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
Sections 195c, 212d, 2937r, 2938c, 2938f, 2939n, 2945m and 9310 (6bn)
These sections expand the Brownfields Grant Program to include assistance for addressing areawide groundwater contamination, require the Department of Commerce to reduce the weight afforded to job creation in the scoring of applications and direct that $1,400,000 be allocated in fiscal year 2000-2001 for awards that do not directly create jobs.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to shifting the focus of the program away from economic development. I proposed this grant program in the 1997-1999 biennial budget in order to leverage economic development in urban areas and small cities through the remediation and redevelopment of brownfields. My vetoes will retain a requirement to provide at least $400,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 for applications that are evaluated without consideration to the number of jobs created or retained. This change responds to the department’s efforts to modify the scoring criteria to reflect the indirect job creation and retention benefits of certain brownfields projects. In addition, there are many other programs and liability exemptions that are available to local governments and individuals, including many enacted in this budget, in support of brownfields cleanup and redevelopment efforts that will not have a direct economic impact.
18. Wisconsin Development Fund Earmarks
Sections 196 [as it relates to ss. 560.081 (3) and 560.083], 204, 2937d, 2937f and 2980m
These sections earmark, set aside or require funding through the Wisconsin development fund for financial assistance to the following: Main Street Program communities, public retail markets and the Wisconsin Procurement Institute.
I am partially vetoing sections 196, 204 and 2980m and vetoing sections 2937d and 2937f to delete earmarks for Main Street Program communities and public retail markets and to limit the Wisconsin Procurement Institute earmark to a one-time grant. I object to these earmarks because they are inconsistent with the primary focus of the Wisconsin development fund, compromise the award selection process and limit the Department of Commerce in its efforts to create and retain jobs in Wisconsin. I am retaining the authority for the department to provide a one-time $100,000 grant to the Wisconsin Procurement Institute to reflect the critical need to increase Wisconsin’s meager share of federal aid. Local communities, organizations, businesses and individuals associated with the identified programs can continue to compete for funding through the wide array of economic development assistance offered by the department.
19. Grant for Manufacturing Technology Training Center
Section 9110 (5)
This section allows the Department of Commerce to make a grant of not more than $1,500,000 to a consortium in the Racine-Kenosha area for a manufacturing technology training center.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove references to the amount of the grant because my budget included funding for this important initiative at a level of $1,000,000 and that is an adequate level of funding. The funding was intended to support the efforts of a public-private consortium in Racine and Kenosha counties to build a manufacturing technology training center. I proposed this funding because support for partnerships between education and business are critical to ensuring that Wisconsin workers and students can obtain high skill jobs. As such, I request that the department work with the consortium toward a financial assistance agreement that meets the fundamental goals of my initial proposal.
20. Loan to City Brewery in La Crosse
Section 9110 (7bt)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to make a loan of $1,500,000 to the City Brewery in La Crosse.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the reference to a loan amount of $1,500,000 because it limits the department’s flexibility in reaching a financial agreement with the company. The amount of the loan necessary to support business operations is unknown at this time. As such, I am requesting the department to work with the owners of City Brewery in developing a financial assistance agreement that will ensure job creation and retention in La Crosse.
21. Biotechnology Development Finance Company
Sections 196 [as it relates to s. 560.28 (2) (a)] and 2983c
These sections provide $1,000,000 from the Wisconsin development fund to support the establishment of a biotechnology development finance company.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Since my budget was introduced over eight months ago, the State of Wisconsin Investment Board has committed $50,000,000 to support the startup of biotechnology ventures. In addition, the certified capital company legislation has been implemented that will make up to $50,000,000 in venture capital available to start-up firms, including emerging biotechnology companies. I have requested the Department of Commerce to spearhead and coordinate efforts to bring these resources and other pools of venture capital together in support of biotechnology business development efforts. In addition, the department expects to commit up to $1,000,000 from the Wisconsin development fund in the form of grants and loans to start-up biotechnology firms.
22. Community Development Block Grant Earmarks
Sections 9110 (7b) and 9110 (8e)
These sections earmark funding from the federal Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for a new water well in Rib Mountain and a domestic violence shelter in Janesville.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to remove the reference to the federal CDBG appropriation because it is inconsistent with federal rules and regulations concerning the awarding of CDBG funding. The state receives funding from the federal government based on a set of goals and objectives. Applications are then solicited from municipalities and awarded based on a competitive scoring process that must conform to federal regulations. Earmarking funds from this program is inconsistent with federal law and risks the loss of federal funding. Nevertheless, both of these are worthy projects. My veto retains the requirement that the Department of Commerce provide funding for these projects through either the CDBG program, if consistent with federal requirements, or another financial assistance program.
23. Grant to CAP Services, Inc.
Section 9110 (7v)
This section directs the Department of Commerce to provide a grant of $25,000 annually in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 to CAP Services, Inc.
I am partially vetoing this provision to limit the funding requirement to fiscal year 1999-2000 because on-going funding undermines an objective application review process and potentially reduces funding for other projects. Applicants should follow the competitive award process in order to ensure that the highest priorities are met through the most cost-effective means possible.
24. Audit of State Economic Development Strategy
Section 9131 (1x)
This section requests the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to consider requesting the Legislative Audit Bureau conduct a performance evaluation audit of the state’s economic development program.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The Department of Commerce continues to work with the Legislature in ensuring continued economic growth for the entire state through efforts that support the creation and retention of high-skill, high-wage jobs.
25. Development Zones – Effective Dates
Section 9343 (2)
This section establishes effective dates for development zone tax credits. I am partially vetoing this section to remove a delayed effective date because this provision conflicts with another section of the bill that makes the changes effective January 1, 1999. My veto will ensure those businesses engaging in job creation and retention and environmental remediation will receive the tax benefits as soon as possible.
LAND USE
26. Soil Surveys and Mapping
Sections 110n, 110r, 114m, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kt)], 509w, 509y, 527, 527e, 615, 617, 619, 621, 623, 625, 627, 3262m, 3262n, 9401 (2zu), 9401 (4), 9401 (5), 9401 (6zu) and 9401 (6zv)
Sections 114m, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kt)], 527, 527e, 3262m, 3262n and 9401 (2zu) provide the Land Information Board (board) with authority to conduct soil surveys and mapping activities and to assess state agencies for the costs related to these activities. These sections also delay the sunset of the board by two years, to September 1, 2005. Sections 110n, 110r, 509w, 509y and 9401 (6zu) and (6zv) establish a date to repeal the comprehensive planning grants program. Sections 615, 617, 619, 621, 623, 625, 627 and 9401 (4) and (5) repeal the appropriations for the additional biweekly payroll and the 1999 pay rate or range adjustments on June 30, 2001.
I am partially vetoing sections 114m, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kt)], 527 and 9401 (2zu) and vetoing sections 527e, 3262m and 3262n to remove the authority of the board to assess state agencies, allow the Department of Administration to work with the board on these activities and to retain the board’s current September 1, 2003, sunset date. I object to the expansion of the board’s powers to allow it to assess state agencies and to the delay in the required review and sunset of the board. The board has a dedicated revenue source to fund its activities and should not need to assess other agencies. Also, the review of the board and the Wisconsin Land Council (council) were coordinated to ensure a complete evaluation of the state’s land information and land use policies and activities. Delaying the repeal of the Land Information Board will compromise a thorough review of the board and council’s roles and responsibilities. I request the Department of Administration and the Land Information Board work cooperatively to complete the soil surveys and mapping activities.
I am vetoing sections 110n, 110r, 509w, 509y, 615, 617, 619, 621, 623, 625, 627 and 9401 (4), (5) and (6zu) and partially vetoing section 9401 (6zv) because the repeal dates are unnecessary. Funding for the comprehensive planning grants program to assist local units of government in creating and amending local comprehensive plans will be decided each biennium, which allows for more frequent reviews of the program’s effectiveness. The statutory language of the appropriations for the additional biweekly payroll and the 1999 pay rate and range adjustments clearly limit the use of these appropriations.
27. Model Land Development Ordinances
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.285 (1) (ep)] and 1606m
Section 1606m requires the University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW-Extension) to develop model ordinances for traditional neighborhood development and conservation subdivisions. The section also requires cities, villages and towns with populations of at least 12,500, to enact ordinances which are substantially similar to the model ordinances developed by the UW-Extension. Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.285 (1) (ep)] provides $161,800 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for 2.0 FTE GPR positions to create and implement a local planning educational program for local units of government. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill.
I am partially vetoing section 1606m to remove the requirement that the ordinance enacted by a city, village or town be substantially similar to the model ordinance. Model ordinances are useful guides for local units of government, but each locality is unique. Removing the word “substantially” provides cities, villages and towns more flexibility to enact ordinances which best serve their communities. By lining out the University of Wisconsin System’s s. 20.285 (1) (ep) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $80,900 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the creation of 1.0 FTE GPR position because it is excessive. This veto retains 1.0 FTE GPR position to create the local planning program and coordinate the educational efforts of existing UW-Extension staff, who currently provide assistance on land use issues to local units of government. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 1.0 FTE GPR position.
28. Easement Transaction Information
Sections 43h and 43j
These sections require the Wisconsin Land Council (council) to collect information on conveyances of land rights. The council would also be required to maintain a directory of this information. These sections do not apply after August 31, 2003.
I am vetoing these sections because they create an unnecessary burden on parties to land transactions. However, this information is important to understanding land use patterns in Wisconsin. Therefore, I request the Wisconsin Land Council study the reasons for using these types of transactions and make recommendations as to the need for this information, including cost-effective methods of information gathering and management.
29. Dane County Regional Planning Commission
Section 9158 (8w) (b)
Section 9158 (8w) (b) establishes a new process for selecting the membership of the Dane County Regional Planning Commission. I am partially vetoing this section to clarify that there is only one association that represents both cities and villages in Dane County. That association should be providing a list of names to the Governor from which he will select three members to represent Dane County cities and villages on the Dane County Regional Planning Commission.
NATURAL RESOURCES
30. Recycling
Sections 81g, 82pm, 82pr, 84m, 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.143 (1) (tm), 20.285 (1) (tb), and 20.370 (2) (hr), (6) (bu), and (8) (iw)], 215f, 311h, 1619, 1817be, 1817bf, 1817bh, 1817bi, 2560g, 2560h, 2562e, 2562m, 2563dt, 2563ed, 2563eh, 2569k, 2569m, 2927m, 9110 (7rm), 9110 (8h), 9136 (2e), 9136 (2g), 9358 (7m), and 9436 (11m)
These sections make the following changes to the state’s recycling program:
· Impose a 3.3% surcharge on tax liabilities of companies with gross receipts greater than $1,000,000, with a maximum payment of $20,000.
· Impose a recycling tipping fee of $2.00 per ton on solid waste and $0.30 per ton on high-volume industrial waste.
· Increase the environmental repair tipping fee by $0.023 per ton on all solid waste other than high-volume industrial waste.
· Increase municipal recycling grants from $24,000,000 SEG to $37,800,000 SEG annually.
