3.
Dispensing Fee Increase for Certain Generic Prescriptions
Section 9121 (7j)
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services to provide supplemental reimbursement to pharmacies participating in the Medicaid, BadgerCare and SeniorCare programs to compensate for any reduction in drug product cost reimbursement resulting from the implementation of the federal Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. The supplemental reimbursement is contingent on receiving federal approval, and the section further requires the department to apply for an amendment to the Medicaid State Plan in order to implement this change.
I am vetoing this section because it is administratively burdensome on the department. Furthermore, the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services is unlikely to approve such a state plan amendment as the intent of the federal Deficit Reduction Act was to set reasonable limits on drug product cost reimbursement and substituting decreases in product costs with increases in dispensing reimbursements is in conflict with the intent of the Act.
4.
Report on FoodShare Employment and Training Program Participation
Section 9121 (7k)
This section requires the Department of Health and Family Services by January 1, 2009, to deliver a report to the Joint Committee on Finance analyzing the changes in participation in the FoodShare Employment and Training Program after participation becomes voluntary.
I am vetoing this section because it creates a burdensome, unnecessary reporting requirement since the department already collects and publishes data on FoodShare participation. Given the unclear need for this additional data, I am vetoing this reporting requirement.
5.
Reducing Fetal and Infant Mortality and Morbidity
Sections 405f, 9121 (6d) and 9421 (8c)
These sections sunset, at the end of the 2008-09 biennium, a new appropriation that aims to reduce fetal and infant mortality and morbidity. The biennial budget provides $250,000 GPR in each fiscal year to the city of Racine Health Department to collaborate with health care staff, and identify, develop and promote models of care to address and improve services and birth outcomes for high-risk pregnancies.
I am vetoing sections 405f and 9421 (8c) to delete the sunset of this important program. It is my intent that the program continue beyond the 2007-09 biennium, and retaining the appropriation for this purpose will facilitate the retention of this program.
I am partially vetoing section 9121 (6d) to remove specific references to fiscal years 2007-08 and 2008-09 consistent with my intent to make the funding ongoing. I am also vetoing the dates in this section that require a report in each fiscal year of this biennium, so that the health department would report on its progress each year that it receives funding.
6.
Council on Developmental Disabilities
Sections 9221 (1q) and 9255
Section 9221 (1q) would decrease expenditure authority in the Department of Health and Family Services by $728,200 PR-F in fiscal year 2007-08 to reflect a reduction in authorized positions. Section 9255 would decrease expenditure authority in the Department of Children and Families by $728,200 PR-F in fiscal year 2008-09 to reflect a reduction in authorized positions.
I am vetoing these provisions because the language duplicates expenditure and position authority changes that are accomplished elsewhere in the budget bill. These changes reflect the creation of the Board for People with Developmental Disabilities.
E.
STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS COMMISSION
Disciplinary Procedures for Law Enforcement Officers and Firefighters
Sections 1867, 2666f, 2679i, 9315 (1f) and 9355 (1f)
S384
These sections make changes to appeals procedures which firefighters may use to appeal disciplinary decisions made by the fire or police board, expand collective bargaining rights of firefighters to include alternative disciplinary procedures, and define prohibited subjects of bargaining between municipal employers and firefighters. Under current law, all disciplinary decisions made by a police or fire commission may only be appealed to a Circuit Court and the decision of the court is final. Sections 2666f and 2679i permit collective bargaining agreements between firefighters and municipal employers to contain dispute resolution procedures as an alternative to the Circuit Court appeals process. In addition, municipal employers are prohibited from refusing to collectively bargain with firefighters over arbitration, or attempting to bargain over disciplinary due process and compensation rules pertaining to discipline which are currently included in state statutes. Section 1867 amends current law to preclude law enforcement officers from these alternative appeal procedures to a Circuit Court.
I am partially vetoing the language contained in these sections to restore my original intent of allowing both firefighters and law enforcement officers the opportunity to use collectively bargained alternative disciplinary appeal procedures instead of Circuit Court, and to extend the prohibited collective bargaining subjects in the bill to be applied to contracts between municipal employers and law enforcement officers. Permitting both law enforcement officers and firefighters to use alternative disciplinary appeal procedures will help relieve the court system work load, expand the opportunities of law enforcement officers and firefighters to select appeals procedures, and allow employers and employees to settle their disputes quickly and effectively.
F.
TAX, LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND TRANSPORTATION
REVENUE
Three-Tier Liquor Distribution System
Sections 2757r, 2759c, 2759cm, 2759d, 2759e, 2759em, 2759f, 2759g, 2759h, 2759i, 2759j, 2759k, 2759kc, 2759kg, 2759kh, 2759ki, 2759km, 2759L, 2759m, 2759mm, 2759n, 2759o, 2759p, 2759pg, 2759pr, 2759q, 2759r, 2759s, 2759t, 2759u, 2759v, 2759w, 2759x, 2780b, 2780d, 2780e, 2780em, 2780f and 9441 (13d) [as it relates to s.
139.11 (4) (a)]
These provisions replace the current law distribution system for wine with a three-tier distribution system which requires the sale of wine through a wholesaler in most cases. The provisions also create a “direct wine shipper's permit" that authorizes holders to ship wine directly to individuals of legal drinking age. Each individual may receive up to 108 liters of wine in a year and may not resell the wine. In addition, the provisions authorize the holders of “Class A" licenses and manufacturers or rectifiers, with the consent of a “Class A" licensee to offer free shots of alcohol, other than wine, to customers and visitors. Finally, the provisions modify requirements relating to the publication of production and sales statistics by the Department of Revenue.
I am vetoing sections 2757r, 2759c, 2759cm, 2759d, 2759e, 2759em, 2759f, 2759g, 2759h, 2759i, 2759j, 2759k, 2759kc, 2759kg, 2759kh, 2759ki, 2759km, 2759L, 2759m, 2759mm, 2759n, 2759o, 2759p, 2759pg, 2759pr, 2759q, 2759r, 2759s, 2759t, 2759u, 2759v, 2759w, 2759x, 2780b, 2780d, 2780e, 2780em and 2780f, and partially vetoing section 9441 (13d) [as it relates to s.
139.11 (4) (a)] because I object to the inclusion of policy of this nature in a budget bill. While the changes to the distribution system included in these sections may help address some concerns with sales of alcohol to minors, they also may have stifling economic effects on the small wineries around the state, forcing them out of business. Also, I strongly object to permitting free shots of alcohol to be distributed in places such as grocery stores.
While I am vetoing these provisions, I support the concept of a three-tier distribution system. The language included in the bill, however, does not adequately address the needs of small entrepreneurial wineries. Therefore, I am directing the appropriate agency secretaries to begin immediately to work with the Legislature to adopt a new version of this proposal that provides a workable and equitable approach that meets the intent of the three-tier distribution system while supporting new and small businesses.
2.
Inventory Tax for Moist Snuff
Section 2838d
This section requires that an inventory tax based on the new weight-based method of taxation not be levied on moist snuff.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to exempting moist snuff from the inventory tax. This veto will make the inventory tax consistent for cigarettes and moist snuff.
SHARED REVENUE AND PROPERTY TAX RELIEF
3.
Levy Limit
Sections 1880, 1881, 1882, 1892 and 1896
These sections reauthorize the levy limit program to apply to property taxes levied in 2007 and 2008. The sections limit a county's or municipality's levy increase to the greater of either two percent or the percentage change in its January 1 equalized value due to new construction less improvements removed between the previous year and the current year.
I am partially vetoing sections 1880, 1881, 1882 and 1892 and vetoing section 1896 because I object to the restrictiveness of the limit for 2007, which would negatively effect the provision of police and fire services. Due to the late passage of the budget bill, local governments have already made significant progress in preparing, reviewing and setting their own budgets for the upcoming year. Requiring communities to limit their levy growth to two percent at this time may result in cutbacks in necessary services. This veto will allow local governments to increase their levies for 2007 by either the percentage increase due to net new construction or 3.86 percent.
TRANSPORTATION
4.
Reports and Approvals
Sections 85b, 85c, 85e, 85f, 687f, 2541r [as it relates to the opening language referring to s.
16.50 (1) (c)], 2542p and 2550p
Sections 85c, 85e, 85f and 2541r [as it relates to the opening language referring to s.
16.50 (1) (c)] prohibit the Department of Administration from approving allotment adjustments to the Department of Transportation's federal appropriations unless the Joint Committee on Finance has approved the adjustment.
Sections 85b and 687f prohibit the executive budget bill from amending, repealing or otherwise drafting around the provisions of s.
25.40 (3), Wisconsin Statutes, which states that no transportation fund revenues may be transferred out of the transportation fund or used for any nontransportation-related purpose.
Section 2542p requires the Department of Transportation to submit, with each biennial budget request, a plan describing the department's bonding strategy for the upcoming ten years.
S385
Section 2550p requires the Department of Transportation to develop a plan to eliminate a biennial deficit in the transportation fund when a deficit is estimated to exceed $30,000,000. The plan must eliminate the deficit by reducing all transportation SEG appropriations, other than those for debt service and sum sufficient appropriations, as equitably as possible. The plan would be reviewed and approved by the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review.
I am vetoing sections 85b, 85c, 85e, 85f, 687f and 2542p and partially vetoing section 2541r [as it relates to the opening language referring to s.
16.50 (1) (c)] because they infringe on the executive branch's authority to manage programs and are unnecessary. The existing allotment and biennial budget processes provide sufficient oversight and protection of the use of federal and state transportation monies.
In addition, I am partially vetoing section 2550p because the plan requires elimination of the deficit by reducing all transportation SEG appropriations, rather than those determined most appropriate by the Department of Transportation. This hampers the department's flexibility to address any projected deficit and protect those programs with the greatest need at any particular point in time and as such infringes on the executive branch's authority to manage agency finances.
5.
State Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Program
This provision includes funding for grants to localities for bicycle and pedestrian transportation projects through new, dedicated appropriations. A significant portion of the federal money for the new program is from the congestion mitigation and air quality improvement program and transportation enhancement activities program.
While I believe that funding for bicycle and pedestrian projects is important, I am reducing funding in the new, dedicated appropriations by the amounts that would have been transferred out of congestion mitigation and air quality and transportation enhancement activities programs. Transferring funds out of these appropriations reduces the Department of Transportation's ability to decide between grant applications for a variety of transportation projects in the event that bicycle and pedestrian facility grant applications decline. Further, bicycle and pedestrian facility projects also already can be funded through the existing programs.
I am lining out the dollar amounts in appropriations under s.
20.395 (2) (ov) and
(ox) and writing in $0 in fiscal year 2007-08 and $2,720,000 SEG-F and $680,000 SEG-L in fiscal year 2008-09, so that the congestion mitigation and air quality and transportation enhancements funds will be available for use in those programs via the allotment process. I am directing the secretary of the Department of Transportation to work with interested parties to ensure that funds from both the existing appropriations and new appropriations are used for bicycle and pedestrian facility projects to the extent possible and appropriate.
6.
Value Engineering for Highway Improvement Projects
Sections 2524p, 2531c, 2531e, 9348 (11f) and 9448 (11f)
These sections require the Department of Transportation to use “value engineering" for highway projects estimated to cost $5,000,000 (to be adjusted annually) or greater. “Value engineering" is the systematic analysis of a project to determine which course of action results in the largest net reduction of costs, essentially finding the design of a project that produces the best value. In addition to using the value engineering analysis methodology, the sections require the department to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature regarding the department's use of value engineering and any instances in which the secretary of the department has waived value engineering for compelling reasons.
I am vetoing these sections because this specific value engineering mandate is overly burdensome on the department and may require the postponement of other highway projects. Value engineering analysis can be a useful tool in large projects. However, this process also requires a significant investment of time and effort that is not always appropriate for every project and may result in project delays. Project delays ultimately increase the cost of a project due to inflation. Additionally, producing an annual report regarding value engineering requires significant staff resources. My veto will allow the department to continue to exercise its well-informed judgment regarding project design without the burden of study and report requirements.
7.
Division of Motor Vehicles Service Centers
Section 2651r
This section requires that the Department of Transportation continue to operate a Division of Motor Vehicles service center in every municipality where one was operated as of December 1, 2006, unless the Joint Committee on Finance approves an alternate plan under 14-day passive review. Additionally, the section states that if a service center was closed between December 1, 2006, and the effective date of the section, then the department must reopen a service center in the same municipality in which it operated prior to closing.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the infringement on the executive branch's authority to manage programs. Division of Motor Vehicles service center sites require very specific space configurations, and travel center site leases must allow for the temporary nature of the operations in that location. It may be difficult to find appropriate space or negotiate leases in a particular municipality, and the department must have the flexibility to look at all available location options regardless of whether a municipality previously accommodated a service center.
8.
Department of Transportation Permits for Activities Along State Trunk Highways Within Municipal Limits
Sections 2523m, 2534p, 2534r, 2550s, 2550t, and 2558d
These sections allow municipalities to permit the creation of access points, such as driveways, and the performance of certain work, activity and alterations on state highways despite a denial or failure to approve a request for such access, work, activity or alterations by the Department of Transportation.
S386
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the infringement on the department's ability to uphold its responsibility to ensure the safety and condition of state highways. Allowing municipalities to permit access points on state highways over the objection of the department may negatively affect state highway safety or damage state highway surfaces or structures.
9.
Vehicle Immobilization and Impoundment for Repeated Parking Violations
Section 3435x
This section allows municipalities or counties to adopt ordinances allowing the immobilization, removal, impoundment or disposal of vehicles owned by habitual parking violators after giving notice to the vehicle's owner. A “habitual parking violator" is a person who has three or more parking tickets that are unpaid and outstanding for 28 days and for which no court appearance is scheduled.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. Current law provides municipalities and counties with a procedure for enforcing parking regulations and collecting unpaid tickets.
10.
Construction Schedule for STH 23 Major Highway Development Project
Section 2524g
This section requires the Department of Transportation to begin construction on the enumerated project of STH 23 between STH 67 and USH 41 in Fond du Lac and Sheboygan counties by July 1, 2009. The provision further requires that the department finish the project by July 1, 2011.
I am partially vetoing this section because the proposed schedule is unattainable and may negatively affect other highway projects. Before construction can begin on a highway project, the department performs certain federally-required studies, acquires real estate and relocates utilities as necessary for the project. The department would be unable to accomplish this preliminary work in order to begin construction by July 1, 2009. Therefore, I am vetoing the provision that specifies construction begin by July 1, 2009, so that the section requires only that the department begin work as needed and appropriate by July 1, 2009. I am further vetoing the July 1, 2011, completion deadline. Forcing completion by July 1, 2011, would harm the progress of other highway projects because many resources from other highway projects would have to be diverted to STH 23.
11.
Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail Extension Project
Section 9148 (9u)
This provision allows the Department of Transportation to request $800,000 from the Joint Committee on Finance's supplemental appropriation for preliminary engineering for the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee commuter rail extension project. The provision states that the Committee may provide the supplement only if the Legislature has enacted, and the Governor has signed, legislation establishing a financing mechanism that will finance all costs of the project (excluding the federal share of costs).
I am partially vetoing this provision because it infringes on the department's ability to continue preliminary work on the project to determine its scope and final feasibility. My veto will remove the requirement that the Legislature and Governor agree on a funding source for the entire project before the $800,000 supplement can be used for preliminary engineering of the project.
