Place funding for a portion of passenger rail operations in the Joint Committee on Finance's supplemental appropriation and specify procedures to access the funding;
Require the department to award grants to the village of Oregon and Chippewa County; and
Create an appropriation to transfer monies from the transportation fund to the Medical Assistance trust fund.
My budget provided for significant increases in highway and other transportation funding including a 13.6 percent increase for the Major Highway Development program, 8.6 percent increase for state highway rehabilitation, and 36 percent increase in elderly and disabled transportation aid. For the most part, the Legislature concurred with those increases. The following changes will retain the robust increases provided for highways and other transportation programs, while allowing additional revenues to be transferred to the general fund for school aids and property tax relief.
Section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (3) (bq)] provides SEG funding for the Major Highway Development program and sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (3) (cr)], 1719g, 1719h, 1719i, 1727, 1727g and 9148 (4f) provide SEG funding for the Southeast Wisconsin Freeway Rehabilitation program and place restrictions on the use of bonding for the Marquette Interchange. I object to the excessive use of SEG funding for the long-term capital projects carried out under these programs and the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs.
By lining out the department's s.
20.395 (3) (bq) and
(cr) appropriations and writing in smaller amounts, I am vetoing these appropriations to reflect my intent to reduce the SEG revenue support for these highway programs. Through this partial veto I am deleting $28,400,700 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 and $23,403,000 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 for the Major Highway Development program, and $66,243,000 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 for the Southeast Wisconsin Freeway Rehabilitation program. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds.
By vetoing sections 1719g, 1719h, 1719i and 1727g and partially vetoing sections 1727 and 9148 (4f), I am removing the provisions requiring maximum use of cash funding for the Marquette Interchange and limiting the maturity of any bonds issued to one or two years. I object to the excessive use of cash to fund this project because the Marquette Interchange is a long-term capital asset that is projected to last at least 50 years. In addition, to ensure that it is completed on time and in the most efficient manner, the department needs maximum flexibility to manage the funding of this project. I propose to utilize the $213,100,000 in bonding that is authorized in the bill to partially fund the project. Long-term capital assets should be financed over a longer period of time in order to allocate costs to future users of the project. Prudent financial management dictates that at least a portion of the project should be bond financed.
A401
Both the Major Highway Development and Southeast Wisconsin Freeway Rehabilitation programs will have sufficient bonding authority during the biennium to complete their scheduled projects. Existing carryover bonding authority will be used to maintain the same level of funding for the Major Highway Development program that was proposed in my budget and concurred in by the Legislature. In addition, the bonding percentage for the Major Highway Development program would decrease from 57 percent in fiscal year 2004-05 to 49 percent in fiscal year 2006-07, and only 36 percent of the Marquette Interchange will be funded with bond proceeds.
Section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (3) (cr)] also provides increased SEG funding of $38,000,000 for preliminary engineering work on the Milwaukee Zoo Interchange/Highway 45 North reconstruction project. I object to the large amount of funding earmarked for this project in the next biennium. My budget included a significant increase to this appropriation to address not only rehabilitation projects in Southeast Wisconsin other than the Marquette Interchange, but also to fund preliminary engineering work on the next phase of Southeast Wisconsin freeway reconstruction, the I-94 South corridor. By lining out the department's s.
20.395 (3) (cr) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $35,000,000 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06, I am partially vetoing the part of the bill which funds this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Funding of $3,000,000 would remain to begin the preliminary engineering for the Milwaukee Zoo Interchange project by the end of the biennium. With reconstruction of the I-94 South corridor set to begin in 2009, reconstruction work on the Milwaukee Zoo Interchange project will not likely begin until 2016 at the earliest. The remaining $3,000,000 will more than cover the costs of the preliminary study work needed at this time.
Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.865 (4) (u)] and 9148 (4w) place funding for passenger rail service operation in the Joint Committee on Finance's supplemental appropriation and specifically outline the process that the department is required to follow in order to access the funding. By lining out the Committee's s.
20.865 (4) (u) appropriation and writing in $0, I am deleting the $572,700 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 and $629,900 SEG in fiscal year 2006-07 that fund this provision. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. I am partially vetoing this provision because I object to the Committee placing base program funding in its appropriation for release. The department, at my direction, has identified the funding necessary to keep this vital service operating.
Sections 9148 (5f) and (5g) require the department to award grants to the village of Oregon for streetscaping and Chippewa County for the construction of a pedestrian crossing and handicap accessible ramp related to the Ray's Beach revitalization project on Lake Wissota. I am partially vetoing these sections to eliminate these earmarks because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs.
Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.855 (4) (v)], 456g, 456r, 533g, 533r, 537d, 537e and 9448 (4m) create a mechanism to transfer $268,058,100 SEG in fiscal year 2005-06 from the transportation fund to the Medical Assistance trust fund. I am vetoing these sections and partially vetoing sections 9148 (4f), 9148 (4w), 9148 (5f) and 9148 (5g) to delete the transfer to the Medical Assistance trust fund and, instead, accomplish a transfer of $427,000,000 from the transportation fund to the general fund in the 2005-07 biennium because I object to the restricted nature of the transfer to the Medical Assistance trust fund. This veto ensures sufficient funding is available to meet the needs of those receiving Medical Assistance. It also transfers funding to meet the top priorities of adequate funding for schools and protecting property taxpayers. It is my intent that the transfer be comprised of $338,449,000 in fiscal year 2005-06 and $88,551,000 in fiscal year 2006-07. I am requesting the department to make the transfer in this manner.
The citizens of this state demand a quality educational experience for our children, sufficient Medical Assistance for those in need, and continued economic growth to provide jobs and further investment in this state. Transportation benefits all citizens, our businesses and the visitors to our state, and I have made sure that this budget provides generous funding increases to maintain our quality highway and local road system.
36.
Local Roads Improvement Program
Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (2) (ft)], 1719L, 1719r, 1741b, 1741d, 1741e, 1741g, 1741h, 1741p, 1741q, 1741s, 1741u, 1741v, 1741x and 1741y
These sections make changes to the discretionary grant portion of the Local Roads Improvement Program. Additional funding of $5,000,000 SEG is provided annually. The changes are as follows:
Reduce the local match from 50 percent to 45 percent;
Allow the Department of Transportation to allocate up to 20 percent of the county funds to projects that have a total cost between $150,000 and $250,000 in counties that have a total equalized value that falls in the lowest 20 percent of all counties;
Specify that all improvements under the discretionary grant portion of the program shall be under contracts and that all contracts must be awarded on a competitive basis to the lowest responsible bidder;
Define the term "improvement" for the discretionary grant portion of the program to mean a single highway construction project that may be let to contract in one or more components, with a projected life of at least ten years and that meets the minimum cost thresholds for the applicable recipient; and
Delete a provision that requires the department to make a grant of $2,500,000 to the city of Milwaukee for the reconstruction of West Canal Street (this grant does not apply after December 31, 2005).
I am partially vetoing section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (2) (ft)] to remove the $5,000,000 SEG annual increase in funding for the program because it is excessive. The budget that I submitted to the Legislature already increased funding for the Local Roads Improvement Program by two percent annually. By lining out the department's s.
20.395 (2) (ft) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $5,000,000 SEG in each fiscal year, 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.
A402
I am also vetoing sections 1719L, 1719r, 1741b, 1741d, 1741e, 1741g, 1741h, 1741u, 1741v, 1741x and 1741y and partially vetoing sections 1741p, 1741q and 1741s to eliminate the restructuring of the discretionary part of the program. I object to these changes because they are unneeded. The Local Roads Improvement Program is already an excellent program. The proposed changes would not improve the program, but merely set separate standards for the entitlement and discretionary portions of the program.
37.
Highway Engineering Positions
Section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (3) (cq)] provides an additional $551,500 SEG and 10.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal year 2005-06 and $1,371,800 SEG and 19.0 FTE SEG positions in fiscal year 2006-07 for additional highway engineering positions. Although there is no language authorizing this position increase, the purpose of the funding and positions was included in a Joint Committee on Finance amendment to the bill. Section 9148 (7f) specifies that the Department of Transportation may submit a request under s.
13.10 of the statutes to convert up to 6.0 FTE engineering positions in fiscal year 2006-07 to other position types that support the department's highway delivery functions.
I am partially vetoing section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (3) (cq)] to remove the additional expenditure authority and highway engineering positions because the budget that I submitted already included an additional 10.0 FTE SEG engineering positions and related expenditure authority in fiscal year 2006-07. By lining out the department's s.
20.395 (3) (cq) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $551,500 SEG increase provided in fiscal year 2005-06 and the $1,371,800 SEG increase in fiscal year 2006-07, I am vetoing the part of the bill which funds the additional positions. Furthermore, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds or authorize the additional position authority.
I am also vetoing section 9148 (7f) because it is unnecessary. An administrative process already exists that allows for the conversion of positions to different classifications without legislative approval.
38.
Expressway Policing Aids
Section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (1) (gq)] provides an additional $250,000 SEG in each fiscal year for expressway policing aid to Milwaukee County.
I am partially vetoing this section because it excessively increases funding for expressway policing aids by 24 percent over the biennium. By lining out the Department of Transportation's s.
20.395 (1) (gq) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $200,000 SEG in each fiscal year, I am partially 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 remaining $50,000 SEG in each fiscal year will still provide a 4.8 percent increase over the biennium, which is comparable to increases provided for general transportation and transit aids. In addition, I am requesting the Department of Transportation secretary to work with the Milwaukee County sheriff to secure a report on the use of the $1,090,800 provided annually in expressway policing aids and to ensure that the monies are used to maximize highway safety.
39.
License Plate Rebasing
Section 140 [as it relates to s.
20.395 (5) (cq)] provides an additional $666,000 SEG in each fiscal year for license plate rebasing.
I object to this increase because it is unneeded at this time. The Department of Transportation can utilize base funding to continue the rebasing of license plates. Under provisions included in the biennial budget, the rebasing must be completed by June 30, 2010. If the department determines that it does not have sufficient funding to complete the rebasing by the specified date, the department can request funding in the next biennial budget or request that the statutory replacement schedule be eliminated or extended. By lining out the department's s.
20.395 (5) (cq) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes the $666,000 SEG in each fiscal year, 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.
40.
Gold Star License Plate
Section 2246n
This section requires the Department of Transportation to consult with the Brian LaViolette Scholarship Foundation, Inc., in designing the Gold Star license plate for families who have had an immediate family member die in combat while serving in the U.S. Armed Forces. This section also prohibits the department from specifying a design for this license plate unless the design is approved in writing by the Department of Veteran Affairs and by the Brian LaViolette Scholarship Foundation, Inc.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the design must be approved in writing by the Brian LaViolette Scholarship Foundation, Inc. I object to this requirement because I feel that the Department of Veteran Affairs is the appropriate entity to provide final written approval on the design of this plate. The Department of Veterans Affairs represents veterans throughout the state and is in the best position to ensure that those who lose their lives in action are appropriately honored.
41.
Regional Transit Authority Membership
Section 1235e
A403
This section designates the membership of the new regional transit authority in Kenosha, Milwaukee and Racine counties. Membership will consist of a total of seven members of which three members, one from each county in the region, would be appointed by the county executive of each county and approved by the county board; three members, one from the most populous city in each region, would be appointed by the mayor of each city and approved by the common council; and one member from the most populous city in the region, would be nominated by the Governor and appointed with the advice and consent of the Senate.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the Governor's nominee be subject to Senate confirmation. I object to this requirement because it would cause an unnecessary delay in formalizing the appointment of this position.
42.
Freight Rail Preservation Program
Section 9148 (2q)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to allocate $5,000,000 annually for rail rehabilitation projects and $1,000,000 annually for rail bridge projects in the 2005-07 biennium from bonding provided in the Freight Rail Preservation Program.
I am vetoing this section because I object to this infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs. While I support the additional bonding authority provided for the Freight Rail Preservation Program, I feel the department should have maximum flexibility to be able to allocate funding for rail rehabilitation projects, rail bridge projects and rail acquisitions.
43.
Harbor Assistance Program
Section 9148 (2) (c)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to award a harbor assistance grant for the construction of a dockwall in the city of Marinette at the Waupaca Foundry.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the use of harbor assistance funds for a project that has not been subject to department review and that is likely ineligible under the requirements of the harbor assistance program.
44.
Eisner Avenue
Section 9148 (6n)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to award a grant of $500,000 from the Local Roads Improvement Program in the 2005-07 biennium to the city of Sheboygan for the rehabilitation of Eisner Avenue in Sheboygan County if the city of Sheboygan and town of Sheboygan reach an agreement on the payment of the local match for the project.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the circumvention of the normal approval process for the Local Roads Improvement Program. A selected group of local government officials currently evaluates the need for these projects. It would be unfair to other local units of government if this project consumed funding that could have been utilized for local road projects that were approved through the established process.
45.
Safety Study
Section 9148 (3t)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to conduct an engineering study in the 2005-07 biennium of the segment of STH 58 in Sauk County between the Sauk County and Richland County line and CTH G. The department is required to make any recommended safety improvements.
I am vetoing this section because I object to this infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs. As part of managing the highway program, the department monitors pavement quality and performs engineering studies to determine safety improvements. This section limits the department's ability to devote resources to areas with the greatest need.
46.
Sugar River State Trail Underpass
Section 9148 (3s)
This section requires the Department of Transportation to incorporate an underpass for the Sugar River State Trail at the intersection of the trail with STH 69 in the village of New Glarus in Green County when the department rehabilitates that segment of highway in the 2005-07 biennium. If the village agrees with the department on a lower cost safety improvement project, the department may construct the lower cost improvement.
I am vetoing this section because this earmark is unnecessary. The department works with local governments and the public whenever a highway project is considered. In this particular case, there has been no decision from the community on how this specific part of the project should be constructed. This veto will allow the department the flexibility it needs to continue working with the community in developing a consensus on this project.
C.
HEALTH AND FAMILY SERVICES AND INSURANCE
Health and Family Services
1
Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan (HIRSP) Privatization
Sections 140 [as it relates to s.
20.145 (5)], 156w, 320p, 320r, 522c, 535m, 535p, 535r, 1286c, 1354L, 1406f, 2032m, 2033m, 2033r, 2034c, 2034m, 2035c, 2035m, 2036c, 2036m, 2037c, 2037m, 2038c, 2038m, 2039c, 2039m, 2040c, 2040m, 2041c, 2041m, 2042c, 2042m, 2043c, 2043m, 2044c, 2044m, 2045c, 2045m, 2046c, 2046m, 2047c, 2047m, 2048c, 2048m, 2049c, 2049m, 2050c, 2050m, 2051c, 2051m, 2052c, 2052m, 2053c, 2053m, 2054c, 2054m, 2055c, 2055m, 2056c, 2056m, 2057c, 2057m, 2058c, 2058m, 2059c, 2059m, 2060c, 2060m, 2061c, 2061m, 2062c, 2062m, 2063c, 2065, 2429c, 2429e, 2429g, 2429h, 2429i, 2429j, 2429m, 2429p, 2429r, 9121 (13p), 9221 (3p), 9321 (4L), 9321 (4p), 9341 (19p) and 9421 (5p)
A404
These sections relate to the creation of a nonprofit organization with a 13-member board to operate the HIRSP insurance program for high-risk individuals, which is currently administered by the Department of Health and Family Services. The board would have responsibility for all functions related to HIRSP including: designing the benefit package; setting premiums, copayments and deductibles; and determining eligibility. The transfer of authority would be effective January 1, 2006. At that time, the program would no longer be attached to the Department of Health and Family Services for administration and oversight. Instead, the board would largely function independently with limited oversight provided by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, which would collect insurer assessments to transfer to the board and would ensure the board's benefit packages complied with general insurance laws.
I believe that turning to a nonprofit board to operate HIRSP, which is how many other states operate their high-risk pools, may be the appropriate approach for Wisconsin. However, I object to the proposal included in the budget because it provides almost unlimited authority to the board with extremely limited state oversight and inadequate protections for policyholders. I am, therefore, vetoing this proposal in its entirety to return to current law, but would support separate legislation in this area.
The proposal in the budget has several weaknesses. First, it would change the current residency requirement from 30 days to six months; thus delaying the ability of policyholders to obtain needed medical services. Second, the language would remove the list of HIRSP benefits from current law and, instead, allow the board broad discretion to define, modify or eliminate benefits. Third, under current law, low-income deductible subsidies are funded 50 percent by insurers and 50 percent by medical providers. The proposal changes this to a split of 60 percent paid by the participant, 20 percent paid by insurers and 20 percent by providers. This shift will cost policyholders an additional $3.5 million per year. This added policyholder cost is on top of what they already pay for health insurance, with a typical policyholder annual cost of over $8,000 per year for individual coverage.
HIRSP is highly regulated through Wisconsin Statutes and Administrative Rules and critics of the program contend the program needs greater flexibility to operate more like a commercial insurer. While this contention has merit, the proposal goes too far in terms of relinquishing state oversight and protections for policyholders.
I am willing to work with legislators and HIRSP stakeholders to develop separate legislation for consideration during the fall 2005 legislative session. Separate legislation should, among other issues, address oversight of benefit plans and premiums and deductibles.
2.
Authority to Transfer from the General Fund to Other Funds (Medical Assistance Trust Fund and Budget Stabilization Fund)
Sections 9255 (1) (b) and 9255 (2)
These provisions specify that the Department of Administration secretary may not lapse or transfer monies to the general fund from a specified list of program revenue appropriations if such lapses or transfers would be a violation of the federal or state constitution. These provisions also require a specified amount of funding be transferred from the general fund to the taxpayer protection fund (renamed in the bill from the budget stabilization fund).
I am partially vetoing the first part of these provisions because they include unnecessary and redundant language. Clearly, lapses or transfers that violate the Wisconsin Constitution or U.S. Constitution will not be authorized.
In the bill, it is assumed that $36 million from the sale of state-owned properties would be deposited in the general fund to offset the transfer of general fund revenues to the renamed budget stabilization fund. I am vetoing the transfer of revenues from the general fund to the taxpayer protection fund because these revenues need to be retained in the general fund in order to protect public education and property taxpayers.
The bill also assumed that the net proceeds from any sale of state-owned properties in excess of $36 million would be deposited into the budget stabilization fund. This language was eliminated in the veto under the State Government Operations Section, Budget Management, Item #3 which, among other things, reversed the renaming of the budget stabilization fund.
Despite the veto of this language, my Administration remains committed to managing state properties effectively and selling state-owned property to improve the fiscal stability of the state. In partially vetoing this section, the remaining language will authorize the Department of Administration secretary to transfer revenue from the general fund to any appropriation account or fund. With this authority, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to transfer the net proceeds from the sale of unneeded state-owned properties in excess of $36 million into the budget stabilization fund.
With this same authority, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to transfer $235,449,000 in fiscal year 2005-06 from the general fund to the Medical Assistance trust fund to be used for ongoing Medical Assistance expenditures. While this amount is $32,609,100 less than the amount transferred by the Legislature, I am directing the Department of Health and Family Services secretary to seek out opportunities to maximize federal revenues for the Medical Assistance program. This transfer, combined with the veto to restore the transfer of revenue from the transportation fund to the general fund (see Environmental and Commercial Resources Section, Transportation, Item #35), will provide greater flexibility for financing the state's commitment to public education and health care for elderly, disabled and low-income families.
A405
The Department of Health and Family Services currently has several projects under development to increase federal revenue for the Medical Assistance program, and these projects will be put forth when the appropriate federal and state approvals are secured. In addition, the secretary should continue to develop program improvements and reforms to contain costs in both this biennium and in the long run. The department has made great strides to lower the costs of prescription drugs and additional cost containment options continue to be developed. The department is committed to expanding use of community-based, long-term care services shown to reduce costs compared to nursing homes, and to continue to expand the use of managed care to serve both low-income families and persons with disabilities. All of these efforts will help ensure that the growth rate for Medical Assistance is contained.
Moreover, there are reasons to expect that costs in the Medical Assistance program will be lower in the next biennium. The state's seasonally-adjusted unemployment rate has dropped below five percent, and historical data shows that the Medical Assistance caseload drops shortly after unemployment drops below this threshold. In addition, Wisconsin continues to see gains in wages and employment that also will reduce pressure on the Medical Assistance caseload.
3.
Nursing Home Bed Assessment – GPR-Earned Revenues
Sections 537, 1222m and 1223
These sections specify that all revenue collected from an assessment on licensed nursing home beds should be deposited in the Medical Assistance trust fund. Under current law, $13,800,000 of these revenues in fiscal year 2004-05 were deposited in the general fund, and in future fiscal years, 45 percent of the total revenues from this assessment would be returned to the general fund.
I am partially vetoing these sections because I object to changing the existing arrangement under which a portion of the assessment revenues is returned to the general fund. This veto maintains the requirement that $13,800,000 in assessment revenues will be returned to the general fund each year, thereby reducing revenues in the trust fund by a corresponding amount. I am, therefore, directing the Department of Health and Family Services secretary to develop new programs and opportunities that will enhance revenues and decrease expenditures in the trust fund to offset the reduced revenues from this veto.
4.
Nursing Home Rate Increase
