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)
These sections create the urban storm water loan program and provide bonding authority and funding for the urban nonpoint and municipal flood control and riparian restoration programs. Section 1r also requires the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP) to present to the Joint Committee on Finance a schedule to transfer funds between the two agencies.
I am vetoing section 1r because it is unnecessary. The Legislature amended the budget bill to transfer the relevant funds from DNR to DATCP.
I am vetoing sections 1t, 3gm, 303m, 303q, 303s, 303u, 318g, 318j, 341k, 528t, 528v, 593f, 706q, 706s, 2495p, 2496m, 2502v, 2504e, 2504p, 2504q, 2504r, 2506f, 2506g, 2506h, 2506i, 2506j, 2506k, 2506L, 2506m, 2506q, 2509m, 2511c, 2511e, 2511f, 2511g, 2511i, 2511k, 2512e, 2512g, 2512j and 9136 (7g) and partially vetoing sections 303p, 303pm, 303t, 341h, 629s, 707, 1649, 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] and 2511 to remove the creation of the urban storm water loan program within the clean water fund. I object to creating this program because it is unnecessary. Urban storm water projects are already eligible for loans under the clean water fund program. Also, the current program has no limit on the amount of funding available for storm water loans. The proposed program would limit urban storm water loans to $20,000,000. Although the veto of the separate storm water program requires urban storm water projects to compete with other applicants to the clean water fund program, all projects are expected to be funded. To date, all applicants to the clean water fund program have been funded, and this situation is not expected to change.
I am partially vetoing sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (6) (dr) and (7) (da)], 331d, 331e, 333p, 628, 628b, 632f and 632h and vetoing section 333r because the level of bonding authority and funding for the urban nonpoint and municipal flood control and riparian restoration programs is excessive. The veto will retain a total of $17,000,000 over the biennium ($13,000,000 of bonding authority for cost-share grants and $2,000,000 SEG annually for local assistance grants) for urban and municipal projects. This level of funding represents a significant increase over the approximately $10,000,000 in funding provided in the 1997-1999 biennium for urban storm water and nonpoint source pollution abatement projects. This is a substantial 70% increase in the state’s commitment of funding for these programs.
49. Watershed Center and River Protection Grant Program Staffing
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (9) (mu)], 684g and 890m
Sections 684g and 890m require the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to provide $150,000 SEG annually to the University of Wisconsin System for the establishment and operation of a watershed management center at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UW-Stevens Point). Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (9) (mu)] provides $42,700 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $50,800 SEG in fiscal year 2000-2001 for 1.0 FTE SEG two-year project position to support the river protection grant program. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill.
I am vetoing sections 684g and 890m to remove the requirement that DNR provide funding to UW-Stevens Point and that UW-Stevens Point establish a watershed management center. I object to this provision because it is not a cost-effective use of state funds. I am not clear on the purpose or the benefits of the proposed center. I remain committed to local watershed efforts as evidenced through the creation of the river protection grant program and the significant increase in funding for nonpoint source pollution abatement projects. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision and requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $150,000 into unallotted reserve in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001 in DNR’s s. 20.370 (4) (aq) appropriation to lapse to the conservation fund.
By lining out the department’s s. 20.370 (9) (mu) appropriation and writing in smaller amounts that delete the $42,700 SEG in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $50,800 in fiscal year 2000-2001 provided for the 1.0 FTE SEG two-year project position, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this 1.0 FTE SEG position. Creation of this position is unnecessary. The department has adequate staff to administer this local assistance program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 1.0 FTE SEG two-year project position.
50. Gathering Waters
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (5) (aw)], 665rc and 665re
Sections 665rc and 665re require, rather than allow, the Department of Natural Resources to provide an annual grant to a nonprofit conservation corporation which provides support to nonprofit conservation organizations. Section 665rc also increases the amount of the grant from $75,000 to $250,000. Section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (5) (aw)] provides additional funding to cover the increase to the grant. The intent is that this grant be provided to Gathering Waters.
I am vetoing these sections because the amount of the annual grant is excessive. A grant of $150,000 would be a more appropriate grant award. Doubling the amount of state funding provides a significant increase for the organization’s activities. By lining out the department’s s. 20.370 (5) (aw) appropriation and writing in smaller amounts that delete $100,000 SEG annually provided for this purpose in fiscal years 1999-2000 and 2000-2001, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this grant to reflect a more appropriate annual grant amount of $150,000. I also request the department make a $150,000 annual grant to Gathering Waters. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
51. Parks Account Transfer
Section 9236 (3fx) (af)
This provision transfers $1,630,000 SEG from the parks account of the conservation fund to the general fund in fiscal year 1999-2000.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the digit “1” to reduce the transfer to $630,000 SEG because it is excessive. Parks account revenues fund the majority of the operations costs of Wisconsin’s state parks and trails. Retaining the $1,000,000 in the parks account will allow the Department of Natural Resources to continue to improve services for Wisconsin state park visitors, without increasing the cost of their visit or camping experience.
52. Transfer to the Fish and Wildlife Account
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (8) (mc)] and 334m
These provisions create a sum sufficient appropriation to transfer, beginning in fiscal year 2000-2001, $500,000 GPR to the fish and wildlife account of the conservation fund.
I am partially vetoing section 172 [as it relates to s. 20.370 (8) (mc)] and vetoing section 334m because the transfer is excessive. Fish and wildlife activities are traditionally funded by hunters and anglers through license fee revenues. The budget bill includes a transfer of $2,500,000 annually from the Native American gaming compact revenues to the fish and wildlife account. The gaming compact funding, without the additional GPR transfer, represents a significant first-time investment of nonuser fee revenue for fish and wildlife activities.
53. Fish and Wildlife Administrative Cost Limits
Section 702g
This section limits administrative spending from the fish and wildlife account of the conservation fund to 16% of total account expenditures. Under this section, administrative costs relate to the administration of the Department of Natural Resources, its divisions and bureaus, the provision of support services to the department, and the issuance of hunting and fishing licenses and other department approvals.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove costs associated with bureau administration and the issuance of licenses and other approvals from the 16% spending limitation. I am removing these costs from the limitation because they are integral to the management of the fish and wildlife resources of the state. Warden and field staff supervisors improve resource management by coordinating fieldwork and providing accountability. Limiting spending on license and approval issuance would reduce services provided to residents and visitors who hunt and fish in Wisconsin.
54. All-Terrain Vehicle Account Transfer
Section 9236 (4c)
This provision transfers $625,000 SEG from the all-terrain vehicle account of the conservation fund to the general fund.
I am vetoing this provision because the transfer would reduce funding available for all-terrain vehicle projects and could result in an increase in the registration fee for these vehicles. All-terrain vehicle projects are fully funded by all-terrain vehicle account revenues, and the proposed transfer would limit the resources available for these projects.
55. McDill Lake District Funding
