To committee on Consumer Affairs
.
Referred on April 11, 1996
.
Relating to payment after order.
Submitted by Department of Industry, Labor and Human Relations.
Report received from Agency on March 26, 1996.
To committee on Labor and Employment
.
Referred on April 4, 1996
.
__________________
By Donald J. Schneider, Senate Chief Clerk.
Mr. Speaker:
I am directed to inform you that the Senate has
Passed and asks concurrence in:
Senate Bill 628
__________________
Senate Bill
628
Relating to: the bonding authority of the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority for economic development activities; loan guarantee programs funded by the Wisconsin development reserve fund; and the ratio of reserve funding to guaranteed outstanding principal for the Wisconsin development reserve fund.
By
Senators
Petak and Fitzgerald; cosponsored by Representatives Ward, Riley, Kunicki, Green, Klusman and Jensen
.
To committee on Rules.
__________________
ENROLLED Joint Resolutions
The following Assembly proposals, which have been approved by both the Assembly and Senate, have been enrolled by the Legislative Reference Bureau:
Assembly Joint Resolution 16
Assembly Joint Resolution 62
Assembly Joint Resolution 73
Assembly Joint Resolution 74
Assembly Joint Resolution 77
A1078
Assembly Joint Resolution 80
Assembly Joint Resolution 81
Assembly Joint Resolution 82
Assembly Joint Resolution 83
Assembly Joint Resolution 86
Assembly Joint Resolution 87
Assembly Joint Resolution 88
Assembly Joint Resolution 95
Charles R. Sanders
Assembly Chief Clerk
__________________
Executive Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Governor
Madison
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
The following bills, originating in the Assembly and/or Senate, have been approved, signed and deposited in the office of the Secretary of State:
Bill Number Act Number Date Approved
386179 April 3, 1996
391180 April 3, 1996
43181 April 3, 1996
152182 April 3, 1996
184183 April 3, 1996
231184 April 3, 1996
261185 April 3, 1996
328186 April 3, 1996
343187 April 3, 1996
389188 April 3, 1996
395189 April 3, 1996
534190 April 3, 1996
547191 April 3, 1996
552192 April 3, 1996
930193 April 3, 1996
993194 April 3, 1996
185196 April 4, 1996
271197 April 4, 1996
517198 April 4, 1996
560199 April 4, 1996
658200 April 4, 1996
1070202 April 9, 1996
1071203 April 9, 1996
1072204 April 9, 1996
1073205 April 9, 1996
1074206 April 9, 1996
1075207 April 9, 1996
707208 April 10, 1996
1033 (partial veto) 209 April 10, 1996
652210 April 10, 1996
590211 April 10, 1996
736212 April 10, 1996
808213 April 10, 1996
Respectfully submitted,
Tommy G. Thompson
Governor
__________________
Governor's Veto Message
April 10, 1996
To the Honorable Members of the Assembly:
I have approved 1995
Assembly Bill 1033 as
1995 Wisconsin Act 209 and have deposited it in the office of the Secretary of State. I have exercised the partial veto in sections 14 and 83.
AB 1033 expands the Development Zone program by authorizing the Department of Development to designate an additional four zones and $7 million in tax credits to qualifying businesses. Furthermore, the bill makes the program more flexible by expanding tax credits and eliminating review requirements. I support this program and my objections to this bill are predominately technical in nature. I believe that these vetoes do not change the substance of the bill.
Section 14 expands a five percent research credit for enterprises in development zones from C corporations to individuals operating as sole proprietors. The intent was to make the research credit available to any business, independent of its organizational form. However, as drafted, this section prohibits the expansion of the research credit to partnerships, limited liability companies, and tax option corporations. I am partially vetoing this section.
Section 83 allows the creation of development zones comprised of up to two counties if the area*s total population does not exceed 75,000. I am partially vetoing this provision to eliminate the limitation to two counties. Allowing counties to form development zones was intended to create more flexibility for local governing bodies and to benefit small rural counties. However, the limitation to two counties counteracts this intent. By maintaining the population limits in any multi-county development zone, it is guaranteed that small rural counties can benefit from this new development zone option.
