Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.155 (1) (jm)], 222m, 891k and 997m
These sections provide $200,000 PR annually for stray voltage research to be conducted by the University of Wisconsin System (UWS) and the Department of Health and Family Services (DHFS). Revenues will be generated through assessments on private utilities.
I am partially vetoing section 222m and vetoing section 997m to delete the stray voltage research program at DHFS. DHFS is not the appropriate agency to be conducting scientific research of this type. By lining out the Public Service Commission’s s. 20.155 (1) (jm) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $25,000 of the $200,000 PR provided annually for this purpose, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
I am partially vetoing section 891k to delete the statutory priorities mandating how the UWS conducts stray voltage research. UWS researchers need flexibility to design research in a manner that will produce accurate and objective conclusions. I am confident that the Board of Regents will ensure that the research on stray voltage will address the most significant concerns of Wisconsin citizens.
31. Wisconsin Humanities Council
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.285 (1) (ft)]
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.285 (1) (ft)] provides $125,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $125,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for the Wisconsin Humanities Council (WHC). 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 this increase because it is excessive. This provision increases funding for the WHC by 150% over fiscal year 1998-1999. By lining out the University of Wisconsin System’s s. 20.285 (1) (ft) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $50,000 of the $125,000 GPR provided annually for this purpose in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. This will still provide a 50% increase over fiscal year 1998-1999. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
32. Agricultural Education Consultant
Sections 172 [as it relates to 20.292 (1) (q)], 302p and 9147 (3w)
These sections create a sum certain appropriation in the Wisconsin Technical College System funded from the agricultural chemical cleanup fund to provide funding for an agricultural educational consultant at the Wisconsin Technical College System.
I am partially vetoing sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.292 (1) (q)], 302p and 9147 (3w) to change the $89,200 biennial funding for the 0.75 FTE agricultural education consultant position authorized in these sections from segregated revenue to general purpose revenue. While I believe that providing high quality post-secondary training programs in agriculture is vital to the future of farming in Wisconsin, the agricultural chemical cleanup fund is not an appropriate source of funding for this purpose. The segregated fund was created to provide reimbursement of charges associated with the cleanup of agricultural chemical discharges. Funds that are deposited in the agricultural chemical cleanup fund come from fees and surcharges paid by sellers of agricultural chemicals.
33. Rules for Wisconsin Technical College System Grant Programs
Sections 40t and 901r
Section 40t includes a provision that the Department of Administration (DOA) shall promulgate rules to establish the criteria for judging applications from technical college districts to develop or expand programs in occupational areas in which there is a high demand for workers. Section 901r includes a provision that the Wisconsin Technical College System Board (the board) shall promulgate rules to establish the criteria for judging applications from technical college districts to add course sections for courses where student demand exceeds capacity.
I am partially vetoing these sections to remove the requirement that DOA and the board must promulgate rules to establish the criteria for judging applications for these programs. The requirement to promulgate rules would hinder the ability of the Technical College System Board and DOA to quickly address new or changing workforce training needs.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
1. Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program
Section 1933gm
This section requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to work with the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to administer the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP), as approved by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. This section also creates several requirements for Wisconsin’s participation in CREP, including a grassland component, the amount of land covered by permanent conservation easements and a prohibition on the land enrolled being used for bird, game, deer and fur farms.
I am partially vetoing this section because it unduly restricts the state’s ability to work with the federal government to fashion a program that provides the most benefits to Wisconsin farmers and residents. In developing a proposal for my review, I urge DATCP to work with a wide range of interest groups, DNR and counties to create a program focused on full-time farming operations.
2. Pesticide Database
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (7) (uc)], 189e, 189g, and 1942mc
These sections appropriate $250,000 SEG from the agricultural chemical management fund and $150,000 SEG from the environmental fund for the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection to contract for the development of a pilot pesticide sales and use database. The funds have been placed in a Joint Committee on Finance segregated appropriation for release upon submittal of a plan for the database.
I am partially vetoing these sections to delete funding from the agricultural chemical management fund, the requirement for the department to contract for database development and the due date of the plan because they are either inappropriate or overly restrictive. The agrichemical management fund is supported by user fees for the purpose of regulating chemical use related to agricultural production and commercial applications. The fund is also being drawn upon in this budget to support general fund programs.
The effect of this veto will be to reduce expenditures in the sum sufficient appropriation under s. 20.865 (4) (u) by $250,000 in fiscal year 1999-2000. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $250,000 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 into unallotted reserve in appropriation s. 20.865 (4) (u) to lapse to the segregated agrichemical management fund.
My vetoes will leave $150,000 SEG for the department to study the development of a pesticide database. This funding is adequate to accomplish the goal. I request that the department seek consensus in developing a plan for review by the Joint Committee on Finance before December 31, 2000.
3. Agricultural Chemical Cleanup Fund – GPR Appropriation
Sections 184e, 1945e and 1945g
These sections eliminate the GPR appropriation for the agricultural chemical cleanup program.
I am vetoing these sections to restore the GPR appropriation because I object to removing the option of GPR funding for this program in the future. This program has historically been partially supported by GPR to reflect the general public benefit associated with cleanups of agricultural chemical spills.
4. Purchase of Development Rights Pilot Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (7) (dr)], 184c and 1580p
These provisions provide $500,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 for the Town of Troy in St. Croix County to purchase development rights on agricultural land within the town. Section 1580p also authorizes the town to collect repayments of farmland preservation tax credits on parcels that are rezoned out of exclusive agricultural zoning. These sections sunset one year after the effective date of the budget bill.
I am vetoing these provisions because programs of this kind should be locally based and coordinated with other planning initiatives. The state currently provides several incentives, such as use value assessments, Stewardship Program grants and various tax credits, to local units of government and farmers to retain land in agriculture or open space. Local support and planning processes should determine the creation and focus of any preservation efforts. I also object to authorizing the town to recover farmland preservation tax credit repayments. Allowing local units of government to recover these payments would cause inconsistent treatment of land rezoned out of exclusive agricultural zoning and create an incentive for local units of government to rezone parcels out of agricultural use.
5. Financial Assistance for Paratuberculosis Testing
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (2) (c)] and 1945s
This provision creates an appropriation for financial assistance to farmers for the first herd test for paratuberculosis disease in livestock.
I am partially vetoing section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (2) (c)] to delete the $100,000 GPR appropriation for fiscal year 1999-2000 because it is unnecessary. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection will need time to develop an application and award process for this funding.
I am partially vetoing section 1945s to remove the reference to providing financial assistance for the first herd test because it is inequitable for farmers that have already tested their herds for paratuberculosis. I request the department in developing the rules for this program to establish a process for providing financial assistance to farmers that have already conducted herd tests.
6. Weights and Measures Enforcement in Certain Towns
Section 1950m
This section expands the definition of municipality for purposes of local weights and measures enforcement to include towns with population above 5,000.
I am vetoing this section because it is excessive. Small towns should not be forced to incur the cost of a weights and measures enforcement program simply because their population exceeds 5,000. However, I do recognize equity issues concerning weights and measures enforcement in certain urban towns and request the Legislature to enact separate legislation to address those specific issues.
7. Telecommunications Complaint Reporting Requirements
Sections 1930r, 9104 (1m), 9130 (2m), 9141 (5m) and 9404 (2m)
These sections require the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to annually report on telecommunication services complaints to the Legislature. These sections also require the department to establish a memorandum of understanding with the Department of Justice and the Public Service Commission concerning coordination of each agency’s efforts to address consumer complaints regarding telecommunication services.
I am vetoing these sections because they are excessive and unnecessary. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection continues to diligently pursue all consumer complaint issues, including those related to telecommunication services. The department has sought to work closely with the Department of Justice concerning legal action against violators and has engaged the Public Service Commission in cooperative efforts concerning enforcement of consumer protection laws related to telecommunication services. Reports regarding coordination of effort and volume of complaints can be provided without directives from the Legislature.
8. Federal Funding for Agricultural Export Marketing
Section 1930j
This section requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to seek a certain level of federal funding for agricultural export marketing each year.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The department is continually seeking federal funds to assist Wisconsin’s agriculture industry in marketing its products nationally and internationally.
COMMERCE
9. PECFA – Deductibles
Sections 1991c, 1992c and 1993f
These sections change the current deductible for owners of underground storage tanks that handle more than 10,000 gallons per month from $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs with a maximum deductible of $7,500, to $3,000 for eligible costs up to $60,000 plus 3% of eligible costs exceeding $60,000. These sections also change the current deductible for farm tanks to a fixed deductible of $5,000.
I am partially vetoing these sections to establish a deductible of $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs for both retail and non-retail underground tanks and to return to a maximum $7,500 deductible for farm tanks because PECFA claimants must contribute to the fundamental changes necessary toward making the program solvent. Additional deductibles, cleanup oversight and process changes, risk-based assessment of sites, and state bonding for claims have been the cornerstones of my PECFA reform package. Fully realizing an overhaul of the program requires greater participation by owners in financing cleanups and controlling costs.
My veto retains authority for the Department of Commerce to promulgate rules to address financial hardship by allowing a deductible of $2,500 plus 5% of eligible costs with a maximum deductible of $7,500. I request the department to move quickly to develop these rules and include local governments involved in brownfields redevelopment projects in the class of tank owners that can be considered for a lower deductible.
10. PECFA – Interest Reimbursements
Section 1986e
This section changes the interest rate for reimbursement under the PECFA program from the prime rate plus 1% to a sliding scale based on the applicant’s total gross revenue. The sliding scale ranges from the prime rate plus 1% for an applicant with total gross revenues of less than $5,000,000 to the prime rate minus 4% for an applicant with gross revenues of more than $45,000,000.
I am partially vetoing this section to establish a two-tier reimbursement structure because state taxpayers cannot continue to absorb significant interest cost subsidies to PECFA claimants. For an applicant with gross revenues of less than or equal to $25,000,000 in the previous tax year, interest costs will be reimbursed at the prime rate minus 1%. For an applicant with gross revenues greater than $25,000,000 in the previous tax year, interest costs will be reimbursed at 4%. With limited PECFA funds available to reimburse claims each year, it is appropriate for the state to focus its limited resources on assisting owners and operators of petroleum storage tanks with fewer financial resources in order to ensure loans can be obtained to conduct environmental remediation. Since large companies are often able to self-finance PECFA cleanup costs, a lower interest reimbursement rate for these companies will help the fund remain solvent.
11. PECFA – Site Priority Classification
Section 1995r
This section specifies that a PECFA site is classified as high-risk if it has at least one of the following characteristics: (1) a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence in soil that has a hydraulic conductivity greater than 1 x 10-5 cm/sec; (2) a preventive action limit exceedence in a private or public potable well; (3) a groundwater enforcement standard exceedence exists within 100 feet of a private well or 1,000 feet of a public well; (4) presence of free product; or (5) a groundwater enforcement exceedence exists in a “fractured” bedrock.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the use of soil hydraulic conductivity as one of the characteristics because it describes the type of soil but not the level of risk at a site. Categorization of sites should be tied as closely to risk as possible. This will ensure that appropriate levels of oversight and effort are given to the cleanup of high-risk sites.
12. PECFA – Risk Based Analysis Rule Deadline
Section 9110 (3yu) (a)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to submit permanent rules specifying a method for determining the level of risk at a particular site by June 1, 2000. The Department of Commerce and the Department of Natural Resources must develop a rule that specifies a method to assess the level of risk at petroleum sites. The goal is to close low-risk sites that pose little or no risk to public health and target limited funds at high-risk sites that pose a danger to public health and the environment.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the June 1, 2000, deadline because it unnecessarily hinders this important process. Given the high level of public interest and the need to ensure that risk-based analysis is consistent with the state’s groundwater protection law, it is important that the departments be given enough time to develop a rule that ensures cost-effective and environmentally responsible cleanups.
13. PECFA – Criteria for Waiver of Site Bidding Process
Section 1983t
This section exempts a PECFA site from the bidding process if either the Departments of Commerce or Natural Resources identifies an emergency situation or contamination at a site that poses an imminent hazard to the public or environment, one department provides notice to the other department, or a site has a groundwater enforcement exceedence within a public utility or a private well. The provision also allows the Departments of Commerce and Natural Resources to disqualify bids that are unreasonable and bidders with poor past performance records.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the authority to exempt a site from the bidding process due to an emergency or because the site poses an imminent hazard to the public or environment. I object to the provision because the existence of an emergency or imminent hazard should not invalidate the bidding process for a particular site. Often an emergency or imminent hazard is discovered during the site investigation stage and is addressed by the site owner well before the bidding process is initiated. Criteria for cleanup cost reimbursement associated with a specific emergency or an imminent hazard response are specified in the Department of Commerce's administrative rules. Exempting sites because of emergency situations or imminent hazards could allow many sites to be exempted from the bidding process and reduce the program’s ability to realize all cost savings under this process.
14. PECFA – Usual and Customary Costs
Sections 1986m, 1986p, 9110 (3yu) (c) and 9110 (3yx)
These sections require the Department of Commerce to promulgate emergency rules establishing a usual and customary cost schedule by November 1, 1999; prohibit the use of the usual and customary schedule at sites that are bid; require an annual review of the effectiveness of the schedule; and repeal the requirement for the schedule on July 1, 2001.
I am partially vetoing section 9110 (3yu) (c) to eliminate the requirement that the Department of Commerce promulgate an emergency rule by November 1, 1999, because it does not provide sufficient time for the department to develop a rule given the late passage of the budget. I am also partially vetoing sections 1986m and 9110 (3yx) and vetoing section 1986p to eliminate the sunset of the usual and customary costs because these cost control measures, if effective, should be permanent. It does not make sense to require the department to establish a cost schedule and then repeal the requirement at the end of the biennium.
15. Home Heating Oil Tank
Section 1975m
This section exempts a homeowner with an aboveground or underground home heating oil tank with a capacity of less than 1,100 gallons from any administrative rules requiring closure and upgrade requirements and tightness testing on the tank, connected piping or ancillary equipment to prevent an inadvertent release of a stored substance.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the closure and upgrade exemption because it prevents the Department of Commerce from ordering closures on out-of-service tank systems at residential properties. Out-of-service tanks can be a hazard to public health and the environment and should be properly closed when no longer in service.
16. Private Sewage Replacement and Rehabilitation Program
Sections 2216m, 2217m, 2219m, 2219p, 2221m, 2223m, 2224m, 2228m, 2231m, 2236r, 2237g, 2237i, 9310 (4x) and 9410 (4x)
These sections give the highest priority for private sewage replacement and rehabilitation grants to failing systems that discharge into groundwater or outstanding resource waters of the state.
I am vetoing these sections because the prioritization does not adequately reflect threats to public health. Outstanding resource waters are often located in areas far from significant human habitation and have few, if any, private sewage systems. Since the current highest funding priority category already includes discharge to outstanding resource waters and groundwater, the change in funding categories is not necessary. The current funding priority categories provide the Department of Commerce with sufficient flexibility to respond to public health concerns and should be maintained.
17. Brownfields Grant Program
