37. State-Owned Real Property Sales
Sections 14 and 132
These sections modify the authority of the Department of Administration and the Building Commission regarding the sale or lease of state-owned real property, so as to allow the sale of additional state properties if it is in the best interest of the State to do so and to make statutory language regarding sale procedures and the treatment of net proceeds
consistent across both sections.
Because I believe that state assets should only be sold when it is in the best interest of the State to do so, I am maintaining both the Building Commission's and the Joint Committee on Finance's oversight of state-owned real property sales or leases. I am partially vetoing provisions relating to the use of remaining net sale or lease proceeds, after all other conditions have been met, because I object to limiting the flexibility of the Building Commission and Department of Administration in determining which public debt to retire. The effect of this veto is to allow the Building Commission or the Department of Administration secretary the authority to use the net remaining proceeds toward retirement of debt, wherever it is in the best interest of the State to do so.
38. Disaster Damage Aids Passive Review Requirement
Section 1587 [as it relates to the Joint Committee on Finance in s. 86.34 (6) (a) and (b)] Section 1587 [as it relates to the Joint Committee on Finance in s. 86.34 (6) (a) and (b)] requires the Department of Transportation to submit expenditures of greater than $1,000,000 from the department's disaster damage aids, state funds appropriation under s. 20.395 (1) (fs), resulting from a single disaster, to the Joint Committee on Finance for 14-day passive review and approval. I am partially vetoing this section to remove the Joint Committee on Finance's 14-day passive review requirement for expenditures of more than $1,000,000 related to a single
disaster. I am vetoing this provision because disaster damage aids should not be subject to passive review, as disaster response is needed rapidly. Subjecting these expenditures to passive review may unnecessarily delay the release of funding to repair disaster-related damages.
39. Environmental Impact Statement – East Arterial Highway
Section 1534g
Section 1534g requires the Department of Transportation to conduct an environmental impact statement in the 2013-15 fiscal biennium for a proposed major east arterial highway that begins at the intersection of STH 54 and STH 73 in the village of Port Edwards and extends to the intersection of STH 54 and CTH W in the city of Wisconsin Rapids with funding from the department's major highway development program. This section requires the department to conduct the environmental impact statement notwithstanding the current law requirement that the Transportation Projects Commission recommend the preparation of an environmental impact statement or environmental assessment for a proposed major highway development project before the department undertakes such an action.
I am vetoing this section because the effort and funding that would be expended to complete the environmental impact statement are premature. The conditions which will be evaluated by the environmental impact statement required by this provision may change sufficiently, prior to the enumeration of the project, that a new environmental impact statement may be needed before the project proceeds. This may lead to redundant department expenditures.
40. Strategic Blight Elimination Grants
Sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.490 (1) (k)], 204b, 413m, 2055b, 9214 and 9226 (1L) These provisions provide for the transfer of funds from the Department of Financial Institutions and Department of Justice for grants issued by the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority (WHEDA) for the elimination of blighted, abandoned properties.
I am vetoing these provisions in their entirety because I object to the Legislature directing how the Attorney General uses discretionary settlement funds and how the Department of Financial Institutions should use funds from its gifts and grants appropriation. Both departments have already contributed towards WHEDA's statewide blight mitigation program that was begun in 2012 and based on the success of the program, have discussed continuation of the program beyond July 2013. I encourage the departments to continue to participate in the next round of grants to the greatest extent possible given competing priorities for these funds.
F. Improving Mental Health Programs
41. Family Care Enrollees Admitted to Mental Health Institutes
Sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.865 (4) (a)], 347j, 347k, 831f, 831p, 9118 (5e) and 9418 (10e) This provision appropriates $500,000 GPR in one-time funding during the 2013-15 biennium in the Joint Committee on Finance supplemental appropriation under s. 20.865 (4) (a) to fund a portion of the costs that counties will incur for county residents who were enrolled in the Family Care program who receive inpatient services from a state mental health institute prior to July 1, 2015. The provision requires the Department of Health Services to report to the Joint Committee on Finance by September 1, 2013, on issues related to county cost liability for residents formerly enrolled in Family Care who are admitted to the state mental health institutes; request the release of the funds
following the submission of the report; reimburse counties for qualifying costs using a specified schedule; and notify responsible counties of new admissions within 48 hours. Further, the provision requires managed care organizations to maintain records of enrollee emergency contacts, require managed care organizations and counties to create emergency plans for Family Care enrollees deemed at risk of admission to a mental health institute, and specify the members of a placement team that must be created for each Family Care member admitted into a state mental health institute.
I am vetoing sections 347j, 347k, 831f, 831p, 9118 (5e) and 9418 (10e) and writing down section 200 [as it relates to s. 20.865 (4) (a)] because I object to the establishment of a short-term stop-gap program to address the ongoing, complex issues that hamper the placement of individuals with long-term care and mental health treatment needs in the most appropriate setting. Instead, I am directing the Department of Health Services to analyze the factors that contribute to impediments in providing appropriate, patient-centered and coordinated treatment for individuals with co-occurring mental health, behavioral health and long-term care needs, including an insufficient number of placement options, and to recommend options for addressing these factors, including the role of the department's mental health institutes and centers for the developmentally disabled. Further, I am directing the department to review and recommend organizational changes to improve the development and implementation of policies to better address the needs of individuals with mental and behavioral health needs in the state's long-term care delivery systems. By lining out the appropriation under s. 20.865 (4) (a) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $500,000 in fiscal year 2013-14, I am vetoing the portion of the bill that funds this provision. Finally, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. G. Helping Victims of Domestic Violence
42. Global Positioning System Tracking Grant Program
Section 1942m [as it relates to matching funds]
This provision creates a pilot program for the Department of Justice to provide grants to counties to establish a global positioning system (GPS) tracking program for persons who are subject to domestic abuse or harassment temporary restraining orders or injunctions. Counties are required to provide a 50 percent match for any grant funds received under the program, and two or more counties may jointly establish and administer a program, and apply for and receive a grant under the GPS tracking pilot grant program.
I am partially vetoing this provision because I object to the 50 percent match requirement in order for a county or counties to receive grant funds. This creates an additional financial burden on smaller counties and is counterproductive for the purposes of a pilot program.
H. Reforming Health Care Entitlements
43. Voluntary Reduction in FoodShare Benefits
Section 1211v
This section requires the Department of Health Services to allow recipients to elect to receive FoodShare benefits in an amount that is less than the amount for which the individual or the individual's household is eligible.
Although I support the intent of the provision to allow recipients to elect to receive a lower benefit amount, thereby reducing program costs, I am vetoing this section because it is prohibitively difficult to implement and administer, likely resulting in higher administrative expenditures than the amount saved from the reduction in benefit payments. Further, the additional administrative cost is unnecessary since FoodShare recipients may currently elect to spend less than the amount of benefits issued in each month, with unexpended benefits expiring after 12 months.
44. Allocations to Income Maintenance Consortia
Section 1211b
This section requires the Department of Health Services to reimburse a multicounty consortium for income maintenance services provided under contract using a method determined by the department that includes the number of cases for which the consortium is responsible and the complexity of those cases.
I am partially vetoing this section because the criteria for allocation of the funding are overly vague and not defined in statute. Further, I object to the inflexibility of the language as it prevents the department and multicounty consortia from modifying the allocation criteria in the future to meet changing program needs. The partial veto will allow the department to work cooperatively with the multicounty income maintenance consortia to determine a funding allocation methodology that best reflects income maintenance workloads.
45. FoodShare Employment and Training Reporting Requirement
Section 1215m
This section requires the Department of Health Services to report annually, beginning January 1, 2015, to the Joint Committee on Finance and Legislature on FoodShare employment and training outcomes, including the number of able-bodied adults subject to the benefit time limit, the number of able-bodied adults subject to the benefit time limit who disenrolled from the program, and the impact of the work requirement enforcement on the payment error rate and income maintenance workloads.
Although I agree with the intent of the section to regularly report on the results of the employment and training program, I am vetoing this section because the program will not be fully implemented before the initial reporting date and a partial analysis would be premature. I am instructing the department to provide the requested information as soon
as practicable following a reasonable period of statewide implementation.
46. Certified Medical Coder Position
Section 1043p
This section requires the Department of Health Services to employ at least one full-time certified medical coder to improve Medicaid payment accuracy.
I am vetoing this section because I object to limiting the flexibility of the department to hire or contract for services in the most financially sound manner and to determine the best use of state resources, including state personnel, in ensuring the integrity of the Medicaid program.
47. Self-Directed Services Waiver for Post-Secondary Education
Section 834h
This section requires the Department of Health Services to request a federal home and community-based services waiver to provide Medicaid coverage for services provided to individuals with developmental disabilities receiving post-secondary education on the grounds of a health care institution. If the waiver is approved, the department shall limit the coverage to 100 individuals per month and shall determine the funding for each participant based on the benefit levels for the Include, Respect, I Self-direct (IRIS) waiver program.
I am partially vetoing this section because certain provisions of the language are too narrow and may conflict with federal definitions and waiver requirements. The partial veto is intended to improve the chances of receiving federal approval for the new waiver by removing the requirements that the institution be defined as a health care institution and that funding for each participant in the new waiver be based on the IRIS waiver program.
I. Protecting Our Citizens
48. Crime Prevention Funding Boards and Crime Prevention Funding Board Surcharge
Sections 514s, 1238m, 1239m, 1243m, 2291m, 2293m, 2352m, 2358m and 9129
This provision creates a $20 crime prevention funding board surcharge which would be applied to any misdemeanor or felony conviction. The surcharge is to be assessed only after an offender pays the global positioning system (GPS) tracking surcharge in full. The crime prevention funding board surcharge revenue must be retained by the county treasurer in a crime prevention fund and be distributed as grants at the direction of a crime prevention funding board, which is created in every county, which consists of the following individuals, or their designees: the district attorney; the sheriff; either the county executive, administrator or county board chairperson; the chief elected official of the city, village or town with the largest population in the county; a person chosen by majority vote of the sheriff and police chiefs in the county; and the presiding judge of the circuit court. The board may solicit applications and award grants to certain specified entities. At least half of the funds must go to one or more private, nonprofit organizations that has as its primary purpose preventing crime, providing a funding source for crime prevention programs, encouraging the public to report crime or assisting law enforcement agencies in the apprehension of criminal offenders. The board may direct that the rest of the funds be distributed to a law enforcement agency that has a crime prevention fund. The board and grant recipients must submit reports regarding the use of the funds to the clerk of court for the county, the county board and the legislative bodies of each municipality located in the county.
I am vetoing these sections because I object to the creation of an additional surcharge and an additional board, which may have no demonstrated effectiveness. There are already numerous surcharges on felony and misdemeanor convictions, and adding an additional surcharge will detract surcharge revenue from many other proven and worthwhile crime victim services and law enforcement programs.
49. Regulation of Bail Bond Agents, Bail Bond Agencies and Bail Bond Recovery Agents
Sections 200 [as it relates to s. 20.165 (1) (gk)], 204s [as it relates to s. 440.282],204w, 2179t, 2179w, 2183e, 2183m, 2183s, 2187c, 2187g, 2187h, 2187i, 2187j, 2187k, 2187L, 2187m, 2187n, 2187o, 2265ce, 2285m, 2342c, 2342g, 2342n, 2342r, 2342w, 9138 (1i) and 9438 (1i) These provisions require the Department of Safety and Professional Services to regulate and license bail bond agents, bail bond agencies and bail bond recovery agents; and to collect annual licensing fees of $1,000 per agent or agency, under requirements promulgated by administrative rule. Bail bond agents, bail bond agencies and bail bond recovery agents are compensated 10 percent of the bond set, but may only be compensated for an action brought in Dane, Kenosha, Milwaukee, Racine or Waukesha counties for the first five years.
I am partially vetoing sections 200 and 204s, and I am vetoing sections 204w, 2179t, 2179w, 2183e, 2183m, 2183s, 2187c, 2187g, 2187h, 2187i, 2187j, 2187k, 2187L,
2187m, 2187n, 2187o, 2265ce, 2285m, 2342c, 2342g, 2342n, 2342r, 2342w, 9138 (1i) and 9438 (1i) because I object to the potential negative impact on the payment of restitution to victims and fines. Just as the creation of an additional surcharge will detract from existing crime victim services and law enforcement programs, the allocation of 10 percent of the bond to these entities will reduce funds for these important programs. This policy is best addressed through separate legislation to provide opportunity for additional study of the current system of pretrial release and to allow for public input.
