Comparison with federal regulations
The proposed rule parallels the standards enacted by the DOD Act and makes it clear they are applicable to assistance eligible individuals who are or were entitled to coverage under s.
632.897
, Stats., or s.
Ins 3.75
, Wis. Adm. Code.
Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states
Illinois:
None.
Iowa:
None.
Michigan:
None.
Minnesota:
None.
Factual data and analytical methodologies
This proposed rule is based on, and parallels the DOD Act.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine rule's effect on small businesses
The rule imposes no substantial requirements on small employers but would allow discontinued employees of small employer who have group insurance the ability to elect continuation of health insurance coverage.
Small Business Impact
This rule will have little or no negative effect on small businesses and does not impose any additional requirements on small businesses.
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 and local government fiscal impact
There will be no state or local government fiscal effect.
Private sector fiscal impact
This rule change will have no significant negative effect on the private sector regulated by OCI but will allow numerous people to continue group health insurance that would not be able to without this change.
Agency Contact Person
Inger Williams, OCI
Public Information and Communications
Phone:
(608) 264-8110
Address:
125 South Webster St., 2
nd
Floor
Madison, WI 53703-3474
Mail:
PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873
Notice of Hearings
Justice Assistance
CR 10-010
(Reprinted from March 31, 2010 Register)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
16.964 (16) (b)
and
227.11 (2) (a)
, Stats., the Office of Justice Assistance (OJA) will hold public hearings at the times and places indicated below to consider the creation of Chapter
OJA 1
, relating to
the collection and analysis of motor vehicle traffic stop information.
Hearing Information
Date and Time
Location
April 26, 2010
Room 142 C (Student Lounge)
4:00 PM
Madison Area Technical College
3550 Anderson Street
Madison, Wisconsin
April 28, 2010
Room 250, Zelazo Center
4:00 PM
University of Wisconsin — Milwaukee
2419 East Kenwood Boulevard
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
The public hearing sites are accessible to people with disabilities. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at a hearing, please call (608) 261-7005 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations will be made available to the fullest extent possible.
Copies of Proposed Rule
Copies of this proposed rule are available on the Office of Justice Assistance website at
http://oja.wi.gov
under "Current News" or at the state administrative rules website at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov
(search under "traffic stop"). Copies may also be obtained at no charge by making a request to Dennis Schuh, Program Director, Office of Justice Assistance, 1 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 615 Madison, WI 53703, Phone: (608) 266-7682. Email: Dennis.Schuh@ wisconsin.gov.
Appearances at the Hearing and Submission of Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to present information at the hearing. Persons appearing may make an oral presentation, but are urged to submit facts, opinions and argument in writing as well. Comments may also be submitted using the Wisconsin Admin. Rules Website at http://adminrules. wisconsin.gov or submitted by mail addressed to the agency contact person listed above. The deadline for submitting comments to the Office of Justice Assistance is 4:30 p.m. on April 30, 2010.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of Justice Assistance
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
(11y) RULE-MAKING RELATED TO TRAFFIC STOP INFORMATION COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS. The office of justice assistance in the department of administration shall submit in proposed form the rules required under section
16.964 (16) (b)
of the statutes, as created by this act, to the legislative council staff under section
227.15 (1)
of the statutes no later than February 1, 2010.
Under the provisions of s.
16.964 (16) (b)
, Stats. as created by
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
, "(t)he office shall promulgate rules relating to . . ." (traffic stop data collection, submittal, analyses and reports). "Office" is defined to mean "the office of justice assistance." s.
16.964 (1) (g)
, Stats.
Related statute or rule
Under
s.
349.027
, Stats., the person in charge of a law enforcement agency shall "cause to be obtained" information required by the OJA rules relating to each traffic stop made on or after January 1, 2011. The person in charge of a law enforcement agency is also required to submit the information to the OJA using the process and format prescribed by OJA rules.
Plain language analysis
These rules fulfill a statutory mandate that OJA adopt rules relating to the collection of information on traffic stops by law enforcement agencies (agencies) and analysis of the collected information by OJA. By statute, the rules are to relate to:
•
The types of information that agencies must collect and the circumstances under which it must be collected;
•
The process and format that agencies must use to submit the collected information to the OJA;
•
The types of analyses that OJA will perform; and,
•
Requirements for making reports to the legislature.
Proposed ch.
OJA 1
, in s.
OJA 1.03
, includes definitions of terms used in the statute and rule, including "law enforcement agency," "law enforcement officer," "person in charge of a law enforcement agency employing the law enforcement officer" "race or ethnicity" and "traffic stop."
No later than June 30, 2010, the Department of Transportation and the OJA are to enter into a memorandum of understanding covering traffic stop data collection procedures, forms, procedures, costs, staffing and training. Among other things, the terms of the agreement are to minimize impact on the time and expense of law enforcement agencies. Section
OJA 1.04
.
In section
OJA 1.05
, the rules describe the type of information that police officers must collect relating to traffic stops, categorized as operator, occupant, event and search data. The process that law enforcement agencies must use to submit traffic stop data to the Office of Justice Assistance is set out in s.
OJA 1.06
.
The types of data analysis that OJA will perform is described in s.
OJA 1.07
. The analysis will be completed by the Statistical Analysis Center in OJA. The Center will analyze the traffic stop data under the tests identified in s.
16.964 (16) (a)
, Stats., specifically, to determine:
(a)
Whether the number of traffic stops involving motor vehicles operated or occupied by members of a racial minority is disproportionate to the number of traffic stops involving motor vehicles operated or occupied solely by persons who are not members of a racial minority.
(b)
Whether the number of searches involving motor vehicles operated or occupied by members of a racial minority is disproportionate to the number of searches involving motor vehicles operated or occupied solely by persons who are not members of a racial minority.
Under the rule, the analysis may also evaluate correlations between the race and ethnicity of vehicle occupants and traffic stop events such as search requests and stop duration. OJA may also note whether other factors, such as specific law enforcement strategies, may contribute to identified disproportionalities. OJA is required to identify benchmarks and other analytical tools used in preparing its reports.
All of the OJA traffic stop reports shall be filed as required by statute and published on the agency's website. Section
OJA 1.08
.
Under section
OJA 1.10
, a law enforcement agency that does not submit traffic stop data will be identified in OJA reports.
Comparison with federal regulations
There is no known federal law requiring the collection and analysis of data about the racial or ethnic characteristics of individuals involved in traffic stops. However, the Federal Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) 23 USC s. 1906 provides guidance on local legislation. Section 1906 provides incentive funding for states to enact a law that prohibits the use of racial profiling in highway law enforcement and to allow public inspection of statistical information for each motor vehicle stop regarding the race and ethnicity of the driver and passengers.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Minnesota:
In 2001, Minn. Stats. §
626.951
, provided for a statewide racial profiling study with voluntary participation by law enforcement agencies. Sixty-five jurisdictions participated, reporting 194,189 total stops. The 2003 report from this study analyzed one year of data collected from the sixty-five jurisdictions. The complete report is available at
http://archive.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2004/mandated/040200.pdf
. According to the Minnesota study,
Law enforcement officers stopped Black, Latino, and American Indian drivers at greater rates than White drivers, searched Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at greater rates than White drivers, and found contraband as a result of searches of Blacks, Latinos, and American Indians at lower rates than in searches of White drivers
. . . . (2001 Report, p. 1)
The report includes the conclusion that the patterns of disparate treatment ". . . suggest a strong likelihood that racial/ethnic bias plays a role in traffic stop policies and practices in Minnesota."
Minnesota does not currently have a statewide law requiring law enforcement officers to collect data and prepare reports on the race of persons who are stopped or searched in a traffic stop. However, Minnesota does have a law that defines "racial profiling" and requires the chief law enforcement officer of every state and local law enforcement agency to enforce a written anti-racial profiling policy governing the conduct of officers engaged in stops of citizens. Minn. Stat. §
626.8471
.
Iowa:
Iowa does not currently have a law requiring the police to collect traffic stop data that includes the race or ethnicity of vehicle operators or passengers. Between October 1, 2000 and March 3, 2002, the Iowa State Patrol collected traffic stop data from over 260,000 traffic stops. A report was prepared in April 2003, by the Iowa state Patrol and the Iowa Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning.
The 2003 Report, available at
http://publications. iowa.gov/7228/1/Stop_Data.pdf
, concluded, among other things, that,
Can we say whether or not ISP troopers are stopping, ticketing, searching or arresting people differently because of their race? The data in this report do not conclusively answer this question. They do give us an indication that Iowans are not more or less likely to be stopped by ISP troopers because of their race. . . .
The data in this report also do not definitively answer the question of whether or not the ISP troopers are influenced by a person's race or ethnicity when deciding whether to conduct a search or issue a warning vs. a formal sanction. The data do seem to indicate that race or ethnicity may have sometimes influenced decisions in these areas. However, such observations are only indications because a substantial number of cases had missing data and because the impact of numerous other variables that should affect such decisions is unknown (e.g. existence of outstanding warrants, severity of alleged traffic violations, visible contraband, incriminating driver or passenger behavior).
(2003 Report p. 8)
Illinois:
Illinois began collecting traffic stop data and issuing annual reports on January 1, 2004. The Illinois law was substantially amended in 2008. A Racial Profiling Prevention and Data Oversight Board (Board) was created to oversee plans and strategies to eliminate racial profiling in Illinois.
The recent 2008 Illinois report based on data reported from 2,518,825 traffic stops, sought to answer two questions.
•
To what extent, if any, does race influence an officer's decision to stop a vehicle?
•
To what extent, if any, does race influence the disposition of the stop? Was a citation issued? Was the vehicle subject to a consent search?
The ratio of minority drivers stopped to the minority driving population has improved each year. That is, the percentage of minority divers stopped by the police is getting closer to the estimated driving population.
Law enforcement agencies continue to pay careful attention to this issue and many have introduced policies and procedures to correct deficiencies.
Our newest measures of post-stop performance — duration of stop — suggests that traffic stops of minority drivers consume about the same time as those for Caucasian drivers.
The number of consent searches in Illinois continues to decline, but minority drivers are still more likely to be consent searched than Caucasian drivers. Differential refusal rates do not appear to contribute to this difference.
Police officers conducting consent searches are far more likely to find contraband in a vehicle driven by a Caucasian driver than by a minority driver. While there has been a significant amount of attention devoted to this issue, there is little evidence at this point of substantial improvement.
(2008 Report, p. 13)
The Illinois Act sunsets on July 1, 2010. The Illinois Board must recommend whether to continue the Illinois racial profiling study beyond July 1, 2010
.
Michigan:
Michigan does not have a statewide law currently in effect requiring traffic stop data collection and analysis, although some local studies have been conducted in Michigan.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
OJA utilized an advisory committee and public listening sessions in developing proposed ch.
OJA 1
.
OJA appointed a 17-member Traffic Stop Data collection Advisory Committee to advise the agency with respect to this rulemaking. The committee included representatives of law enforcement (police chiefs, county sheriff, the state patrol) a police association, legislators, community representatives, the Department of Transportation, the Department of Natural Resources, the Office of the Public Defender and a civil liberties organization. The advisory committee met on September 28, 2009, October 14, 2009, November 18, 2009, December 17, 2009 and January 14, 2010. Presentations made to the committee include:
•
The Illinois Traffic Stop Study: Alexander Weiss, Ph.D. University of Illinois at Chicago Center for Research in Law and Justice.
•
Data Elements — Jerry Jansen, Criminal Justice Consultant, OJA.
•
Technology — Erin Egan, Citations & Withdrawals Section, Badger TraCS Program Manager, DOT, Division of Motor Vehicles.
•
Funding – Kathy Cushman, Citations and Withdrawals Section, DOT Division of Motor Vehicles.
•
Milwaukee Police Department Traffic Enforcement Policy and Data Analysis — Milwaukee Chief of Police Ed. Flynn.
•
Fundamental Questions and Benchmarks and a Draft Data Analysis Report Outline — Kristi Waits, Program Director, OJA Strategic Analysis Center.
•
Monitoring Stops for Biased Policing in Washington State — John R. Batiste, Chief of the Washington State Patrol.
•
Data Collection and Community Partnerships — Noble Wray, Chief of Police, Madison Police Department.
•
Local Law Enforcement Data Assessment (LLEDA), UW Report to BOTS — Joni Graves, Program Director, UW-Madison Transportation Information Center.
•
Analysis Software for Local Analysis — Greg Ridgeway, Ph.D. Director, RAND Corporation.
•
Benchmarks — Lorie Fridell,
Ph.D., University of South Florida, Department of Criminology.
Listening Sessions were held by the Advisory Committee and OJA from 4 and 7 PM on November 11, 2009 (La Crosse), November 12, 2009 (Green Bay), November 18 (Milwaukee), December 1, 2009 (Rice Lake, Superior, Crandon and Keshena), and December 12, 2009 (Kenosha/Racine). At the sessions the committee and OJA heard from citizens who commented about the issue of racial profiling and traffic stops and about the traffic stop data collection project mandated by
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
.
Small Business Impact
This rule does not have a significant effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
State fiscal effect
Increase costs, program revenue.
Local government fiscal effect
No fiscal effect.
Private sector fiscal effect
No fiscal effect.
A copy of the full fiscal estimate may be obtained from the agency contact person listed below, upon request.
Agency Contact Person
Dennis Schuh, Program Director
Office of Justice Assistance
1 S. Pinckney Street, Suite 615
Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 266-7682
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
Environmental Protection — Hazardous Waste Management, Chs. NR 600—
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
227.11 (2) (a)
,
227.24 (1)(a)
,
289.67 (2) (de)
and
291.07 (2)
, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on proposed Natural Resources Board Order No. WA-30-09,
CR 10-036
, and on Natural Resources Board Emergency Order No. WA-31-09(E),
EmR1007
, revising s.
NR 660.10
, pertaining to the definitions of hazardous waste "large quantity generator" and "small quantity generator." The emergency order was published and took effect on March 17, 2010.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held live in Madison and via the Internet by "Live Meeting" or conference telephone in Green Bay, Milwaukee, and Eau Claire on:
Monday, April 26, 2010 at 9:00 am
Room G-09, Natural Resources State Office Building
101 S. Webster Street, Madison, Wisconsin
Lake Michigan Rm., DNR Northeast Region Headquarters
2984 Shawano Ave., Green Bay, Wisconsin
Room 139, DNR Southeast Region Headquarters
2300 N. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Drive
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Room 162, DNR West Central Region Headquarters
1300 W. Clairemont, Eau Claire, Wisconsin
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 Patricia Chabot at (608) 264-6015 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
Copies of Rules and Submission of Written Comments
The emergency order, 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 Ms. Pat Chabot, Bureau of Waste and Materials Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921 or by email to
Patricia.Chabot@Wisconsin.gov
. Comments may be submitted until
April 30, 2010
. 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 rules and fiscal estimate may be obtained from Ms. Chabot.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Summary of proposed rule
The 2009-2011 biennial budget (
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
, s.
2659
) amended s.
289.67 (2) (b) 1.
, Stats., to increase the annual base fee for large quantity and small quantity generators of hazardous waste. Section 2662 of Act 28 also created s.
289.67 (2) (de)
, Stats., which requires the DNR to promulgate a rule that defines "large quantity generator" and "small quantity generator" for purposes of the fees. Under current hazardous waste rules, generator status is functionally described in text but there are no specific, comprehensive definitions.
Section 9137 (2), a non-statutory provision in Act 28, allows the DNR to promulgate the required definitions through the emergency rule making procedures without having to provide a finding of emergency. The emergency order took effect March 17, 2010 and will remain in effect until July 1, 2011, or until a corresponding permanent rule takes effect if it is adopted sooner.
The emergency order added a definition of "large quantity generator" and revised the definition of "small quantity generator" in ch.
NR 660
, Wis. Adm. Code. Under prior hazardous waste rules, standards are set for large quantity and small quantity hazardous waste generators, so their status is functionally described, but there were no specific, comprehensive definitions of these terms. This proposed permanent rule is identical to the emergency rule. The definitions are consistent with and based upon the functional descriptions or standards that currently identify large quantity and small quantity generators.
Comparison with federal regulations
There is no specific definition of "large quantity generator" in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's hazardous waste regulations in
40 CFR § 260.10
, upon which s.
NR 660.10
is based. Large quantity generator status is functionally described in text in
40 CFR Part 262
,
Standards Applicable to Generators of Hazardous Waste
.
40 CFR § 260.10
, includes a definition of "small quantity generator" but the definition is incomplete. Small quantity generator status is functionally described in text in
40 CFR Part 262
. The department proposes to add explicit, complete definitions of large and small quantity generators to s.
NR 660.10
based on the state and federal functional definitions.
Comparison of similar rules in adjacent states
Minnesota:
Minnesota's hazardous waste rules in s. 7045.026 define large and small quantity generators. These definitions are similar to the definitions in the proposed rule.
Iowa:
Iowa does not have a federally authorized hazardous waste program. The program is administered by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 7 office in Kansas City, Mo., and the federal regulations are in effect in the state.
Illinois:
Illinois' hazardous waste rules have a definition for small quantity generator that is equivalent to the definition in the federal regulations. There is no definition of large quantity generator; however, a note after 35 Ill. Adm. Code 7220.127 states that the "[Illinois Pollution Control] Board interprets the term large quantity generator to mean a hazardous waste generator that is not a small quantity generator."
Michigan:
Under Michigan's rules in R 299.9107 (v), the definition of small quantity generator is equivalent to the federal definition. Large quantity generator is not defined in a rule.
Factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed definitions are required by statute and reflect current state and federal functional definitions of "large quantity generator" and "small quantity generator" used in the state's hazardous waste management program and by US EPA.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine the rule's effect on small businesses
See above.
Small Business Impact
The proposed rules affect small businesses that are large quantity or small quantity generators of hazardous waste. There is no direct correlation between the definitions of "small business" and "large quantity generator" or "small quantity generator", so a precise assessment of the definitions' effect on small business is not possible. Small businesses may be either large quantity or small quantity generators of hazardous waste, or neither. In any case, under the revised hazardous waste generator base fee statute, the maximum additional amount that a large quantity generator would have to pay is $470. A small quantity generator would pay a maximum of $350 more than in past years.
Under the statutory language in effect before the 2009-2011 biennial budget bill (
2009 Wisconsin Act 28
), all large quantity generators and small quantity generators who were required to submit a hazardous waste annual report were required to pay a base fee of $210 and $20 per ton for hazardous waste generated during the reporting year. The tonnage fee did not apply to any wastes that were recycled or reused, and if a generator recycled or reused all of its hazardous waste, it was not required to pay the base fee either.
2009 Wis. Act 28
amended the statutes to increase the base fee from $210 to $350 for small quantity generators, and to $470 for large quantity generators. It also increased the maximum fee any generator would have to pay from $17,000 to $17,500 per year. In addition, the base fee was applied to all generators who are required to report, regardless of whether they recycled or reused any or all of their wastes. The per ton fee remains at $20 per ton.
No new recordkeeping or reporting requirements are created and no new skills are required to comply with the proposed rules.
The proposed rules are definitions only, but are a key component of the hazardous waste generator annual fee requirements set out in recently-revised s.
289.67
, Stats. The fee requirements (statutes and rules) will be enforced by department staff through compliance assistance, complaint follow-up and inspections. If a violation is found, the department normally uses a stepped enforcement process similar to the process it uses for other environmental programs.
This stepped process includes the following:
•
Notice of non-compliance, this is typically the first step in dealing with a problem and is usually done by a program specialist through a letter to the generator. It's expected that the generator, once notified of the problem will, correct the problem quickly.
•
Notice of Violation, this is typically the second step in dealing with a problem and is a higher level of enforcement. Typically, the Notice of non-compliance hasn't resulted in the problem being resolved and this next step includes an opportunity for a face-to-face meeting with program and enforcement staff. At this meeting, it's expected that the generator will make commitments to resolve the problem and will follow through.
•
Referral to the Attorney General for prosecution and injunctive relief, when appropriate. In addition to being liable for unpaid fees, a person who fails to pay fees in a timely manner may be subject to statutory enforcement mechanisms and penalties for hazardous waste violations as established in subchapter V of ch.
291
, Stats.
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 fiscal effect
Increase existing revenues.
The most recent data for number of Hazardous Waste Generators is from 2008: 733 SQGs and 448 LQGs. Of the total SQGs, 390 SQGs reported fees, leaving 343 SQGs new to paying the revised fees. Of the total LQGs, 288 reported fees, leaving 160 LQGs new to paying the revised fees.
Revenue Increase to Previous Payers:
Number of
Previous Payers
|
Base Fee Increase
|
Revenue Increase
|
SQG = 390
|
SQG = $140
|
SQG = $ 54,600
|
LQG = 288
|
LQG = $260
|
LQG = $ 74,800
|
|
|
Total = $129,480
|
Revenue Increase to Previous Payers:
Number of
New Payers
|
New Fee
|
Revenue from New Payers
|
SQG = 343
|
SQG = $350
|
SQG = $120,500
|
LQG = 160
|
LQG = $470
|
LQG = $ 75,200
|
|
|
Total = $195,250
|
It is estimated that based on the number of 2008 HW generators paying the previous fee at the $17,000 previous maximum, the new revenue with the shift to the new $17,500 maximum will be $2,731.
Total estimate new state revenue: $327,461.
Fund sources affected
SEG.
Local government fiscal impact
Increase costs.
Over the last 3 years, on average 17 Local Units of Government (13 SQGs & 4 LQGs) generated hazardous waste at a level which required them to submit an annual report. Of those 17, on average 3 (2 SQGs & 1LQG) recycled or reused all of their wastes, so they were not required to pay the base fee (based on the previous statutory language).
Number of
Previous Payers
|
Base Fee Increase
|
Cost Increase
|
SQG = 11
|
SQG = $140
|
SQG = $1,540
|
LQG = 3
|
LQG = $260
|
LQG = $ 780
|
|
|
Total = $2,320
|
Number of
New Payers
|
New Fee
|
Costs to New Payers
|
SQG = 2
|
SQG = $350
|
SQG = $ 700
|
LQG = 1
|
LQG = $470
|
LQG = $ 470
|
|
|
Total = $1,170
|
Total Additional Costs for Local Governments = $3,490
Local governmental units affected
Villages, Cities, Counties.
Long-range fiscal implications
None.
Agency Contact Person
Ms. Patricia Chabot, WA/5
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
P.O. Box 7921
Madison, WI 53707-7921
Phone: (608) 264-6015
