I am vetoing this section because it unduly limits DNR’s ability to work in conjunction with another state agency to promote Wisconsin’s natural resources and recreational opportunities.
TOURISM
67. Grant to America’s Black Holocaust Museum
Section 342
Section 342 allocates $50,000 in each fiscal year for grants to America’s Black Holocaust Museum in the City of Milwaukee.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement to provide funding in each fiscal year because providing this funding on a one-time basis is consistent with the way we’ve treated other similar programs in the budget bill. I am very supportive of the need to present current and future generations with the historical reality of slavery and the African-American experience. However, the Department of Tourism has a tourism marketing campaign that promotes African-American destinations, including the Black Holocaust Museum. As such, an ongoing direct grant is duplicative and could reduce funding available for future grants to other cultural attractions, including multicultural sites.
TRANSPORTATION
68. Local Segregated Transportation Accounts
Sections 1849d and 1863md
These sections require each local unit of government to create a segregated account for local highways and mass transit to which all state and federal funds for local highways and mass transit, including local match amounts, would have to be deposited. In addition, the sections specify that revenues in the accounts can only be spent on local highways and mass transit expenses. If these requirements are not met, the Department of Transportation (DOT) must withhold state aid until the requirements are met, for a maximum of 180 days, after which time the aid will be forfeited.
I am partially vetoing sections 1849d [as it relates to s. 86.20 (6m) (a) 2.] and 1863md [as it relates to s. 86.30 (11) (a) 2.] to remove the requirement that segregated accounts include local matching funds or local general revenues for highway and transit purposes because this places an unnecessary constraint on local governments.
I am partially vetoing sections 1849d [as it relates to s. 85.20 (6m) (b)] and 1863md [as it relates to s. 86.30 (11) (b)] to specify the department may withhold state aid to noncompliant local governments because the department has no cost-effective mechanism to continuously monitor and track compliance.
I am partially vetoing sections 1849d [as it relates to s. 85.20 (6m) (c)] and 1863md [as it relates to s. 86.30 (11) (c)] because the Department of Revenue (DOR) is better situated to develop local government accounting rules that are not in conflict with other mandated accounting practices. I am requesting DOR to promulgate rules in consultation with local governments and DOT to implement these provisions. Furthermore, the rules should include alternative withholding provisions that will ensure local government compliance.
69. Mass Transit Aid Formula Changes
Sections 1834, 1847m and 1848
These sections establish a new formula for the distribution of transit aid. Four tiers, one each for systems in Milwaukee, Madison, medium-sized cities, and smaller municipalities, are created. Within each tier, state aid will be distributed so that the combination of state and federal aid provides an equal percentage of the operating expenses of each system in the tier. These sections also clarify that maintenance expenses are considered operating expenses for the purpose of distributing state aid and the Department of Transportation (DOT) may require systems receiving federal aid directly to notify the department of the amount of federal aid that will be used for operating expenses (the Madison and Milwaukee tiers are exempt from these requirements).
I am partially vetoing these sections to remove the exemption of the Madison Metro and Milwaukee County transit systems from notifying DOT of anticipated service expansions, maintenance costs and the amount of federal aid applied toward operating costs because it is inequitable and contrary to a cost-efficient use of state transit aid. These changes will assist in establishing uniformity in distributing state aid between systems but will not affect the amount of aid to be paid to the Madison and Milwaukee systems.
70. Federal Discretionary Grant Award Limit
Sections 1830gb, 1852f, 1852gd and 9350 (4z)
These sections prohibit the Department of Transportation from approving transportation enhancement and surface transportation discretionary grants beyond the current biennium in which the grants will be awarded or in excess of available funding under the biennial budget act.
I am vetoing these sections because they unnecessarily limit the department's authority to allocate federal funding for enhancement and discretionary grant projects. This provision could reduce the department’s ability to secure critical federal funding for local community transportation projects by limiting the number of projects the department may submit as eligible for funding in a given year.
71. Federal Discretionary Grant Earmarks
Sections 9150 (2g) and 9150 (3g)
Section 9150 (3g) requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to approve the Kinnickinnic River Bike Trail Project for federal funding before approving any other project for federal funding. In addition, section 9150 (2g) requires DOT to allocate $190,400 FED for the Flambeau River Recreational Bridge Project from the transportation enhancement activities appropriation.
I am partially vetoing section 9150 (2g) to remove the grant amount for the Flambeau River Recreational Bridge Project and partially vetoing section 9150 (3g) to remove top priority for the Kinnickinnic River Bike Trail Project because these provisions limit the department’s flexibility in conducting an objective award process. While both of these projects are important, both should be awarded funding based on merit relative to other applications.
72. Bicycle and Pedestrian Facility Grant Appropriation
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.395 (2) (ox)], 346t, 346w, 346y, 347d, 1830, 1830gc, 1830gd, 1852g, 1852j, 1852k and 9150 (10z)
These sections provide $9,755,000 FED annually in a new appropriation for bicycle and pedestrian facilities grants and reduce funding by the following amounts: $4,998,400 FED annually from the transportation enhancements appropriation, $3,124,600 FED annually from the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement appropriation, and $1,632,000 FED annually from the surface transportation discretionary grants appropriation. In addition, the sections specify that grants made for planning, design or construction of bicycle and pedestrian facilities must be made from the new appropriation and the sum of grants awarded may not exceed the amount of funding appropriated in the 1999-2001 biennium.
I am vetoing this provision because it could restrict the amount of funding that can be allocated for bicycle and pedestrian facilities programs. Bicycle and pedestrian facilities represent a vital component of Wisconsin’s varied transportation options. I am committed to continued increases in the allocation of Wisconsin’s federal transportation funding toward these programs. Since the three appropriations reduced to fund the proposed appropriation are continuing, I request the Department of Administration secretary to restore those amounts through the allotment process.
73. County Highway Improvement Program
Section 9150 (2bgm)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to promulgate emergency rules associated with authorizing county highway departments to conduct improvement work under the county highway improvement program. Furthermore, the section requires the department to submit proposed permanent rules related to these provisions no later than the first day of the seventh month beginning after the effective date of the bill.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the 45-day requirement for promulgating an emergency rule because it does not provide the department with adequate time to confer with local governments and members of the transportation industry. The seven-month time frame will give the department sufficient time for public participation prior to submitting the proposed rule to the Legislative Council.
74. Airport Perimeter Deer Fencing
Section 9150 (7d)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to provide a 20% match for any federal funds received during the 1999-2001 fiscal biennium for the construction of airport perimeter deer fencing.
I am vetoing this provision because the state and local units of government would be required to fund more than is required under the federal distribution formula and available federal funding would not be maximized.
75. Passenger Rail Station Improvement Grant Program
Section 1830j
This section provides funding for grants to construct or rehabilitate passenger railroad stations along existing or proposed passenger rail routes.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the Department of Transportation promulgate rules because it represents an unnecessary administrative burden. Furthermore, the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Passenger Rail Service is currently assessing the state’s passenger rail service options and will be making recommendations on service needs. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $60,000 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s. 20.395 (2) (ct) until the Blue Ribbon Task Force on Passenger Rail issues its final report.
76. Railroad Crossing Improvement Projects
Section 9150 (9g)
This provision requires the Department of Transportation to allocate state funds for the installation of railroad crossing gates at two locations in Stevens Point in Portage County. In addition, the City of Stevens Point is required to pay at least 10% of the installation costs.
I am partially vetoing this section to delete the Stevens Point projects because it circumvents the requirement for the department and the Office of the Commissioner of Railroads (OCR) to prioritize railroad crossing needs. In addition, I am requesting the department and OCR to review the list of projects ordered by the OCR. Prior to completion of this review, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $250,000 SEG in unallotted reserve in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in DOT’s s. 20.395 (2) (gr) appropriation. This action will ensure that critical railroad crossings in the state receive prompt attention from the department and OCR.
77. Intelligent Transportation Systems
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.395 (3) (gq), (gv), and (gx)], 351g, 351h, 351j, 1819j and 9150 (7j)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to conduct a study and report to the Joint Committee on Finance on a method of funding intelligent transportation systems by transferring funds from the Major Highways, State Trunk Highway Rehabilitation and the State Trunk Highway Maintenance programs. In addition, the department may only encumber funds for intelligent transportation systems from one of three newly created appropriations unless the system is integrated and installed as part of a highway project that includes construction or improvement in addition to the intelligent transportation system.
I am vetoing these sections because they unnecessarily limit the department’s authority to allocate state and federal funding to address state highway program needs. I concur with the need to ensure that highway user fee revenues are maximized in the improvement and rehabilitation of state highways. While I disagree with the need for new appropriations, I request the department develop a process for tracking and reporting on expenditures for these types of projects.
78. State Highway Rehabilitation – Eligible Expenditures
Section 1818p
This section specifies that the cost to maintain or replace curb and pavement markings and the cost to operate, maintain or replace highway signs, traffic signals and highway lighting may not be paid through the state highway rehabilitation program unless these activities are done in conjunction with a resurfacing, reconditioning or reconstruction project on a state trunk highway.
I am vetoing this section because it unnecessarily limits the Department of Transportation’s authority to allocate state funding to address critical highway needs. I agree that state highway rehabilitation funds should not be used on a regular basis for activities that are strictly maintenance and traffic related in nature. I am requesting the department to closely monitor expenditure of state highway rehabilitation funds for maintenance and traffic activities and establish clear criteria for this type of expenditure.
79. Meehan Station Historical Site
Sections 348 and 9150 (7e)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to allocate funds from the state trunk highway rehabilitation, state funds appropriation for directional signs, an historical marker, land acquisition activities, landscaping and historic information materials relating to the Meehan Station historic site in Portage County.
I am vetoing this provision because it limits the flexibility of the department to objectively allocate limited highway rehabilitation funding to meet highway system priorities.
80. Tolles Road
Section 9150 (7g)
This section directs the Department of Transportation to study whether Tolles Road in Rock County should be added to the state trunk highway system and report the results of the study to the Governor and Legislature by June 30, 2000.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The department recently conducted a review of this road and determined that the traffic volume did not meet department standards to reclassify this roadway as a state trunk highway.
81. Village of Clear Lake Box Culvert
Section 9150 (2i)
This provision requires the Department of Transportation (DOT) to use state highway rehabilitation funds to replace the grade level railroad crossing under USH 63 near the village of Clear Lake in Polk County, with a box culvert to accommodate the passage of snowmobiles under the highway.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the reference to a DOT appropriation because the cost of this project should be shared between highway and snowmobile users. I request DOT work with the Department of Natural Resources in reaching an equitable cost-share agreement for this project.
82. Prohibition on Certain Land and Development Right Purchases
Section 1855rn
This section prohibits the Department of Transportation from encumbering or expending funds from the appropriations for the state highway program for purposes related to the purchase of land, easements or the development rights to land unless the purchase is done in association with a highway improvement project and the land is within one-quarter of a mile of the centerline or proposed centerline of the highway. This provision does not apply to the purchase of land as compensatory mitigation for another wetland or the purchase of land in compliance with an agreement or relocation order made prior to the effective date of the bill.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove references to the highway centerline and improvement because it is overly restrictive. This partial veto retains the spirit of the Legislature’s intent while addressing the flexibility needed by the department in constructing and improving state highways.
83. USH 10 Corridor Study
Section 9150 (10e)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to conduct a study of potential improvements to the segment of USH 10 between Marshfield and Osseo, including the addition of passing lanes or community bypasses, the reconstruction of segments to eliminate hazardous curves or hills and the widening of lanes and shoulders, and report the results of the study to the Governor and Legislature by January 1, 2001.
I am partially vetoing the section to delete the reporting date because the department needs additional time to conduct this study due to the delayed budget enactment and limited departmental resources. Instead, I am requesting the department to submit the study by June 30, 2001.
84. License Plate Rebasing
Sections 2721 and 2724
These sections require the Department of Transportation to develop new license plate designs by July 1, 2000, and every sixth year thereafter for motor vehicles. In addition, the department is required to begin issuing license plates with a new plate design over a five-year period, beginning with registrations effective July 1, 2000, for regular automobile plates and several other plate types.
I am partially vetoing the provisions for license plate design and reissuance to delay the requirement to redesign the plate because it limits the department’s flexibility. While it is important we proceed with the replacement of aging or faded plates, the public has been divided on the design for a new plate. I request the Department of Transportation proceed with the five-year replacement schedule using the current plate design. When a new design has been selected, the department will substitute that design and establish a new design every sixth year thereafter. This will allow the department to begin replacing the oldest plates but still require that a new plate design be developed. Furthermore, a regular permanent replacement cycle is retained in the statutes.
85. Motor Vehicle Dealership License Provisions
Section 2342abw [as it relates to s. 218.01 (2c) (cm) 5.]
This section specifies that the prohibition against a factory holding an ownership interest in a dealership does not apply to a dealership trading solely in a line make of new motor vehicles with a gross weight of less than 8,500 pounds.
I am vetoing this section because it unnecessarily expands the provisions under which a manufacturer can own or operate a dealership. This legislation was established to assist small business entrepreneurs in acquiring ownership of an automobile dealership with the assistance of the vehicle manufacturer. I understand that interested parties continue to seek consensus on the appropriate level of restrictions regarding the acquisition and holding of dealerships by manufacturers. My veto will establish conditions that will, hopefully, foster consensus on this issue.
86. Milk Truck Weight Limits
Sections 2761r and 9350 (10c)
These sections modify a current law provision that allows milk trucks to carry heavier than authorized loads under certain conditions. The provision specifies that the normal allowable weight for such vehicles may be exceeded by 2,000 pounds for groups of three or more consecutive axles that are just under nine and one-half feet apart.
I am vetoing this section because the change is in conflict with federal transportation laws. The proposed change, as written, allows for the exemption to occur on portions of I-39. The Federal Highway Administration has already indicated that if this provision is enacted, it could jeopardize the state’s national highway system apportionment. I request the Department of Transportation to develop legislation to implement this provision in a way that conforms to federal law.
87. “Celebrate Children” License Plate Applications
Section 2726v
This section requires the Department of Transportation to forward all applications for “Celebrate Children” license plates, without charging a fee, to the department’s special license plate unit.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The department is working to clarify internal policies for processing special license plate applications.
