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.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to eliminate the ability of school districts to conduct the special elections to consider referenda as described above, but maintain the effective date of January 1, 2018, for the limitations on referendum scheduling. School referenda should be known and considered by the greatest number of voters possible, and limiting referenda to regularly scheduled election days will further this principle. Maintaining the delayed effective date will allow currently scheduled referenda to take place.
35. Whole Grade Sharing Aid
Sections 183 [as it relates to s. 20.255 (2) (bp)], 208p, 1534p and 9135 (4p) These sections create a grant program in fiscal year 2018-19 for school districts to enter into a whole grade sharing agreement. Grants of $150 per pupil enrolled in a shared grade would be provided to school districts in the first four years of the agreement. In the fifth year, grants are prorated to 50 percent. In addition, the Department of Public Instruction is required to provide a report to the Joint Committee on Finance by February 1, 2019, regarding the number of grant applicants, the number of approved whole grade sharing agreements, the names of participating districts and the grades shared in each district, and how much of the appropriation is awarded or encumbered.
I am vetoing these sections in their entirety to eliminate the grant program for whole grade sharing and related reporting requirements. Whole grade sharing is intended to create savings, which should be a built-in incentive; however, school districts have not taken advantage of whole grade sharing since it became permissible under 2015 Wisconsin Act 55. Therefore, I believe these funds can be repurposed to support more effective programs that support rural schools. 36. Shared Services Aid
These sections create a grant program funded at $2,000,000 in fiscal year 2018-19 for school districts that share administrative functions with local governments or other school districts. Grants would be provided in the following amounts during the first three years of an agreement to share services: $40,000 for sharing a district administrator; $22,500 for sharing a human resources director, information technology coordinator or business manager; and $17,500 for other administrative positions, excluding principals and assistant principals. In the fourth year, grants are prorated to 50 percent, unless the parties to the agreement also are whole grade sharing.
I am vetoing these sections in their entirety to eliminate the grant program for shared services. Sharing services will create savings for school districts; therefore, providing state grants would nullify savings to taxpayers that would result from local actions. In addition, I believe these funds can be repurposed to support more effective programs that support rural schools.
37. Summer School Grants
Section 1482j [as it relates to grant eligibility and uses]
This provision creates a grant program in fiscal year 2018-19 for the Milwaukee Public Schools district and any other school district that receives a "fails to meet expectations" rating on its district report card. These competitive grants are to be awarded to school districts to increase attendance, improve low-performing schools, improve academic achievement and expose pupils to innovative learning activities, all through development, redesign or implementation of a summer school program.
I am partially vetoing this provision to create a grant to the Milwaukee Public Schools for summer school programs. The program proposed in my Executive Budget was targeted to the district to augment the Milwaukee Public Schools district's summer school expansion efforts. I object to the expansion of eligibility because it will dilute the funding, and therefore effectiveness, of the funds in the district. I also believe that language specifying outcomes is unnecessary absent a competitive process, and would diminish the ability of a district to employ the funds in the most effective way. As a result of this veto, the district will receive a grant of $1,400,000 in fiscal year 2018-19 for summer school programs, and no other districts will be eligible to apply for these funds.
38. Virtual Charter School Funding Study
Section 9135 (1t)
This provision requires the Department of Public Instruction to submit a report by January 1, 2019, to the Joint Committee on Finance and appropriate standing legislative committees comparing open enrollment payments and the actual costs of educating virtual charter school pupils.
I am vetoing this provision to eliminate the report. I object to the increased administrative burden on the department.
39. Mental Health Services Grants
Sections 1470g [as it relates to eligibility criteria] and 9135 (4f) [as it relates to an advisory committee]
These sections create a grant program to fund increased collaborations among school district personnel and community mental health service providers. Under these sections, eligible grantees are public schools, independent charter schools, consortia of schools or school districts, or cooperative education service agencies. Applicants for grants must: (a) require providers or contractors to bill Medical Assistance or an appropriate health insurance company for any goods or services provided as part of the collaboration, and (b) seek nonstate funding for costs not covered by Medical Assistance or insurance. The Department of Public Instruction has authority to define additional grant parameters. The department also is required to establish an advisory committee to make recommendations about grant parameters and awards, members of which must include: (a) a current or retired school administrator, (b) a teacher or pupil services license holder, (c) a mental health service provider or representative of a mental health service provider association, (d) a family member of a potential service recipient, and (e) a representative of a school board or charter school. The department is further required to award the full appropriated amount in each year.
I am partially vetoing these sections as they relate to requirements on applicants and the requirement for an advisory committee. I believe schools should have maximum flexibility in designing and implementing these collaborations and therefore the statutes creating the program should be general, not prescriptive. In addition, the requirement for an advisory committee is burdensome. As a result of this veto, the department will have broad flexibility to specify grant criteria in administrative rule without an official advisory committee; however, the department should seek input from interested parties informally.
Workforce Development
40. Technical Education Equipment Grants
This provision creates a technical education equipment grant program, allows the Department of Workforce Development to allocate up to $500,000 GPR annually from the department's workforce training grants appropriation, and requires that: (a) the department award grants of no more than $50,000 to school districts whose grant applications are approved by the department, (b) school districts use dollars for the acquisition of equipment in advanced manufacturing fields, (c) a school district shall provide matching funds equal to 200 percent of the grant amount awarded, (d) school districts apply in accordance to the procedures established by the department, (e) the secretary of the department appoint an advisory committee to review and evaluate applications, and (f) school districts receiving a grant file a report with the department the first three years following the fiscal year in which the grant was received.
I am partially vetoing the provision to delete the requirement for the department secretary to appoint an advisory committee because this provision is administratively burdensome. The department presently seeks input from stakeholders and subject matter experts on a variety of issues and therefore a statutory advisory committee is unnecessary.
C. General Government, Children and Families
Department of Administration
41. Positions for Information Technology Purchasing Report
Section 9101 (11q)
Section 9101 (11q) requires the Department of Administration to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance by August 31, 2018, regarding the activities of four new positions added in fiscal year 2017-18, including: (a) any identified accomplishments such as process improvements or major information technology procurements that were done efficiently or effectively, (b) any savings that the department estimates resulted from the initiative, and (c) plans for additional improvement or projects in fiscal year 2018-19. The 4.0 FTE PR-S positions, split between the divisions responsible for information technology and procurement services, are vacancies from other agencies that have been repurposed for this initiative, which is anticipated to generate savings from standardizing and streamlining contract, procurement and information technology practices. It is estimated that state agencies, excluding the University of Wisconsin System, spent $445 million on information technology procurement in fiscal year 2015‑16. For every 1 percent in reductions to these purchases, the state could save $4.45 million.
I am vetoing this section to remove the reporting requirement because I believe that placing reporting requirements in the statutes is both unnecessary and encroaches on the executive branch's responsibility to manage state agency programs within the statutes and funding levels set by the Legislature. This type of information can be requested by legislators or the legislative service agencies at any time without creating an unfunded mandate in the statutes.
42. Replacement of Information Technology Contractors Report
Section 9101 (11s)
Section 9101 (11s) requires the Department of Administration to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance by August 31, 2018, regarding the activities performed in fiscal year 2017-18 by new permanent positions, which were added to replace contractor staff, including: (a) accomplishments such as system or process improvements, progress or completion of projects, or finished work products; (b) any additional savings or efficiencies that the department can estimate resulted from the work of the positions; and (c) plans or additional improvements, projects or work products for fiscal year 2018-19. Replacing information technology contractors with 54.0 FTE PR-S positions will generate savings of $463,100 PR-S in fiscal year 2017-18 and $3,712,100 PR-S in fiscal year 2018-19.
I am vetoing this section to remove the reporting requirement because I believe that placing reporting requirements in the statutes is both unnecessary and encroaches on the executive branch's responsibility to manage state agency programs within the statutes and funding levels set by the Legislature. This type of information can be requested by Legislators or the legislative service agencies at any time without creating an unfunded mandate in the statutes.
43. State Transforming Agency Resources (STAR) Program and Benefits Realization Report
Section 169t
Section 169t requires the Department of Administration to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance and the Joint Committee on Information Policy and Technology once every six months, beginning in October 2017, relating to the management of the STAR enterprise resource planning system, including: (a) year-to-date expenditures for related system appropriations, (b) master lease originations since the date of the last report, (c) state agency assessments (most recently charged as well as estimated for future fiscal years), (d) the status of the appropriation deficits, and (e) updated information relating to the department's efforts regarding benefits realization, including any actual or anticipated savings or efficiencies associated with the STAR system.
I am vetoing this section to remove this ongoing reporting requirement because I believe that it is unnecessary and redundant to information that has already been and will be provided to the Legislature. The department has been transparent about the implementation and financing of the STAR system, including presentations at the Joint Committee on Information Policy and Technology informational hearing on November 10, 2015, and on March 8, 2017, presentations on the new STAR assessment to all agencies in the spring of 2016, and written updates on each STAR release to the Legislature on February 3, 2016; December 30, 2016; and March 7, 2017. Furthermore, the department has provided, and will continue to provide until the appropriation is no longer in deficit, a significant amount of financial information each year when it submits its spending plan as required under s. 16.513. 44. Self-Funded Portal Annual Report
Section 172
Section 172 requires the Department of Administration to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance and Legislature by October 1 of each year that includes: (a) a financial statement of the state's self-funded portal revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year; (b) a list of the services available through the portal, including the addition of services available since the previous fiscal year; (c) the amounts of any fees charged for each of the services; and (d) a summary of the activity levels of the services provided, as well as any other information the department wishes to provide. The portal does not have a cost to taxpayers, but is fee-based and user-driven by agencies and customer demand for services.
I am vetoing this section to remove the reporting requirement because I believe that it encroaches on the executive branch's responsibility to manage state agency programs within the statutes and funding levels set by the Legislature. In the Executive Budget, the department requested the conversion of the self-funded portal appropriation from annual to continuing, which would have given the department more flexibility in managing the appropriation and expanding the number of e-projects based on existing fee revenue available. As part of this request, the department was directed to report to the Legislature on these projects. Given that the Joint Committee on Finance elected to reject this proposal, it will be involved directly in any expenditure authority increase and can request any additional information it would like at that time.
45. Office of the Commissioner of Insurance Information Technology Position Transfers Report
Section 9101 (11c)
Section 9101 (11c) requires the Department of Administration, in consultation with the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, to prepare a report on information technology services provided to the office and, specifically, any efficiencies created through consolidation during the 2017-19 biennium. This report is to be submitted with the department's 2019-21 budget request.
I am vetoing this section to remove the reporting requirement because I believe that it is unnecessary as the biennial savings related to this initiative have already been estimated at 2.0 FTE PR positions and $216,900 PR. If additional information is of interest, it can be requested of each agency during the 2019-21 biennial budget process.
46. Worker's Compensation Recording Equipment Report
Section 9101 (11i)
Section 9101 (11i) requires the Department of Administration's Division of Hearings and Appeals to conduct a study of the audio and visual needs of worker's compensation hearings and to present the findings no later than June 30, 2018, to the Worker's Compensation Advisory Council, which may submit a recommendation to the division regarding the recording equipment that would be sufficient to replace a court reporter for inclusion in the department's 2019-21 biennial budget request. The proposal included in the Executive Budget would have eliminated the requirement that court reporters record testimony at worker's compensation hearings and would have resulted in a reduction of 4.0 FTE PR-S positions and a savings of $555,000 PR-S in each year. Wisconsin is the only state with a central panel hearing structure to still have court reporters on staff.
I am vetoing this section to remove the requirement to study the issue further and present to the advisory council because I believe that it is unnecessary as this study can be conducted by the division without creating a statutory requirement.
Sections 161d, 161e and 9301 (2f)
This provision specifies that the Department of Administration may not enter into, extend or renew an executive branch agency lease with an annual rent of more than $500,000 unless the secretary signs the lease, a copy of the proposed lease is submitted electronically to the Chief Clerk of each house of the Legislature, and the department notifies the Joint Committee on Finance of the proposed lease and provides the following information and a summary report to the Committee: (a) a cost-benefit analysis comparing the lease with purchasing the space or another suitable space, and (b) an evaluation of comparable lease options within a ten-mile radius of the property proposed in the lease or, if there are not sufficient comparable properties within a ten-mile radius to perform a meaningful comparison, a wider radius as needed to ensure the lease rate per square foot does not exceed the lease rate per square foot on comparable properties or the market rate by more than 5 percent. Each proposed lease would be subject to a 14-day passive review process.
I am vetoing these sections in their entirety because I object to these additional restrictions on the state leasing program. Approving leases is a statutory responsibility of the Department of Administration and the State Building Commission, which includes legislative members. In addition, I am concerned that some landlords could try to use the proposed legislative approval process to circumvent the procurement process. However, I understand the policy goal behind this provision of ensuring that state agencies are evaluating alternatives before entering into large, long-term leases in order to find the most cost-effective option and consequently, I am directing the department to review and improve its existing evaluation procedures for these types of leases.
48. Fee Report with Agency Budget Requests
Section 139m
_Hlk493062499This provision requires each executive branch agency to include in its biennial budget request a report identifying: (a) each fee the agency is authorized to charge, (b) the amount of each fee or method of calculating the fee, (c) the statutory authority to charge the fee, (d) a statement of whether or not the fee is currently charged, (e) a description of how each fee has changed over time, and (f) any recommendation the agency has concerning each fee. _Hlk493061316I am vetoing this provision because I object to these requirements as they are burdensome and not directly related to the budget development process. In addition, although it is unclear what the legislative intent is behind this new mandate, the Legislature (or its service agencies) already has access to this information and has the authority to request any additional information at any time. 49. On-Site Delivery of Human Resources, Payroll and Benefit Functions at Select Agencies
Section 73
