These state rules and statutes do not relieve individuals from the restrictions, requirements and conditions of federal statutes and regulations. Regulating the hunting and trapping of native species has been delegated to state fish and wildlife agencies.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Deer affect nearly every Wisconsin citizen's life in some way. Many of these effects are significant from a recreational, economic, and/or social perspective. There are over 650,000 gun deer hunters and 250,000 bow hunters in Wisconsin. Regulations which require the harvest of an antlerless deer before a buck, called earn-a-buck, have been implemented where necessary to reduce deer populations since 2004. In May of 2009 the department, general public, and members of a committee created by the Natural Resources Board were charged with working together to recommend a deer hunting season structure that could be an effective alternative to earn-a-buck regulations. Acceptable alternatives must be shown to be effective for deer population management and supported by hunters and landowners and able to be evaluated through established benchmarks. The committee's recommended season structures are the basis for construction of this rule proposal.
The committee arrived at its recommendations after evaluating the expected effectiveness of each season component using conservation warden and biologist/wildlife manager input on enforceability and effectiveness, while also taking into consideration the acceptable level of hunter and landowner support needed to ensure participation in herd control seasons. Effectiveness was defined as the ability of a season or incentive to maintain herd populations at or near goal. This includes requiring the ability to allow targeted herd control to reduce over population while also allowing the flexibility to protect from over harvest in units that are at or below goal.
The guidelines for deer management in Wisconsin are established by administrative rule and require consideration of the following criteria; 1) carrying capacity relative to habitat and winter severity, 2) hunter success and public deer viewing opportunities, 3) ecological and economic impacts of deer browsing, 4) disease transmission. 5) concern for deer-vehicle collisions 6) Chippewa treaty harvest, 7) hunter access, 8) ability to keep the herd in a unit at goal, 9) tolerable levels of crop damage.
Small Business Impact
These rules are applicable to individual sportspersons and impose no compliance or reporting requirements for small businesses, and no design or operational standards are contained in the rule.
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
Environmental Impact
The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150
, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The proposed new season framework is a significant modification to the existing structure. The Department already administers hunting seasons for firearm, archery, and muzzleloader hunters, therefore, it is anticipated that the amount of effort and expense that the Department incurs while administering the deer seasons will be similar for the proposed new season framework.
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
Agency Contact Person
Keith Warnke
101 South Webster St. — PO Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: (608) 264-6023
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Water Supply,
Chs. NR 800—
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
280.11
and
281.17 (8)
, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on repealing and recreating Chapters
NR 809
and
811
; and creating Chapter
NR 810
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to public drinking water systems.
Hearing Information
The hearings will be held on the following dates and locations:
October 14
, Wednesday, 10:00 a.m.
University of Wisconsin—Waukesha, Room C103
1500 N. University Drive, Waukesha, WI 53188
October 21
, Wednesday, 1:00 p.m.
University of Wisconsin—Green Bay
Mary Anne Coffrin Hall Room 137 (MAC 137)
2420 Nicolet Drive, Green Bay, WI 54311
October 22
, Thursday, 1:00 p.m.
State Natural Resources Building (GEF 2), Room 713
101 South Webster Street, Madison, WI 53703
October 27
, Tuesday, 1:00 p.m.
University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, Old Library 1118
105 Garfield Avenue, Eau Claire, WI 54702
October 28
, Wednesday, 10:00 a.m.
UWEX Spooner Northern District Conference Room
702 Front Street, Spooner, WI 54801
Pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call James McLimans at (608) 266-2726 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Submission of Written Comments and Copies of Proposed Rule
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Lee Boushon, Bureau of Drinking Water and Groundwater, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until November 11, 2009. Written comments, whether submitted electronically or by U.S. mail, will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearings. A personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Boushon.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutory authority
Plain language analysis
The proposal was triggered by changes in the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. The Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule was promulgated on 1/04/2006 and revises the monitoring locations and compliance calculation methods for disinfection byproducts. The Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was promulgated on 1/05/2006 and requires increased source water monitoring with new treatment levels associated with the monitoring results. The Groundwater Rule was promulgated on 11/08/2006 and requires that water systems initiate new monitoring and correct significant deficiencies identified during department inspections in order to protect consumers from viruses. The Short Term Revisions to the Lead and Copper Rule were promulgated on 10/10/2007 and changed the monitoring, reporting and public notification requirements related to lead and copper.
In order to maintain primacy for the Safe Drinking Water Act, Wisconsin must adopt all federal requirements under the Act or have requirements that are more stringent than the Act.
In addition to adopting the federal rules, the proposed rules include a requirement for mandatory disinfection at municipal water systems as an enhancement of the federal requirements, updates and clarifications to design standards for community water systems, and creation of a separate administrative rule on operations and maintenance of public water systems in order to improve the usability of the drinking water codes.
The major impact of the rule changes will be related to the Stage 2 Disinfection Byproduct Rule because of the large number of municipal water systems that disinfect (over 500) and the changes to the monitoring requirements and compliance calculations. Additionally, the requirement for mandatory disinfection of all municipal water system will require 71 municipal water systems that do not currently disinfect to do so.
Comparison with federal regulations
The proposed rules will make state regulations compatible with federal regulations, satisfying the primacy requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act and will update and clarify other state requirements.
Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states
A significant portion of the rule changes are based on changes to the federal rules. The adjacent states are in the process of adopting the federal rule changes. The changes to design standards are not based on federal rule changes. The adjacent states all have design standards based on the "Recommended Standards for Water Works" published by the Great Lakes Upper Mississippi River Board of State Public Health and Environmental Managers. These standards are updated on a 5 year cycle. Wisconsin is represented on the Water Supply Committee for development of the standards. The rule changes for design standards are the same or similar to the published standards. The federal rules do not require mandatory disinfection of groundwater systems. Illinois currently requires disinfection of all community water systems. All of the other adjacent states have mandatory disinfection for community water systems using groundwater based on their vulnerability to contamination by bacteria. All of the adjacent states will be evaluating disinfection at public water systems as part of the federal Groundwater Rule adoption and will be expanding disinfection requirements to systems vulnerable to fecal contamination.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The bulk of the rule changes are based on federal rule changes, changes to nationally recognized design standards, and clarification or updating comments gathered during a series of stakeholder meetings. The rule change associated with mandatory disinfection of municipal water systems served by groundwater stems in part from the federal Groundwater Rule and in part from research in Wisconsin on virus occurrence, illness related to viruses in drinking water, and the impact of disinfection on reducing viral related illness. The research studies considered were a Wisconsin Water and Health Trial for Enteric Risk (WAHTER) study conducted by the Marshfield Clinic Research Foundation and "An Assessment of Virus Presence and Potential Virus Pathways in Deep Municipal Wells" conducted by the Wisconsin Geological and Natural History Survey. The WAHTER study investigated the relationship between virus occurrence and illness rates in 14 Wisconsin communities using undisinfected and disinfected groundwater. The assessment study evaluated the occurrence of viruses in the deep wells serving the City of Madison. These studies support the following conclusions:
1.
Use of alternate parameters, as proposed by the Groundwater Rule, is inadequate to predict virus occurrence or the vulnerability of wells to contamination by viruses.
2.
Viruses occur in municipal wells that are not vulnerable using current assessment tools.
3.
Illness attributable to viruses is occurring at municipal water systems supplied by groundwater.
4.
Disinfection reduces the illness rates attributable to viruses at municipal water systems supplied by groundwater.
It is proposed to require mandatory disinfection of all municipal water systems served by groundwater based on the intent of the Groundwater Rule to reduce illness rates attributable to viruses at groundwater systems and conclusions drawn from a review of studies conducted on viral illness and virus occurrence in Wisconsin.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business
An analysis of the effect of the proposed rules on small business was not performed since the primarily impacted systems are community water systems serving municipal water systems, which are not small businesses.
Small Business Impact
These rules should not have a significant impact on small business since the water systems operated by small businesses such as taverns and restaurants are already subject to the inspection and deficiency correction requirements included in the rule modifications.
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
Environmental Impact
The Department has made a preliminary determination that this action does not involve significant adverse environmental effects and does not need an environmental analysis under ch.
NR 150
, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on the comments received, the Department may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
State government fiscal effect
Increase in costs — may be possible to absorb within agency's budget.
Local government fiscal effect
Mandatory increase in costs.
Types of local governmental units affected
Villages, Cities, Sanitary Districts.
Fund sources affected
FED.
Affected Ch.
20
appropriations
DNR fiscal impact
A. Groundwater Rule
1. One-Time Costs
This rule will require the Department to issue and track additional monitoring requirements. This will require modification to the Department's Drinking Water Data System. The Department estimates that this modification will take approximately 100 hours of contract programming time at an estimated hourly rate of $84. Therefore, 100 hours database architect contract programming time x $84/hour = $8,400
2. Annual Costs
a.
The rule requires the Department to conduct sanitary surveys at all community water systems at least once every three years. The Department currently conducts sanitary surveys once every five years. The Department plans to offset the fiscal impact of increasing the frequency of sanitary surveys, by eliminating annual inspections at municipal water systems; therefore, the net fiscal impact of this requirement is estimated to be zero.
b.
The rule requires the Department to complete a more complex review of monitoring plans for approximately 100 municipal systems that have multiple pressure zones within their service area. The Department estimates that each review will require 1 hour of staff time for a water supply engineer. Therefore, 100 reviews x 1 hr./review x $39.20/hr. salary and fringe for a water supply engineer = $3,920.
c.
The rule requires the review of certain treatment systems for virus inactivation. The Department estimates that approximately 50 systems have treatment systems that will require Departmental review and that each review will take approximately 8 hours of staff time for a water supply engineer. Therefore, 50 reviews x 8 hrs./review x $39.20/hr. salary and fringe for a water supply engineer = $15,680.
d.
The rule requires the Department to revise the sanitary survey process for transient non community (TNC) systems to include eight federally-required elements. For every TNC sanitary survey, the Department estimates that the rule change will require approximately 1 additional hour of staff time for a water supply specialist There are approximately 9,500 TNC systems in Wisconsin that require a sanitary survey at least once every five years, meaning that approximately 1,900 TNC systems will require sanitary surveys annually. Therefore 1,900 reviews x 1 hr./review x $32.06/hr. salary and fringe for a water supply specialist = $60,914.
B. Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule
1. One-time Costs
a.
The rule requires the Department to issue and track additional monitoring requirements. This will require modification of the Department's Drinking Water Data System. The Department estimates that this modification will take approximately 50 hours of contract programming time at an estimated hourly rate of $84. Therefore, 50 hours of database architect contract programming time x $84/hour = $4,200.
C. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
1. One-time Costs
a.
The rule will require the Department to issue and track additional monitoring requirements. This will require modification of the Department's Drinking Water Data System. The Department estimates that this modification will take approximately 50 hours of contract programming time at an estimated hourly rate of $84. Therefore, 50 hours of database architect contract programming time x $84/hour = $4,200.
In total, the rule will result in additional one-time costs of $16,800 and additional annualized costs of $80,500 and approximately 1.34 FTE of staff time required to implement the rule.
Local government fiscal impact
A. Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproduct Rule
1. Annual Costs
a.
The rule will require additional monitoring of disinfection byproducts. The Department estimates that 615 systems affected by this rule will be required to collect additional samples at an average cost of $580/system for a total estimated cost of $356,700.
B. Long Term 2 Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
1. One-time Costs
a.
The rule will require all municipal systems with surface water sources to complete additional source water monitoring for cryptosporidium and e-coli. There are currently 20 surface water systems in Wisconsin. The rule will require these systems to conduct 24 samples over a 5-year period starting in 2015. The estimated cost of the required analysis is $500/sample. Therefore, 20 surface water systems x 24 samples x $500/sample = $240,000.
C. Mandatory Disinfection Rule
1. One-time Costs
a.
The rule will require all municipal water systems to disinfect drinking water. There are currently approximately 71 systems in Wisconsin serving water that is not disinfected, although all systems are required to have the necessary equipment to disinfect. The Department estimates that approximately 50 wells will need new disinfection equipment in order to implement permanent disinfection. The Department estimates that installing new disinfection equipment will cost approximately $10,000/well. Therefore, 50 municipal wells x $10,000/well = $500,000.
b.
The rule will require all municipal water systems to disinfect drinking water. There are approximately 71 systems in Wisconsin serving water that is not disinfected. When these systems begin disinfection they will be required to conduct preliminary monitoring for disinfection by products. This preliminary monitoring will require two samples per quarter at a cost of $350/sample. Therefore, 71 systems x 2 samples/quarter x 4 quarters x $350 = $198,800.
2. Annual Costs
a.
The rule will require all municipal water systems to disinfect drinking water. There are currently approximately 71 systems in Wisconsin serving water that is not disinfected. The Department estimates that chemicals for disinfection at these systems will cost an average of $145/month. Therefore, 71 systems x $145/month x 12 months = $123,540.
b.
The Department estimates that the 71 systems affected by this rule will also incur additional costs to conduct disinfection by-product monitoring. These systems will be required to collect 2 samples once every 3 years at a cost of $350/sample. Therefore, 71 systems x 2 samples x $350/sample
÷
3 (once every 3 years) = $16,600.
In total, the rule will result in additional one-time costs of $938,800 and additional annualized costs of $496,800 for local units of government.
Agency Contact Person
Lee Boushon
Chief Public Water Supply Section
Phone: (608) 266-0857
Notice of Hearing
Public Instruction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
121.91 (4) (o) 1.
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing to consider emergency and proposed permanent rules to create Chapter
PI 15
, relating to revenue limit exemptions for energy efficiencies.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held as follows:
Date and Time
Location
November 9, 2009
Madison
3:00 - 4:00 p.m.
GEF 3 Building
125 South Webster St.
Room 041
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call David Carlson, Director, School Financial Services, (608) 266-6968 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Proposed Rule and Contact Person
Lori Slauson
Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street — P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than November 13, 2009, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
121.91 (4) (o) 1.
, Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to implement s.
121.91 (4) (o) 1.
, Stats., including eligibility standards for school districts that wish to increase their revenue limit by the amount spent in that school year on energy efficiency measures, and renewable energy products, that result in the avoidance of, or reduction in, energy costs.
Section
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related statute or rule
N/A
Plain language analysis
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
, the 2009-11 biennial budget bill, created a revenue limit exemption that allows a school district to increase its revenue limit by the amount spent by the school district in that school year on energy efficiency measures, and renewable energy products, that result in the avoidance of, or reduction in, energy costs.
The proposed rule establishes eligibility standards and procedures for school districts to follow when implementing revenue limit exemptions for energy efficiency measures. Specifically, school boards of the school districts are required to:
•
Identify the specific new expenditures.
•
Identify the performance indicators to measure the cost savings as a result of the expenditures.
•
Identify the period of time in which the expenditure will be recovered by the cost savings.
•
Pass a resolution with specified information by November 1 in the school year in which a tax is to be levied for the expenditure.
•
Submit a copy of the resolution to the department within two weeks of passage.
•
Levy the amount specified in the resolution when establishing its tax levies.
•
Incur the expenditure authorized in its resolution.
•
No later than two weeks following the date of the school district's budget hearing, submit to the department specified contents of the addendum to the school district's published budget summary.
•
Reduce the school district's following year's revenue limit by the amount of any additional revenue received as a result of the exemption and by the amount levied for which there is not a documented energy expenditure, if any.
•
Prohibit any additional revenue received by a school district from being included in the base for determining the school district's revenue limit for the succeeding school year.
In addition, the department is required to:
•
Post on its website all the resolutions received by school districts.
•
Adjust a school district's revenue limit to include the levy amount specified in the resolution.
•
Post on its website the addendum contents received by school districts.
•
Reduce a school district's revenue limit for the following year by the amount of any additional revenue received as a result of the exemption.
•
Reduce the school district's revenue limit for the following year by an amount the school district levied for which there is no documented expenditure authorized under the exemption, if any.
Because November 6 (school district tax levy due date) is the deadline for determining revenue limits for the 2009-10 school year, emergency rules need to be in place by the fall of 2009.
Comparison with federal regulations
N/A
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota do not have rules relating to revenue limits.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
provided that a school district's revenue limit may be increased by the amount spent by the district in that school year on energy efficiency measures and renewable energy products that result in avoidance of, or reduction in, energy costs, beginning with revenue limits calculated in the 2009-10 school year. The department is required to promulgate rules to implement this provision, including standards and guidelines districts must meet to use this adjustment. The department is allowed to promulgate emergency rules without the finding of an emergency to implement this provision. A school board is required to adopt a resolution to increase its revenue limit under this provision. The adjustment is nonrecurring.
The rules focus on the process that school districts must use to request energy efficiency revenue limit exemptions and to ensure that the additional expenditure/taxing authority is offset with documented cost savings.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
N/A
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact and are not anticipated to have a fiscal impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
2009 Wis. Act 28
and the rules allow a school district to increase its revenue limit by the amount spent by the school district in that school year on energy efficiency measures and renewable energy products that result in the avoidance of, or reduction in, energy costs.
The rules focus on the process that school districts must use to request energy efficiency revenue limit exemptions and to ensure that the additional expenditure/taxing authority is offset with documented cost savings. The rule, itself, will not increase local revenue. It is the school district's choice as to whether they want to spend money on energy efficiency measures or products and then levy taxes to pay for it. Any additional revenue received by the school district may not be included in the base for the succeeding school year. In addition, the school district's following school year's revenue limit will be reduced by the amount levied for which there is not a documented energy expenditure.
The costs associated with administering this grant program will be absorbed by the department.
Agency Contact Person
David Carlson, Director
School Financial Services
Phone: (608) 266-6968
Notice of Hearing
Public Instruction
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
119.23 (2) (a) 3.
and
(11)
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Department of Public Instruction will hold a public hearing to consider emergency and proposed permanent rules to revise Chapter
PI 35
, relating to establishing a nonrefundable fee under the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held as follows:
Date and Time
Location
October 26, 2009
Milwaukee
4:30 - 6:00 p.m.
MPS Administration Bldg.
5225 W. Vliet Street
Auditorium
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Robert Soldner, Director, School Management Services, (608) 266-7475 or leave a message with the Teletypewriter (TTY) at (608) 267-2427 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Reasonable accommodation includes materials prepared in an alternative format, as provided under the Americans with Disabilities Act.
Copies of Rule and Contact Person
Lori Slauson
Administrative Rules and Federal Grants Coordinator
Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street — P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above mail or email address no later than November 2, 2009, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
Section
119.23 (2) (a) 3.
, Stats., requires the department to, by rule, set the fee charged to private schools participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) at an amount such that the total fee revenue covers the costs of employing one full-time auditor to evaluate the financial information submitted by the private schools.
Section
119.23 (11)
, Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules to implement and administer the MPCP.
Section
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., gives an agency rule-making authority to interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Related statute or rule
N/A
Plain language analysis
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
, the 2009-11 biennial budget bill, made several modifications to the Milwaukee parental choice program under s.
119.23
, Stats. Several of the modifications require that the department develop rules to implement the statutory provisions. One of those modifications requires the department to develop a rule to establish a nonrefundable fee to cover the cost of employing one full-time DPI auditor for the program. Each private school intending to participate in the program in the 2010-11 school year must pay the fee no later than February 1.
The rules:
•
Require the department to establish the nonrefundable fee by December 1, 2009, for the 2010-11 school year and annually thereafter for subsequent school years.
•
Set the nonrefundable fee by establishing a fee formula.
•
Require that the private schools pay the nonrefundable fee to the department by cashier's check by February 1, 2010 for the 2010-11 school year and annually thereafter for subsequent school years.
•
Allows the state superintendent to bar a private school from participating in the choice program if the private school fails to pay the nonrefundable fee.
Comparison with federal regulations
N/A
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota do not have rules relating to private school voucher programs.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Because the cost of employing a full-time auditor to evaluate the financial information submitted by the private schools may change from year to year, the rules include a formula whereby a fee will be set annually. The fee should not change significantly from year to year but the formula will allow for flexibility if needed when establishing the fee.
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
requires the private schools to pay the fee by February 1 of the school year previous to the school year in which they plan to participate (see s.
119.23 (2) (a) 3.
, Stats.).
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
N/A
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
N/A
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact and are not anticipated to have a fiscal impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
A nonrefundable fee will be charged to private schools participating in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP) to cover the costs of employing one full-time auditor to evaluate the financial information submitted by the private schools under the program.
The fee charged (due November 1, 2009) to schools participating in the 2009-10 school year will be determined by dividing the cost of the full-time auditor position by the number of schools that submitted information required on September 1, 2009 (rounded to the nearest dollar). Assuming a full-time auditor would be hired by October 1, 2009, the cost of his or her employment for the first year (October 1, 2009 — June 30, 2010) would be approximately $111,400. Assuming 125 schools will be participating in the MPCP, the approximate fee to be charged would be $891 per school ($111,400
÷
125 = $891).
The fee charged (due February 1, 2010) to schools indicating an intent to participate in the 2010-11 school year will be determined by dividing the cost of the full-time auditor position by the number of schools that submitted information required on the previous October 1 (rounded to the nearest dollar). The cost of a full-time auditor for one year (July 1, 2010 — June 30, 2011) would be approximately $146,200. Assuming 125 schools will be participating in the MPCP, the approximate fee to be charged would be $1,170 per school ($146,200
÷
125 = $1,170).
Based on this amount, it is assumed the rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a)
, Stats.
These rules have no local fiscal effect.
Agency Contact Person
Robert Soldner, Director
School Management Services
Phone: (608) 266-7475
