This provision establishes the initial applicability of modifications to the statutes dealing with employee-required contributions.
At the request of the Legislative Reference Bureau, I am partially vetoing the initial applicability treatment of certain provisions that were already addressed in
2011 Wisconsin Act 10. This veto will retain the initial applicability treatment of only those provisions that were revised in enrolled 2011 Wisconsin Assembly Bill 40 (the 2011-13 biennial budget).
GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY BOARD
28.
Statements of Economic Interest
Section 357m
This provision modifies current law regarding access to statements of economic interest prepared by certain public officials and employees. Under the provision, persons wishing to examine a statement of economic interest must appear in person at the Government Accountability Board. Current law does not specify how the Government Accountability Board provides access to the records, other than requiring an individual wishing to inspect the records to provide his or her full name and address. Current practice allows for electronic access to the statements.
A425
I am vetoing this provision because it limits access to statements of economic interest to in-person review. This violates the principles of transparency and open government that are fundamental to public oversight and a key tenet of my administration.
D.
HEALTH SERVICES AND INSURANCE
HEALTH SERVICES
29.
Family Care Cost-Effectiveness Study
Section 9121 (3g)
This section requires the Department of Health Services secretary to study the cost-effectiveness of the Family Care program, the Family Care Partnership, the IRIS self-directed care program and the program for all-inclusive care for the elderly (PACE). The study will compare the cost-effectiveness of each program to each of the other programs and is due to the Joint Committee on Finance by March 1, 2012.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the report be submitted by March 1, 2012, because the department is already required to prepare this information as a response to the 2011 Legislative Audit Bureau study of the Family Care program. The findings of that review are due to the Joint Legislative Audit Committee on August 31, 2012, and to submit a partial analysis in March would be premature.
30.
Medicaid Family Planning Waiver Services
Sections 1439n, 1439w, 1439x, 1441b and 9421 (7)
This provision requires the Department of Health Services to request and implement a federal waiver to provide family planning services under Medicaid to women between the ages of 15 and 44 whose family income does not exceed 200 percent of the federal poverty level. The waiver must require parental notification of services provided to females under 18 years old and must specify that the determination of eligibility for minors is based on the income of a parent or guardian.
I am vetoing sections 1439w, 1439x and 9421 (7) and partially vetoing sections 1439n and 1441b because I object to the inflexibility of the language. This veto is not intended to end the program but to instead provide the department greater latitude to determine the appropriate ages and income levels for coverage of family planning services under Medicaid. The veto retains the provisions that require parental notification of family planning services provided to females under 18 years old and specify that eligibility for minors be based on family income and not individual income.
31.
Study on the Purchase of Generic Drugs for Medical Assistance
Section 9121 (11i)
This provision requires the Department of Health Services to conduct a study to determine if a competitive bidding process for the purchase of generic drug equivalents provided through the Medical Assistance program would generate cost savings to the program. The study is due to the Joint Committee on Finance no later than December 31, 2011.
I am partially vetoing the provision to remove the requirement that the report be submitted by December 31, 2011, because I believe the department should have flexibility to review all aspects of this option and applying an arbitrary due date removes this flexibility.
SAFETY AND PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
32.
Bail Bond Surety Licensing
Sections 373 [as it relates to s. 20.165 (1) (gk)], 496m, 3205p, 3205r, 3212m, 3541g, 3541r and 9140 (5c)
These sections require the Department of Safety and Professional Services to regulate and license bail bond surety agents and corporations and to collect annual licensing fees of $1,000 per agent or corporation, under requirements promulgated in administrative rule. Surety agents and corporations would be compensated 10 percent of the bond set.
I am vetoing this provision because it does not provide sufficient time to properly evaluate the proposal and to plan for appropriate regulation of this industry prior to the date of implementation. I agree with the intent of the provision to reduce local government administrative costs and ensure defendants show up for court dates. However, although the commercial bail bonds industry works well in many other states, there must be sufficient notice and planning to ensure that counties, courts and regulatory agencies are able to appropriately implement this provision to avoid implementation problems and misuse of the system. Considering this provision as separate legislation will provide time for adequate review and planning to ensure the successful implementation of a commercial bail bonds system in Wisconsin.
33.
Unclassified Bureau Director Position Authority
Section 2760
This section reduces the number of unclassified bureau director positions allocated at the Department of Safety and Professional Services from not more than five to not more than two positions.
A426
I am partially vetoing this section because I object to reducing the current number of unclassified bureau directors in the department. While the veto will permit the department to have up to five unclassified bureau director positions, I am directing the department to maintain the current staffing of three unclassified bureau directors and to remain within their current position authorization level.
VETERANS AFFAIRS
34.
Chippewa Falls Veterans Home Cost-Benefit Analysis
Sections 234 and 9101 (2u)
These sections require the Department of Administration to conduct a cost-benefit analysis on the initial contract for the operation and staffing of the Veterans Home at Chippewa Falls and to submit the results to the Joint Committee on Finance by February 1, 2012, or before the Department of Veterans Affairs enters into a contract for the operation of the home. Further, the Department of Veterans Affairs is exempted from the current law requirement to conduct a cost-benefit analysis meeting the same criteria prior to entering into the contract.
I am vetoing section 234 because I object to exempting the Department of Veterans Affairs from the requirement to conduct a cost-benefit analysis prior to contracting for the operation of the home. Further, I am partially vetoing section 9101 (2u) requiring the Department of Administration to conduct a similar cost-benefit analysis because this requirement is unnecessary and duplicative of the Department of Veterans Affairs analysis.
35.
Veterans Trust Fund Information
Section 9153 (2j)
This section requires the Department of Veterans Affairs to submit as part of its 2013-15 biennial budget request to the Department of Administration an estimate of the amount of revenues that will be deposited into the veterans trust fund during that biennium and that the total recommendation for appropriation from the trust fund is not greater than the amount to be deposited into the fund.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the requirement that the total recommendation for appropriation from the fund is not more than available revenue because it is overly limiting on the department. It is widely understood that the veterans trust fund is facing financial uncertainty and to place such restrictions on the department does not work toward the goal of finding reliable revenue streams while maintaining services for Wisconsin's veteran population.
36.
Military Funeral Honors Funding – Technical Veto
Sections 9253 (1j) and 9453 (1j)
This provision provides $68,900 GPR funding in the second year of the 2009-11 biennium to reimburse veterans service organizations that provide military funeral honors for veterans in this state.
I am vetoing this provision at the request of the Legislative Reference Bureau because funding for this purpose has already been addressed in
2011 Wisconsin Act 27.
E.
STATE GOVERNMENT opeRATIONS
ADMINISTRATION
37.
Disclosure of Expenditures on Internet Web Site
Section 215m
This section requires the Department of Administration to disclose expenditures relating to state agency operations, state contracts and state grants on a searchable Internet Web site beginning July 1, 2013. Once the system is implemented, it requires agencies to submit expenditure information to the department within 60 days, and grant and contract information within 10 days. It also allows an agency to request an exemption from the requirement through the Joint Committee on Finance if the agency is upgrading its computer operations.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove specific dates and deadlines because the department must have flexibility in meeting the goal of this requirement. I am also vetoing the provision allowing agencies to request an exemption from the requirement because it is important that the reporting is complete and consistent for all agencies. I am very supportive of transparency in government and am in complete agreement with the goals of this requirement. When I was Milwaukee County Executive, our administration worked with the State of Missouri to develop a public portal for access to expenditure data. I will direct the Department of Administration secretary to work with states, such as Missouri, to expand the expenditure information available to the public through a searchable Internet Web site. I will further direct the department to immediately report monthly expenditures by state agency, funding source and appropriation through a publicly accessible Web site.
38.
Base Budget Review
Sections 218d and 218e
This provision requires one-third of state agencies in each biennium to report an accounting of all expenditures by categories established by the Department of Administration for the prior three fiscal years and the last quarter of the prior three fiscal years. Reports would be due by September 15 and would be included in the agency budget submissions and incorporated in the compiled budget report due November 20 of each even-numbered year.
I am vetoing this provision in its entirety because it is unnecessary. I support the goal of increased transparency and accountability of state government through reporting. This requirement will be met through other reporting requirements in the bill and my directive to the department to immediately report monthly expenditures by state agency, funding source and appropriation through a publicly accessible Web site.
A427
39.
Report on Surplus Positions
Section 218h
This section requires the Department of Administration secretary to report quarterly to the Joint Committee on Finance: (a) the base number of existing surplus positions in each agency, (b) the number of surplus positions each agency has created, and (c) the amounts spent on surplus positions.
I am vetoing this section because it is duplicative of information already provided and that will be available through the Web site the department will create under other provisions in the bill. Currently, the department reports quarterly on surplus position creations and deletions. With the creation of the Web site for information on state agency expenditures, contracts and grants, actual expenditures, including salary and fringe benefits paid to state employees, will be available on a real time basis. Any additional information regarding surplus positions can be provided on an ad hoc basis, but providing it quarterly is unnecessary.
40.
Procurement Bid Threshold
These sections increase the dollar threshold requiring bids or competitive sealed proposals for procurements made by the Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System or the University of Wisconsin-Madison to $50,000, effective July 1, 2013.
I am partially vetoing these sections to remove the language specific to the University of Wisconsin and the delayed effective date because I object to limiting this higher threshold to the University of Wisconsin System and the University of Wisconsin-Madison and delaying the effective date of this change. My budget recommendations to the Legislature in March included this change in the bid threshold for all agencies. With this veto, my original intent to provide all state agencies with the flexibility for more efficient and cost-effective procurement of goods and services will be met immediately.
41.
Build and Lease Back Program
Section 9101 (5q)
This provision directs the Department of Administration to explore the feasibility of instituting a program for private construction of buildings for the purpose of leasing those buildings to the state. The study results would be submitted to the Joint Committee on Finance by December 1, 2011.
I am vetoing this provision because it would be duplicative of existing practices. The department, through the State Building Commission, already engages with private contractors to construct buildings with lease/purchase agreements for state government operations.
42.
Energy Efficiency Heating, Ventilating and Air Conditioning Systems Study
Section 9101 (1u)
This provision directs the Department of Administration to conduct a study on the feasibility of installing energy efficient systems in state buildings and to submit the study results to the Joint Committee on Finance by December 1, 2011.
I am vetoing this provision because it is unnecessary. The Division of State Facilities in the department is already responsible for addressing energy efficiency in state buildings. The department is working with the State Building Commission to continually improve energy efficiency throughout state-owned facilities.
F.
TAX, TRANSPORTATION AND OPERATIONS
REVENUE
43.
Weight-Based Taxation for Moist Snuff Tobacco Products
Sections 2637n, 2637p and 9441 (3u)
These sections convert the tax on moist snuff tobacco products from an ad valorem tax equal to 100 percent of the manufacturer's list price to a rate of $1.76 per ounce and at an equivalent rate for any fractional part in excess of 1.2 ounces. These sections also specify that the tax on a can or package of moist snuff weighing less than 1.2 ounces shall be equal to the tax on a can or package weighing 1.2 ounces. The weight-based tax would take effect on January 1, 2012.
I am vetoing these sections because it may encourage the use of these products by children. Wisconsin's current ad valorem tax on moist snuff tobacco products maintains a level playing field and minimizes the attractiveness to youth, helping to improve public health.
44.
Sharing of Loss Carry-Forwards under the Corporate Income and Franchise Tax Incurred Before 2009
Section 1894d
A428
This section allows combined groups under the provisions of the corporate income and franchise tax to share net business loss carry-forwards that were incurred by group members prior to January 1, 2009. Beginning with the first tax year beginning after December 31, 2011, and each of the 19 subsequent tax years, a corporation that is a member of a combined group and had business loss carry-forwards incurred prior to January 1, 2009, may use up to 5 percent of its remaining business loss carry-forwards to proportionally offset the net income of other members of the combined group, to the extent such income is attributable to the unitary business. If the full 5 percent of the loss carry-forwards cannot be fully utilized in a given tax year, the remainder may be added in a subsequent tax year to the portion of loss carry-forwards that may offset group members' income in that year. A member of a combined group can continue to utilize its loss carry-forward until its loss carry-forward is completely used or expired except that pre-2009 loss carry-forwards may not be used in any taxable year that begins after December 31, 2031.
I am partially vetoing this section to remove the word "remaining" as it relates to the eligible loss carry-forwards that can be shared by a combined group member because the language in the bill is not consistent with the intent. The intent of this provision is to allow a business to use the full amount of the pre-2009 loss carry-forward over a period of 20 years, or until that group member's loss carry-forward is completely used or expired. The remaining amount of pre-2009 loss carry-forward will decrease each year, and because the percentage would be calculated on this decreasing amount, the business would never be able to share the full amount of its losses.
45.
County and Municipal Levy Limits
Sections 1722b, 1722c and 1722d
Section 1722b changes the current law valuation factor percentage for use in setting county and municipal operating levies from the greater of 3 percent or the percentage change in equalized value due to net new construction to the greater of the percentage change in equalized value due to net new construction or one of two minimum valuation factors depending on the property tax year. Section 1722c establishes a 0 percent minimum valuation factor for levies set in 2011 and 2012. Section 1722d establishes the minimum valuation factor at 1.5 percent for levies set in 2013 and all subsequent years.
I am vetoing section 1722d and partially vetoing sections 1722b and 1722c to remove the scheduled increase in the minimum valuation factor for property tax years beginning after 2012 because I object to creating an automatic increase in the minimum valuation factor without knowledge of conditions in future years for taxpayers, counties and municipalities. The ongoing minimum valuation factor would continue to be 0 percent as a result of these vetoes. While these vetoes do not sunset the county and municipal levy limits for property tax years after 2012, it is my intention that the structure of county and municipal levy limits should be revisited in each budget in conjunction with state aid policies as well as current and projected economic conditions for taxpayers, counties and municipalities. I remain committed to protecting property taxpayers through strong property tax levy controls for counties, municipalities, school districts and technical college districts.
46.
Property Tax Exemption for Certain University of Wisconsin–Madison Student Housing Facilities
Sections 1747n, 1748d, 9341 (4d) and 9441 (4d)
These sections repeal the property tax exemption for real and personal property of a housing facility that: is owned by a nonprofit organization; 90 percent of its residents are University of Wisconsin-Madison students; there are no more than 300 students living at the facility; and the facility offers support services and outreach programs to its residents, the public or private institution of higher education at which the student residents are enrolled, and the public.
I am vetoing these sections because the repeal of the property tax exemption for these student housing facilities would place a substantial financial burden on current and potential future student housing facilities at the University of Wisconsin–Madison that provide unique services to students attending the university, including scholarships for residents, student worship groups, and volunteer services not available at university or commercial student housing facilities.
TRANSPORTATION
47.
County Highway Department Funding
