Vacant Positions in State Government
Section 9101 (26n)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration, within thirty days of the budget's effective date, to determine vacant positions of various funding sources in executive branch agencies as of July 1, 2001; determine the associated salary and fringe benefit costs; and lapse these amounts to the respective appropriation and fund balances. In addition, the authorized positions determined by the secretary are deleted.
My budget recommendations to the Legislature included GPR state operations base appropriations reductions of five percent for most state agencies. Since the budget was introduced, agency managers have been planning how to implement these cuts. Many are holding authorized positions vacant in anticipation of using them to help meet the funding reductions. While these five percent reductions involve GPR, agencies with other funding sources have been holding vacancies in program revenue and segregated funds so that employees may be reallocated in order to minimize layoffs. The cuts of vacant positions and associated funding proposed by the Legislature place an additional burden on agencies in that the dollars associated with many vacancies have already been accounted for in agency planning.
I understand that the estimated GPR savings of $7,900,000 annually related to this provision are needed to maintain the general fund balance. However, estimated savings from vacant positions in other funding sources that would lapse to those sources would be of no benefit to the general fund.
For these reasons, I am partially vetoing this provision to give the department secretary and state agencies needed flexibility to implement the several general fund reductions and lapses in the budget. Specifically, my partial veto deletes the thirty-day deadline for determining vacant positions; removes non-GPR funding sources from the lapse requirement; eliminates the requirement that individual appropriations be part of the secretary's determination and implementation of GPR lapses; and strikes the requirement that vacancies identified be deleted. I am also vetoing the limitation of this lapse provision to only the executive branch, since I believe all branches of state government should share responsibility for reducing costs in each fiscal year. The effect of this partial veto will give the secretary flexibility to apportion the required general purpose revenue lapse equitably among all agencies.
2.
Dues and Membership Lapses
Section 9101 (22k)
This provision requires the secretary of the Department of Administration to determine the amount spent by each state agency in fiscal year 2000-01 for membership dues for any state or national organization and to lapse twenty percent of those amounts from each affected agency appropriation.
S349
This language, as presented, provides no latitude regarding the appropriations or respective amount of required lapse that must be assessed. Because there are appropriations that exist solely for payment of a dues or membership fee which will require all of their budgeted resources in the 2001-03 biennium, I find the requirement to take twenty percent of each and every such appropriation to be overly restrictive. I am therefore partially vetoing the provision in a way that will permit the Department of Administration secretary to apportion the provision's overall required lapse on a more flexible basis across agencies and their appropriations. The fiscal effect of this veto will be neutral, since the total required amount will be lapsed.
3.
Audit of State-Owned Aircraft Usage
Sections 9132 (3y) and 9159 (3y)
These provisions request the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a performance evaluation audit of aircraft usage by state agencies. If the bureau does not initiate this audit by December 1, 2001, the Department of Administration, Department of Transportation and Department of Natural Resources are directed to conduct a joint study to determine how reductions can be made in the costs associated with use of aircraft by state agencies.
I object to the required Legislative Audit Bureau study because I believe the three state agencies involved can perform this study adequately. I am, therefore, partially vetoing these provisions to remove the Legislative Audit Bureau study, but leave in place the requirement that the three agencies do the evaluation and report the results to the chief clerk of each house of the Legislature.
4.
University of Wisconsin System Fleet Merger
Section 9156 (3s)
This section transfers to the Department of Administration the assets and liabilities of the board of regents of the University of Wisconsin System relating to its fleet maintenance functions at the Madison campus, as determined by the secretary of the Department of Administration.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. An interagency committee is already studying how to optimize state fleet maintenance and is working toward this same goal. Combining the University of Wisconsin-Madison and Department of Administration fleet maintenance operations at this time would be premature until those study efforts have been completed.
5.
Procurement Conversion to Program Revenue
This provision creates a new biennial appropriation for support of central procurement operations.
I believe that a biennial appropriation does not provide enough flexibility to carry out the goals of the program. I am, therefore, partially vetoing this provision to give the Department of Administration greater flexibility in providing procurement services. The effect of this veto will be to change the biennial appropriation to continuing.
6.
Procurement Services Audit
Section 9132 (2ak)
This section requests the Joint Legislative Audit Committee to direct the Legislative Audit Bureau to conduct a performance evaluation audit of procurement services provided by the Department of Administration to state agencies.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Legislature does not need nonstatutory authority to direct that a Legislative Audit Bureau study be conducted.
7.
Purchasing Card Rebates
Sections 227q and 9101 (19r)
This provision requires the Department of Administration to credit any rebates received by state agencies through the use of the purchasing card to the fund from which the purchase was incurred.
The budget includes the conversion of funding for the state procurement program from GPR to program revenue. Among the intended sources available to agencies to fund the charges for the central procurement bureau are internal savings realized through the use of innovations such as the purchasing card. Requiring agencies to lapse such savings contradicts the original concept of converting state procurement functions to program revenue. It also would act to discourage agencies from trying to use technology in their operations. For these reasons, I am vetoing the purchase card rebate requirement.
BUILDING PROGRAM
8.
Retainage on Public Works Contracts
Sections 321m, 2026m and 9359 (10b)
These provisions reduce the percentage of payments withheld on public works contracts from ten percent to five percent.
I am vetoing this provision because it is contrary to the industry standard of ten percent on such payments and reduces the state's ability to manage state building projects by decreasing the incentive of contractors to complete projects in a satisfactory manner. The effect of this veto will be to retain the ten percent standard, which is current law.
9.
Wisconsin History Center Reporting Requirement
Section 9107 (7x)
This provision requires that at least $75,000,000 in gift, grants or other receipts funding be secured before any bonds are sold for the Wisconsin History Center project. It also requires that the Building Commission notify the Joint Committee on Finance when this gift funding has been secured which is then subject to the fourteen-day passive approval authority of the Joint Committee on Finance before the Building Commission may authorize any public debt for the project.
I believe the Building Commission should remain the sole state government body responsible for oversight of building projects. I object to the requirement that this project be subject to the additional review and approval of another legislative committee. Therefore, I am vetoing this provision.
S350
10.
Facility Operating Cost Estimates
Sections 104m and 227m
These sections require the Department of Administration to provide the Building Commission with a statement of anticipated annual operating costs and other information for each building project proposed for enumeration. They also prohibit the Building Commission from recommending any project for enumeration in the authorized state building program unless the commission adopts and provides an estimate of the anticipated annual operating costs or the increased annual operating costs, plus the anticipated annual debt service costs of all projects in the first full year following their completion, and the revenue source for these costs.
I am vetoing these sections because the Building Commission already collects this information and includes these costs as part of its recommendations on the authorized state building program through the Department of Administration. The commission and the department are committed to addressing anticipated operating costs when considering building projects for approval.
11.
Distributed Generation Units
Section 319s
This section requires the Department of Administration to investigate the potential of incorporating and using distributed generation units in any state building project that is expected to cost $5,000,000 or more. The department is required to consider the cost effectiveness of these units, their potential for statewide power generation capacity and their potential for cost savings to the state. The department is also required to report its findings, together with its recommendations and the reasons for its recommendations, to the Building Commission prior to the commission's consideration of a project.
I am vetoing this section because the Department of Administration already reviews the feasibility of using this type of generation in larger building projects and incorporates such units when found to be cost-effective.
12.
Restrictions on Acquisition Through Lease Purchase
Sections 108b, 108c, 108e, 994e 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.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they place an unnecessary restriction 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.
13.
Sale of Residual State Property
Sections 107m, 107mm, 107n, 107nm, 107p, 107pm, 983m, 983mn, 2307jn, 2307jp and 9459 (5s)
These provisions require each state agency that has jurisdiction over residual state property to solicit bids for the sale of that property no later than the end of a two-year period beginning on the effective date of the bill. They also require that any agency selling residual state property during that two-year period would have to sell the property to the highest responsible bidder, if any, who offers to pay at least the fair market value of the property. Residual property is defined as vacant state-owned land, including any improvements on that land, which is not utilized under any statutory program or any plan or proposal of a state agency. Annually, no later than September 1, each state agency that sold a parcel of residual property would be required to file a report with the cochairpersons of the Joint Committee on Finance that specifies the location and size of each parcel sold, the date sold, the estimated fair market value of the parcel sold, sales price and the allocation of the proceeds of the sale. The requirement for the sale of residual property would not apply to property that is leased to a person other than a state agency on the effective date of the bill, if the terms of lease preclude the sale of property during the term of the lease, until the lease expires or is modified, renewed or extended, whichever occurs first. Finally, current law governing the sale of the surplus property by the Building Commission is subject to the requirements relating to the sale of residual property. These provisions would sunset on March 1, 2004.
I am vetoing these provisions because they place unnecessary time constraints on state agencies that may prevent them from realizing the full value of any state property sold. In addition, existing state policies on the sale of surplus land are adequate.
14.
Utility Service Cost Allocation Study
Section 9107 (12w)
This provision requires the Building Commission to direct the Department of Administration to contract with a private person to study the extent of utility services provided to state programs funded by program revenue and to determine whether the charges made to the programs utilizing this service are fairly compensating the state for the cost of the service provided to the programs. The report must include any recommendations for changes in allocation of charges for utility services. The department must report the results of the study, together with any recommendations included in the study report, to the cochairpersons of the Joint Committee on Finance no later than July 1, 2002.
S351
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The Building Commission and the Department of Administration have the authority under current law to conduct a utility service cost allocation study.
15.
Revision of Enumerated Projects
Section 9101 (20z)
In this provision, the Legislature requires the Department of Administration's Division of Facilities Development and the Building Commission to revise the enumerated projects listed in the authorized state building program. At the second quarterly s.
13.10 meeting of the Joint Committee on Finance, the Department of Administration must provide the Joint Committee on Finance the recommendations of the Building Commission to revise the 2001-03 authorized state building program to reflect the reduction of $13,100,000 general fund supported borrowing provided in the budget bill. The Joint Committee on Finance is required to introduce appropriate legislation required to implement any revisions approved by the committee.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The legislative members of the Building Commission can introduce appropriate legislation required to make changes in the authorized state building program if such changes are deemed necessary. I believe the Building Commission should remain the sole state body responsible for oversight of building projects. I object to the requirement that changes in the authorized state building program be subject to s.
13.10 review prior to being introduced as separate legislation.
16.
Restriction on General Fund Supported Borrowing
Section 392p
This section prohibits the level of general fund supported borrowing that is authorized in any biennium, excluding borrowing for the purpose of refunding previously authorized bonds, from exceeding 3.5 percent of the estimated taxes of the first year of the biennium.
I am vetoing this section because I believe the formula provided is unworkable and does not recognize that the cost of borrowing is controlled by the amount of annual debt service on bonds issued, not the principal amount of the bonds issued. The proposed formula does not take into account the different forms of borrowing the state enters into, which have different interest costs, as well as different amortization periods, affecting both the interest cost as well as the average life of the debt. Most importantly, the section does not recognize the time variability of debt issuance. Debt authorized by the Legislature in this budget may not be issued for several years. Moreover, the overall bonding increase included in the bill, as passed by the Legislature, is two-and-one-half times what would be allowed under the proposed formula. Wisconsin is one of the few states with a constitutional limitation on the amount of debt that it can incur. I am striking this section which attempts to create a different standard.
17.
Wausau State Office Facility Study
Section 9107 (12mk)
This provision requires a study of the feasibility of constructing a state office facility in the Wausau area.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The Building Commission is already authorized to conduct studies on the feasibility of constructing state office facilities.
ELECTIONS BOARD
18.
Recall Elections of City, Village, Town or School District Officials
Sections 94f, 94i, 94L, 94p, 94s, 3828m and 9359 (11q)
These provisions revise the procedures for recalling city, village, town or school district officials. I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because I believe changes in the procedures for recalling these officials should be adopted through separate legislation.
19.
Lease of Electronic Voting Equipment
Sections 906m, 9101 (20x), 9115 and 9129 (1x)
These provisions require the Department of Administration to enter into a master lease on behalf of the Elections Board to obtain sufficient electronic voting equipment suitable for use in municipalities that employed a punch card electronic voting system at the 2001 spring election. I am vetoing these provisions because the department should make the determination as to whether use of master leasing is appropriate to replace punch card voting systems.
ELECTRONIC GOVERNMENT
20.
Appropriation Structure
These provisions establish appropriations in the new Department of Electronic Government. In my budget recommendations to the Legislature, I proposed that the department have one continuing appropriation with which to conduct general program operations. I did this because the new direction the state must take in managing its information technology resources requires both the broader authorities vested in the chief information officer position heading the agency and the financial flexibility inherent in a continuing appropriation.
The Legislature adopted several of the recommended changes in powers and duties recommended for the chief information officer. However, it approved an annual appropriation instead of continuing. By applying my partial veto, the continuing appropriation authority which I originally recommended will be retained.
S352
Because my partial veto simplifies and eliminates several appropriations under the new department, I also am partially vetoing some of the language relating to appropriation transfers. I am doing this to clarify that the secretary of the Department of Administration has full authority to ensure that appropriate assets and liabilities of operations and programs previously in the Department of Administration are transferred to the new department. Further, my veto is intended to give the secretary of the Department of Administration full authority to determine any question that might arise with respect to treatment of appropriation revenues and expenditures in the new department.
21.
Administrative Rule to Set Fees
Section 1030d
The Department of Electronic Government created in the budget derives its funding through the assessment of fees for various services and activities. This section requires the department to establish all fees and charges through the administrative rule process. I am removing this requirement with my partial veto because it will unnecessarily burden the chief information officer in expeditiously implementing the agency's mission.
22.
Chief Information Officer Vote on Information Technology Management Board
Section 176
