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
Section 9136 (9d)
This provision allocates $250,000 from the recreational boating facilities aids to the McDill Inland Lake Protection and Rehabilitation District for the dredging of McDill Lake. The provision also specifies that the allocated funds would be subtracted from the aids appropriation before the statutory allocation of funding between Great Lakes and inland waters projects is calculated.
I am partially vetoing this provision to require that the allocated funds be subtracted after the split is calculated. The decision of the Legislature to fund a particular inland lake project should not negatively impact Great Lakes projects.
56. Recreational Grant Earmarks
Sections 671m [as it relates to s. 23.197 (2m)] and 9136 (9s)
These provisions earmark funding for development of a recreational corridor and an erosion control study. Section 671m [as it relates to s. 23.197 (2m)] provides up to $100,000 from the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program for a grant to the City of Janesville for development of the Rock River recreational corridor. Section 9136 (9s) earmarks $50,000 from recreational boating facilities aids for a grant to Kenosha County for an erosion control study at Kemper Center.
I am partially vetoing section 671m [as it relates to s. 23.197 (2m)] to remove the earmark of funding for the Rock River recreational corridor. The earmark of funding for this project is excessive. Under the budget bill, the City of Janesville will receive a separate grant of $350,000 from recreational boating facilities aids for development of a riverfront parkway. I am vetoing section 9136 (9s) because it undermines the authority of the Waterways Commission to decide which studies should be conducted. Under current law, the commission is authorized to cause studies to be conducted and to spend its monies directly to complete such studies.
57. Rib Mountain Chalet
Section 671m [as it relates to s. 23.197 (3m)]
This section creates several specific Stewardship Program projects, including rebuilding the chalet at Rib Mountain State Park. The chalet project would be funded with $500,000 from the property development component of either the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program or the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program.
I am partially vetoing this provision to reduce the $500,000 funding level to $50,000. Although the chalet may need replacement in the future, $500,000 of funding is excessive at this time. Rib Mountain State Park has been used as a ski hill since 1938 and, given its urban setting and central Wisconsin location, has the potential for a wide variety of recreational uses. I recognize that ski operations, like all businesses, need to change over time and that the current ski operation is becoming less economically viable. Therefore, I request the Department of Natural Resources to evaluate year-round recreational use of the park and make recommendations to maximize park visitor opportunities and allow the ski hill to become a profitable enterprise.
58. Mead Wildlife Area Interpretive Center
Sections 172 [as it relates to s. 20.285 (1) (a)], 633m and 671h
These sections provide bonding authority for the construction of an interpretive center at the Mead Wildlife Area. The bonding authority would be released at a rate of $3 for every $2 of private donations received by the Department of Natural Resources. These sections also provide $12,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $16,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001 for an additional 0.5 FTE GPR position at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point (UW-Stevens Point) for educational and informational activities at the center. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes this position and funding increase, the purpose of this funding was included in the Joint Committee on Finance's amendment to the bill.
I am vetoing sections 633m and 671h to remove the bonding authority for the construction of the interpretive center because the provisions are unnecessary and infringe on the Department of Natural Resources’ and the Natural Resources Board’s authority to decide which projects, and associated funding, will provide the best recreational and conservation education opportunities for Wisconsin’s residents and visitors. By lining out the University of Wisconsin System’s s. 20.285 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in smaller amounts that delete $12,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 and $16,000 GPR in fiscal year 2000-2001, which provide funding for 0.5 FTE GPR position, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the educational and informational support activities for the center. The UW-Stevens Point received a conservation program coordinator position under a separate Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill and that position will be able to provide services to the center after its completion. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the 0.5 FTE GPR position.
59. Group Deer Hunting
Sections 730h and 730j
These sections allow bow hunters to group hunt for antlerless deer. Group bow hunting for deer would be allowed for the 2000 and 2001 deer hunting seasons.
I am vetoing these sections because the extension of group deer hunting privileges to bow hunters is unnecessary. Bow hunting for deer is traditionally a solitary pursuit. To improve chances of harvesting a deer, bow hunters reduce the number of factors that may alert a deer to their presence, including wearing camouflaged clothing and hunting individually. These factors make group bow hunting for deer unnecessary and a safety concern.
60. Bonus Deer Issuance Fee Effective Date
Section 9436 (9d)
This provision delays the effective date of the issuance fee for bonus deer permits.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to delaying the expansion of the number of locations at which deer hunters may obtain bonus deer permits. This veto allows the Department of Natural Resources to authorize its license sales agents to collect and retain an issuance fee for bonus deer permits issued for the fall 1999 deer hunting season.
61. Position Creations and Reallocation
