(5)
The institution business office shall disburse release account funds in accordance with s.
DOC 309.48
.
SECTION 3. DOC 309.48 (title) is amended to read:
DOC 309.48 Procedure for inmate requests for disbursements of
general
inmate
account funds.
SECTION 4. DOC 309.49 (title) is amended to read:
DOC 309.49 (title) Disbursement of
general
inmate
account funds.
SECTION 5. DOC 309.49 (4m) is created to read:
DOC 309.49 (4m) An inmate may request that the institution business office disburse release account funds. The institution business office shall disburse release account funds only for reasons consistent with the purposes under s.
DOC 309.466
or subject to a lawful court order.
Small Business Impact
The Department of Corrections has determined that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses since the rule does not regulate small businesses as that term is defined in s.
227.114
, Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Under the current administrative rule for inmate release accounts an inmate is required to deposit 15% of their earned or received income (received income is from a personal source) up to a maximum of $500. The Department uses a declining balance approach for all outstanding debt based on the order deductions are to be applied and the percentage used. However, if an inmate has a FIFO (first in/first out) noted on his or her account, those debts must be met prior to any other outstanding obligations, including an inmate's release account. FIFO covers over draft payments, institution loans, medical co-payments, and victim witness obligations. Also, inmates that receive income from a personal source are not always obligated to pay outstanding debt with these funds. In some court cases a judge orders that income received from a personal source cannot be used towards outstanding debt. If that happens, the inmate receives these funds in full without any deductions applied.
The new administrative rule reduces the required deduction from 15% to 10% and increases the maximum amount from $500 to $5,000. The new rule also expands what an inmate can request out of his or her release account prior to release. Currently an inmate can only request funds for street clothing and out-of-state travel. Under this rule an inmate will be able to request funds prior to release to be used for re-entry purposes into the community as well as reimbursement costs related to incarceration, such as legal loans or restitution. The release of these funds must be authorized by the Department; otherwise the funds will be distributed upon release from prison.
The new rule also provides an adjustment to the maximum savings every five years based on the consumer price index percentage. The consumer price index increase should increase the total amount an inmate can save into their release account.
Based on Department inmate release collection data from FY07-09 (3-years) an average of $210.65 was saved per inmate during that time period. The proposal reduces the savings percentage from 15% to 10% of an inmate's earned or received income .The result of this change would be reduced savings by ($10.53) or $200.12 per inmate over a three year period. Based on the new average savings amount it would take an inmate 75 years to accumulate $5,000. Currently, it takes 7 years of incarceration to reach $500.
The procedural changes are not expected to have any state fiscal impact.
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Agency Contact Person
Kathryn R. Anderson, Chief Legal Counsel
Department of Corrections
3099 East Washington Avenue, P.O. Box 7925
Madison, WI 53707-7925
Phone: (608) 240-5049; FAX (608) 240-3306
Notice of Hearing
Insurance
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to the authority granted under s.
601.41 (3)
, Stats., and the procedures set forth in under s.
227.18
, Stats. The Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI) will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of a proposed rule revising section
Ins 3.39
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to guarantee issue and affecting small business.
Hearing Information
Date:
October 15, 2009
Time:
10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter
may be reached
Place:
OCI, Room 227
125 South Webster St. — 2
nd
Floor
Madison, WI
Submission of Written Comments
Written comments can be mailed to:
Julie E. Walsh
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 33934
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Written comments can be hand delivered to:
Julie E. Walsh
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 33934
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster St – 2
nd
Floor
Madison WI 53703-3474
Comments can be emailed to:
Julie E. Walsh
Comments submitted through the Wisconsin Administrative Rule Web site at:
http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov
on the proposed rule will be considered.
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 7
th
day after the date for the hearing stated in this Notice of Hearing.
Agency Contact Person and Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the OCI internet Web site at
http://oci.wi.gov/ocirules.htm
or by contacting Inger Williams, Public Information and Communications, OCI, at:
inger.williams@wisconsin.gov
, (608) 264-8110, 125 South Webster Street — 2
nd
Floor, Madison WI or PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance (OCI)
Statutes interpreted
ss.
185.983 (1m)
,
600.03
,
601.01 (2)
,
609.01 (1g) (b)
,
625.16
,
628.34 (12)
,
628.38
,
631.20 (2)
,
632.73 (2m)
,
632.76 (2) (b)
and
632.81
,
632.895 (6)
and
(9)
, Wis. Stats.
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The statutes all relate to the commissioner's authority to promulgate rules regulating the business of insurance as it relates to Medicare supplement and Medicare replacement insurance products. Specifically, ss.
601.41
,
625.16
,
628.38
,
632.73
,
632.76
, and
632.81
, Wis. Stats., permit the commissioner to promulgate rules regulating various aspects of Medicare supplement and Medicare replacement products while s.
628.34
, Wis. Stats., authorizes the commissioner to promulgate rules governing disclosure requirements and unfair marketing practices for disability policies, which includes Medicare supplement and Medicare replacement products.
Related statutes or rules
The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) required the National Association of Insurance Commissioners (NAIC) to make conforming changes to the Medigap model regulation and delegated the function of implementing the Medicare Improvements for Patients and Providers Act of 2008 (MIPPA, Public Law 110-175) to NAIC. CMS delegates enforcement of MIPPA and the underlying Medicare supplement and Medicare replacement insurance products to the states that have incorporated the NAIC Model Act into the state's insurance regulations. To date Wisconsin has passed several NAIC Model Acts through statute including the most recent modification to the NAIC Medigap Model. In Wisconsin Medicare supplement and Medicare replacement products are currently regulated through s.
Ins 3.39
, Wis. Adm. Code, inclusive of the appendices. The proposed rule modifies and adds to s.
Ins 3.39
, Wis. Adm. Code in order to comply with the MIPPA and the NAIC requirements, to the extent necessary, and updates the appendices to reflect those changes.
Plain language analysis and summary of the proposed rule
The proposed rule amends portions of the rule to more closely reflect the benefits provided by the NAIC Medicare Supplement Insurance Minimum Standards Model Act and reintroduces the use of high deductible Medicare supplement plans. Further, during prior rule-making the Board on Aging and Long-term Care requested broadening of the guarantee issue eligibility rights. The commissioner convened an advisory work group to assist in the review of existing guarantee issue rights and to determine whether revisions were warranted. The proposed rule includes two modifications to Ins. 3.39, Wis. Adm. Code, that arose from the recommendation of the advisory work group specific to guarantee issue rights.
Regarding modifications clarifying NAIC Model regulations relating to the two new plans that should lower premiums by requiring insureds to pay either 50% of hospital inpatient charges or copayments for office and emergency room visits. The proposed rule limits availability combinations of riders that can be used with the newer benefits as certain combinations would make any premium savings illusory. Specifically, issuers cannot issue both the Medicare Part A Deductible Rider and the Medicare 50% Part A Deductible Rider to the same insured for the same period of coverage. Similarly, issuers cannot issue both the Medicare Part B Deductible Rider and the Medicare Part B Copayments or Coinsurance Rider to the same insured for the same period of coverage.
The proposed rule further delineates that the Medicare Part B Copayment or Coinsurance Rider requires that the insured's copayment or coinsurance be the lesser of $20.00 per office visit or the Medicare Part B coinsurance amount, with emergency room visits covered at the lesser of $50.00 or the Medicare Part B coinsurance amount. The emergency room copayment or coinsurance amount shall be waived if the insured is admitted to any hospital and the emergency visit is subsequently covered as a Medicare Part A expense.
In addition to corrections, the proposed rule reintroduces the high-deductible Medicare supplement plan previously sunset. The reintroduction is in response to repeated requests from the industry and supported by the Board on Aging and Long-term Care. This permits insureds flexibility to purchase a product best suited to medical and financial needs. The product complies with the NAIC Model regulation is proposed to have policy effective on June 1, 2010 to permit issuers time to develop and have policy forms and advertising material approved by the office. The proposed rule also modified Appendix 3 to reflect these changes.
The annual high deductible shall be $1,900.00 for 2010, and will be adjusted annually thereafter to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index in the twelve-month period ending with August of the preceding year, rounded to the nearest multiple of $10.00. The annual high deductible consists of out-of-pocket expenses, other than premiums, listed above and is in addition to any other specific benefit deductibles. An issuer must continue to make available for purchase any policy form or certificate form issued after May 31, 2010 that has been approved by the commissioner. A policy or certificate form will not be considered to by available for purchase unless the issuer actively offered it for sale within the previous twelve months. This is changed from an issue date of August 1, 1992.
Finally, the proposed rule also expands the category of eligible persons who are guaranteed issuance of Medicare supplements or Medicare replacement policies to those whose payments for coverage substantially increase or to those whose plans terminate or cease to provide some or all such supplemental health benefits. The amount an individual pays for coverage under the plan is considered to substantially increase if the amount the individual pays for coverage under the plan increases by more than 25% from one 12-month period to the subsequent 12-month period, and the new payment for the employer-sponsored coverage is greater than the premium charged under the Medicare supplement plan for which the individual is applying. An issuer may require reasonable documentation to substantiate the increase of the cost of the coverage to the individual.
A second new guaranteed issue time period will arise when a hospitals leaves a Medicare Select network. The issuer shall notify the insured that a hospital is leaving the Medicare Select network and that there is no other hospital within a 30-minute or 30-mile radius of the policyholder. This will trigger a guarantee issue opportunity for the insured affected by the change in network to purchase a new Medicare supplemental policy without being newly underwritten by the issuer.
Comparison with federal regulations
The proposed rule amendments will bring the rule in closer compliance with the NAIC Model Act. There are no existing or proposed federal regulations relating to the proposed changes in guarantee issue eligibility.
Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states
Illinois
Illinois has adopted the NAIC Model regulation creating the new Medigap plans M and N, and to incorporate the hospice care benefit as well as the new and innovative benefit requirements as required by MIPPA. No other state has the guarantee issue provisions as revised or access requirements.
Iowa
Iowa makes available to its Medicare beneficiaries Medigap policies A through J as required by the Medicare reform provisions under OBRA 1990 and the prior NAIC Model Regulation. Iowa has adopted the NAIC Model regulation as required. No other state has the guarantee issue provisions as revised or access requirements.
Michigan
Michigan makes available to its Medicare beneficiaries Medigap policies A through J as required by the Medicare reform provisions under OBRA 1990 and the prior NAIC Model Regulation. Michigan has not yet passed legislation to create new Medigap plans M and N, and to incorporate the hospice care benefit as well as the new and innovative benefit requirements as required by MIPPA. No other state has the guarantee issue provisions as revised or access requirements.
Minnesota
Minnesota, like Wisconsin, received a waiver from the federal standardization regulations. Minnesota makes available to its Medicare beneficiaries two standardized policies (basic and extended basic). Minnesota has adopted the GINA requirements of the NAIC Model regulation but as a waived state will not promulgate the MIPPA changes. No other state has the guarantee issue provisions as revised or access requirements.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
CMS data indicate that Medicare currently covers 40 million Americans, 814,183 of whom are Wisconsin residents as of 2004. An estimated 27 percent of Medicare beneficiaries are covered by Medigap policies.
Information collected by the OCI indicates that 75 insurance companies offer Medicare supplement, Medicare cost and Medicare select (Medigap) policies to Wisconsin consumers eligible for Medicare due to age or disability. In addition, there are 25 insurance companies that have Medigap policyholders although the companies no longer market Medigap coverage in Wisconsin. At year end 2007, there were 247,142 Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries with Medigap policies. The majority of these Wisconsin Medicare beneficiaries have Medigap policies that will be affected by the Medigap reforms under the MIPPA.
A 2000 report by CMS, Office of Research, Development, and Information, based on 2007 Medicare data indicates that Medicare paid 54-56% of the health care expenses of persons 65 or over, and private health insurance, including Medicare supplement policies paid 16% of these health care expenses. The report indicated that overall annual medical expenses in 2005 per Medicare beneficiary equaled $6,697.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine rule's effect on small businesses
OCI reviewed financial statements and other reports filed by life, accident and health issuers and determined that none qualifies as a small business. Wisconsin currently has 75 insurance companies offering Medicare supplement, Medicare cost and Medicare select insurance plans. None of these issuers meets the definition of a small business under s.
227.114
, Wis. Stats.
There may be limited effects on intermediaries, however the requirement will not be significant and will mainly be comprised of learning new products and options for seniors.
Small Business Impact
This rule does not impose any additional requirements on small businesses.
This rule does not have a significant impact on regulated small businesses as defined in s.
227.114 (1)
, Wis. Stats., including intermediaries. OCI maintains a database of all licensed issuers in Wisconsin. The database includes information submitted by the companies related to premium revenue and employment. In an examination of this database, OCI identified that 75 insurance companies offer Medicare supplement, Medicare cost and Medicare select (Medigap) policies to Wisconsin consumers eligible for Medicare due to age or disability and none of those companies qualify by definition as a small business. In addition, 25 insurance companies have Medigap policyholders although the companies no longer market Medigap coverage in Wisconsin. Again, none of these 25 companies qualifies by definition as a small business. Although affected by this proposed rule change, intermediaries qualifying as small businesses may be affected but such effect will not be significant as previously described.
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., the proposed rule may have an effect on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:
Initial regulatory flexibility analysis
Types of small businesses affected
Insurance intermediaries.
Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required
None beyond those currently required.
Description of professional skills required
None beyond those currently required.
Small business regulatory coordinator
The OCI small business coordinator is Eileen Mallow and may be reached at phone number (608) 266-7843 or at email address
eileen.mallow@wisconsin.gov
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
Private sector impact
The proposed rule will not significantly impact the private sector. Issuers offering Medigap policies (Medicare supplement, Medicare cost, and Medicare select policies) will incur costs associated with developing new Medigap policies and marketing materials, mailing riders and explanatory materials to existing policyholders and reprogramming claim processing systems. However, these costs are offset by the issuers' ability to continue offering Medigap policies to Wisconsin consumers and will not be significant. Intermediaries will need to use the newly developed forms and may incur nominal printing costs if the issuers do not provide forms to the agents, but such costs will not be significant.
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
29.0916
and
227.11
, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) will hold public hearings on the creation of Chapter
NR 52
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to public use of lands acquired under the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program.
Hearing Information
The hearings will begin at 6:30 p.m. on the following dates and locations:
October 14, Wednesday
DNR West Central Region Headquarters (Room 158/185)
1300 West Clairemont
Eau Claire, WI 54702
October 15, Thursday
Nicolet Area Technical College —
Learning Resources Center Theater
5364 College Drive
Rhinelander, WI 54501
October 20, Tuesday
Madison Area Technical College, Truax Campus
Student Lounge – 142C
3550 Anderson St.
Madison, WI 53704
October 21, Wednesday
Northeast Wisconsin Technical College
Room CB213 C&D
2740 W. Mason Street
Green Bay, 54307
October 22, Thursday
UW Washington County (Lecture Hall 201)
400 S University Drive
West Bend, WI 53095
A 30-minute informational briefing on the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program will precede the hearing (beginning at 6:00 p.m.). The hearings will begin at 6:30 p.m. with an overview of s.
23.0916
, Stats., and an overview of the proposed rule. Public Comments will be accepted beginning at 7:00 p.m.
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 contact Doug Haag at (608) 266-2136 or
DouglasJ.Haag@wisconsin.gov
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
(search using keyword "NR 52"). Written comments on the proposed rule may also be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Douglas Haag, Bureau of Facilities and Lands, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707 or by email to
DouglasJ.Haag@Wisconsin.gov
. Comments may be submitted until October 30, 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. If you do not have Internet access, a personal copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Mr. Haag at the address above or by calling (608) 266-2136.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Plain language rule analysis
Chapter
NR 52
creates standards and criteria that will be used by the DNR and the Natural Resources Board to determine whether it is reasonable to prohibit one or more nature based outdoor activities, defined as hunting, trapping, hiking, fishing, and cross country skiing. The rule identifies three primary reasons for prohibiting one or more of these activities. The three reasons are; to protect public safety, to protect unique plant and animal communities, and to accommodate usership patterns. The rule also requires that when one or more nature based outdoor activities is proposed to be prohibited, the DNR will notify the public by posting the information on the DNR's website. The public will have a chance to comment on the proposal to buy the land and prohibit the activity. The DNR and the Natural Resources Board will evaluate the public comments and apply the standards and criteria identified in the rule when determining whether the prohibition meets the intent of s.
23.0916
, Stats.
Comparison with federal regulations
The Land and Water Conservation Fund is a federal funding program administered by the U. S. National Park Service. This program provides funding for the acquisition of land and the development of facilities for public outdoor recreation. The program does not include a specific requirement that lands and facilities be open to all nature based activities, rather the use of the funds is directed by the Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan which identifies general trends in outdoor recreation and identifies broad regional and statewide needs for land acquisition and recreational facility development.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service administers several programs that provide funding to the DNR for land acquisition and facility development. Most of these funds target specific purposes such as the protection of habitat for endangered species, coastal areas, and wetlands. In addition, there are funds for motor boat access acquisition and development, wildlife habitat protection and management, and fisheries habitat protection and development. Generally, land acquired with funds from the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service must be open to the public. There are some limited restrictions on the types of activities allowed to occur on these federally funded properties.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, and Illinois all have land acquisition programs that allow for the purchase of land, through either easements or fee simple purchases. Many of these programs are similar to the Nelson-Knowles Stewardship Program. However, these programs do not have the requirement that they be open to the public for hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, and cross-county skiing.
Minnesota
The Natural and Scenic Areas Grant Program was created to increase, enhance, and protect Minnesota's natural and scenic areas. The program provides $500,000 in matching grants each year for fee simple purchases and conservation easements of environmentally important lands. There is no requirement of public access for nature based outdoor recreational activities.
Michigan
The Michigan Natural Resources Trust provides approximately $35 million in financial assistance each year to local governments and the Michigan DNR to purchase land or rights in land for public recreation or for environmental protection or scenic beauty. It also provides financial assistance for the development of land for public outdoor recreation. This program lists public access and hunting and fishing opportunities as a scoring criteria and special initiative but does not require the land to be open to these specific activities.
Iowa
The Resource Enhancement and Protection (REAP) grant program in Iowa was created to enhance and protect Iowa's natural and cultural resources. This program provides up to $20 million in funding annually to acquire land for recreational purposes. Iowa's program does not specifically require the land be used for hunting, fishing, trapping, hiking, or cross-country skiing.
The Wildlife Habitat Promotion with Local Entities provides funding to county conservation boards for the acquisition and development of wildlife habitat. Land acquired through this program must be open to hunting and trapping, and other compatible uses such as fishing, hiking, nature studying, cross-county skiing, etc.
Illinois
The Open Space Lands Acquisition and Development Program in Illinois provides approximately $20 million in funding assistance annually to local government agencies for acquisition and development of land for public parks and open space. There is no specific requirement for access for hunting, trapping, fishing, hiking, and cross-country skiing.
http://www.dnr.state.il.us/ocd/newoslad1.htm
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
2007 Wis. Act 20
included reauthorization of the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program that is the primary funding source for land acquisition for conservation and public outdoor recreation. Reauthorization included a provision requiring that certain lands acquired with funds from the stewardship program under ss.
23.0915
and
23.0917
, Stats., be open to hunting, trapping, hiking, fishing, and cross country skiing. The Act provided for exceptions if the Natural Resources Board determines it is necessary to prohibit one or more of the activities to protect public safety, protect unique plant and animal communities, or to accommodate usership patterns. After the budget was approved, the DNR administered the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship Program according to an interim protocol adopted by the Natural Resources Board in December 2007. The interim protocol can be found at
http://dnr.wi.gov/
stewardship/interim.html
.
The Natural Resources Board also established a subcommittee to evaluate the new law and gather public opinion about the law. The sub-committee held three listening sessions in April 2008 and invited public comment by personal testimony, email, and written comment. Over 130 people testified in person and the subcommittee received almost 500 communications in total. Information gathered at these listening sessions can be found at
http://dnr.wi.gov/stewardship/rule.html
.
The Natural Resources Board Stewardship Program Subcommittee reported the results of these listening sessions to the full Board on June 19, 2008. The Subcommittee's full report can be found at
http://dnr.wi.gov/stewardship/
rule.html
.
In July 2008, the DNR appointed a 29-member citizen advisory committee to provide input on developing these administrative rules. The citizen advisory committee included members from a diverse group of recreational users. A complete listing of the members of the citizen advisory committee can be found at
http://dnr.wi.gov/org/caer/
ce/news/PDF/stewmembers.pdf
.
The citizen advisory committee met 6 times between July 2008 and January 2009. A professional facilitator managed the meeting and lead the group through a variety of exercises intended to identify important issues. The DNR prepared 4 concept papers on the following topics: A Process for Review of Determinations Made Under s.
23.0916
, Stats., Public Safety, Unique Plant and Animal Communities, and Usership Patterns. The papers were presented to the committee by DNR staff and the committee discussed the various concepts included in the papers and recommended changes. The final draft of these concept papers can be found at
http://dnr.wi.gov/stewardship/CAC/
.
All of the above-mentioned information has been reviewed by the DNR to assist with the drafting of these administrative rules.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
These rules and the legislation, which grants the DNR rule making authority, do not have a significant fiscal effect on the private sector or small businesses.
Small Business Impact
No specific direct effect on small business is anticipated. This rule provides further guidance for the implementation of existing programs. It is anticipated that no new funding or business activity will be created.
Pursuant to s.
227.114
, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rules will have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
The DNR's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at
DNRSmallBusinessCoordinator@ Wisconsin.gov
or by calling (608) 266-1959.
Environmental Impact
The DNR 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 DNR may prepare an environmental analysis before proceeding with the proposal. This environmental review document would summarize the DNR's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
2007 Act 20
included reauthorization of the Knowles Nelson Stewardship Program which is the primary funding source for acquiring land for conservation and public outdoor recreation. Act 20 included a provision that certain lands acquired with funds from the Stewardship Program under ss.
23.0915
and
23.0917
, Stats., be open to five nature based outdoor activities (NBOA's): hunting, trapping, hiking, fishing, and cross country skiing. The Act also provides for exceptions to the statute if it is necessary to prohibit one or more of the activities to protect public safety, protect unique plant and animal communities or to accommodate usership patterns.
This rule implements s.
23.0916
, Stats., by creating standards and criteria that will be used by the Department to determine whether it is necessary to prohibit one or more nature based outdoor activity. The Department does not anticipate any fiscal impact to state or local government as it implements Ch.
NR 52
.
State fiscal effect
None.
Local government fiscal effect
None.
Agency Contact Person
Douglas Haag
Realty Operations Chief
(608) 266-2136
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Fish, Game, etc., Chs. NR 1—
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
29.014
,
29.063
,
29.177
and
227.11
, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to Chapter
NR 10
, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to the seasons for hunting deer.
Hearing Information
The public hearings will begin at 6:30 p.m. with an informational presentation and overview of the proposed rule. Public comments and statements will be accepted beginning at 7:00 p.m.:
October 14, 2009
Crivitz Village Hall
800 Henriette Ave, PO 727
Crivitz
October 15, 2009
Onalaska High School Field House
700 Hilltopper Place
Onalaska, WI 54650
October 21, 2009
Lussier Family Heritage Center —
Main Level, 3101 Lake Farm Road
Madison
October 21, 2009
James Williams Middle School
915 Acacia Lane
Rhinelander
October 21, 2009
Ashland AmericInn Conf. Center,
3009 Lakeshore Drive E.
Ashland
October 26, 2009
Fox Valley Technical College,
Appleton Campus, Room C190
1825 North Bluemound Drive
Appleton
October 26, 2009
Chippewa Valley Technical College
Auditorium, Room M103
620 W. Clairemont Ave.
Eau Claire
October 28, 2009
Waukesha County Technical College
Room C051/C057
800 Main Street
Pewaukee
October 28, 2009
Spooner High School Auditorium
801 County A
Spooner
November 3, 2009
Portage County Courthouse Annex
Conf. Room 1, 1462 Strongs Ave.
Stevens Point
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 Scott Loomans at (608) 267-2452 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 sites:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
or
http://dnr.wi.gov/
. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Mr. Keith Warnke, Bureau of Wildlife Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until November 3, 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. Warnke.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Plain language analysis
These proposed rules establish the deer season framework for hunting with archery gear, firearms and muzzleloaders.
November firearm
season
|
Statewide 16-day season beginning two
Saturdays prior to the Thanksgiving holiday. CWD zone would use the same dates.
Season would be the normal bucks plus
variable quota system
|
Archery
seasons
|
Opens statewide on the Saturday closest to September 15 and continues through the Thursday immediately prior to November firearm season. Statewide season reopens on 1
st
day of the November gun season
and continuing through the 2
nd
Sunday in January.
In herd-control units, the archery season would continue through January 31. Bonus buck incentive for all hunters beginning December 26 through January 31 in herd control units. CWD zone would use the same dates.
|
Youth season
|
Statewide 5-day, either-sex season beginning the 2
nd
Saturday in October. Saturday through Wednesday.
|
Early
muzzleloader season
|
Statewide 5-day, antlerless-only by permit beginning the 2
nd
Saturday in October.
Saturday through Wednesday.
|
October herd control firearm seasons
|
Herd control units only. 5-day, antlerless-only season beginning the 2
nd
Saturday in October. CWD October season would use same dates. Saturday through Wednesday. When October herd control seasons are held on lands that are part of the Kettle Moraine State Forest, the five-day season will begin on the Thursday nearest October 27.
|
Late
muzzleloader season
|
Statewide 7-day season beginning the Monday immediately following the
November firearm season (Bucks plus quota). CWD zone would use the same dates.
|
December firearm
season
|
Central Forest & Farmland zones.
4-day, antlerless-only season beginning the Thursday immediately following the late muzzleloader season. Appropriate antlerless permit required. CWD zone would use the same dates.
|
Holiday herd control firearm season
|
Central Forest & Farmland zones. Herd control units only, 10-day antlerless-only season beginning December 26
th
. CWD zone would use same dates
|
Bonus buck incentive
|
Hunters harvesting an antlerless deer in herd control units beginning on December 26 with this incentive are eligible for a bonus buck tag valid through the end of all deer seasons.
|
Public/private land tags
|
Herd control units only and only outside of the CWD Management Zone. Herd control tags will be specific to public or private lands. Public land tags will be issued based on the percentage of public land within herd control units.
|
Related rule or statute
One administrative rule that is currently under promulgation,
CR 09-024
, the annual wildlife management housekeeping rule, would amend language in section 2. of this board order. This board order reflects that proposed change.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
All of Wisconsin's surrounding states use hunting seasons to provide hunting opportunities and to manage white-tailed deer herds. All of the surrounding states utilize a range of hunting seasons and allow the use of archery equipment, firearms and muzzleloading firearms at certain times. The seasons proposed in this rule order do not vary significantly from the hunting opportunities that are available in other states.
Illinois
The Illinois archery season in most of the state runs from October 1-January 17 except that it is closed during the firearm deer season. Illinois has two periods for firearm deer hunting. The first firearm season in 2009 is
November 20, 21, 22 and the second season is December 3, 4, 5, 6. The Illinois muzzleloader only season will be December 11, 12, 13 in 2009.
Iowa
There are two archery hunting periods, the first is October 1-Dec. 4 and the second is December 21-January 10, 2010. Iowa also has two periods for firearm hunting, December 5-9 and December 12–20. Iowa's two muzzleloader only hunting periods are October 17–25 and December 21-January 10.
Michigan
Michigan has two archery hunting periods, the first beginning on October 1 and continuing through November 14 and the second running December 1–January 1. The Michigan firearm season begins on November 15 and continues through November 30. Michigan's muzzleloader- only seasons vary in three zones, all occurring in December and vary from 10 to 17 days in length.
Minnesota
Minnesota's archery season runs from September 19 to December 31. Minnesota's firearm season begins on November 7 and continues to November 15 or 22 depending on the zone. The muzzleloader-only season runs from November 28 to December 13.
Comparison with federal regulations
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
