I am partially vetoing this section to move the initial applicability of the Lafayette County exemption from the 2001 to the 2002 payments. I am making this partial veto because it is disruptive to change shared revenue payments this late in counties' 2001 fiscal year. Without this partial veto, shared revenue payments for nineteen counties will be reduced in November 2001 to amounts below those anticipated by these counties when they set their 2001 budgets. As a consequence, these counties could end up in deficit situations by no fault of their own. My veto avoids this concern. By shifting the first year to which the exemption applies to 2002, counties will have adequate time to incorporate all of the bill's shared revenue provisions into their budget planning.
Because my veto moves the first year of the Lafayette County provision to coincide with the first of two back-to-back increases in shared revenue under the bill, I expect no county to experience, solely as a result of the exemption, a decline in its 2002 payment compared to 2001. This is because I am signing into law increases in county shared revenue payments that exceed the amount of funding that the Lafayette County exemption reallocates. For the 2002 payments, I am approving increases in county shared revenue and county mandate relief payments that total $1,897,400. The Lafayette County exemption will redirect to that county approximately $1,200,000 of this increase. The additional aid will more than offset the amount redistributed by the exemption and will largely flow to the specific counties impacted by the Lafayette exemption. The bill's second increase in county shared revenue and county mandate relief totaling $1,916,400 in 2003 should further relieve concerns over the redistributive impact of the Lafayette County exemption because it provides an additional increase after the Lafayette County exemption is already implemented. Only a small portion of the 2003 increase is expected to go to Lafayette County.
Lafayette County's need for assistance is clear. Lafayette County imposed the second highest tax rate of all counties on the December 2000 property tax bills. The first and third highest, Menominee and Florence, were previously exempted from the maximum constraint. In 2001, the county's operating levy was the highest permissible under the county mill rate limit. By far, Lafayette County is the most negatively impacted county under the current minimum/maximum provisions of the shared revenue formula. In 2001, the county is receiving only sixteen percent of the amount it is entitled to under the equalization formula.
The county's situation is not new. Lafayette County has been on the maximum constraint for years. As the county with the largest share of its property value in agricultural land, the fall in farmland values in the 1980s hit the county's tax base very hard. The county's 2001 tax base is virtually identical to what it was twenty years ago. In 1981, the county's equalized value was $682,437,900. In 2001, it is only one percent higher, at $690,737,800. During this same time period, the tax base of all counties statewide increased by 177 percent. Adjusted for inflation, Lafayette County's tax base is half of what it was twenty years ago.
I am not content, however, with the means the Legislature chose to assist Lafayette County. Exempting a county from the maximum constraint is a crude on/off switch for adjusting state aid. This approach provides only two choices: allowing a county to be punished by the constraint or allowing it to gain substantially without regard to the needs of others. Consequently, I encourage the Legislature to consider other means to adjust the maximum constraint. Other approaches could create a more equitable situation rather than an environment in which each county subject to the maximum seeks to become the next exception.
19.
Special Charges for Municipal Services
Sections 2022tL, 2022w, 2022x, 2023 and 9359 (8z)
These sections allow municipalities to impose special charges for services available, regardless of whether the services are actually rendered, by allowing municipalities to allocate all or part of the cost of the services to properties served or eligible to be served.
S361
I am vetoing these sections because the imposition of a charge for services not rendered blurs the line between fees and taxes. I am also concerned that this provision will have a negative impact on the activities of many nonprofit organizations because the provision would broaden the scope of charges that could be applied to tax-exempt property. While this provision would help municipalities finance public services, it could hinder private entities that produce public benefits. I am especially concerned that this provision would lead to reductions in programs that help the homeless, the disabled and other populations assisted by the many nonprofit organizations across the state. I do hope, however, that a dialogue between municipalities and the owners of tax-exempt property will occur that will produce an acceptable means to ensure that municipalities are enabled to adequately finance public services without impairing the benevolent efforts of our nonprofit organizations.
20.
Automatic Teller Machines
Sections 2108q and 9344 (23k)
These sections exclude automatic teller machines from the property tax exemption for computer equipment beginning January 1, 2002.
I am vetoing this provision because it will lead to higher fees for Wisconsin residents to use automatic teller machines by increasing the costs of operating the machines. I am also vetoing this provision because it is an unnecessary intrusion into the Department of Revenue's administrative responsibility to apply the computer exemption fairly and uniformly to all property. As a result of my veto, GPR expenditures under the sum sufficient appropriation to reimburse local governments for the tax base lost by the computer exemption under s.
20.835 (1) (e) will increase by an estimated $1,117,500 in fiscal year 2002-03.
21.
Area Cooperation Compacts
Section 2022t
This section requires municipalities in standard metropolitan statistical areas to enter into area cooperation compacts with other municipalities or counties in the same region. The compacts will produce savings to taxpayers by improving cooperation in service delivery. Beginning in 2003, each municipality will be required to enter into an area cooperation compact with at least two municipalities and/or counties to perform at least two governmental services. Beginning in 2006, each municipality will be required to enter into an area cooperation compact with at least four municipalities and/or counties to provide at least five governmental services. An exception is provided for municipalities with less than two adjacent municipalities.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the broader compact requirement that begins in 2006. As a result of my veto, the compacts will be with at least two local governments for at least two services for 2003 and each year thereafter. I am vetoing the broader requirement beginning in 2006 because it is premature. Municipalities should be given greater opportunity to gain experience with this new means for seeking cooperative gains before it is expanded. Although my veto eliminates the mandate for broader compacts, broader compacts will not be prohibited. Indeed, I encourage local governments to fully explore all opportunities to create savings by working together.
22.
Annexations Creating Town Islands
Section 2019n
This section allows a city or village to create a town island by annexation if an intergovernmental cooperation agreement or a cooperative plan for boundary change applies to the territory that is annexed in creation of the town island.
Intergovernmental cooperation agreements can cover a wide range of concerns. I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the use of these agreements to create town islands because the provision does not specify that the agreement must cover boundary issues. My veto prevents the use of agreements related to nonboundary concerns from being inappropriately applied to this section. As a result of my veto, a city or village may create a town island by annexation, but only if a cooperative plan for boundary change between the city or village and the town exists and the plan applies to the land that is annexed.
23.
Classification of Certain Property as Swamp and Waste
Sections 2114m and 9344 (28v)
These sections require undeveloped land to be classified as swamp and wasteland if the land is not classified as agricultural or productive forest land and the land is part of a parcel where the other part of the parcel is enrolled in the Managed Forest Program.
I am vetoing these sections because they undermine the property tax system while providing no tax relief. Except for agricultural property, real property is assessed at market value. Consequently, no property impacted by these sections would receive a property tax reduction. In addition, determining the classification of land based on the characteristics of adjacent land rather than the characteristics of the land itself weakens the uniformity of the property tax system.
State Treasurer
24.
Changes in Statutory Appropriations
S362
These sections convert a continuing appropriation to an annual appropriation for College Savings Program administrative expenses. I object to this conversion because it is premature. The current appropriation structure was approved less than four months ago in
2001 Wisconsin Act 7. Also, this change may be programmatically unwise. The Legislature's first choice of a continuing appropriation type for these administrative expenses was sound and, until we have more experience with the program, I believe that a continuing appropriation is most suitable for these program expenses. For these reasons, I am partially vetoing these sections to restore this appropriation as a continuing appropriation.
TOBACCO SECURITIZATION PERMANENT ENDOWMENT FUND
25.
Technical Veto to Remove Erroneous Cross-Reference
Section 940
This section creates the appropriation for the annual transfer from the permanent endowment fund to the general fund.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove a cross-reference to a section that does not exist. This correction conforms Senate Bill 55 to the intent of the Conference Committee.
TRIBAL GAMING ALLOCATIONS
26.
Health and Family Services – Minority Health Program
Section 2848r
This section provides $250,000 in tribal gaming funding for a minority health program. Of this funding, $200,000 will be used for grants to improve minority health and $50,000 will be used for a public awareness campaign. I am vetoing the grant funding in fiscal year 2002-03 because I believe the ongoing funding commitment is excessive. As a result, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place $200,000 in unallotted reserve in fiscal year 2002-03 in appropriation s.
20.435 (5) (kb) to lapse to the tribal gaming appropriation, s.
20.505 (8) (hm), at the end of that fiscal year.
27.
Office of Justice Assistance – County-Tribal Law Enforcement Grants
Sections 395 [as it relates to s.
20.505 (6) (kr)], 859r, 859s, 890g, 890h, 9101 (21k) and 9401 (3k)
These provisions create a cooperative county-tribal law enforcement grant program funded with Indian gaming receipts and administered by the Office of Justice Assistance. The new program will provide Vilas County with $210,600 PR-S annually to support a law enforcement agreement with the Lac du Flambeau and provide Oneida County with $50,000 PR-S annually to support a law enforcement agreement with the Lac du Flambeau.
I am vetoing these provisions because both counties already participate in existing law enforcement grant programs. Vilas County receives funding for an agreement with the Lac du Flambeau under the cooperative county-tribal law enforcement grant program under s.
165.90 in the Department of Justice. Oneida County has received statutorily- established maximum award amounts through the Office of Justice Assistance's county law enforcement grant program under s.
16.964 (7). Furthermore, these earmarks would provide disparate treatment for these two counties compared to other recipients of Indian gaming receipts for tribal law enforcement efforts. By creating a fourth separate but related grant program for tribal law enforcement assistance using Indian gaming receipts, these provisions are unnecessary and duplicative.
28.
Natural Resources – Trout Management
This provision appropriates $20,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $150,000 in fiscal year 2002-03 for the study and reintroduction of the coaster brook trout.
By lining out the appropriation and writing in a smaller amount in fiscal year 2002-03, I am limiting the appropriation to $20,000 in each fiscal year. I am vetoing this provision because I am concerned about the depletion of tribal gaming revenue. Appropriations from tribal gaming revenue in fiscal year 2002-03 exceed the revenues taken in that year. Without restraint, there will be a mismatch between revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year. Further, funding for introduction should await the findings of the study. If the findings are favorable, full reintroduction should also be supported by fish and wildlife revenues. In addition, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
29.
Natural Resources – Wild Crane Study
This provision appropriates $30,000 in each fiscal year for the study of crop damage by wild cranes.
By lining out the appropriation and writing in smaller amounts that delete $10,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $30,000 in fiscal year 2002-03, I am limiting the appropriation to $20,000 in fiscal year 2001-02 only. I am vetoing this provision because I object to the continuing nature of this study. Funds were appropriated for such a study in the last biennium as well. That study was to have been completed by July 1, 2001, and this should not become a continuing obligation. There should be adequate revenues remaining to complete the study and report the findings. In addition, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
30.
Tourism – Kickapoo Valley Reserve, Law Enforcement Services
This provision appropriates $31,300 in fiscal year 2001-02 and $41,800 in fiscal year 2002-03 to provide law enforcement services for the Kickapoo Valley Reserve.
S363
By lining out the appropriation and writing in a smaller amount in fiscal year 2002-03, I am limiting the appropriation to $31,000 in each fiscal year. I am vetoing this provision because I am concerned about the depletion of tribal gaming revenue. Appropriations from tribal gaming revenue in fiscal year 2002-03 exceed the revenues taken in that year. Without restraint, there will be a mismatch between revenues and expenditures for the next fiscal year. This veto limits the amount provided in fiscal year 2002-03 to the amount appropriated in fiscal year 2001-02. This should be sufficient to provide the necessary services. In addition, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
31.
University of Wisconsin-Extension – Grazing Education Grants
These provisions create and fund a grazing education grant program of $100,000 annually. The program would provide grants for education and technical assistance on intensive grazing.
I am partially vetoing these sections because I am concerned about the depletion of tribal gaming revenue. Appropriations from tribal gaming revenue in fiscal year 2002-03 exceed the revenues taken in that year. Further, such technical assistance to agriculture has been a long-standing mission of the University of Wisconsin-Extension. This assistance should be provided from its base resources. A new program is not warranted.
32.
Workforce Development – Trade Masters Pilot Program
Section 2560r
This provision creates the Trade Masters Pilot Program. It also provides that an evaluation be submitted to the Legislature by July 1, 2010.
I am partially vetoing this provision because I find the nine year deadline excessive. Instead, I am directing the Department of Workforce Development to explain how the funds were spent at the conclusion of the fiscal year. Moreover, an independent evaluation of the program can be done on a continuing basis as necessary by the Legislative Audit Bureau or the Performance Evaluation Office in the Department of Administration.
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
To the Honorable, the Senate:
Sincerely,
Douglas La follette
Secretary of State
executive order #22
Relating to a Special election for the Forty-second Assembly District
WHEREAS, the Honorable Joan Wade submitted her resignation as a State Representative for the Forty-second Assembly District, effective September 1, 2001;
NOW, THEREFORE, I SCOTT McCALLUM, Governor of the State of Wisconsin, pursuant to section 8.50(4) of the Wisconsin Statutes, order that a special election be held on November 6, 2001 to fill the vacancy in the Forty-second Assembly District. If a primary is necessary, it shall be held on October 9, 2001. Circulation of nomination papers for candidates may begin on September 4, 2001 and nomination papers may be filed no later than 5:00 P.M., September 11, 2001 in the office of the State Elections Board. The term will expire on the first Monday in January, 2003. A description of the boundaries of the Forty-second Assembly District as created in
Prosser et al. v. Elections Board et al., 793 F. Supp. 859 (W.D. Wis. 1992) is set out in the 1999-00 Wisconsin Statutes following section 4.005. This election shall be held, conducted, canvassed and returned in accordance with law.
IN TESTIMONY WHERE OF, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the Great Seal of the State of Wisconsin to be affixed. Done at the Capitol in the city of Madison this fourth day of September in the year two thousand and one.
SCOTT McCALLUM
Governor
By the governor:
DOUGLAS LA FOLLETTE
Secretary of State
State of Wisconsin
September 5, 2001
The Honorable, The Senate:
I will be unable to attend the Joint Finance Committee meeting of September 5, 2001. Therefore I am submitting my resignation from the committee.
I will be available to resume my position immediately for the next committee meeting. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
Kevin W. Shibilski
State Senator, District 24
State of Wisconsin
September 5, 2001
The Honorable, The Senate:
Pursuant to Senate Rule
20 (2)(a), I have appointed Senator Judy Robson to the Joint Committee on Finance.
