Governor: Provide $10,200 in 1999-00 and $28,500 in 2000-01 for the following data-related increased operational costs:
High Speed Data Transmission Line. Funding ($10,200 annually) for a T-1 data transmission line rental charges between the agency's new office location at 18 S. Thornton Avenue and the DOA mainframe computer.
Electronic Imaging of Commission Decisions. Funding ($18,300 in 2000-01) for the electronic imaging of the Commission's interest arbitration award file from 1971 to date and the records of Commission's labor relations rulings since 1939. This imaging project would result in a computer searchable database accessible to government and private employers and to labor unions.
4. FEE FOR PROVIDING AD HOC GRIEVANCE ARBITRATION PANEL SERVICES
PR REV $24,000
PR $24,000
Governor: Require that the Commission assess and collect a fee each time it is requested to assemble an ad hoc panel of arbitrators to serve as an arbitrator in a grievance arbitration proceeding involving unions and employers. [WERC staff have indicated that the intent of the agency's request was to have the fee apply to situations where a list of individual arbitrators is provided to the parties by the WERC for their use in selecting a single individual to serve as an arbitrator of the grievance. A technical modification would be required to accomplish this intent.]
Provide increased expenditure authority of $12,000 annually for support costs associated with providing these ad hoc grievance arbitration panels and the training of individuals to be included on WERC's roster of approved arbitrators. This level of expenditure authority is based on a projected arbitration panel fee of $30 and approximately 400 panel requests annually. Require the Commission to promulgate rules establishing a schedule of fees for assembling a grievance arbitration panel. Modify the Commission's existing collective bargaining training appropriation to permit the crediting of these new fees to that appropriation account.
A grievance arbitration panel subject to this new fee assessment provision would be defined as one consisting of individuals who are neither employes nor members of the Commission and who act to resolve a dispute over the interpretation or application of a collective bargaining agreement. Under current law, the Commission assesses a $250 filing fee from parties who request fact-finding, mediation or arbitration services, but only if these services are performed by employes or members of the Commission.
Stipulate that the new fee would be assessed against the party requesting the ad hoc arbitration panel and could be in addition to any other applicable fees assessed by the Commission. If the required fee were not paid at the time of the filing of the panel request, specify that the WERC could not act to establish the panel until the required fee had been paid. These provisions would apply to ad hoc grievance arbitration panel requests from either unions or employers under the Employment Peace Act (applicable to private sector employment), the Municipal Employment Relations Act (applicable to municipal government employment, including school district employment) or the State Employment Labor Relations Act (applicable to state government employment). Specify that the new fee would first apply to ad hoc grievance arbitration panel requests made after the general effective date of the biennial budget act.
[Bill Sections: 368, 2033, 2036, 2038 and 9316(1)]
5. RECRUITMENT AND TRAINING OF ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE ARBITRATORS
PR $50,000
Governor: Provide $25,000 annually in the Commission's collective bargaining training appropriation for the costs of the recruitment and training of additional individuals who are neither employes nor members of the Commission to act as arbitrators under WERC auspices. These increased expenditures would be supported from fees that are received from the training participants.
6. BASE SUPPLIES AND SERVICES FUNDING
PR $100,000
Governor: Provide $50,000 annually for general supplies and service costs incurred by WERC staff currently providing fact-finding, mediation and arbitration services on a fee-for-service basis. The increased expenditure authority would be provided under the Commission's mediation and arbitration filing fees appropriation. Revenues come from fees which WERC assesses for the filing of complaints regarding unfair labor practices and for requests for mediation or arbitration services. Currently, 5.0 FTE employes are authorized and funded under this appropriation; however, there is no base level supplies and services funding budgeted for these staff positions. The funds would be used for such costs as office space rental, telephone service and employe travel expenses.
7. PROHIBITED SUBJECTS OF BARGAINING APPLICABLE TO ALL SCHOOL DISTRICTS
Governor: Provide that no school district employer would be required to meet and confer with its represented employes for the purpose of collective bargaining concerning any of the following matters:
Reassignments Due to Charter School Operations. Any school district employer would be prohibited from bargaining over matters relating to: (a) the reassignment of its employes, with or without regard to seniority, as a result of a decision to contract with anyone to operate a charter school or to convert a school to a charter school; or (b) the impact of any such reassignments on the wages, hours or condition of employment of the employes who perform the services.
Reassignments Due to Closing Low-Performance Schools. Any school district employer would be prohibited from bargaining over matters relating to: (a) the reassignment of its employes, with or without regard to seniority, as a result of a decision to close (or subsequently reopen) a low-performance school; or (b) the impact of any such reassignments on the wages, hours or condition of employment of the employes who perform the services.
Contracts with Nonsectarian Schools or Agencies. Any school district employer would be prohibited from bargaining over matters relating to: (a) any decision to contract with a private nonsectarian school or agency to provide educational programs; or (b) the impact of any such decision on the wages, hours or condition of employment of the employes who perform services for the school district employer.
Provide that these new prohibited subjects of bargaining provisions would first apply to collective bargaining agreements for which notice of commencement of contract negotiations have been filed with the WERC upon the general effective date of the biennial budget act.
Under current law, the above prohibited subjects of bargaining apply only to the Board of School Directors of the Milwaukee Public Schools. Under the proposed modifications, all school district employers (including the Milwaukee Public Schools) would be subject to these prohibitions.
[Bill Sections: 2035, 2109, 2113, 2133 and 9316(2)] 7
8. NEW PROHIBITED SUBJECT OF BARGAINING APPLICABLE TO THE STATE AS EMPLOYER
Governor: Provide that the state as employer would be prohibited from engaging in collective bargaining with its represented employes concerning any of the requirements related to a new "point-of-service coverage option" mandate that would be established in the bill under proposed s. 609.23 of the statutes as it is applicable to state employe group health insurance coverage and managed care plans.
Under the new proposed mandate, a managed care health plan (that is, a health care plan that requires its insured enrollees to obtain services from certain specified providers under contract with the health plan) would have to offer its enrollees at least one "point-of-service coverage option" in each geographic area covered by the plan. A "point-of-service coverage option" would be defined as one containing all of the following elements: (a) the insured could obtain heath care services from a provider of the insured's choice; (b) the selected provider need not be a participating provider under the plan or a member of the plan's network of providers; and (c) the plan would have to reimburse the provider selected for the costs of services provided to the insured if the provider is appropriately licensed and the services provided are covered under the plan. Under current law, any managed care plan offered to state employes by the Group Insurance Board must comply with the provisions of ch. 609 of the statutes.
For state group health insurance coverage, these provisions would first be required in managed care plans affected by a collective bargaining agreement containing provisions that are inconsistent with the new mandated coverage that are issued or renewed on the earlier of: (a) the day on which the collective bargaining agreement expires; or (b) the day on which the collective bargaining agreement is extended, modified or renewed. All of the above provisions would be effective on the first day of the sixth month following the general effective date of the biennial budget act.
[Bill Sections: 2037, 3036, 9326(1) and 9426(2)]
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND
Budget Change Items
1. PRESENT VALUE SUBSIDY LIMIT
Governor: Provide a "present value subsidy limit" totaling $102 million for the environmental improvement fund as follows: (a) $87.4 million for the clean water fund program; (b) $5.2 million for the safe drinking water loan program; and (c) $9.4 million for the land recycling loan program (which is $4.9 million greater than the amount authorized but unused in 1997-99 for the land recycling loan program). The subsidy limit represents the estimated state cost, in 1998 dollars, to provide 20 years of subsidy for the projects that would be funded in the 1999-01 biennium. The clean water fund program provides low-interest loans to municipalities for planning, designing, constructing or replacing a wastewater treatment facility, or for nonpoint source pollution abatement or urban stormwater runoff control projects. The safe drinking water loan program provides financial assistance to municipalities for the planning, design, construction or modification of public water systems. The land recycling loan program provides financial assistance to certain local governments for the investigation and remediation of contaminated (brownfields) properties.
[Bill Sections: 2507 thru 2509]
2. GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDING AUTHORITY
BR $3,870,000
Governor: Provide $3,870,000 in additional general obligation bonding authority for the safe drinking water loan program, which would increase general obligation bonding for the program from $12,130,000 to $16,000,000. The state bonds would provide the required 20% state match of federal grant estimates. The bill does not change the general obligation bonding authority for the clean water fund, which is currently authorized $552,743,200. The environmental improvement fund program has issued $314.7 million in general obligation bonds for the clean water fund and $8.2 million for the safe drinking water loan program as of January, 1999.
[Bill Section: 630]
3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT FUND DEBT SERVICE
GPR $6,892,700
Governor: Provide $1,795,600 in 1999-00 and $5,097,100 in 2000-01 for estimated increases in debt service costs of general obligation bonds. This would include: (a) $1,463,800 in 1999-00 and $4,765,300 in 2000-01 for clean water fund debt service, which would result in total general fund debt service of $29.1 million in 1999-00 and $32.4 million in 2000-01; and (b) $331,800 annually for safe drinking water loan program debt service, which would be the total debt service amount for the biennium.
4. PRIVAGE SEWAGE SYSTEM REPLACEMENT AND REHABILITATION LOAN PROGRAM
SEG $3,000,000
Governor: Create a private sewage system replacement and rehabilitation no-interest loan program within the environmental improvement fund. Specify that it may be used only in a year in which the Department of Commerce must prorate funds under the private sewage system replacement and rehabilitation grant program. Commerce is appropriated $3,500,000 GPR annually to provide financial assistance to home and small business owners who meet certain income and eligibility criteria, to cover a portion of the cost of repairing or replacing failing private sewage systems. The owner of a failing private sewage system applies to the county, Commerce provides grants to participating counties and the county is responsible for disbursing all grant awards to property owners (participants also include the Oneida Tribe and City of Franklin in Milwaukee County). In a year when approved applications exceed available funding, Commerce is required to prioritize funds, giving highest priority to systems which fail by discharging sewage to surface water, groundwater, drain tiles, bedrock or zones of saturated soils, and second priority to systems which fail by discharging sewage to the surface of the ground.
Under the bill, $3,000,000 SEG in 1999-00 would be provided as a one-time annual appropriation from the environmental improvement fund. (Administration officials indicate that the intent was to provide a continuing appropriation to allow loans to be made after 1999-00. A technical correction would be required to accomplish this intent.) Revenues to the fund come from federal grants, state match to federal grants provided through general obligation bonding authority, loan repayments from clean water fund loans to municipalities to upgrade or replace wastewater treatment plants to meet state and federal requirements and investment earnings. In a year in which Commerce prorates funds under the private sewage system replacement and rehabilitation grant program, counties could apply to Commerce for a loan under the new environmental improvement fund loan program. The county could only use a loan to increase the grant amount to eligible persons to the amount which the persons would have been eligible to receive under the grant program.
A loan to a county would bear no interest. The loan amount could not exceed the difference between the amount the county would have received if Commerce had not prorated grants and the amount that the county did receive. If the amount available for loans under the program is insufficient to provide loans to all eligible counties in a year, Commerce would be required to prorate loans in the same manner as under the grant program.
A loan could be for no longer than 20 years, as determined by DOA, and be fully amortized no later than 20 years after the original date of the loan. In order to obtain a loan, a county would pledge any security required by DOA and demonstrate the financial capacity to assure sufficient revenues to repay the loan. Commerce and DOA would enter into a financial assistance agreement with an eligible county. DOA, in consultation with Commerce, could establish terms and conditions of a financial assistance agreement that relate to its financial management, including what type of municipal obligation is required for the repayment of the loan. DOA could consider relevant factors, including the type of obligation, the pledge of security and the county's creditworthiness. DOA would be responsible for disbursing the loan to the county, and, in consultation with Commerce, would establish procedures for disbursing loans.
If a county would fail to make a principal repayment when due, DOA would place on file a certified statement of all amounts due. After consulting with Commerce, DOA could collect the past amounts due by deducting those amounts from any state payments due to the county or may add a special charge to the amount of state tax apportioned to and levied upon the county. Amounts collected would be deposited to the fund to which they are due and DOA would notify Commerce that it has done so.
[Bill Sections: 304, 305, 707, 1649, 2238, 2505 and 2506]
5. LAND RECYCLING LOAN PROGRAM CHANGES
Governor: Expand the definition of eligible applicant to include a redevelopment authority or a housing authority. Currently, cities, villages, towns and counties are eligible for land recycling loans. Further, eliminate the requirement that loan recipients pay interest. Currently, land recycling loans are charged an interest rate of 55% of the market interest rate, or approximately 2.64%. The bill retains the current law provision of a maximum of $20,000,000 for land recycling loans.
[Bill Sections: 2513 thru 2517, 2519 and 2520]
6. STATUTORY CHANGES
Governor: Provide for the following statutory changes to the environmental improvement fund:
a. Specify that assistance under the small loan program may not exceed the amount of subsidy that would have been provided if the loan would have been made directly under the clean water fund, the safe drinking water loan or the land recycling loan programs. The small loan program provides a payment to the Board of Commissioners of Public Lands to reduce interest payments on a loan from the Board for a project that is eligible under one of the three programs.
b. Eliminate the authority to make capital cost loans under the clean water fund program. Currently, a total of up to $120 million in clean water funds may be loaned at the market interest rate to any of the Cities of Brookfield, Mequon, Muskego and New Berlin and the Villages of Butler, Elm Grove, Germantown, Menomonee Falls and Thiensville if all of the communities have signed an agreement with the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District under which the communities agreed to reimburse MMSD for at least $120.0 million of MMSD's capital costs. In October, 1996, MMSD and the communities signed an agreement through which the communities paid MMSD $140.7 million for past debts. All of the communities chose to borrow individually from private sources instead of utilizing the clean water fund.
c. Authorize a local government to issue a promissory note with a term not to exceed 20 years in connection with a safe drinking water loan program or land recycling loan program project. Currently, the term of a promissory note issued in connection with a clean water fund project may not exceed 20 years, but otherwise a promissory note issued by a local government may generally not have a term of more than 10 years.
d. Clarify that clean water fund projects for planning and design are only eligible for clean water fund financing if the projects also include construction or replacement of treatment works that violate effluent limitations contained in an existing permit.
e. Delete obsolete language related to providing clean water fund loans for purchase or refinance of certain obligations incurred between 1985 and 1988.
f. Clarify that a loan approved under the clean water fund program, the safe drinking water loan program or the land recycling loan program shall be fully amortized not later than 20 years after the original date of the "financial assistance agreement" (rather than "note" currently).
[Bill Sections: 1647, 1649, 2491 thru 2504, 2511, 2512, 2518 and 2521]
ETHICS BOARD
Budget Change Items
