated by comparing an employee’s total straight-time and overtime earnings to the total straight-time and overtime earnings of all employees eligible for the bonus is a “percentage of total earnings” bonus under 29 C.F.R. 778.210 that provides for the simultaneous payment of any overtime compensation due on the bonus, thus satisfying the FLSA’s overtime pay requirement.
• FLSA2026-7: Whether time spent during a meal break voluntarily traversing an employer’s premises and passing through a controlled access entry and exit is compensable under the FLSA when the employer allots employees a 30-minute meal period during which they are allowed to remain on the premises.
• FLSA2026-8: Whether certain pre-shift activities by hospital employees are compensable work and, if so, whether the hospital’s practice of rounding employees’ clock-in time to their scheduled shift start time is permissible.