· 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.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the digit “2” to reduce the surcharge fee from $2.86 per ton of actual emissions to $0.86 per ton because it is excessive. The inclusion of an additional fee will unnecessarily detract from a positive business climate in Wisconsin. My veto reduces revenues for the Department of Natural Resources' Air Management Program by $608,100 PR. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $608,100 PR in unallotted reserve in fiscal year 2000-2001 in DNR’s s. 20.370 (2) (bg) appropriation to lapse into the general fund.
41. PCB Indemnification
Section 2648c
This section authorizes the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to enter into indemnification agreements with municipalities related to liability resulting from the disposal of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) and the treatment of leachate with PCBs from the Great Lakes basin and requires that any indemnification agreement must be approved by the Governor, the Attorney General, the DNR secretary and the governing body of the municipality. DNR also has the authority to place a limit on the state’s liability in the indemnification agreement.
I am partially vetoing this section to delete the Attorney General and the DNR secretary from having to approve the indemnification agreement and to eliminate DNR’s authority to place a limit on the state’s liability because it may delay cleanup efforts and reduce gubernatorial and legislative authority related to these agreements. DNR can continue to negotiate in good faith with municipalities regarding the landfilling of materials containing PCBs.
42. Approval of Court-Ordered Settlements
Sections 643p, 643s and 9136 (11m)
These sections require Joint Committee of Finance (JCF) approval of all funds encumbered and expended from any court-ordered settlements and direct agencies to submit to JCF an annual report on the expenditures made from these funds. Also, these provisions require the Department of Natural Resources to lapse any remaining fund balance in the State v. Menards, Inc. Trust Fund to the common school fund on December 31, 2002.
I am vetoing these sections because they are excessive and unnecessary. I object to these provisions because court-ordered settlements include numerous stipulations regarding use of the award. As such, JCF oversight is unnecessary. If implemented, these provisions will not only increase administrative workload but also reduce program efficiency for all agencies.
43. Safe Drinking Water Revenue Bonding Authority
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.320 (2) (q), (r) and (u)], 303w, 303x, 303y, 2509p [as it relates to the safe drinking water program], 2509q [as it relates to the safe drinking water program], 2510d [as it relates to the safe drinking water program] and 2510m [as it relates to the safe drinking water program]
These sections authorize the issuance of revenue bonds and establish debt service appropriations to provide state subsidized loans for upgrades and replacement of municipal drinking water systems.
I am partially vetoing sections 172, 2509p, 2509q, 2510d and 2510m and vetoing sections 303w, 303x and 303y to remove the authority to issue revenue bonds for leveraging the existing drinking water loan program because it is excessive. I object to the level of future financial commitments resulting from general obligation bond authorizations in this budget. Leveraging the subsidized loan program through issuance of revenue bonds requires substantial additional issuance of GPR-supported general obligation bonds to provide the subsidy. While I included $3,870,000 in GPR-supported general obligation bond authority in my budget to match approximately $19,000,000 in federal safe drinking water revolving fund capitalization grants, the Legislature almost tripled that amount of general obligation bonding authority in establishing a subsidized revenue bond program. This rate of increase cannot be sustained without seriously undermining executive and legislative flexibility in allocating general fund revenues. In light of this veto, I am requesting that the Building Commission withhold issuance of the $10,210,000 in additional GPR-supported general obligation bonding authority provided to subsidize revenue bonds under the proposed program expansion.
I recognize the serious constraints facing municipal drinking water systems in meeting new federal requirements toward ensuring safe drinking water. I urge local governments, in concert with the appropriate state agencies, to work with Congress in appropriating the funding necessary to adequately capitalize state revolving funds for safe drinking water loans. In addition, under state and federal law, I have the authority to transfer an amount up to 33% of the safe drinking water revolving loan federal capitalization grant from the clean water fund to the safe drinking water fund for additional loans. I am requesting that the Department of Administration, in consultation with the Department of Natural Resources, review the status of both funds and ascertain a reasonable level of funding to transfer in support of additional safe drinking water loans.
44. Wisconsin Fund Loan
Section 2490x
This section provides a $770,000 loan at 0% interest rate from the Wisconsin fund to a municipality for the replacement of a failed wastewater treatment system. The provision specifies that the loan must be forgiven if a federal grant for the project cannot be obtained or, if a grant was obtained, forgive the loan balance in excess of the grant.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the loan forgiveness requirement because an amount in excess of the grant should be repaid to the state. Furthermore, the Wisconsin fund is no longer active. While I understand the need to fund local wastewater projects, this program should not be used for new projects. I intend to propose eliminating any residual bonding in the Wisconsin fund in the next biennial budget and will oppose any future efforts to use this bonding authority for new initiatives.
45. Stewardship Funds for Condemned Property
Section 663gm
This section repeals the current law prohibition on the Department of Natural Resources' providing grants to counties or other local units of government for the acquisition or development of land acquired through condemnation.
I am vetoing this section to retain the current prohibition on the expenditure of Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program funds. I object to the use of state funds to support the condemnation of property for recreational or conservation purposes. Land for these purposes should be purchased at fair market value from willing sellers. Although I cannot create a similar provision for the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program in the budget bill, I request that the department make funding these types of grants a lower priority and pursue legislation to include this prohibition in the reauthorized Stewardship Program.
46. Stewardship Grant Calculations
Section 663u [as it relates to s. 23.0917 (7) (d)]
Under the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program, grants for land acquisition will be calculated based on the acquisition cost of the land. For most properties, the acquisition cost is the fair market value of the land. For properties owned by the seller for less than three years, the acquisition cost is the sum of the current owner’s acquisition price and an annual adjustment. Section 663u [as it relates to s. 23.0917 (7) (d)] creates an annual adjustment increase of 7.5%.
I am partially vetoing this provision to limit the adjustment increase to 5% because a 7.5% annual increase is excessive. A 5% adjustment will better leverage Stewardship Program funds and allow the Department of Natural Resources to support more grants. Reducing the percentage will also lower the risk of the Stewardship Program creating artificially high land prices in areas where property values are not growing at a rate of 7.5% or higher.
47. Stewardship Program Requirements
Section 663u [as it relates to s. 23.0917 (9), (10) and (11)]
These provisions require the Department of Natural Resources to do the following under the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program:
· Promulgate rules to provide incentives to local units of government to submit grant applications for projects or activities which are consistent with local or regional land use plans and zoning ordinances;
· Submit, by January 1, 2005, a report to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Governor including information on land price changes during the first four years of the program and options to maintain or restore the program’s financial ability to purchase land; and
· Provide signs on all land purchased in whole or in part with Stewardship Program funds.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs and because they are unnecessary. The department currently reviews grant applications under several criteria which take into account the importance of the property for recreational and conservation purposes. These criteria and the requirement for a local match for grants ensure that local projects are planned. If the ability to purchase land declines, the department has the authority to study the reasons for the decline and suggest solutions. Also, the department and grant recipients may erect signs on their property at their own discretion. Certain sites may not be appropriate for signing and, for larger properties created through multiple acquisitions, the cost of erecting signs may become prohibitive.
48. Nonpoint Program Modifications
Sections 1r, 1t, 3gm, 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (6) (dr) and (7) (da)], 303m, 303p, 303pm, 303q, 303s, 303t, 303u, 318g, 318j, 331d, 331e, 333p, 333r, 341h, 341k, 528t, 528v, 593f, 628, 628b, 629s, 632f, 632h, 706q, 706s, 707, 1649, 2495p, 2496m, 2502v, 2504e, 2504p, 2504q, 2504r, 2506f, 2506g, 2506h, 2506i, 2506j, 2506k, 2506L, 2506m, 2506q, 2509m, 2509p [as it relates to the urban storm water loan program], 2509q [as it relates to the urban storm water loan program], 2510d [as it relates to the urban storm water loan program], 2510m [as it relates to the urban storm water loan program], 2511, 2511c, 2511e, 2511f, 2511g, 2511i, 2511k, 2512e, 2512g, 2512j and 9136 (7g)
