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.
WISCONSIN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
88. Farm Assets Reinvestment Management (FARM) Loan Guarantees
Sections 2393c and 9325 (1g)
This provision modifies the calculation of the maximum loan guarantee under the FARM program from one based on the original loan amount to one based on the outstanding principal of the loan.
I am vetoing this provision because it unnecessarily reduces the amount of assistance available to agricultural producers. My budget doubled the maximum loan guarantee under the FARM program. This change would undercut that expansion at the expense of Wisconsin farmers.
C. HUMAN RESOURCES
BOARD ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE
1. Ombudsman Position
Section 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.432 (1) (a) and (k) and 20.435 (4) (b)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.432 (1) (a) and (k) and s. 20.435 (4) (b)] appropriates $42,500 GPR and $21,200 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to fund 2.00 FTE ombudsmen positions and $96,000 GPR and $48,000 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 3.00 FTE ombudsmen positions. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize funding for the new ombudsmen positions.
I object to the expansion of funding for the ombudsman program at the level approved by the Legislature. I am willing to approve an increase of $42,500 GPR and $21,200 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $74,700 GPR and $37,400 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 2.00 FTE new ombudsmen positions. The addition of 2.00 FTE positions is sufficient to carry out the current level of ombudsman services with an adjustment for caseload projections for the 1999-2001 biennium. I am vetoing the part of the bill that adds an additional ombudsman in fiscal year 2000-2001 by decreasing the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care’s s. 20.432 (1) (a) appropriation by $16,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 and s. 20.432 (1) (k) appropriation by $10,600 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001 and the Department of Health and Family Services’ s. 20.435 (4) (b) appropriation by $5,300 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. This veto is part of a larger write-down in the Department of Health and Family Services’ Medical Assistance appropriation. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 1.00 FTE position in fiscal year 2000-2001.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
2. Kinship Care
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (3) (kc)], 397g, 1134h, 1142g, 1145g, 1145gm, 1145h, 1145j, 1145m, 1145p, 1145t, 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (ze) 1.], 1433x, 1491m, 1521dm and 9123 (10e)
Sections 397g, 1134h, 1145gm, 1145t, 1278g [as it relates to s. 49.175 (1) (ze) 1.], 1433x, 1491m and 1521dm expand the eligibility for kinship care payments to relatives of a person 18 years of age and older if that person is enrolled in, and regularly attends, a secondary education classroom program leading to a high school diploma, has not been absent from that program without an acceptable excuse for part or all of any day on which that program is held during the month preceding the month in which the kinship care payment is made and a kinship care payment was made on behalf of that person immediately prior to his or her 18th birthday. In addition, the agency making the kinship care payment is required to monitor the classroom attendance of the person under the relative’s care.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the expansion of the kinship care program to individuals 18 years of age and older. In addition to concerns I have about funding for this expansion, counties and the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) will have an increased administrative workload in monitoring school attendance, which would have to be done to ensure compliance with the program.
Sections 1142g, 1145g, 1145h, 1145j, 1145m and 1145p provide that an individual who is denied kinship care payments or the continuation of those payments based on information obtained in the individual’s background investigation may petition DHFS for a review of the action based on the current review process for denial of kinship care payments on other grounds.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to a kinship care relative having to go through the DHFS review process. Current law allows the kinship care relative to appeal the denial of benefits based on information from the background investigation directly to the director of the county social services or human services agency or an individual designated by the DHFS secretary. This appeals process allows the relative to get a decision in a more timely manner than the formal process provided for in these sections.
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (3) (kc)] and 9123 (10e) require DHFS to allocate $500,000 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to supplement the kinship care allocations to counties and the Bureau of Milwaukee Child Welfare in DHFS (bureau) in order to prevent the need to place a kinship care relative on a waiting list. If a county or the bureau requests supplemental funding and DHFS determines that the funding is necessary to eliminate a waiting list, DHFS must allocate the funding to the requesting county or the bureau. In addition, if the $500,000 is encumbered before July 1, 2001, DHFS is required to request a supplemental appropriation from the Joint Committee on Finance under s. 16.515.
I am vetoing this provision because I see no need to establish a reserve for kinship care payments. The biennial budget provides a level of funding that fully funds the projected kinship care caseload. In addition, DHFS has the administrative flexibility to reallocate funding among counties if waiting lists become a problem. By lining out the DHFS s. 20.435 (3) (kc) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $500,000 PR in fiscal year 1999-2000, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and the Department of Workforce Development secretary not to transfer these funds to DHFS.
3. Supplemental Security Income
Sections 1483t, 1483u, 1483v, 1483w, 1483x, 1483y, 1483ym, 1483z, 1483zb, 1484b and 1484c
Sections 1483t, 1483y and 1483ym allow a custodial parent to receive a payment for the support of a dependent child when the parent does not receive a federal or state supplemental security income payment. I am vetoing these sections because I am concerned that these parents will receive special treatment not afforded other recipients of the state’s supplemental payment who must receive a federal payment in order to receive a state payment.
Sections 1483t, 1483u, 1483v, 1483w, 1483x, 1483z, 1483zb, 1484b and 1484c expand the caretaker supplement program to include payments for the support of grandchildren. I am vetoing sections 1483t, 1483u, 1483v, 1483w, 1483x, 1483z, 1483zb and 1484c and partially vetoing section 1484b because I object to the expansion of this program to grandchildren. In addition to concerns I have that the Legislature provided no funding for this expansion, the receipt of a caretaker supplement payment should be based on the relationship between the parent and the child. Elsewhere in the bill is a provision that increases the monthly payment the custodial parent receives for the support of the dependent child from $100 to $250 for the first child and from $100 to $150 for each additional child.
4. Special Needs Adoption Placements
Sections 1131g, 1131k, 1131L, 1131m, 1131r, 1131s, 1148m, 1148p, 1160d, 1160g, 1189p, 1192g, 1192j, 1192m, 3044j, 3197j, 9323 (12g) and 9323 (12h)
These sections provide that: (1) in making an adoptive placement for a special needs child, the placing agency may not consider the location of a proposed adoptive parent’s residence as a factor in making the placement, unless the agency determines that consideration of residency is necessary to ensure the child’s best interest in light of his or her special needs; (2) if the placing agency considers the location of the prospective adoptive parents’ residence as a factor in placing a child with special needs, the agency must document in the child’s permanency plan the reasons why that consideration is necessary; (3) if the placing agency does not consider the location of the prospective adoptive parents’ residence as a factor in placing a child with special needs and the child is placed more than 60 miles from his or her home, the agency must document in the child’s permanency plan the reasons why consideration is not necessary; and (4) if consideration of the proposed adoptive parent’s residence is necessary to ensure the best interests of the child in light of the child’s need for care or treatment to meet the special needs, the child’s permanency plan must include documentation of the reasons why such consideration is necessary.
I am vetoing these provisions because they will result in Wisconsin being out of compliance with Title IV-E of the Federal Social Security Act, which provides that a state may not deny or delay a child’s adoptive placement when an approved family is available outside the jurisdiction that is responsible for the child’s case. If the placement is denied or delayed because of jurisdictional considerations, the state loses its eligibility for federal Title IV-E reimbursement. I will support legislation that amends the state's children code to add the federal jurisdiction provisions to ensure that an adoption placement is not delayed or denied solely because of the residence of the proposed adoptive parent.
5. Child Abuse and Neglect Consent Decrees
Sections 1131gt and 9309 (6g)
These sections extend from six months to one year the time that a consent decree under the children’s code is in effect unless the child, parent, guardian, legal custodian or expectant mother is discharged sooner by the judge or juvenile court commissioner. I am vetoing these sections because extension of the period of time that a consent decree is in effect may lengthen the time that a child and family are in the child welfare system and may delay achieving permanency for the child.
