CORPORATE FRANCHISE AND INCOME TAX
8. Treatment of Corporate Partners and Limited Liability Company
9. Sourcing of Receipts of Sales of Services
10. Dividends Received Deductions
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
11. Access Fees for Computer Databases
GENERAL PROVISIONS
12. Required General Fund Balance – Increase to 1.2%
INCOME TAXES
13. Income Tax Exclusion for Mass Transit Fringe Benefits
14. Individual Income Tax Credit for Military Income
15. Miscellaneous Itemized Deductions
16. School Property Tax Rent Credit
INDIAN GAMING
17. Legislative Approval of Tribal Gaming Compacts
18. Office of Justice Assistance Tribal Law Enforcement Assistance
GRANT PROGRAM
19. Department of Health and Family Services Grant Program for Tribal Health Centers
20. Department of Veterans Affairs Services to American Indian Veterans
21. Tourism Marketing Grant Program
22. Department of Natural Resources Drinking Water Study
23. Department of Natural Resources Elk Management
24. Department of Natural Resources Crane Management
25. Commerce – Gaming Economic Development and Diversification
26. University of Wisconsin System Aquaculture Demonstration Facility
STATE OF WISCONSIN INVESTMENT BOARD
27. Bonus Compensation
BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF PUBLIC LANDS
28. Information Technology Initiatives
29. Revised Investment Authority for Certain Board Investments
REAL ESTATE TRANSFER TAX
30. Real Estate Transfer Forms and Filing Requirements
SALES AND USE TAX
31. Exemption for Maintenance of Railroad Tracks and Rights-of-Way
SHARED REVENUE AND TAX RELIEF
32. Tax Exemption Reporting Fee
33. Use-Value – Definition of Agricultural Land
34. Use-Value Administrative Rules
35. Automatic Teller Machines
36. Tax Incremental Financing – Village of Gilman
37. Premier Resort Area – Eagle River
38. Small Municipalities Shared Revenue
39. Shared Revenue Payments
40. Payments for Municipal Services
41. Lottery Credit and Property Tax Relief
A. EDUCATION AND TRAINING
ARTS BOARD
1. Arts Board Grant Programs
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.215 (1) (e)] and 9105 (1c)
Section 9105 (1c) provides $150,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to a nonprofit performing arts foundation to improve handicapped accessibility. I am partially vetoing section 9105 (1c) to return the level of funding for this purpose to that approved by the Joint Committee on Finance. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $100,000 into unallotted reserve in fiscal year 1999-2000 in appropriation s. 20.215 (1) (b) to lapse to the general fund. I am providing a lower one-time increase for this initiative, because I am concerned about the use of the state budget to circumvent the authority of the Arts Board to set priorities and establish standards for awarding grants. Grants should be awarded under a system that objectively evaluates all grant applicants. Furthermore, in the future, Arts Board funds should be used to directly support the arts, not to provide capital improvements to facilities.
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.215 (1) (e)] provides $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 to the Milwaukee Foundation, Inc. for investment in the High Point Fund. I am vetoing section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.215 (1) (e)] to delete the $50,000 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2000-2001. I believe that this funding should be provided on a one-time basis. I am not making a judgment on the worthiness of the High Point Fund, only on the process used to award the funds. The decision regarding which arts activities receive grants should rest with the Arts Board. The High Point Fund is eligible to compete for grants from the Arts Board. It should be noted that the Arts Board gives at least 5% of its grants to minority artists and organizations.
EDUCATIONAL COMMUNICATIONS BOARD
2. Public Broadcasting Committee
Section 9113 (1mm)
This provision creates a committee to study the restructuring of public broadcasting and the costs of digital television conversion. The committee is authorized to submit legislation for restructuring public broadcasting and funding the transition to digital television by January 15, 2000.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the January 15, 2000, submission date. It is unrealistic to expect the public broadcasting restructuring committee to prepare detailed legislation concerning the reorganization of public broadcasting and the funding of digital television in such a short period of time. Deleting the submission date will give the committee the opportunity to prepare the best possible plan.
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AIDS BOARD
3. Talent Incentive Program (TIP) and Wisconsin Higher Education Grant (WHEG) for University of Wisconsin System (UWS) Students
Sections 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.235 (1) (fd) and 20.235 (1) (fe)], 242g, 242r, 918g, 918r and 9458 (6g)
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (fd)] provides $4,311,400 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $4,725,300 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for TIP grants. Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (fe)] provides $18,900,300 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $20,714,700 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for WHEG for UWS students. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes these increases, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the budget bill.
Sections 242g and 242r change the appropriations for TIP and WHEG for UWS students from biennial, sum certain to sum sufficient appropriations. Sections 918r and 918g alter the method for determining the funding for each program by increasing the appropriations by the highest percentage increase in resident undergraduate tuition charged at a UWS institution in the prior school year.
These programs provide financial assistance to resident undergraduate students enrolled at least half time at Wisconsin colleges and universities; both programs grant awards based on a student’s financial need.
I am partially vetoing the increases to the TIP and WHEG programs to reflect the impact of the tuition freeze for UWS resident undergraduate students in fiscal year 2000-2001. By lining out the Higher Educational Aids Board’s s. 20.235 (1) (fd) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $102,200 GPR provided for TIP in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $221,500 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am still providing a 14% increase over the biennium for TIP grants, since the program includes students who attend private colleges and Wisconsin Technical College System schools, where tuition will not be frozen in 2000-2001, as well as UWS campuses. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
By lining out the Higher Educational Aids Board’s s. 20.235 (1) (fe) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $1,814,400 of the $20,714,700 GPR provided for WHEG in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. The resulting zero percent increase in funding for the WHEG program between fiscal year 1999-2000 and fiscal year 2000-2001 reflects a tuition freeze for resident undergraduate students attending UWS institutions in 2000-2001. Further, holding students harmless from any tuition increase is comparable to a 20% to 25% increase in the WHEG appropriation in most other years. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
I object to sections 242g, 242r, 918g, 918r and 9458 (6g), because making these appropriations sum sufficient limits the Governor’s and the Legislature’s flexibility to address issues that may affect the level at which these programs are most appropriately funded. By vetoing these sections, both the TIP and the WHEG program will continue to operate as biennial appropriations.
4. Tuition Grant Program
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (b)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.235 (1) (b)] provides $20,466,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $21,424,200 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for the Tuition Grant (TG) program. The TG program provides financial assistance to resident undergraduate students enrolled at least half time at private colleges and universities in Wisconsin; the program grants awards based on a student’s financial need. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Conference Committee amendment to the budget bill.
I object to these increases because they are not consistent with anticipated tuition increases at Wisconsin’s private colleges and universities over the next two years. By lining out the Higher Educational Aids Board’s s. 20.235 (1) (b) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $803,800 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1999-2000, and $385,600 GPR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. This will provide a 14% increase over the biennium, an amount which should reflect expected tuition increases for the 1999-2001 period. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
5. Neighborhood Schools Initiative
Sections 14g, 15m, 40k, 1630d, 2108s, 2143p, and 9158 (7tw).
These sections relate to the financing, planning, legislative oversight and implementation of the Neighborhood Schools Initiative. The intent of the initiative is to allow the board of directors of the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) to expand the number of neighborhood schools in the district and to reduce the number of MPS students that are involuntarily bussed within the school district. These provisions create a hold harmless provision limiting the reduction of intradistrict transportation aids the Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS) will receive under the special transfer (Chapter 220) program, require MPS to submit a report to the Legislature describing its plan for increasing the number and capacity of neighborhood schools in the district, create a Milwaukee School Construction Board to review the report drafted by MPS, place limits on the school facilities that can be constructed under the initiative and specify minority contracting requirements for construction funded under the initiative.
I am partially vetoing section 2143p to eliminate language that provides an inflationary adjustment to the intradistrict transportation aid received by MPS under the hold harmless provision included in the section. I am partially vetoing this section because the intent of the hold harmless provision, to provide a stable funding stream the district can use to retire the debt issued to finance the construction of neighborhood schools, can be met without indexing MPS’ intradistrict transportation aid. Given that MPS currently does not spend all of its intradistrict Chapter 220 aid on actual transportation costs, the current level of funding is adequate to cover annual debt service on the $170,000,000 in bonding authority provided under this initiative.
I am partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to public hearings held by the MPS board] and vetoing section 2108s in its entirety because the detailed meeting requirements contained in these sections are overly prescriptive. The MPS board has assured me it intends to solicit broad public input from employes, parents and the greater Milwaukee community as it prepares its plan for reducing involuntary busing and opening neighborhood schools. Yet the board, as the duly elected representatives of the people of Milwaukee, knows best when, where and how to schedule hearings and listening sessions on this initiative. Setting in statute requirements for a specific number of hearings is an excessive infringement on local control that could affect the board’s ability to prepare its proposal in time to meet the timelines spelled out elsewhere in this section.
I am also partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to s. 121.85(2) through (5) of the statutes] to remove the requirement the MPS board include in its report a plan for complying with current Chapter 220 provisions. I object to this requirement because the bill does not alter existing Chapter 220 requirements and the additional reporting requirement is an unnecessary mandate.
In addition, I am partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to the Milwaukee school construction board] and vetoing sections 14g, 15m and 40k in their entirety to eliminate the Milwaukee school construction board. I object to these provisions because this new entity will create an unnecessary level of oversight and will undermine the authority of the elected Board of Directors of MPS. I have been impressed with the changes already instituted by the new school board and I am willing to give them time to pursue reforms that will produce the well-trained, highly skilled graduates Milwaukee needs. The voters of the City of Milwaukee have embraced a platform of change to place MPS on the right track, and I trust them and their representatives on the board to implement this plan to improve the delivery of education to every child under their care.
I am also partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to Senate or Assembly education committee hearings] to remove a provision that allows a member of either the Senate or Assembly education committees to call a hearing on the report submitted by the MPS board to the Joint Committee on Finance (JCF). I object to this provision because the bill already provides for adequate review by the Legislature, as the board must submit its plan for neighborhood schools to JCF. Furthermore, vetoing this provision does not limit the ability of either committee to call a hearing on this matter if it so chooses at any time. I expect the members of the MPS board to hold extensive meetings with the Milwaukee legislative delegation and the members of the Senate and Assembly committees as the Neighborhood Schools Initiative progresses. Regular and complete consultations with legislators and members of the general public will ensure the plan has the necessary support and input to make the board’s vision a success.
Because of the delayed passage of the budget bill, I am partially vetoing section 9158 (7tw) [as it relates to deadlines for submission and review of the Special Transfer Aid report] by striking the digit “1” in two places, thereby providing the MPS board with an additional month to deliver its report to the JCF and allowing the JCF an additional month to review the report. The late approval of the budget has already shortened the amount of time the MPS board has to develop and write its plan. An extra month is a reasonable extension under the circumstances to allow the board to garner the public comment and perform the financial and strategic analysis required to produce the document.
