b. Expand the master lease program to municipalities.
Governor: Authorize the use of state master leases for municipalities and create an appropriation to expend monies received from municipalities to make state master lease payments. Provide that use of a master lease by a municipality would be restricted to obtaining property or services related to public safety functions of the municipality. Require that when DOA uses a master lease on behalf of a municipality, the Department is required to enter into an installment sales contract with the municipality to obtain any property or service. Specify that the municipality shall issue a general obligation promissory note to DOA as security for the property or services obtained under the master lease. In addition, stipulate that a state agency's ability to use a master lease may not be dependent upon payment by a municipality unless the obligation of the municipality constitutes a general obligation. The master lease program cannot currently be used to finance municipal purchases.
Joint Finance/Legislature: Delete provision.
[Act 9 Sections: 93 thru 100, 2819 thru 2821 and 2822]
3. FINANCING OF ENERGY CONSERVATION CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS
Governor/Legislature: Modify current law regarding DOA's energy conservation audits and construction projects program to newly allow construction work under this program to be initially financed by the state.
Under current law, DOA may contract with a qualified contractor for the conduct of an energy conservation audit to be performed at any state-owned building, structure or facility. After the audit, if DOA believes that projected potential savings from any proposed energy conservation construction project would be sufficient to enable recovery of the costs of the construction within a reasonable period of time, DOA may contract with the audit contractor to undertake the proposed construction work. The contract must require that the contractor undertake the construction work at its own expense. DOA may then make payments to the contractor for the construction work from the fuel and utility costs appropriation in the respective agency as the projected energy savings are realized.
Under the Governor's proposal, the state would be able to directly finance the initial construction work. If the state chooses to do so, the state would also be newly authorized to finance any portion of the construction work using master lease financing. Further, for any project for which the state provides initial financing, DOA would be required to recover from the contractor any amount paid by the state to the contractor that is greater than the amount of savings realized by the state from the project within the reasonable period of time identified in the contract. The proposed language would also require that DOA, in its required annual report on construction projects contracted for under this program, include information on amounts of money due from contractors under this proposed change in how energy savings realized would be used. Finally, the bill would provide that if master lease financing is used to pay for any energy conservation construction projects, payments under the master lease could not be conditioned upon contractors making the above required payments to the state.
[Act 9 Sections: 102, 106 and 107]
4. PROCUREMENT -- EXEMPTION FROM BUYING FROM WORK CENTERS FOR THE SEVERELY HANDICAPPED [LFB Paper 182]
Governor: Authorize the Secretary of DOA to waive, at the request of an agency, the procurement requirements that provide preference to work centers for the employment of severely handicapped individuals if such a preference contravenes competitive requirements under federal law or regulations.
Under current law, procurement regulations governing agency purchases, or purchases made for an agency, require that preference be given to work centers for severely handicapped individuals. The State Use Board maintains a list of approved work centers and state agencies are directed to purchase goods produced from these work centers. The requirement does not apply to: (a) printing and stationary purchases; (b) goods produced by another state institution; (c) goods produced by prison industries; and (d) major procurements. Agencies may also obtain written certificates of exception from the State Use Board if all of the following conditions are met: (a) the work center cannot furnish the material, supply, equipment, or service in the time period specified in the order; and (b) the material, supply, equipment, or service is available from commercial sources in quantities and at an earlier time.
Joint Finance/Legislature: Delete provision.
5. BUDGET REQUEST SUBMITTAL DATE [LFB Paper 183]
Governor: Require that all agencies, other than the Legislature and Courts, submit their biennial budget requests to DOA and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau on the date specified by DOA. Under current law, the agencies are required to submit their requests by September 15 of each even-numbered year.
Joint Finance/Legislature: Delete provision.
6. STATE AGENCY MEMBERSHIP DUES
Assembly/Legislature: Include a session law provision to require the Secretary of DOA to lapse, in 1999-00 and in 2000-01, to the general fund or the respective program revenue account or segregated fund from each state agency an amount equal to 10% of the amounts expended in 1998-99 by the respective agency for the costs of membership dues in national and state organizations, excluding federal funds. Provide that these amounts shall be lapsed from the respective agency appropriations from which the membership dues were paid. It is estimated that this provision will result in lapses totaling $460,800 annually, composed of GPR lapses of $187,200 annually, PR lapses of $179,400 annually and SEG lapses of $94,200 annually.
Veto by Governor [E-3]: Delete provision.
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 9158(10g)]
7. STATE PROCUREMENT OF TONER CARTRIDGES
Senate: Require the Department of Administration, every other state agency to which DOA delegates purchasing authority other than the University of Wisconsin Hospitals and Clinics Authority and the World Dairy Center Authority, and state legislative and judicial branch entities to ensure that the specifications that they use for purchasing prohibit the procurement of toner cartridges whose original manufacturer places restrictions on the remanufacturing of the toner cartridges by any person other than the manufacturer. Define "toner cartridge" as any cartridge containing a dry, powdered ink for application to paper by use of a photocopier, laser printer or similar device. Provide restrictions on remanufacturing that include reducing the price of the toner cartridge in exchange for an agreement not to remanufacture the toner cartridge, a licensing agreement on the toner cartridge that forbids remanufacturing and any contract that forbids the remanufacturing or recycling of a toner cartridge. Prohibit cities, villages, towns, counties and other local units of government from purchasing toner cartridges that have such restrictions on remanufacturing. The provision would first apply to specifications for notices inviting bids or competitive sealed proposals for purchases and to specifications for orders for purchases placed on the first day of the seventh month after the effective date of the bill.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Adopt the Senate provision except for the prohibition of cities, villages, towns, counties and other local units of government from purchasing toner cartridges that have such restrictions on remanufacturing.
Veto by Governor [B-30]: Delete provision.
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 81g, 82pm, 82pr, 84m, 1619 and 9358(7m)]
Office of Justice Assistance
1. PENALTY ASSESSMENT REVENUE DISTRIBUTION [LFB Papers 187 thru 192 and 165]
Governor: Make the following changes concerning the receipt and distribution of penalty assessment program revenues: (a) create a new appropriation under the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA) to receive all penalty assessment revenues; (b) delete certain existing penalty assessment appropriations and modify others that receive penalty assessment revenues to reflect this change; (c) move the statutory language concerning levy of penalty assessment from Chapter 165 (Department of Justice) to Chapter 757 (general provisions concerning courts of record, judges, attorneys and clerks); (d) provide that all appropriations funded from penalty assessment revenues be annual appropriations limited to the appropriated amounts; (e) provide that 90% of the unencumbered balances of certain penalty assessment appropriations on the effective date of the bill be transferred to the newly-created OJA penalty assessment receipts appropriation; and (f) convert funding for the county-tribal law enforcement program under the Department of Justice (DOJ) from penalty assessment revenue to tribal gaming revenue provided under the recently completed state-tribal gaming compacts.
Whenever a court imposes a fine or forfeiture for a violation of state law or municipal or county ordinance (except for violations involving smoking in restricted areas, failing to properly designate smoking or nonsmoking areas, and nonmoving traffic violations or safety belt use violations), the court also imposes a penalty assessment of 23% of the total fine or forfeiture.
Under current law, penalty assessment revenues collected for violations of state law are deposited to the following program revenue appropriations on a percentage basis: (a) the Department of Justice's (DOJ) penalty assessment receipts appropriation for law enforcement training and crime laboratory equipment (49.09% of penalty assessment revenues); (b) DOJ's county-tribal receipts appropriation for the county-tribal law enforcement programs (4.55%); (c) OJA's anti-drug enforcement program--local appropriation which provides state match for the federal Byrne anti-drug law enforcement funds (22.73%); (d) the Department of Correction's (DOC) correctional officer training appropriation (9.09%); (e) the State Public Defender's (SPD) conferences and training appropriation (0.91%); (f) the Department of Public Instruction's (DPI) alcohol and other drug abuse (AODA) programs appropriation (8.48%); and (g) DPI's AODA--state operations appropriation (5.15%). All monies from the first two revenue-receiving appropriations and a portion of the monies from the next appropriation are transferred to fund a variety of programs, namely: (a) penalty assessment match for state programs and OJA administration under the federal anti-drug program; (b) state law enforcement training and administration, drug enforcement intelligence units and crime lab equipment in DOJ; (c) the county-tribal law enforcement program; and (d) youth diversion programs under DOC. Under the bill, all of these programs, with the exception of the county-tribal law enforcement program, would continue to be funded with penalty assessment revenues.
Under the bill, 90% of the unencumbered balances of certain penalty assessment appropriations would be transferred (on the effective date of the bill) to the newly-created OJA receipts appropriation. This transfer to OJA is estimated to result in revenue totaling $3,332,800 from the following appropriations: (a) DPI's AODA appropriations, $710,700 from the state operations appropriation and $1,116,800 from the program appropriation; (b) SPD's conferences and training appropriation, $63,400; and (c) DOJ's county tribal law enforcement and penalty assessment receipts appropriations, $71,900 and $1,370,000, respectively. The remaining 10% would be distributed as follows: (a) the monies would remain in the modified DPI and SPD appropriations; (b) the county-tribal balance would be transferred to the new county-tribal appropriation funded through tribal gaming revenue; and (c) DOJ's penalty assessment receipts balance would be transferred to the law enforcement training fund--state operations appropriation.
Joint Finance/Legislature: Make the following changes to the penalty assessment revenue distribution provision:
a. Retain DOJ’s penalty assessment surcharge receipts appropriation and its receipt of 49.09% of penalty assessment revenues.
b. Transfer 100% of the revenue credited to the renumbered appropriations between July 1, 1999, and the effective date of the bill and provide that the revenue transfers to the OJA appropriation would take place immediately before the transfers to the renumbered appropriations. Reestimate the amount of the unencumbered balances to be transferred from $3,332,800 PR-REV to $2,564,600 PR-REV, as follows (changes to the bill are in parenthesis): (1) $93,800 from the SPD conferences and training appropriation ($30,400); (2) $363,000 from the DPI AODA administration appropriation (-$347,700); (3) $93,500 from the DPI AODA programs appropriation (-$1,023,300); (4) $1,960,200 from DOJ's penalty assessment, surcharge receipts appropriation ($590,200); and (5) $54,100 from DOJ's county-tribal programs, surcharge receipts appropriation (-$17,800).
c. Transfer 80% of the unencumbered balances on June 30, 1999 and 100% of revenue credited to OJA’s anti-drug enforcement local, state and administrative appropriations between July 1, 1999, and the effective date of the bill to the OJA penalty assessment receipts appropriation (estimated to be $1,080,800). Direct that the transfers take place immediately before the transfers to the renumbered appropriations.
d. Transfer 100%, rather than 90%, of the unencumbered balance from DOJ's county-tribal programs, surcharge receipts appropriation to OJA's penalty assessment receipts appropriation on June 30, 1999 (estimated to be an additional $6,000 transferred to the OJA appropriation).
e. Transfer 90% of the unencumbered balance from DOJ's penalty assessment surcharge receipts appropriation (estimated to be $805,400) on June 30, 2000 to the OJA penalty assessment receipts appropriation.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Technically correct, from July 1, 1999, to August 1, 1999, the start date for the revenues credited to the renumbered appropriations to be transferred to the new OJA penalty assessment receipts appropriation, to reflect the one-month delay from the State Treasurer's receipt of penalty assessment revenues to the crediting of the revenue-receiving appropriation accounts.
[Act 9 Sections: 115, 252, 266, 360, 361d, 367, 481, 482, 483, 484, 485m, 486m, 488m, 489, 494, 517, 517e, 525x, 526, 539, 540, 542, 543, 594, 605g, 605h, 686, 1576, 1577, 1609 thru 1611, 1613, 1614, 1616, 1617, 2044, 2290, 2290v, 2291, 2292m, 2293, 2294m, 2295 thru 2298, 2301, 2753 thru 2761, 3050m, 3050n, 3050o, 3066 thru 3072, 3076 thru 3078, 3079, 3085, 3094, 3097, 3199, 3203, 9101(10g), 9101(12), 9201(2m), 9201(2n), 9201(2p), 9211(2g), 9230(1), 9230(2m), 9230(3m), 9238(1h), 9239(1h) and 9239(2h)]
2. PENALTY ASSESSMENT STATE MATCH FUNDING FOR THE FEDERAL ANTI-DRUG ENFORCEMENT PROGRAM [LFB Paper 191]
Governor: Make the following changes to the penalty assessment state match funding for the federal Byrne anti-drug enforcement program: (a) delete $1,972,400 in 1999-00 and $1,674,000 in 2000-01 from the program revenue appropriations for penalty assessment state match; (b) change funding for those appropriations from 22.73% of penalty assessment revenues to the appropriated amounts, and modify the appropriation language to reflect this change; and (c) delete statutory language which requires local units of government to provide at least a 10% match for the anti-drug law enforcement monies they receive from OJA.
Under current law, penalty assessment revenues are used to match federal anti-drug law enforcement funds that are distributed to state agencies and local units of government and to OJA for administration. Under the bill, penalty assessment revenues would continue to fund these appropriations, but all penalty assessment revenues would initially be deposited to a newly-created appropriation under OJA. Under the bill, only the amounts appropriated for the state, local and administration match for the anti-drug enforcement program would be transferred from the new OJA revenue-receiving appropriation to the respective anti-drug enforcement penalty assessment match appropriations.
The funding reductions are related to: (a) -$1,793,800 annually in the appropriation which provides match monies for local programs to remove funding which, under the current appropriation structure, is appropriated in both OJA's local appropriation and also in the state and administration anti-drug enforcement program appropriations (currently, penalty assessment revenues are initially deposited into the local appropriation, then transferred to the state and administration appropriations); (b) -$126,600 in 1999-00 and -$125,500 in 2000-01 in the local appropriation, to reflect reestimates of required match amounts; (c) -$72,000 in 1999-00 and $225,300 in 2000-01 in the state appropriation, to reflect reestimates of required match amounts; and (d) $20,000 annually in the program administration appropriation, for administrative costs associated with a new federal program (the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant).
Joint Finance: Retain the statutory language which requires local units of government to provide at least a 10% state match for the anti-drug law enforcement monies they receive from OJA. In addition, transfer 80% of the anti-drug appropriations unencumbered balances on June 30, 1999 and 100% of the revenue credited to these appropriations between July 1, 1999, and the effective date of the bill to the newly-created OJA penalty assessment receipts appropriation (estimated to be $1,080,800).
Conference Committee/Legislature: Technically correct the start date, from July 1, 1999, to August 1, 1999, for the revenues credited to the anti-drug appropriations to be transferred to the newly-created penalty assessment receipts appropriation.
[Act 9 Sections: 539, 540, 542, 543, 2294m, 9201(2m), 9201(2n) and 9201(2p)]
3. FEDERAL REESTIMATES
FED $2,366,000
Governor/Legislature: Provide $1,698,500 in 1999-00 and $667,500 in 2000-01 to reestimate expenditure authority for subgrants to local governmental agencies, state agencies, private non-profit agencies and Native American Tribes under the following federal awards:
Program Adjusted Base 1999-00 2000-01
Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act $1,114,200 $415,800 -$171,100
Title V Program 343,400 -58,800 -35,400
Violence Against Women Act 2,157,400 121,500 189,800
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Award 423,000 187,000 187,000
Rural Domestic Violence Discretionary Award 131,200 257,800 233,700
Video Testimony Discretionary Award 0 16,700 0
Local Law Enforcement Block Grant
Training Award 0 47,300 47,300
Challenge Program 214,000 -10,200 -79,000
National Criminal History Improvement
Program Discretionary Award 1,811,400 -277,800 -1,186,500
Byrne Evaluation Discretionary Award 73,600 -12,500 -58,300
Residential Substance Abuse Treatment Award 691,600 100,800 -261,900
State Identification Systems Award 0 194,700 194,700
National Sex Offender Registry Award 0 881,700 881,700
Anti-drug Abuse Act Grants to Local
Government Agencies 6,155,400 -412,900 -414,000
Anti-drug Abuse Act Grants to State
Government Agencies 3,485,800 247,400 1,139,500
TOTAL $16,601,000 $1,698,500 $667,500
4. STATE AGENCIES' USE OF FEDERAL ANTI-DRUG LAW ENFORCEMENT AND STATE MATCH FUNDS
Governor: Direct OJA to allocate federal Byrne anti-drug law enforcement funds and state matching penalty assessment revenues from OJA appropriations to the specified agencies for the following purposes: (a) $254,700 annually to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for the purchase, replacement and maintenance of state crime laboratory equipment; (b) $226,800 in 1999-00 to DOJ for the purchase of DNA short tandem repeat analysis equipment; (c) $450,000 in 1999-00 to DOJ for converting the DNA databank to make it compatible with the short tandem repeat method of DNA analysis; (d) $363,900 in 1999-00 and $1,782,000 in 2000-01 to DOA's Bureau of Justice Information Systems (BJIS) for the installation of automated justice information systems equipment; (e) $446,500 annually to BJIS for automated justice information systems operations; (f) $1,000,000 annually to the Department of Corrections (DOC) for alcohol and other drug abuse programs; (g) $533,300 in 1999-00 and $1,200,000 in 2000-01 to DOC for information technology initiatives; and (h) $850,800 annually to DOJ for reimbursing counties that provide victim/witness services. With the exception of the BJIS operations funds, these amounts represent 75% federal funding and 25% state matching penalty assessment monies (for BJIS operations, the required state match would come from justice information fee revenues).
