Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.115 (2) (k)], 143i, 245n, 557t, 557v, 587e, 587g, 657f, 657h, 657L, 1756d, 1756e, 1756g, 1756h and 1756L
These provisions create a new annual appropriation for the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to receive funds from the Department of Natural Resources for activities related to fish hatcheries. The provisions also repeal the authority of the Department of Natural Resources to remove fish from a self-contained fish rearing facility or preexisting fish rearing facility that is an artificial body of water, unless requested by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection. In addition, the provisions require the Department of Natural Resources to obtain a fish health certificate for its fish hatcheries from the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, but exempts the Department of Natural Resources from the related fees.
I am vetoing these provisions because they are unnecessary and remove vital enforcement authority to keep aquatic invasive species out of Wisconsin's waters. This provision opens the door to importation or retention of nonnative fish such as the Asian Carp that pose a threat to wild native fish populations. Aquaculture is a growing business that is important to Wisconsin, but in order to protect our native species, we need to ensure that the growth occurs responsibly. Under my Administration, the departments will continue to work together to ensure that all fish raised in the state meet health standards and will not be detrimental to the native populations that play an important role in maintaining biodiversity and providing economic opportunities statewide.
2.
Bioindustry Grant Program
Section 1751v [as it relates to the total grant awards per fiscal year]
This provision limits the total amount of funds the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection may award in a fiscal year for grants under the Agricultural Diversification and Development, and Sustainable Agriculture programs.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to the restriction of funding for these important programs. The department is best equipped to determine the appropriate split of funding for projects under these programs and the new Bioindustry Grant Program. I am disappointed that the level of funding for the new program was cut in half, but do not believe that the reduction should limit spending on the existing programs if significant opportunities arise.
COMMERCE
3.
Petroleum Environmental Cleanup Fund Award (PECFA) Program Changes
Sections 1829p and 9108 (1v)
Section 1829p reduces the current level of revenue obligation authority to support the payment of claims under the PECFA program from $436,000,000 to $386,924,000. Section 9108 (1v) requires the Department of Commerce to include in its 2007-09 biennial budget submission a proposal to phase out the PECFA program.
I am vetoing these sections because it is premature to remove support for claim payments and require phase out of the program. The department is actively monitoring activity in the program and is best equipped to determine when the program has met its goals. In addition, it is unclear how many outstanding claims have not been submitted and of what magnitude those claims are. Sufficient funding must be available for these claims to avoid a significant delay in payments.
4.
Increase in Enterprise Development Zones
Section 2419
This section authorizes the Department of Commerce to create additional enterprise development zones up to a total of 85 zones.
A394
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to the unreasonable restriction on the number of businesses that could benefit from this program. This partial veto gives the department the authority to create a total of 98 enterprise development zones as opposed to the 85 zones authorized by the Legislature. This reasonable increase in the number of zones will allow the department to continue to provide incentives for businesses to create and retain jobs in Wisconsin.
5.
Small Business Requirement for Enterprise Development Zones Program
Section 2419m
This section requires that at least 50 percent of businesses in new enterprise development zones be businesses with 100 or fewer employees.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the significant limitation it places on the Department of Commerce's flexibility to determine the best use of the tax credits to maximize the positive impact on the surrounding communities. In addition, tax credit assistance for small businesses is provided by the department through the Community Development Zone program, which is currently active in 22 areas throughout the state. I support small businesses, but the department must have the flexibility to assist businesses and communities of varying sizes with this program.
6.
Small Business Requirement for the Wisconsin Development Fund
Sections 2376j, 2376L, 2376m, 2407L [as it relates to small businesses] and 9308 (1z) [as it relates to ss.
560.275 (8) and
(8) and
560.60 (15)]
These provisions require that at least 50 percent of grants and loans made under the Wisconsin Development Fund be made to businesses that have fewer than 100 employees and annual gross receipts of $10,000,000 or less.
I am vetoing sections 2376j, 2376L and 2376m and partially vetoing sections 2407L and 9308 (1z) to remove the requirement because it is unnecessary. The Department of Commerce already makes over 50 percent of grants and loans from the Wisconsin Development Fund to small businesses. In order to continue to grow Wisconsin's economy, the department must retain its flexibility to fund deserving businesses that will have a significant impact on local economies throughout the state. The department must also continue to be able to respond to local crises in a timely manner and make our state an attractive place for major economic development projects. Section 9308 (1z) erroneously contains two references to s.
560.275 (8). In order to correct this typographical error, I am striking "(8) and (8)." This may unintentionally affect applicants to the Technology Commercialization Grant and Loan program, and I am requesting that the department work with applicants to minimize any effects of this veto.
7.
Biomedical Technology Alliance Earmark
Section 9108 (3k)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to make a grant of $2,500,000 from the Technology Commercialization Grant and Loan program portion of the Wisconsin Development Fund to the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents for the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee to establish a Biomedical Technology Alliance in Southeastern Wisconsin.
I am partially vetoing this section to reduce the grant for this purpose by $2,000,000 in order to allow the department the flexibility to continue to award grants and loans under this program. These funds are available to start-up businesses across the state that are in-between rounds of venture capital financing or are awaiting receipt of federal grant awards.
Adopted with bipartisan support,
2003 Wisconsin Act 255 provided $2.5 million for technology commercialization grants and loans to start-up businesses. In addition, a portion of these funds support the four entrepreneurial and technology transfer centers that opened last fall. The proposed earmark would have consumed all of these funds.
I am requesting that the department continue to consider this project for additional assistance in the future, and am willing to work with the Legislature to identify appropriate sources of funding for this initiative.
8.
City of Green Bay Earmark
Section 9108 (3m)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to award an annual grant of $1,400,000 from the Wisconsin Development Fund to the city of Green Bay for a downtown redevelopment project during the period of fiscal year 2005-06 to fiscal year 2007-08.
I am partially vetoing this section to reduce the amount of the grant because it is excessive. The Wisconsin Development Fund has limited resources with which it attempts to provide assistance throughout the state. This partial veto will provide $1,400,000 to the city of Green Bay while allowing the department the flexibility to determine the best timing for the grant to ensure that other worthwhile projects are not adversely impacted. In addition, there are several other sources of assistance for which this project may qualify.
9.
Minority Business Finance Program Earmark
Sections 154m, 155r and 9108 (8k)
These sections require the Department of Commerce to award a grant of $375,000 in each fiscal year of the biennium to the Bishop's Creek redevelopment project in Milwaukee from the Minority Business Finance Program.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the limits this earmark placed on the department in its efforts to promote minority business development in Wisconsin. I support minority businesses in the state and feel that all minority businesses should have the chance to compete for funding from this program. This grant would take up two-thirds of the funds available in the biennium under the Minority Business Finance Program, greatly reducing the amount of funding available to other applicants.
A395
In the last biennium, this program made 45 awards to minority businesses. The majority of the dollars awarded were loans that are paid back to the fund over time. The repayments of the loans are then available to make future, new awards to minority businesses. No single award is larger than $100,000 by statute. A grant of this size from the fund would significantly reduce the amount of future funding available to make awards, unless the Legislature appropriated new funds to the program.
My Administration is supportive of this project and recently awarded a brownfields grant of $750,000 to remediate land at the proposed site for the redevelopment.
10.
Community Development Block Grant Earmarks
Sections 9108 (5k) and 9108 (6k)
These sections earmark funding from the Community Development Block Grant program for the village of Wonewoc for a water reservoir and town of Ithaca for a water well.
I am vetoing these sections because they compromise the award selection process and limit the Department of Commerce in its efforts to promote economic development in Wisconsin. The award selection process was designed to meet the strict federal requirements for the Community Development Block Grant program, and earmarks of this kind raise legal questions regarding use of these federal funds.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
11.
Clean Water Fund Bonding
Section 461
This section reduces the current level of general obligation bonding authority for the Clean Water Fund Program from $637,743,200 to $622,043,200.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the reduction of funding for important projects that assist local communities with improving the quality of Wisconsin's waters.
12.
Present Value Subsidy Limit
Section 2159
This section reduces the Safe Drinking Water Loan Program present value subsidy limit for the 2005-07 biennium from $12,800,000 to $10,800,000.
I am partially vetoing this section to restore the present value subsidy limit to $12,800,000 for the 2005-07 biennium because I object to the restriction on the ability of the program to help communities across Wisconsin ensure safe drinking water for their citizens.
LAND USE
13.
Comprehensive Planning and Land Information Aids
Sections 1c, 90t, 90u, 92 [as it relates to s.
16.967 (5) and the grants appropriation under s.
20.505 (1) (ij)], 140 [as it relates to s.
20.505 (1) (ie),
(ig) and
(ij)], 278 [as it relates to the transfer to s.
20.505 (1) (z)], 388h, 388n, 389, 389m, 390, 391, 400m, 695g, 1235z, 1238m, 1238n, 1242q, 1250e, 1250f, 1250g, 1250m, 1254m, 2118r and 9201 (1q)
These provisions repeal the current law comprehensive planning requirements and grant program. In addition, these provisions require that $2,000,000 annually of fee revenue from the state's portion of the deed recording fee be deposited in the general fund, with the remainder being credited to the appropriations under s.
20.505 (1) (ie) and
(ij). Lastly, the provisions require a lapse to the general fund of $464,100 on June 30, 2006, and $420,300 on June 30, 2007, from the appropriation under s.
20.505 (1) (ij).
I am vetoing sections 1c, 90t, 90u, 388h, 388n, 389m, 400m, 695g, 1235z, 1238m, 1238n, 1242q, 1250e, 1250f, 1250g, 1250m, 1254m, 2118r and 9201 (1q) and partially vetoing sections 92 [as it relates to s.
16.967 (5) and the grants appropriation under s.
20.505 (1) (ij)], 140 [as it relates to s.
20.505 (1) (ie),
(ig) and
(ij)], 278 [as it relates to the transfer to s.
20.505 (1) (z)], 389, 390 and 391 to restore the comprehensive planning requirement, grant program and funding because I object to the elimination of this vital program. The effect of the veto of section 389m and partial veto of sections 92, 140, 389, 390 and 391 is to deposit all deed recording fee revenue received by the state into a continuing appropriation, which allows the Department of Administration to allot available revenues to fund grants under the restored comprehensive planning grant program.
Communities and a wide range of interest groups throughout the state support a consistent approach to planning for growth, economic development, agriculture, preservation of cultural and natural resources, recreation, and transportation because they recognize the benefits provided by such an approach. The comprehensive planning law allows communities to determine how they want to grow while ensuring the protection of Wisconsin's precious natural resources. To date, 743 communities have used this program to ensure that investors, entrepreneurs and developers know where they can locate development, and local governments are able to prepare for the expansion of services. This knowledge and ability to prepare has a significant positive impact on the effective use of limited taxpayer resources. Unplanned growth leads to uncontrolled local service costs, which results in increased property tax bills for citizens and businesses.
14.
Land Information Modernization Grants
Section 92 [as it relates to limitations on grants to counties]
This provision prohibits the Department of Administration from providing an equalization grant to a county that has retained deed recording fee revenue exceeding $45,000 in any year and limits the amount of equalization grants to eligible counties to the difference between $45,000 and the amount of revenue retained by the county.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the limitation because I object to the restrictions the provision places on the department's ability to support county efforts to modernize land information and make it accessible to the public.
15.
Recycling Tipping Fee and Business Surcharge
Sections 1686m, 1686n, 2198x, 9235 (1), 9335 (3q), 9341 (18w) and 9435 (5q)
These sections decrease the recycling tipping fee for waste disposed of in Wisconsin landfills beginning January 2007 from $3 per ton to $2.25 per ton. Also, beginning with tax year 2007, the recycling surcharge is reduced from three percent to two percent of gross liability for corporations and from 0.2 percent to 0.133 percent of net income for tax-option corporations. Section 9235 (1) transfers from the recycling fund to the general fund a total of $25,784,200 during the 2005-07 biennium.
I am vetoing sections 1686m, 1686n, 2198x, 9335 (3q), 9341 (18w) and 9435 (5q) to maintain current law because I object to the potential long-term negative impact this reduction could have on the funding of important recycling programs including financial assistance for responsible units and recycling efficiency incentive grants. Lowering the tipping fee would only encourage additional importation of waste from neighboring states as it will be less expensive to ship out-of-state waste to Wisconsin rather than to other Midwestern states.
By partially vetoing section 9235 (1), I am increasing the total transfer from the recycling fund to the general fund during the 2005-07 biennium to $28,942,100 because it is necessary to use all of the resources of the state to ensure the general fund has sufficient revenues to support vital programs, including property tax relief, education, health care and economic development. 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 $17,942,100 be transferred in fiscal year 2005-06 and $11,000,000 be transferred in fiscal year 2006-07. Based on projected revenues, sufficient resources will remain in the recycling fund to meet program needs. It is important to note that this is only a one-time transfer and additional revenues will be available in future biennia for enhancing Wisconsin's highly successful recycling program.
16.
Business Waste Reduction and Recycling Assistance
Section 2198
This section prohibits the Department of Natural Resources from providing more than $250,000 annually to an individual nonprofit organization under contract to assist businesses to reduce the amount of solid waste generated or to reuse or recycle solid waste. Further, funds may not exceed 50 percent of the cost of services provided. Lastly, the contract entered into under the provision must include goals and objectives of the services provided, methods to measure progress, and a schedule for reporting to the department.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to its limitation on the department's ability to effectively pursue contracts and to the disincentive this provision will have on private businesses to reduce their waste and promote recycling. Contracting for these services will increase the recycling of construction materials and demolition debris, reduce the amount of food waste going to Wisconsin landfills, and promote safe disposal and reuse of obsolete computers.
17.
Air Permits
Section 2196i
This section allows an owner or operator of a facility to pay the Department of Natural Resources a fee of $7,500 for a year if the entire facility is required to have a state air emissions permit, is not covered by a general or registration air emissions permit, and has not previously paid the fee. The owner or operator would pay emission tonnage fees in all other years. The section also requires an owner or operator of a facility, for 2006 only, to pay a fee of $300 if the entire facility is required to have a state air emissions permit, is not a synthetic minor source, and was not covered by a general or registration permit in 2005.
I am partially vetoing this section to eliminate the requirement of the $300 fee in 2006. I object to this requirement because it is unnecessary and arbitrary. All facilities that do not have general or registration permits should be treated equally and have the choice of continuing to pay emission tonnage fees, rather than singling out certain operators with a mandated $300 fee.
18.
Passive Review of Obligations Under the Stewardship 2000 Program
Sections 491g and 491k
These sections establish Joint Committee on Finance review of land acquisition and property development activities under the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program and require that such activities in excess of $300,000 be subject to the Committee's 14-day passive review process. If the Committee does not hold a meeting to review the proposal within 75 days, the Department of Natural Resources may proceed with the transaction.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to legislative intrusion in this area. The proposed review is unnecessary and would result in considerable delay and wasted taxpayer resources. In the past, the Committee used a similar passive review process to entangle time sensitive land acquisitions with partisan legislative politics, endanger critical land purchases, and jeopardize matching funds from private conservation organizations, local governments and federal grants. There are sufficient review mechanisms in the budget process and policy oversight of the Natural Resources Board to ensure that Stewardship 2000 Program dollars are used effectively and efficiently.
A397
19.
Town Board Approval of Purchases Under the Stewardship 2000 Program
Section 491n
This section prohibits the Department of Natural Resources from acquiring land under the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program in a township in which 35 percent or more of the land is under public ownership unless the town board approves the acquisition. A majority vote by the town board is required to approve each purchase, and the town is required to post notices of the possible acquisition.
I am vetoing this section because I object to infringement on the rights of individual property holders to sell their land to any willing buyer, including the department.
20.
Calculation of Aids-in-Lieu of Property Taxes
Sections 1260m and 1260n
These sections establish a new formula to calculate annual payments of aids-in-lieu of property taxes for properties acquired by the Department of Natural Resources after the effective date of the budget bill. For such properties, estimated value will be based on the purchase price or the equalized value of the property prior to purchase by the department, whichever is lower. For property that is tax exempt at the time of purchase, these sections require the last recorded equalized value to be used or a payment of $1 per acre to be made, whichever is greater.
I am vetoing these sections because they will result in lower payments to local communities in lieu of property taxes. I object to the property tax increases on individuals and the negative fiscal impact on local governments arising from a reduction in the amount paid for future aids-in-lieu of property taxes. A key component of the Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship 2000 Program is the payment of aids-in-lieu of property taxes, which is critical to ensure that communities are not adversely impacted by the removal of land from the local tax base. By maintaining current law, the department will continue to pay aids-in-lieu of property taxes on land it acquires based on the purchase price of the property, which is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the equalized valuation of all land, excluding improvements, in the taxation district.
