Again, most of the performance standards are low cost. However, street sweeping requirements may add costs of, for example, $150,000 for a street sweeping unit. Municipalities may, however, already have street sweeping units or share them with neighboring municipalities, or they may lease them from private firms. Municipalities will be given until at least the year 2008 to replace existing sweepers with high efficiency models. Structural devices and street sweeper purchases will be eligible for up to a 50% grant reimbursement through the urban nonpoint source and storm water projects program in subchapter II of ch. NR 153. It is unknown if there will be adequate grant funding available to meet the demand for purchasing street sweepers and designing and installing treatment devices.
Additionally, municipalities may determine that in order to meet the performance standards, structural practices such as wet detention ponds are necessary. Structural treatment devices can be quite expensive, but the municipality would be in control of selecting what combination of treatment devices to implement to meet any performance standard. Further, the need for structural treatment devices varies greatly. Additionally, urban structural best management practices are eligible for Clean Water Fund bonding and urban nonpoint cost-sharing dollars provided by 1999 Wisc. Act 9. Therefore, the costs tc governments associated with implementing the developed urban area performance standards are difficult to calculate at this point.
Local Impacts of Agricultural Performance Standards and Prohibitions:
There is no expected fiscal impact to local units of government. State legislation authorizing the creation of statewide performance standards and prohibitions also provided funding for staff in each county to facilitate passage of county ordinances implementing the performance standards and prohibitions Although towns villages, cities, etc. , can also enact ordinances, no funding was provided for this. However enacting of ordinances at this level is permissive and is not required by NR 151.
NR 152 has no significant fiscal impact on either state or local governments. The only state fiscal impact is that associated with printing, distribution and information/education activity attendant to distributing the ordinances. It is anticipated that this can be done as part of the workload identified in the fiscal estimate for NR 153. There is no impact to local units of government, as adoption of the ordinance is not required by this rule.
The Department anticipates increased workload totaling 6.0 FTE and increased annual costs of $226,900 associated with implementing NR 153. The Department expects any local fiscal impacts to be minimal-if any-because the Department will maximize consistency between the administrative requirements of subchapters land II and between chapters NR 153 and NR 120. The Department has also assured grantees that existing priority watershed grant commitments created under chapter NR 120, and that will now be administered under chapter NR 153, will be given top priority in the scoring system so that the Department can honor those commitments and the local governments can rely on the funding promised in the past.
There are significant added administrative costs to the Department related to implementing chapter NR 153 as opposed to administering the former nonpoint source water pollution abatement program. While some economies of scale can be realized for the urban nonpoint pollution abatement program, new grantees will apply for funds. It requires much more time to initiate grants than to renew them (as with the priority watershed program) as applicants are unfamiliar with the grant process. A great deal of extra time is spent answering questions and corresponding with potential grantees while evaluating a new project. In addition, the targeted program no longer limits grant availability to priority watersheds. This means that an increasing number of requests will be received from areas without comprehensive watershed planning, which will be much more difficult to evaluate as baseline data and pollution control guidelines will not be in place. Further, the new program will involve many small grants of short duration (1-4 years) as opposed to the relatively few priority watershed grants lasting 10-12 years. Each of these smaller grants entails the same complement of administrative services as the larger grants, resulting in a greatly increased workload. In summary, there will be more grants, turning over in one-third the time, each requiring the same administrative services as priority watershed grants.
In order to administer the selection process, prepare and administer the grants, and provide the technical support that applicants will need in all phases of project application, implementation and evaluation, additional Departmental effort will be required. It is anticipated that the Department will need additional services from the following 6.0 FTE positions at annual salary-related costs totaling $226,900.
-1 Natural Resources Financial Assistance Specialist to serve as a grant manager in the Bureau of Community Financial Assistance ($17.43 x 2080 hours = $36,354).
-1Program and Planning Analyst (PPA -3) to serve as a Central Office coordinator with municipalities and DNR regions for storm water and urban nonpoint pollution abatement. This coordination work would extend to cover municipal flood control and riparian restoration programs when additional rules are drafted to implement s. 281.665, Stats. ($18.86 x 2080 = $38,229).
-1Program and Planning Analyst (PPA -3) (DNR Region) to assist in planning, developing, and coordinating storm water and urban nonpoint pollution abatement in the northeast region. This coordination work would extend to cover municipal flood control and riparian restoration programs when rules are drafted to implement s. 281.665, Stats ($18.86 x 2080 = $38,229).
-3 Water Resources Management Specialists located in the northeast, west central and northern regions to provide technical assistance in all aspects of application development, project implementation and evaluation ($18.28 x 2080 hours x 3 = $114,067).
Although there may be fiscal impacts associated with implementing the proposed changes to NR 120, NR 151, and NR 243 (see related fiscal notes), there are no fiscal impacts to state or local government directly related to NR 154.
There will not be any additional financial costs to either state or local governments to implement the proposed changes to NR 216, except those costs associated with meeting the performance standards of ch. NR 151. Since the additional fiscal impacts to state or local governments are due to implementation of ch. NR 151, the changes proposed to ch. NR 216 are assumed to have no cost to state or local governments. The frequency of reviewing erosion and sediment control plans and storm water management plans will continue at the same frequency. There will be no additional time spent on reviewing plans that will now be required to meet the performance standards under ch. NR 151.
Note: See the fiscal estimate for ch. NR 151 for the fiscal effects of implementing the performance standards of ch. NR 151.
The Department estimates that implementing the changes to NR 243 will increase the Department's workload by 0.8 FTE and $27,500 in salary-related costs. This increase is the result of a shift in responsibility for administration of cost-share grants from DATCP to DNR for NODS as mandated by 1999 Wisconsin Act 9. The Department has historically been responsible for ensuring NOD compliance. In addition to ensuring compliance, the Department will now also administer grants, develop and maintain policies and procedures, and perform all necessary fiscal management functions. The Department assumes that these duties will be performed by an FTE at a Program & Planning Analyst-3 classification. DATCP staff currently handle the workload associated with cost-share grant administration for NODs and estimates that its decrease in staff workload (and therefore the DNR's increase) associated with the transfer to be 7% of 10 grant management and policy FTEs and 10% of 1 fiscal management FTE, or a total of 1456 hours. The salary-related costs associated with the Department's workload increase are ($18.86/hr x 1456 hours = $27,500).
The Department anticipates no fiscal impact on local governments.
Notice of Hearing
Public Instruction
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to s. 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting s. 119.23, Stats., the department of public instruction will hold a public hearing as follows to consider emergency and proposed permanent rules, relating to the Milwaukee parental school choice program. Emergency rules were promulgated by the department effective January 4, 2000. The hearing will be held as follows:
Hearing Information
March 20, 2000 Milwaukee
Monday Milwaukee Area Tech. College
6:00 – 9:00 p.m. 700 W. State Street
Room 5120
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you require reasonable accommodation to access any meeting, please call Charlie Toulmin, Milwaukee Parental School Choice Consultant, at (608) 266-2853, 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 address no later than March 27, 2000, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing. Comments submitted via email will not be accepted as formal testimony.
Analysis by the Department of Public Instruction
1999 Wis. Act 9 created new provisions under s. 119.23, Stats., relating to the Milwaukee Parental School Choice Program (MPSCP). To reflect the statutory changes, Chapter PI 35, has been modified to:
•
Specify voucher payment provisions for MPSCP summer school programs; and
•
Calculate the annual voucher amount under the MPSCP.
Other changes have been made to ensure that participating schools are safe and to make it easier for parents to participate in the program, including:
•
Calculating the annual income limits for participation in the MPSCP in a more timely fashion. Calculating the income eligibility limits earlier will allow schools to notify the department of their intent to be in the program and permit parents to apply to participating schools earlier. Such a change will make the MPSCP application process more in line with the application processes for other educational option programs in Milwaukee.
•
Ensuring parents a fair opportunity to submit an application to a choice school by requiring that open application periods for the program set by the private schools will have to be at least 14 days in length.
•
Requiring current and new choice schools to submit an occupancy certificate showing compliance with building codes.
Fiscal Estimate
It is assumed that except for the provision relating to voucher payment provisions for MPSCP summer school programs, the proposed rules relating to the Milwaukee parental school choice program (MPSCP) will not have a fiscal effect on local or state revenues or costs.
In FY 2000, the summer school payments under this program were approximately $250,000. This cost will result in a directly comparable reduction in state aid to the 426 school districts in Wisconsin. As a result of 1999 Wisconsin Act 9, one-half of this amount ($125,000) will come from Milwaukee Public Schools; one-half ($125,000) from the remaining districts. It is anticipated that this amount will increase as additional choice schools provide summer school. However, the number of additional pupils participating in summer school programs and membership for aid claimed in the future is indeterminable.
These rules will not have a fiscal effect on the private schools participating in the program.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s. 227.114(1)(a), Stats.
Notice of Hearing
Dept. of Tourism
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to s. 41.17 (4) (g), Stats., the Wisconsin Department of Tourism will hold a hearing at the time and place shown below to consider a proposed order to amend s. Tour 1.03 (3) (a), relating to the joint effort marketing (JEM) program.
Hearing Information
Date & Time Location
March 15, 2000 Meeting Room 2B
Wednesday Dept. of Tourism
10:00 a.m. 201 West Washington Ave.
MADISON, WI
Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules may be sent to the contact person by Friday, March 31, 2000. Written comments will receive the same consideration as written or oral testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Dept. of Tourism
Section 41.17, Stats., creates a joint effort marketing (JEM) program and s. 41.17 (4) (g), Stats., authorizes the Department to adopt rules required to administer the program. The program provides for grants to non-profit organizations engaged in tourism activities. Grant funds may be used for the development of publicity, the production and media placement of advertising, direct mail, and, for destination marketing projects, certain expenses related to attendance at trade shows. To be eligible, expenditures must be part of a project and overall advertising plan of the applicant organization intended to increase tourism in Wisconsin.
The current rules authorize funding for projects that relate to tourism events, promotions and destination marketing projects. An example of an event might be a town festival. An example of a promotion might be the advertising of discounted entry and accommodation fees within an area for a limited period of time intended to attract tourists to a destination during shoulder or off season. Destination marketing is advertising that is not necessarily connected to an event or promotion, but that advertises a region of the state to a market that is identified in the statewide marketing plan as regional or extended regional, or that advertises a region of the state to potential meeting and convention or motorcoach visitors. Destination marketing advertising must be intended to attract tourists during a time that has not traditionally attracted substantial tourism to the area, and the proposal must be from an applicant representing a region made up of three or more municipalities. Funding under the Destination Marketing category is limited to $5,000 per municipality represented in an application and no more than $20,000 total per application.
The proposed rule increases the maximum limits for destination marketing projects to $10,000 per municipality represented and a total maximum per destination marketing project equal to the lesser of $40,000 or 7% of the fiscal year budget for destination marketing projects. It also makes clear that the 7% limit for all JEM projects is based upon the applicable share of the annual JEM budget. 1999 Wis. Act 9 (the recently adopted biennial budget) directs the Department of Tourism to increase the budget for Joint Effort Marketing to not less than $1,130,000 each year. The Joint Effort Marketing Program budget for the last year of the previous biennium was $700,000. One result of the mandated increase was to increase the maximum funding for all Joint Effort Marketing categories other than Destination Marketing. The rule produces a similar increase for Destination Marketing.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to s. 227.14, Stats., the proposed rule will have minimal impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis as required by s. 227.17 (3) (f), Stats., is as follows:
1) Type of small business affected by the rule: None.
2) The proposed reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rule: None.
3) The types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rule: None.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rule has no fiscal effect.
Contact Information
For additional information about or copies of the proposed rules contact:
Dennis Fay, General Counsel
Telephone (608) 266-6747
Wis. Department of Tourism
P. O. Box 7976
Madison, WI 53707-7976
