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.
