E.
STATE GOVERNMENT OPERATIONS
OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
1.
Office of State Employment Relations Charges
Section 2483
This provision allows the director of the Office of State Employment Relations to provide services and materials to other state agencies and charge them for the services and materials provided. It also requires the director to establish a methodology for determining the costs and charges by administrative rule.
A324
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the requirement to promulgate an administrative rule for this process. I object to this requirement because it is burdensome and inefficient.
2.
Collective Bargaining Rights for University of Wisconsin System Faculty, Academic Staff and Research Assistants
Sections 2254L and 2255
These provisions allow faculty, academic staff and research assistants of the University of Wisconsin System the right to enter into collective bargaining. Research assistants are defined as graduate students enrolled in the University of Wisconsin System who are receiving a stipend to conduct research which is independent or self-directed. Students on a student or exchange visa or those provided fellowships, scholarships and traineeships that are distributed through other titles such as fellow, scholar or trainee are excluded. In addition, this provision allows the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission to assign faculty and academic staff to collective bargaining units.
I am partially vetoing this provision because it requires research assistants who have formed into collective bargaining units to be initially represented by the Teaching Assistant Association and allows the Wisconsin Employment Relations Commission (WERC) to assign faculty and staff to bargaining units. I object to these provisions because employees who form bargaining units should be allowed to select the labor organization that will represent them. This veto is consistent with the intent of the Legislature on this matter. The provision that allows WERC to assign faculty and staff to bargaining units is unnecessary since it is redundant with WERC authority under current law.
F.
TAX, TRANSPORTATION AND BUDGET DEVELOPMENT
BUDGET MANAGEMENT
Section 3412
This section removes the requirement in
2007 Wisconsin Act 20 that the Department of Administration secretary lapse or transfer $200 million to the general fund from the balances of appropriations of executive branch agencies.
I am vetoing this section to restore the secretary's authority and provide additional flexibility to manage the state's finances. I am concerned that there continues to be uncertainty in the economic outlook, and the restoration of this authority will assist the state in addressing any potential fiscal impacts of further weakness in the global and national economy.
2.
Agency Mission Statements and Performance Measures
Section 73L
This section requires the Department of Administration to submit copies of agency mission statements and performance measures to the Joint Committee on Finance and to the chief clerk of each house for distribution to the appropriate standing committees of the Legislature in January of each odd-numbered year.
I am vetoing this section because it is redundant and duplicative with existing law. This information is already included in the Executive Budget Book, which is distributed to all members of the Legislature and the public in each odd-numbered year.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
3.
Police and Fire Protection Fee Sunset and Creation of 911 Grant Program
Sections 40w, 225d, 225L, 665su, 665w, 681i, 682L, 1835dr, 1836er, 1849w, 2454L, 2460f, 2460t, 2475L, 2572hb, 2572he, 2572hh, 2572hL, 2572ho, 2572hr, 2572hu, 2572hy, 2573b, 2573f, 2573h, 9141, 9341 and 9441 (1j) (b) and (2j)
These provisions sunset the police and fire protection fee on June 30, 2011, and implement a new 911 surcharge beginning July 1, 2011. Under these provisions, the 911 surcharge will be used to fund a 911 grant program for local governments and telephone service providers administered by the Public Service Commission. These provisions create a segregated 911 fund and a 911 council, permit adjustment of the amount of the 911 surcharge, and provide the commission with 1.0 FTE 911 state coordinator position and related funding.
I am vetoing sections 225L, 665w, 682L, 2454L and 9441 (1j) (b) to remove the sunset of the police and fire protection fee because I object to the loss of direct aid to local governments. I am also vetoing sections 40w, 225d, 665su, 681i, 1835dr, 1836er, 1849w, 2460f, 2460t, 2475L, 2572hb, 2572he, 2572hh, 2572hL, 2572ho, 2572hr, 2572hu, 2572hy, 2573b, 2573f, 2573h, 9141, 9341 and 9441 (2j) because the program will no longer have a funding source. While I agree that enhanced 911 capabilities are a significant part of public safety, we must protect funding for the fire and police personnel who provide local law enforcement and emergency response. My veto will ensure that the police and fire protection fee continues to be returned to local governments through the county and municipal aid program. I request that the commission work with interested parties to determine the best approach and revenue source to reimburse enhanced 911 costs, and to ensure that the public has the opportunity to be heard on this important issue.
4.
Intervenor Financing for a Nonprofit Corporation
A325
This provision permits grants to certain organizations to be made from the Public Service Commission's intervenor financing appropriation. The provision specifies that a $300,000 annual grant shall be made to a nonstock, nonprofit corporation with a history of advocating on behalf of residential ratepayers for affordable rates, and increases the appropriation accordingly. The provision also changes the intervenor financing appropriation from annual to biennial to accommodate the grants.
I am vetoing this provision because the grant is unnecessary. This provision was created in anticipation of an increased number of cases due to the permissive automatic utility rate adjustment. However, the automatic rate adjustment was not included in the final budget passed by the Legislature. I agree that while this is a meritorious idea, it requires further consideration and public hearing. Nonstock, nonprofit corporations will continue to be eligible for compensation through intervenor financing under current law, and any increases to intervenor financing can be considered should future changes result in an increased caseload.
By lining out the dollar amounts in the commission's appropriation under s.
20.155 (1) (j) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $300,000 in each fiscal year, I am vetoing the funding for these grants. Furthermore, I am requesting the secretary of the Department of Administration not to allot these funds.
REVENUE
5.
Assessment of Leased Property
Sections 1520d and 9343 (4f)
This provision requires assessors to consider the actual rent and terms of a lease when determining the value of leased property using the income approach.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to changing valuation methodology through the legislative process. Currently, property assessment methods and standards are set forth in the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual. The manual is developed in accordance with professionally accepted appraisal practices and is researched and reviewed thoroughly by experts working in the appraisal field. Changes to property assessment practices should be pursued as updates to the manual to ensure sufficient review by property appraisal experts.
6.
Financial Record Matching Program
Section 1804
This section establishes a financial institution data match program that partners financial institutions with the Department of Revenue to identify financial institution account holders with delinquent state taxes for the purpose of levying accounts to offset debts owed to the state. The section stipulates that financial institutions must match the delinquent taxpayer data against account holder records and provide the results to the department. In addition, the section exempts financial institutions with less than $5 million in assets from the program.
I am partially vetoing this section, as it relates to s.
71.91 (8) (a) 4. and
(c), to eliminate the requirement that financial institutions perform the data match because I object to the administrative burden this requirement imposes on the institutions. The effect of the veto will provide institutions the option to forward account holder data to the department for matching. The remaining language will allow the department to promulgate rules that provide program flexibility consistent with the administration of a similar program that partners financial institutions with the Department of Children and Families.
In addition, I am partially vetoing this section as it relates to a financial institution with less than $5 million in assets because it is unnecessary. These smaller institutions will be able to utilize the data match option provided above. As a result, all financial institutions in the state will be subject to the financial record matching program.
7.
Burnett County Temporary Sales Tax
Sections 1856j, 1860 [as it relates to county sales tax rates], 1861 [as it relates to county sales tax rates], 1862 [as it relates to county sales tax rates], 1863 [as it relates to county sales tax rates] and 9443 (14u)
These sections permit Burnett County to increase its county sales tax rate from 0.5 percent to 1 percent upon adoption of an ordinance, if the increase is approved at a referendum. The sections require that the additional revenue may only be used to fund upgrades to radio towers per Federal Communications Commission requirements.
I am partially vetoing sections 1860, 1861, 1862 and 1863 and vetoing sections 1856j and 9443 (14u) because sales tax increases in the current economy inappropriately burden consumers. The need to comply with Federal Communications Commission requirements has been known for a long time, and other counties have adjusted budgets appropriately to fund necessary radio tower upgrades.
8.
Withholding by Certain Contractors
Sections 1777m, 1777o, 9143 (1q) and 9343 (3i)
This provision requires that if an employer files federal tax form 1099-MISC, on behalf of any independent contractor or single-member limited liability company providing construction services to the employer, the employer shall deduct and withhold 1 percent from the wages paid to the person on whose behalf the form is filed.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unduly burdensome on employers and the legislative intent of this provision is unclear. Use of independent contractors and issues surrounding workers' compensation and unemployment insurance are important concerns to both employers and labor. Further study and review of this issue should be conducted by the Legislature.
TRANSPORTATION
9.
Regional Transit Authorities
A326Sections 778, 779, 1449m [as it relates to ss.
59.58 (7) (d),
(dm),
(e),
(j) and
(k)], 1478v [as it relates to the Milwaukee Transit Authority], 1487t, 1488 [as it relates to ss.
66.1039 (2) (c) 1. and
3.,
(e) 1.,
2. and
4.,
(4) (s) 1.,
3. and
4.,
(12),
(13) (a) and
(c), and
(15m)], 1516, 1622, 1817p, 1849, 1856f, 1856g, 1856h, 1856i, 1864, 1864b, 1932 [as it relates to the Milwaukee Transit Authority], 2223m, 2969, 3139 and 9443 (14r)
Sections 778, 779, 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (j)], 1478v, 1487t, 1516, 1622, 1817p, 1849, 1856f, 1856g, 1856h, 1856i, 1932 [as it relates to the Milwaukee Transit Authority], 2223m, 2969, 3139 and 9443 (14r) create a Milwaukee Transit Authority covering all of Milwaukee County. The authority would be able to contract for transit service with the county and would be governed by a seven member board. The Milwaukee County Board could vote to join the transit authority and would then be allowed to impose a 0.65 percent sales and use tax, with 0.5 percent for transit services, and 0.15 percent for police, fire and emergency services. If the county board imposes the sales and use tax for transit, it would not be allowed to use property taxes to fund transit and would be required to show the amount by which the 0.5 percent sales tax lowered the property tax bill. The revenue dedicated to police, fire and emergency services would be distributed to municipalities within Milwaukee County.
Section 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (k)] allows transit systems in Kenosha and Racine to contract with the Southeastern Regional Transit Authority by vote of the respective municipal authority boards. Section 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (d)] requires the transit authority to include stops along the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail Link at the intersection of Lincoln Avenue and Bay Street, and where the line crosses National Avenue, if the rail link is constructed. Section 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (dm)] prohibits stops in Kenosha or Racine if the communities do not provide additional funds for local transit.
Section 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (e)] requires the Southeastern Regional Transit Authority to transfer revenue to Kenosha and Racine for transit purposes, provided each city has created a new local funding source for transit. Revenue transferred would be the equivalent of $1 on the rental car fee to each of the cities.
Section 1488 [as it relates to s.
66.1039 (12) and
(15m)] allows the Dane County Regional Transit Authority to use up to 25 percent of its sales and use tax revenue for highway purposes as directed by the transit authority board.
Section 1488 [as it relates to ss.
66.1039 (2) (c) 1. and
(e) 1., and
(4) (s) 3. and
4.] requires binding referenda in order to form a Chequamegon Bay Regional Transit Authority and a Chippewa Valley Regional Transit Authority. Section 1488 [as it relates to ss.
66.1039 (2) (c) 3. and
(e) 2. and
4., and
(13) (a) and
(c)] requires referendum approval before counties may join or leave the Chequamegon Bay Regional Transit Authority or the Chippewa Valley Regional Transit Authority. Section 1488 [as it relates to s.
66.1039 (4) (s) 1.] requires a binding referendum before the imposition of the sales and use tax by the Dane County Regional Transit Authority.
Sections 1864 and 1864b add transit authorities to the list of taxing jurisdictions which can impose sales and use taxes on retailers making deliveries in company-operated vehicles to purchasers located in their jurisdiction.
I am vetoing sections 1487t, 1817p, 1856f, 1856g, 1856h, 1856i and 9443 (14r), and partially vetoing sections 778, 779, 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (e),
(j) and
(k)], 1478v, 1516, 1622, 1849, 1932 [as it relates to the Milwaukee Transit Authority], 2223m, 2969 and 3139 because they do not provide a framework for regional cooperation on providing transit services. Regional cooperation in the southeast region is vital for the continued prosperity of Southeastern Wisconsin. These provisions do not move in the direction of regional cooperation and leave serious concerns about the ability of the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail Link to move to completion. By vetoing these provisions, I am allowing the creation of a transit authority that can move forward with the planning process on the rail link while eliminating provisions that hamper regional cooperation. I encourage the Legislature to bring forward a proposal with a stable revenue source dedicated solely to transit across the region, in order to move regional transit forward.
I am partially vetoing section 1449m [as it relates to s.
59.58 (7) (d) and
(dm)] because it jeopardizes the Kenosha-Racine-Milwaukee Commuter Rail Link application to the Federal Transit Administration's New Starts grant program. Requiring or prohibiting stops at specific locations violates Federal Transit Administration regulations requiring alternative route analysis as part of the environmental impact study process. Vetoing this provision allows the environmental process to proceed as federal regulations require. Furthermore, though I am opposed to the rental car fee as the funding mechanism for the transit authority, I cannot veto it because the transit authority must have a local funding source to move forward with the federal application process. However, I strongly recommend to the board of the transit authority not to impose the entire amount of the fee until New Start plans are approved by the Federal Transit Administration.
I am vetoing sections 1856h and 1856i and partially vetoing section 1488 [as it relates to s.
66.1039 (12) and
(15m)] because I object to the use of transit authority sales and use taxes for highway and emergency services. Regional transit authorities exist to maintain and improve transit service within their jurisdictional area. Distributing a portion of funding to highway projects or emergency services deviates from a transit authority's core purpose. Vetoing the use of revenue for highway and emergency service purposes allows the authorities to remain transit focused.
I am partially vetoing section 1488 [as it relates to ss.
66.1039 (2) (c) 1. and
3.,
(e) 1.,
2. and
4.,
(4) (s) 1.,
3. and
4., and
(13) (a) and
(c)] because I object to state mandated referenda deciding questions on local transit. Local county boards and transit authority boards are permitted to require referenda before creating regional transit authorities or imposing sales and use taxes, if local preferences dictate. By vetoing this provision, questions about the need for referenda to decide local transit questions can be decided locally.
I am partially vetoing sections 1864 and 1864b to remove ambiguity in statutes and to ensure compliance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement.
A327
10.
Transportation Enhancement Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Sections 1928j, 1928k and 9350 (10q)
This provision requires the Department of Transportation to award at least 70 percent of the federal funding available for transportation enhancements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary and may result in a reduced amount of transportation enhancement funding awarded for local projects. The provision is unnecessary because the department already awards 64 percent of enhancement grants to bicycle and pedestrian facilities. While 70 percent is an admirable goal, it may not be achievable because grant decisions are driven by federal requirements and applications submitted by local governments. If federally eligible bicycle and pedestrian grant applications totaling 70 percent of available funding are not submitted, the department would be required to reduce the total amount of grant funding awarded to meet the threshold. By vetoing this provision, the department can continue to maximize transportation enhancements and improve bicycle infrastructure.
11.
Transportation Enhancement Funding for Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities
Sections 295s and 1919m
This provision allows the Department of Transportation to enter into public-private agreements to commercially develop up to eight rest areas and waysides on noninterstate state highways and to use funding generated through commercial development for maintenance operations of rest areas and waysides.
I am vetoing this provision because federal regulations prohibit development of rest areas or waysides on any highway for which federal highway funds have been expended. Commercialization of a rest area or wayside would eliminate the ability of the department to utilize federal highway funds on that highway in the future and may require the department to repay a portion of any federal funds used on the highway in the past.
12.
Use of Contractors for Installation and Maintenance of Equipment on State Patrol Vehicles
Section 2216b
This section prohibits the Department of Transportation from contracting with third-party vendors for installation and maintenance of communications and other law enforcement equipment on state patrol vehicles.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the infringement on executive branch authority to manage programs.
