20. BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT INITIATIVE PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS
Governor/Legislature: Modify provisions of the Business Development Initiative (BDI) program as follows:
a. Change the definition of small business under the program to mean a for-profit business having fewer than 100 employes. Currently, the maximum number of employes is 25.
b. Authorize the Department to contract directly with and pay grant proceeds directly to, any person providing technical or management assistance to an individual, small business or nonprofit organization under the BDI program. Under current law, the Department must make the grant to the individual or entity. The recipient then uses the grant to obtain technical or management assistance from service providers.
The Business Development Initiative (BDI) program is designed to help create employment opportunities for persons with severe disabilities by starting or expanding for-profit businesses. The program has five components: (1) direct technical assistance provided by Commerce staff to individuals, small businesses, or nonprofit organizations; (2) technical assistance grants to those entities; (3) technical assistance self-employment grants to disabled individuals; (4) management assistance, working capital and fixed asset financing grants and loans to individuals, small businesses or nonprofit organizations; and (5) the job creation program. The BDI program is funded by both a GPR and program revenue payments appropriation. Base level funding is $150,000 GPR and $60,000 PR.
[Act 9 Sections: 2974 thru 2978]
21. HAZARDOUS POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM MODIFICATIONS AND BIOTECHNOLOGY POSITION [LFB Paper 290]
Positions
GPR 1.00
Governor/Legislature: Modify provisions related to the hazardous pollution prevention program that is jointly conducted by Commerce, DNR and the UW-Extension Solid and Hazardous Waste Center as follows:
a. Provide 1.0 GPR position and reallocate $75,000 GPR annually for a position to provide services to Wisconsin firms in the emerging science and technology fields. The funding would be reallocated to economic and community development from the appropriation used to fund the hazardous pollution prevention contract with the UW Solid and Hazardous Waste Center. As a result, there would be no funding provided for the contract. The position would be an economic development consultant who would work with start-up businesses on issues, such as developing business and marketing plans and identifying the requirements of private investors and venture capitalists, that would affect the businesses' ability to access financing. The position would also work with WHEDA and a biotechnology corporation established by WHEDA to establish a statewide biotechnology development initiative.
b. Specify that the UW Board of Regents is required to maintain a solid and hazardous waste center in the UW-Extension.
c. Expand the program to promote pollution prevention, rather than hazardous pollution prevention. Pollution prevention would be defined to mean an action that does any of the following: (1) prevents waste from being created; (2) reduces the amount of waste that is created; and (3) changes the nature of waste being created in a way that reduces the hazards to public health or the environment posed by the waste. Pollution prevention would not include incineration, recycling or treatment of a waste, changes in the manner of disposal of a waste, or any practice that changes the characteristics or volume of a waste if the practice is not part of the process that produces a product or provides a service.
d. Statutory definitions of hazardous waste and hazardous waste program that apply to the program would be repealed.
e. The expanded pollution prevention program would be required to promote techniques for pollution prevention by reducing energy use and training employes to minimize waste in addition to current law prevention techniques.
f. The related duties of DNR would be expanded to involve pollution prevention rather than hazardous pollution prevention.
g. The provisions which govern the Department of Commerce's contract with the Solid and Hazardous Waste Center would be modified to reflect the expansion of the program to promote pollution prevention rather than only hazardous waste pollution prevention. For example, provisions related to determining costs, processes and identifying prevention options would apply to solid waste and pollution in addition to hazardous pollution.
Currently, under this program, Commerce, the Department of Natural Resources and the Hazardous Pollution Prevention Council conduct and coordinate an educational, environmental management and technical assistance program to promote hazardous pollution prevention among businesses in the state. In addition, $75,000 GPR annually is currently provided for Commerce to contract with the UW-Extension Solid and Hazardous Waste Center for assessment services.
[Act 9 Sections: 891, 2670 thru 2680 and 2965 thru 2973]
22. DELETE OBSOLETE APPROPRIATIONS
Governor/Legislature: Delete the SEG appropriations for technology and pollution control and abatement grants and loans that were funded with segregated revenues from the recycling fund and environmental fund. The program was sunset on June 30, 1997.
[Act 9 Sections: 213 and 214]
23. RURAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (RED) PROGRAM [LFB Paper 289]
GPR - $100,000
PR 100,000
Total $0
Joint Finance/Legislature: Decrease the RED, GPR appropriation by $50,000 annually and increase annual expenditure authority for the repayments appropriation by $50,000 PR. As a result, total annual funding for the RED would be $656,500 GPR and $120,100 PR. In addition, a RED program would be created that would provide loans of up to $50,000 to businesses if all of the following applied:
a. The business, together with any affiliate, subsidiary or parent entity, has fewer than 50 employes;
b. The business is or will be located in a rural municipality;
c. The rural municipality in which the business is or will be located (1) is in a county that has a median household income lower than the state median household income or (2) if county median household income is higher than the state median, has median household income that is lower than the county's;
d. The business is starting or expanding its operations;
e. The operations of the business do not involve metallic mining activities;
f. The owner of the business attends a class that provides instruction in writing a business plan, making a loan application and managing a start-up business.
A business that applies for a loan would be required to submit an application package that includes a business plan and such personal and business financial information that the Rural Economic Development Board (Board) requires to be able to assess the potential viability of the business. Commerce would be required to assist in preparing applications.
A business could use the loan proceeds for the following purposes:
a. The purchase or improvement of land.
b. The purchase of buildings, furniture, fixtures, machinery, equipment or inventory.
c. Job training costs.
d. Employe relocation costs;
e. Working capital.
In cases where loans are provided for employe relocation costs, Commerce would ensure that an employe had the option of accepting or declining any relocation assistance and the compensation and benefit terms offered at the new location are at least as favorable as those offered by the business at its previous location. The Rural Economic Development Board would be required to determine whether, and the extent to which, a business must contribute a match up to a maximum of 20% of project cost. Cash or in-kind contributions would be permitted, with the services or materials that constitute in-kind contributions determined by the Board. The Board would be required to act on an application and advise the applicant of its decision within 45 days after Commerce determines the application was complete.
[Act 9 Sections: 2955m, 2955p, 2955q and 2955r]
24. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUDIT
Joint Finance/Legislature: Request the Joint Audit Committee to consider directing the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct an audit that would determine whether state government:
a. Has a comprehensive economic development strategy that enables the state to compete effectively;
b. Has a comprehensive state development budget that accounts for development-related expenditures by various state agencies, and plans adequately for future development investments;
c. Is using both tax policy and performance-based incentives to foster and improve future competition and economic growth;
d. Has existing incentive programs that complement the state's overall development goals;
e. Clearly defines strategic economic development goals for the state's development finance programs, and manages and monitors the programs on that basis;
f. Could effectively implement a performance-based economic development strategy.
Veto by Governor [B-24]: Delete provision.
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 9131(1x)]
25. COMPREHENSIVE LOCAL PLANNING GRANT ASSESSMENTS
Joint Finance: Authorize the Secretary of DOA to annually assess Commerce and five other agencies $250,000 each to be paid from the agencys' GPR general operations appropriations to fund a local planning grant program administered by the Department of Administration that is created under the bill. The assessments would be for grants to counties, cities, villages, towns or regional planning commissions to finance the local cost of planning activities and the cost of program delivery.
Assembly: Delete provision.
Senate: Modify the Joint Finance provision that directs the Secretary of DOA to assess Commerce and five other agencies $250,000 each, on an annual basis, by modifying the provision that directs the assessments to be applied against each agency's GPR-funded general program operations appropriation to instead specify that the assessments could be made against any of the agency's appropriations for general program operations.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Delete provision.
26. SUSTAINABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT ZONE PROGRAM
Joint Finance: Direct DNR, in cooperation with the Departments of Health and Family Services, Transportation, Revenue, Administration and Commerce, and the Cities of Milwaukee, Green Bay, La Crosse and Oshkosh, to develop a pilot program no later than January 1, 2001, that promotes the use of financial incentives to cleanup and redevelop contaminated properties in the listed cities. Of $2,250,000 in total funding, the following amounts would be available as grants to the cities: (a) $1,000,000 for the City of Milwaukee; (b) $500,000 for the City of Green Bay; (c) $500,000 for the City of La Crosse; and (d) $250,000 for the City of Oshkosh. State funds could be used for the assessment, investigation and cleanup of brownfields properties in the Cities. Persons that conduct an eligible project under the pilot program would be eligible for a sustainable urban development zone tax credit that would be created for the program. The credit would equal 50% of the amount expended for environmental remediation under the program. Environmental remediation would mean removal or containment of environmental pollution and restoration of soil or groundwater that is affected by environmental pollution in a brownfield, unless an investigation determined that remediation was required but the remediation was not undertaken.
The Department of Commerce would be required to certify persons that conducted projects in the sustainable urban development zones as eligible to claim the tax credits and to provide the claimant and the Department of Revenue with a copy of the certification. The certification would include all of the following: (a) the name and address of the person's business; (b) the location and description of the project; (c) the appropriate Wisconsin tax identification number of the person; (d) the names and addresses of other locations where the person conducts business and a description of the business activities conducted at those locations; and (e) other information required by the Department of Natural Resources or the Department of Revenue. Within three months after a person was certified, Commerce would be required to estimate the amount of tax benefits that the person would claim while conducting the project. Commerce would be required to promulgate rules to further define a person's eligibility for tax benefits.
Senate: Provide an additional $250,000 SEG in 1999-00 to DNR from the environmental management account of the environmental fund to expand the sustainable urban development zone pilot program to include the City of Beloit (which would receive the $250,000), and provide a total of $2,500,000 in funding for the program. Of the $2,500,000 in total funding, the following amounts would be available as grants to the cities for the investigation and cleanup of environmental contamination: (a) $1,000,000 for Milwaukee; (b) $500,000 for Green Bay; (c) $500,000 for La Crosse; (d) $250,000 for Oshkosh; and (e) $250,000 for Beloit. The Department of Transportation would be required to work with Beloit, in addition to the four other cities to develop transportation planning, transportation access and infrastructure improvements for inclusion in the DOT 2001-03 biennial budget request.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Approve the Senate provision, as modified to: (a) provide $200,000 SEG for Beloit instead of $250,000; and (b) provide $130,000 of the $200,000 from the environmental management account of the environmental fund and the remaining $70,000 from the all-terrain vehicle (ATV) account of the conservation fund. (See Natural Resources -- Air, Waste and Contaminated Land.)
Veto by Governor [B-31]: Delete the sustainable urban development zone tax credit and eliminate the requirement that the Departments of Health and Family Services, Revenue and Transportation assist in developing the pilot program. Further, delete the $70,000 appropriation in DNR from the ATV account.
[Act 9 Sections: 332e, 1719g, 1798 and 2649h]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 172 (as it relates to s. 20.370(6)(es)), 332m, 1684d, 1709c, 1719g, 1719m, 1722bd, 1740c, 1743d, 1747m, 1748bm, 1749k, 1756h, 1760q, 1798, 2649h, 9150(3v) and 9343(22c)]
27. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM
Joint Finance: Direct the Department of Commerce to expand the CDBG - Blight Elimination and Brownfields Remediation program to fund redevelopment planning and projects that have a taxable value end use.
Assembly: Require the Department to make a federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public Facilities grant of $299,000 in 1999-00 to the Town of Rib Mountain to drill a new water well. Exempt the town from meeting state criteria under current administrative rules to receive the grant. Require the town to submit a report to Commerce, within six months after spending the grant amount, detailing how the proceeds were spent.
Senate: Require Commerce to make a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Public Facilities grant of $250,000 in 1999-00 to a county with a YWCA that is constructing a domestic violence structure in a second class city with a population between 52,000 and 60,000 (Janesville). Within six months after spending the entire amount of the grant, the town would be required to submit a report to Commerce detailing how the grant proceeds were spent. It should be noted that the Department of Commerce is the state's designated recipient of federal funding for the small cities CBDG program. Eligible communities for funding under the federal program are municipalities and counties with populations under 50,000. Consequently, federal law may require this grant to fund a project that would provide regional benefits to individuals who were primarily not residents of the city.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include all provisions.
Veto by Governor [B-22]: Delete the requirement that the grants to the Town of Rib Mountain for a new water well and a second class city for a domestic violence center be made with CDBG monies. The partial veto retains the requirements that funding be provided for these projects. Commerce could provide the grants through the CDBG program, if consistent with federal law, or through another of the Department's financial assistance programs.
[Act 9 Sections: 2929f, 2929g and 9110(7b)&(8e)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 9110(7b)&(8e)]
28. STUDY OF BROWNFIELDS INITIATIVES
Joint Finance/Legislature: Direct DNR, DOA, Commerce, DOR and DOT to submit an annual consolidated report on June 30 of each year to the Joint Committee on Finance and the appropriate standing committees of the Legislature that evaluates the effectiveness of the state's brownfields initiatives. (See Natural Resources -- Air, Waste and Contaminated Land.)
Veto by Governor [B-36]: Delete the following requirements: (a) that DOR and DOT participate in the report preparation; (b) that the report be submitted annually by June 30; and (c) that the report be submitted to the appropriate standing committees and the Joint Committee on Finance. As a result of the veto, DOA, Commerce and DNR would be required to submit a report evaluating the state's efforts to remedy the contamination of, and to redevelop, brownfields, but the statutes would not specify to whom or when the report should be submitted. The Governor's veto message requests DOA, Commerce and DNR to provide a report to the Governor and Legislature on July 1, 2002, and every four years thereafter.
