40.
Procurement Bid Threshold
41.
Build and Lease Back Program
42.
Energy Efficiency Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems Study
F.
TAX, TRANSPORTATION AND OPERATIONS
REVENUE
43.
Weight-Based Taxation for Moist Snuff Tobacco Products
44.
Sharing of Loss Carry-Forwards under the Corporate Income and Franchise Tax Incurred Before 2009
45.
County and Municipal Levy Limits
46.
Property Tax Exemption for Certain University of Wisconsin–Madison Student Housing Facilities
TRANSPORTATION
47.
County Highway Department Funding
48.
Department of Transportation 10-year Financing Plans
49.
Southeast Wisconsin Freeway Megaprojects
50.
Astronautics Funding
__________________
VETO ITEMS
A.
AGRICULTURE, ENVIRONMENT AND JUSTICE
AGRICULTURE, TRADE AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
1.
Agricultural Chemical Funds Report
Section 9103 (2u)
This provision would require the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to study and evaluate the condition of the agricultural chemical cleanup fund and the agrichemical management fund and their structural imbalances. The department would also be required to report its findings to the Joint Committee on Finance by December 31, 2011.
A419
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the date by which the department must report to the Joint Committee on Finance. I object to this provision because requiring this evaluation to be prepared by the specified date places an undue burden on the department to produce a quality report. Vetoing this provision will provide the department with more time and flexibility to prepare its report and make recommendations to the committee.
2.
Grain Inspection Program Report
Section 9103 (3q)
This provision would require the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to report to the Joint Committee on Finance by January 1, 2012, on the specific actions or administrative efforts the department has planned to reduce and eliminate the remaining deficit in the grain inspection program.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to requiring additional reporting requirements for a program that has been in deficit since the end of fiscal year 2000-01. The department has been and will continue to explore all options for deficit reduction, but has limited options for addressing the deficit without limiting services. Vetoing this provision will allow the department to continue working toward a solution to the deficit in the grain inspection program without the added burden of preparing a report.
CORRECTIONS
3.
Inmate Litigation Loans
Section 3014m
This provision specifies that a prisoner may not receive more than $100 annually in litigation loans. Any amount that the prisoner repays in the year may be re-loaned without counting against the limit. Prisoners must repay prior loans in full or make arrangements for repayment with the warden of the institution before receiving a litigation loan.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the requirement that the repayment arrangements be made with the warden of the institution because it is too burdensome on the Department of Corrections. This partial veto allows the department flexibility to designate a procedure for making repayment arrangements taking into consideration the duties of the warden and the movement of inmates between institutions.
4.
Nursing Services Report
Section 9111 (1u)
This provision requires the Department of Corrections secretary to report to the Joint Committee on Finance by October 1, 2011, on nursing staff and costs for each facility and a summary of each contract for nursing services for fiscal years 2009-10 and 2010-11.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary and burdensome. The department currently provides information it has available to the Legislature and other interested parties on these matters, and the department continues to work to improve data management.
DISTRICT ATTORNEYS AND OFFICE OF STATE EMPLOYMENT RELATIONS
5.
Pay Progression for Certain Attorneys
Sections 9113 (3c) and 9155 (3c)
Section 9113 (3c) requires the Association of State Prosecutors and the Director of the Office of State Employment Relations (OSER) to develop a pay progression plan for assistant district attorneys. The plan must include a detailed description of how the system would be structured and administered and also the fiscal cost of the system in future biennia. This plan must be submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance by October 1, 2011, and is subject to 14-day passive review. The pay progression system would be funded from any salary savings realized from hiring new attorneys to replace attorneys who retire during the period of January 1, 2011, through June 30, 2013.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that OSER work with the Association of State Prosecutors and to remove the required parameters of the plan, submission to the Joint Committee on Finance and the funding mechanism. I am maintaining the language requiring the Director of OSER to develop a pay progression plan for assistant district attorneys. I object to the requirement that OSER must work with the Association of State Prosecutors on a pay progression plan without involving the District Attorneys. The executive budget required OSER to work with the District Attorneys to develop a distribution plan for the $1,000,000 annual funding provided for assistant district attorney compensation. In order to return to this intent, I direct OSER to work with the District Attorneys to develop a pay progression plan for future implementation. I continue to support a system that increases retention of experienced prosecutors around the state and this partial veto maintains that support.
Section 9155 (3c) requires the Wisconsin State Attorneys Association and the Director of the Office of State Employment Relations to develop a pay progression plan for attorneys who are included in the legal collective bargaining unit. The plan must include a detailed description of how the system would be structured and administered and also the fiscal cost of the system in future biennia. This plan must be submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance by October 1, 2011, and is subject to a 14-day passive review. The pay progression system would be funded from any salary savings realized from hiring new attorneys to replace attorneys who retire during the 2011-13 biennium.
I am vetoing this section because I object to the requirement that the Office of State Employment Relations must work with the attorneys association without involving the agencies who employ these attorneys. I also object to the selection of this bargaining unit to receive a pay progression system when no information has been presented to indicate there is a recruitment or retention problem among this group.
6.
Brownfield Site Assessment Grants
Sections 2990r and 9155 (3g)
These provisions restrict the amount of a grant to 67 percent of eligible project costs for brownfield site assessment grants and require the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation to give priority in awarding brownfield site assessment grants to applicants who would have been on the funding list for fiscal year 2010-11 awards in the Department of Natural Resources.
I am partially vetoing Section 2990r as it relates to the required level of matching funds an applicant must contribute to receive a grant and vetoing Section 9155(3g) relating to priority in awarding grants because I object to limiting the flexibility of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation in issuing grants for this program.
Vetoing these provisions will also maintain the current match requirement of the recipient of each grant and allow the corporation to issue a grant that covers up to 80 percent of project costs, but maintains the flexibility to issue grants that cover a smaller portion of the project costs. This will continue to allow the opportunity for higher priority projects to be adequately funded.
7.
Economic Impact Analysis
Section 9135 (3f)
This provision would require the Department of Natural Resources to prepare an economic impact analysis for the phosphorous effluent limitation and shoreland zoning administrative rules by December 31, 2011.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the date by which the department must prepare its analysis. I object to this provision because requiring these analyses to be prepared by the specified date may compromise the quality of the analyses. This partial veto will provide the department greater time and flexibility to prepare an economic impact analysis on each of the rules. While it is important for the department to conduct the analyses, it is more important to provide the time necessary to fully evaluate the impact of these rules.
OFFICE OF JUSTICE ASSISTANCE
8.
Report on Drug Offender Diversion Surcharge Fund
Section 9101 (4j)
This section requires the Department of Administration to submit a plan to the Joint Committee on Finance reporting how the department will reduce state appropriations by $1,917,900 over the 2011-13 biennium and lapse the associated funding to the general fund to eliminate the deficit in the drug offender diversion surcharge fund.
I am vetoing this section because this requirement is unnecessary. This deficit will be examined again in developing the 2013-15 biennial budget.
9.
Repeal of Traffic Stop Data Collection Requirements
These provisions relate to funding for the traffic stop data collection requirements enacted in
2009 Wisconsin Act 28. Section 373 includes two appropriations, Traffic stop data collection; state and Traffic stop data collection; local in the Chapter
20 schedule. Section 717 funds the two appropriations from justice information fee revenues deposited in the Department of Administration. Sections 737 and 738 detail the appropriations in the Chapter
20 language.
I am vetoing these provisions at the request of the Legislative Reference Bureau because of conflicts with passage of separate legislation,
2011 Wisconsin Act 29. As passed by the Legislature, conflicts would be created regarding these sections between the act and the biennial budget without the veto. The intent remains to repeal the requirements for traffic stop data collection and provide mandate relief to law enforcement agencies. This veto retains that intent but ensures no statutory language conflicts will exist with Act 29 after the biennial budget bill is enacted.
SUPREME COURT
10.
Judicial Compensation Commission
Section 9155 (1j)
This section creates a seven-member Judicial Compensation Commission to review the salaries of the justices of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals judges and judges of the Circuit Court. No later than December 1, 2012, the commission must submit a report to the Governor and the Joint Committee on Employment Relations that includes recommendations on salaries of the justices and judges. The committee must review the recommendations for the 2013-15 fiscal biennium and approve the recommendations, unless a majority of members agree not to approve or agree to modify the recommendations. The Governor must provide funding sufficient to implement the recommendations for the 2013-15 fiscal biennium. If the salary adjustment approved by the committee is less than the percentage of any across-the-board pay adjustments for any other position in the classified service, the annual salary adjustment for the justices and judges is increased equal to the percentage increase of the highest across-the-board pay adjustment provided for any position in the classified service. Staff and support services will be provided by the Director of State Courts and the commission sunsets after December 1, 2012.
A421
I am vetoing this section because I object to the requirement to provide a certain amount of funding for judicial salaries in the 2013-15 biennium. I also object to required salary increases for justices and judges when state employees are facing salary reductions due to increased contributions for health insurance and pension. Judicial salaries are included in the compensation plan, similar to all other elected officials, and will be adjusted as necessary under that system.
B.
EDUCATION, CHILDREN AND FAMILIES
Children and Families
11.
Transitional Jobs Demonstration Project
Sections 1385 and 1385c
These sections require that any host site for employing individuals or placing work crews under the Transitional Jobs Demonstration Project be a business that is operated for profit, except that in the case of a natural disaster for which the Governor has declared a state of emergency under s.
323.10, the Department of Children and Families shall give preference to any work crew placement or host site involved in natural disaster recovery.
I am partially vetoing section 1385 and vetoing section 1385c because this requirement is overly prescriptive and may be contrary to the goal of moving individuals back to productive work. Currently, 51 percent of transitional jobs placements are with nonprofit host sites, such as hospitals and community agencies. These placements provide valuable work experience to individuals and give these individuals the skills to move into unsubsidized employment.
However, I am cognizant that the best way to move individuals into unsubsidized, private-sector employment is to give them experience working in the private sector. Therefore, I am directing the department give preference to host sites that are for-profit businesses.
12.
Local Child Support Enforcement
Section 9108 (2i) (a) 2.
The bill requires the Department of Children and Families to develop, and submit to the Joint Committee on Finance no later than August 31, 2011, a detailed plan for distributing child support incentive payments to counties during calendar years 2012 and 2013. This provision prohibits the department from basing the child support incentive plan on an across-the-board reduction to child support incentive payments made in calendar year 2011.
I am vetoing this provision because the department already distributes federal child support incentive payments and state funding to counties for child support enforcement activities under an incentive program. The distribution is based on a county's share of statewide support cases that receive enforcement services from a county child support agency and already established performance standards. Therefore, an across-the-board reduction should be an option the department can consider in developing its plan.
13.
Fingerprinting for Child Care Providers
Section 1335d
This provision requires the Department of Children and Families, a county department, an agency contracted to administer the Wisconsin Shares program, or school board to require any person seeking a license to operate a child care center, certification as a child care provider or a contract to operate a child care program, be fingerprinted on two fingerprint cards, each bearing a complete set of the person's fingerprints. Additionally, the Department of Justice may provide the fingerprint cards to the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the purposes of verifying the identity of the person fingerprinted and obtaining records of his or her criminal arrests and convictions.
Under current law, agencies already have the authority to require fingerprints of certified and licensed child care providers if those agencies determine there is a reasonable basis for further investigation as a result of required background checks.
I am vetoing this provision because requiring fingerprints of all child care providers creates an unnecessary burden for small child care businesses. If there is reasonable basis for further investigation as a result of required background checks, fingerprints can already be required. However, for child care providers who wish to participate in the Wisconsin Shares program, additional safeguards must be implemented to ensure that taxpayer dollars are spent properly. Reducing fraud and protecting the safety of children in the Wisconsin Shares program are top priorities of my administration. Therefore, I am directing the Department of Children and Families to amend the administrative rules for certified and licensed child care providers to require that any provider who wishes to participate in the Wisconsin Shares program submit fingerprints to the Department of Children and Families, a county department, or agency contracted to administer the Wisconsin Shares program.
14.
Rules Related to Child Care Subsidies for Children of Child Care Providers
Section 9108 (2c)
The bill prohibits distribution of child care funds for services that are provided for a child by a child care provider who is the parent of the child or who resides with the child. Additionally, if a child's parent is a child care provider, the bill prohibits the distribution of funds for services that are provided for the child by another child care provider who is not the child's parent. These provisions would not apply if the child's parent has applied for, and been granted, a waiver of the prohibitions. The bill further provides that the Department of Children and Families shall specify the circumstances or standards under which a waiver will be granted by rule.
Section 9108 (2c) requires the department to submit the rules in proposed form to the Legislative Council staff under s.
227.15 (1) of the statutes no later than the first day of the fourth month beginning after the effective date of the bill.
A422
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. Current law already requires submission of proposed rules to Legislative Council staff and I am directing the department to submit these proposed rules by January 1, 2012.
15.
Child Care State Administration and Licensing
Section 9108 (1v) (b)
