7. Expenditure Restraint and Shared Revenue Utility Payments
8. Definition of Agricultural Land for Use Value
9. Annexation in Dane County
10. Local Subdivision Regulation
A.
EDUCATION AND TRAINING
ARTS BOARD
1.
Milwaukee Art Museum Grant
This provision creates a new $50,000 GPR appropriation to provide a one-time grant in fiscal year 2002-03 to the Milwaukee Art Museum for the Leonardo da Vinci and the Splendor of Poland exhibition.
I am vetoing this provision because it is not prudent to increase GPR spending for noncritical items given the state's current budget shortfall. This exhibition has already been scheduled and museum officials have indicated that it will proceed regardless of the receipt of earmarked state funding. Like other arts organizations, the Milwaukee Art Museum can compete for funding from the Arts Board under existing grant programs.
HISTORICAL SOCIETY
2.
Program Revenue Lapses
Section 9125
This provision requires the Wisconsin Historical Society to allocate $100,000 in fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03 for the Office of Local History and the society library.
I am vetoing this earmarking of funds because it runs counter to previous legislative action. Under
2001 Wisconsin Act 16 (the 2001-03 biennial budget) and changes in this budget reform act, the Legislature and I significantly reduced the number of separate appropriations to give the society more flexibility to operate its programs efficiently and effectively. The legislative earmarking of funds under this provision would limit the very flexibility we intended the society to have.
In addition, the provision is not necessary because the society's current annual expenditures on the library alone far exceed the $100,000 required under this amendment. To best meet its responsibilities, the Wisconsin Historical Society needs to retain the funding flexibility granted to it under both
2001 Wisconsin Act 16 and this act.
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
3.
Sale of Soft Drinks in Schools
Section 280n
This provision requires school districts that enter into exclusive contracts with soft drink vendors to ensure that milk is available to students whenever soft drinks are available.
I am partially vetoing this provision because it is overly broad and would require the sale of milk at all scholastic events, not just during the school day. The effect of this partial veto will be to delete the statutory requirement addressing all scholastic events.
UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN SYSTEM
4.
Undergraduate Coursework Beyond 165 Credits
Sections 93r, 93s, 9101 (8w) and 9256 (2x)
This provision requires the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents to charge students the full cost per credit for any credits beyond 165 accumulated in coursework towards a first baccalaureate degree. The provision also reduces the system's general program operations appropriation by $6,700,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 to reflect a reduction in GPR support for these credits and increases the academic student fees appropriation by $6,700,000 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 to reflect estimated increases in tuition revenues.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the requirement for the Board of Regents to charge the full cost per credit for any credits beyond 165 and to delete the increase to the academic student fees appropriation. While I believe that state taxpayers should not be obligated to subsidize an unlimited number of credits for each student, the policy needs to recognize differences in the credit requirements for different majors, several of which already require more than 165 credits. A policy limiting the number of subsidized credits must recognize the role of degree requirements, as well as the responsibility of the student.
Finally, implementing the limit at this late date would not be fair to the estimated 3,500 students who would potentially face a 200 percent increase in tuition without adequate time to plan. My veto retains the $6,700,000 GPR reduction, which the system will need to accommodate through other efficiencies, but deletes the equivalent increase to the academic student fees appropriation.
I plan to address credit limits on resident tuition in my 2003-05 biennial budget proposal. I also request that the Board of Regents report to me by December 15, 2002, on alternatives to ensure that the credits-to-degree system is organized in a way that minimizes the cost to taxpayers without adversely affecting students' ability to complete degrees at resident tuition rates.
WISCONSIN TECHNICAL COLLEGE SYSTEM
5.
Funding for Travel and Advertising
Sections 94m, 9248 (1) and 9248 (1x)
Section 94m prohibits the state board of the Wisconsin Technical College System from using general purpose revenue (GPR) funds for advertising expenses. In addition, section 9248 (1) reduces GPR-supported state operations funding by $34,900 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $156,900 in fiscal year 2002-03. Section 9248 (1x) further reduces GPR-supported state operations funding by $40,000 in fiscal year 2002-03 to reflect a 100 percent reduction in advertising funding and a fifty percent reduction in the agency's funding for travel.
A900
I am vetoing section 94m to remove the prohibition against spending on advertising and partially vetoing sections 9248 (1) and 9248 (1x) to retain the $40,000 GPR reduction, but remove the requirement that the reduction be applied to travel and advertising expenses. There is no compelling reason to single out the technical college system for a limit on advertising. As written, the prohibition would even prevent the state board from advertising to fill vacant positions. Furthermore, given the importance of increasing technical college enrollment to building Wisconsin's economy, providing less information to the public on technical college educational opportunities would be counterproductive. My veto retains the $40,000 GPR funding reduction, but gives the state board the flexibility to apply the reduction in a manner that does the least harm to the system.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
1. Consumer Protection Transfer to the Department of Justice
Sections 26 [as it relates to s.
20.455 (1) (g)], 27m, 28m, 41g, 41k, 41mp, 259m, 259sd, 259se, 259sf, 259sh, 259sj, 259sm, 259sp, 262m, 263bb, 263bd, 263bg, 263bj, 263bn, 263bq, 263bt, 263bw, 263bz, 263gb, 263gd, 263gg, 263gj, 263gm, 263gp, 263gs, 263gu, 263gx, 263mb, 263mf, 263mj, 263mm, 263mp, 263mr, 263mt, 263mv, 263mx, 263mz, 263nb, 263nd, 263nf, 263nj, 263nm, 263nn, 263no, 263nq, 263nt, 263nv, 263nz, 263pb, 263pf, 263pj, 263pm, 263pp, 263ps, 263pv, 264d, 264h, 264p, 264t, 266m, 267kb, 267kd, 267ke, 267kf, 267kh, 267kj, 267kL, 267kn, 267ko, 267kp, 267kq, 267kr, 267ks, 267kt, 267ku, 267kv, 267kw, 267kx, 267ky, 267kz, 269m, 312m, 314m, 314p, 314r, 338gf, 338m, 338r, 442g, 442m, 442r, 511bg, 511br, 511bz, 511h, 511k, 511p, 516g, 516n, 516p, 516r, 9104, 9131 (2xz), 9204 (14xz), 9231 (10xo) and 9404
These provisions transfer consumer protection functions from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and from the Department of Health and Family Services to the Department of Justice.
The provisions reduce the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's expenditure and position authority by $2,584,500 GPR and 43.75 FTE GPR positions in fiscal year 2002-03 and increase the Department of Justice's expenditure and position authority by $1,502,200 GPR and 26.0 FTE GPR positions in fiscal year 2002-03. The provisions also transfer 5.5 FTE PR positions and the authority to collect fee revenue relating to the statewide do-not-call list from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to the Department of Justice.
The provisions transfer from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to the Department of Justice the authority to protect consumers from fraud and deceptive practices in areas including telephone solicitation and services; motor vehicle rustproofing; cable television services; mail order sales; drug advertising and pricing; and consumer product safety. The provisions also transfer the authority to regulate fitness center staff from the Department of Health and Family Services to the Department of Justice.
In addition, the provisions transfer from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to the Department of Justice the authority to prohibit the sale of hazardous substances, flammable fabrics, and unsafe or mislabeled products; investigate and begin court actions relating to consumer protection; require the provision of testimony under oath by persons having knowledge of suspected fraudulent activity; issue subpoenas, administer oaths and hold hearings regarding fraudulent activity; issue general and specific orders prohibiting unfair trade practices; recover overdue fees relating to unfair competition; recover reasonable expenses of prosecution; and promulgate rules relating to consumer protection.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the transfer of consumer protection functions from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and the Department of Health and Family Services. The regulation of fitness center staff is most appropriately done by the Department of Health and Family Services. That department has the experience and expertise required to ensure that fitness center staff members have appropriate training in first aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation. The Department of Justice, as the state's legal services provider, lacks the requisite expertise in these health care matters.
The regulation of consumer protection functions is most appropriately done by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. The department has been responsible for trade and consumer protection functions since 1929. The department's extensive experience with consumer protection shows in its strong professional relationships with federal regulators and local officials. The department's direct service philosophy enables it to educate consumers and businesses to prevent and avoid consumer protection problems. When consumers are defrauded, the department works to correct the problem and return money to the hands of consumers as quickly as possible. Only when a company refuses to do the right thing is it necessary to pursue legal action. In those rare cases where complex legal work is required, the Department of Justice is currently authorized to assist the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection and district attorneys.
If consumer protection functions were transferred to the Department of Justice, the direct service philosophy would be undermined by the loss of nearly twenty consumer protection positions and the elimination of regional consumer protection offices. Instead of addressing consumers' educational and individual needs, the Department of Justice would likely continue to employ a litigation philosophy that would create expensive lawsuits against major violators.
COMMERCE
2. Technology Development Grants and Loans
Sections 504c and 504m
These sections direct the Department of Commerce to award at least $364,400 in Wisconsin development fund technology grants or loans per biennium to pollution reduction or energy conservation projects.
A901
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. While I support a link between environmental protection and economic development, the department is best able to assess which businesses or consortia will benefit most from grant or loan awards for the research and development of new industrial products and processes. Under the current award process, the department takes into account a project's potential for pollution prevention and energy conservation.
3. Wisconsin Development Fund Reduction
Section 9210 (10w)
This provision reduces funding for the Wisconsin development fund by $1,000,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03.
I am vetoing this provision to preserve funding integral to stimulating economic development. I object to this reduction because current economic conditions, combined with our state's fiscal outlook in the next biennium, make it crucial to grow Wisconsin's economy with technology development and job creation and expansion. Consistent with the objectives of the Build Wisconsin initiative, Wisconsin development fund grants and loans help provide jobs with high wages and good benefits, create new and innovative job training opportunities, and expand funding for technology-based projects.
4. Branding Grant to Forward Wisconsin, Inc.
Sections 17u, 17v, 26 [as it relates to s.
20.143 (1) (bp)], 28no, 28p, 9110 (1c) and 9410 (1e)
These provisions allocate $50,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 to a newly created appropriation for a one-time grant to Forward Wisconsin, Inc., for a study and proposal on a national brand image related to technology and biotechnology for the state. The Department of Commerce would be required to enter into an agreement with Forward Wisconsin, Inc., that specifies uses for the grant proceeds as well as reporting and auditing requirements. The department would additionally be required to submit a report to the Legislature by December 31, 2003, detailing results and recommendations from the study.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to this appropriation of new funds during these tight fiscal times. I also object to the long time frame for completion of the study. Building our state's image as a technology and biotechnology hub is vital to economic development plans for Wisconsin, and a national brand image should be developed as quickly as possible.
5. Horse Boarding and Training Facilities Exemption
Sections 267m and 267q
These sections expand the state building code exemption for agricultural buildings to include horse boarding and training facilities without a public viewing area.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to including policy items of this nature in a budget bill. Expanding an exemption from the building code requires consideration that the legislative committee process is best designed to provide.
6.
Division of International and Export Services
Sections 9110 (1z) and 9210 (11z) [as it relates to decreasing authorized FTE positions]
These provisions convert 2.5 FTE GPR positions in the Department of Commerce's Division of International and Export Services to program revenue beginning in fiscal year 2002-03.
I am vetoing section 9110 (1z) and partially vetoing section 9210 (11z) [as it relates to decreasing authorized FTE positions] because I object to the reduction in services that would occur. It is unclear if the program revenue collected would cover the costs of staffing these positions since the majority of businesses served by the division are small to medium-sized start-up firms that would unlikely be able to afford fee-based services. Due to the nature of international and export work, each position within the division specializes in a certain market and region making it difficult to shift duties in the case of a vacancy or position cut. If a shift would be required, the availability and quality of the division's services would suffer. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to authorize the 2.5 FTE PR positions in fiscal year 2002-03.
NATURAL RESOURCES
7.
Wetlands Exemption
Sections 150c, 150m, 259h, 369kb, 369ke, 369kg, 369kj, 369km, 369kp, 369kq, 369kr and 369ks
These provisions establish a statewide exemption from wetlands regulation and other state environmental laws for a wetland that complies with certain requirements. The site exempted must be within the corporate limits of a city or village and the exemption request must provide for the creation or restoration of at least two acres of wetland for each acre of wetland affected by the exemption. The site must also comply with existing statutory requirements that provide, in part, that any wetland exempted must be less than fifteen acres in size, be zoned for industrial use and be in the vicinity of a manufacturing facility. A city or village seeking such an exemption must submit a resolution to the Governor before December 31, 2002, stating that the exemption is necessary to protect jobs or to encourage job creation. The Governor must select one site that meets the requirements. The site selected would be exempt from environmental laws relating to wetlands, navigable waters, sewage, pollutant discharge elimination, solid waste facilities, hazardous waste management, remedial action and certain general environmental provisions.
A902
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the weakening of Wisconsin wetlands protection laws. These provisions set an undesirable precedent by allowing exemptions from a wide range of environmental regulations for projects that do not meet the requirements established to protect Wisconsin's wetlands. State and federal regulations establish standards and procedures for evaluating proposals that affect wetlands. These provisions bypass those regulations and jeopardize the quality of Wisconsin's waters and fisheries.
However, I am concerned about the state's overall regulatory climate and its impact on job creation. As such, I am directing affected agencies to develop a plan for regulatory reform that will allow businesses to secure all necessary permits on a "one-stop" basis. That plan should be developed for consideration in the 2003-05 biennial budget. We must take this step to ensure Wisconsin's competitiveness.
8.
Recycling Grant Formula
Sections 370j and 370k
These sections establish a per capita grant formula beginning with grants awarded in 2004 to responsible units of local government operating effective recycling programs. The amount awarded would equal the population of the responsible unit multiplied by a set dollar amount applied across all responsible units. In addition, the grant amount would be limited to the eligible costs incurred by a responsible unit two years earlier. Any county that is the responsible unit for at least seventy-five percent of the county's population would receive the greater of $100,000 or the per capita amount. For 2004 grants only, a responsible unit that received an award in 2003 will be eligible for an award equal to a minimum of eighty percent of that 2003 award.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the effect redistribution will have on many communities. Smaller rural communities, in particular, would receive less funding than under the current formula; whereas large urban communities would gain additional funding. This redistribution is not based on the cost-effectiveness and efficiency of the local programs, merely population.
9.
Chief Warden
Sections 72L, 362s and 9237 (37g) [as it relates to the decrease in authorized FTE positions]
These sections eliminate 1.0 FTE GPR unclassified administrator position and related funding of $86,200 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in the Department of Natural Resources' Division of Enforcement and Science. In addition, these sections require the department to designate a conservation warden as the chief warden, who must designate an internal affairs officer and a complaint officer to handle grievances against conservation wardens. The chief warden will direct, supervise and control conservation wardens in the performance of their duties.
I am vetoing sections 72L and 362s and partially vetoing section 9237 (37g) [as it relates to the decrease in authorized FTE positions] because I object to the infringement on the executive branch's authority to manage programs. I am requesting that the department follow up on public complaints against a warden's actions to ensure accountability of the wardens. Due to the tight fiscal situation, I am retaining the reduction in funding related to the division administrator position and request the department to reallocate existing funds for this position.
10.
Sale of Land by the Department of Natural Resources
Section 72m
This section prohibits the Department of Natural Resources from entering into a contract to sell or exchange state-owned land under its jurisdiction that has a fair market value in excess of $75,000 without first notifying the Joint Committee on Finance in writing. The section creates a passive approval process under which the Committee must notify the department within 14 working days that the Committee has scheduled a meeting to review the contract. In order to approve the contract, the Committee must determine that the sale price or value of the land to be received in exchange adequately reimburses the state for its costs in acquiring and developing the department's land.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs and the limitation on the Natural Resources Board's ability to dispose of or exchange surplus properties to improve the protection of the state's natural resources.
11.
Stewardship Earmark
Section 72p
This section requires the Department of Natural Resources to provide $250,000 from the land acquisition subprogram of the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program to acquire conservation easements along the Plover River in Marathon and Portage counties.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs and because the provision is unnecessary. The department already has the authority to acquire conservation easements with Stewardship 2000 Program funds.
12.
Property Maintenance and Development Reduction
