116.
Stillwater Bridge Project
Section 2296p
Section 2296p requires the Department of Transportation to develop and submit a proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance specifying the amount of anticipated expenditures to be made by the department for mitigation in connection with the Stillwater Bridge project across the St. Croix River. This section also specifies that, if the department determines expenditures will exceed the amount anticipated, it must submit a proposal to the Joint Committee on Finance for unanticipated expenditures.
I am vetoing this section because it adds an unnecessary step in the process of approving the Stillwater Bridge project and could further delay or jeopardize the completion of a new bridge.
117.
Bridge Designations
Sections 2307k and 2307r
These sections require the Department of Transportation to designate and mark the I-43 bridge across the Fox River as the "Leo Frigo Bridge" and to designate and mark the USH 45 bridge across the south branch of the Embarrass River as the "Gateway to the North."
I am vetoing these sections because they are policy items that should be addressed through separate legislation.
118.
Outdoor Advertising
Sections 2308sr, 2308st and 2340vg
Section 2340vg allows for the trimming or removal of vegetation located in a highway right-of-way under the Department of Transportation's jurisdiction if the vegetation prevents an operator of a vehicle traveling on the highway from seeing, for six uninterrupted seconds, a business or sign located adjacent to the highway right-of-way. In order to trim or remove vegetation the person must obtain a permit from the department, pay the cost of trimming or removing the vegetation, and replace any removed vegetation with comparable vegetation along the same highway right-of-way. In addition, the section specifies that no state funds may be expended for the trimming or removal process. The section requires the department to grant or deny any application for a permit within thirty days of receipt of the application. Sections 2308sr and 2308st require the department to exempt an advertising sign that is owned by a religious organization and a sign that has been permanently removed, even if the department is not notified, from being assessed an annual sign permit fee as established in administrative rule.
I am vetoing these provisions because the public and other interested parties have not been allowed adequate input in the development of this policy. Many of the proposed changes can be addressed through administrative rules. Therefore, I am requesting the department improve its current permit review and approval process, and solicit and review comments from the public, affected businesses and landowners, and state agencies to determine if changes to the department's administrative rules are necessary.
119.
Motor Vehicle Studies and Reports
Sections 2340k, 9152 (3k) and 9152 (5z)
Section 9152 (3k) requires the Department of Transportation to conduct a study and report on implementing a statewide automated drivers' license testing program. In addition, sections 2340k and 9152 (5z) require the department to study and prepare a report, in consultation with the Department of Electronic Government, on the department's computerized information systems and the department's plan for utilizing its data processing resources. The department is required to report its findings to the Joint Committee on Finance in fiscal year 2001-02. As part of its approval of the report, the committee may transfer up to $2,000,000 from appropriation under s.
20.395 (5) (cq) to the appropriation under s.
20.395 (4) (aq) for the purposes of a consultant study of the department's computerized information systems and information technology needs.
S326
I am vetoing sections 2340k and 9152 (3k) because they are unnecessary and provide too much legislative oversight of the department's operations. In addition, I am partially vetoing section 9152 (5z) to allow the Department of Administration secretary to transfer up to $2,000,000 from the Department of Transportation's appropriation under s.
20.395 (5) (cq) to the Department of Transportation's appropriation under s.
20.395 (4) (aq) in fiscal year 2002-03 for the purpose of conducting a consultant study of the Department of Transportation's computerized information systems and information technology needs. I am requesting the Department of Transportation to submit a report analyzing its computerized information systems and its plan for utilizing its data processing resources to the Department of Administration secretary upon its completion.
120.
Low Speed Vehicles
Sections 2114c, 2972k, 3020q, 3020r, 3020s, 3020t, 3020u, 3219L, 3219v, 3390u, 3390v, 3390x, 3390y, 3407e, 3407h, 3407p, 3407r, 3407v, 3408t, 3408v, 3408y, 3409n, 3409r, 3442d, 3445be, 3445bk, 3445bp, 3456mg, 3456nm, 3456s and 3816m
These sections create a new classification of motor vehicle called a "low-speed vehicle." A low-speed vehicle is a motor vehicle, as defined by federal law, which complies with applicable equipment standards, but does not include a golf cart. This provision generally makes low-speed vehicles subject to the same regulations applicable to other motor vehicles including the following: requiring vehicles to be manufactured to meet federal safety standards; subject dealers, distributors, manufacturers and transporters to the same regulations that apply to motorcycles; exempt low-speed vehicles from the state's property tax; and requires low-speed vehicles to be registered with the Department of Transportation. The provision treats low-speed vehicles differently from most other motor vehicles in the following respects: low-speed vehicles are operable on roadways having a speed limit under 25 miles per hour, except that local authorities may allow their operation on highways having a speed limit between 25 and 35 miles per hour; low-speed vehicles are prohibited from operating on state trunk highways or connecting highways unless they are operated in a designated crossing zone.
I am vetoing this provision because of safety concerns associated with operating a low-speed vehicle on local streets even if the speed limit is 25 miles per hour or less. I also object to the circumvention of the authority of local governments to regulate the use of these vehicles on local roads. While I support the creation of a new classification for low-speed vehicles, this policy should be developed with input from local governments and the public and be addressed in separate legislation.
121.
Motorcycle Requirements
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)], 3390yd, 3390yw, 3406p, 3445dg and 3445dm
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)] provides $406,000 annually for the motorcycle, moped and motor bicycle safety program and sections 3390yd, 3390yw and 3406p establish specifications for the color and size of a motorcycle license plate. In addition, sections 3445dg and 3445dm specify that the stop lamp on a motorcycle must be red and may be able to emit a blue light in the center of the lamp.
While I support the motorcycle, moped and motor bicycle safety program, this use of taxpayer dollars is unwarranted during this period of tight transportation revenues. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (4) (aq)] to eliminate $406,000 SEG in fiscal years 2001-02 and 2002-03. The effect of this veto is to provide $53,900,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $53,892,200 in fiscal year 2002-03 for departmental management and operations expenditures.
I am vetoing the provisions pertaining to the size and color of a motorcycle license plate and color of a motorcycle stop lamp because these policy issues should be addressed as separate legislation. In addition, current federal motor vehicle safety standards indicate that the blue dot in the middle of the red motorcycle brake light is not permissible for sale or use.
122.
Vehicle Extrication Training Grants
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (ds)], 671h, 2337k, 3410k, 3411k, 3412k, 3413k, 3414k and 9452 (2f)
These sections create an appropriation to make an annual grant of $375,000 beginning in fiscal year 2002-03 to a nonprofit corporation that has experience in providing training to teach vehicle extrication techniques. In addition, these sections increase the fee for vehicle operator's license search requests by $2.20.
I am vetoing section 2337k that requires the Department of Transportation to make an annual grant for vehicle extrication since the grant would duplicate similar services already provided by the Wisconsin Technical College System. Therefore, I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (ds)] and section 671h to eliminate the appropriation used for allocating these grants.
In addition, I am vetoing sections 3410k, 3411k, 3412k, 3413k, 3414k and 9452 (2f) to remove twenty cents of the fee increase, thereby reducing the fee increase to $2.00 per request. Since the intended use of the twenty cent fee increase was to fund the vehicle extrication grant program, it is no longer necessary and would only serve to place an additional cost upon persons eligible to receive this information.
123.
Designation of Overlength Truck Routes
Section 9152 (5c)
Section 9152 (5c) lifts restrictions on motor truck lengths for portions of STH 107 and other specific county trunk highways until the Department of Transportation has had an opportunity to review these routes to determine if the routes should be designated as overlength truck routes under administrative rule.
S327
I am vetoing section 9152 (5c) because it bypasses the administrative rule process that designates truck routes as overlength truck routes. Allowing overlength truck travel on these routes before requiring a full assessment by the department and a public hearing may lead to premature wear on the roadway and other driver safety problems.
124.
Oversize and Overweight Vehicle Permit Fees
Sections 3446k, 3447k, 3448k, 3449k, 3450k, 3451k, 3452k, 3453k, 3454k, 3455k and 9452 (3k)
These sections increase the surcharge on oversize and overweight vehicle permits from ten percent to fifteen percent effective with permits issued after December 31, 2001, and extend the expiration of this surcharge from July 1, 2003, to March 1, 2009.
I am vetoing these sections because the fee increase places an unnecessary financial burden on our state's commercial motor carrier industry. I am requesting the Department of Transportation to work in cooperation with the commercial motor carrier industry and other interested parties to develop a funding alternative that will fully support implementation of an automated oversize and overweight vehicle permitting system. This veto will allow the ten percent surcharge on oversize and overweight vehicles to expire on July 1, 2003.
125.
Farm Progress Days
Sections 2339, 2339m and 2340i
These sections exempt any sponsor of Farm Progress Days from a provision that allows the Department of Transportation to charge sponsors of public events, that charge an admissions fee, for security and traffic enforcement services provided by state patrol officers. The sections also require the department to promulgate rules specifying sponsorship eligibility and what events qualify as Farm Progress Days.
I am partially vetoing this provision because it establishes a precedent for other special public event sponsors to request an exemption from paying for services provided by state patrol officers. The effect of this partial veto is to allow the department to charge public event sponsors a fee for security and traffic enforcement services if an admission fee is charged for the event.
126.
Passive Alcohol Sensors
Section 2882m
This section prohibits the use of a passive alcohol sensor by a law enforcement official for the purposes of detecting the presence of alcohol in a person's breath unless the person consents to its use.
I am vetoing this section because the use of these sensors may assist law enforcement personnel in deterring persons from driving while intoxicated or under the influence of alcohol. However, I do have concerns pertaining to the accuracy of these instruments and to ensuring that privacy rights are considered. Therefore, I am requesting the Department of Transportation to work in cooperation with other agencies and local law enforcement agencies to conduct a study on the effectiveness and use of these devices. Furthermore, this policy should be developed with greater input from law enforcement agencies and the public and be addressed in separate legislation.
127.
Fireworks Possession, Sale and Enforcement
Sections 2599m, 2599mg, 2881ae, 2881af, 2881ag, 2881ah, 2881aj, 2881ak, 2881am, 2881an, 2881ap, 3427t and 3427tg
These sections authorize resident wholesalers to sell regulated fireworks to any nonresident person if the nonresident person gives the wholesaler a signed statement indicating that the fireworks are for use outside this state. The sections also authorize nonresident persons to transport fireworks to an out-of-state location and to stop in any Wisconsin municipality for up to twelve hours while en route to the out-of-state destination. The section specifies that a person who intends to lawfully sell regulated fireworks may possess the fireworks without first obtaining a fireworks permit. In addition, state traffic patrol officers are authorized to enforce the permit requirement for the possession and use of fireworks on highways and to issue uniform traffic citations for violations of the permit requirement. However, the authority to seize fireworks that are possessed and are used in violation of fireworks statutes or ordinances is removed unless the violation is subject to criminal penalties. The sections prohibit courts from forwarding a record of conviction for any violation of the permit requirement to the Department of Transportation and prohibit the department from assessing any demerit points against driving records for convictions for violations of the permit requirement.
I am vetoing these sections because this is a policy issue that should be addressed through separate legislation to allow for further public input and discussion.
128.
Public Safety Radio Program
Sections 2321m and 2321p
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to make quarterly payments to the Department of Transportation if it provides radio services to the Department of Natural Resources and the provision would limit the Department of Transportation's expenditures for the program to fifty percent of the cost or $138,000, whichever is less.
I am vetoing these provisions because they circumvent a previous agreement made between these two agencies and may leave the public safety radio program underfunded since the Department of Transportation is the primary user of the program's radio services. This veto will require payments for the public radio system to be based on the level of each agency's usage.
WISCONSIN HOUSING AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
129.
Development Reserve Fund Authorization
Section 3125c
S328
This section requires the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority to include in its annual report to the Legislature recommendations for maximum expenditure amounts for the loan programs guaranteed by the Wisconsin development reserve fund. The Joint Committee on Finance may adjust the submitted amounts. The authority may request adjustments to the amounts during the year under a 14-day passive review process.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary and reduces the administrative flexibility of the authority. Guarantee requirements under the programs can change rapidly. To efficiently administer the Wisconsin development reserve fund, the authority must be able to adjust guarantee amounts across programs quickly.
C.
HUMAN RESOURCES
BOARD ON AGING AND LONG-TERM CARE
Volunteer Ombudsman Position
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.432 (1) (kc)] and 688d provide funding for 1.0 FTE PR-S volunteer ombudsman coordinator position. Section 721w requires the Department of Health and Family Services to transfer $35,300 PR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $40,200 PR in fiscal year 2002-03 to s.
20.432 (1) (kc) to fund the position. I am vetoing these sections because the expansion is unnecessary at this time. In addition, the civil money penalty funding from s.
20.435 (6) (g) is needed by the department for current nursing home monitoring costs and to create a reserve for future monitoring costs. I have retained the provision in the budget bill that requires the department to seek approval from the federal government to use civil money penalty funding for the ombudsman position. If the department receives federal approval and if the revenues are sufficient to support monitoring costs and the ongoing costs for the coordinator, the board can request the position and expenditure authority under ss.
16.505 and
16.515. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE PR-S position.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES
2.
Intergovernmental Transfer Program
These sections relate to the use of nursing home intergovernmental transfer (IGT) funds for payments to county nursing homes and to other nursing homes receiving reimbursement under Medical Assistance. These sections specify that if less than $115,200,000 in revenue from the IGT program is received in a given fiscal year, the Department of Health and Family Services may only make a supplemental payment to counties of $37,100,000. This provision also allows the department to make a payment up to $77,100,000 if more than $115,200,000 in IGT revenues are received in a given fiscal year. Finally, these sections create a new sum sufficient appropriation in which any unanticipated or otherwise unappropriated IGT revenues are to be deposited, to be used only for supplemental payments to county or other nursing homes.
The budget as passed by the Legislature assumes annual IGT revenues will be significantly less than $115,200,000. Counties would receive an increased supplemental payment only if revenues are more than $115,200,000, yet if even slightly less revenue is available, the counties would receive no increase in the supplement. At the same time, the Legislature appropriated IGT revenues to pay fully for the increased payment, which is inconsistent with maintaining this $115,200,000 threshold in state statutes.
With respect to the new appropriation for unanticipated IGT revenues, this provision will create significant pressure to expend these revenues in the 2001-03 biennium, exacerbating a cost-to-continue problem. The intent of the administration was to dedicate the vast majority of unanticipated IGT revenues to county and other nursing home payments for use in future years. With the Medical Assistance budget facing a $220 million structural deficit at the start of fiscal year 2003-04, any IGT revenues received above what have already been appropriated should not be expended unless an unforeseen problem arises.
Therefore, I am digit vetoing sections 1776m and 1778, eliminating the $115,200,000 threshold and thus removing this inconsistency from the budget. Also, I am partially vetoing sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (4) (wm)] and 717bd to remove language specifying this new appropriation for unanticipated IGT funds as a sum sufficient appropriation. By default, as outlined in s.
20.001 (3) (a), this appropriation will operate as an annual appropriation which can only be increased by an act of the Legislature or by an emergency action as specified under s.
13.10. Furthermore, I direct the department, working cooperatively with the county and other nursing homes, to pursue separate legislation clarifying that the vast majority of any unanticipated IGT funds will be dedicated to future county and other nursing home payments.
3.
Supplemental Hospital Payment
Section 395 appropriates a supplemental payment to hospitals participating in the Medical Assistance (MA) managed care initiative. Although there is no language in the budget bill authorizing this supplement, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize the increases in this area.
S329
All hospitals serving MA or BadgerCare recipients received a rate increase in the 2001-03 biennial budget using intergovernmental transfer funds. I see no reason to retain an additional supplement for facilities participating in the MA managed care initiative. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision and decreasing the Department of Health and Family Services' appropriation under s.
20.435 (4) (w) by $71,000 SEG in fiscal year 2001-02 and by $74,500 SEG in fiscal year 2002-03. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
4.
Joint Committee on Finance Authority to Supplement BadgerCare
Sections 1836g and 1836r
These sections authorize the Joint Committee on Finance to supplement the BadgerCare benefits appropriation under s.
13.10 from any other appropriation after the administration has submitted a proposal to reduce or stop program enrollment in the event of a projected funding shortfall. Under current law, the Department of Health and Family Services is required to limit enrollment in the program if the program is projected to exceed its budget, and BadgerCare may be supplemented only through an act of the full Legislature, signed by the Governor into law.
In its first two years, the BadgerCare program experienced rapid caseload growth which left the program facing budget shortfalls. Fully funding BadgerCare required separate legislation in fiscal year 2000-01 as well as additional increases in the 2001-03 biennial budget. However, caseload growth in the program has stabilized, and the need for future supplements is less likely.
If, however, there is unanticipated growth in the BadgerCare program, it is appropriate to consider reducing or stopping program enrollment. If both the Legislature and administration agree that sufficient funds exist to supplement the program, then separate legislation can still remedy any shortfall. Therefore, I am vetoing these sections, to eliminate the Joint Committee on Finance's authority to supplement the BadgerCare program from any other state appropriation because it is unnecessary.
5.
BadgerCare Funding Study
Section 9123 (9wo)
This provision requires the Department of Health and Family Services to produce a report for the Joint Committee on Finance on the potential for long-term savings under the BadgerCare program, to be completed by January 1, 2002.
I support finding ways to reduce program costs in BadgerCare and other health care programs, but this provision does not provide the department sufficient time to complete a comprehensive review of the program. Therefore, I am partially vetoing this provision and am directing the department to complete its review of the BadgerCare program by January 1, 2003. Furthermore, I direct the department to submit a copy of the report to the secretary of the Department of Administration as a cost-containment proposal to be considered during the 2003-05 biennial budget process.
6.
Medical Assistance Estate Recovery Audit
Section 9132 (3w)
This section requests that the Joint Committee on Audit direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to study the estate recovery program administered by the Department of Health and Family Services. The Joint Committee on Audit currently has the authority to request such a study if it deems an evaluation is needed, making this budget provision unnecessary. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision.
7.
Provider Fraud and Abuse Administrative Rules
Section 9123 (15k)
