This section requires the Department of Administration to submit to the Joint Committee on Finance implementation plans to consolidate the Department of Natural Resources, Department of Transportation and University of Wisconsin fleet operations into the Department of Administration fleet.
I am pleased that the Legislature adopted my recommendation regarding the study of consolidating state fleets. However, due to the late passage of the budget, requiring submission of the first plan at the December 1999 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance under s.
13.10 is not achievable. The Department of Administration will require additional time to prepare a suitable plan. I am therefore vetoing the part of this section which requires submission of the first plan by December 1999. The secretary of the Department of Administration will present this plan for the first regular meeting of the Committee under s.
13.10 in calendar year 2000.
2. State Vehicle Purchase
Section 9201 (3m)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to lapse a total of $230,000 to the general fund in fiscal year 2000-2001 from the fleet vehicle appropriations of four state agencies. This is intended to delete anticipated savings from these agencies' use of smaller four-cylinder automobiles rather than six-cylinder fleet cars. I object to this requirement because I do not believe four-cylinder fleet vehicles are necessarily adequate in all circumstances nor are they always less expensive when full operating costs are taken into account. This provision would also have a negative effect on my Alternative Fuels program. For these reasons I am vetoing this lapse requirement.
3.
State Agency Dues Lapse
Section 9158 (10g)
This provision requires each state agency to lapse 10% of its fiscal year 1998-1999 expenditures for dues and memberships in state or national organizations. I object to this across-the-board provision as an intrusion into the operations of agencies and I am vetoing it. However, I am sensitive to the Legislature's interest in the resources which are being committed for these activities and I agree there should be an assessment. For this reason, I will request each agency to review the dues they are currently paying and to present this information to the Office of the Governor for evaluation. The agency will need the approval of the Governor's Office to keep their memberships. I believe this is a better approach for reducing unnecessary costs.
A460
4.
Federal Interest Reimbursements
Sections 79e, 172 [as it relates to s.
20.855 (1) (dm)], 613g, 9101 (19f) and 9201 (2f)
This provision requires that any interest payments received by the state from the federal government be recorded as GPR-earned and that payments to the federal government on interest owed be made from a new GPR sum sufficient appropriation. The Department of Administration (DOA) is further required to lapse to the general fund a balance of $1,300,000 from the program revenue appropriation that is currently used for interest payments and receipts administered by DOA.
While I concur that federal interest receipts and obligations should be treated differently than they are now, I believe the approach included in the budget bill inadvertently applies too broadly and will affect more than just the grants administered by DOA. Because I do not believe it was the Legislature's intent to affect federal interest transactions in other state agencies such as the University of Wisconsin System, I am partially vetoing this provision to retain the current method of accounting. However, consistent with the language which is retained in the bill, the secretary of DOA will lapse to the general fund the current balance of $1,300,000, less administrative expenses, from the program revenue appropriation used to receive federal grants. I further request the department to propose a solution in the budget adjustment bill which will better implement the original intent.
5.
Census Awareness Program
Section 9101 (19wx)
This section authorizes a program for providing grants to municipalities and associations for educational programs designed to ensure a complete and accurate 2000 federal census in Wisconsin. One provision of the program requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to solicit, receive, review and approve grants from qualified applicants within 30 days after the budget is effective. I do not believe all of this can be accomplished within that short period of time and I am vetoing this deadline. This will allow the more time to do a quality job in soliciting and processing grant requests.
6. National and Community Service Board – Technical
Sections 511, 532, 534 and 535
These sections are erroneous provisions related to the National Community Service Board that were inadvertently retained from an earlier version of the budget bill. I am vetoing these sections to remove these errors and improve the clarity of the budget.
Building program
7.
Restrictions on Acquisition of Leases
Sections 2t, 3d, 3h, 649m, 649n, 2030m, 2033m, 2353s, 3191d, 3191e, 3191f, 3191g, 9101 (18v) and 9307 (1x)
These provisions prohibit the state from entering into a lease-purchase agreement that contains an option for the state to purchase a building constructed for purposes of initial occupancy by the state, unless construction and purchase of the facility is enumerated in the state building program prior to entering into the lease-purchase agreement. In addition, these provisions require the seller or lessor under any such lease-purchase agreement to agree to solicit bids or competitive sealed proposals in accordance with procedures for state-constructed facilities under current law; to require contractors to ensure that at least five percent of the total amount expended on construction of the facility be awarded to minority businesses and to comply, and to require contractors and subcontractors to comply, with the prevailing wage law in the same manner as a state agency and its contractors and subcontractors are required to comply for a state-constructed facility under current law. These provisions also require the Department of Administration to enforce minority contracting requirements and require the Department of Workforce Development to enforce the prevailing wage requirements.
I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because they place unnecessary restrictions on the Building Commission's ability to sign lease-purchase agreements on behalf of the state. The Legislature is represented on the Building Commission and is fully aware of lease-purchase agreements as they are considered and signed by the Building Commission
8.
Agency Work Plans for Capital Building Maintenance
Sections 3hg and 105m
These sections require each agency to prepare a work plan for expenditure of maintenance funds appropriated under agency operating budgets. They also allow the Department of Administration (DOA) to check timing of plans and withhold funds, require Building Commission approval of agency work plans, and require DOA to submit a report concerning the expenditure of capital building maintenance funds by each agency and work completed by each agency in relation to their work plan.
I am vetoing these sections because while requiring agencies to prepare a work plan for capital maintenance funds appropriated in their operating budgets has merit, agency staff have many other responsibilities in maintaining state buildings and their energies are best used for these other functions.
9.
State Fair Park Racetrack Projects
Sections 9107 (7tu), 9107 (7tv) and 9145
A461
These provisions require that the State Fair Park Board approve a racetrack seating project before the Building Commission may approve the project. They also require the State Fair Park Board to submit a noise abatement plan to the Joint Committee on Finance, and require approval of a noise abatement plan by the Committee before the Building Commission may approve racetrack improvement projects.
I believe the Building Commission should remain the sole state government body responsible for oversight of building projects. I object to the requirements that these projects also be subject to the review and approval of another legislative committee. Therefore, I am vetoing these provisions.
10.
Wausau State Office Facility Study
Section 9107 (8m)
This provision requires a study of the feasibility of constructing a state office facility in the Wausau area.
The Building Commission is fully able to decide if it wishes to conduct a study on the feasibility of constructing a state office facility in the Wausau area. This request in the budget bill is, therefore, unnecessary and I am vetoing it.
11.
Grant to Heritage Military Music Foundation
Sections 105e, 105f, 172 [as it relates to s.
20.505 (1) (kw)], 520m, 520n, 527s, 527t and 9401 (7h)
These provisions authorize $85,300 PR in the Department of Administration for building improvements for the Military Music Foundation. The department is required to review a building improvements estimate for the facility currently occupied by the Heritage Military Music Foundation in Watertown, Wisconsin, if requested by the foundation, and is required to provide a grant to the foundation of $85,300 PR upon approval of the estimate.
The grant to be provided under these provisions derives from the revenues deposited in the state Division of Facilities Development from a fee assessed against building projects, including bonded projects. It is, therefore, reasonable to assume that the dollars generated to provide this grant would come from state bond revenue. I am vetoing the provision because it is inappropriate for projects of this nature to be funded from state bond revenue.
12.
Design-Build Construction Projects
Sections 1580m, 1641m, 1641no and 1641q
These provisions authorize a design-build construction process and establish minority contracting requirements for certain public works projects undertaken by the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District Commission (MMSD) and one project for Milwaukee County. This MMSD design-build process would only apply to central metropolitan interceptor sewer projects, any projects that are required to implement the Department of Natural Resources approved 2010 facility plan, and watercourse flood control projects for the Kinnickinnic, Menomonee and Root Rivers and Lincoln Creek. The county project is construction of a sheriff's department training academy.
The process established in these provisions would allow the selection of a design-build construction team on bases other than project cost. Moreover, they would effectively permit a sole source procurement and evaluation of a single contractor's proposal rather than a group of qualified finalists. While the design-build concept is intended to offer economies and efficiencies, I object to the extreme latitude that is permitted here and believe the ultimate result will be higher cost to the tax payer. If used properly, the design-build process can deliver cost savings. However, the evaluation of proposals must be thorough and focus on qualifications, and the selection of the winning qualified contractor must be based on price.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to limit the design-build team approach to only the Milwaukee County Sheriff's Department training academy project. It removes design-build as an option for the sewage district commission. I am uncomfortable with the relaxed statutory procurement process permitted for MMSD public works projects because of the magnitude of the dollars involved. Every project funded from taxpayer dollars should have consideration of multiple qualified contractors and the final decision from among the qualified candidates should be based on lowest price. Decisions should not be made using subjective criteria and estimates. By leaving in place authority for Milwaukee County to proceed with design-build on the training facility, I am expressing my expectation that they will fully observe these same procurement safeguards in their selection of a team.
I believe that design-build construction can bring efficiencies and cost savings in public works projects and I encourage the Legislature to consider legislation making it available to all governmental units in the state.
eMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
13.
Division Administrator Appointment Authority
Section 2360m
The biennial budget modifies the statutes to reduce from four to three the total number of unclassified division administrators the secretary of the Department of Employment Relations is authorized to appoint.
I am opposed to this provision because it diminishes the secretary's statutorily established position appointment authority. Therefore, I am vetoing it.
military affairs
14.
Number of Level A Regional Emergency Response Teams
Section 2303b
This provision requires the Department of Military Affairs to contract with nine Level A regional emergency response teams and requires that at least one Level A regional emergency response team be located in La Crosse County.
A462
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the requirement that the department contract with exactly nine teams. I am doing this to permit the Adjutant General flexibility to contract with
up to nine teams, at least one of which is to be located in La Crosse County.
15.
Civil Air Patrol Infrared Camera Equipment
Section 2301m
This section earmarks funding of $110,000 GPR in fiscal year 1999-2000 to the Department of Military Affairs' Division of Emergency Management to purchase infrared optical equipment for the Chippewa Squadron of the Civil Air Patrol to search for lost individuals by air in northern Wisconsin.
I object to requiring state funds to purchase equipment to be located in a specific geographic area of the state. This sets an improper precedent resulting in less than optimal distribution of state funds for the purpose of emergency management throughout the state. Therefore, I am vetoing this section and I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $110,000 into unallotted reserve in fiscal year 1999-2000 in appropriation s.
20.465 (3) (a) to lapse to the general fund.
Miscellaneous provisions
16.
Legal Notices in Newspapers
Sections 3242g, 3242i and 3242m
The intent of this provision was to rectify a flaw in the statutes regarding communities that lose their local newspaper and are then forced to place their legal ads in newspapers outside their community. Currently, a newspaper in a 4th class city, town or village must publish for two years and achieve a paid subscription base of 300 before it can compete for legal notice ads. Thus, if a community loses its newspaper and another newspaper starts up there, the new paper must wait two years before being allowed by law to publish the legal ads of that community.
The current law places an undue burden on a community already harmed by the loss of a local newspaper. The law wrongly forces a community that loses its newspaper to spend taxpayer money to place legal ads in a newspaper outside the community and, thus, not widely read by its taxpayers. In fact, the local school board or municipal council will sometimes go to the extra expense of also placing legal ads in the new, upstart community newspaper just to ensure they are read by their taxpayers. Communities should not be put in the position of going to these lengths and expenses to publish their legal ads in a manner so their constituents will read them. School board and city council elected officials should be entrusted with the decision to place legal ads in the newspaper they believe would best serve the constituents of their community. If that is a new newspaper in town this shouldn't be a problem.
The state's newspapers, however, are concerned that completely eliminating the two-year standard and the 300 subscription level would place in jeopardy other small newspapers throughout Wisconsin. While I am not persuaded that small Wisconsin community newspapers, which currently enjoy special protections from competition and the free marketplace, would be harmed as a result of this proposed change in law, I am willing to support a compromise.
The Wisconsin Newspapers Association (WNA) has agreed to compromise language that would create an exception to the existing law for a community where the only newspaper ceases to exist and a new newspaper begins publication within that community. The exception would allow a new newspaper in a community that lost its only paper to compete for legal ads after achieving 16 weeks of publication and reaching 300 paid subscribers. The WNA has committed to work with legislators to get the agreed-upon legislation to my desk for signature no later than the spring session of 2000. Therefore, I am agreeing to veto this provision in order to give the parties a chance to pass this compromise.
Regulation and licensing
17.
Effective Dates
Section 9442 (1)
This provision sets the first day of the second month after publication of the bill as the effective date of fee changes for the Department of Regulation and Licensing and, in the case of one provision, October 2, 1999. Due to the delayed passage of the budget any unnecessary additional delay in revenue collections will financially harm department operations. For this reason, I am vetoing the delayed effective date so that higher fees may be collected immediately after publication of the budget. I am also vetoing the October 2, 1999, date because it is unnecessary.
veterans Affairs
18.
Staff Pay Survey Implementation
Section 9155 (3g)
This provision allows the Department of Veterans Affairs to request additional salary and fringe benefit funding from the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review process following a classification survey that may be conducted by the Department of Employe Relations (DER) for central office staff positions who deal with loans and grants.
I am vetoing this provision because surveys should be determined and performed in an objective, systematic manner by DER. The secretary of the Department of Employe Relations should decide which surveys will be undertaken and their timing. If a survey is completed and additional funds are warranted, the Department of Veterans Affairs may seek an appropriate supplement under the normal procedures of s.
13.10 of the statutes.
A463
F. tAX, FINANCE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT
administration
1. Public Benefits Program Administration
Sections 109m and 9101 (1zu) (a)
Section 109m describes the duties of the Division of Housing in administering the public benefits programs. Section 9101 establishes a 60-day time limit on the promulgation of rules for the public benefits programs. I object to the extent to which these sections restrict DOA in implementing the newly expanded public benefits programs.
I am partially vetoing the section specifying the duties of the Division of Housing so that DOA may access the resources of the entire department in administering the public benefits programs. Accessing the entire department's resources to administer public benefits programs provides greater assurance the utility public benefits programs will achieve intended objectives. I am also partially vetoing the section requiring DOA to promulgate rules for the public benefits program within 60 days of the effective date of the bill so that the department will have adequate time to promulgate rules pertaining to its expanded role in administering utility public benefits programs.
2. Division of Gaming – Tribal Gaming Computer System
Section 9101 (17x)
This section would require the Department of Administration (DOA) to first obtain approval from the Joint Committee on Finance regarding the costs of a new tribal gaming computer system to receive and process slot machine accounting data prior to expending funds for this purpose.
I am vetoing this section because it places an unnecessary burden on DOA and would likely result in the delayed implementation of the new tribal gaming computer system. The system will allow the department to receive and process slot machine accounting data off-reservation and reduce the amount of on-site review by field auditors.
3. Division of Gaming – Unclaimed Prizes Retained by Racetrack Licensee
Section 481m, 545, 3023j and 9301 (2g)
These provisions would provide that, effective with the 2000 race year, a pari-mutuel racetrack licensee may retain any winnings on a race that are not claimed within 90 days after the end of the race year. Under current law, unclaimed prizes are paid to the state and deposited into the racing general program operations appropriation in the Department of Administration, and the gaming law enforcement appropriation related to racing in the Department of Justice.
I am vetoing these sections because of the adverse impact they would have on the operating budget for racing enforcement.
