This section requires the Wisconsin Council on Forestry to determine the relative priority of current forestry account expenditures and submit a report with these determinations and recommendations regarding forestry account expenditures for the 2019-21 budget to the Governor, the Department of Natural Resources, and the appropriate legislative standing committees by July 1, 2018.
I am vetoing this section because I object to requiring the council to conducting this review without the completion of the recommended audit of the forestry account. This Act requires the Legislative Audit Bureau to audit the forestry account of the conservation fund to determine whether its expenditures support forestry activities. The results of the audit should be completed prior to preparing any recommendations on forestry account expenditures. Further, the Council can conduct such a study independently.
16. Tainter Lake Water Quality
Section 9133 (7p)
This section provides $65,000 SEG from the nonpoint account of the environmental fund in fiscal year 2017-18 for a pilot project using biomanipulation to improve water quality of Tainter Lake in Dunn County.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to focusing on one type of potential remedy to address the phosphorus and other water quality issues with the lake. Instead, I ask the Department of Natural Resources to study all available options, and use the funds for the remedies that are likely to lead to the most success in improving the water quality.
17. Wolf Damage Payments
Sections 239m and 582h
These provisions prohibit the Department of Natural Resources from prorating claims for damage associated with gray wolves and wildlife damage control and claims. In addition, the department is required to use federal funds and endangered resources funds to pay the claims when necessary, and if those funds are insufficient, the department may request a supplement through s. 13.10 action. Further, the provision deletes the cap on the amount of endangered resources license plate money or income tax checkoff money that could be used for this purpose. Under the provision, the department is required to pay a claim as soon as it determines the claim to be eligible. Under the bill, the provisions apply if the gray wolf is on the federal or state endangered species list. I am partially vetoing these sections because I object to the use of "prorate" to characterize how claims are paid. The department pays damage claims based on the value of the damage established by administrative rule through a panel of experts. Further, I object to permitting more than 3 percent of the voluntary payments for the endangered resources program to be used for wildlife damage claims, as these funds should continue to be used primarily for improving land or habitats for endangered or threatened species. Finally, I object to specifically requiring the use of federal funds for this purpose in statute, as federal funds received by the department are designated for broad purposes. The department has had sufficient funds in the endangered resources general fund appropriation to satisfy all claims for several years, and the use of these other funds is unnecessary.
18. Permit Sale of Dyed Diesel Fuel to Recreational Motor Boats
Sections 147d, 1208m and 9438 (3m)
This provision permits the sale of dyed diesel fuel for use in a recreational motor boat. Under current law, dyed diesel fuel is exempted from the state motor vehicle fuel tax. However, the sale of gasoline or diesel fuel for use in recreational motor boats is subject to the state's motor vehicle fuel tax. The sales and use tax would apply to the sale of dyed diesel fuel to recreational motor boats, which would result in minimal additional revenue to the general fund. The revenue from the tax is then transferred from the transportation fund to the water resources (motorboats) account of the segregated conservation fund based on a formula that includes the motor vehicle fuel tax rate, a standard number of gallons and the number of annual motorboat registrations in the state. The provision would apply retroactively to July 1, 2013.
As a result of the provision, direct revenues to the transportation fund would decrease by $50,000 SEG in fiscal year 2017-18 and $200,000 SEG in fiscal year 2018-19, while the amount of transportation fund revenue transferred to the conservation fund would be unchanged. Under the provision, $50,000 GPR would be transferred from the general fund to the transportation fund in fiscal year 2017-18 and $200,000 GPR from the general fund to the transportation fund in fiscal year 2018-19, and annually thereafter.
I am vetoing this provision because I object to expanding the use of dyed diesel fuel for purposes outside of agriculture and the unnecessary use of GPR to fund the lost revenues. Because of the requirement that the transportation fund transfer certain revenues to the conservation fund based on the fuel tax rate, gallons and the number of annual motorboat registrations, rather than actual fuel taxes collected, this provision results in an unnecessary use of GPR to backfill the transportation fund for revenues it would otherwise collect under current law.
Department of Safety and Professional Services
19. Possession, Use and Transportation of Fireworks and Fireworks Manufacturer Fees
Sections 1680h and 9339 (7f)
This provision modifies current law relating to the possession, use and transportation of fireworks, and increase fees paid by fireworks manufacturers. The following regulations and fees are modified: (a) a person transporting fireworks must hold a permit from a municipality if the person remains in that municipality for 72 hours, rather than 12 hours, or more; (b) a user's permit for possession of fireworks is no longer required, if the person is not a resident of Wisconsin and if the person will not be using fireworks in the state; (c) any fireworks permits issued by a city, village or town may specify a range of dates (rather than a single date) and location of permitted use; and (d) the fireworks manufacturers' fees are increased from $70 to $100 for the four-year credential term. In addition, the provision establishes in statute the license term to manufacture fireworks.
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to increasing fees on Wisconsin manufacturers. There is no evidence that an increase in the fee is required to support the program.
20. Information Technology Projects
This section provides $2,200,000 PR in each year of the biennium in the Joint Committee on Finance's supplemental appropriation for the implementation of an information technology project in the Department of Safety and Professional Services. The provisions require the department to submit a request under s. 13.10 for the release of the funds. I am partially vetoing section 183 [as it relates to s. 20.865 (4) (g)] by lining out the amount under s. 20.865 (4) (g) and writing in a smaller amount that reduces the appropriation by $2,200,000 in each fiscal year to veto the part of the bill that funds the information technology project. I object to creating an additional requirement in order to receive the funds. Under current law, the department can submit a funding request for this project under s. 16.515. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. 21. Local Regulation of Quarries
Sections 982i, 982ib, 982ic, 982id, 982ie, 982if, 982ig, 982m, 982mb, 982mc, 982md, 982me, 982mf, 982q, 982qb, 982qc, 982qd, 982qe, 982s, 984ig, 984ij, 1305p, 9431 (1i), and 9431 (2i)
These provisions outline the parameters for the local regulations of quarries, including creating a definition of quarries, creating definitions relevant to the regulation of quarries, outlining the parameters for the local regulation of quarries, outlining specific provisions on local regulation of blasting at quarries, local regulation of water quality and quantity related to quarry operations, local regulation of air quality and fugitive dust related to quarry operations; and establishing requirements relating to local ordinances in effect prior to the implementation of the provisions. The provisions under the bill generally take effect on April 1, 2018.
I am vetoing these provisions because I object to inserting a major policy item into the budget without sufficient time to debate its merits. While I support the need to address quarry regulations and the ability to provide materials for public works projects in a timely manner, changes of this magnitude should be addressed as separate legislation where the implications can be more carefully explored.
B. Education and Workforce Development
Historical Society
22. State Archive Preservation Facility
This provision provides an additional $72,400 GPR over the biennium for State Archive Preservation Facility rent, and deletes $1,962,400 PR over the biennium.
I am partially vetoing section 183 [as it relates to s. 20.245 (1) (a)] by lining out the amount under s. 20.245 (1) (a) and writing in a smaller amount that reduces the appropriation by $44,000 GPR in the fiscal year 2018-19. This state-of-the-art facility supports the State Historical Society's mission to collect, preserve and share the stories of Wisconsin's past. The state has recognized the importance of this mission by providing $34.67 million – approximately 75 percent of the total cost of the building – in general fund supported bonding for the facility, and an additional $8.4 million in general fund supported bonding for customized shelving systems. However, it is appropriate that the society partner with the state on an ongoing basis to support the cost of operating the facility, as the society is the primary tenant and has the ability to raise funds to support preservation of the precious historical artifacts, maps and documents in its holdings. Other facility tenants will pay rent to support the facility as well. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. Labor and Industry Review Commission
23. Survey of Labor and Industry Review Commission Decisions
Section 9142 (5f)
This section requests that the Chief Justice of the Wisconsin Supreme Court survey decisions of the Labor and Industry Review Commission citing statutes interpreted by the commission and whether the commission's decisions were appealed to the Circuit Court.
I am vetoing this section in its entirety because the study is unnecessary and unlikely to yield useful information.
Technical College System Board
24. Sunset of the Educational Approval Board
Sections 9111 (1p), 9411 (1p) and 9411 (1q)
These provisions administratively transfer the Educational Approval Board and the incumbent employees from the Wisconsin Technical College System to the Department of Safety and Professional Services on January 1, 2018. The board would then sunset on July 1, 2018, and the incumbent staff and current functions would remain with the department.
I am vetoing sections 9111 (1p), 9411 (1p) and (1q) related to the sunset of the board because retaining the board as an entity is unnecessary; the department will provide oversight for the board's functions. As a result of this veto, the board will be eliminated immediately.
25. Educational Approval Board Incumbents
Section 9111 (1q) (bm) [as it relates to the transfer of incumbents]
This provision administratively transfers the Educational Approval Board and the incumbent employees from the Wisconsin Technical College System to the Department of Safety and Professional Services on January 1, 2018. The board would then sunset on July 1, 2018, and the incumbent staff and current functions would remain with the department.
I am partially vetoing the provision related to retaining the incumbent employees in order to provide the department with flexibility related to staffing. As a result of this veto, only positions will transfer to the department.
University of Wisconsin System
26. Performance Funding
These provisions permit University of Wisconsin System institutions to earn funding based upon performance on metrics of their choosing, one each for improvement and excellence, in accordance with a formula that must be submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance for approval or modification under passive review. In addition, these provisions cap the amount of funding that may be allocated for excellence at 30 percent.
I am partially vetoing these provisions for three reasons. First, performance-based funding in higher education should vigorously challenge institutions to improve, and the provisions do not support this level of challenge. Second, I object to limiting the ability of the Board of Regents to reward high-performing institutions, especially if institutions may not choose metrics upon which to be measured. Third, I believe a passive review process does not provide sufficient transparency around such a significant initiative.
The performance funding initiative includes a substantial investment of state dollars, and as such demands achievement and accountability. Allowing institutions to choose the metrics upon which to be measured is likely to result in funding allocations based upon metrics that are easiest for institutions to improve upon or maintain. This partial veto deletes the ability of institutions to choose performance funding metrics, which will ensure funding incentivizes institutions to improve and excel in many areas. In addition, I am vetoing the cap on funding that is allocated based on excellence so that the Board of Regents may decide how much funding is given to high performing institutions; this will encourage institutions to focus on the performance metrics and give the board flexibility in developing a formula. Finally, this partial veto accomplishes transparency by requiring a meeting under s. 13.10 for approval of the board’s formula; the review by the Joint Committee on Finance should be undertaken publicly. 27. Innovation Fund
This provision relates to the creation of an Innovation Fund to support University of Wisconsin System institutions in increasing enrollment in high demand programs through competitive grants. The provision specifies that the Board of Regents is responsible for determining what programs are considered high demand for purposes of the grant program.
I am partially vetoing this provision because it lacks specificity as to the meaning of high demand, and does not require high demand to relate to state priorities (such as creating the workforce needed by the state’s employers). As a result of the veto, the Board of Regents will not have specific authority to determine the definition of high demand. I am directing the Board of Regents to consult with the Department of Workforce Development in developing a request for proposals for grants in order to ensure that chosen programs address state workforce needs.
28. University of Wisconsin System Audits
Section 9148 (2q) (b)
This section suspends the requirement that the Legislative Audit Bureau conduct an annual financial audit of the University of Wisconsin System for the fiscal years 2017-18 and 2018-19. Other provisions substitute an audit by an independent accounting firm for these two years.
_Hlk488226965I am partially vetoing this section because the Legislative Audit Bureau will continue to have other auditing responsibilities related to the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the statewide Single Audit report, and the Annual Fiscal Report – each of which incorporates financial information from the University of Wisconsin System. In addition, this will ensure that both an independent audit and an audit by the Legislative Audit Bureau will be done separately and all parties will have the opportunity to compare auditing practices and findings to determine whether an independent audit is appropriate beyond this biennium. 29. Wisconsin Institute for Sustainable Technology
This provision provides funding of $440,000 SEG annually from the environmental fund for the Wisconsin Institute for Sustainable Technology at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point.
_Hlk488397007I am partially vetoing this provision by lining out the appropriation under s. 20.285 (1) (sp) and writing in a smaller amount that deletes $440,000 in fiscal year 2018-19. This results in a one‑time grant to the institute and avoids committing environmental fund monies for this purpose in the future, before the condition of and pressures on the environmental fund are known. The environmental fund supports activities that are critical to protecting the state's environmental resources through programs such as recycling grants, nonpoint runoff abatement, and solid waste and air management. The University of Wisconsin System has access to other resources to support the institute. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. 30. University of Wisconsin-Green Bay Tribal Gaming Appropriation
This provision provides funding of $247,500 PR-S annually to the University of Wisconsin-Green Bay from tribal gaming revenues.
I am vetoing this provision by lining out the appropriation under s. 20.505 (1) (km) and writing in smaller amounts that delete $247,500 in each fiscal year because I object to the historical use of these funds, which is to support the institution’s athletic programming and is not directly related to tribal affairs. I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary not to allot these funds. 31. Flexible Option Program
Section 9148 (2)
This provision requires the University of Wisconsin System-Extension to increase the number of programs offered as Flexible Option programs by 25 percent from the number of programs offered on the date the budget is enacted. The increase must be accomplished by December 1, 2019.
I am partially vetoing this provision so that the required increase in program offerings by December 1, 2019, is 100 percent. The Flexible Option program is a unique, powerful and affordable tool for nontraditional students to earn degrees or certificates. I believe the University of Wisconsin System can and should aggressively pursue expansion of this program, which will benefit the system, students and employers. Therefore, a 100 percent increase is a more appropriate requirement to challenge the University of Wisconsin System than a 25 percent increase.
Public Instruction
32. Energy Efficiency Revenue Limit Adjustment
Section 1641m
This section permits school district boards to adopt a resolution to exceed the district's revenue limit for energy efficiency projects before January 1, 2018, or after December 31, 2018, only. Effectively, this provision suspends the school district revenue limit adjustment for energy efficiency measures for one year.
I am exercising the digit veto in this section to limit adoption of such resolutions to before January 1, 2018, or after December 3018. I object to the temporary suspension of this revenue limit adjustment because I believe school districts should be required to use referenda to bypass revenue limits. Many of the recently adopted resolutions for energy efficiency measures allowed school districts to exceed revenue limits by a significant amount. Taxpayers should have a direct voice when large property tax increases are under consideration. This veto will maintain the ability for school districts to ask taxpayers if they wish to exceed revenue limits and eliminate an exemption that has been viewed as a loophole to revenue limits.
33. Low Revenue Adjustment
Section 1640g
This section increases the low revenue adjustment for school districts from $9,100 under current law to $9,300 in fiscal year 2017-18; $9,400 in fiscal year 2018-19; $9,500 in fiscal year 2019‑20; $9,600 in fiscal year 2020-21; $9,700 in fiscal year 2021-22; and $9,800 in fiscal year 2022‑23 and each year thereafter.
I am vetoing this section entirely because the result is a substantial increase in property tax capacity that school districts may exercise without voter input. In several school districts that would be eligible to raise taxes under these sections, referenda to exceed revenue limits already failed within the past two years. An increase in revenue authority from the state in these districts would circumvent purposeful, local actions.
It should also be noted that in some cases, the same districts that would have become eligible to increase their revenues with this adjustment have increased their base revenues at a rate higher than the state average. This brings into question the need for this adjustment and highlights the need for local taxpayer input before a revenue limit adjustment is made.
As a result of this veto, the low revenue adjustment level for school districts will remain at $9,100. School districts across the state will benefit from other significant education investments in this budget, including meaningful increases in per pupil aid. These per pupil increases are equal among all school districts. In addition, school districts could pursue an increase in their revenue limit through a referendum as is the case under current law. In fact, numerous districts have already done so by asking taxpayers through a referendum. Increases to the low revenue adjustment can be discussed in future state budgets.
34. School District Referenda Scheduling
Sections 996pr [as it relates to special elections], 1640i [as it relates to s. 121.91 (3) (a) 3.], 1640p, 9335 (1g) [as it relates to s. 121.91 (3) (a) 3.] and 9435 (1w) [as it relates to s. 121.91 (3) (a) 3.] These provisions generally limit the scheduling of school district referenda to regularly scheduled elections up to twice per year, but permit a school board to conduct special elections to consider referenda on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in an odd-numbered year, so long as the special election is not earlier than 70 days after adoption of the related resolution. In addition, school districts that experience increased costs as a result of a natural disaster are permitted to hold a special referendum outside of these limitations, so long as the referenda occurs within six months of the event and at least 70 days elapses between adoption of the initial resolution approving the referenda and the public vote. Section 9435 (1w) specifies an effective date of January 1, 2018, for these provisions.
