These sections convert 1.0 FTE attorney position from project to permanent status and authorize related expenditure authority. These sections also extend the sunset date for the Public Service Commission’s (PSC’s) authority to assess utilities for the cost of this position from June 30, 1999, to June 30, 2001.
I am vetoing the sections related to the telecommunications advocate position and the related assessment on utilities because it is unnecessary to dedicate an attorney position at the Department of Justice exclusively to telecommunications issues. Furthermore, assessing utilities to cover the cost of this position results in a pass-through to customers that increases costs for all telephone consumers.
By lining out s. 20.455 (1) (kt) and writing in zero, I am vetoing the part of the bill funding the 1.0 FTE attorney position dedicated to this purpose. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot $119,200 PR-O in each fiscal year.
By vetoing the sections relating to the sunsets for the s. 20.455 (1) (kt) appropriation and the authority of the PSC to assess utilities for the costs of the position, I am retaining the June 30, 1999, sunset of both the telecommunications advocate position and the authority of the PSC to assess utilities for the cost of the position.
The Attorney General will continue to have the authority to appear before the PSC on telecommunication matters related to consumer protection and antitrust until the newly established sunset date of June 30, 2001.
12. Wausau Crime Lab Expansion Study
Section 9101 (5g)
This provision directs the Department of Administration (DOA) to perform a study to assess the feasibility of expanding the Wausau crime lab to include a DNA/serology unit. The study is to be completed by December 31, 1999.
I am vetoing this provision because introducing DNA capabilities at the Wausau crime lab is an unnecessary duplication of services and expensive equipment. The existing DNA resources at the state crime labs in Madison and Milwaukee have been sufficient to provide commendable service to prosecutors and law enforcement agencies throughout the state.
In addition, the December 31, 1999, deadline would not permit enough time to compile a meaningful report, and the study would represent an unfunded demand on DOA.
13. Report on Environment Enforcement Training
Section 9158 (8c)
This provision directs the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to jointly review educational and training objectives from the Midwest Environmental Enforcement Association (MEEA). The agencies would submit a report of their review to the Joint Committee on Finance during the second quarterly s. 13.10 meeting in 2000.
The report would include recommendations on developing a training seminar, utility of the current Roll Call Law format, production of a training CD-ROM, use of distance education, and potential funding sources including the fish and wildlife account and environmental account funds from DNR and law enforcement training funds from DOJ.
I am vetoing this provision because this study represents an unfunded and unnecessary demand on DOJ and DNR. The two agencies already interact through the participation of DNR on the Law Enforcement Standards Board under DOJ. The board sets minimum training standards for law enforcement officers and consults with other government agencies regarding the development of training courses. Additionally, the early 2000 deadline would not permit enough time to compile a meaningful report.
14. Methamphetamine Intelligence Analyst
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.455 (2) (a)]
This provision appropriates $154,600 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $233,200 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to fund 1.0 FTE GPR program and planning analyst and 3.0 FTE GPR special agent positions starting in January 2000 to investigate methamphetamine manufacturing and trafficking.
While I support the earlier start date for the special agent positions, I am partially vetoing this section to delete the analyst position because it is less critical to the effective investigation and direct enforcement of methamphetamine manufacturing, use and trafficking. By lining out the s. 20.455 (2) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $32,100 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $64,200 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds the 1.0 FTE GPR program and planning analyst position. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. I am also directing the Office of Justice Assistance to explore ways to allocate additional money to help local law enforcement agencies with this problem.
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
15. Grants Specialist Position Report
Section 9101 (7f)
The budget bill creates a new grants specialist position in the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA) with the goal of increasing the amount of federal and private grant funds available to state agencies, local governments and nonprofit groups. Statutory language in this section requires OJA to submit a report to the Legislature no later than January 1, 2001, detailing the accomplishments of the position and grants received attributable to the position’s efforts.
I am partially vetoing this section in order to eliminate the January 2001 reporting requirement because this provision represents a long-term investment for the state, local governments and nonprofit organizations. A report covering such a short time period would not accurately represent the full benefit of this position and its efforts.
STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER
16. Representation in Children in Need of Protective Services (CHIPS) and Juveniles in Need of Protective Services (JIPS) Cases
Sections 1130m, 1130p, 1130r, 1130t, 1130v, 1131gm, 3130m, 3131m, 3142g, 3142m, 3142p, 3143m, 3148m, 9358 (4cs) and 9358 (4ct)
These provisions require the State Public Defender to represent parents in CHIPS and JIPS cases. This requirement is estimated to increase the private bar costs of the State Public Defender by $2,726,500 GPR over the biennium, yet no additional funding is provided to the State Public Defender’s office.
I am vetoing these provisions in whole or in part because of the significant unfunded cost created by these provisions for the State Public Defender’s office. Specifically I am partially vetoing section 3142p to delete State Public Defender representation of parents and partially vetoing sections 9358 (4cs) and 9358 (4ct) to delete the initial applicability dates for legal representation of parents in CHIPS and JIPS cases.
SUPREME COURT
17. Appropriation Modifications
Sections 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.680 (2) (a) and 20.680 (4) (a)], 602m and 605m
These provisions convert the general program operations appropriations for the director of state courts and the law library from annual to biennial appropriations.
I am vetoing these provisions in order to maintain the stricter fiscal controls provided under annual appropriations and to continue to adequately monitor appropriation expenditures.
E. STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
1. Consolidation of State Vehicle Fleet Operations
Section 9158 (1d)
This section requires the Department of Administration to submit to the Joint Committee on Finance implementation plans to consolidate the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation and University of Wisconsin fleet operations into the Department of Administration fleet.
I am pleased that the Legislature adopted my recommendation regarding the study of consolidating state fleets. However, due to the late passage of the budget, requiring submission of the first plan at the December 1999 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance under s. 13.10 is not achievable. The Department of Administration will require additional time to prepare a suitable plan. I am therefore vetoing the part of this section which requires submission of the first plan by December 1999. The secretary of the Department of Administration will present this plan for the first regular meeting of the Committee under s. 13.10 in calendar year 2000.
2. State Vehicle Purchase
Section 9201 (3m)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to lapse a total of $230,000 to the general fund in fiscal year 2000-2001 from the fleet vehicle appropriations of four state agencies. This is intended to delete anticipated savings from these agencies' use of smaller four-cylinder automobiles rather than six-cylinder fleet cars. I object to this requirement because I do not believe four-cylinder fleet vehicles are necessarily adequate in all circumstances nor are they always less expensive when full operating costs are taken into account. This provision would also have a negative effect on my Alternative Fuels program. For these reasons I am vetoing this lapse requirement.
3. State Agency Dues Lapse
Section 9158 (10g)
This provision requires each state agency to lapse 10% of its fiscal year 1998-1999 expenditures for dues and memberships in state or national organizations. I object to this across-the-board provision as an intrusion into the operations of agencies and I am vetoing it. However, I am sensitive to the Legislature's interest in the resources which are being committed for these activities and I agree there should be an assessment. For this reason, I will request each agency to review the dues they are currently paying and to present this information to the Office of the Governor for evaluation. The agency will need the approval of the Governor's Office to keep their memberships. I believe this is a better approach for reducing unnecessary costs.
4. Federal Interest Reimbursements
Sections 79e, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.855 (1) (dm)], 613g, 9101 (19f) and 9201 (2f)
This provision requires that any interest payments received by the state from the federal government be recorded as GPR-earned and that payments to the federal government on interest owed be made from a new GPR sum sufficient appropriation. The Department of Administration (DOA) is further required to lapse to the general fund a balance of $1,300,000 from the program revenue appropriation that is currently used for interest payments and receipts administered by DOA.
While I concur that federal interest receipts and obligations should be treated differently than they are now, I believe the approach included in the budget bill inadvertently applies too broadly and will affect more than just the grants administered by DOA. Because I do not believe it was the Legislature’s intent to affect federal interest transactions in other state agencies such as the University of Wisconsin System, I am partially vetoing this provision to retain the current method of accounting. However, consistent with the language which is retained in the bill, the secretary of DOA will lapse to the general fund the current balance of $1,300,000, less administrative expenses, from the program revenue appropriation used to receive federal grants. I further request the department to propose a solution in the budget adjustment bill which will better implement the original intent.
5. Census Awareness Program
Section 9101 (19wx)
This section authorizes a program for providing grants to municipalities and associations for educational programs designed to ensure a complete and accurate 2000 federal census in Wisconsin. One provision of the program requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to solicit, receive, review and approve grants from qualified applicants within 30 days after the budget is effective. I do not believe all of this can be accomplished within that short period of time and I am vetoing this deadline. This will allow the more time to do a quality job in soliciting and processing grant requests.
6. National and Community Service Board – Technical
Sections 511, 532, 534 and 535
These sections are erroneous provisions related to the National Community Service Board that were inadvertently retained from an earlier version of the budget bill. I am vetoing these sections to remove these errors and improve the clarity of the budget.
BUILDING PROGRAM
7. Restrictions on Acquisition of Leases
Sections 2t, 3d, 3h, 649m, 649n, 2030m, 2033m, 2353s, 3191d, 3191e, 3191f, 3191g, 9101 (18v) and 9307 (1x)
These provisions prohibit the state from entering into a lease-purchase agreement that contains an option for the state to purchase a building constructed for purposes of initial occupancy by the state, unless construction and purchase of the facility is enumerated in the state building program prior to entering into the lease-purchase agreement. In addition, these provisions require the seller or lessor under any such lease-purchase agreement to agree to solicit bids or competitive sealed proposals in accordance with procedures for state-constructed facilities under current law; to require contractors to ensure that at least five percent of the total amount expended on construction of the facility be awarded to minority businesses and to comply, and to require contractors and subcontractors to comply, with the prevailing wage law in the same manner as a state agency and its contractors and subcontractors are required to comply for a state-constructed facility under current law. These provisions also require the Department of Administration to enforce minority contracting requirements and require the Department of Workforce Development to enforce the prevailing wage requirements.
I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because they place unnecessary restrictions on the Building Commission’s ability to sign lease-purchase agreements on behalf of the state. The Legislature is represented on the Building Commission and is fully aware of lease-purchase agreements as they are considered and signed by the Building Commission
8. Agency Work Plans for Capital Building Maintenance
Sections 3hg and 105m
These sections require each agency to prepare a work plan for expenditure of maintenance funds appropriated under agency operating budgets. They also allow the Department of Administration (DOA) to check timing of plans and withhold funds, require Building Commission approval of agency work plans, and require DOA to submit a report concerning the expenditure of capital building maintenance funds by each agency and work completed by each agency in relation to their work plan.
I am vetoing these sections because while requiring agencies to prepare a work plan for capital maintenance funds appropriated in their operating budgets has merit, agency staff have many other responsibilities in maintaining state buildings and their energies are best used for these other functions.
9. State Fair Park Racetrack Projects
Sections 9107 (7tu), 9107 (7tv) and 9145
These provisions require that the State Fair Park Board approve a racetrack seating project before the Building Commission may approve the project. They also require the State Fair Park Board to submit a noise abatement plan to the Joint Committee on Finance, and require approval of a noise abatement plan by the Committee before the Building Commission may approve racetrack improvement projects.
I believe the Building Commission should remain the sole state government body responsible for oversight of building projects. I object to the requirements that these projects also be subject to the review and approval of another legislative committee. Therefore, I am vetoing these provisions.
10. Wausau State Office Facility Study
Section 9107 (8m)
This provision requires a study of the feasibility of constructing a state office facility in the Wausau area.
The Building Commission is fully able to decide if it wishes to conduct a study on the feasibility of constructing a state office facility in the Wausau area. This request in the budget bill is, therefore, unnecessary and I am vetoing it.
11. Grant to Heritage Military Music Foundation
Sections 105e, 105f, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kw)], 520m, 520n, 527s, 527t and 9401 (7h)
These provisions authorize $85,300 PR in the Department of Administration for building improvements for the Military Music Foundation. The department is required to review a building improvements estimate for the facility currently occupied by the Heritage Military Music Foundation in Watertown, Wisconsin, if requested by the foundation, and is required to provide a grant to the foundation of $85,300 PR upon approval of the estimate.
The grant to be provided under these provisions derives from the revenues deposited in the state Division of Facilities Development from a fee assessed against building projects, including bonded projects. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the dollars generated to provide this grant would come from state bond revenue. I am vetoing the provision because it is inappropriate for projects of this nature to be funded from state bond revenue.
12. Design-Build Construction Projects
Sections 1580m, 1641m, 1641no and 1641q
These provisions authorize a design-build construction process and establish minority contracting requirements for certain public works projects undertaken by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District Commission (MMSD) and one project for Milwaukee County. This MMSD design-build process would only apply to central metropolitan interceptor sewer projects, any projects that are required to implement the Department of Natural Resources approved 2010 facility plan, and watercourse flood control projects for the Kinnickinnic, Menomonee and Root Rivers and Lincoln Creek. The county project is construction of a sheriff's department training academy.
The process established in these provisions would allow the selection of a design-build construction team on bases other than project cost. Moreover, they would effectively permit a sole source procurement and evaluation of a single contractor’s proposal rather than a group of qualified finalists. While the design-build concept is intended to offer economies and efficiencies, I object to the extreme latitude that is permitted here and believe the ultimate result will be higher cost to the tax payer. If used properly, the design-build process can deliver cost savings. However, the evaluation of proposals must be thorough and focus on qualifications, and the selection of the winning qualified contractor must be based on price.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to limit the design-build team approach to only the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department training academy project. It removes design-build as an option for the sewage district commission. I am uncomfortable with the relaxed statutory procurement process permitted for MMSD public works projects because of the magnitude of the dollars involved. Every project funded from taxpayer dollars should have consideration of multiple qualified contractors and the final decision from among the qualified candidates should be based on lowest price. Decisions should not be made using subjective criteria and estimates. By leaving in place authority for Milwaukee County to proceed with design-build on the training facility, I am expressing my expectation that they will fully observe these same procurement safeguards in their selection of a team.
I believe that design-build construction can bring efficiencies and cost savings in public works projects and I encourage the Legislature to consider legislation making it available to all governmental units in the state.
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
13. Division Administrator Appointment Authority
Section 2360m
The biennial budget modifies the statutes to reduce from four to three the total number of unclassified division administrators the secretary of the Department of Employment Relations is authorized to appoint.
I am opposed to this provision because it diminishes the secretary’s statutorily established position appointment authority. Therefore, I am vetoing it.
MILITARY AFFAIRS
