Section 79s
This provision requires that the State of Wisconsin Investment Board make an effort before June 30, 2004, to invest not less than $50,000,000 in venture capital investment firms. The provision further stipulates that any venture capital firm that receives money from the board must make an effort to invest that money in businesses located in the areas of Green Bay, Eau Claire, Madison, Janesville-Beloit, La Crosse, Stevens Point-Marshfield, Racine-Kenosha, Milwaukee, Sheboygan-Manitowoc, Superior, the Fox River Valley, Wausau and within the boundaries of any federally recognized Indian reservation.
I am vetoing the part of this provision that limits this money to specific locations because it is in the best interest of the state to encourage investment wherever new ideas and resources spur new business. Limiting this money to particular geographic regions creates unnecessary restrictions that stifle the very innovation this provision attempts to encourage. Limiting seed money for new business to twenty-two of Wisconsin's seventy-two counties excludes many rural areas and several University of Wisconsin campuses and pits regions of the state against each other. Therefore, with this veto I am making sure that money be made available to all Wisconsin firms that promote the economic growth of the state and the creation of an entrepreneurial culture.
PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION
3. Cogeneration Facility at the University of Wisconsin-Madison
Section 9156 (2z)
This provision establishes requirements for the construction of a cogeneration plant that provides electric, steam or chilled water services on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Included among the requirements is that construction of the facility would be completed by July 1, 2004.
I am partially vetoing this provision to remove the July 1, 2004, deadline because it may adversely affect the construction of this facility. While I expect that construction will be completed by July 1, 2004, unforeseen developments occur in many construction projects that delay completion.
4. Exemption from Hiring Freeze for Certain Vacant Commission Positions
Sections 9142 (1x) and 9259 (1) (b)
These provisions exempt 3.0 FTE PR positions at the Public Service Commission related to environmental analyses and engineering reviews from the current freeze on hiring staff and stipulates that the secretary of the Department of Administration would be prohibited from lapsing $707,700 PR from the commission's utility regulation appropriations account unless the commission fills these vacant positions.
A912
I am vetoing these provisions because personnel decisions should rest with agencies and fiduciary responsibility for program revenue transfers should rest with the Department of Administration. If the commission feels that these positions are necessary in ensuring that environmental standards be maintained, then the commission should file for an exemption from the hiring freeze with the Department of Administration. I have asked the Department of Administration to work with the commission to ensure environmental analyses and engineering reviews are completed on time.
I remain fully committed to meeting the state's electric capacity needs in support of economic development and job creation. My veto will not compromise those efforts.
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
5. Fiscal Year 2001-02 Budget Reductions
Sections 9244 (1), 9244 (2), 9244 (3) and 9244 (4)
These sections specify reductions in certain GPR appropriations for the Department of Revenue. More specifically, for fiscal year 2001-02, these sections decrease the department's GPR operations appropriations by 3.5 percent across-the-board.
I am partially vetoing these sections because a reallocation of the fiscal year 2001-02 reductions is necessary to reflect the department's savings efforts. By seeking to best fulfill its mission while generating savings identical to the bill, the department developed a savings pattern different than that yielded by this simple across-the-board calculation.
To implement the reallocation, I am taking two actions. First, I am vetoing for fiscal year 2001-02, the $1,616,300 GPR reduction to the appropriation under s.
20.566 (1) (a), the $354,800 GPR reduction to the appropriation under s.
20.566 (2) (a), the $717,400 GPR reduction to the appropriation under s.
20.566 (3) (a) and the $179,500 GPR reduction to the appropriation under s.
20.566 (3) (b). Second, to provide an equivalent savings to the general fund, I am requesting the Department of Administration secretary to place in unallotted reserve in fiscal year 2001-02 the following amounts to lapse to the general fund: $190,400 GPR from the appropriation under s.
20.566 (1) (a), $62,800 GPR from the appropriation under s.
20.566 (2) (a), $812,300 GPR from the appropriation under s.
20.566 (3) (a) and $1,802,500 GPR from the appropriation under s.
20.566 (3) (b). Because the dollar total of both of these actions is $2,868,000 GPR, this veto has no fiscal impact.
6. Fiscal Year 2002-03 Budget Reductions and Positions
Sections 9144 (1vv), 9144 (1vw) and 9244 (1)
Sections 9144 (1vv) and 9144 (1vw) require the Department of Revenue to retain thirteen agents in the department's alcohol and tobacco enforcement section and ten large-case auditors in New York at least until July 1, 2003. Section 9244 (1), in part, specifies that the department's appropriation under s.
20.566 (1) (a) shall be decreased by $636,600 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03. This reduction to the appropriation under s.
20.566 (1) (a) is significantly below my initial reduction to the appropriation and reflects the Legislature's action to provide funding for the positions it directed the department to retain.
I am vetoing sections 9144 (1vv) and 9144 (1vw) because these directives are unnecessarily restrictive. With my veto, the department will be able to better allocate resources to meet its overall tax collection mission. I am partially vetoing section 9244 (1) by lining out the amount related to fiscal year 2002-03 and writing in a larger amount. This partial veto will reduce the appropriation under s.
20.566 (1) (a) by an additional $896,200 GPR in fiscal year 2002-03. I am also requesting the Department of Administration secretary to not allot these funds. I am making this partial veto of section 9244 (1) because the budget flexibility provided by vetoing the position directives will enable the department to more efficiently use its resources. Eliminating $896,200 GPR from the department's fiscal year 2002-03 budget as passed by the Legislature will also return the department's overall budget reductions to the five percent cut I specified in my initial budget reform bill provisions, exclusive of the additional resources provided for modifying tax forms for campaign finance reform. This amount is less than the 6.5 percent reduction that will be incurred by most agencies.
SHARED REVENUE AND TAX RELIEF
7. Expenditure Restraint and Shared Revenue Utility Payments
Sections 54, 55, 234, 234b, 244d, 245, 246, 247, 248, 249, 250 and 251
These provisions end payments under the Expenditure Restraint Program and the utility component of shared revenue. These provisions also set the total to be distributed under the bill's new County and Municipal Aid Account at $999,709,900 beginning in 2004.
I am partially vetoing these provisions because expenditure restraint and utility payments should both be retained. As a result of my veto, expenditure restraint and utility payments will continue and funding under the newly created County and Municipal Aid Account will be decreased by an estimated $86,900,000. Expenditure restraint payments will be set at the current law amount of $58,145,700 for 2004 and beyond. Shared revenue utility payments will adjust annually to the amount determined by the current law formulas and are estimated at $28,800,000. Total shared revenue funding will remain at $999,709,900 for 2004 and beyond except that this total will increase or decrease according to changes in utility payments.
Through the new County and Municipal Aid Account, the bill modifies shared revenue to reward communities that create savings through consolidation and cooperation. Specifically, up to $45,000,000 of shared revenue funding will be reallocated to counties and municipalities that save taxpayer dollars by working together. While this new program marks a significant step forward in Wisconsin's willingness to examine how costs can be reduced, the loss of the existing cost containment feature of the Expenditure Restraint Program would be unfortunate. My veto to restore expenditure restraint payments means that shared revenue will now include two savings incentives, rather than only one.
A913
My veto also encourages economic growth. Under the bill as passed by the Legislature, the incentive to host new power plants would have been eliminated. With my veto, localities that host new power plants will continue to be rewarded for helping Wisconsin secure a better future.
Given the strong link between energy and economic growth, I remain committed to ensuring a strong state effort to guarantee our energy supplies. Since my veto can only restore current law utility payments, I once again encourage the Legislature to pass improvements to this vital program.
8. Definition of Agricultural Land for Use Value
Sections 156b, 156d, 156e, 9144 (1m) and 9344 (1m)
These sections, in part, provide that land in agricultural use is eligible for use value assessment if the land is on a farm and a form has been filed that specifies that the land is part of a farm. These sections also require that a form must be filed with the local assessor when land is no longer eligible for use value.
I am partially vetoing these sections to eliminate the requirement that land in agricultural use must be on a farm to receive use value. I am also partially vetoing these sections to eliminate the filing requirements. I am making these partial vetoes because these requirements will cause substantial confusion, unnecessary work and will take needed tax breaks away from deserving farmland.
The bill defines a farm as a business engaged in activities included in crop production or animal production as specified under the North American Industry Classification System. Because this definition is too narrow, however, to include several types of land currently included in the Department of Revenue's definition of agricultural use, the bill may force property tax increases on a substantial amount of agricultural land. As a result of my veto, land devoted to Christmas tree and ginseng growing, as well as land enrolled under certain federal conservation programs, will clearly remain under use value.
Besides this definitional concern, the bill's filing requirements are unnecessary, inefficient and counterproductive. Under the bill, if any farmer fails to file a form specifying the parcels included in the farm by March 1st, the land loses use value assessment. This will occur even if the land has been in agricultural use for many years and there is no doubt that the land is farmland. If a form is not filed, the bill demands that the land be revalued. Since the reclassification of the land may be reversed through appeal, this extra work load can be a waste of time and effort. Finally, the requirement that a form be filed when land is no longer eligible for use value is unneeded because assessors will be, in virtually all cases, already aware of changes related to the use of the land.
Because of my vetoes, farmers will not need to take any action, or file any form, to continue receiving use value benefits. There will be no need for tens of thousands of farmers to file forms that state the obvious and not a single acre of farmland will inadvertently lose its use value assessment because of improper definitions or bureaucratic requirements.
9. Annexation in Dane County
Section 151e
This section allows a city or village to annex certain town territory in Dane County by a two-thirds vote of the city or village's governing body until December 31, 2003.
I am vetoing this section because better means are available to improve consolidation and cooperation among localities. This provision is targeted at one municipality, the town of Madison, and provides no voice to the residents of the territory that would be annexed. Instead of this piecemeal and involuntary approach, a more comprehensive and positive solution to municipal fragmentation is needed. Fortunately, the bill includes such an approach. The consolidation incentive program created by the bill provides localities with a significant stimulus to seek win-win arrangements. It applies to not only the consolidation of services, but to the consolidation of municipalities as well. While I fervently encourage our local governments to increase cooperative efforts, I will not allow one locality to force its will upon another. Instead, I will promote the use of the new consolidation incentive program and request the Task Force on State and Local Government to examine how win-win consolidations may be better facilitated by the state.
10. Local Subdivision Regulation
Section 367e
This section allows a municipality to require, as a condition for approval of a land division, the dedication of land or the payment of fees for the construction of public facilities.
I am vetoing this section because such sweeping authority demands further examination before being implemented. Although state law includes distinct criteria, including a needs assessment, for determining the appropriateness of impact fees, this provision allows subdivision fees to be imposed for a broad scope of purposes. It also allows subdivision fees to be imposed when impact fees are prohibited. To examine these conflicts and concerns, I request the Task Force on State and Local Government to review subdivision regulations. This review will help Wisconsin balance the need for revenues to serve newly developed areas with the need to preserve and promote economic growth.
__________________
Communications
State of Wisconsin
Office of the Secretary of State
Madison
To Whom It May Concern:
Acts, Joint Resolutions and Resolutions deposited in this office have been numbered and published as follows:
Bill Number Act Number Publication Date
SS JR2 AB 1 109July 29, 2002
Sincerely,
Douglas La Follette
Secretary of State
