These sections authorize the Department of Commerce to make a grant or loan of up to $1,200,000 from the Wisconsin Development Fund for a project that includes a pedestrian bridge. The project must be located in the City of Madison and be bounded by Regent Street, North Murray Street, West Dayton Street, North Frances Street, Frances Court and West Washington Avenue.
I am partially vetoing these sections to delete the confinement of the project to the City of Madison because an award of this nature should be made on a competitive basis. I am also vetoing the department's authority to make a grant for this project because it is inconsistent with the goals of the Wisconsin Development Fund. The major economic development component of the Wisconsin Development Fund is a program structured to provide loans to large economic development projects which will, in turn, fund future projects when repaid.
5. Wisconsin Development Finance Board Membership and Award Notification
Sections 59c and 4499e
These sections modify the membership of the board and require notification of legislators of any award presentations. Section 59c requires that the board include a majority party and a minority party legislator from each house of the legislature. Section 4499e requires that at least ten days before an award from the Wisconsin Development Fund is presented, the Department of Commerce notify the state representative and state senator of the district in which the award recipient is located.
I am vetoing the requirement of additional board members because this expansion is unnecessary. The board presently has nine members representing a diverse group of industry and government leaders. Expanded membership could lead to a longer award process and ultimately limit critical economic development projects.
A334
I am vetoing the specific requirement regarding notice being given in advance of award presentations because it is impractical. The Wisconsin Development Finance Board makes all decisions concerning awards from the Wisconsin Development Fund. The department does not know in advance whether an award will be made. The department does notify affected legislators of awards and presentations in a timely manner and should continue this practice.
6. Farm Enterprise Grants
Sections 4383n and 4393
These sections set a maximum grant amount and specify the funding source for the farm enterprise element of the Rural Economic Development program. Section 4393 establishes a maximum grant allowable under the program of $15,000. Section 4383n requires farm enterprise grants to be funded from the appropriation under s.
20.143 (1) (g), for gifts and grants.
I am vetoing the maximum grant level because it would not provide recipients with sufficient means to successfully start, expand or modernize farming operations. While this veto would remove a statutory grant maximum, the Rural Economic Development Board has the authority to establish a more reasonable maximum grant for the program through administrative rules.
I am vetoing the requirement that farm enterprise grants be funded from the gifts and grants appropriation because it limits the Department of Commerce's flexibility to fund this activity. The Rural Economic Development program continues to grow and flexible allocation strategies will be critical to its continued success.
7. Downtown Wisconsin Fund Study
Section 9110 (6n)
This provision directs the Department of Commerce to study the feasibility of creating a fund to provide financial assistance to small and medium-sized municipalities to assist in revitalizing downtown commercial districts, preserving farmland and preventing urban sprawl. The department would be required to submit a report to the Joint Committee on Finance at the second quarterly meeting of the committee for fiscal year 1997-1998 under section
13.10 of the statutes.
I am vetoing this provision because this study is unnecessary. The department currently has a number of programs that address downtown revitalization, including the Main Street and Community Based Economic Development programs. Furthermore, the Wisconsin Land Council, as established in this bill, will be reviewing state programs that impact critical land use issues, including farmland preservation and urban sprawl, seeking ways of reducing conflicts, and fostering state and local cooperation.
8. Minority Business Development Grants
Sections 4532g and 4532m
Sections 4532g and 4532m repeal the exclusion of entertainment or other pre-approval expenses from eligible project costs under the Minority Business Development Finance program.
I am vetoing this provision because it could increase costs and reduce funding available for grants. Repealing this exclusion would increase the department's administrative costs by requiring audits of these expenses for appropriateness. Limiting the extent of reimbursable costs helps ensure that eligible applicants are committed to project success.
9. City of Ladysmith Grant
Section 9143 (2n)
This section requires that the Investment and Local Impact Fund Board provide a $480,000 grant to the City of Ladysmith from the Investment and Local Impact Fund to compensate for costs associated with mining.
I am vetoing this section because any grant from the Investment and Local Impact Fund (ILIF) should be awarded through the current, competitive process. The ILIF Board will make awards based on an objective review of grant applications. Given the City of Ladysmith's success in receiving past grant awards from the fund, future applications should be able to compete well under the current process. The state has supported the City of Ladysmith's efforts in the area of economic diversification and development, and can be expected to continue that support in the future.
natural resources
10. Dry Cleaner Response Fund
Sections 344m, 873r, 906e, 2410ts and 3721e
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to reimburse owners and operators of dry cleaning operations for expenses related to assessment and remediation of environmental contamination caused by dry cleaning solvents that occurred after January 1, 1991. Reimbursable expenses also include financing charges and compensation for bodily injury and property damage suffered by third parties. The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance would be required to define by rule the meaning of liabilities excluded from coverage in liability insurance policies for bodily injury and property damage for this program. The maximum award under the program would be $600,000 with progressive deductible payments by award recipients.
Under the dry cleaner response fund, 46 percent of the annually appropriated funds would be set aside for the reimbursement of costs associated with interim actions. The next highest funding priority would be immediate action awards. If insufficient funds are available in the dry cleaner awards appropriation (s.
20.370 (6) (eq)), the department would be required to make immediate action awards from the spills appropriation (s.
20.370 (2) (dv)). Furthermore, the Department of Natural Resources would be required to make immediate action awards within two days after submittal.
A335
I am vetoing sections 344m and 873r, and partially vetoing sections 906e, 2410ts, and 3721e to remove the requirement that the Department of Natural Resources make awards from the spills appropriation for immediate actions because it would undermine the department's flexibility to meet all environmental cleanup needs. The spills appropriation funds a variety of critical cleanup activities, including the remediation of hazardous substance spills and the cleanup of abandoned containers and contaminated wells. The department must have the authority to meet multiple situations that threaten the environment, including contamination from dry cleaning activities.
I am partially vetoing section 3721e to delete the requirement that the department make immediate action awards within two days after submittal because it is unreasonable. The department needs sufficient time to review claims to ensure that funds are being used appropriately and cleanups are achieving environmental goals. While a two day turnaround is problematic, I request that the department process claims in a timely manner within the financial limits of the fund.
I am partially vetoing section 3721e to eliminate compensation for third party damages and associated Office of the Commissioner of Insurance rule development requirements, restrict reimbursement of claimant financial charges, and reduce the maximum grant award from $600,000 to $500,000 because these provisions are excessive. The expected annual revenue of $1,900,000 is minimal compared to the potential claims against the fund. By eliminating reimbursement for non-cleanup related expenses and limiting maximum awards, more owners and operators will be reimbursed.
I am also requesting the Department of Natural Resources to address in rule development the provisions that were removed through the veto of the maximum grant award level related to financial assistance limits for multiple facilities. These include limits of up to $250,000 in one program year to an owner or operator of ten or fewer dry cleaning facilities and not more than $500,000 in a program year to an owner or operator of ten or more dry cleaning facilities. Action by the department on this matter will ensure that limited resources in the fund reach the maximum number of eligible claimants.
11. Certified Remediation Professionals
Sections 169 [as it relates to 20.370 (2) (fg)], 346s, 3727g, 9137 (7n) and 9437 (2m)
These sections require persons who perform certain remediation activities to be certified by the Department of Natural Resources, and provide resources for the implementation of the program.
I am vetoing this program because it requires further review and discussion. The program was designed to control the cost of state funded cleanup programs by requiring additional certification requirements for individuals overseeing cleanups. I am supportive of examining ways to reduce the costs of state-funded cleanup programs, but believe this approach does not fully address concerns regarding installation of various remediation plans and practices. Since the need for cost control mechanisms is most pressing in the PECFA program, I request the Department of Commerce to convene a group of interested parties and experts to examine the subject and propose possible options for inclusion in future legislation.
12. Voluntary Party Liability Limitation
Sections 3663, 3664, 3665, 3666, 3668 and 9137 (6g) (c)
These provisions create a contradictory definition of voluntary parties that are eligible for exemptions from liability under various state environmental protection laws. In addition, these provisions require the Department of Natural Resources to complete a brownfields study by March 1, 1998.
I am partially vetoing the voluntary party provisions to avoid a contradiction in the definition of responsible party that will become effective on July 1, 1998. Since my veto leaves no definition of voluntary party in the statutes between the effective date of the budget and July 1, 1998, I request the Department of Natural Resources to provide assurance letters to potential voluntary parties on a case-by-case basis during this interim period. The combination of assurance letters and new definition of voluntary party best represents the compromise reached by the Senate and the Assembly during budget deliberations. I believe that the broader definition of voluntary party created in this budget will greatly assist in the redevelopment of a large number of brownfields sites and bring economic development and jobs to all areas of the state.
I am vetoing the March 1, 1998 deadline for the submittal of a brownfields study because the timeframe is too short to complete a study of this magnitude. I believe that this study will play an important role in further developing the state's land recycling program. Therefore, the Departments of Natural Resources, Commerce, Administration, Transportation, and Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection should work together in developing a comprehensive study that fully addresses the required elements by January 1, 1999.
13. Land Recycling Loans
Section 3569
This provision expands eligibility for land recycling loans under the clean water fund to individuals, corporations, partnerships, associations and commissions.
I am partially vetoing this section to maintain the financial integrity of the clean water fund. Clean water fund bonds currently have a very high rating and associated low interest costs to the state in part because shared revenue payments to local governments are used as collateral against repayment of clean water loans. An expansion in eligibility beyond local governments to entities with different financial structures and security features could reduce confidence in the fund and ultimately lead to higher interest costs to the state. Operationally, significant administrative costs would be incurred related to the amount of underwriting and financial analyses necessary to review the creditworthiness of these entities. While this approach is not cost-effective, this bill authorizes other financial resources to non-governmental entities for redevelopment, including a low-interest loan guarantee program in the Wisconsin Housing and Economic Development Authority and grants from the Department of Commerce.
A336
14. Clean Water Fund Modifications
Sections 3497e, 3528m, 3537e, 3553, 3561 and 3570
These sections make changes to the clean water fund program and the newly created safe drinking water program. Sections 3537e, 3553, 3561, and 3570 create a safe drinking water hardship program for projects serving small municipalities. Grants of up to 80 percent of project costs could be awarded, with the remaining costs eligible for a loan with interest subsidized at 33 percent of market rate.
Under sections 3497e and 3528m, DNR would be required to accept household income figures calculated by a third party in place of U.S. Bureau of Census data for sanitary districts with populations of less than 2,500.
I am vetoing the safe drinking water hardship grant program because it will deplete the state and federally funded drinking water revolving loan fund and sharply curtail the number of communities that will be able to receive financial assistance. Since funds used for grants are not available for lending to other communities, state costs will increase to underwrite the program. I recognize the goal of addressing the financial needs of communities with lower than average incomes, and the increased loan interest subsidy for qualifying communities is meant to meet those critical needs.
I am also vetoing the option of submitting third party household income data because these special requirements undermine the ability of the Departments of Natural Resources and Administration to fund hardship projects based on objective and generally accepted criteria. Allowing the use of third party data in place of objective census data would require significant amounts of staff time for review and make it impossible to equitably compare and rank districts based on income.
15. Remediation of Waste Tire Manufacturing Dumps
Section 9137 (4eq) (b)
This provision establishes a limit of $400,000 in the waste tire removal and cleanup appropriation under s.
20.370 (2) (da) for the elimination of tire dumps that contain solid waste resulting from manufacturing tires.
I am vetoing this provision to eliminate the $400,000 limit because this level of funding may be insufficient to clean up all affected sites. Since cleanup of these tire dumps is a high priority, the Department of Natural Resources should have the flexibility to use the funds as needed within the overall appropriation level after waste tire reimbursement grants are paid. The department should proceed with clean up of identified sites in a timely manner and limit the cost to no more than $500,000.
16. Recycling Financial Assistance Study
Section 3614mg
This provision requires the Department of Natural Resources to submit a study to the Legislature outlining funding mechanisms to continue municipal recycling grants through at least the year 2004.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the September 1, 1998 due date of the study because the time frame is too short to develop a comprehensive set of options. I recognize the need to consider options for meeting the financial needs of local recycling programs. The department will need sufficient time to gather information and develop appropriate strategies. Therefore, I request that the department complete its efforts by January 1, 1999.
17. Water Quality Performance Standards
Sections 3273r and 3487p
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) to set performance standards and prohibitions for non-agricultural nonpoint water pollution sources. The department is also required to develop technical standards to implement these performance standards.
In addition, these sections require DNR and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, in consultation with each other, to set performance standards and prohibitions for agricultural nonpoint water pollution sources and develop best management practices and technical standards to implement the standards and prohibitions. Until cost-sharing funds are available to assist existing agricultural facilities with compliance, DNR or municipalities may not enforce these performance standards and prohibitions.
I am partially vetoing these provisions to limit the scope of the non-agricultural requirements because they could conflict with existing regulation of these activities. The Departments of Commerce and Transportation have authority under current law to regulate erosion on certain construction sites. I request that DNR work with the Departments of Commerce and Transportation to create a process for the development and dissemination of technical standards to implement the performance standards for non-agricultural nonpoint water pollution sources. These changes maintain DNR's authority under the bill but avoid duplicating existing rules and regulations.
18. Watershed Stewardship Grant Program
This section creates a program to provide grants to assist in the formation and development of local watershed groups. The section also requires the Department of Natural Resources to fund a nonprofit organization that will administer the grants and establish a center to encourage, facilitate the development of, and educate local watershed groups.
A337
I am vetoing these provisions because the program is not a cost-effective use of state funds. The state already has a number of grant programs that seek to increase local and community involvement in water quality protection activities. The Land and Water Conservation Board also provides significant public involvement in watershed financing and policy development. I remain committed to local watershed efforts as evidenced through the significant increase in funding for the Priority Watershed and Land and Water Resource Management Programs. This bill appropriates approximately $48 million for local assistance and cost-sharing grants to improve water quality across the state. To ensure that these funds are used in the most effective means possible, I suggest that the Land and Water Conservation Board consider alternatives that promote local involvement in and responsibility for water quality activities.
19. Willow Flowage
Section 3487d
This section designates the Willow Flowage as an outstanding resource water.
I am vetoing this section because it is unnecessary and infringes on the Natural Resources Board's authority to designate waters and waterways as outstanding resource waters. The board is currently reviewing the appropriateness of assigning this designation to the Willow Flowage.
20. Water Pollution Credit Trading Pilot
Sections 3606 and 9137 (1hm)
These sections require the Department of Natural Resources to administer at least one pilot project to evaluate a water pollution credit trading program and to select the Hay River watershed as one of the pilot projects. Also, these sections prohibit the department from beginning any new pilot projects after June 30, 1999.
I am partially vetoing section 3606 and vetoing section 9137 (1hm) to remove the June 30, 1999 date and the Hay River project designation because they unnecessarily limit the department's ability to successfully administer and evaluate a pilot of this new program. Since water pollution credit trading is an innovative approach to improving water quality, the department will need time to work with potential participants. In addition, I am concerned that legislative designations of projects undermine the department's ability to select projects based on merit. Pilot projects should evaluate a variety of situations in a deliberate fashion that includes significant local input and support.
21. Southeastern Wisconsin Fox River Commission Funding
Sections 378m, 378no and 1148t
These sections create the Southeastern Wisconsin Fox River Commission to conduct studies, liaison with agencies, and implement plans related to water quality and navigation in the Illinois Fox River basin. The commission will consist of local representatives and non-voting members from the Department of Natural Resources and the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission. These sections also allocate $300,000 from recreational boating facilities aids to the commission, which may also receive funds through local government appropriations and gifts and grants.
I am partially vetoing these sections to remove the allocation of $300,000 from recreational boating facilities aids because it is excessive. The commission may receive funds for its activities from local governments, gifts and grants. In addition, the commission may compete with other organizations for funding from state aid programs.
22. Commercial Harvest of Smelt and Alewife
Sections 1105s and 1105t
These sections allow commercial smelt fishing on Lake Michigan during any month except May.
I am vetoing this provision because it would have resulted in a substantial incidental catch and loss of alewife and chubs that would be detrimental to the overall Lake Michigan fishery.
I recognize that Wisconsin's Lake Michigan commercial fishers play an important role in the economy of our state. The expansion in the season length was sought by these businesses in order to increase their smelt harvest and thereby improve their economic viability. I also recognize that Wisconsin citizens greatly value the importance of the salmon and trout fishery in Lake Michigan. Not only is it vitally important to Wisconsin's anglers, it is also important to many other small businesses such as charter fishing operations, motels, bait shops and restaurants.
I have retained the addition of four hours to the commercial fishing day as proposed by the Legislature in order to give Lake Michigan commercial fishers more scheduling flexibility. I am aware that unless additional regulations are adopted by the Department of Natural Resources (DNR), these additional hours of smelt fishing will lead to additional incidental catch of alewives which are a major forage base for our vitally important salmon and trout fishery. I am therefore requesting that DNR immediately implement the additional authority granted to them in this bill to establish by rule a harvest limit for alewife. I am requesting that the department bring an alewife harvest rule to the Natural Resources Board so that it is effective prior to the Green Bay commercial smelt season. The rule should be designed to prevent additional loss of the important alewife forage base.
23. New Stewardship Categories and Badger Trail Development
Sections 762g, 762h, 762k, 762L, 766b, 766c, 766d, 766e, 766f, 766h, 766i, 766m, 766n, 766p, 766q, 766r, 766s, 766ur, 766w, 766x, 766y and 767
