12. Conversion of Farmland Preservation Credit to Grant
Sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (4) (cm)], 202u, 1277g, 1434t, 1437e, 1440cm, 1587p, 1587pb, 1587pc, 1587pd, 1587q, 1587r, 1587s, 1587t, 1587u, 1587v, 1587w and 9137 (2L) These provisions convert the per acre farmland preservation credit program (generally the form of the credit available for agreements entered into after July 1, 2009) from a tax credit to a grant program administered by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection beginning with tax years starting on or after January 1, 2014, and authorize the Department of Administration to transfer position authority from the Department of Revenue to the department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the purpose of administering the program.
I am vetoing sections 202u, 1277g, 1434t, 1437e, 1440cm, 1587p, 1587pb, 1587pc, 1587pd, 1587q, 1587r, 1587s, 1587t, 1587u, 1587v and 1587w because I object to the possible confusion and duplicative effort the conversion of the credit will have for claimants. Because the grant program would be separated from the tax form on which farmland preservation claimants have typically claimed farmland preservation credits, these provisions will require separate, and likely duplicative, documentation by claimants. Additionally, the conversion of the credit into a grant program will increase costs borne by state agencies by adding to their administrative responsibilities related to the program. I support efforts to simplify the tax code, but those efforts cannot be made at the expense of greater burdens on beneficiaries of state programs or at the expense of programmatic efficiency. However, I believe that this issue should be reviewed in the future to determine whether a conversion of the program would be in the best interests of claimants and taxpayers at large (including modifications to the "old" version of the credit for earlier farmland preservation agreements that would remain on the tax forms
under the bill).
In addition, I am partially vetoing section 200 [as it relates to s. 20.115 (4) (cm)] to remove the appropriation created under the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the purpose of paying farmland preservation grants. The effect of this partial veto, in conjunction with other veto actions, is to retain the farmland preservation credit program as a tax credit. As a result of these actions, the estimated $20,900,000 GPR that would have been expended through the appropriation under s. 20.115 (4) (cm) in fiscal year 2014-15 will instead be expended under the sum sufficient appropriation under s. 20.835 (2) (do). Consequently, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to reestimate expenditures under s. 20.835 (2) (do) upward by this amount for fiscal year 2014-15 and to not allot the funds under the vetoed appropriation under s. 20.115 (4) (cm) for fiscal year 2014-15. This shift will have no impact on farmland preservation credit claimants. Finally, I am vetoing section 9137 (2L) to remove the authority of the Department of Administration to transfer position authority from the Department of Revenue to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection for the purpose of administering the grant program. Because the program will remain a tax credit program, this authority is unnecessary.
13. Grain Inspection Funding Transfer
Section 9102 (1e)
This provision requires the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection to develop a plan to transfer, by December 31, 2013, an amount sufficient to eliminate the accumulated deficit in the department's grain inspection and certification program as of June 30, 2013. The department is required to submit the plan to the Joint Committee on Finance under a 14-day passive review no later than November 15, 2013.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the date by which the department must develop the plan as well as the provision that the Joint Committee on Finance review the plan under 14-day passive review because I object to the inflexibility and timing included in the language. Setting such strict deadlines will not allow the department to evaluate the impact of new inspection fees and the expansion of inspections and their impact on collections, which may result in unnecessary transfers from other account balances. Instead, I am directing the department to submit the plan to the Committee for information only and to make the transfer as soon as practicable based on the projected revenues in the program in fiscal year 2013-14.
14. Weights and Measures Program Contracting
Section 1593v
This provision allows for a municipality that is required to establish a weights and measures program to contract with a private weights and measures service provider to enforce the program requirements. A municipality may recover the contract costs by assessing fees on program participants.
While I am supportive of private enterprise and am interested in further examination of this idea, I am vetoing this provision because it lacks sufficient detail about how it would be implemented and what the standards and requirements would be for private entities that would provide this service. Provision of these services must be effective and fair to all parties involved.
15. Tank and Petroleum Testing Plan Review
Section 9138 (3) (b)
This provision relates to the transfer from the Department of Safety and Professional Services to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection all incumbent employees determined to relate to the storage, use and handling of flammable or combustible liquids or federally regulated hazardous substances. The provision also requires that two of the positions transferred must be employees whose duties include reviewing plans and petitions for variances relating to the storage, handling and use of flammable or combustible liquids or federally regulated hazardous substances.
I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the requirement that two of the transferred employees would be responsible for the tank plan review and petition for variance function. I object to this provision because it does not provide the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection the flexibility to staff the program as it determines to be most efficient and effective.
16. Self-Insurance for Health Care Liability Coverage
Sections 2267f and 2267g
These sections provide a definition of affiliated health care providers for the purpose of permitting controlling legal entities to provide self-insured health care liability coverage to health care providers employed by or affiliated with the controlling legal entity under a single plan.
I am vetoing these sections to remove the definition of affiliated health care providers because this language is overly broad and does not achieve the intent of the motion to limit the use of the definition to health care providers for the purposes of Chapter 655. I am directing the Commissioner of Insurance to provide a definition of affiliated health care providers by administrative rule to better achieve the intent of the motion and eliminate the ambiguity regarding the affiliated health care providers who are affected by this provision. 17. Termination and Dissolution of the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan and Authority
Section 9122 (1L) (b) 7. a. and 8. a.
This section requires the Board of Directors of the Health Insurance Risk Sharing Plan Authority to develop a proposal for the dispensation of the plan's cash assets after all financial obligations of the plan and authority are satisfied, and requires the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance to follow the proposal in dispensing of the assets. To the extent feasible and practical, the proposal shall return remaining assets to the sources from which they were derived or, if not feasible and practical, use the remaining assets in support of activities providing an indirect benefit to the insurers, providers and covered persons. Following the transfer of administrative responsibility for the dissolution of the plan, the Commissioner of Insurance shall take any action necessary to wind up the affairs of the plan and shall provide the final financial statements of the plan to the Legislative Audit Bureau.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to the inflexibility of the requirement that the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance follow the proposal developed by the board for the dispensation of assets. Although I agree with the Legislature's intent to return remaining assets to the sources from which they were derived, the Commissioner of Insurance requires the flexibility to ensure that the plan for the dispensation of the assets is implemented in a manner that it is reasonable and compliant with the office's statutory and fiduciary duties; all applicable legal, administrative and regulatory requirements; and executive branch policy.
18. Tobacco Use Surcharge for State Employee Health Insurance
Sections 715, 731 and 9112 (2)
These sections require the Group Insurance Board to implement a tobacco use surcharge program for state employees and annuitants.
I am vetoing this entire provision because new federal guidance regarding wellness programs and tobacco use surcharges would make the program too onerous to administer and will likely only increase costs without achieving the goal of encouraging tobacco users to quit.
The tobacco use surcharge program was proposed before recent federal guidance was issued that limits how these types of programs can be designed and implemented. For example, in addition to waiving the surcharge for medical reasons, a reasonable alternative to paying the surcharge, such as participation in a tobacco cessation program, must be offered. Individuals do not necessarily have to stop using tobacco.
Given these and other federal restrictions, the state is unable to design the program in a way that will achieve the desired outcome of fewer people using tobacco products and still be cost-effective to administer.
19. OpenBook for Municipalities
Sections 65b, 65d, 65f and 65h
These sections require counties and any cities, villages and towns with populations larger than 5,000 to disclose expenditures relating to operations, contracts and grants on
the Department of Administration's searchable Internet Web site, otherwise known as OpenBook Wisconsin, by September 1, 2016. Additional information related to municipal grants or contracts is also required. OpenBook Wisconsin is the department's system that will make state government operations expenditures available for inspection
by the public on the Internet, in a searchable format.
I am vetoing this provision in its entirety because the proposal will create a significant unfunded mandate on local governments and consequently, their taxpayers. I support the goal of transparency in government, however, ensuring that the over 200 municipalities have the technical ability to interface this data with the current OpenBook Wisconsin system will be a huge undertaking and is likely to require significant investments to ensure that the reporting is accurate, complete and consistent across municipalities. Therefore, I encourage the Legislature to develop separate legislation that requires local governments to be more open and transparent about expenditures, but also offsets a portion of the increased costs with funding available from a grant program.
20. Self-Funded Portal Administrative Rules
Sections 189r and 190
These sections authorize the Department of Administration to enter into and enforce agreements with individuals to provide information technology services, as well as charge individuals for those services. These sections also require the department to promulgate administrative rules for any fees that would be assessed to individuals for information technology services related to the portal.
I am partially vetoing these sections because it is administratively burdensome to promulgate rules for each potential fee, especially as these fees will be voluntary, not mandatory. I will, however, direct the department to identify any new fees established for individuals when posting notices that new electronic government services are available.
21. Information Technology Infrastructure Transfers
Sections 188m, 200 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kk)], 424, 426m and 427 These sections permit the transfer of positions, equipment or systems associated with information technology infrastructure from any executive branch agency to the Department of Administration, if a joint request is submitted to and approved by the Joint Committee on Finance under 14-day passive review. The provision also specifies data that must be included in any request and establishes an appropriation to receive assessments received from agencies for the provision of these infrastructure services.
I am vetoing sections 188m and 426m and partially vetoing sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.505 (1) (kk)], 424 and 427 because they are unnecessary and will impede the ability of the executive branch to manage state government operations in the most efficient and effective way possible. Consolidation of information technology infrastructure at the Department of Administration will save money and positions in individual agencies and improve services such as disaster recovery, 24/7 support and network security without a negative impact on privacy. The Division of Enterprise Technology already provides services to over 21,000 users and will use this expertise, as well as the ability to leverage economies of scale on hardware and software purchases and enterprisewide licensing. I will direct the department, in consultation with the information technology executive steering committee, to proceed with the information technology infrastructure services consolidation through memoranda of understanding with additional executive branch agencies. The department can include a request to formalize those agreements in the 2015-17 biennial budget. 22. Prison Industries Procurements
Sections 114b, 114bd and 9301 (1e)
These sections specify that for furniture enumerated in the Department of Corrections' Badger State Industries list, the price must be comparable to, rather than equal to or lower than, the price that may be obtained through a competitive bid or sealed proposal.
I am vetoing this provision because I believe that this change has the potential to provide an unfair advantage to Badger State Industries compared to the private sector. My veto will retain current law and retain the appropriate balance between supporting prison industries and the private sector.
23. Division of Facilities Development Fee
Section 155m
This section directs the Division of Facilities Development within the Department of Administration to charge a fee to state agencies for the building program that is based on the division's budgeted expenditures rather than 4 percent of each building project budget as it has been done for decades.
I am vetoing this section because the modification to the fee methodology will make it administratively much more difficult for the division to effectively oversee the state's building program. The division needs the flexibility to bill the fee after the design and bidding phases of the project have been completed and the project is set to enter the construction phase. Particularly for larger, more complex building projects, completion of the design and bid phases may not coincide with the biennium in which the project is approved, which makes it difficult to pinpoint an exact bidding and contract date and assign a project to a specific fiscal year. In addition, under the current methodology, agencies have a clear understanding of the size of the fee, as opposed to an allocation that may change as projects are resized or rescheduled.
24. Study of Public Library System Efficiencies
Section 9101 (3L)
This section requires the Department of Administration, in consultation with the Department of Public Instruction, to conduct a study to identify potential savings in public library systems through consolidation, technology, efficiencies, LEAN practices and service sharing. Under the section, the Department of Administration is required to submit a report on the study to the Joint Committee on Finance by July 1, 2014.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary. The Department of Public Instruction is the appropriate agency to conduct such a study and has the ability to do so, without a legislative directive, if it believes a study is warranted.
