Section 174g adds four members of the Legislature, one each designated by the Assembly speaker, the Senate majority leader and the minority leader of each house of the Legislature and appointed by the Governor to the Council on Developmental Disabilities. I am vetoing section 174g because federal law requires that a minimum of sixty percent of the council's membership consist of persons with developmental disabilities, their parents or guardians. The addition of four legislators will require the appointment of an additional six individuals to meet federal requirements, which will decrease the effectiveness of the council by increasing its size from 26 to 36 members.
Section 174h requires that the Council on Developmental Disabilities, by January 31 of each year, submit a report to the Legislature on an evaluation of waiting lists compiled by the Department of Health and Family Services for services for persons with developmental disabilities. I am vetoing this section because the council currently evaluates the waiting lists and its evaluation is available to all interested parties.
Section 9123 (16r) requires the department to develop a plan to administer and fund services for people with developmental disabilities. The plan, which must be submitted to the Department of Administration for the 2003-05 biennial budget, must include the following provisions: (a) consolidate administration of both institutional and community-based services within the department's subunit responsible for community-based services for people with developmental disabilities; (b) combine funding under the Medical Assistance (MA) program for institutional services and community-based waivers for people with developmental disabilities into one appropriation, to the extent possible under federal law; and (c) ensure that funding in the MA appropriation not be tied to any specific program or service setting and be individually tailored to enable the person to live in the least restrictive environment appropriate to his or her needs and preferences.
Section 9123 (16rq) requires the department to determine whether any new federal waivers under the MA program are necessary to administer funding for MA services as described in section 9123 (16r). The department shall apply for any waivers of federal MA statutes and regulations that the department determines are necessary to administer funding for MA services as described in 9123 (16r).
I am vetoing sections 9123 (16r) and 9123 (16rq) because the department is in the best position to determine the organizational structure that will most efficiently strengthen the delivery system for individuals with long-term care needs, including the developmentally disabled. In addition, placing institutional and community-based funding in one appropriation and having administration of institutional and community-based services in a single subunit of the department will not necessarily improve services for the developmentally disabled.
Section 9123 (16rs) requires the department, as soon as possible before July 1, 2002, to seek waivers of federal MA statutes and regulations that are necessary to implement a pilot program for long-term care of children with disabilities. If the federal waivers are received, the department is required, as soon as possible before July 1, 2002, to seek enactment of statutory language to implement the pilot program.
While maintaining the language that requires the department to seek the waiver and enactment of statutory language, I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that it do so as soon as possible before July 1, 2002. I am concerned that the department will not be able to have the federal waiver approved by July 1, 2002. I am directing the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services, if the waiver is received, to submit enabling legislation to the Department of Administration for the 2003-05 biennial budget.
Section 9123 (16rs) also provides that, if the waivers are granted, that the pilot program do the following: expand eligibility under the MA community-based waiver, Birth to Three and Family Support programs to include children with severe disabilities and long-term care needs and children eligible for MA with high medical costs; expand MA coverage of services to include services focused on the needs of children with developmental disabilities and their families; and require the department to provide transitional services to families whose children with physical or developmental disabilities are preparing to enter the adult service system. I am partially vetoing this section to remove these provisions because I object to expanding the MA program and am concerned about the fiscal impact in the 2003-05 biennium if the department must provide the transitional services. However, I want children and families to receive the transitional planning needed to enter the adult system. I am therefore requesting the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to ensure that transitional planning is part of the federal waiver request.
29.
Family Care
S335
Section 395 [as it relates to ss.
20.432 (1) (k) and
20.435 (4) (b),
(bm) and
(bn) and
(8) (a)] appropriates $255,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $4,012,100 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 for the following: (a) $3,032,100 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 for expansion of the Family Care pilot program to Kenosha County; (b) $700,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 as start-up funds for expansion of Family Care to five additional counties in the 2003-05 biennium; (c) $5,000 GPR in each fiscal year for administrative costs associated with the Council on Long-Term Care; and (d) $250,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $275,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 for a Family Care external advocacy program that the Department of Health and Family Services contracts for with the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care and 1.0 FTE PR-S position to administer the program. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes these increases, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize funding increases for these purposes.
Family Care is a pilot program designed to test a new model for the provision of long-term care services. It involves an extensive redesign of the current system, which is often fragmented and confusing. While preliminary evaluations appear to be quite positive, the program's significant costs compel me to delay further expansion until the full evaluation of the program is completed in September 2002. With this evaluation, we should have better information to understand the cost effectiveness of the program, both in terms of the cost per person served as well as the overall cost of the pilot compared to current programs, and the quality of services received by participants and their families.
To reflect the elimination of funding for Kenosha County and the funding for the expansion to five additional counties in the 2003-05 biennium, I am decreasing the following Department of Health and Family Services' appropriations: s.
20.435 (4) (b) appropriation by $2,963,700 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03, s.
20.435 (4) (bn) appropriation by $33,400 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 and s.
20.435 (8) (a) appropriation by $735,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03. This veto is part of a larger write-down of the Medical Assistance appropriation. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
Sections 1520d, 1520e, 1520w and 4060c extend the sunset date for the Council on Long-Term Care from July 1, 2001, to July 1, 2003. I am vetoing these sections because
1999 Wisconsin Act 9 created the council primarily to advise the department on the development of the Family Care pilot program, and the development phase is complete. The secretary has the administrative ability to seek advice from groups and individuals interested in Family Care implementation and other long-term care issues. Thus, I am decreasing the department's s.
20.435 (8) (a) appropriation by $5,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $5,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
Finally, I object to funding for a separate external advocacy program for individuals applying for, or enrolled in, Family Care. The department has grievance procedures in place that individuals can utilize if they are not satisfied with their Family Care eligibility or level of services. Thus, I am decreasing the department's s.
20.435 (4) (bm) appropriation by $250,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and by $275,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 and the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care's s.
20.432 (1) (k) appropriation by $500,000 PR-S in fiscal year 2001-02 and $550,000 PR-S in fiscal year 2002-03. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE PR-S position for the Board on Aging and Long-Term Care.
30.
Elder Abuse Services
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (dh)] appropriates $1,500,000 GPR in each fiscal year for funding to counties for direct services for the elderly who have been determined to be abused or neglected. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes these increases, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize the funding increase. I object to the funding increase in fiscal year 2001-02. The Department of Health and Family Services contracts with counties on a calendar year basis and I am willing to approve a $750,000 increase in fiscal year 2001-02. Thus, I am decreasing the department's s.
20.435 (7) (dh) appropriation by $750,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
31.
Life Span Respite Care
Section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (br)] appropriates $112,500 GPR in each fiscal year for the Life Span Respite Care program. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes these increases, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize the funding increase. I object to the funding increase for this program. A fifty percent increase in funding is unwise when the state faces a significant structural deficit in the 2003-05 biennium. In addition, an evaluation of this new program is to be completed by June 1, 2004, and it is prudent to wait for the results before considering additional funding. Thus, I am decreasing the Department of Health and Family Services' s.
20.435 (7) (br) appropriation by $112,500 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $112,500 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
32.
Mental Health Systems Change Grants
Section 1562
S336
This section details the requirements that the Department of Health and Family Services must meet in administering mental health systems change grants. I am partially vetoing this section to remove language that limits the awarding of these grants to a nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation or a county because I want the Department of Health and Family Services to have the flexibility to award grants to the best applicants, regardless of organizational structure.
33.
Community Support Program
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (7) (bL)] and 1971L appropriate $1,000,000 GPR in each fiscal year as the state share of Medical Assistance benefits for the Community Support Program. I object to the funding increase in fiscal year 2001-02. The Department of Health and Family Services contracts with counties on a calendar year basis and I am willing to approve a $500,000 GPR increase in fiscal year 2001-02. Thus, I am decreasing the department's s.
20.435 (7) (bL) appropriation by $500,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
34.
Community-Based Psychological Service Program
Section 9123 (8d)
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance on the status of the implementation of the Community-Based Psychological Service Program. The report must be submitted by the first day of the sixth month after the effective date of the budget bill. I am vetoing this section because this service, if implemented, would be a new Medical Assistance benefit that must be offered as an entitlement. This service was authorized by the Legislature with the expectation that counties would pay the state share. However, in the event that counties would not adequately fund or make available the services, the state would be responsible for assuring adequate access to the benefit statewide.
35.
Drug Prevention and Intervention Grant
Section 1557v
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services to distribute $30,000 GPR in each fiscal year to the Career Youth Development Center for drug prevention and intervention programs for middle and high school athletes in the Milwaukee public school system. I am vetoing section 1557v because, while the provision has laudable goals, the state cannot afford the associated costs in this budget. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $30,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $30,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in unallotted reserve in the Department of Health and Family Services' appropriation s.
20.435 (7) (bc) to lapse to the general fund.
36.
Milwaukee Child Welfare Operations
Sections 1618r and 9123 (12zk)
Section 1618r requires the Department of Health and Family Services to promulgate rules regulating the administration of child welfare services in a county having a population of 500,000 or more. The rules must include provisions for: (a) contracting processes; (b) grievance procedures; (c) caseload ratios; (d) standards for the provision of services; and (e) citizen participation. Section 9123 (12zk) requires that the rules be submitted to the Legislature no later than the first day of the ninth month beginning after the effective date of the budget bill.
I am vetoing these sections because the Department of Health and Family Services has existing policies, procedures and standards which address the areas identified in section 1618r. In addition, I want the department to focus existing resources on the management of the child welfare system in Milwaukee, rather than the administrative work load associated with promulgating administrative rules.
37.
Kinship Care Funding Supplementation
Section 1629x
This section authorizes the Joint Committee on Finance to supplement the kinship care appropriation under s.
16.515 if the amounts budgeted for the program are insufficient to fund benefit payments to all eligible families. I am vetoing this provision because the biennial budget provides a level of funding that fully funds the projected kinship care caseload. In addition, the Department of Health and Family Services has the administrative flexibility to reallocate funding among counties if waiting lists become a problem.
38.
Medical Assistance For Foster Care Adolescents
Sections 1799f, 1968d, 1968dh, 9323 (16f) and 9423 (17g)
These sections extend Medical Assistance (MA) eligibility to any individual who is at least nineteen years of age but under twenty years of age and who, on his or her eighteenth birthday, was in foster care or treatment foster care, as determined by the Department of Health and Family Services. They also give second priority for county substance abuse services to individuals who are twenty years of age and were eligible for MA under the provision contained in section 1799f and give first priority for county mental health services to individuals who are twenty years of age and were eligible for MA under the provision contained in section 1799f. These provisions are effective on January 1, 2003. I am vetoing these provisions because I am very concerned about the advanced funding commitments created by this extension of MA eligibility. In addition, I am directing the department to conduct a cost benefit analysis to determine if the extension of MA benefits is cost effective in the long run. Based on the results of this study and if revenue is available in the 2003-05 biennium, I am willing to reconsider this MA eligibility issue.
39.
Targeted Case Management Reimbursement Lapse
Section 9223 (5zk)
S337
Section 9223 (5zk) requires the Department of Administration secretary to lapse $3,008,300 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $3,328,500 in fiscal year 2002-03 from Medical Assistance (MA) reimbursement of the cost of providing targeted case management services to children whose care is not eligible for reimbursement under Title IV-E of the federal Social Security Act.
I am partially vetoing section 9223 (5zk) to delete the requirement that revenues for the lapse come from reimbursement of the cost of providing targeted case management services to children whose care is not eligible for reimbursement under federal Title IV-E. The Department of Health and Family Services has recently determined that it is uncertain whether the targeted case management reimbursement revenues will be sufficient to satisfy the required lapse amounts. In addition, some counties are currently claiming MA reimbursement for targeted case management and using the federal revenues to fund social services, particularly for children with mental health needs. Counties would lose these revenues if they were lapsed under section 9223 (5zk). The effect of this veto will be to allow the department to use income augmentation revenues to meet the required lapse and allow counties to continue to use the targeted case management funds.
40.
Income Augmentation
Sections 732q, 1557jd, 1557k, 9123 (9bk) and 9323 (16k)
Sections 732q,1557jd and 9323 (16k) require the Department of Health and Family Services to perform activities to augment the amount of federal moneys received by the state and prohibits the department from contracting with any person to perform these augmentation activities. Section 9123 (9bk) authorizes 1.0 FTE FED position, funded with income augmentation revenues, to perform income augmentation activities. I am partially vetoing section 732q and vetoing sections 1557jd, 9123 (9bk) and 9323 (16k) because I want the department to have the flexibility to augment federal income in a manner that maximizes the amount of revenue the state receives from the federal government. The work of the vendor currently under contract with the department has enabled the state to receive over $102,000,000 in additional federal revenue. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to authorize the 1.0 FTE FED position in fiscal year 2001-02 and not to allot $43,800 FED in fiscal year 2001-02 and $49,700 FED in fiscal year 2002-03 for the cost of the position.
Section 1557k repeals the current law provision that allows the department to submit a plan to the Department of Administration secretary for use of income augmentation revenues for purposes other than the operational costs exclusively related to augmenting federal income. I am vetoing section 1557k because I want the administration to retain the flexibility to use income augmentation funding to meet state and department needs with the approval of the Joint Committee on Finance.
41.
Food Pantry Grants
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (3) (fp)], 701h, 1568b and 9123 (4h)
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (3) (fp)], 701h and 1568b: (a) appropriate $750,000 GPR in each fiscal year for grants to food pantries to purchase, store, transport and distribute food to needy households; (b) specify that the total amount of each grant cannot exceed $15,000 and that each grant awarded be in proportion to the number of persons served by the food pantry; (c) specify the criteria for allocating funding between rural food pantries and the rest of the state; (d) specify the requirements for a food pantry to be eligible for a grant; (e) limit the amount that the Department of Health and Family Services may use for administration of the program to five percent of the total amount appropriated; and (f) require each grantee to submit a report to the department on how the funds were used and require the department to compile the reports and submit the results to the Legislature. Section 9123 (4h) requires the department, within ninety days after the effective date of the budget bill, to submit a plan to the Joint Committee on Finance, under a 14-day passive review process, for distributing grants to food pantries.
I am concerned about the future funding commitment created by this new program. I am vetoing the second year funding of $750,000 GPR and directing the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to ensure that applicants receive funding on a one-time basis and that the funding be used for emergency assistance. I am vetoing the provisions that specify a $15,000 limit on a grant, the criteria for awarding grants to individual food pantries and allocating grants between rural pantries and the rest of the state, and the requirements for food pantries to be eligible for a grant. The department, because of its expertise in the state's food programs, is best able to determine how the funds should be allocated to meet the needs of individual communities. I am directing the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to develop a distribution method and to distribute grants to the state's existing emergency food assistance programs that meet the state and federal standards.
S338
I am vetoing the provision that restricts state administrative costs to five percent of the amount appropriated because it limits program flexibility. I am directing the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to limit administrative costs to five percent and to set aside $50,000 for distribution and storage of federal bonus food. This will ensure that the state has the necessary funding for the next delivery of federal bonus food. I am also vetoing the provision that requires the grantees to submit a report to the department on the use of the funds and requires the department to compile the reports and submit them to the Legislature because the funding will be one-time and for emergency assistance. The department can summarize the results of the program in its annual hunger report which is submitted to the Legislature. Finally, I am vetoing section 9123 (4h) because I want the department to quickly distribute the grants for emergency assistance.
42.
Publicity for Alzheimer's Disease Registration and Funding for Assistive Technology
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (6) (a)], 721r, 721s, 725, 726p, 726q, 1568c, 9123 (15j) and 9423 (18j)
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (6) (a)], 721r, 721s and 1568c appropriate $30,000 GPR in each fiscal year for the Department of Health and Family Services to publicize the existence of a program administered by a nongovernmental entity that registers persons with Alzheimer's disease or other related dementias and provides identification products in order to facilitate the safe return of persons who become lost or wander. Although there is no language in the budget bill that authorizes these increases, the Legislature passed a motion and an amendment during its deliberations to authorize the funding increase.
I am partially vetoing section 395 [as it relates to s.
20.435 (6) (a)] and vetoing section 1568c because, while this provision has laudable goals, the state cannot afford the cost of a publicity campaign in this budget. In addition, the department currently funds the Alzheimer's Family and Caregiver Support program and provides funding for training and information on Alzheimer's disease. Thus, I am decreasing the department's s.
20.435 (6) (a) appropriation by $30,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $30,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
Sections 721r, 721s, 725, 726p, 726q, 9123 (15j) (a), (b), (c) and (d) and 9423 (18j) provide one-time funding for the following: (a) $15,000 GPR annually to the Department of Health and Family Services for technical assistance; (b) $15,000 GPR annually to Easter Seals for specialized assistance to persons in the agricultural industry; (c) $20,000 GPR annually for the Wheelchair Recycling program; and (d) $150,000 GPR annually to Independent Living Centers. I am vetoing sections 726p, 726q and 9123 (15j) (a), (b) and (d) and 9423 (18j), and partially vetoing sections 725 and 9123 (15j) (c) because this funding increase is unreasonable. The net effect of these vetoes is to only provide $20,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 for the Wheelchair Recycling program.
The department currently provides funds to Independent Living Centers and Easter Seals for assistive technology projects. I am concerned that the projects in this budget proposal are ongoing despite only receiving one-time funding. I am directing the secretary of the Department of Health and Family Services to ensure that the grant for the Wheelchair Recycling program involves only one-time projects.
Because sections 721r and 721s contain language related to both publicity activities for Alzheimer's disease registration and the objectionable portions of the assistive technology initiative, I am partially vetoing section 721r and vetoing section 721s.
I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to: (a) place $15,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $15,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s.
20.435 (6) (a) to lapse to the general fund; (b) place $15,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $35,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s.
20.435 (7) (bc) to lapse to the general fund; and (c) place $150,000 GPR in fiscal year 2001-02 and $150,000 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03 in unallotted reserve in appropriation s.
20.435 (7) (c) to lapse to the general fund.
Tobacco control board
43.
Tobacco Control Board Membership
Sections 173p, 173r, 173s and 9423 (12mk)
These provisions require that the Tobacco Control Board have fifteen members, including one legislator from each party in both houses and the Attorney General or his designee. I am vetoing these provisions because they unreasonably limit the executive branch. Board members must have the necessary backgrounds to ensure the state's tobacco control efforts are effective.
WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT
44.
W-2 Contract Prohibitions
Sections 1660d and 9358 (8c) [as it relates to s.
49.143 (2g)]
Section 1660d removes flexibility that the Department of Workforce Development currently has to manage resources for the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program, by prohibiting the department from transferring funds initially allocated for cash benefits to pay for costs associated with providing direct services to W-2 participants and administration of the W-2 program.
Section 1660d also stipulates that funding provided under a W-2 contract could not be expended by a W-2 agency for public relations activities, unless those activities are directly related to providing community outreach and informing participants about the services available under the W-2 program.
I object to this provision because it prevents the department from reallocating resources to the areas where they may be most needed, in order to manage the W-2 program efficiently and serve W-2 participants effectively. In addition, the prohibition on public relations spending is duplicative of federal law; the department currently administers a test to determine whether a W-2 agency's public relations activities conform to federal regulations. Further, it is unclear what activities constitute "community outreach," as the term is not defined.
S339
I am vetoing section 1660d in its entirety, and partially vetoing section 9358 (8c), as it relates to s.
49.143 (2g), thereby maintaining current law. This will ensure that the department has the management tools necessary to administer the W-2 program efficiently and effectively.
45.
Review of Expenditures and Reallocations
Sections 255p, 1716m, 1716o, 1716q, 1716s, 1716v and 1718
These sections eliminate the Department of Workforce Development's current authority to transfer funds from one allocation to another allocation under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program [under s.
49.175 (1)] with approval from the Department of Administration secretary. Instead, these provisions stipulate that the department must meet certain requirements and obtain approval from both the Department of Administration secretary and the Joint Committee on Finance in order to reallocate funds under the TANF program. In addition, the department would be required to report annually to the Department of Administration secretary and the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance on TANF expenditures for the previous fiscal year.
The transfer authority, which exists under current law, allows the department flexibility in making adjustments to its public assistance allocations, which are funded primarily with GPR and the federal TANF block grant. This flexibility is necessary in maintaining the department's ability to manage and respond to needed changes in the Wisconsin Works (W-2) program.
I am vetoing all of the new requirements concerning reallocation of funds, so that the department will retain the flexibility to reallocate resources as needed in order to administer the program efficiently and serve W-2 participants effectively. As with current practice, I direct the department to not request any reallocation that transfers more than ten percent from one allocation to another. I would be willing to support separate legislation to restore Joint Committee on Finance review of any transfer greater than ten percent.
I am also vetoing the requirement that the department submit annual reports on TANF expenditures to the Department of Administration secretary and the co-chairs of the Joint Committee on Finance, because I believe that it is unnecessary to require the report in statute. However, I do feel that such a report would provide useful information; therefore, I am directing the department to submit an annual report to the Department of Administration secretary on TANF expenditures for the previous fiscal year.
46.
W-2 Contingency Fund
Section 961r
This section creates an appropriation for the Joint Committee on Finance to supplement appropriations for cash benefits for Wisconsin Works (W-2) participants, child care benefits, and kinship care and long-term kinship care benefits.
While I do not object to the contingency fund itself, I disagree with the purposes for which the fund may be used, as specified in the bill. Historically, the intent of the W-2 contingency fund was for cash assistance payments only, as a safeguard against times of economic downturn and increased caseloads.
The bill removes over $12,000,000 associated with community reinvestment funds from the 1997-99 W-2 contracts, some of which was held by W-2 agencies as their own contingency funds. Further, as a means of fully funding the anticipated costs of the Wisconsin Shares child care subsidy program, the Legislature modified funding in the W-2 contracts from what my proposed budget included, by reducing funds for direct services and administration and by providing no increase for cash benefits. Given these reductions to the W-2 contracts and the loss of community reinvestment dollars for W-2 agencies, it would seem prudent to provide the contingency fund for the purpose that W-2 agencies suggest it would be most needed, namely, cash benefits.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove child care benefits and kinship care and long-term kinship care benefits as eligible uses for the W-2 contingency fund, in order to reserve the fund for the purpose for which it is most needed.
47.
Changes to W-2 Geographical Regions in Milwaukee County
Section 1660g
