26. First Right of Refusal
Sections 767r, 767t, 767v and 960g
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to offer the first right of purchase of any land the department decides to sell to all previous owners. If the previous owners do not make an offer to purchase the land, the department must offer the right of purchase to immediate family members of the previous owners.
I am vetoing these sections because the requirements are burdensome and administratively unworkable. These sections do not address important issues such as multiple owners, application of the immediate family member provision for land not acquired from an individual, and the process for locating previous owners and immediate family. However, I do recognize the goals of this provision and request the department to review these options and work with interested legislators to develop separate legislation on this issue.
27. Required Studies and Approvals
Sections 322m, 381r, 381t, 381v, 779, 783v, 948m, 1041, 1042, 1139rv, 4194, 9137 (3g), 9137 (11t) and 9437 (9xoj)
These provisions require the Department of Natural Resources to do the following:
• Receive Joint Committee on Finance approval before expending funds under the wildlife damage control and claims program.
• Receive Joint Committee on Finance approval before entering into tribal licensing and registration reciprocity agreements with any American Indian tribe or band.
• Receive Joint Committee on Finance passive approval before entering into a contract to operate an automated campground reservation system.
• Study the feasibility of paving state bicycle trails and submit the study to the Legislature by July 1, 1998.
• Prepare statutory language concerning access to the department's databases that contain information regarding persons holding hunting or fishing licenses and recreational vehicle registrations and submit the language to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Joint Committee on Information Policy by January 1, 1998.
I am vetoing all of these provisions because I object to having the Legislature manage agency programs and creating additional demands on the department at a time when budgets are constrained.
28. Vehicle Fleet Pool Expenditure Request and Revenue Lapse
Sections 448, 9137 (7m) and 9237 (2q)
A339
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to submit an expenditure plan to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) before expending funds under s.
20.370 (8) (mt) for information technology. Also the department is required to lapse $520,000 SEG-S in each fiscal year from the vehicle pool account under s.
20.370 (8) (mt) to the conservation fund.
I am partially vetoing section 448 and vetoing sections 9137 (7m) and 9237 (2q) to remove JCF oversight and the required lapse because they needlessly infringe on the department's authority. Implementation of information technology is central to achieving streamlined programs that reduce costs and improve service. A cumbersome approval process undercuts this goal. The required lapse would also limit the resources available for information technology investments. I recognize the goal of the lapse provision is to limit vehicle purchases and I request the department to review new vehicle acquisitions in light of reductions required of the Departments of Administration and Transportation and the University of Wisconsin System.
State fair park
29. Racing Contract
Sections 9107 (14t) and 9132 (2t)
These provisions require the Legislative Audit Bureau to review the State Fair Park Board's racing contract prior to release of $3,048,000 PR-supported bonding for racetrack improvements by the State Building Commission.
I am vetoing these provisions because the Legislative Audit Bureau's review could delay the start date for improvements as approved by the Building Commission. In addition, the Legislative Audit Bureau reviewed the contract in 1996, and its provisions have not been significantly altered since that time.
TOURISM
30. County Tourism Aids
Sections 169 [as it relates to s.
20.380 (1) (c)], 458m, 458p, 9148 (3m) and 9448
These sections provide $30,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $45,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to the counties of Pierce, Polk, and Florence as compensation for distribution of tourism materials.
I am vetoing this provision because of the precedent it establishes for compensating any organization that distributes tourism materials. The Department of Tourism currently spends more than $7,000,000 annually to market all areas of the state as tourism destinations. This includes spending related to the development of tourism publications and their dissemination to local governments, organizations, and other interested parties. Providing funds to distribute these materials undermines the general goal of tourism marketing for the entire state.
31. Sale of Surplus Property
Sections 459 and 1327
Section 459 authorizes the expenditure of proceeds from the sale of surplus state property for tourism promotion. Section 1327 authorizes the department to acquire and sell surplus state property, with 50 percent of the revenue deposited in the general fund and 50 percent deposited in a new tourism promotion--surplus property appropriation.
I am partially vetoing these sections to delete the requirement that 50 percent of the revenue be deposited in the general fund because these proceeds will be of greater benefit to tourism promotion. Estimated revenue from the sale of surplus property would have a negligible effect on the general fund. As a result of this veto, 100 percent of the revenue would be deposited in a new tourism promotion appropriation.
transportation
32. Transportation Studies
Sections 2485m and 9149 (3g), (3gh) and (5g)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to conduct studies of build-operate-lease or transfer agreements, value-based and horsepower-based vehicle registration fees, and major highway project passing lanes. In addition, the department is required to submit a major highway development finance plan, biennially, beginning October 1, 1998.
I am vetoing sections 2485m and 9149 (5g) to eliminate the major highway project development finance plan and the study of major highway project passing lanes because both of these matters are already the subject of comprehensive reviews and analysis. Transportation finance was recently studied in an audit by the Legislative Audit Bureau, in a review by the legislatively mandated Transportation Finance Study Committee and in a bonding study commissioned by the Departments of Transportation and Administration. In addition, the Department of Transportation is continuously evaluating the need for passing lanes on highways with safety and capacity concerns and will continue to do so in the future.
I am partially vetoing sections 9149 (3g) and 9149 (3gh) to eliminate the reporting dates for the studies of value-based and horsepower-based registration fees and build-operate-lease or transfer agreements because the department needs additional time to conduct these studies due to the delayed budget enactment and administrative reductions. Instead, I am requesting that the department complete both of these studies by June 1, 1999. This will correspond with the due date of the highway bypass study that the Legislature directed the department to conduct.
33. Transportation Projects Commission
Sections 10q and 9149 (1h)
A340
Section 10q prohibits the Transportation Projects Commission from making recommendations concerning the enumeration of additional major highway projects before November 15, 2002 and the Department of Transportation from assisting the Transportation Projects Commission with any study or cost estimate on potential major highway projects before July 1, 1999. Section 9149 (1h) requires the Legislative Council to study the Transportation Projects Commission and the major highway project enumeration process.
I am vetoing section 10q because it restricts the Transportation Projects Commission from recommending for enumeration additional major highway projects that may be needed throughout the state. However, I understand the need for fiscal responsibility before enumerating new projects. For this reason, I did not veto the provision that prohibits the Transportation Projects Commission from recommending additional projects unless it is determined that construction on all major highway projects can be started within six years.
I am vetoing section 9149 (1h) because another study of this subject is unnecessary. Instead, I am requesting the Transportation Projects Commission to make recommendations on potential changes to improve the major highway project selection process.
34. Evaluation of Proposed Major Highway Projects
Sections 10g, 2476m and 9149 (2m)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to promulgate rules establishing a scoring system, including a minimum score, to evaluate proposed major highway projects. The initial rules must be submitted by April 1, 1998.
I am vetoing this provision because the department already utilizes a scoring system to rank proposed major highway projects. Promulgating rules is therefore unnecessary and would result in additional workload at a time when administrative resources are being reduced.
35. Appropriation Adjustments for Federal Aid Changes
Section 2471d
This section directs the Department of Transportation to submit plans for review and approval by the Joint Committee on Finance regarding appropriation adjustments necessary to address the actual levels of federal aid received by the department for fiscal year 1997-98 and thereafter. In the 1997-99 fiscal biennium, these plans must be submitted by December 1, 1997 and December 1, 1998, or 30 days after the applicable federal legislation for that fiscal year has been enacted, whichever is later.
I am vetoing this section because it unnecessarily limits the department's authority to allocate federal funding to address program needs. The department must be able to react quickly to federal legislative and administrative changes that affect appropriation levels and distribution formulas. This provision would reduce flexibility in those areas and could potentially reduce the state's ability to secure critical federal funding for transportation programs.
36. Marquette Interchange Design
Section 9149 (1gs)
This section allocates funding from the state highway rehabilitation appropriation for design work associated with reconstructing the Marquette Interchange in Milwaukee. In addition, it requires the Department of Transportation to coordinate this with design work associated with replacing the Sixth Street viaduct in Milwaukee.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the department coordinate the design of the Marquette Interchange and the Sixth Street viaduct projects because I do not feel that either of these projects should be delayed if the design timetables for the projects cannot be coordinated. In addition, the department already coordinates engineering activities with affected communities and will continue to do so during the design and construction of these two facilities.
37. Mobile Emissions Testing of Motor Vehicle Fleets
Sections 2691g, 2691m and 9149 (2mm)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to promulgate rules that prescribe a procedure for emissions testing of private fleet vehicles utilizing mobile testing equipment.
I am vetoing this provision because the costs and funding source for this program were not addressed. However, I support improvements that achieve business compliance with environmental regulations in a cost-effective manner. For this reason, I am requesting that the department study and make recommendations regarding options for implementing this proposal in the future.
38. Coordination of Stormwater Management Plans
Sections 491 and 2481mm
These sections require the Department of Transportation to consult with county land conservation committees when developing stormwater runoff plans, require the committees to approve these plans before a highway construction project commences and require the department to submit water drainage plans to the committees and pay for the review.
I am partially vetoing these sections to remove the provisions requiring approval of stormwater runoff plans, the review and funding of water drainage plans, and the requirement that the department determine the downstream impacts of stormwater runoff before and after highway construction. I am vetoing the required approval because it could slow down critical highway rehabilitation and development projects and result in higher costs. I am vetoing water drainage plan reviews because the reviews would create additional workload for county land conservation committees. In addition, the department should not be required to fund the review of these plans by another level of government. I am vetoing the requirement that the department determine the downstream impacts of stormwater runoff because it would create additional workload for the department.
A341
The highway development process is already too long and costly. Adding another approval process would slow this development even further. However, I feel that county land conservation committees can provide valuable input on stormwater runoff and therefore I am maintaining the requirement that the department consult with county land conservation committees to determine the presence and extent of local practices to conserve soil and water resources within the county, including surface and subsurface drainage systems.
39. Innovative Safety Measures Pilot Program
Section 2481hi
This section requires the Department of Transportation to allocate $250,000 annually from the state highway rehabilitation program to develop and administer an innovative safety measures pilot program to improve the safety of highways.
I am vetoing this provision because the department already has a program to fund innovative safety measures on highways. In fiscal year 1997-98, the department expects to institute approximately $10 million in highway safety improvements through the Hazardous Site Elimination program. In addition, the development of administrative rules and other associated requirements of the proposed program could cost more than the level of funding allocated toward safety measures. I am extremely cognizant of the need for safety measures along dangerous stretches of highway, including USH 10. For this reason, I am requesting that the department work with concerned legislators and citizens to develop and implement effective safety measures along all highways, particularly those with identified safety concerns.
40. Interstate 94 Wayside Moratorium
Section 2471dm
This section prohibits the Department of Transportation from constructing new waysides along Interstate Highway 94. The provision would not prohibit the reconstruction of existing waysides in present locations.
I am vetoing this provision because it limits department flexibility in siting waysides along the state's interstate highway system. In addition, this provision may not be cost-effective because it would prohibit the consolidation of waysides at new locations.
41. Amtrak Service Extension
Section 9149 (4g)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to negotiate with Amtrak regarding the extension of service to Madison and to report the results of these negotiations to the Joint Committee on Finance by April 1, 1998.
I am vetoing this provision because it creates an additional reporting requirement that increases workload at a time when department staffing levels and administrative funding are being reduced. Expansion of passenger rail service is dependent on financial and operating commitments from Amtrak. These commitments are difficult to secure and will require continuous work with Congress and Amtrak regarding route development and financial support.
42. Transportation Aid Formula Changes
Sections 2486gy, 9149 (4h) and 9349 (3g)
These sections require that, starting in calendar year 2000, infrastructure work by local governments that is funded through special assessments be excluded as a reimbursable cost under the general transportation aid formula. In its 1999-2001 biennial budget request, the Department of Transportation is required to reduce bond proceeds used for the major highway program by an amount equal to the expected savings realized from this provision.
I am vetoing these sections because the impact of this provision on local governments is unclear. However, I do feel that this issue should receive further study. For this reason, I am requesting that the department review this matter and other possible changes that could improve the general transportation aid formula.
43. Contractor Liability Exemption
Section 3660g
This section specifies that individuals handling petroleum contaminated soil as part of highway construction contracts and in compliance with Department of Transportation contract directives, are exempt from certain remediation and reimbursement requirements.
I am vetoing this provision because it does not fully address contractor concerns regarding liability exposure. Contractors that meet contract requirements associated with removing contaminated soil, and are not negligent in their actions, should be protected from financial liability. I am requesting the Departments of Transportation and Natural Resources to work with contractors to seek a solution that reasonably limits contractor liability, while protecting the environment.
44. Lease of Assets
Section 2481L
This section requires the Department of Transportation to establish request-for-proposal procedures for the lease of property acquired for transportation-related purposes that has an annual lease obligation in excess of $50,000.
I am vetoing this provision because it limits the department's flexibility and establishes additional administrative procedures that could delay the leasing of property. In addition, it creates additional workload for the department at a time when department staffing levels and administrative funding are being reduced.
45. Temporary License Plates
Sections 3961p, 3971g, 3971h, 3971hb, 3972jm, 4036g, 9349 (9sm) and 9449 (8nm)
