Sections 1138f and 1214f
This provision expands the existing child care program integrity unit. The program integrity unit ensures that child care program business practices are fiscally responsible and legal. The expansion includes authorizing the Department of Children and Families to deny payments to providers if they are convicted of felonies or misdemeanors related to business practices or intentionally and egregiously violate any provision or rule related to the Wisconsin Shares Child Care subsidy program.
I am partially vetoing sections 1138f and 1214f to delete the phrase "intentionally and egregiously." The department needs the authority to ensure that child care providers follow the rules of the Wisconsin Shares program. Requiring the violations to be intentional and egregious significantly limits the department's ability to address continuing issues with providers who violate program rules to receive reimbursement for services that they do not provide. This veto will strengthen the department's ability to enforce compliance with Wisconsin Shares rules.
HIGHER EDUCATIONAL AIDS BOARD
9.
Education Benefits for Veterans
Sections 745f, 747f, 754f, 756f and 770k
These provisions provide for supplemental payments to student veterans who are eligible for education benefits under the federal Post-9/11 Veterans Educational Assistance Act.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because they may be interpreted as preventing timely supplemental payments to eligible student veterans insofar as they require payments to be made only in June of an academic year. The effect of my partial veto is to provide for additional administrative flexibility to minimize the impact of benefit changes on student veterans. I am also requesting the Higher Educational Aids Board to work closely with the University of Wisconsin System Board of Regents, the Wisconsin Technical College System Board and district boards to ensure that eligibility determinations and supplemental payments are made in the most efficient, effective manner possible.
PUBLIC INSTRUCTION
10.
Aid Adjustments Relating to Funding Reductions in General School Aids
Section 9139 (1j) (b)
This provision changes the general equalization aid calculation in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11. This provision requires the Department of Public Instruction to compare the amount of equalization aid each district will actually receive in fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11 with the amount they would have received if base funding had not been reduced by $147 million, and make adjustments to certain school districts' school aid payments. Under these adjustments, districts that would have lost more than 10 percent of their aid as a result of the $147 million base funding reduction would have their aid increased to limit their reduction to approximately 10 percent. Districts that would have lost less than 0.9 percent of their aid compared to what they would have received with no base funding reduction, have property values per pupil above the statewide average and have fewer than 35 percent of pupils eligible for free or reduced price lunch would have their aid decreased to result in a reduction of 10 percent.
A312
I am partially vetoing this provision to redistribute the reduction to a larger number of school districts because I am opposed to singling out a few districts for an additional 10 percent cut in equalization aid. As a result of the unprecedented worldwide economic crisis, fiscal year 2009-10 may be the first time that state funding for schools will be reduced from the prior year. During this period, it is reasonable for the equalization aid formula to be temporarily modified to reduce the aid loss to any one school district. However, many of the limited number of school districts that would have their aid reduced by an additional 10 percent under this provision will have already experienced a 15 percent aid reduction from the prior year, resulting in a total aid loss of 25 percent. Partially vetoing this provision to redistribute the aid reduction to the vast majority of school districts is consistent with the current formula, and will help cushion the decreases to those districts most affected by the equalization aid reduction. To implement this provision, I am requesting that the State Superintendent pay the additional amount received by districts under s. 9139 (1j) (b) from the general equalization aid appropriation under s.
20.255 (2) (ac).
11.
Limit on Open Enrollment Payment
Section 9139 (2q)
This section limits the amount of state aid that districts located in whole or in part in Milwaukee County can receive from Milwaukee Public Schools under the Open Enrollment Program in the 2009-10 school year to the state aid amount received in the 2008-09 school year. Under current law, school districts that accept a pupil under open enrollment receive a per pupil payment in the form of a reallocation of state aid from the pupil's school district of residence.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the negative impact it could have on funding educational services in school districts located in Milwaukee County. School districts accepting pupils under the Open Enrollment Program in 2009-10 notified pupils in Milwaukee that they could attend their districts on June 5, as required by statute. Rescinding those acceptances could subject these districts to legal action. As a result, these districts must educate these additional pupils with no added funding. Furthermore, the districts accepting additional pupils were in full compliance with current state law, which does not limit the number of pupils a district can accept under open enrollment. Therefore, the amount of funding they receive from Milwaukee Public Schools in the 2009-10 school year should reflect the number of pupils they accept from Milwaukee Public Schools in the 2009-10 school year and not the amount of funding they received in the 2008-09 school year.
12.
Open Enrollment Hold Harmless Payments
Sections 176 [as it relates to s.
20.255 (2) (ch)], 242d, 2274t, 2309 and 9339 (7j)
This provision creates a new school aid appropriation starting in the 2009-10 school year for payments to school districts that have net pupil transfers out of the district under the Open Enrollment Program greater than 10 percent of their pupil membership. The payment would be equal to the net number of pupils in excess of 10 percent of the district's membership who transferred out of the district in the prior year multiplied by the per pupil transfer payment in the prior year. It is estimated that this provision would cost $772,000 annually. Any payments received by school districts under this provision would be subject to revenue limits.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Pupils who transfer out of their resident school district under the Open Enrollment Program are included in their resident district's membership count for school aid purposes. A school district's equalization aid is then increased or decreased by a fixed dollar amount per pupil, as established in statute, multiplied by a district's net gain or loss of pupils under the program. However, the amount of funding per pupil authorized to school districts under revenue limits is higher than the per pupil transfer payment under open enrollment. Therefore, under the Open Enrollment Program, school districts receive a net revenue gain for pupils they no longer educate. As a result, it is not necessary to provide school districts with additional payments for pupils that transfer out of the district.
13.
Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Payments to Schools Barred from the Program
Sections 244s, 2295g, 2295h and 9439 (3c)
These sections require the Department of Public Instruction to send payments to private schools barred by the department from participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Payments would be sent to schools in the form of checks made out to parents or guardians of pupils who were attending the schools at the time they were barred. The parents or guardians of those pupils would be required to endorse the checks. The total payment to each barred school would be based on instructional time provided by the school prior to removal from the program less any amount previously paid to the school by the department. Schools would first be required to use the additional payments to reimburse money owed to a state entity and then, if funds remain, reimburse teachers for any salaries that had not been paid when the school was removed from the program. This provision would apply to schools barred from the program, beginning three years prior to the budget bill's effective date.
I am vetoing this provision because it lacks both a system to ensure that the additional payments to parents eventually reach teachers who are not fully compensated and a location to send the checks if the private school no longer exists. I am sympathetic to teachers who are not fully compensated for their teaching time when a school is removed from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program for failing to meet the limited accountability measures that currently exist. Under the stronger accountability provisions included in this budget, the overall quality of choice school management should improve significantly and the need to remove schools from the program should diminish.
A313
C.
GENERAL GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
ADMINISTRATION
1.
Reimbursement for Legal Notices in Newspapers
Sections 3405ay and 3405b
This section specifies that any newspaper in a county of more than 500,000 individuals may be compensated for printing of legal notices. The newspaper must have a circulation of at least 40,000 copies in the region and would exempt the newspaper from current law requirements relating to its circulation and subscribers.
I am vetoing this provision because it should be subject to the full legislative process where the merits of the provision can be fully and openly debated.
2.
Access to State and Federal Surplus Property Sales
Section 104n, 104p and 680n
This provision requires the Department of Administration or any agency allowed to purchase property by the department to grant any entity or group that is entitled to participate in federal surplus property sales or auctions or is entitled to special purchasing rights or preference in sales the same purchasing rights and preferences that are available to all agencies.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The surplus property program is open to all entities and groups that wish to participate.
3.
Use of Private Contractor Positions
Sections 76L, 82L, 104L, 2157r, 9139 (7u) [as it relates to the definition of federal economic stimulus funds] and 9157 (2L)
This budget makes several modifications to the executive branch use of private contractor positions. While I concur that state agencies should be reviewing and limiting, where appropriate, the use of private contractor positions, I am vetoing these provisions because the use of private contractor positions should be reviewed across all state agencies, not just the executive branch and because these provisions are administratively burdensome.
Budget Submission Requirements: Requires agencies and the Department of Administration to identify information related to contract positions including the number and funding, both base and requested, for such positions, and the number of state positions required to perform work being completed by contracted positions as part of the Governor's biennial budget submission.
Hiring Requirements: Directs that during a hiring freeze or mandatory furlough, executive branch agencies cannot hire private contractor positions or consultants in that fiscal year, unless the use of those positions is required or authorized under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.
Reduction Requirements: Requires all state executive branch agencies to review service contract practices for private personnel and report the findings on how they would achieve savings of 1 percent for the 2009-11 biennium. Authorize the Joint Committee on Finance to reduce appropriations by up to 1 percent based on identified savings.
Electrical Consultant Private Contractors: Requires the Department of Commerce to perform a more robust cost-benefit analysis if using private contractors instead of hiring FTE electrical consultants. If the cost-benefit analysis shows that it is more cost effective to hire a state position, the department is required to hire a state employee.
I do, however, believe that these provisions are well intentioned. As such, I request that state agencies review the use and hiring of private contractor positions during these difficult economic times. To meet the deep across-the-board reductions, agencies will be reviewing all business practices, including the hiring and use of private contractor positions. To reduce state agency appropriation authority by a further 1 percent based on the reduction of private contractor positions during a time when agencies have to manage significant funding reductions could lead to unacceptable gaps in service or delays in meeting critical business needs. Additionally, the cost-benefit analysis process required under current law will continue to ensure that all contracts entered into by agencies are done so only after a thoughtful analysis of need.
To ensure that contractor positions are not replacing state workers who have been laid off or furloughed, and that the use of a private contractor position is appropriate, I am creating a centralized review process with aid from the newly formed Division of Legal Services, the state Bureau of Procurement and the Office of State Employment Relations. While I object to the limiting and burdensome requirements of these provisions, I welcome and look forward to working with all state agencies to manage the use of private contractor positions to achieve additional savings while maintaining the high service standards Wisconsin citizens expect from state government.
COMMERCE
4.
Grant to Pleasant Prairie Technology Incubator Center
Section 9110 (17q)
This provision requires the Department of Commerce to provide a one-time grant to the Pleasant Prairie Technology Incubator Center of $700,000. It also requires the center to obtain $700,000 in matching funds from sources other than the state.
As I am concerned about allocating large amounts from the Wisconsin Development Fund, I am partially vetoing this provision to strike a digit to reduce the amount of the grant and the matching funds from $700,000 to $70,000. I am also requesting that the Department of Commerce work with the Pleasant Prairie Technology Incubator Center to help identify additional resources.
A314
5.
Area Development Manager
Section 9110 (18f)
This section requires the Department of Commerce to fill a currently vacant area development manager position which serves 16 counties in the Northwest section of the state.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the Legislature requiring an agency to fill an existing vacant position. I do support the work that the department does in this area and request the Department of Commerce secretary to fill the position when a qualified candidate has been identified.
6.
Innovation and Research Grants
This provision provides funding for small business innovation research stage businesses and preparation costs as well as a 1.0 FTE GPR position to establish a regulatory ombudsman to administer the grants.
I am lining out the s.
20.143 (1) (a) appropriation and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $75,000 GPR annually. By lining out the additional funding, I am vetoing the 1.0 FTE GPR position added by the Legislature because this is not a priority program for new funding. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds and not to authorize the additional 1.0 FTE GPR position.
7.
Film Production Tax Credits Program Changes
Sections 176 [as it relates to ss.
20.835 (2) (bL) and
(bm)], 621m, 1579x, 1580yj, 1580yk, 1659y, 1660h, 1660i, 1725w, 1726yh, 1726yj and 3070m
These provisions replace the current film production services tax credit with a new refundable tax credit. The provisions provide $1,500,000 in each year of the biennium, define an "accredited production" with cost thresholds, create an application fee, require reporting, and set percentages, eligible expenditures and various caps for the new credit.
I am partially vetoing provisions in sections 176 [as it relates to ss.
20.835 (2) (bL) and
(bm)], 621m, 1579x, 1580yk, 1659y, 1660i, 1725w and 1726yj because the funding level for the program is excessive. This veto restores my original intent regarding funding for this program. The effect of this veto will be to make permanent the expenditure control language, which limits the credits that may be claimed in the upcoming biennium. To clearly reflect my intent, I am striking a "1" from the $1,500,000 appropriation under s.
20.835 (2) (bm) to reduce the Chapter
20 schedule authority by $1,000,000 to $500,000 in each year and requesting the Department of Administration secretary reestimate expenditures by this amount. I am further striking the "1" from the $1,500,000 referenced in ss. 1579x, 1580yk, 1659y, 1660i, 1725w and 1726yj and partially vetoing related provisions. I am also changing from sum sufficient to annual the new appropriation under s.
20.835 (2) (bL).
I am partially vetoing sections 1579x, 1659y and 1725w to provide a single cost threshold of $50,000, because I object to separate cost thresholds based on the length of a production. The final length of a production does not determine its ability to create jobs or infrastructure.
I am vetoing section 3070m to remove the requirement to report to the Joint Committee on Finance because it is redundant with current reporting requirements under
2007 Wisconsin Act 125.
I am partially vetoing sections 1579x, 1659y and 1725w to delete the credit for labor-related payments to nonstate residents because the focus of the film production tax credit should be to encourage the development of a creative infrastructure and work force within the state. By removing this provision, the program will focus on Wisconsin's workers.
I am partially vetoing sections 1579x, 1659y and 1725w to delete the 3 percent add-on to the credit for labor-related payments made to residents in economically distressed areas because it is unclear and would present an administrative burden to the Departments of Commerce and Revenue that would outweigh limited benefits.
Finally, I am vetoing sections 1580yj, 1660h and 1726yh and the provisions under sections 1579x, 1659y and 1725w to delete a $10,000,000 limit on credits claimed per project because it is unnecessary due to the $500,000 annual limit on the program established through my vetoes.
8.
Rural Outsourcing Grants
Sections 207, 207p, 208, 210, 9110 (13u) and 9110 (16u).
This provision requires the Department of Commerce to award up to $250,000 PR in grants over the biennium to businesses for outsourcing work to rural areas of the state. It also requires the department to obtain funding from grantees at least equal to the grant amount.
I am vetoing section 9110 (13u) and partially vetoing sections 207, 207p, 208, 210 and 9110 (16u) because this provision has not been fully explained and limits the department's flexibility in meeting statewide economic development goals. I am requesting the Department of Commerce secretary to continue to work with rural leaders on economic development initiatives.
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
9.
Credit Union Service Organization
Sections 2453um and 2453v
This provision permits a credit union service organization to provide services related to the sale or leasing of motor vehicles as a routine daily operation of the organization if those services were provided prior to January 1, 2009.
I am vetoing this provision because it requires further review through the legislative committee process where the merits of this provision can be fully considered. This is a significant change in the scope of services offered by these organizations and it requires broad input and discussion.
A315
10.
Conversion of a Credit Union to a Mutual Savings Bank
Sections 2453w, 2453x, 2453y, 2476nm, 2476o, 2476p, 2476t and 9417
This provision modifies the requirements that a state-chartered credit union must meet to convert to a state-chartered mutual savings bank.
I am vetoing this provision because it requires further review through the legislative committee process where its merits can be fully considered. This is a significant change to the credit union chartering process and it requires broad input and discussion.
GENERAL PROVISIONS
11.
Limitation on Construction Work Performed by County
Section 1444v
This provision requires that a county may not perform construction work, including road work, for a project that is directly or indirectly owned, funded, or reimbursed, in whole or in part, by a private person.
I am vetoing this provision because it is overly broad. I understand concerns regarding unfair competition by counties with private sector firms; however, the Legislature should consider a less expansive means to address issues related to public and private competition for these projects.
12.
Required Reports
Sections 1424m, 1815g, 1918i, 1918j, 1928b, 9108 (8u), 9110 (11r), 9111 (2i), 9111 (2k), 9111 (3x), 9122 (8v), 9150 (4d), 9150 (5d), 9150 (5x) and 9150 (8j)
These sections mandate certain reports.
Section 1424m requires the Department of Health Services to annually report by October 1, to the Joint Committee on Finance on the status of individuals relocated from the Southern Wisconsin Center to a community setting. The report is to include information on the effect the placement has had on a person's health status for people placed in the prior three years; a list of each setting the person has lived in for the prior three years; the involvement of guardians and family with the person placed in the community and the cause of death for each person who died in the previous year. I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Department of Health Services will be closely monitoring the transition of individuals from this facility and will work closely with the families and communities during this process.
Section 1815g requires the Department of Revenue to provide an annual report to the Governor, Legislature and Joint Committee on Finance concerning department activities related to enhanced enforcement of state tax laws. The report should describe the allocation of funding and positions; expenditures incurred; activities or projects undertaken; data regarding the type of enforcement actions, number of taxpayers affected, additional amounts assessed and collected, and additional revenues that were generated; and an analysis of the cost effectiveness of the activities. I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Department of Revenue already measures the performance of tax compliance activities.
