10. Sales Tax on Timeshare Property
11. Sales Tax Exemption for Medicine Samples
12. Sales and Use Tax Agreements with Direct Marketers
OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF RAILROADS
13. Office of the Commissioner of Railroads Staff
REVENUE
14. Alcohol Beverage Regulation
15. County Sales Tax Administrative Fee
16. Premier Resort Area Tax Administrative Fee
17. Report on Alternative Methods of Filing
18. Property Assessment Manual on CD-ROM
SHARED REVENUE AND TAX RELIEF
19. Garbage and Trash Disposal and Collection
20. Payments for Municipal Services Funding
__________________
VETO ITEMS
A. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
arts BOARD
1. Percent-for-Art Program
Sections 9hm, 233rb, 233 re, 1346sf, 1346sj, 1346wg and 9105 (1g)
These provisions delete the Percent-For-Art program. This program provides funding from the State Building Commission to include works of art in state buildings.
I am vetoing these provisions in order to retain the Percent-for-Art program. While I agree with concerns that the program's scope should be limited to exclude projects in prisons, warehouses, sidewalks and similar facilities, the basic program has merit and should be retained. While this veto retains the program, I am requesting the Building Commission to develop policies which reflect the Legislature's support for restricting the types of projects funded.
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AIDS BOARD
2. Academic Excellence Scholarship Program
Section 1277d
This provision requires the Higher Educational Aids Board (HEAB) and the Department of Public Instruction (DPI) to jointly develop tiebreaker guidelines for the academic excellence scholarship program.
I am vetoing this section in its entirety. The effect of this veto will be to retain local school district responsibility for the development of tiebreaker guidelines. The rules for determining class rank, which determine eligibility for an Academic Excellence Scholarship, are most appropriately the responsibility of local school boards.
3. Maximum Allowable Revenue Increase
Section 2898m limits school district revenue increases in the 1997-98 school year. It provides that, in 1997-98, school district revenues may not grow by more than $206 per full-time equivalent pupil plus the annual percentage increase, in dollar terms, of the consumer price index for urban consumers between March 1996 and March 1997.
I am vetoing this section to maintain the allowable increase per pupil in 1997-98 at $206. School districts should have already developed 1997-98 budgets based on the $206 increase. This veto will permit districts to increase their revenues by $206 per pupil in fiscal year 1997-98 and by approximately $211 per pupil in fiscal year 1998-99. These amounts will provide the vast majority of school districts with an annual per pupil adjustment that will exceed inflation throughout the 1997-99 biennium.
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (ac)] provides $2,800,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 to pay for the additional revenue increase per pupil. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Senate amendment to the bill. By lining out the Department of Public Instruction's s.
20.255 (2) (ac) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $2,800,000 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1997-98, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision in fiscal year 1997-98. The effect of this veto will be to reduce expenditures in the appropriation under s.
20.255 (2) (ac) by $2,800,000 in fiscal year 1997-98. In addition, this veto will also reduce estimated expenditures in the appropriation under s.
20.255 (2) (ac) in fiscal year 1998-99 by $3,400,000. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Administration Secretary to reestimate fiscal year 1998-99 expenditures by $3,400,000.
4. Student Achievement Guarantee in Education
Section 2842z
This provision authorizes the Department of Public Instruction to waive the current eligibility requirements for the Student Achievement Guarantee in Education (SAGE) program in fiscal year 1998-99 to allow more school districts to participate in the program if any eligible school districts choose not to participate.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to the potential expansion of the SAGE program to districts that do not meet the current eligibility requirements. The SAGE program should be dedicated to those districts that have an above average number of low-income pupils. The effect of this veto is to honor the Legislature's recommendation to provide $5,700,000 in fiscal year 1998-99 to implement the SAGE program in kindergarten and first grade for districts that meet the current eligibility requirements.
5. Revenue Limits--School Districts with Declining Enrollments
Section 2902v
This section provides that, beginning in 1998-99 and thereafter, a school district with a decline in its three-year rolling enrollment average would receive a three-year revenue limit adjustment providing a dollar amount equal to: (1) 75% of the revenues lost in the most recent year; (2) 50% of the revenues lost in the second most recent year; and (3) 25% of the revenues lost in the third most recent year. No further adjustments would be provided after the third year. These adjustments would be non-recurring and calculated separately.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the adjustment to district revenues in 1999-2000 and thereafter. This veto will not affect the declining enrollment provisions in this act for the 1997-99 biennium. However, while providing some immediate fiscal relief to districts with declining enrollments is reasonable, the fiscal impact of enrollment changes, both increasing and decreasing, needs a more comprehensive review. I will work with the Legislature to permanently resolve this issue in a way that will address both state and school district concerns.
6. Date Requirement for Full-Time and Part-Time Open Enrollment Policies
Sections 2843g and 2843r
These sections provide that school boards must adopt guidelines and policies for full-time and part-time open enrollment by December 1, 1997.
Due to the late passage of the 1997-99 biennial budget bill, I am partially vetoing these sections by striking the digit "1", thereby providing school boards with the entire month of December to fulfill these requirements as they relate to these programs. Given the delayed passage of the budget, school boards should have additional time to adopt guidelines and policies for the open enrollment program.
7. Wisconsin Educational Opportunity Program
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (1) (a)] provides $68,900 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $137,800 in fiscal year 1998-99 for an additional 3.0 FTE positions for the Wisconsin Educational Opportunity Program (WEOP). Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Senate amendment to the bill.
A330
By lining out DPI's s.
20.255 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $206,700 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal years 1997-98 and 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds these 3.0 FTE positions. With the Senate's restoration of the proposed reduction to DPI's base budget, the Department will have additional resources beyond what was originally anticipated. If expanding WEOP services is a DPI priority, consideration should be given to the internal reallocation of resources. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds. Furthermore, I am requesting the Secretary not to authorize 3.0 GPR FTE positions.
State historical society
8. Nonresident Library Fee
Sections 1345ej, 1345em and 9424 (1x)
These sections require the Historical Society to charge a fee for the use of the main library or for research services to any nonresident who is not a member of the Historical Society, a member of the faculty or academic staff of the University of Wisconsin or a student enrolled in a University of Wisconsin campus. Section 1345em also requires the society to submit a fee schedule to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) for approval under a passive review process.
I am partially vetoing section 1345em to remove JCF approval of the fee schedule because this adds an unnecessary level of review on an administrative matter that should be determined by the Historical Society's Board of Curators. I am partially vetoing sections 1345ej, 1345em and 9424 (1x) because I also object to the requirement that the Historical Society charge a fee for the use of the main library. While charging a fee for research services is reasonable considering the substantial level of staff resources that are involved in such activities, charging a fee for nonresidents' use of the publicly accessible resources of the main library would be administratively cumbersome and unlikely to generate sufficient revenue to cover costs. The Historical Society will still be required to charge a fee to nonresidents who are provided research services by the society.
Technology for Educational Achievement in wisconsin board (Teach)
9. TEACH Membership
Section 52
This provision authorizes the chairperson of the Educational Communications Board (ECB) to appoint a member of the ECB to the TEACH Board.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the ECB chairperson's responsibility for appointing a member of the ECB to the TEACH Wisconsin Board. The effect of this veto will be to retain ECB membership on the TEACH Board while giving appointing authority for this position to the Governor. Since the Governor is ultimately accountable for the success of the TEACH program, he or she should have primary responsibility for appointing members of the TEACH Board.
10. Emergency Rulemaking
Sections 1347 [as it relates to s.
44.72 (1) (d) and
(4) (a)], 3150, 9101 (9m), (9s) and (13p) and 9141 (1)
These provisions require the TEACH Board to do the following:
• Promulgate rules establishing procedures and criteria for awarding educational technology training and technical assistance grants.
• Promulgate rules for making subsidized educational technology infrastructure loans.
• Promulgate emergency rules related to educational technology and software purchases by school districts, cooperative educational service agencies, technical college districts and the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents.
• Submit all proposed rules to the Joint Committee on Finance for a 14 day passive review.
Furthermore, these provisions require the PSC to do the following:
• Consult with the Telecommunications Privacy Council before promulgating rules related to the telecommunications access program.
• Submit proposed rules for the telecommunications access program to the Joint Committee on Finance for a passive 14 day review.
I am partially vetoing all of these provisions because I object to having the Legislature manage agency programs and to creating additional demands on agencies at a time when budgets are constrained. Furthermore, the TEACH Board and PSC need the flexibility to respond to the rapidly changing distance education and educational technology environments.
11. Technology Grants for Public Libraries
This provision creates a competitive technology grant program for public libraries and provides funding of $450,000 GPR annually.
I am partially vetoing this provision to delete the separate technology grant program for public libraries. Public libraries will receive a substantial increase in support through an additional $2.6 million provided in the budget for Public Library Systems Aids. In addition, the TEACH program will provide public libraries with subsidized loans for technology wiring projects, subsidized rates for Internet access and an opportunity to receive state funding for technical assistance and technology training.
12. Common School Fund Income Block Grants
Section 270 stipulates that Common School Fund Income (CSFI) monies cannot be used to fund educational technology block grants to school districts after June 30, 1998.
A331
I am partially vetoing these sections to delete the June 30, 1998 sunset date on these block grants. Providing technology block grants to school districts is a central feature of the TEACH program. As Wisconsin moves into the 21st century, a concerted effort must be made to help school districts adapt to the technological demands of public instruction in the future. Retaining CSFI funding of school district technology needs will provide the resources necessary to assist school districts to integrate the latest technological innovations into the classroom, while preserving the CSFI's traditional role of providing financial support to school libraries.
university of wisconsin system
13. Sunset of Tuition Revenue Expenditure Authority
Sections 280 and 281
These provisions authorize the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System to expend up to four percent more than the amount appropriated in the appropriation under s.
20.285(1) (im) in FY98 and seven percent more than the amount appropriated in the appropriation under s.
20.285(1) (im) in FY99, provided that sufficient revenues are available. These provisions also include sunset dates for this additional expenditure authority, so that this authority does not apply after the 1997-99 fiscal biennium.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to eliminate the sunset dates because this authority provides the Board of Regents with the continuing flexibility it will require to meet rapidly changing student needs, including distance education, libraries, advising, faculty recruitment and retention and other emerging priorities.
14. Executive Salaries
Sections 756c and 758
These provisions establish new maximum salaries for the following executive positions within the University of Wisconsin System: president, vice presidents, chancellors of each campus and certain vice chancellors.
I am vetoing these provisions because there is insufficient documentation that the current salary maximums create recruitment and retention problems for all the administrators listed in section 756c. Under current law, the maximum salaries for executive positions within the University of Wisconsin System are already at the highest level of any executive position in state government. However, I recognize that in selected cases, especially with respect to the recruitment of chancellors, the salary maximums may hamper the ability of the Board of Regents to attract the most highly qualified candidates. Therefore, I am requesting the Secretary of the Department of Employment Relations to conduct an analysis of the competitiveness of the salary structure for the University of Wisconsin's top administrators, especially chancellors, compared to public universities in other states. Furthermore, I request that the study be completed by January 31, 1998.
15. Auxiliary Enterprises
Sections 273, 277 and 1173s
