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)
A342
These provisions require local police departments to issue temporary license plates to state residents registering automobiles, station wagons, or motor trucks having a registered weight of 8,000 pounds or less that have not been purchased from automobile dealers. These state residents may also obtain temporary license plates from the Department of Transportation.
I am vetoing these provisions because they would cause an additional administrative burden for local police departments throughout the state. State government should be trying to reduce local mandates, not increase them. However, I understand the concern that many individuals are not located near the department's motor vehicle service centers and therefore may have a difficult time obtaining temporary license plates. For this reason, I am requesting the department to review options for distributing temporary license plates to individuals who do not purchase vehicles from automobile dealers.
46. Replacement of State Highway Signs
These sections require the Department of Transportation to establish administrative rules that allow the public to petition the department for the replacement of a sign on the state trunk highway system that has been damaged or is in need of replacement due to age. A successful petitioner may either pay a private firm to produce and replace the sign or pay the department for its replacement cost.
I am vetoing this provision because it creates an unnecessary administrative procedure at a time when administrative staffing levels and funding are being reduced. Individuals may already request that the department replace old or damaged state highway signs. A formalized procedure will delay the replacement of signs and create additional administrative costs.
47. Overweight Permit Exemption
Section 4180m
This section allows the Department of Transportation to issue annual or consecutive month permits for the transportation of bulk potatoes from storage facilities to food processing facilities in vehicles that exceed maximum gross weight limitations by not more than 10,000 pounds on USH 51 from STH 29 to STH 64 and on Interstate 39 from STH 29 to Interstate 90/94.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the word "not" and the phrase "highways designated as part of the national highway system of interstate and defense highways, except on" because they are unnecessary. The bill only authorizes the issuance of this permit on USH 51 between Merrill and Wausau and on I-39 from Wausau to Portage. While this provision authorizes the issuance of this permit under state law, federal law prohibits the issuance of these types of permits. I did not eliminate the intent of this provision because federal law may be modified under the transportation reauthorization bill currently before Congress to allow this type of vehicle movement. If federal law is changed, Wisconsin will be in a position to immediately allow these types of permits without further statutory changes.
48. Fees for State Patrol Services
Sections 499, 851, 2484 and 2484m
These sections allow the State Patrol to charge a fee to sponsors of special events, except Farm Progress Days, to recoup costs of providing security and traffic enforcement services.
I am partially vetoing sections 499, 851 and 2484 and vetoing section 2484m to remove the prohibition against charging sponsors of Farm Progress Days for security and traffic enforcement services because it is unfair to exclude individual groups from paying for these services. In
1995 Wisconsin Act 216, I vetoed a provision that would have prohibited the State Patrol from charging a fee to sponsors of this event. Many groups benefit from the enforcement and traffic safety services provided by the State Patrol at various events throughout the state. Unless the cost of this service is reimbursed, the primary traffic safety and enforcement duties of the State Patrol will suffer.
49. Sale of Motor Vehicle Records
Sections 5505, 5505g, 5505m and 5506
These sections require the Department of Transportation to report to the Joint Committee on Finance regarding the terms of any contract for the sale of accident and citation records and to also report if the contracted sale of these records reduced department revenues.
I am partially vetoing section 5505 and vetoing sections 5505g, 5505m and 5506 because these additional reporting requirements limit the department's authority to manage resources and increase workload at a time when department staffing levels and administrative funding are being reduced. A formal report to the Joint Committee on Finance was reasonable during the pilot stage of this program. However, ongoing reporting is unnecessary and is not a cost-effective use of scarce administrative resources.
__________________
C. HUman resources
BOARD ON AGING AND
LONG TERM CARE
1. Ombudsman Program
A343
Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.432 (1) (a)] appropriates $22,800 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $91,500 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to fund 1.0 GPR FTE ombudsman position in fiscal year 1997-98 and 2.0 GPR FTE ombudsman positions in fiscal year 1998-99 for activities related to residential care apartment complexes. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its budget deliberations to authorize these funds for the ombudsman program. Section 96m authorizes the positions at the Board on Aging and Long Term Care to carry out their activities in residential care apartment complexes and section 2046m requires the facilities to post in a conspicuous location a notice, provided by the board, of the name, address and phone number of the long term care ombudsman program.
I object to the expansion of the ombudsman program to residential care apartment complexes since these facilities are designed as home-like environments for the elderly and disabled. Thus, I am vetoing sections 96m and 2046m. By lining out the Board on Aging and Long Term Care's s.
20.432 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $22,800 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $91,500 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the expansion of this program to residential care apartment complexes. I am also requesting the Department of Administration Secretary not to allot these funds. I am also requesting the Secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE position in fiscal year 1997-98 and the 2.0 FTE positions in fiscal year 1998-99.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
2. Medical Assistance Program Benefits
Sections 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits], 1921 and 9123 (15s)
Decreased Federal Matching Rate. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] appropriates GPR funds in fiscal year 1998-99 for a change in the federal matching rate for Medical Assistance (MA). Now that the actual federal matching rate for fiscal year 1998-99 is known to be higher, the fiscal year 1998-99 budget can be reduced by $5,704,600 GPR for MA benefits.
I am writing down the MA GPR appropriation because the federal matching rate will not decline as projected.
Supplemental Payments for Essential Access City Hospitals. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] contains an appropriation of $123,400 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $124,100 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to increase total annual payments to essential access city hospitals (EACH).
This EACH program now receives $4,400,000 (all funds) annually. I am writing down the MA appropriation to delete this increase because I object to the changed definition of an EACH that underlies this funding of the program. The original definition of an EACH is based on MA inpatient days as a percentage of total inpatient days. The new definition would rely on MA discharges as a percentage of total discharges and is a less accurate measure of total MA use. I am also requesting the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) Secretary to maintain the current definition of an essential access city hospital.
Hold Racine County Harmless for Labor Cost Reclassification. Section 169 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (5) (b), Medical Assistance Program Benefits] contains an appropriation of $644,900 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $671,700 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 for the increased cost of maintaining Racine County as a high-cost labor region. Section 9123(15s) directs DHFS to consider Racine County to be a high-cost labor region for purposes of determining the MA reimbursement of nursing home costs.
I am writing down the MA appropriation to eliminate this increase because the increase would hold the nursing facilities in one particular county harmless from the effects of the labor-region changes.
I am vetoing section 9123(15s) because it directs DHFS to provide special treatment to the nursing facilities in Racine County. I am requesting the DHFS Secretary to review the recent revision of the labor regions to determine if a more broadly based technical adjustment is warranted.
