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.
[Act 9 Section: 2611d]
[Act 9 Vetoed Section: 2611d]
Building and Environmental Regulation
1. RECYCLING MARKET DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM [LFB Paper 723]
Governor: Delete $2,666,100 SEG and 2.0 SEG positions annually from the recycling fund related to the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB). The RMDB is responsible for promoting the development of markets for recovered materials and maximizing the marketability of these materials, including providing financial assistance in the form of grants, loans or manufacturing rebates and entering into contracts to carry out the duties of the Board. Currently, the RMDB is repealed effective June 30, 2001 and after that date, Commerce may promulgate rules for awarding financial assistance for the development of markets for materials recovered from solid waste. The changes include the following components.
a. Delete $2,500,000 annually for RMDB financial assistance and repeal the appropriation in order to eliminate use of the recycling fund for this purpose. Beginning on the effective date of the 1999-01 biennial budget act, funding for RMDB financial assistance and contracts would be estimated at $1,500,000 PR annually and would be derived solely from repayments of prior loans made by the Board and repayments of recycling market development loans made by the former Department of Development (DOD) before July 1, 1995.
b. Delete $166,100 and 2.0 positions annually for RMDB administration. The bill would retain $180,300 annually with 2.0 project positions which expire June 30, 2001, including the executive director.
c. Specify that loan repayments from the former DOD recycling market development loan programs (which ended June 30, 1995) be deposited in the RMDB loan repayments appropriation instead of currently being deposited in the recycling fund. Commerce estimates that loan repayments under the former DOD recycling loan programs will total $202,200 in 1999-00 and $177,000 in 2000-01. This would result in an increase in program revenues of $379,200 and a corresponding decrease of segregated recycling fund revenues during the 1999-01 biennium.
d. Until June 30, 2001, authorize the RMDB to use the PR loan repayments appropriation for contracts with persons to carry out the duties of the Board, in addition to using the appropriation for financial assistance. Currently, the RMDB may use only the SEG financial assistance appropriation for contracts.
Joint Finance: Delete provision.
Assembly: Delete $2,666,100 and 2.0 positions annually from the recycling fund to restore the Governor's recommendation related to the Recycling Market Development Board (RMDB). Further, direct the RMDB to use the PR financial assistance appropriation to provide a grant of $50,000 annually to an existing private nonprofit industry-supported organization described in 501 (c)(3) of the IRS tax code that provides waste reduction and recycling assistance through business-to-business peer exchange, that is instrumental in assisting and encouraging companies and institutions to reduce their operating costs through improved production and solid waste management practices, and that is in existence on the effective date of the biennial budget act.
Senate: Delete $500,000 SEG annually in the recycling market development financial assistance appropriation to provide $2,000,000 SEG annually instead of $2,500,000 under Joint Finance.
Make the following changes related to Commerce staff: (1) delete $166,100 SEG and 2.0 SEG positions annually; (2) provide that the remaining 2.0 SEG positions would be Commerce recycling market development staff instead of RMDB staff, and would include a loan portfolio manager to manage past and future financial assistance funded by the RMDB and a commodity specialist to develop and direct strategy for recycling market development; (3) eliminate the authorization for an unclassified executive director; (4) delete $38,700 SEG annually to reflect reduced staff costs; and (5) provide the 2.0 positions as permanent instead of the current project positions expiring June 30, 2001.
2. PECFA -- REVENUE OBLIGATIONS [LFB Papers 300 and 308]
In addition, generally restructure the operation of the RMDB similarly to the existing Commerce Development Finance Board, Minority Business Development Board and Rural Economic Development Board.
Direct the RMDB to make a $133,000 grant in the 1999-01 biennium from the SEG financial assistance appropriation to the West Central Wisconsin Biosolids Facility Commission if the Commission meets certain criteria.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Provide $1,000,000 SEG in 2000-01. Reestimate the program revenue loan repayments appropriation for financial assistance to be $2,300,000 PR annually ($800,000 higher than previous estimates). A total of $5.6 million for financial assistance would be provided in the biennium. (The Board made awards of approximately $2.3 million in each year of the 1997-99 biennium.)
Include the Senate provision to make the following changes related to Commerce staff: (a) delete $166,100 SEG and 2.0 SEG positions annually; (b) provide that the remaining 2.0 SEG positions would be Commerce recycling market development staff instead of RMDB staff, and would include a loan portfolio manager to manage past and future financial assistance funded by the RMDB and a commodity specialist to develop and direct strategy for recycling market development; (c) eliminate the authorization for an unclassified executive director; (d) delete $38,700 SEG annually to reflect reduced staff costs; and (e) provide the 2.0 positions as permanent instead of the current project positions expiring June 30, 2001.
In addition, include the Senate provisions to generally restructure the operation of the RMDB similarly to the existing Commerce Development Finance Board, Minority Business Development Board and Rural Economic Development Board, including the following changes: (a) change the membership of the RMDB to delete the currently-designated members and instead include two representatives of responsible units of local governments, two representatives of businesses that market products made from recycled materials, recover recyclable materials or develop markets for products made from recycled materials and the Secretary of Commerce or the Secretary's designee, and specify that the non-Commerce members would be appointed by the Governor for three-year terms; (b) repeal s. 287.40 through 287.48 of the statutes related to the RMDB and instead create recycling market development program provisions under Chapter 560; (c) authorize Commerce to provide grants, loans or manufacturing rebates, after the approval of the RMDB, to a governmental entity or a business entity to assist waste generators in the marketing of recovered materials or to develop markets for recovered materials; (d) require that before the RMDB awards a grant, loan or rebate, the Board shall consider the extent to which the project: (1) maximizes the marketability of recovered materials on a statewide basis; (2) minimizes the amounts of recovered materials disposed of in landfills or burned without energy recovery in incinerators; (3) includes the materials that are banned from landfills that will support community recycling efforts; (4) maintains present markets or creates new or expanded markets for recovered materials; (e) authorize Commerce, after the approval of the RMDB, to request proposals for activities, if Commerce determines that financial assistance is necessary to assist responsible units in the marketing of recovered materials or to develop markets for recovered materials; (f) delete the authority of Commerce to use the SEG or PR financial assistance appropriations for contracts with persons to carry out the duties of the Board (currently the RMDB uses the financial assistance appropriation and as of July 1, 2001, Commerce may use the PR appropriation for contracts); (g) direct Commerce to use the financial assistance appropriation to annually contract with a materials exchange program that received funding from the RMDB during 1997-99 to operate a statewide materials exchange program; (h) specify that loan repayments from the former Department of Development recycling market development loan programs (which ended June 30, 1995) be deposited in the RMDB loan repayments appropriation instead of currently being deposited in the recycling fund (an estimated increase in program revenues of $379,200 and a corresponding decrease of segregated recycling fund revenues during the 1999-01 biennium).
Further, include the Senate provision to direct the RMDB to make a $133,000 grant in the 1999-01 biennium from the SEG financial assistance appropriation to the West Central Wisconsin Biosolids Facility Commission if the Commission does all of the following: (1) submits a plan to the RMDB detailing the proposed use of the grant and the RMDB approves the plan; (2) enters into a written agreement with the RMDB that specifies the conditions for use of the grant proceeds, including reporting and auditing requirements; (3) agrees in writing to submit to the RMDB a report within six months after spending the full amount of the grant detailing how the grant proceeds were used and submits the required report; (4) uses the grant proceeds to determine the feasibility of creating sludge-based products and of marketing those products and to develop markets for the biosolid materials being produced from waste products by the Commission. The RMDB would be prohibited from awarding and paying grant proceeds under the provision after June 30, 2001.
Finally, include the Assembly provision to direct the RMDB to use the PR financial assistance appropriation to provide a grant of $50,000 annually to an existing private nonprofit industry-supported organization described in 501 (c)(3) of the IRS tax code that provides waste reduction and recycling assistance through business-to-business peer exchange, that is instrumental in assisting and encouraging companies and institutions to reduce their operating costs through improved production and solid waste management practices, and that is in existence on the effective date of the biennial budget act.
Veto by Governor [B-30]: Reduce the RMDB SEG grants appropriation by $1,000,000 in 2000-01 by vetoing the appropriation amount to "0." The act provides a total of $4,600,000 PR in the biennium for financial assistance. Also, delete the designation of the two RMDB positions as a loan portfolio manager and a commodity specialist.
[Act 9 Sections: 14j, 28b thru 28f, 210f, 215f, 645t, 891b, 2565c thru 2565L, 2927m, 2937m, 2996p, 3020m, 3261d thru 3261df, 3261dg thru 3261dj, 3262, 9110(7rm), 9110(8h) and 9310(6h)]
[Act 9 Vetoed Sections: 172 (as it relates to s. 20.143(1)(tm)), 215f, 2927m and 9110(7rm)&(8h)]
Governor: Authorize the Building Commission to issue revenue obligations (typically long-term bonds or short-term notes), to be paid from petroleum inspection fees, to fund the payment of claims under the Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Award (PECFA) program. Revenue obligations could not exceed $450 million in principal amount. The Building Commission would also be authorized to issue revenue obligations to fund or refund outstanding revenue obligations, to pay issuance or administrative expenses, to make deposits to reserve funds or to pay accrued or capitalized interest. Commerce would be authorized to enter into agreements with the federal government, local governments, individuals or private entities to insure or provide additional security for the revenue obligations issued under the bill.
The PECFA revenue obligations would be created as a special fund established in the state treasury or in an account maintained by a trustee. Under the bill, the Legislature would find that a nexus exists between the PECFA program and the petroleum inspection fund in that fees imposed on users of petroleum are used to remedy environmental damage caused by petroleum storage. The bill also contains a moral obligation pledge whereby the Legislature would express its expectation and aspiration that, if the Legislature reduces the rate of the petroleum inspection fee and if the funds in the petroleum inspection fund are insufficient to pay the principal and interest on the revenue obligations, the Legislature would make an appropriation from the general fund sufficient to pay the principal and interest on the revenue obligations.
The bill would create a sum sufficient appropriation from the petroleum inspection fund not to exceed the net proceeds of revenue obligations for payment of PECFA awards. In addition, the bill would expand the use of the existing PECFA awards appropriation to include any amount used to reduce the amount of principal of outstanding revenue obligations. Finally, the bill would create three appropriations for use if the obligations are established as a fund in the state treasury, which would include appropriations for: (a) deposit in the special fund in the state treasury of proceeds of revenue obligations to provide for reserves and for expenses of issuance and management of the revenue obligations, with the remainder transferred to the petroleum inspection fund for use for PECFA awards; (b) payment from the petroleum inspection fund of a sum sufficient to retire revenue obligations to repay the fund in the state treasury; and (c) payment from the special fund in the state treasury to retire revenue obligations, provide for reserves and for expenses of issuance and management of revenue obligations.
Joint Finance: Authorize $270 million in bonding (rather than $450 million). In addition, direct that no more than $170 million in authority may be released upon enactment of the bill. Direct that before the Building Commission issues the remaining $100 million in revenue obligations, DOA, Commerce and DNR submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval of the Committee at a regularly scheduled meeting under s. 13.10. Direct that the report include information about: (a) the proposed bonding issuance; (b) the amount of PECFA claims received during the prior six months; (c) the number and dollar amount of claims that have been received but not paid; and (d) the progress made by the agencies in implementing cost control strategies to reduce the costs of cleanups at PECFA sites. In addition, direct that no revenue obligation authority may be released beyond the initial $170 million until Commerce and DNR promulgate final permanent administrative rule changes as summarized under the items related to risk-based analysis and administrative rules.
Assembly: Require the Building Commission to issue the entire $270 million in authorized PECFA revenue obligations as soon as practicable after enactment of the bill, in the maximum amount that the Building Commission believes can be fully paid on a timely basis from revenues dedicated from the petroleum inspection fund. This would delete the Joint Finance requirement that before the Building Commission could issue revenue obligations above $170 million, DOA, Commerce and DNR would be required to submit a report with specified information to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval under s. 13.10 and Commerce and DNR would have to promulgate final permanent administrative rule changes with specified changes.
Senate: Restore the Governor's recommendation to authorize the Building Commission to issue $450 million in revenue obligations (instead of $270 million under Joint Finance), to fund the payment of claims under the PECFA program. Delete the Joint Finance requirement that before the Building Commission issues revenue obligations above $170 million, DOA, Commerce and DNR would be required to submit a report with specified information to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval under s. 13.10 and Commerce and DNR would have to promulgate final permanent administrative rule changes with specified changes.
Conference Committee/Legislature: Include Assembly provision.
[Act 9 Sections: 217, 218 thru 221, 713, 715, 715e and 1994]
3. PECFA STAFF [LFB Paper 300]
Governor: Provide $152,200 in 1999-2000 and $174,800 in 2000-01 with 3.0 hydrogeologist positions from the petroleum inspection fund. The staff would provide special services to PECFA site owners, including helping to resolve problems, dealing with major environmental issues, or preventing a site from becoming a major disaster.
