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.
21.
Public Access and Managed Forest Law
These sections provide $1,213,000 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 and $1,113,000 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 and subsequent fiscal years for payments to local units of government whose taxation district contains land enrolled as closed acreage under the Managed Forest Law program. The Department of Natural Resources is required to distribute the funding proportionally based on the number of closed acres located in each municipality. Each municipality is then required to pay its county treasurer 20 percent of the amount received.
I am vetoing sections 246t and 490m and partially vetoing section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (5) (br)] because they do not directly ensure that Wisconsin's citizens have sufficient access to land for recreation, in particular, hunting. My budget recommendations included a mechanism to address this concern, but it was removed by the Joint Committee on Finance. By lining out the department's appropriation under s.
20.370 (5) (br) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the increase of $1,213,000 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 and $1,113,000 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 provided for this purpose, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
The effect of this veto is to eliminate the changes in the distribution of closed acreage fee revenue. Because I support assisting municipalities and counties to offset the local revenue impact of the Managed Forest Law program, I am directing that the department pursue separate legislation that reflects my original budget recommendation of a grant program administered by representatives of local governments.
22.
Expenditures from Forestry Revenues
Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.370 (5) (ax) and
(az)], 221m, 246g, 246m, 246p, 541b [as it relates to s.
26.385 (2)], 541h, 541j, 557m and 9435 (7k)
This provision creates a continuing appropriation for revenues received from the sale of timber harvested from land under the management or control of the Department of Natural Resources' Division of Forestry that exceed $3,770,000 SEG in each fiscal year. Based on fund availability and by order of priority, the department is required to provide an additional $400,000 SEG annually in private forest grants to owners of 500 acres or less of nonindustrial private forest land; $500,000 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 and $3,500,000 SEG in fiscal year 2007-08 to fund a biomass grant program within the department; $250,000 SEG annually to support a forestry education grant program within the department; $446,000 SEG annually to provide funding to school districts to transport students to and from school forests; $100,000 SEG annually to the Wisconsin Technical College System for a master logger apprenticeship grant program; and $100,000 SEG annually for forestry internships for University of Wisconsin System students who are enrolled in a course of study that would result in a bachelor's or higher degree in forestry.
I am partially vetoing this provision because I object to the limitation on the department's flexibility to determine how best to use limited resources. The effect of the veto is to eliminate the provision's prioritization and enumerated amounts related to the above programs. When the Joint Committee on Finance passed this amendment, the Committee members were aware that the funding for these items was uncertain, and their own estimate of revenues was insufficient to meet the proposed funding levels.
A398
Furthermore, I disagree with the use of timber sale revenues for the initiatives in this section of the bill. However, the initiatives have merit and, therefore, I am allowing them to remain. This veto allows the department to continue to manage its forested lands using sustainable methods and best management practices. This is consistent with funding forestry programs through the use of all revenues to the account, not just one of them. Linking projects to timber sale revenues creates at least a perception that timber might be harvested specifically to fund projects rather than to accomplish objectives outlined in property master plans.
The partial veto eliminates the continuing appropriation under s.
20.370 (5) (az) and permits the department to provide funding from any revenue source within the forestry account of the conservation fund for these purposes from the annual appropriation under s.
20.370 (5) (ax). To provide funding for the above programs, I am requesting that the department pursue an increase in its expenditure authority via a request under s.
13.10 or as part of its 2007-09 biennial budget request as additional revenues become available.
This partial veto retains sufficient funding in the appropriation under s.
20.370 (5) (ax) to provide $50,000 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 and $150,000 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 for scholarships related to master logger certification; $100,000 SEG one-time in fiscal year 2006-07 for the development and operation of the Paper Discovery Center in Appleton; and $150,000 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 and $50,000 SEG one-time in fiscal year 2006-07 to initiate a program to train technical college students to use mechanized timber harvest equipment.
23.
State Park Admission Fees for Senior Citizens
This provision increases the total fee for a resident senior citizen annual park sticker to $12.50.
I am vetoing section 546m and partially vetoing section 9435 (7f) [as it relates to s.
27.01 (7) (gm) 3.] because I object to the financial burden this fee increase would place on Wisconsin's senior residents as they pursue outdoor recreational opportunities. I also object to the negative financial impact such a fee would have on the businesses that comprise the state's tourism industry and the damage it would do to Wisconsin's image as a premier destination for outdoor recreation.
24.
Ice Shanty Permit for Nonresidents
Sections 587d, 587dm, 594g, 646d, 646g and 9435 (7d)
These sections create a $20 seven-day nonresident and $34 annual nonresident ice shanty placement permit. Revenues from the permit would be deposited to the fish and wildlife account of the conservation fund. Any ice fishing shanty without the required permit may be declared a public nuisance and removed or destroyed by the Department of Natural Resources after the owner has been given a ten-day notice.
I am vetoing these sections because they create a disincentive for visitors to travel to Wisconsin to pursue one of the state's traditional recreational opportunities. I object to the negative financial impact such a fee would have on the businesses that comprise the state's tourism industry and the damage it would do to Wisconsin's welcoming image as a premier destination for outdoor recreation.
25.
Chief Warden Authority
Section 491p
This section directs the Department of Natural Resources to designate a conservation warden as the chief warden and specifies that the chief warden has the duty to direct, supervise and control conservation wardens in the performance of their duties. The department may also designate one or more deputy chief wardens.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the limitation on the department's flexibility to determine how to effectively administer its law enforcement program to ensure protection of Wisconsin's important natural resources. However, I am aware of the concerns that have been raised and am requesting that the department consider reviewing its law enforcement reporting structure and to ensure consistency in warden actions throughout the state.
26.
Appropriation for Safety Education Courses
This provision converts the Department of Natural Resources' appropriation for safety education courses from continuing to annual and expands the purposes of the appropriation to include programs or courses of instruction under s.
29.591 (3).
I am partially vetoing these sections to maintain this appropriation as continuing because I object to the limitation on the department's ability to effectively administer its hunter safety and recreational vehicle safety programs. By retaining the statutory reference to all monies remitted, I am converting this appropriation from annual to continuing. Annually, more than 50,000 people enroll in courses sponsored by the department that reduce hunting-related injuries and accidents, and promote the safe and responsible use of all-terrain vehicles, boats and snowmobiles.
27.
Snowmobile Account Adjustments
Sections 9235 (3s) and 9235 (3t)
