“I strongly supported the bipartisan Wisconsin Stewardship Fund,” a self-described Republican man from Eau Claire wrote to me.

“Conservation issues are near and dear to my heart. I will oppose any politician who does not listen to all Wisconsin constituents and give these issues due process.”

The letter came the week the state budget writing committee took up the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Fund.

Named for Wisconsin conservation minded Republican Governor Warren Knowles and Democratic Governor Gaylord Nelson the bipartisan program usually gathers broad support. Created in 1989, the Stewardship Program provides money for purchase of lands for recreation and preservation.

According to the state’s Blue Book, over the two decades of its existence, the program spent over $500 million to acquire over 500,000 acres. State officials often work with land conservation groups who acquire the land with grants from the state and donations from individuals and use volunteer labor to maintain the land.

Just a year ago the Nature Conservancy purchased the “Twin Bluffs”, 161 acres of bluff land overlooking the Mississippi River village of Nelson. The land acquisition was made possible with a $300,000 grant from the Stewardship Program. Landowners sold land to the Nature Conservancy to protect the land including protection from sand mine development.

The state uses bonding authority – the sale of bonds is how the state takes on debt- to finance the Stewardship Program. Increasing debt was the justification for members of the budget writing committee to vote to cut the Stewardship Program.

In a partisan vote, the committee trimmed funds by a little more than 20% in the first year of the coming budget and another 9% going forward. Land conservation groups were justifiably unhappy with the cuts.

But what they found more disturbing was the Finance Committee’s vote to require the state sell over 10,000 acres of Stewardship land in the next four years and require the sale of at least 250 acres more of farmland every year for the next seven years.

The Finance committee action will have conservation officials draw a line around the boundaries of projects established by May 1, 2013 and sell all land not within those boundaries and acquire no new land that is not within these boundaries.

In this rather cryptic description I was left to wonder what exactly the budget committee had in mind for land sales over the next few years.

Using increasing debt as the justification for the seeming shutdown of future projects may be the way Republicans obtain citizen support for the changes to the Stewardship program.

The gentleman who wrote to me about the Stewardship Fund shared his thoughts on spending:

“I voted Republican in the last election largely because I thought it was imperative to bring our state spending under control by making tough decisions. I still support that objective and the way it was done”.

That debt is climbing is indisputable. But conservation groups, like Gathering Waters Conservancy, argue the cause is not the Stewardship Fund. While state debt has increased, the program’s contribution to the debt remained relatively stable.

Cynics in the Capitol suggest there is another intent among leaders that has nothing to do with reining in state debt. Some allege there is a connection between the Governor’s request in the budget to sell off state assets in possible “no bid” contracts and the sale of thousands of acres of Stewardship land.

Clean Wisconsin, an environmental leader in the state, in a prepared statement, asked “What will they sell? The 400 acres of Stewardship land at Devil’s Lake? Protected parts of the Ice Age Trail? It’s disheartening and frustrating that the Legislature put stewardship back on the chopping block and now wants to sell off these precious resources to the highest bidder.”

I would argue that if the sale of state assets passes as written, there may be a sale – but it doesn’t have to be the highest bidder.

No conservation-minded Democrat or Republican should support a no-bid sale of state Stewardship land.

Download this column as PDF

“There’s a heck of a lot of things they didn’t tell me when I signed on,” admitted the chief of the Governor’s lead jobs agency during a recent hearing before the Joint Committee on Audit.

Reed Hall, CEO of the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC), spent several hours grilled by Audit Committee members. He agreed troubles existed but insisted WEDC was on a new track with plans to correct problems. Later in the hearing two lawmakers with experience as business executives provided solutions.

“I voted for WEDC and thought it was a good idea,” said Senator Tim Cullen, a former insurance executive. “Taking the best practices of the private sector and using them in WEDC was a good idea.”

But what was exposed in a recent audit of WEDC was the worst, not the best, of any business. The agency was run without basic managerial processes in place, without policies, without oversight of delinquent loans or consistency in loan or grants awards, without a clear budget or consistent accounting practices.

Accounting records couldn’t be reconciled to the point that the year-end financial report of the state of Wisconsin included only an estimate of the agency’s expenses.

And there was no evidence to support claims of tens of thousands of jobs created.

State law requires jobs be independently and annually verified through a sample of records. The public must know if jobs ‘promised’ by companies are actually created. Auditors determined this never happened. In more half of the company awards made, the business never even filed required reports.

State law also lays out a process to ensure dollars go to programs whose effectiveness can be measured. Because the agency failed to follow the law auditors were unable to determine if any program was effective in creating jobs.

For example, laws require WEDC to establish goals and expected results for each program. Reports should then be compared with expectations so lawmakers can make proper future funding decisions based on actual program outcomes.

WEDC failed to even identify expected results for a third of all programs it administers; let alone whether companies achieved expected results. Without expected results or company required reports detailing compliance it was impossible to determine if any program met its intended purpose.

WEDC awarded over $60 million in loans and grants and over $100 million in tax credits. They supervised local government in the sale of almost $350 million in bonds for projects.

But they kept members of the WEDC Board in the dark about inadequacies in oversight, internal processes and compliance with the law.

“The Board is toothless,” testified Board member and Assembly Minority Leader Peter Barca. “The Governor loves to control everything.”

“The Board must make the hiring decisions,” said Barca. “I’ve never served on a Board that does not hold the CEO accountable. They [WEDC executives] are free to ignore anything the Board says.”

Lawmakers Barca and Cullen recommended the Board be restructured and empowered. Audit and Finance committees be established and meet bimonthly, committee chairs and a lead director be created; committee chairs should set their own agendas; board members should serve for fixed terms.

Barca concluded with an ominous observation, “Key staff people are still misleading this committee, even today…. To this day they go around obfuscating jobs created, what role did they play to retain them?”

The answer is unclear and not auditable. With no budget, no company reports in over half of cases reviewed and no program expectations for a third of programs, one might think lawmakers shouldn’t increase WEDC’s funding.

But that’s exactly what happened in the Joint Committee on Finance only hours after the conclusion of the Audit Committee hearing.

Law requires the co-chairs of Finance to serve on the Audit Committee to ensure audit findings are reflected in budget decisions. Neither co-chair attended the Audit hearing. None of the recommendations on board changes were included in the Finance Committee action.

Rather than rush to create the appearance of a problem solved, legislative leaders should heed the advice offered the Audit Committee and create a board that bulldogs WEDC management into complying with the law. It’s the board’s responsibility; it’s time they were given the authority.

Download this column as PDF

“In Wisconsin, we don’t make excuses, we get results,” said Governor Walker as quoted by the Associated Press. The governor was unveiling his $75 million budget initiative earlier this year to economic development professionals across the state.

While the new dollars are still being the debated, the spending of existing economic development dollars recently took center stage among Legislators.

The Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) released a stinging indictment of mismanagement and poor oversight at the Wisconsin Economic Development Corporation (WEDC). The audit reviewed 30 economic development programs during the 2011-12 fiscal year. WEDC awarded $41.3 million in grants, $20.5 million in loans, provided $110.8 million in tax credits to businesses and individuals, and authorized local government to issue $346.4 million in bonds.

Auditors found not a single job created by this investment was verified by WEDC. More than half of the required reports had not even filed by businesses receiving assistance. Without evidence it was impossible for auditors to determine if contractually specified performance, including required job creation, ever happened.

In page after page of the 120-page report auditors outlined management failures and violations of current law.

Companies and projects that were not eligible still received awards. In violation of the law, WEDC paid for activities provided before the date of the company’s contract. Awards were given by WEDC over amounts limited by law. One company received $2.5 million in credits through a job creation program and never even promised to create jobs. Another company received $57,000 per job in clear violation of program limits on dollars given per job.

Delinquent loans were not tracked and collected. One loan was restructured six times to avoid the business making payments. Another business that failed to pay on a loan that was almost 14 years old received another loan twice as big. Some loans were forgiven; one of which was made to a company that hired the same firm WEDC hired to improve its record keeping.

Auditors documented at least seven instances where this firm, Baker Tilly, had potential conflicts of interest because the firm represented and provided consulting services to companies seeking awards with WEDC during the time Baker Tilly had access to information on WEDC’s awards and recipients.

Wisconsin’s premier metric “Job Creation” could not be verified on any of the millions of taxpayer dollars that went out the door.

The metrics for tracking job creation programs were set to law following a disturbing audit over six years ago. Senator Lassa and I along with other now retired lawmakers spent a year fixing these problems. Following systems in other states we set rules requiring goals, benchmarks and evaluation to make sure the business did what was promised and the people’s dollars were wisely invested.

In January, 2011 I wrote:

All this work is about to be thrown out the window. And to be replaced by a dark pantry with a sign on the door reading ‘Just Trust Us’.

Moving at break neck speed through the Legislature is a bill to abolish the state commerce department and create a private corporation. The bill gives this private corporation unlimited state bonding (or borrowing) privileges and makes it exempt from many state laws including employment law.

Two years later auditors found even the limited version of what remained of the law was not followed. The problems of mismanagement and the appearance of impropriety are not limited to Wisconsin.

Earlier this year, the Chicago Tribune reported the federal government is investigating the Illinois economic development agency and the state auditor warned for twenty years controls on state money are not adequate. New York Times reporters documented Governor Cuomo’s actions using New York’s economic development agency to hire friends and shore up contributions for his possible run for president.

Both Illinois and New York have Democratic governors. Regardless of party, there is no excuse for mismanagement and poor oversight.

Lawmakers must demand change. If everything doesn’t have to be made public, the temptation to break the law is much greater. Every parent knows you can’t leave kids in the pantry with the door closed.

Download this column as PDF

“What’s happening to the UW reserve money?” the woman asked. She was concerned about criticism of the University of Wisconsin. “It seems like they want to attack the UW,” she told attendees at the Mondovi Town Hall Meeting.

A recent memo from the Legislative Audit Bureau (LAB) and the Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) revealed nearly a billion dollars in what appeared to be reserve funds carried over from the last budget year.

Legislative leaders reacted by calling for a freeze on UW tuition. Other lawmakers want to cancel the promised $181 million increase to the UW. University officials cautioned most of the money was obligated to student financial aid or support of high demand programs like business and engineering. They say unrestricted does not mean uncommitted.

Nothing was clear except the UW’s so-called “unrestricted net assets” took a big increase in the past few years.

LAB reported in January the sizable growth of UW unrestricted net assets – or dollars not restricted by the funding source. Auditors reported UW unrestricted assets at $860.2 million. These assets increased by $624.9 million over five years.

The discovery of a large sum of unrestricted net assets comes on the heels of sustained tuition increases. It also comes at a time when the Legislature gave the UW new freedoms in how to spend money.

In recent years, as state funding to the UW dropped, university officials asked for and were granted new authorities. Changes in the last budget made funds formerly directed for a specific purpose into a flexible block grant; to allow the UW to spend as it saw fit while honoring the needs of all campuses.

New authorities granted in the last budget allowed the UW to set its own travel policies. Beginning this summer the state gave the university system contracting authority for supplies and materials unique to the UW, and the UW Madison was to develop a new system-wide personnel system.

This decision was made after many problems and much expense with the last personnel system. Even with recognition of the system’s problems, officials failed to stop recent overpayment of the health insurance and retirement of some employees. This discovery led the Joint Committee on Audit to approve an investigation of the UW personnel system as its first audit of 2013.

The discovery of large sums in reserve fractured the trust building between the UW and the Legislature. Sharp words and threats came from leaders when details about the exact purpose for which the money was set aside were hard to find.

My legislative colleagues on both sides of the aisle called for a freeze in tuition. Some said planned UW budget increases should be scrapped.

The surprise in the Legislature over the discovery of these dollars may reflect the general obscurity of the financial matters of the state and not any attempt by the UW to conceal cash.

Across the country, as in Wisconsin, legislators turn to the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) to learn of the state’s fiscal health. Hoping to find cash to balance the budget, legislators identify what appear to be cash balances.

But few state reports are as opaque as the CAFR. Auditors examine finances according to governmental accounting standards. While this method may assist bonding agencies in comparing risk, it does not provide legislators with necessary detailed financial and management information. So in Michigan, California and Wisconsin lawmakers seek funds the universities say are already committed.

Exactly what money is in reserve and what money is already committed is unclear.

This is why my Audit Committee colleagues and I recently directed the Legislative Audit Bureau to review the dollars and their oversight.

It is right for us to ask questions and we know the questions to audit: are the unrestricted net assets commitments or reserves? They can’t be both. What is the appropriate level of reserves necessary for a $5.5 billion operation like UW? What oversight do system officials provide and is this oversight adequate?

My legislative colleagues should slow their rush to judgment until auditors complete their investigation. It’s always better to make decisions based on facts.

Download this column as PDF

“Black River Falls is grappling with high phosphorus in the water,” the woman told me at the Town Hall Meeting. “The phosphorus is coming from farms up river. Why cut funding to conservation staff that help farmers keep manure out of the river?”

Buried in the 2013-15 state budget is removal of almost $5 million or over a quarter of cost-share funding to create structures to reduce run-off and preserve topsoil. The budget proposal also cuts nearly $2 million for local county conservation staff who assist farmers in creating and monitoring these structures.

It’s been a difficult spring for farmers. Many turned to spreading on frozen and snow covered ground. Now with the melting season underway, phosphorus from the manure finds its way into waterways.

State and federal rules clamped down on phosphorus discharged by city wastewater treatment plants and cities are crying foul. They claim the state is shortchanging them by taking away money used to help farmers control run-off. The increased cost of phosphorus cleanup will fall unfairly on city ratepayers.

Local people also raised concerns about several other changes in the budget of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DATCP). The Governor proposes getting rid of popular programs like the Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin, the Agriculture Development and Diversification, and the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative programs.

Buy Local, Buy Wisconsin is a competitive grant program launched in 2008 to strengthen the ‘value added’ aspects of Wisconsin agriculture. If we can keep more of the food dollar in Wisconsin, the entire state benefits. Local folks used these programs to develop markets for local produce, meat, fish, and cheese. With a small investment, the program created $4 million in new food sales over three years.

The Agriculture Development and Diversification grant program was created in 1989. Since then it has funded 342 projects with an investment of $6.9 million according to its website. This program leveraged $49 million in new capital investments and over $140 million in economic returns.

For example, James Altwoes of Mazomanie wanted to reestablish hops growing and processing in Wisconsin. With grant support he developed new technology, reached out to new buyers and involved 1,000 people through workshops focused on growing hops.

I often hear from farmers who benefited from the Grazing Lands Conservation Initiative Program. Intensive rotational grazing is a technique many used to keep cattle rotating from one pasture to another to increase the consumption of high quality feed and preserve plants and topsoil. The practice is not as easy as you might think.

Technical assistance from the Grazing Program helped farmers hone their skills at recognizing noxious weeds and early signs of needed pasture maintenance. The popular local ‘pasture walks’ were part of the outreach provided by this program.

Cutting popular and effective programs was not the only part of the state budget that drew complaints from rural people. Many were concerned about the changes facing rural schools and BadgerCare. I will cover these topics in upcoming columns.

Removing the ban on foreign corporations and foreign individuals from owning large tracts of Wisconsin land has many farmers upset. Older folks express concern about the control of food by foreign companies. They remember the rationing of World War II. They see land ownership as a way to protect the security of our country.

Younger farmers, trying hard to get started in farming, are worried foreign companies will increase the competition for land and drive up prices. I have yet to find a person attending a town hall meeting who thinks changing the law on foreign companies owning large tracts of land is a good idea.

Like foreign land ownership, the change in conservation funding is an issue that cuts across city dwellers and rural residents alike. People see the connection between high costs for city ratepayers and dirty water from farm run-off. They do not see cutting conservation money as a wise decision when cities are facing higher phosphorus standards.

Especially this year the late spring snow keeps cattle on concrete pads and winter manure storage over capacity. As one rural woman said, “we all live somewhere down stream.”

Download this column as PDF

“Pardon my tardiness,” I told the crowd gathered at a Town Hall Meeting. “I spent 20 minutes stuck in the mud.” Rural folks nodded in understanding. Spring has turned many unpaved roads into mud.

Stuck in the mud is an apt metaphor for Wisconsin state finances.

Debts and deficits; GAAP and gaps; bonding and borrowing; all these terms make it hard to follow what’s happening with the state’s fiscal health.

Wisconsin cannot run a deficit. Unlike the federal government, every budget must be balanced. But what exactly does that mean?

When state leaders make funding commitments to coming years they can create a ‘structural deficit’ which means the future years’ expected revenue won’t cover the expected spending.

This happened regularly over the past 20 years. A 2013 memo from the nonpartisan Legislative Fiscal Bureau (LFB) shows more in store in the future.

My colleague summed up the concern. “I cannot support a budget that has that kind of a structural deficit and I know several other Senate Republicans who feel the same way,” Senator Rob Cowles (R-Allouez) told the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.

Commitments made in the proposed 2013-15 state budget leaves the following two-year budget with a significant shortfall.

Much has been made of the work done to create a budget surplus at the end of this fiscal year. LFB staff report the state ending up with a nearly $500 million surplus. The main reason is improvement in revenue from tax collections.

But the LFB memo has many folks talking about projections for a shortfall of $644 million in the 2015-17 state budget.

Deficits, structural or otherwise, should not be confused with debt. The state sells bonds to raise capital with a commitment to later pay back the bondholders. This is state debt.

The Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance calculated debt per person rose 131.9% over the past decade. My research with the LFB shows state debt more than tripled from $4.4 billion in 1996 to $14.2 billion in 2012.

Money spent on debt payments can’t be spent on roads or classrooms so financial staff remind legislators to hold spending in check. Historically the state’s debt management threshold is no more than 4% with a target of annual GPR debt service between 3% and 3.5% of all general fund spending. Debt payments go well into the danger zone at 5.28% in the first year of the 2013-15 budget.

One very troubling part of the current budget was the sale of more debt to avoid making payments coming due.

Even though the current budget had $1.8 billion projected in new revenue, the Governor did not pay $560 million in debt payments coming due. More debt was incurred as some bonds were sold at a premium to gain cash up front. This gave the appearance of the state having more cash. But the long-term effect was an increase in principle and interest.

The 5.28% of tax money spent on debt in the 2013-15 budget is the direct result of payments owed but not made in the past.

Deficits and debt are two measures of fiscal health. A third, rather unique to state government, is the GAAP Gap. This measures the gap between how the state budgets – on a cash basis – and generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP).

Since 1982 when the Attorney General interpreted the constitutional requirement for a balanced budget as “cash” accounting not “accrual” accounting, the state often committed more to spending than available resources. According to the Taxpayers Alliance, in 2011 only California and Illinois had a larger GAAP deficit than Wisconsin.

When revenues came in higher than expected, Governor Walker put half of these revenues into the rainy day fund as required by law. This, and his work paying other commitments, helped lower the GAAP deficit from $2.9B to $2.2B. But spending in his new budget increases the GAAP gap to $2.8B by 2015.

It’s important to remember the GAAP deficit only looks at the gap between money coming in and money going out in the next year. The real long-term health is better measured by the long-term commitments – i.e. debt.

Looking ahead, Wisconsin finances do seem stuck in the mud.

Download this column as PDF

Contact:
Senator Vinehout 608-266-8546   Senator Hansen   608-266-5670
Senator Lassa    608-266-3123   Senator Taylor   608-266-5810

Senators Call for Public Hearing into Grant County Farmland Sale and Budget Provision to Allow Foreign Ownership of State’s Farmland

(Madison)—All four Democratic members of the Senate Agriculture, Small Business and tourism Committee today called for a public hearing on the recent sale of 9,800 acres of farmland in Grant County to a foreign investor and a provision in Governor Walker’s budget that would eliminate the current 640 acre cap on the sale of land to foreign businesses or individuals.

“I am concerned that land prices will spike, cost will increase and new farmers will be priced out of farming,” said Senator Vinehout. “My constituents are very worried about foreign corporations purchasing such large tracts of land and they tell me that we had better think twice about foreign ownership of our food supply.”

The call for a public hearing comes amid a recent report that UBS AgriVest, part of Swiss banking giant UBS, purchased approximately 9,800 acres in southwest Wisconsin at a cost of $67.5 million or nearly $7,000 per acre.

Another concern with the foreign purchase of large tracks of Wisconsin farmland is related to the Use Value Tax Assessment and its impact on who pays their fair share of property taxes.

“Use Value Assessment was put in place to help family farms by reducing their tax burden,” said Senator Hansen. “It’s difficult to imagine that a system where homeowners and other small businesses subsidize large tax breaks for wealthy foreign investors was the legislature’s intent when Use Value Assessment was established. I’m also concerned that allowing foreign investors to buy up our farmland puts our reputation as America’s Dairyland at risk.”

The Grant County sale is part of a troubling trend that is developing across the country where foreign investment corporations purchase large amounts of farmland. Many believe this trend is the reason behind the Governor’s effort to remove the longstanding protection for Wisconsin’s family farmers. In states where this trend has taken hold, such as California, over 50% of the farmers are now renting farmland versus owning compared to just 30% who rent in Wisconsin.

“Our farm families already face enough challenges when it comes to farming their land and staying in business,” Senator Lassa said. “The last thing we need is for China, other foreign countries or foreign investment banks to start buying up Wisconsin’s farmland and renting it back to us at a profit. This is an important economic and food security issue and it should not be treated as just one more budget measure.”

Senator Taylor said a public hearing is crucial to getting to the bottom of the land sale and how the removal of the 100+ year-old cap on the sale of farmland to foreign businesses will impact the state.

“The people of this state deserve to know who is behind the provision to eliminate a law that has served as a key protection for Wisconsin’s family farmers and agricultural communities since 1887,” Senator Taylor said. “A public hearing is crucial to let people of this state know how allowing greater foreign ownership of our farmland is going to impact our economy, our food supply and their property taxes.”

-30-

Download this press release as PDF

“Why don’t these numbers add up?” the school board member asked me. He was looking at the summary tables on dollars for schools in the new state budget. “Because numbers are missing,” I told him, realizing there are a lot of missing numbers.

The Legislature is given a 519 page “summary” of the budget to consider but nowhere can you find numbers to compare this year’s budget requests for particular programs to dollars actually spent under the previous budget.

There are no numbers clearly showing the increases or decreases in each individual program. There are no numbers showing what was accomplished by the spending.

Most of the budget numbers compare the Governor’s request for new spending to “the base year doubled”.  For anyone looking for real numbers this creates a problem because “the base year doubled” is just a place to start – an imaginary number. It is what you would get if you took the budgeted or expected spending in the current state fiscal year — which ends on June 30^th — and doubled that number.

Budget analysts assume an estimate of what was budgeted last year is a reasonable starting place. Details given to legislators are changes to the base – not to how much was actually spent for specific programs. Without the real numbers it is difficult to answer the question: Can this program be better run with fewer dollars? What is really happening at the specific program level is often buried and nearly impossible for legislators or the public to dig out.

For example, let’s look at the Department of Health Services (DHS).

According to the Legislative Fiscal Bureau staff, DHS buried in the $7 billion Medicaid base-funding request is a nearly 3% increase in rates paid to Medicaid HMOs. Buried in the $663 million cost to continue is a 2% increase to HMOs to compensate them for a new federal excise tax. Also buried in the cost to continue is a 2% increase for HMOs to “ensure an adequate network”.

A total of 7% increase in money is going to HMOs.

HMOs already receive a 14% skim off all state payments to cover their administrative costs. For every dollar the HMO pays out they keep 14 cents.

With this budget they receive another seven cents on each dollar.

But what really troubles me is that NOWHERE was this increase detailed so citizens could clearly see what they are buying.

Another example: increases for choice and independent charter schools. To determine how much this cost I added up numbers from 19 different pages.

The entire private choice school/independent charter expansion is budgeted to cost state taxpayers over $185 million including the $70 million taken right out of the budget of local schools. Nowhere is a summary of this spending clearly laid out. Nor can I find the total Wisconsin already spends on these private schools.

Last year during an Audit Committee hearing I asked the DHS to explain their budgeting. They brought stacks of documents to the hearing and smiled when they answered “just ask the question and we’ll give you the answer.”

The problem is with a nearly $70 billion dollar budget and over 1,100 programs, the complexity of state government makes it difficult for the average concerned citizen or legislator to know where to begin asking questions about missing numbers.

And there is little opportunity to ask questions. The Legislature’s Joint Finance Committee scheduled only four public hearings on the budget. Very few, if any, of the 1,100 programs are going to get any public scrutiny – particularly when much of the time will be taken up with the non-budget policy items included in the budget bill.

The way we do the budget gives a lot of power to the Governor, which is the way Governors of both parties like it. No Governor will voluntarily change the budget process. 

If the Legislature is going to use the budget to review what agencies are doing with their programs and hold agency officials responsible for accomplishments, the Legislature needs to take the lead in changing the way we do budgets in Wisconsin.

Download this column as PDF

April 3, 2013 

Join me at a Town Hall Meeting to discuss the state budget. The two-year budget affects you in ways you may never have imagined.

There’s almost $70 billion in spending in this budget. The economy’s slowly improving; more money is coming in from taxes and fees. This budget spends about $3.2 billion more than the last budget

What should we do with the dollars?

The budget slightly reduces tax rates. For eligible taxpayers, the average tax decrease will be $83 in 2014.

State spending increases in some areas and decreases in others. One of the more surprising decreases is the money used to operate the court system.

The Governor proposes the largest budget reduction for the court system in the state’s history. Chief Justice Abrahamson called the cuts “debilitating” and listed a number of consequences including delayed trials, reductions in the courts information system (CCAP) and cuts in the very effective alternative treatment courts.

She recently testified before the budget committee that over the last five years the courts experienced a turnover of approximately a third of judges. Attracting high quality attorneys to the position of judge is increasingly difficult.

The budget makes a number of changes in health care and education.

A big part of the spending increase goes to Medicaid including Family Care and BadgerCare. The budget includes over $17 million in administrative spending and a large increase to continue the program.

But the Medicaid program will change. The Governor proposes removing over 100,000 people from BadgerCare – mostly parents whose children stay covered under federal law. In addition some will gain coverage under BadgerCare: those who do not have children under age 19 and make about $11,500 or less annually (about $15,500 for a couple).

While investments in health care increased by about $2 billion (all funds), new investments directed into public education are limited to only about $39 million. According to Tony Evers, State Superintendent of Schools, 70% of the new education money goes to expand independent charter schools or fund private voucher schools.

Local school districts are still trying to deal with nearly $1.6 billion cut to state and local resources included in the last budget.

In the new budget, popular programs like SAGE, school breakfast, sparsity aid for rural schools, funds for libraries, transportation, special education, gifted and talented and bilingual children are all funded at or below previous budget levels.

At the same time private school payments and independent charter schools are dramatically expanded.

Private schools vouchers are expanded to include many medium size school districts. Independent charter schools may expand statewide. These charter schools would not follow all the usual laws governing K-12 education, including teacher licensing. Any nonprofit organization could apply to start a charter school. Applications would be approved by a new politically-appointed statewide board.

Superintendents tell me these policy changes are so big they deserve a special hearing and should not be included in the state’s fiscal budget.  School boards worry these big policy changes will drain money from public schools and dramatically change education over coming years.

The budget proposes other changes in policies unrelated to the fiscal matters such as changes to the requirements for the sale of state power plants and other state assets. Law enforcement personnel would be required to collect DNA at the point of arrest. Retirees could no longer collect a WRS pension and work two-thirds time. Local laws requiring county and school employees to be residents in the community or county where they work would not be allowed.

The budget raises questions we all must carefully consider. Should restrictions on foreigners buying Wisconsin land be eliminated? State law now limits alien land purchases to a square mile.

Should rent-to-own stores remove the disclosure of interest rates from appliances, electronics and furniture they sell? That’s also in the state budget.

The state budget affects your family in ways you never imagined. Get to know the details and share your thoughts at one of my upcoming town hall meetings.

Please call if you need details 877-763-6636 (toll free).

Sen. Vinehout’s Budget Town Hall Meetings

DATE             TIME                          LOCATION                                                              

April 13           1:00pm-3:00pm           Black River Falls Middle School – Commons
(Saturday)                                           1202 Pierce Street – BLACK RIVER FALLS

April 15           6:30pm-8:30pm           Town of Trempealeau Town Hall
(Monday)                                            W24854 State Road 54/93 – CENTERVILLE

 April 16           6:30pm-8:30pm           L.E. Phillips Memorial Library
(Tuesday)                                            400 Eau Claire Street – EAU CLAIRE

April 22           5:00pm-7:00pm           Prescott City Hall
(Monday)                                            800 Borner Street – PRESCOTT 

April 23           6:30pm-8:30pm           Roger Marten Community Center
(Tuesday)                                            120 South Franklin Street – MONDOVI

Download this column as PDF

“Help me,” the Jackson County resident wrote. “My dream home is almost built.” He explained that as he finished his new home near Black River Falls he learned his neighbors all signed contracts to sell their land to a sand mining company.

 The man was devastated.

“I bought this property for its views, fresh air, wildlife, peace and quiet,” he wrote. “Now I feel all this is threatened.”

Frac sand mining is rapidly proliferating in western Wisconsin and the impacts are taking many residents by surprise.  Property owners are often unaware of mine prospecting near their property.  Sometimes they learn of a planned mine by talking with neighbors or reading news stories after the mine application is approved.

Hundreds of local citizens contacted me for help. Many asked for new laws to help alert them about prospective mines near their property before final approval so they can be involved in the process.

In response to their serious concerns I am introducing a five-point plan to protect property-owners’ right to know about sand mines in their neighborhood.

The first point is to protect buyers’ right to know.  My bill would require an owner selling property to disclose on the required real estate report whether the owner has notice or knowledge of a contract, or an option to contract that allows for frac sand mining on a neighboring property.

 The second point increases public notice before action on sand mine applications. This proposed law would require local government considering a frac sand mine application to publish at least two separate newspaper notices at least 30 days prior to taking action on an application.  The bill would also require sending written notice via first class mail to property owners or occupants situated within one mile of the proposed mine.

My third proposal would help residents and local governments be better prepared by making frac sand mine prospecting public. 

The bill would authorize counties to issue licenses for frac sand exploration. Exploration consists of drilling holes in search of frac sand or establishing the nature and extent of a frac sand deposit. A person applying for a frac sand exploration license would submit a bond to ensure that drill holes are properly filled and have proof of liability insurance covering personal injury and property damage. The licensee must also notify the county before drilling begins and before filling a drill hole.  This process is similar to existing metallic mining laws. I would also require the Department of Natural Resources to provide technical assistance if a county so requests.

Local government officials often feel they have little power to protect communities when negotiating with a frac sand mining company. Some zoning ordinances give local officials little power to negotiate with mining companies on topics such as hours of operation, blasting policy, damage to local roads, groundwater usage and air pollution.

My fourth proposal would require frac sand mining to always be listed as a conditional use in areas zoned for agricultural use.  Requiring a conditional use permit gives officials an opportunity to negotiate conditions for operation of a mine; keeps the benefits of local control and brings to public hearing the issues related to sand mine siting.

Industrial sand mines impact the surrounding area in a number of ways.  Noise, dust, blasting and heavy truck traffic are just some ways sand mines impact the area.  My fifth proposal would create a meaningful buffer zone to protect neighbors from the impact of mines.

Specifically the bill would prohibit a frac sand mine, frac sand processing facility, or frac sand loading facility from being located within 2,500 feet of a residence or a residential zoning district.

This five-point plan is in the best interests of all parties affected by sand mines.  Adjacent property owners will have advance notice and be involved in local decisions. Mine owners will protect themselves by having more opportunity to interact with the community and address concerns from neighbors.  Local government will benefit by having a more transparent public process where the interests of all stakeholders are considered.

Download this column as PDF