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.
· Change the current recycling grant distribution formula to a per capita formula based on a percentage of a municipality’s population using curbside or drop-off collection of recyclable materials beginning with fiscal year 2000-2001.
· Provide $1,000,000 SEG in fiscal year 2000-2001 under the Department of Commerce for recycling market development contracts and assistance.
· Specify that the 2.0 FTE SEG project positions authorized to manage the recycling market development grants, loans and contracts be made permanent and require that these positions include a loan portfolio manager and a commodity specialist.
· Provide funding to the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) for staff, supplies and computer system upgrades.
· Provide funding to the University of Wisconsin-Extension for 3.0 FTE SEG positions associated with recycling education and technical assistance.
· Provide $200,000 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 for the Department of Natural Resources to conduct a landfill remediation study.
· Require all agencies with purchasing authority to prohibit the purchase of printer toner cartridges that cannot be remanufactured or recycled by any company other than the original manufacturer.
Sections 1817be, 1817bf, 1817bh, 1817bi, 2569k, 2569m, and 9436 (11m) establish a recycling surcharge on the tax liability of corporations, create a recycling tipping fee on solid waste and increase the environmental repair tipping fee. I object to these provisions because they place an unreasonable tax burden on businesses. I am vetoing section 2569m and partially vetoing sections 1817be, 1817bf, 1817bh, 1817bi, 2569k and 9436 (11m) to accomplish the following: (1) reduce the $2 recycling tipping fee to 30 cents per ton of solid waste, eliminate the 2.3 cent per ton increase in the environmental repair fee and eliminate the 30 cent per ton recycling tipping fee for high-volume industrial waste; (2) increase the gross receipts threshold for the recycling surcharge from $1,000,000 to $4,000,000; (3) reduce the recycling surcharge rate from 3.3% to 3% for corporations and from 0.2607% to 0.2% for other filers; and (4) restore the previous maximum surcharge payment of $9,800. These changes are expected to reduce the business tax and fee increases associated with this proposal by over 50%. While my vetoes reduce the tipping fee to 30 cents, I would consider a more reasonable fee level that is responsive to concerns about out-of-state waste.
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (6) (bu)] provides an additional $13,800,000 SEG annually for grants to municipalities for recycling programs. Although there is no language in the bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Conference Committee budget motion. I object to this increase in funding because it is excessive. The current law appropriation of $24,000,000 SEG represents a significant level of funding given the fact that the program was due to sunset in 2000. By lining out DNR’s s. 20.370 (6) (bu) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $13,300,000 SEG annually, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds part of this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. My vetoes retain a $500,000 SEG annual increase (for a total of $24,500,000 SEG annually) in municipal recycling grants to maintain the current law funding level and provide an offset to the anticipated impact of the 30 cent recycling tipping fee on local government finances.
Sections 2560g, 2560h, 2560i, 2562e, 2562m, 2563dt, 2563ed and 2563eh establish a proportional grant distribution mechanism for 1999 and per capita distribution formula in 2000 and thereafter. I am vetoing sections 2560h, 2562m, 2563dt, 2563ed and 2563eh and partially vetoing sections 2560g and 2562e to change the current distribution formula to a proportional distribution based on 1999 awards. I object to creating a per capita distribution formula without a full discussion of the impact on local governments and through this veto seek to reduce the administrative burden on the local governments and the Department of Natural Resources. I request the Department of Natural Resources to establish in administrative rules, a procedure for providing grants to communities that did not receive a grant in 1999, but apply for assistance in 2000 or 2001.
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.143 (1) (tm)], 215f, 2927m and 9110 (7rm) provide $1,000,000 SEG in fiscal year 2000-2001 for recycling market development programs in the Department of Commerce and authorize the expenditure of these funds for a materials exchange program. I am partially vetoing these sections to eliminate the $1,000,000 SEG and the references to a materials exchange program because the additional resources are unnecessary. This program, including the materials exchange program, can be supported through the estimated $4,600,000 in recycling market development loan repayments.
Section 9110 (8h) authorizes 2.0 FTE SEG permanent positions for a loan portfolio manager and a commodity specialist. I am partially vetoing this section to remove the specific position descriptions because it is excessive. The Department of Commerce needs maximum flexibility in allocating staff resources in support of an aggressive recycling market development program.
Section 9136 (2g) directs the DNR to submit a 2001-2003 biennial budget request that is reduced by $325,000 SEG from base year amounts to reflect a one-time increase in funding for computer system upgrades. I am vetoing this section as well as the funding for the computer upgrades because they are unnecessary. The department should seek to maximize existing resources in addressing computer technology needs. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $325,000 SEG into unallotted reserve in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in appropriation s. 20.370 (2) (hq) to lapse to the recycling fund.
Sections 172 [as it relates to ss. 20.370 (8) (iw)] provides $199,800 SEG in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 to DNR for limited-term employe and supplies costs. Although there is no language in the bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in a Conference Committee budget motion. I object to this increase because it is excessive. DNR will retain authority for 19.0 FTE SEG positions in this budget which is more than sufficient to address program workload. By lining out the DNR’s s. 20.370 (8) (iw) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $175,000 SEG for this purpose in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds part of this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.285 (1) (tb)] provides $100,000 in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $200,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 to the University of Wisconsin-Extension (UWEX) for 3.0 FTE SEG positions. I object to this increase because it is excessive. UWEX will retain authority for 4.5 FTE SEG positions in this budget to address recycling education and technical assistance responsibilities. By lining out the University of Wisconsin’s s. 20.285 (1) (tb) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $100,000 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $200,000 in fiscal year 2000-2001 for this purpose, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 3.0 FTE SEG positions.
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (2) (hr)], 311h and 9136 (2e) provide $200,000 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 for the Department of Natural Resources to conduct a study on landfill remediation. I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. DNR currently has information on closed landfills and continues to work through existing programs to identify and remediate closed landfills that pose a threat to public health or the environment.
Sections 81g, 82pm, 82pr, 84m, 1619 and 9358 (7m) prohibit the purchase of printer toner cartridges that cannot be remanufactured or recycled by anyone other than the original manufacturer. I am vetoing this provision because it limits the flexibility of state agencies in making sensible purchasing decisions.
I remain committed to the ethic of recycling and reuse to ensure a healthy environment. However, that ethic must be balanced against the need to ensure a sound Wisconsin economy. The taxes and fees included in this budget to support local government spending for recycling are unreasonable. My vetoes seek to strike a balance by increasing local funding above current law levels, retaining a small tipping fee and reducing the formerly temporary recycling surcharge.
31. Sustainable Urban Development Zone Pilot Program
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (6) (es)], 332m, 1684d, 1709c, 1719g [as it relates to s. 71.07 (2dy), s. 71.28 (1dy) and s. 71.47 (1dy)], 1719m, 1722bd, 1740c, 1743d, 1747m, 1748bm, 1749k, 1756h, 1760q, 1798 [as it relates to s. 71.07 (2dy), s. 71.28 (2dy) and s. 71.47 (2dy)], 2649h, 9150 (3v) and 9343 (22c)
These sections create a Sustainable Urban Development Zone Pilot Program, including funding to support the investigation and cleanup of brownfields properties and targeted tax credits. The pilot program is to be developed by the Department of Natural Resources working in conjunction with the Departments of Administration, Commerce, Health and Family Services, Revenue, and Transportation. Funding of $2,450,000 SEG is also allocated to the cities of Beloit, Green Bay, La Crosse, Milwaukee and Oshkosh.
I am partially vetoing sections 172, 1719g, 1798 and 2649h and vetoing the remaining sections because the pilot program has excessive requirements, the tax credits are unnecessary due to existing programs and the use of all-terrain vehicle account revenues for this pilot program is inconsistent with the goals of the all-terrain recreational vehicle program.
Through my vetoes, funding for the all-terrain vehicle account will continue to be used in a manner consistent with the intended purpose for collecting these user fees. In addition, a new tax credit program is unnecessary because the enterprise development zone program administered by the Department of Commerce has been expanded to include at least ten zones for environmental remediation purposes. I also believe that the pilot program can be adequately developed through the cooperative efforts of the Departments of Natural Resources, Commerce and Administration, with additional assistance available as needed from other state agencies. Regarding the allocation of funds to the specified cities, I request the Department of Natural Resources to work with those communities in addressing the shortfall of funding associated with vetoing the appropriation of all-terrain vehicle revenues.
32. Land Recycling Loan – City of Kenosha
Section 9136 (4x) (a)
This section earmarks $3,000,000 from the land recycling loan program for the City of Kenosha and exempts the city from all financial requirements under the loan program.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the $3,000,000 earmark and the exemption from financial requirements because I am concerned about earmarking this amount of money in this manner. My veto retains the requirement to provide a loan to Kenosha for brownfields cleanup and redevelopment, and my administration will work with the Mayor of Kenosha to help accomplish its goals.
33. Brownfields Staff
Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (2) (dh) and (mq)]
These sections appropriate $243,000 PR for 5.0 FTE PR positions and $291,600 SEG for 6.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $292,500 PR for 5.0 FTE PR positions and $351,000 SEG for 6.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal year 2000-2001. This funding provides the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) with additional resources to implement the various changes and new initiatives in the budget related to brownfields. 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 budget motion.
I am partially vetoing these sections because I object to the increase in the number of positions related to this program. The department received 18.0 FTE positions in the 1997-1999 biennial budget for brownfields program activities and should use those resources as effectively as possible. By lining out the Department of Natural Resources' s. 20.370 (2) (dh) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $243,000 PR provided for this purpose in fiscal year 1999-2000 and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $175,500 PR in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds part of this provision. By lining out the Department of Natural Resources' s. 20.370 (2) (mq) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $291,600 SEG provided in fiscal year 1999-2000 and deletes $175,500 SEG provided in fiscal year 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the remainder of this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 5.0 FTE PR and 6.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal year 1999-2000 and the 3.0 FTE PR and 3.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal year 2000-2001.
The net effect of my veto will result in a 7.0 FTE position increase above the 18.0 FTE positions provided to DNR in the 1997-1999 biennial budget for the brownfields program. I request the department to streamline the level of effort needed at PECFA sites, in response to other changes in the budget, so that staff and resources can be effectively utilized for brownfields redevelopment.
34. Vehicle Environmental Impact Fee
Section 2734hg
This section increases the vehicle environmental impact fee from $5 to $6 and eliminates the fee sunset date. Under current law, the fee is imposed on new car titles and used car title transfers and will sunset on July 1, 2001. The fees are deposited in the segregated environmental fund.
I am partially vetoing this section to maintain the repeal date of July 1, 2001, because I object to making the vehicle environmental impact fee permanent. I am concerned with the number and amount of fees currently being assessed on Wisconsin taxpayers and believe that the Legislature should review the need for the fee in the next biennial budget.
35. Environmental Remediation Tax Incremental Financing (ER TIF) – Eligible Costs
Section 1632
This section expands eligible costs under ER TIF to include restoration of air, surface water and sediments affected by environmental pollution; cancellation of delinquent property taxes; acquisition costs; demolition costs; and the removal of underground storage tanks and abandoned containers.
I am partially vetoing this provision to exclude the cancellation of delinquent property taxes from the eligible cost criteria because it will result in taxpayers paying for delinquent taxes twice – first through the county levy and second as a TIF cost.
36. Evaluation of Brownfields Redevelopment Program
Section 2611d
This section requires the Departments of Revenue, Transportation, Administration, Natural Resources and Commerce to evaluate the effectiveness of the brownfields initiative and submit a report to the Legislature by June 30 of each year.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the Department of Revenue and the Department of Transportation from the reporting requirement and to remove the report date because these provisions are excessive. The brownfields initiative is a long-term effort requiring extensive environmental cleanup and redevelopment activities. Its effectiveness and success will depend on the program’s ability to develop public and private partnerships over time. As such, a requirement for an annual report evaluating the effectiveness of the brownfields program will provide minimal insights and simply add workload to state agencies. I also believe that the Departments of Natural Resources, Commerce and Administration can conduct a comprehensive review of brownfields programs in consultation with other agencies. However, I concur that periodic evaluation of these programs and their effectiveness is integral to successful implementation. Therefore, I request that the agencies provide a report to the Governor and the Legislature on July 1, 2002, and every four years thereafter.
37. Brownfields Case Studies
Section 9154 (2m)
This section requests the LaFollette Institute at the University of Wisconsin-Madison to study the expected costs and returns of brownfields and greenfields development.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Department of Commerce and the Department of Natural Resources can make such requests without a statutory requirement.
38. Bibliography of Groundwater Contamination
Section 9136 (6h)
This section directs the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to create a bibliography of information on groundwater contamination. The budget also provides $50,000 SEG annually to fund this effort.
I am vetoing this provision because it is not a priority expenditure of limited brownfields funding. The department can utilize existing resources and partnerships with other agencies and the University of Wisconsin System to develop a bibliography. New resources for brownfields should be targeted toward conducting actual cleanup of contaminated sites and to encourage economic development. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $50,000 SEG into unallotted reserve in each of fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in DNR’s s. 20.370 (2) (mq) appropriation to lapse to the environmental fund.
39. Brownfields – Department of Transportation Requirements
Sections 1820m, 1830gd [as it relates to s. 85.61], 1854m and 1855L
These sections require the Department of Transportation to market programs in transportation facility improvement, enhancements, economic assistance and development, and infrastructure loan programs to optimize their use in the cleanup and redevelopment of brownfields properties.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The Department of Transportation is already working to coordinate all of its relevant programs with brownfields redevelopment efforts. As such, statutory directives regarding cooperative efforts are unnecessary and could potentially limit the department from maximizing the investment of transportation resources in brownfields projects.
40. Emissions Fee Surcharge
Section 2557c
This section creates a new surcharge fee beginning in 2001 that will be assessed on the owner or operator of a stationary source of air contaminant emissions for which an operating permit is required. The annual fee is $2.86 per ton of actual emissions, in the preceding year, of all air contaminants on which the current operating permit fee is based.
