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
1. STANDARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
GPR $29,000
PR 6,000
Total $35,000
Governor: Adjust the agency's base budget by $14,500 GPR and $3,000 PR annually for: (a) full funding of salaries and fringe benefits ($11,700 GPR and -$500 PR); (b) full funding of financial service charge-backs ($100 GPR and $200 PR); and (c) reclassification of positions ($2,700 GPR and $3,300 PR).
2. INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COSTS
GPR $27,000
PR 33,000
Total $60,000
Governor: Provide $13,500 GPR and $16,500 PR annually for information technology costs. The funds would be used as follows: (a) Website maintenance: $20,000 annually ($9,000 GPR and $11,000 PR) would be used to employ outside IT staff to maintain and upgrade the Ethics Board internet website (including the lobbyists-on-line information system), based on 200 hours of staff time annually at $100 per hour; and (b) Permanent property replacements: $10,000 annually ($4,500 GPR and $5,500 PR) as a general increase in base budget funding for unspecified permanent property replacements (primarily IT hardware and software and copying equipment).
3. INVESTIGATION COSTS
Governor: Modify current law to permit the Governor, upon request of the Ethics Board, to appoint special counsel to assist in investigating and prosecuting alleged violations of the state lobbying or ethics laws. Under current law, the Governor may authorize the employment of special counsel in the following situations: (a) to assist the Attorney General in any action; (b) to act instead of the Attorney General in any action if the Attorney General is adversely interested; (c) to defend any officer of the state from any action instituted by the Attorney General; and (d) to institute and prosecute any action for which the Attorney General deems it is his or her duty to defend rather than prosecute. When authorized by the Governor, a special counsel is paid from a GPR sum sufficient appropriation in the Department of Justice. The Governor is responsible for execution of a contract between the state and the appointed special counsel which sets the amount the special counsel is to be paid. No estimated increase in expenditures has been included in DOJ's special counsel appropriation for the new purpose of investigating and prosecuting violation of the state's lobbying or ethics laws.
[Bill Sections: 9 and 10]
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Budget Change Items
1. STANDARD BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS
PR - $232,000
