2. Soil and Water Resource Management Engineering Positions
Section 9204 (1wx) and (1wy)
These provisions appropriate $100,700 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 and authorize 2.0 GPR FTE positions in the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to provide training, consultation and oversight to county conservation staff. The provisions also decrease funding for the Soil and Water Resource Management Grant Program by $100,700 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98.
I am vetoing these provisions because a decision to create and fund 2.0 GPR FTE positions should be made in the context of other priorities during development of the 1999-01 biennial budget. The Soil and Water Resource Management Program received an additional $2,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 in
1997 Act 27. The department has the authority to use a portion of that additional funding to contract with a public or private entity to supply necessary services to county conservation staff.
Natural Resources
3. Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program
Sections 9131 (1p) and 9136 (2v)
Section 9131 (1p) requests the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to perform a financial audit of the Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program and the long-term state financial obligations related to the program. The Legislative Audit Bureau must file its report by January 1, 2000. Section 9136 (2v) provides up to an additional $33,000 for cost-share grants to landowners in the Sugar-Honey Creek priority watershed project in Racine and Walworth counties. The additional funding must be provided by June 30, 1999.
I am vetoing the audit request because it is unnecessary. The Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program is in the preliminary stages of implementing the restructuring adopted in
1997 Act 27. This restructuring is being done in response to several audits of the program that have been completed in recent years. Another audit of the program is premature and could slow efforts to implement necessary changes.
I am also vetoing the Sugar-Honey Creek earmark because it diverts funding from other priority watershed projects. These projects are implemented over several years. At the direction of the Legislature, the Department of Natural Resources has been working to allocate funding on the basis of available revenue. I am concerned that a funding earmark of this nature will undermine attempts to bring Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program expenditures in line with available funding.
4. Landfill Remediation Study
Section 9136 (2d)
This provision requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to use existing resources to contract for a study identifying all closed landfills and the estimated cost of their remediation. In addition, DNR must identify potential funding mechanisms for these remediation projects.
I am vetoing this provision because it does not address the problems of landfill cleanup in a comprehensive manner. Furthermore, it directs the DNR to use existing resources to identify all closed landfills and remediation alternatives. In order to address the issue in an effective manner, funds would be needed that the department does not currently have available. However, I do recognize the importance of this issue and request the department to develop approaches for identifying, assessing, and cleaning up closed landfills in a cost-effective and balanced manner.
5. Brownfields Fee for Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Administration (PECFA) Related Services
Sections 486p, 9136 (1c) and 9236 (3g)
These provisions limit the ability of the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to charge fees for services as authorized under s.
292.55 (2). In addition, the department is authorized 3.0 SEG FTE positions and $147,300 SEG under s.
20.370 (2) (dw). An equal amount of PR funding is eliminated under s.
20.370 (2) (dh), along with the associated positions.
A931
I am vetoing these provisions because they unnecessarily limit the department's flexibility to charge fees for services. Providing staff to the department to expedite the implementation of the Brownfields initiative is very important for the revitalization and redevelopment of abandoned commercial properties. I am requesting the department to implement its Brownfields fee emergency rule no later than September 1, 1998. The department should establish fees that cover the costs of the services provided to businesses and individuals.
I am also requesting the Department of Commerce (Commerce) to include DNR Brownfields fees associated with providing assistance related to s.
101.143 as an eligible cost for reimbursement under the PECFA program. I consider this reimbursement approach a short-term measure that will be fully reviewed in the context of the 1999-01 biennial budget. In preparation for the next budget, I am requesting that the Departments of Administration, Commerce and Natural Resources develop a comprehensive redesign of the PECFA program. This redesign should build on the strong foundation established recently in the revised memorandum of understanding between DNR and Commerce by addressing long-term financing concerns, reviewing reimbursement mechanisms and enhancing cost control measures.
Tourism
6. Marketing Appropriation
Section 9247 (1)
This section provides $750,000 GPR in fiscal year 1997-98 and $750,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 to increase funding for tourism marketing and promotion. I am partially vetoing this section to allocate all of the funding increase in fiscal year 1998-99 because the department can utilize the additional funding more effectively in the second year of the biennium. The department should use the additional funding to provide for an expanded spring campaign, to develop an opportunity marketing program to capitalize on special events, and to expand the Joint Effort Marketing program to assist local businesses and communities in tourism promotion.
__________________
C. HUMAN RESOURCES
Health and Family Services
1. Milwaukee County Child Welfare Services
Section 9222 (3f)
This section reduces the Department of Health and Family Services' Milwaukee child welfare services general program operations appropriation by $427,500 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99.
I am vetoing this section because I want to ensure that the department has adequate resources to effectively operate the child welfare system in Milwaukee County and that direct services for children and families will not be adversely affected. In addition, this veto corrects a technical error because the general program operations appropriation was reduced rather than the appropriation containing funding for safety services, as originally intended by the Joint Committee on Finance.
2. Kinship Care
Section 152m
Section 152m requires the Department of Health and Family Services to promulgate rules to provide assessment criteria for determining whether a kinship care relative is eligible to receive payment of $215 per month for the care of the child. This section also requires the department to include in the rule criteria for determining whether a relative is eligible for the payment in cases in which the safety of the child is not an immediate concern but placement of the child with the relative could avoid the need for more costly intervention services.
I am vetoing the provision that requires the department to include eligibility criteria for cases in which the safety of the child is not an immediate concern but placement with the relative could avoid the need for more costly intervention services. I am concerned that this provision may result in an expansion of the kinship care program beyond the original intent of providing funding to relatives for the support of children who are not safe in their own homes.
3. Community Options Program
Sections 22 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (bb)], 44L, 98m, 98n, 203g, 203h and 203i
Sections 22 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (bb)] and 44L create a GPR continuing appropriation for moneys transferred from the Medical Assistance (MA) appropriation for increasing funding for the Community Options Program (COP). Sections 98m and 98n specify that the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) must allocate funds from the new appropriation for the COP and COP waiver programs. Section 203g requires that the report that DHFS must annually submit to the Joint Committee on Finance on the utilization of beds by recipients of MA in facilities be submitted by October 1, except for fiscal year 1997-98. Sections 203h and 203i require DHFS to submit a proposal for transferring funds from the MA appropriation to the COP appropriation for the Committee's 14 day passive review and allow the Committee to approve or modify the proposal submitted by the department.
I am vetoing sections 22 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (bb)], 98m and 98n because I do not believe that a GPR continuing appropriation is necessary for the MA-COP transfer. The current COP appropriation which allows for the transfer of funds between fiscal years is sufficient to facilitate the transfer. I am partially vetoing section 203g to eliminate the October 1 report due date and am vetoing sections 203h and 203i to eliminate the overly prescriptive process for the MA-COP transfer. In my veto message in
1997 Wisconsin Act 27 relating to the COP transfer I requested the Secretary of DHFS to consult with the Secretary of Administration on the transfer amount. This consultation will provide sufficient oversight regarding the transfer.
4. Caretaker Supplement
Section 9122 (4e) (b)
A932
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), if additional Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) funding is needed for the caretaker supplement for recipients of Social Security Income, to submit a request to the Secretary of Administration to transfer funds from the Department of Workforce Development (DWD) to DHFS. The Secretary of Administration must submit the request to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF) for the Committee's 14 day passive review.
I am vetoing this provision because DWD will have to amend the TANF plan and seek approval of JCF if DHFS needs additional funding. The requirement for DHFS to also seek JCF approval is an additional unnecessary approval for the same funds.
5. Provider Assessments
Sections 393se, 393sh, 393sk and 9422 (6k)
These sections pertain to the collection of health care data from individual health care providers such as doctors. The bill provides $250,000 GPR in fiscal year 1998-99 on a one-time basis to support the cost of a pilot data collection effort to gather this information from those providers. I am retaining the $250,000 GPR funding for fiscal year 1998-99 in order to assure that the pilot data collection effort goes forward. This will allow data to be collected for 1998-99 without the need for assessment of fees on individual health care providers. However, I believe the issue of how to pay for the costs of data collection in the future requires further discussion.
I recently signed
1997 Wisconsin Act 231 which gave DHFS the authority to assess a fee on individual health care providers to support the cost of data collection from those providers. Under the budget adjustment bill, the Legislature has shown a willingness to support the initial pilot data collection effort with GPR and I will support this. However, I believe the long-range solution included in this bill to fund a state-wide data collection effort is inequitable. The provision in this bill would place the entire cost of collecting the data from all individual providers on hospitals and ambulatory surgery centers who already pay $1.5 million to provide health care data from their own facilities. As a result, I am partially vetoing section 393se in order to restore the authority to assess individual health care providers in the future while retaining the one-time GPR for use in fiscal year 1998-99. I am also vetoing sections which shift the cost of data collection to hospitals and surgery centers since it is inequitable to make these facilities bear the entire cost of data collection.
I am sympathetic to the concerns of all parties regarding the apportionment of the costs of data collection. However, any solution must be fair to the payers. Therefore, I am asking all concerned parties to work with my office to develop a funding method for data collection which is equitable for all.
Insurance
6. Specialist Physicians
Sections 566cdf and 566cfk
These provisions refer to the access that patients in managed care plans would have to specialist physicians. As part of the much broader regulation of managed care plans included in this bill, the plans must insure that a patient has access to a primary care physician and must also provide access to specialists if the patient requires such services. However, the language as written refers to specialist physicians. Since not all specialists, such as optometrists, have medical degrees, there is some ambiguity about how these sections should be interpreted. I am vetoing these sections and requesting that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance include remedial language in its next biennial budget request to fix this ambiguity.
7. Prior Authorization for Diagnostic Procedures
Section 594p
This section requires prior authorization for any diagnostic procedures or any medically necessary surgical or nonsurgical treatment for the correction of temporomandibular disorders. I am vetoing the requirement that prior authorization be obtained for diagnostic procedures since it will unnecessarily hamper a patient's access to tests which will dictate the needed treatment.
In a related matter, the bill also places a cap of $1,250 annually on the reimbursement for costs associated with the treatment of temporomandibular disorders. I believe that this limit should be adjusted for inflation to keep pace with cost increases and that such an adjustment should be included as a provision in the 1999-01 biennial budget.
Workforce Development
8. Wage Claim Liens
Sections 354m, 354p, 354r and 9355 (1f)
These provisions amend the state wage payments, claims and collections law. The provisions define "employe" to exclude certain officers, partners and managers of a business, modify the definition of "wages" for the purposes of that law to exclude remuneration that was not received as payment for services performed, limit wage claim liens to a maximum of $1,000 and alter the priority of wage claim liens with respect to liens filed in advance of them.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to preserve the effectiveness of the wage claim lien as a means to assist workers to recover wages and other benefits due them. I am concerned that the limit placed on liens will prevent some workers from recovering the full amount of wages they are owed. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 354r to remove the lien limit. I am also vetoing section 354p to restore the current definition of "wages". The modifications to the definition of "wages" could prevent workers from recovering some benefits, and could impair the operation of the state's plant closing law. Finally, I am partially vetoing section 354m to remove the requirement that covered employes must work in this state, and the exclusion of officers and directors of cooperatives and associations from the definition of "employe". These changes will allow the Department of Workforce Development to continue to assist employes of Wisconsin companies who work outside of Wisconsin. The partial veto of section 354m will also allow officers and directors of cooperatives and associations continued access to the protections of the state wage payments, claims and collections law.
A933
I am requesting that the Department of Workforce Development work with affected parties to reach agreement on further modifications to the statutes governing wage payments, claims and collections, in particular modifications governing the priority of wage claim liens and limits on their size, that will enhance protections for both workers and creditors.
Transportation
7. License Plate Reissuance
Sections 512fm, 512fp and 9148 (1d) (a)
These provisions direct the Department of Transportation (DOT) to redesign and reissue most license plate types between July 1, 2000, and July 1, 2003. The designs for the new license plates must be as similar in appearance as practicable and approved by the groups that are currently consulted for special license plate designs. DOT is also required, as part of its budget request for the 1999-01 biennium, to submit a proposal to make funds available to pay for the production and issuance of the new license plates. This proposal may not create or increase any fee related to vehicle registration, obtaining replacement plates or the reissuance of any license plate.
I am partially vetoing sections 512fm, 512fp and 9148 (1d) (a) to remove the provisions that restrict DOT from creating, increasing or charging fees to recoup license plate reissuance costs. DOT needs the flexibility to review alternatives for recouping costs associated with license plate reissuance.
I am also partially vetoing section 512fm, with respect to Sesquicentennial commemorative license plates, to eliminate the requirement that these plates be reissued between July 1, 2002, and July 1, 2003. These plates have just recently been issued and it may not be fiscally prudent to replace these plates within the specified time period.
__________________
D. JUSTICE
Justice
1. Governor's Appointment of Special Counsel
Section 4n
This provision requires the Governor to appoint special counsel in the following instances:
a. Cases where substantial questions exist concerning the location of legal boundaries of an Indian reservation and where the public interest requires resolution of the questions.
b. Cases seeking declaratory judgement, whenever the public interest requires, to ensure the respect of civil and property rights of non-Indians who own property within the exterior boundaries of any Indian reservation in this state.
I am vetoing this provision entirely because the Attorney General has assured me that he is prepared to undertake aggressive, focused legal action in Indian reservation boundary disputes and other Indian sovereignty issues. As an indication of my strong views on this matter, I will ask the Attorney General in the very near term to pursue a declaratory judgment action in federal court to ascertain the boundaries of the Stockbridge-Munsee Reservation in Shawano County.
I am also vetoing this provision because I believe the Governor has sufficient authority to appoint special counsel within the current context of s.
14.11, Wisconsin Statutes, to address any issue affecting the interests of the state and its citizens. I am prepared to appoint special counsel under that section if necessary to ensure that the interests of the state and its property owners are protected in these boundary and sovereignty disputes. In the event that representation by the Attorney General is not sufficient, the need for this provision can be reviewed within the context of the 1999-01 biennial budget.
I am also vetoing this provision because the Attorney General and I share very strong concerns about the constitutionality of this provision.
A copy of the Attorney General's letter to me regarding section 4n is attached to this message (see Attachment A).
__________________
E. TAX, FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
General Fund Taxes -- Individual Income Tax
1. Part-Year and Nonresident Deductions
Sections 282 and 9342 (6)
These sections inadvertently deny deductions for student loan interest, alimony payments and supplemental unemployment compensation repayments to Wisconsin residents. While it was the intent of the Legislature to provide these deductions to both Wisconsin residents (current law) and part-year residents and nonresidents, an error in the drafting process inadvertently eliminated the deduction for all taxfilers.
I am vetoing these sections to restore current law because I believe it is important to retain these deductions for Wisconsin residents. This veto also will also accomplish the Legislature's intent of providing a deduction for interest on qualified education loans. However, further legislation will be necessary to provide deductions to part-year residents and nonresidents for alimony and supplemental unemployment benefit repayments.
2. Property Tax Rent Credit
Sections 285c and 9256 (2c)
A934
These sections establish a procedure under which any estimated surplus in the general fund exceeding $20 million in the 1997-99 biennium would be used to increase the property tax rent credit. Under this procedure, the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) would be required, no later than September 4, 1998, to prepare a reestimate of the net general fund balance as of June 30, 1999. The LFB would certify the amount by which the estimated net closing balance exceeds $20 million to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Secretary of Revenue. By September 15, 1998 the Secretary of Revenue would submit to the Joint Committee on Finance a proposal to expand the property tax rent credit using the amount certified. This expansion would first apply to the 1998 tax year. The Committee, at its third quarterly meeting in 1998, would either approve or modify the Secretary's proposal.
