I object to the repeal of the Work-Based Learning Board because dividing the state's school-to-work activities between separate departments would severely jeopardize the ability of the state to provide a coordinated and effective transition from education to employment. Building the skill level of Wisconsin's workforce is critical to my strategy to grow Wisconsin. Doing it in the piecemeal fashion that would result if the Legislature's changes were implemented will not get us where we need to be. The intent of this veto is to maintain as closely as possible a consolidated school-to-work program under the Work-Based Learning Board.
In addition to the 60 percent employment offer provision, the bill includes other important accountability measures for the youth apprenticeship program that I am retaining. These include limiting the maximum grant award to $900, requiring that local partners provide matching funds equal to 50 percent of the grant and expecting that 80 percent of individuals who participate in the program for two years receive a high school diploma. In addition, I expect that the Work-Based Learning Board will continue to work closely with the Wisconsin Technical College System, the Department of Public Instruction and the Department of Workforce Development to ensure that Wisconsin's school-to-work programs retain their high quality and their commitment to having participants reach their maximum potential.
28. Workforce Attachment and Advancement
Section 1251m
Section 1251m repeals the Workforce Attachment and Advancement (WAA) program. I am vetoing this section to retain the legal structure of the WAA program. I object to the elimination of the statutory language authorizing the Department of Workforce Development to distribute WAA grants. Under the WAA program, the department provides grants to Wisconsin Works (W-2) agencies and local work force development boards. The WAA grants are used to help low-income families and noncustodial parents find employment, remain attached to the work force and advance to higher paying employment.
These objectives should remain a component of the state's programs to assist low-income workers. While the allocation for the WAA cannot be recovered, I encourage the department to use other available funds to provide WAA grants to W-2 agencies and local work force development boards.
29. Department of Workforce Development Earmarks
S299
Sections 286 [as it relates to s.
20.445 (3) (dz)] and 1272g earmark $100,000 annually to support grants to an organization that provides summer and after-school recreation programs for children and families of Southeast Asian origin as part of the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families budget. Sections 286 [as it relates to s.
20.445 (1) (kv)], 492g, 614g and 1857m earmark $100,000 annually in tribal gaming revenues to support compulsive gambling grants to organizations that assist persons who are African American and persons of Southeast Asian origin with compulsive gambling issues. Finally, section 9159 (9d) requires the department to secure federal funding to be used to contract with certain specified faith-based organizations to create jobs and counsel families that have been impacted by gun violence.
I am partially vetoing section 286 [as it relates to s.
20.445 (1) (kv) and s.
20.445 (3) (dz)] and vetoing the remainder of these provisions in their entirety because I strongly object to the manner in which they were included in the budget bill.
While I support the goals of these programs, new funding initiatives like these should be discussed in open debate and not included in a late night omnibus motion in order to secure enough votes to pass the budget bill. When I was elected Governor, I promised to change the way government does business. Signing these items into law would be a return to a style of budget development that I promised to eliminate.
By lining out the Department of Workforce Development's s.
20.445 (3) (dz) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $100,000 annually, I am vetoing the part of the bill that funds grants for summer and after-school recreation programs for families and children of Southeast Asian origin. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
B. ENVIRONMENTAL AND COMMERCIAL RESOURCES
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
1. Farmland Preservation Tax Credit Sunset
Sections 1583p, 1731ec, 1731eg, 1731ek, 1731em, 1731g, 1731gm, 1731j, 1731L and 1731n
These sections repeal the Farmland Preservation Program by prohibiting farmland preservation tax credit claims for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2002, for a claimant who is subject to exclusive agricultural zoning. The provision allows claims by a claimant who is subject to an existing farmland preservation agreement until the agreement expires, but prohibits the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection from entering into new agreements.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the $23 million increase in income taxes that repealing this program will impose on farmers in the state. Over 20,000 farmers, many of them with low incomes, benefit from the Farmland Preservation Program. The program also provides an incentive for communities and farmers to limit loss of productive agricultural land to development and encourages soil and water conservation. At a time when our agricultural economy is facing serious challenges, we should not raise income taxes on our farmers. As a result of my veto, GPR expenditures from the sum sufficient appropriation for farmland preservation tax credits under s.
20.835 (2) (dm) will increase by an estimated $11.1 million in fiscal year 2003-04 and $11.6 million in fiscal year 2004-05.
2. Pet Regulation
Sections 2120b, 2120bb, 2120bd, 2120bf, 2120bh, 2120bj, 2120bL, 2120bn, 2120bp, 2120br, 2120bt, 2120bv, 2120bw and 9404 (4)
This provision modifies the regulations affecting pet breeders, dealers, kennels and shelters. Current law requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to license and inspect pet breeders, dealers, kennels and shelters, but provides no staff or funding for the purpose. These sections remove the requirement that the department license pet dealers, kennels and shelters, but retain the requirement that the department license pet breeders and promulgate rules specifying license fees. The bill provides no additional staff or funding for the program.
I am partially vetoing this provision to repeal the entire pet breeder, dealer, kennel and shelter regulation because I object to the imposition of regulatory duties without the necessary staff and funding. Furthermore, the modified regulations offer only limited protections to animals. Limiting the department's regulatory requirements to pet breeders, while requiring fewer resources than the full pet regulation program, nonetheless requires staff and funding. The inevitable diversion of resources from the department's primary mission of animal health and disease control will place the state's commercial and wild animal populations at risk for a potentially devastating disease outbreak.
With this veto, local governments will still be able to appoint humane officers to investigate cases of inhumane treatment, execute inspection warrants, seek subpoenas, issue citations and request prosecution. The department will continue to train and certify local humane officials. I recognize the importance of humane treatment of pets and will support reasonable regulation of the pet industry if adequate resources are provided to the department.
3. Ethanol Production Subsidy
S300
This provision appropriates $1,000,000 GPR and $2,900,000 PR-S from tribal gaming revenues annually for payments to ethanol producers in the state. This represents a 32 percent increase to the $2,945,000 in base level funding available in fiscal year 2002-03.
I object to this level of funding because it is excessive given the state's fiscal condition. By lining out the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's s.
20.115 (1) (d) appropriation and leaving $0 GPR in each year, and by lining out the department's s.
20.115 (1) (k) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $1,000,000 PR-S in each year, I am vetoing this provision to provide a level of funding consistent with my original budget proposal. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
I support the development of the ethanol industry in our state, but we need to make difficult decisions in solving the state's $3.2 billion deficit. As a result of my veto, $1,900,000 PR-S will be available annually for ethanol grants.
4. Fertilizer Tonnage Surcharge
Section 1745
This section increases the fertilizer tonnage surcharge cap paid by the manufacturers of plant fertilizers sold in the state from $0.38 to $0.63. The surcharge funds reimbursements for cleanup of sites contaminated with agrichemicals.
I am partially vetoing this section to increase the tonnage surcharge cap to $0.86 because I object to the reduction in reimbursements that would be necessary under the lower cap. This veto is consistent with my original proposal to set the cap at $0.88. Ensuring sufficient funds are available for cleanup of agrichemical contamination is a critical part of protecting Wisconsin's agricultural and natural resources.
5. Sampling for Agrichemical Contamination
Section 1755q
This section prohibits the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection from collecting or analyzing samples of plants, soil or water for the purpose of determining whether soil contamination has occurred unless the department first determines: (a) probable cause exists to suspect a discharge; (b) sufficient funds are available to pay the state's portion of cleanup costs; and (c) the department has reason to believe the discharge poses a significant risk to human health.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the limitation it places on the department's ability to protect human health and the environment from chemical contamination. The majority of agrichemical contamination sites addressed by the department involve discharges that have occurred gradually over time and are not detectable without chemical testing. It is essential that the department be allowed to assess the severity of suspected contamination sites using the normal tools of sampling and analysis.
6. Consumer Protection Surcharge Revenue
Section 1815d
This section increases the maximum amount that may be credited to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's consumer protection, information and education appropriation from $185,000 annually to $375,000 annually. Under current law, when a court imposes a fine or forfeiture for a violation of various consumer protection laws, the court imposes a 25 percent consumer protection assessment. The assessment is deposited into the general fund and is credited to the department's appropriation, subject to the statutory maximum.
I am vetoing this section because I object to this unnecessary increase. In the past two fiscal years, revenues credited to the appropriation have been significantly lower than the current cap.
7. Consumer Protection Position Reduction Report
Section 9104 (3x)
This section requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to submit to the Joint Committee on Finance, by November 1, 2003, a report detailing its plan for implementing the reductions in consumer protection positions included in the budget bill. The report is subject to 14-day passive review by the committee, and the department is prohibited from implementing the plan without committee approval.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs and because it is unnecessary.
8. Telephone Solicitation Regulation Appropriation
This provision converts the telephone solicitation regulation appropriation from continuing to annual. The appropriation funds the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection's regulation of companies that engage in telephone solicitation and is funded by fees paid by those businesses.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to the limitation on the department's ability to effectively administer the successful do-not-call program. In just over one year, more than 1.1 million Wisconsin households have signed up for the no-call list. The do-not-call program is extremely important to protecting Wisconsin citizens and should not be weakened by unnecessary legislative changes.
COMMERCE
9. Minority Business Certification Program
S301
Sections 221m, 842t, 924g, 943p, 1029r, 1524r, 1527g, 1528g, 1528m, 1528n, 1528s, 1528t, 1533b, 1682d, 1682m, 1683d, 1683m, 2022b, 2031p, 2325h, 2325j, 2325k, 2325m, 2384c, 2384cj, 2384cm, 2384cr, 2440m, 2442r, 2448g, 2448r, 2618v, 2618vd, 2618vg, 2618vm, 2618vp and 2628fg
These sections extend the Department of Commerce's minority business certification process to make department certification the standard for other units of state and local government, including the State of Wisconsin Investment Board, the Departments of Transportation and Health and Family Services, the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority, counties, villages, towns, cities, technical college district boards, metropolitan sewerage districts, school boards, public libraries, exposition districts, professional baseball park districts, professional football stadium districts, cultural arts districts, and the Bradley Center Sports and Entertainment Corporation.
I am vetoing these sections to maintain the current minority business certification system. While I recognize the benefits of a streamlined minority business certification process, I object to including these provisions in a budget bill because significant issues need to be investigated regarding potential conflicts with federal requirements and court decisions that, if unresolved, may result in the loss of federal funding for state and local activities. In addition, these provisions may impose an unfunded mandate on local governments. I am requesting the Department of Commerce to review these issues n consultation with affected parties and formulate a process that leads to increased minority business certification while also complying with federal law and court orders and minimizing the burden on minority businesses and local governments so as to foster more economic development.
10. Petroleum Inspection Fund Transfer
Section 9209 (1)
This section transfers from the petroleum inspection fund to the general fund $7,657,400 in each year of the 2003-05 biennium.
I am partially vetoing this section to increase the transfer from the petroleum inspection fund to the general fund to $20,767,400 because during tight fiscal times it is necessary to use all of the resources of the state to ensure the general fund has sufficient revenues to fund vital programs.
The partial veto will result in no effective date being specified for the transfer. Under s.
16.52 (12), because no date is specified for when the transfer is to be made, the Department of Administration shall determine a date on which the transfer shall be made or provide for partial transfers to be made on different dates. It is my intent that the entire $20,767,400 be transferred in fiscal year 2003-04. As a result, this veto improves the state's long-term financial condition by limiting the transfer to the first year of the 2003-05 biennium. Due to higher than anticipated revenues and reduced estimates of incoming claims, sufficient resources will remain in the petroleum inspection fund to meet program needs and maintain the claims backlog at a reasonable level.
11. Wisconsin Development Fund Grants
Section 9109 (1d)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to make grants from the Wisconsin development fund before June 30, 2004, to persons residing in or municipalities located in counties where, during any 12-month period after February 1, 2001, a plant closing has eliminated 500 jobs, multiple plant closings have eliminated 1,000 jobs or a plant closing has resulted in an average unemployment rate of at least 7.5 percent. In order to award a grant, the department must receive a detailed plan for the use of grant funds, the department secretary must approve the plan and a written agreement must be entered into specifying conditions for the use of grant funds. Grant recipients are required to submit a report within six months after all funds are expended detailing how grant proceeds were used. The total amount of grants may not exceed $1,000,000.
These grants to assist displaced workers with finding new employment are important, particularly in the current economy. I am, however, partially vetoing this section to remove references to any 12-month time period, the number of jobs eliminated and the limit on grants. I object to these provisions because the department is best able to assess the most effective use of grant funds for those affected by plant closings or high unemployment and should not be limited in the amount or circumstances under which those funds can be awarded.
12. Forestry Education Grant Program
This provision appropriates funding for the Department of Commerce's forestry education grant program.
I object to this funding because limited resources should be allocated to the most effective programs. This program is underutilized and duplicates forestry education programs offered by the Department of Natural Resources and the Wisconsin Environmental Education Board. By lining out the Department of Commerce's s.
20.143 (1) (t) appropriation and leaving $0, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
13. Great Lakes Intertribal Council Grant
S302
Sections 293s, 293u, 607u and 2628m
These sections repeal the appropriations under the Departments of Administration and Commerce that provide tribal gaming funds for an annual grant to the Great Lakes Intertribal Council which supports a liaison between Native American tribes and state agencies. A reference to this annual grant is deleted from the language governing the Department of Commerce's tribal gaming economic development and marketing appropriation under s.
20.143 (1) (kg).
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the elimination of these funds for the Great Lakes Intertribal Council. Although I cannot restore funding for the liaison position at this time, retaining these provisions allows the Department of Commerce to request funding at a later date.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
14. General Obligation Bonding Reduction and Present Value Subsidy Limit
Sections 285ag [as it relates to the Environmental Improvement Program], 680t and 2466
Sections 285ag [as it relates to the Environmental Improvement Program] and 680t reduce general obligation bonding authority for the clean water fund by $21,500,000. Section 2466 reduces the present value subsidy limit for the clean water fund by $44,900,000.
I am partially vetoing section 285ag [as it relates to the Environmental Improvement Program] and vetoing section 680t to restore the existing bonding authority and partially vetoing section 2466 to restore the existing present value subsidy limit because I object to the potential negative impact on local governments' abilities to address water treatment needs. Restoring this bonding authority and present value subsidy limit will enable the Environmental Improvement Program to meet projected requests for financial assistance related to clean water fund loans over the biennium.
LAND USE
15. Comprehensive Planning Land Information Requirement
Sections 230b and 230c
These sections prohibit the Department of Administration from providing a comprehensive planning grant funded by deed recording fee revenues to a local unit of government unless the grant application includes planning efforts that: (a) expedite and integrate the use of preexisting locally created and maintained Wisconsin land information program data; (b) utilize digital data that is consistent with Wisconsin land information program interests, modernization and public access standards; and (c) maximize public participation through access to planning support tools.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the imposition of unnecessary requirements on local governments. Standardized land information and public participation are already integral parts of the comprehensive planning process.
NATURAL RESOURCES
16. Agrichemical Management and Environmental Fund Revenues
Sections 286 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (2) (dx)], 402k, 855p, 855q, 855r, 855s, 855t, 855x, 1745d, 1745i, 1745L, 1750c, 1750e, 1750f, 1750g, 1750j, 1750L, 2475r and 9138 (2z)
Sections 855p, 855q, 855r, 855s, 855t, 855x, 1745d, 1745i, 1745L, 1750c, 1750e, 1750f, 1750g, 1750j and 1750L shift the deposit of revenues from pesticide product license fees, wood preservatives cleanup surcharges, primary producer fees, and soil or plant additive and fertilizer distribution groundwater fees from the environmental fund to the agrichemical management fund.
Sections 286 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (2) (dx)], 402k and 2475r allow the Department of Natural Resources to request reimbursement from the agrichemical management fund by the Joint Committee on Finance when funds are expended or expected to be expended on emergency cleanup actions at agrichemical sites under the jurisdiction of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. A zero-dollar appropriation is created for these reimbursements. The Department of Natural Resources is permitted to request reimbursement from this new appropriation in cases where funds from its state-funded spills response appropriation under s.
20.370 (2) (dv) are used at an emergency cleanup.
Section 9138 (2z) authorizes the Department of Natural Resources to submit a plan to the secretary of the Department of Administration to reallocate a reduction taken to its appropriation under s.
20.370 (2) (mq) among other appropriations from the environmental fund. If approved, the secretary would be required to submit the plan to the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review process.
S303
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs. Under this transfer of fee revenues from the environmental fund to the agrichemical management fund, the Department of Natural Resources would retain its current cleanup responsibilities, while losing revenues which are collected for the purpose of funding cleanups. In addition, the department would be required to undergo a new level of legislative oversight each time a cleanup is performed. This oversight would delay cleanup of contaminated sites and unduly infringe on the department's ability to prioritize activities. Finally, authorizing the Department of Natural Resources to reallocate the reduction to its Air and Waste Division operations appropriation is unnecessary.
17. Recycling Demonstration Grant Earmarks
Sections 406e and 2474L
