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.
6. Community Based Residential Facilities
Sections 1045, 1045d, 1045g, 1048m, 1059, 1059g and 1064
Sections 1045d and 1048m require the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to establish a pilot project in Chippewa County to effect all of the following: (a) provide that Chippewa County cannot deny Community Options Program (COP) services to an eligible individual who resides in a Community Based Residential Facility (CBRF) solely because the maximum total amount of funding for persons residing in CBRFs has been reached; (b) in discussing the cost effectiveness of a placement in a CBRF, Chippewa County shall consider all state and federal funds needed for all options considered; and (c) provide that Chippewa County may use COP GPR funds to provide services in any CBRF that has 20 or fewer beds. I am vetoing the provision that Chippewa County cannot deny COP services to an eligible individual who resides in a CBRF solely because the maximum total amount of funding for persons residing in CBRFs has been reached, since I want the county to maintain its current flexibility to determine what percentage of COP funds it plans to use to support individuals residing in CBRFs.
Sections 1045, 1059 and 1064 allow a county to waive the COP assessment, in accordance with guidelines established by DHFS, prior to a person’s admission to a CBRF. In addition, these sections provide that a person seeking admission to a CBRF on a private pay basis may waive the assessment, unless the person is expected to become eligible for Medical Assistance within six months of the assessment. Sections 1045g and 1059g prohibit a county department or aging unit from denying COP services to an individual who has refused an assessment. I am vetoing sections 1045g and 1059g and the provisions that an individual can waive the COP assessment because the information obtained from the assessment is important in choosing the most appropriate and cost effective services for the individual.
7. Report on Huntington’s Disease
Section 9123 (8t)
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS), by January 1, 2000, to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance on services provided to individuals with Huntington’s disease. Specifically, the report must include, for each county of the state, the following: (a) the number of individuals with any type of disability receiving services through the Community Options Program (COP) and the Community Integration Program (CIP) and county revenues; (b) the number and percentage of individuals with Huntington’s disease receiving services through these programs; and (c) the types of services that individuals with any type of disability, including Huntington's disease, received under these programs. I am vetoing this section because I am concerned about the increased cost to counties that administer the COP and CIP programs. DHFS classifies Huntington’s disease as dementia and requires no separate reports. Counties would have to undertake a special data collection effort to obtain information on individuals with this disease.
8. Community Integration Program (CIP 1B)
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (4) (b)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (4) (b)] appropriates $181,700 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $539,800 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 50 new CIP 1B placements in fiscal year 1999-2000 and an additional 50 new CIP 1B placements in fiscal year 2000-2001. 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 CIP 1B placements.
I object to the expansion of funding for this program at the level approved by the Legislature. I am willing to approve an increase of $181,700 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $359,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. I am vetoing that part of the bill which funds 50 new CIP 1B slots in fiscal year 2000-2001 by decreasing the Department of Health and Family Services’ s. 20.435 (4) (b) appropriation by $179,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001. This veto is part of a larger write-down of the Medical Assistance appropriation. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Elsewhere in the bill is funding for 581 additional Community Options Program placements in fiscal year 2000-2001, a portion of which will be used for community services for developmentally disabled individuals.
9. Uniform Compliance Checks
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (1) (a) and (c), (3) (f), (12) and (13)]
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (1) (a)] defines the authority of the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) under Chapter 254, Investigation of the Sale or Gift of Cigarettes or Tobacco Products to Minors, including the requirement that in using statistically sound sampling techniques in designing annual surveys, DHFS must stratify the sample so as to measure compliance by type of retail outlets, excluding a barroom. I am vetoing the provision that excludes barrooms from the sample because, under 42 USC 300x-021, DHFS has included taverns in its sample of outlets and federal regulations require states to maintain consistency in their samples from year-to-year.
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (3) (f)] requires that, excluding investigations conducted under 42 USC 300x-021 and 21 CFR part 897, detailed information concerning the investigation must be reported to DHFS and to the retailer. I am vetoing the provision requiring that investigation results be reported to DHFS because the reports are not necessary for the department’s efforts to collect data to comply with federal law.
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (1) (c) and (12)] exempts surveys conducted by local units of government that have not entered into contracts with DHFS under 42 USC 300x-021 and 21 CFR part 897 from provisions of Chapter 254 and provides that no local surveys may be used for the purpose of issuing warnings or citations or any other enforcement mechanism. I am vetoing these provisions because one of the purposes in creating Chapter 254 was to strengthen compliance checks across the state to achieve a statewide goal of reducing the use of tobacco products by minors. In addition, I am concerned that the provision that precludes local municipalities from using the results of compliance checks for law enforcement purposes may curtail the ability of local governments in enforcing state law prohibiting tobacco sales to minors.
Section 2485j [as it relates to s. 254.916 (13)] exempts the City of Madison or the local health department or local law enforcement agency of the City of Madison from all provisions of Chapter 254. I am vetoing this provision because no county, town, village or city should have a special exemption from the requirements of Chapter 254.
10. Administrative Funding for the Blind and Visually Impaired
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.435 (6) (kd)], 226c [as it relates to ss. 20.435 (6) (kd) and 196.218 (5) (a) 10.], 445g and 2332n
These sections provide $100,000 in each year from the universal fund for administrative services under the rehabilitation teaching program for blind and visually impaired persons. I am vetoing these provisions because I am concerned about broadening the use of the universal fund for activities not directly related to telecommunications, such as salary and fringe benefit costs for rehabilitation teachers. The Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) did not ask for additional funding for rehabilitation teachers in its biennial budget request. However, I want blind and visually impaired persons to receive the same level of services in fiscal year 1999-2000 and fiscal year 2000-2001 that they received in fiscal year 1998-1999. Thus, I am directing the secretary of DHFS to use base resources to continue the fiscal year 1998-1999 level of services.
11. Healthy Families Program
Section 1099g
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS) to distribute $100,000 in each year to Kenosha Area Family and Aging Services, Inc. for the provision of home visiting services for mothers who are under 18 years of age. I am vetoing this section because I object to providing additional funding for home visiting programs. 1997 Wisconsin Act 293 created a home visiting grant program and required DHFS to evaluate the program. It is premature to expand these programs until the evaluation determines whether home visiting programs are effective in reducing the incidence of child abuse and neglect. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $100,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $100,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s. 20.435 (3) (bc) to lapse to the general fund.
12. Nursing Home Wage Pass-Through
Section 9123 (9m) (b), 9123 (9m) (bg), 9123 (9m) (bm) and 9123 (9m) (c)
Section 9123 (9m) (b), (bg), (bm) and (c) provide a wage pass-through supplement to nursing homes to increase the wages or salaries and fringe benefits or increase staff hours of housekeeping and laundry workers, dietitians, and food workers.
I am vetoing section 9123 (9m) (b), (bg) and (bm), and partially vetoing section 9123 (9m) (c), to eliminate the wage pass-through for housekeeping and laundry workers, dietitians, and food workers because this increase has not been sufficiently justified. Many nursing homes contract for dietary consulting services, and to a lesser extent, laundry and food service workers. Therefore, the wage pass-through may not apply to workers in those areas because the nursing home does not pay their wages directly. In light of evidence of high turnover rates and the threat of declining patient care as a result of low wages for nurse’s assistants, it makes sense at this time to direct scarce state resources to those workers who provide direct care.
