Rule-making notices
Notice of Hearing
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
The State of Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection announces that it will hold public hearings on a proposed amendment to chs.
ATCP 99,
100 and
101, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to Agricultural Producer Security. The hearings will be held at the times and places shown below. The department invites the public to attend the hearings and comment on the proposed rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until
August 30, 2005, for additional written comments.
Hearing Dates and Locations
Wednesday, August 10, 2005
10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
DATCP Northwest Regional Office
Conference Room
3610 Oakwood Hills Pkwy
Eau Claire, WI 54701-7754
Handicapped accessible.
Friday, August 12, 2005
10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
DATCP Headquarters (Prairie Oak State Office Building)
Board Room (CR-106)
2811 Agriculture Drive
Madison, Wisconsin, 53718-6777
Handicapped accessible.
Tuesday, August 16, 2005
10:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.
DATCP Northeast Regional Office
Room 152A
200 N Jefferson Street
Green Bay, Wisconsin, 54301
Handicapped accessible.
Hearing impaired persons may request an interpreter for these hearings. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by August 1, 2005, by writing to Kevin LeRoy, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708-8911, telephone (608) 224-4928. Alternatively, you may contact the Department TDD at (608) 224-5058. Handicap access is available at the hearings.
Written Comments and Copies of Rule
Written comments should be sent to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection attention Kevin LeRoy, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison WI 53708. Written comments can be submitted via email to
kevin.leroy@datcp.state.wi.us.
You may obtain a free copy of this rule by contacting the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, Division of Trade and Consumer Protection, 2811 Agriculture Drive, P.O. Box 8911, Madison, WI 53708. You can also obtain a copy by calling (608) 224-4928 or emailing
kevin.leroy@datcp.state.wi.us. Copies will also be available at the hearings. To view the proposed rule online, go to:
https://apps4.dhfs.state.wi.us/admrules/public/Home
Analysis Prepared by the Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Statutes interpreted:
Chapter
126, Stats.
The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (“DATCP") administers the agricultural producer security program under ch.
126, Stats. DATCP has broad general authority, under s.
93.07 (1), Stats., to adopt rules related to programs under its jurisdiction. DATCP has specific authority under ch.
126, Stats., to adopt rules for the agricultural producer security program.
This rule modifies current rules related to the agricultural producer security program under ch.
126, Stats. The program is designed to protect agricultural producers from catastrophic financial defaults by grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (collectively referred to as “contractors") who procure agricultural commodities from producers.
This rule does all of the following:
• It permits a licensed contractors to file voluntary security for the benefit of producers if the contractor's estimated default exposure exceeds the maximum amount payable from the Wisconsin agricultural producer security fund. A contractor who files voluntary security may pay lower fund assessments and make more favorable disclosures to producers. A voluntary security filing does not relieve a contractor of any other duty to file security or pay fund assessments.
• It changes and simplifies the disclosures that contractors must give to producers.
• It clarifies current grain warehouse keeper record keeping requirements.
Background. Under current law, contractors must be licensed by DATCP. Most contractors must contribute to an agricultural producer security fund (the “fund"). Fund assessments are based on contractor size, financial condition and risk practices. If a contributing contractor defaults, DATCP will pay producers out of the fund. The total payment may not exceed 60% of the fund balance at the time of default (the current fund balance is approximately $5.5 million).
The current fund capacity is adequate to cover most, but not all, potential defaults by contributing contractors. Some large contractors have an “estimated default exposure" that exceeds current fund capacity (in some cases, by a very large amount). Some of these contractors are currently required to file security to cover at least part of the difference, but others are not (DATCP lacks statutory authority to require security filings for some of the contractors).
Voluntary Security. Under this rule, a licensed contractor may file voluntary security with DATCP if the contractor's estimated default exposure exceeds the maximum amount payable from the fund (this rule does not change current mandatory security filing requirements). A contractor who files security with DATCP may pay lower fund assessments and make more favorable disclosures to producers.
Reduced Fund Assessment. Under current rules, certain contractors who file security with DATCP are entitled to a reduction in their annual fund assessments (current rules specify the amount of the reduction). Under this rule, certain contractors who file security with DATCP (required or voluntary) may pay reduced fund assessments if their “estimated default exposure" is equal to or less than the sum of the following:
• The maximum amount payable from the fund, if the contractor defaults.
• The total amount of security (required or voluntary) filed by the contractor.
Disclosures to Producers. Under current rules, a contractor must periodically disclose to producers the contractor's license, security and fund contribution status. The current rules specify the exact language that contractors must use. The disclosures are intended to help producers assess the degree of financial risk involved in dealing with any particular contractor. The current disclosures are rather complex, and in some cases overstate the amount of security coverage afforded to producers.
This rule changes and simplifies the current disclosure requirements. This rule, like the current rules, specifies the exact language to be used. Disclosure requirements vary slightly between grain, milk and vegetable contractors, because of differences in the security program for each industry. But for all contractors, the disclosure alternatives are basically as follows:
• If the contractor's “estimated default exposure" is equal to or less than the amount of fund coverage and security on file, the disclosure states that the security program may provide full compensation for producers if the contractor defaults (subject to statutory limits).
• If the contractor's “estimated default exposure" is greater than the amount of fund coverage and security on file, the disclosure states that the security program may provide some compensation for producers if the contractor defaults. But compensation may cover only a fraction of a producer's loss.
• If the contractor does not contribute to the fund or file any security with DATCP, the disclosure states that the security program will provide no compensation to producers if the contractor defaults.
Definition of “Affiliate". Under current rules, contractor financial statements must disclose accounts and notes payable from “affiliates." These accounts and notes are excluded from the balance sheet before financial ratios are calculated. An “affiliate" is currently defined as an owner, major stockholder, partner, officer, director, member, employee or agent (or a person owned, controlled or operated by one of those persons). This rule clarifies an “affiliate" also includes any other person who has significant control or influence over the contractor.
Grain Warehouse Records. This rule clarifies current grain warehouse record keeping requirements. Under current law, warehouse keepers must keep “daily position" records related to grain in storage. This rule clarifies that daily position records must identify all grain kept by the warehouse keeper, whether in licensed or unlicensed storage. Records must clearly distinguish between grain owned by the warehouse keeper and that held for others. Records must also show the amount of grain entering and leaving storage each day. Records must be based on individual grain transaction records required under current law.
Fiscal Impact
This rule will have no significant fiscal impact on DATCP or local government.
Business Impact
This rule will affect agricultural producers, grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors. Many of these businesses are small businesses.
This rule will have a minimal impact on most affected businesses, and effects will be positive in many cases (especially for agricultural producers). The Wisconsin legislature has spelled out detailed statutory requirements for grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (ch.
126, Stats.). DATCP has limited authority to change these requirements by rule.
This rule will make minor changes to current rules. Among other things, this rule:
• Allows licensed contractors to file voluntary security (it does not change current mandatory security requirements).
• Allows some contractors to pay reduced fund assessments.
• Changes and simplifies current contractor disclosures to producers. In some cases, current disclosures overstate the amount of security coverage afforded to producers. Some contractors may incur one-time costs to change their disclosure forms.
• Clarifies current grain warehouse record keeping requirements (this rule does not add major new record keeping requirements).
This rule will not have a significant adverse economic impact on small business. Therefore, it is not subject to the delayed small business effective date provision in s.
227.22 (2) (e), Stats.
Under
2003 Wis. Act 145, DATCP and other agencies must adopt rules spelling out their rule enforcement policy for small businesses. DATCP has not incorporated a small business enforcement policy in this rule, but it will propose a separate rule on that subject. DATCP will, to the maximum extent feasible, seek voluntary compliance with this rule.
Wisconsin's Security Program
Wisconsin has an agricultural producer security program for grain, milk and vegetables. The Wisconsin legislature has spelled out detailed statutory requirements for grain dealers, grain warehouse keepers, milk contractors and vegetable contractors (ch.
126, Stats.). Contractors must be licensed by DATCP, and most contractors must contribute to an agricultural producer security fund administered by DATCP. A few contractors must also file security with DATCP.
Federal Programs
There is no federal producer security program related to milk. The U.S. department of agriculture (USDA) administers a producer security program for federally licensed grain warehouses that store grain for producers. Grain warehouses may choose whether to be licensed under state or federal law. Federally-licensed warehouses are exempt from state warehouse licensing and security requirements. State-licensed warehouses are likewise exempt from federal requirements.
The federal grain warehouse program provides little or no protection against financial defaults by grain dealers. Grain dealers are persons who buy and sell grain. Sometimes, grain dealers also operate grain warehouses. DATCP currently licenses grain dealers. Licensed warehouse keepers must also hold a state grain dealer license if they engage in grain dealing.
USDA proposes to regulate grain dealer activities (grain “merchandising") by federally licensed warehouse keepers, to the exclusion of state regulation. But USDA has not yet finalized its regulations. In any case, the federal regulations would not apply to state-licensed grain warehouses, or to grain dealers who do not operate a warehouse.
There is a federal security program for vegetables. This security program is mainly limited to fresh market vegetables, and consists of a priority lien against vegetable-related assets. Wisconsin's vegetable security program applies only to processing vegetables (not fresh market vegetables covered by federal regulations). There may be some limited overlap between the Wisconsin and federal programs (the overlap may be justified because the scope of federal coverage is not entirely clear).
State Comparisons
In Minnesota, contractors must be licensed to procure grain, milk or processing vegetables from producers, or to operate grain warehouses. Regulated contractors must file bonds as security against default.
Neither Iowa nor Illinois have producer security programs for milk or vegetables. However, both states maintain indemnity funds to protect grain producers. Fund assessments are based solely on grain volume. In Wisconsin, by contrast, fund assessments are based on grain volume and financial condition.
Michigan has the following producer security programs:
• Potato dealers must be licensed, and must post bonds as security against defaults. (Wisconsin's vegetable security program includes, but is not limited to, potatoes.)
• Dairy plants that fail to meet minimum financial standards must file security or pay cash for milk.
• Grain producers have the option of paying premiums into a state fund. In the event of a grain default, the fund reimburses participating producers.
Agency Contact
Questions or comments related to this rule may be sent to the following address:
Dept. of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
Trade and Consumer Protection Division
Bureau of Trade Practices
P.O. Box 8911
Madison, WI 53708-8911
Notice of Hearing
Commerce
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to s.
101.125, Stats., the Department of Commerce will hold a public hearing on proposed rules under ch.
Comm 72, relating to cleaning methods for historic buildings.
Hearing Information
The public hearing will be held as follows:
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
August 1, 2005
at 10:00 a.m.
|
Thompson Commerce Center
201 W. Washington Avenue
Conference Room #3C
Madison, Wisconsin
|
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this proposed rulemaking will remain open until August 15, 2005, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. Written comments should be submitted to Diane Meredith, at the Department of Commerce, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at
dmeredith@commerce.state.wi.us.
This hearing is held in an accessible facility. If you have special needs or circumstances that may make communication or accessibility difficult at the hearing, please call (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY) at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as interpreters, English translators, or materials in audio tape format will, to the fullest extent possible, be made available upon a request from a person with a disability.
Analysis Prepared by Department of Commerce
Under the statutes cited, the Department of Commerce protects public health, safety, and welfare by promulgating comprehensive construction requirements for public buildings and places of employment. In accordance with s.
101.1215, Stats., the Department is required to develop requirements for prohibiting the use of abrasive cleaners on the exterior of qualified historic buildings, including both commercial buildings and one-and two-family dwellings.
The proposed rules under ch.
Comm 72 are being created to comply with s.
101.1215, Stats., relating to the prohibition of abrasive cleaning methods and identification of acceptable methods for cleaning the exterior facades of qualified historic buildings The Division of Safety and Buildings will enforce the proposed rules by doing an investigative inspection when a complaint is received by the agency. If a violation is found, the Division may refer the violation on to the appropriate authority responsible for assessing penalties as specified in s.
101.1215 (4), Stats.
The proposed rules include the following:
1. The requirements apply to both public buildings and places of employment, and one-and two-family dwellings that are qualified historic buildings. [Comm 72.02]
2. Administration and enforcement of these rules is by complaint. Penalties as specified under s.
101.1215, Stats., may be assessed for violation of these rules. [Comm 72.03 and 70.04]
3. The term “abrasive cleaning method" has the meaning given in s.
101.1215, Stats., and identifies as abrasive, cleaning procedures that employ certain materials or tools, such as sand, glass, rice husks carried in high or low-pressure air or water, or the use of high pressure water. [Comm 72.05 (1)]
4. The term “qualified historic building" has the meaning given in s.
101.121 (2) (c), Stats. [Comm 72.05 (3)]
5. Specific prohibition of any abrasive cleaning method on a qualified historic building. [Comm 72.06 (1)]
6. Identifies where abrasive cleaners may be used, and identifies a non-abrasive cleaning methods. [Comm 72.06 (2)]
Federal Comparison
An Internet-based search for “abrasive cleaning of exterior surfaces of historic buildings" in the Code of Federal Regulations identified the following existing federal regulations that address abrasive cleaning of historic buildings:
1. 36CFR67– Historic Preservation Certifications Pursuant to Sec. 48(g) and Sec. 170(h) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986
2. 36CFR68– The Secretary of the Interior Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
3. 36CFR800– Protection of Historic Properties
Under these existing federal regulations, chemical or physical treatments may be used on historic properties for preservation, rehabilitation, or restoration; however, the treatments used must be the gentlest means possible. Treatments that cause damage to historic materials are not to be used.
An Internet-based search for “abrasive cleaning of exterior surfaces of historic buildings" of the 2003 and 2004 issues of the Federal Register did not identify any proposed federal regulations that address abrasive cleaning of exterior surfaces of historic buildings.
State Comparisons
An Internet-based search of adjacent states identified that Illinois, Minnesota, Michigan and Iowa do not have any specific rules relating to cleaning methods for the exterior facades of historic buildings.
Council Members and Representation
The proposed rules were developed with the assistance of the Historic Building Code Council, Dan Stephans, from the Department of Administration, and James Draeger, Wisconsin Historical Society. The members of the Historic Building Code Council are as follows:
Name
|
Representing
|
Bruce Johnson
|
Wisconsin Builders Association
|
Steve Gleisner
|
City of Milwaukee Fire Dept.
|
Charles Quagliana
|
AIA-Wisconsin Department of Commerce
|
Chris Rute
|
Milwaukee Historic Preservation Commission
|
Jim Sewell
|
Wisconsin Historical Society
|
Harry Sulzer
|
City of Madison
|
David Vos
|
Project Developer/Alexander
Company
|
Copies of Rule
The proposed rules and an analysis of the proposed rules are available on the Internet at the Safety and Buildings Division Web site at
www.commerce.wi.gov/SB/. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Roberta Ward, at the Department of Commerce, Program Development Bureau, P.O. Box 2689, Madison, WI 53701-2689, or Email at
rward@commerce.state.wi.us, or at telephone (608) 266-8741 or (608) 264-8777 (TTY). Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Environmental Analysis
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Department has considered the environmental impact of the proposed rules. In accordance with ch.
Comm 1, the proposed rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
1. Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules.
A small business owning a qualified historic building or providing exterior cleaning services may be affected by these rules. The primary purpose of these rules is to codify the statutory prohibitions of certain types of cleaning methods for exterior facades of qualified historic buildings. Masonry facades are the most vulnerable to abrasive cleaning methods and there are only around 5,000 qualified historic buildings with masonry exteriors statewide. The rules do not mandate cleaning and the impact on small businesses should be minimal.
2. Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules.
There are no reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures necessary for compliance with the rule.
3. Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules.
None known.
4. Rules have a significant economic impact on small businesses.
No.
The small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Commerce is Carol Dunn, who may be contacted at telephone (608) 267-0297, or Email at
cdunn@commerce.state.wi.us.
Fiscal Estimate
General effects: The proposed rules do not mandate cleaning the exterior facades of a qualified historic building. However, under the enabling statutes and the proposed rules, when the facades of the qualified historic building are cleaned, the cleaning methods must be non-abrasive. There are approximately 21,000 qualified historic buildings throughout the state, with approximately 70% of the buildings having wood facades, 25% having masonry facades, and 5% having other types of facade material, such as stucco. Masonry facades are the most vulnerable to abrasive cleaning methods, and there are only around 5,000 qualified historic buildings with masonry exteriors statewide. Sandblasting is a typical abrasive method used to clean the exterior facade of a building, and chemical washing is a typical non-abrasive method. The average price for sandblasting is $1.50 to 2.25/square foot and the price for chemical washing is $3.00 to 6.75/square foot.
The Safety and Buildings Division is responsible for enforcing chapter Comm 72 relating to abrasive cleaning of historic buildings, and the enforcement mechanism is by receipt of a complaint. If a complaint were received, the Division would do an investigative inspection and may assess the owner a fee for the inspection. There are no proposed changes in the Division's fee schedule. Violations of the statutes and the proposed rules would be subject to the penalties prescribed under s.
101.1215 (4), Stats.
Overall effect on state, local or privately owned qualified historic buildings: When the exterior facade of any qualified historic building is to be cleaned, a non-abrasive cleaning method must be employed. Since the rules do not mandate cleaning and with only a specified number of buildings that would be affected by the rules, the fiscal effect is anticipated to be minimal.
Notice of Hearing
Financial Institutions-Banking
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to ss.
426.108 and
227.11(2), Stats., and interpreting s.
426.108, Stats., the Department of Financial Institutions, Office of Consumer Affairs will hold a public hearing at the Department of Financial Institutions, Office of the Secretary, 5
th Floor Conference Room, 345 W. Washington Avenue in the city of Madison, Wisconsin, on the
28th day of July, 2005, at 1:00 p.m. to consider a rule to amend s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (1) and (2), and create s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (5), relating to prohibited bases for discriminating in the extension of consumer credit.
Analysis Prepared by the Office of Consumer Affairs
Statute(s) interpreted:
s.
426.108, Stats.
Related statute or rule: None.
Explanation of agency authority: Pursuant to s.
426.104, Stats., the department administers the Wisconsin Consumer Act.
The objective of the rule is to amend s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (1) and (2), and create s. DFI—Bkg 80.85 (5). The purpose of this rule is to expand the prohibited bases for discriminating in the extension of consumer credit. Currently the Wisconsin Consumer Act makes discrimination on the basis of sex or marital status in the granting or extension of credit an unconscionable credit practice. The rule makes discrimination on a prohibited basis in the granting or extension of credit an unconscionable credit practice. The rule defines prohibited basis to include the already existing bases as well as additional bases.
Federal Comparison
Federal regulation:
12 CFR 202 identifies similar prohibited bases.
State Comparisons
Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois and Michigan have comparable laws.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department reviewed federal regulations relating to prohibited bases for discriminating in the extension of consumer credit, as well as laws adopted by adjacent states regarding the same.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The entities affected by this rule do not meet the definition of a small business as set forth in s.
227.114, Stats.; therefore, there is no effect on small business.
Fiscal Estimate
There is no state fiscal effect, and there are no local government costs. No funding sources or ch.
20 appropriations are affected. There are no long-range fiscal implications.
Contact Person
A copy of the proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be obtained at no charge from Mark Schlei, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Financial Institutions, Office of the Secretary, P.O. Box 8861, Madison, WI 53708-8861, tel. (608) 267-1705. A copy of the proposed rule may also be obtained and reviewed at the Department of Financial Institutions' website,
www.wdfi.org.
Written comments regarding the proposed rule may be submitted to Mark Schlei, Deputy General Counsel, Department of Financial Institutions, Office of the Secretary, P.O. Box 8861, Madison, WI 53708-8861, tel. (608) 267-1705, or via the department's website contact page, e-mail the secretary. Written comments must be received by the conclusion of the hearing.
Notice of Hearings
Health and Family Services
(Medical Assistance, Chs.
HFS 100-)
Hearing Information
The public hearings will be held:
Date & Time
|
Location
|
July 27, 2005
Wednesday
1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.
|
500 Forest St.
Marathon County Courthouse
Room 131
Wausau, WI
|
July 28, 2005
Thursday
10:00 a.m. to noon
|
500 Riverview Ave.
Room 1053
Waukesha, WI
|
The hearing site is fully accessible to people with disabilities. If you are hearing or visually impaired, do not speak English, or have circumstances that might make communication at a hearing difficult and if you, therefore, require an interpreter or a non-English, large print or taped version of the hearing document, contact the person at the address or phone number given above at least 10 days before the hearing. With less than 10 days notice, an interpreter may not be available.
Written comments may be submitted at the public hearing, or in lieu of attending a public hearing written comments can be submitted by regular mail or email to the contact person listed below. Written comments may also be submitted to the Department using the Wisconsin Administrative Rules Internet website at the web address listed below.
Deadline for Comment Submission
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:30 p.m., on Friday, August 12, 2005.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Health and Family Services
The Department proposes to revise ss.
HFS 107.113 (5) and
107.12 (2) relating to the number of hours a nurse may provide private duty nursing services, including care to ventilator-dependent recipients, for reimbursement by Medicaid. Specifically, the proposed revisions will become more flexible to facilitate scheduling but restrict the total number of hours a nurse may work and still receive Medicaid reimbursement for such services.
Effect on Small Business
The proposed changes will have a beneficial effect on home health care agencies and nurses in independent private duty nursing practice that offer private duty nursing services, by providing these entities and their consumers with better scheduling flexibility.
Fiscal Estimate
The Department is updating and clarifying some requirements in its Medical Assistance rules. Chapter
HFS 107 specifies the Wisconsin Medical Assistance (MA) covered services and reimbursement requirements for providers. As currently written, ch.
HFS 107 limits the amount of time a nurse may provide direct private duty nursing (PDN) or respiratory care services (RCS). In particular, s.
HFS 107.113 (5) (d), governing RCS, currently provides that “
[s
]ervices provided by one individual in excess of 12 continuous hours per day or 60 hours per week" are not covered services. The PDN rule has a similar limitation. That rule, s.
HFS 107.12 (2) (b), states that PDN “is limited to 12 continuous hours in each 24 hour period and no more than 60 hours in a calendar week," and that “[a] prior authorization request for 2 consecutive 12-hour periods shall not be approved."
The Department has determined that strict adherence to the preceding requirements that are currently expressed in its administrative rules sometimes unnecessarily constrains the provision of needed personal care services and may therefore constitute an unjustified burden to both consumers and providers. Consequently, the Department is proposing to amend the rules to reduce these restrictions. Specifically, the Department is promulgating changes in the number of hours that private duty nurses and respiratory care nurses may work in a 24-hour period. The Department is further defining the 24-hour work period as a calendar day. For the purpose of scheduling breaks, it will retain the reference to any 24-hour period.
Under this revision to the rule, the total number of hours authorized for private duty nursing through the prior authorization process will not change. The rule change will help to simplify the scheduling of private duty nursing services. The Department does not expect any fiscal effect as a result of these changes.
Copy of Rule
A copy of the full text of the rules and the full text of the fiscal estimate, and other documents associated with this rulemaking may be obtained, at no charge, from the Wisconsin Administrative Rules website at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. At this website you can also register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking and, during the public comment period, you can submit comments on the rulemaking order electronically and view comments that others have submitted about the rule.
A copy of the full text of the rule and the fiscal estimate may also be obtained by contacting the Department's representative listed below:
Al Matano
Division of Health Care Financing,
Bureau of Fee-for-service Health Care Benefits
P.O. Box 309
One West Wilson Street, Room 350
(608) 267-6848
MatanA@dhfs.state.wi.us
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., OCI will hold a public hearing to consider the adoption of the attached proposed rulemaking order affecting s.
Ins 50.30, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to actuarial opinion and summary.
Hearing Information
Date: July 29, 2005
Time: 10:00 a.m., or as soon thereafter as the
matter may be reached
Place: OCI, Room 223,
125 South Webster St., 2nd Floor,
Madison, WI
Written comments or comments submitted through the Wisconsin Administrative Rule website at: https:// adminrules.wisconsin.gov on the proposed rule will be considered. The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 7th day after the date for the hearing stated in this Notice of Hearing.
Written comments should be sent to: Fred Nepple, OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 5030, Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873
Analysis Prepared by the Office of the Commissioner Of Insurance (OCI)
OCI proposes this rule to require reports and other information relating to actuarial opinions prepared and field for property and casualty insurers, including nondomestic insurers licensed under ch.
618, Stats. Section
601.42, Stats., establishes the statutory authority to require reports and submission of other information from any person, including a licensed insurer, subject to regulation under the Insurance Code. Section
601.465, Stats., establishes OCI's authority to retain the reports and information as privileged and confidential.
Related Statutes or Rules: The proposed rule is intended to supplement the information required to be filed with insurer's annual financial statements under ch.
Ins 50, Wis. Adm. Code.
Summary: Section
Ins 50.30, Wis. Adm. Code, currently requires licensed property and casualty insurers that file a NAIC financial statement to also file an actuarial opinion. Under current law OCI may also ask an insurer to file the supporting actuarial summary and work papers. This proposed rule will require all domestic property and casualty insurers that are required to file an actuarial opinion to also file a supporting actuarial opinion summary. The proposed rule also notes that OCI, as under current law, may require a licensed non-domestic property and casualty insurer to file a summary and supporting work papers. The actuarial summary and work papers support the actuarial opinion, which is a public document, however the proposed rule notes the required supporting actuarial summary and work papers, with their detailed proprietary information, may be retained as confidential by OCI under s.
601.465, Stats.
Federal Comparison
Comparison with any existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the proposed rule: None
State Comparisons
All of the adjacent state insurance departments are considering seeking legislation or a rule or are in the process of promulgating a rule to put in effect the NAIC Model. However none have yet adopted the NAIC Model. Accordingly the current status is:
Iowa: None
Illinois: None
Minnesota: None
Michigan: None
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
This proposed rule is based on the NAIC Property and Casualty Actuarial Opinion Model Law. It reflects the experience and recommendations of insurance financial regulators relating to analysis of the subject matter of the currently required actuarial opinion.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN That pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., the proposed rule may have an impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis is as follows:
a. Types of small businesses affected: Small mutual insurers.
b. Description of reporting and bookkeeping procedures required: The proposed rule requires filing of a summary of information derived from the already currently required actuarial analysis.
c. Description of professional skills required: The actuarial professional services currently required will also address requirements of the proposed rule.
There are only five mutual insurers that will be subject to the rule that are “small businesses." This is based on an analysis of financial statements filed by property and casualty insurers conducted by the bureau of financial analysis and examination. The assessment of fiscal and economic impact on these insurers is based on bureau of financial analysis and examination professional assessment, and the bureau's past experience in the analysis and examination of actuarial reports and opinions.
The OCI small business coordinator is Eileen Mallow and may be reached at phone number (608) 266- 7843 or at email address
Eileen.Mallow@oci.state.wi.us
Fiscal Estimate
The limited fiscal effect of the proposed rule on the insurers will be due to the cost of producing and submitting the Actuarial Opinion Summary. The Actuarial Opinion Summary will illustrate the difference between the insurer's recorded loss and loss adjustment expense reserves and the actuary's point estimates and/or range of reasonable estimates. This information is currently required to be included in the opining actuary's report, so including it in the Actuarial Opinion Summary will not involve significant additional work or expense.
The proposed rule also includes a conditional requirement. If the insurer has a one-year adverse development in excess of 5% of surplus during 3 of the last 5 years, the insurer's actuary must provide commentary. This requirement would not be applicable for most insurers in most years. Where it is applicable the actuary will have already considered the causes of the adverse trend and providing a commentary will not involve any significant additional cost.
Agency Contact Person
A copy of the full text of the proposed rule changes, analysis and fiscal estimate may be obtained from the WEB sites at:
http://oci.wi.gov/ocirules.htm
or by contacting Inger Williams, OCI Services Section, at:
Phone: (608) 264-8110
Address: 125 South Webster Street
2nd Floor Madison WI 53702
Mail: PO Box 7873, Madison WI 53707-7873
Submission of Comments
The deadline for submitting comments is 4:00 p.m. on the 14th day after the date for the hearing stated in the Notice of Hearing.
Mailing address:
Fred Nepple
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 5030
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
PO Box 7873
Madison WI 53707-7873
Street address:
Fred Nepple
Legal Unit - OCI Rule Comment for Rule Ins 5030
Office of the Commissioner of Insurance
125 South Webster St – 2nd Floor
Madison WI 53702
Notice of Hearing
Marriage and Family Therapy,
Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to authority vested in the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board in ss.
15.08 (5) (b),
227.11 (2) and
457.03 (2), Stats., and interpreting s.
457.03 (2), Stats., the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider an order to amend s.
MPSW 20.02 (18), relating to recordkeeping by marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and social workers.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: August 2, 2005
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: 1400 East Washington Avenue
Room 179A
Madison, Wisconsin
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. Facts, opinions and argument may also be submitted in writing without a personal appearance by mail addressed to the Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708, or by email to
pamela.haack@drl.state.wi.us. Written comments must be received on or before
August 12, 2005 to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Analysis Prepared by the Dept. of Regulation and Licensing
Section
MPSW 20.02 (18) requires social workers, marriage and family therapists, and professional counselors to maintain adequate records relating to professional services that they provide to clients. However, this provision does not provide any details as to what should be contained in those records or for how long they need to be maintained. Under this proposal, records must contain five key elements and must be prepared in a timely fashion. In addition, clinical records must be maintained for seven years following the conclusion of treatment.
The current rule specifies a requirement to keep adequate records relating to the service provided to a client; however, there is no specific definition as to the types of records that must be kept, or timeframes for the preparation and retention of client records.
The proposed rule amendment creates a clear recordkeeping requirement of clinical services provided by licensed marriage and family therapists, professional counselors and clinical social workers. The records kept must include: assessment, diagnosis, treatment plan, progress notes and a discharge summary. The reports should be prepared not more than 7 days following client contact and the discharge summary should be prepared promptly upon closure of a client's case. Client case records must be kept for at least 7 years after the final date recorded for service in the record.
The proposed rule change is good because it clarifies the existing recordkeeping rule to better protect the public as well as assist the therapists, counselors and social workers by setting clear expectations and standards for recordkeeping, a standard which was only implied before as “adequate." Small business will only be affected in the sense that recordkeeping is now more clearly defined; however, there should be no fiscal impact as the existing rule already required adequate recordkeeping.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
No study resulting in the collection of factual data was used in reference to this rule-making effort. The primary methodology for revising the rule is the board's ongoing analysis and determination that a rules change is necessary.
Fiscal Estimate
The department estimates that this rule will require staff time in the Division of Enforcement and in the Office of Legal Counsel to receive, investigate and prosecute approximately five complaints annually. The value of these staff's salary and fringe benefits for this work is estimated at $6,206.
The department finds that this rule has no significant fiscal effect on the private sector.
Effect on Small Business
Pursuant to s.
227.114 (1), Stats., these proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. MPSW 20.02 (18) is amended to read:
MPSW 20.02 (18) Failing to maintain adequate records relating to services provided a client in the course of a professional relationship. A credential holder providing clinical services to a client shall maintain records documenting an assessment, a diagnosis, a treatment plan, progress notes, and a discharge summary. All clinical records shall be prepared in a timely fashion. Absent exceptional circumstances, clinical records shall be prepared not more than one week following client contact, and a discharge summary shall be prepared promptly following closure of the client's case. Clinical records shall be maintained for at least 7 years after the last service provided, unless otherwise provided by federal law.
Agency Contact Person
Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, Office of Legal Counsel, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935.
Telephone: (608) 266-0495.
Submission of Comments
Comments may be submitted to Pamela Haack, Department of Regulation and Licensing, 1400 East Washington Avenue, Room 171, P.O. Box 8935, Madison, Wisconsin 53708-8935. Email pamela.haack@drl. state.wi.us. Comments must be received on or before August 11, 2005, to be included in the record of rule-making proceedings.
Notice of Hearings
Natural Resources
(Environmental Protection-General)
[
CR 05-058]
(reprinted & corrected from 6/30/05 Register)
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
59.692,
227.11 (2) (a) and
281.31, Stats., interpreting ss.
59.69,
59.692 and
281.31, Stats., the Department of Natural Resources will hold public hearings on revisions to ch.
NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to minimum standards for county shoreland zoning ordinances. The proposed revisions are intended to meet the statutory objectives of the program, while providing certainty and flexibility to counties and property owners. Changes include adding definitions to the rule for clarity; establishing standards for multi-unit residential development, mobile home parks and campgrounds; providing exemptions for certain activities from shoreland setback and shoreland vegetation standards; establishing impervious surface standards; and replacing the “50% rule" for nonconforming structures with a standard based on the size and location of structures. These changes will significantly decrease the number of variances granted by counties, allowing certain activities to be allowed with a simple administrative permit by the county. Substantive changes include:
Language is added to advance the statutory purposes of the program found in s.
281.31 (1), Stats.
Language is added recognizing that this rule only establishes minimum standards for county shoreland zoning ordinances, and counties may adopt more protective regulations to adequately protect local resources.
Language consistent with s.
59.692(7), Stats., is added to clarify how this rule impacts lands annexed or incorporated by cities and villages.
Language clarifying the authority of the town shoreland zoning ordinances is added.
Language clarifying the applicability of ch.
NR 115 in areas under the jurisdiction of ch.
NR 118 is added.
The number of definitions was increased from 13 to 52 to help provide consistency in interpretation of county shoreland zoning ordinances
The requirement for land division review is changed from the creation of “3 or more lots" to the creation of “one or more lots" to ensure that all new lots created meet minimum lot size requirements. This standard was added to protect prospective property owners and ensure that all lots have a buildable area.
If new lots are created that are divided by a stream or river, one side of the lot must meet minimum lot size requirements and density standards. No portion of a lot or parcel divided by a navigable stream may be developed unless that portion of the lot or parcel meets or is combined to meet the minimum lot size requirements and density standards. This provision will ensure that development only takes place on lots or parcels which meet minimum lot size requirements, again safeguarding property owners.
Counties may adopt standards to regulate substandard lots in common ownership.
Minimum lot size and density standards are established for multi-unit residential development, mobile home parks, campgrounds and other types of uses.
Counties may request the approval of an alternative regulation for campgrounds that is different than the minimum standards in ch.
NR 115. Counties utilizing this option must demonstrate how the alternative regulation would achieve the statutory purposes of the program.
Counties are granted the flexibility to regulate keyhole lots.
New lot width measurement is developed which will accommodate irregular shaped lots.
Counties are granted the flexibility to regulate backlots in the shoreland zone.
Outlots may be created as part of a subdivision plat or certified survey map.
Counties may request the approval of standards for alternative forms of development with reduced lot sizes and development densities for planned unit developments, cluster developments, conservation subdivisions, and other similar alternative forms of development if they include, at a minimum, a required shoreland setback of more than 75 feet and a larger primary buffer than is required in s.
NR 115.15 (2).
Language is added to address structures exempted by other state or federal laws from the shoreland setback standards.
Provisions are added to allow counties to exempt 15 types of structures from the shoreland setback, an increase from 3 exempted structures.
The construction of new dry boathouses is prohibited.
Standards are established to qualify a lot for a reduced setback and two methods of calculating the reduced setback are provided. Counties may also request approval of an alternative setback reduction formulate, demonstrating how the alternative is as effective in achieving the purposes of s.
281.31 (1) and
(6), Stats.
Language governing management of shoreland vegetation in the primary shoreland buffer is improved, resulting in a more functional buffer protection habitat and water quality.
Tree and shrubbery pruning is allowed. Removal of trees and shrubs may be allowed if exotic or invasive species, diseased or damaged, or if an imminent safety hazard, but must be replaced.
Provisions are added to allow counties to exempt 7 types of activities from the shoreland vegetation provisions.
A formula to calculate the vegetative buffer mitigation requirements for existing multiple-unit developments was added to proportionately mitigate based on the intensity of the project.
A formula for the width of access corridors is provided, replacing the “30 feet in any 100 feet" provision, which was confusing if a lot had less than 100 feet of frontage.
Existing lawns may be maintained indefinitely in the primary shoreland buffer, unless a property owner decides to initiate one of 5 actions that require restoration of the primary shoreland buffer.
Best management practices must be implemented and maintained that, to the maximum extent practicable, result in no increase in storm water discharge from impervious surfaces.
If a project results in a lot being covered with 20% or more impervious surfaces, the shoreland buffers must be preserved or restored in compliance with the standards in s.
NR 115.15 (applies only to lots with lands within 75 feet of the ordinary high water mark).
An erosion control and revegetation plan is required for land disturbing activities to minimize erosion and sedimentation caused by the activity.
A county permit is required for land disturbing activities in the shoreland zone if the project includes 2,000 square feet or more of land.
Counties shall exempt from the permit requirement activities that have already received permits from other identified permitting authorities.
Counties may require a wetland buffer to minimize the impacts of land disturbing activities to prevent damage to wetlands.
The “50% rule" is removed, and a standard for the regulation of nonconforming structures based on the location and size of structures is used.
Unlimited ordinary maintenance and repairs is allowed on nonconforming structures.
Structural alternations are allowed on nonconforming structures if mitigation is implemented as specified by the county.
Expansion and replacement of nonconforming accessory structures is prohibited, unless located in a campground or mobile home park, and certain standards are satisfied.
Expansions of nonconforming principal structures is allowed is the structure is set back at least 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark, if the footprint cap is not exceeded, if mitigation is implemented as specified by the county and if other standards are met.
Replacement of nonconforming principal structures is allowed on the existing foundation anywhere within the shoreland setback area, and on new foundations if the structure is setback at least 35 feet from the ordinary high water mark, if mitigation is implemented as specified by the county, and if other standards are met.
Replacement of nonconforming principal structures is prohibited if the structure has no foundation, the foundation extends below the ordinary high water mark or the structure extends over the ordinary high water mark.
Counties shall adopt a mitigation system that is roughly proportional to the impacts of activities proposed.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to s.
227.114, Stats., it is not anticipated that the proposed rule will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Department's Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at:
SmallBusinessReg.Coordinator@dnr.state.wi.us or by calling (608) 266-1959.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department has prepared an Environmental Assessment in accordance is s.
1.11, Stats., and ch.
NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code, that has concluded that the proposed rule is not a major state action which would significantly affect the quality of the human environment and that an environmental impact statement is not required.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the Department will hold question and answer session from 4:30 p.m. until 5:45 p.m. prior to each hearing. Department staff will be available to answer questions regarding the proposed rules.
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that the hearings will be held on:
Tuesday, July 12, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Chippewa Valley Technical College
620 Clairemont Avenue
Eau Claire
Wednesday, July 13, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Wis. Indianhead Technical College
2100 Beaser Avenue
Ashland
Thursday, July 14, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Egg Harbor Room, Landmark Resort
7643 Hillside Road
Egg Harbor
Tuesday, July 19, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Western WI Technical College
304 6th Street North
La Crosse
Wednesday, July 20, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Whispering Pines Room, Grand Pines Resort
12355 W. Richardson Bay Road
Hayward [Additional hearing]
Thursday, July 21, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Sentry World Theater
1800 North Point Drive
Stevens Point
Tuesday, July 26, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
UW Washington County
400 University Drive
West Bend
Wednesday, July 27, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Grand Chute Town Hall
1900 Grand Chute Boulevard
Grand Chute
Thursday, July 28, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Holiday Inn Express [Changed location]
Pelican/Shepherd Rooms
668 West Kemp Street
Rhinelander
Tuesday, August 2, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Lake Lawn Resort
2400 East Geneva Street
Delavan
Thursday, August 4, 2005 at 6:00 p.m.
Oak Hall Room, Fitchburg Community Center
5520 Lacy Road
Fitchburg
NOTICE IS HEREBY FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, reasonable accommodations, including the provision of information material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified individuals with disabilities upon request. Please call Toni Herkert at (608) 266-0161 with specific information on your request at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing.
The proposed rule and fiscal estimate may be reviewed and comments electronically submitted at the following Internet site: adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Written comments on the proposed rule may be submitted via U.S. mail to Toni Herkert, Bureau of Watershed Management, P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707. Comments may be submitted until August 12, 2005. 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 Ms. Herkert.
Notice of Hearing
Revenue
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to s.
227.11 (2), Stats., and interpreting s.
70.32 (2r) (c), Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below, to consider the amendment of rules relating to
the use-value assessment of agricultural property.
Hearing Date, Time and Location
Date: July 25, 2005
Time: 1:00 P.M.
Location: Department of Revenue Building
Events Room
2135 Rimrock Road
Madison, WI
Handicap access is available at the hearing location.
Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and may make an oral presentation. It is requested that written comments reflecting the oral presentation be given to the department at the hearing. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact person shown below no later than August 1, 2005, and will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Contact Person
Scott Shields
Department of Revenue
Mail Stop 6-97
2135 Rimrock Road
P.O. Box 8971
Madison, WI 53708-8971
Telephone: (608) 266-2317
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Revenue
Statutory authority:
Section
227.135, Stats.
Each agency may promulgate rules that interpret the provisions of any statute enforced or administered by it, if the agency considers it necessary to effectuate the purpose of the statute.
Pursuant to s.
70.32 (2r) (c), Stats., agricultural land is assessed according to the income that could be generated from its rental for agricultural use. Wisconsin Chapter
Tax 18 specifies the formula that is used to estimate the net rental income per acre. Income, expense, and value are determined by applying an owner-operator appraisal methodology. With an owner-operator method, net income is determined by deducting all operating costs and overhead from gross income. The formula specifies corn prices, cost of corn production, and corn yield for determining net income. Net income is capitalized to determine the agricultural use-value per acre. The capitalization rate is the sum of the interest rate for a medium-sized, 1-year adjustable rate mortgage and the municipal net tax rate for property taxes levied two years prior to the assessment year.
A landlord-tenant appraisal methodology is another means to estimate rental income. The basis for this method is an agreement or crop-share lease between a landowner (landlord) and a farm operator (tenant). Crop-share leases allow landowners and farm operator to share risk and management of a farm operation. The lease provisions will specify the distribution of income and costs. Typically, income and direct operational costs are equally distributed among the landowner and farm operator with the landowner assuming all property tax payments and the farm operator assuming all labor and machinery costs.
The proposed rule order specifies the provisions of a crop-share lease for determining the net rental income per acre of agricultural land for 2006 and thereafter. The rule will specify the process and components for determining the landowner's share of gross income, cost of production, and net income.
Second, the proposed rule specifies a capitalization rate that is 11% or the sum of the interest rate for a medium-sized, 1-year adjustable rate mortgages and the municipal net tax rate for property taxes levied two years prior to the assessment year, whichever is greater.
Third, the proposed rule specifies that the annual change, either positive or negative, in use-values for 2006 and thereafter shall be limited to the percentage change in the statewide equalized value in the prior year. In determining the percentage change in the statewide equalized value, the value of agricultural land and the value of new construction are excluded.
Lastly, the proposed rule repeals subdivisions that are no longer applicable.
Further detail is provided in the summary of factual data section below.
Federal Comparison
Property taxation is governed by Wisconsin's constitution and statutes, as such there are no current or pending federal regulations regarding agricultural assessment.
State Comparisons
The valuation of agricultural land in Illinois, Michigan and Minnesota are specified by statute; therefore, there are no administrative rules related to agricultural valuation in these states. The Iowa administrative rule related to agricultural valuation provides no detail regarding the formula used to calculate agricultural land value; reference is made to the Iowa real property appraisal manual.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The proposed rule order specifies a landlord-tenant crop-share appraisal method to estimate the rental income of agricultural land. Under a crop-share lease agreement, a landowner provides the land and assumes the property tax expenses for the land. A farm operator provides the machinery, fuel, and labor. The landowner and farm operator share the direct operating expenses, including the seed, fertilizer, and pesticides or chemicals. Income from the harvested crop is also shared on the same basis as the direct operating costs. The proposed rule provides for an equal distribution of income and cost among the landowner and farm operator, which is reflective of a common crop-share lease.
Gross income, cost of production, and net income are determined based upon the following.
• Gross income is determined by multiplying the 5-year average corn yield by the 5-year average market price of corn. The result is reduced by 50% in order to determine the landowner's income under a crop-share lease.
• Cost of production is determined by multiplying the 5-year average direct operating costs of corn production by the 5-year average corn yield. The result is reduced by 50% in order to determine the landowner's costs under a crop-share lease.
• The landowner also incurs a management expense that captures the cost of maintaining and administering the operation. Management expense is 7.5% of the landowner's gross income.
• Net income is calculated by subtracting management expenses and direct operating expenses from gross income. Dividing net income by the capitalization rate provides the estimated value of agricultural land.
• Property taxes, which are a landowner responsibility, are realized in the capitalization rate.
• With the exception of the capitalization rate's municipal tax rate, all data is averaged over a 5-year period.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rule amending Chapter
Tax 18 would have the effect on 2006 and later assessments of agricultural land.
Under the current permanent rule, the 2006 use value of agricultural land would be based on the 5-year average corn price, cost, and yield for the 1999-2003 period, and the capitalization rate would be based on the 5-year average interest rate for the 2001-2005 period. Using the data for these periods, it is estimated that agricultural land values would be negative. It is unclear how property with negative values would be taxed.
To avoid negative values for agricultural land, the Department of Revenue issued emergency rules to hold agricultural land values at 2003 levels in both 2004 and 2005.
Under the proposed permanent rule, the 2006 and later use values would be based on income capability from agricultural land using a crop share lease approach. Under a crop share lease, a landowner and a farm operator share the cost of growing a crop. The common split in such agreement is 50-50, where the landowner and farm operator equally share the harvested grain and input expenses. The proposed rule specifies the process of determining gross income, cost of production, and net income. Also, the proposed rule specifies a capitalization rate as a 1-year adjustable rate mortgage for farmland plus the net tax rate in the municipality from all taxing jurisdictions or 11%, whichever is greater.
Under the proposed permanent rule, the annual change of agricultural land value per acre would be limited to the percentage change in equalized value of real and personal property statewide, less new construction and agricultural land. From 2003 to 2004 the statewide equalized value (less new construction and agricultural land) increased by 6%. Assuming the same growth in equalized value from 2004 to 2005, assessed values per acre for each type of soil would only increase by 6% from current values. As a result, statewide agricultural land values will approximately equal $2.1 billion in 2006. Since growth of agricultural land value will be limited to the statewide change in equalized value excluding new construction and agricultural land itself, agricultural land as a share of total equalized value will decrease.
An average 200 acre farm can be an illustration of the fiscal effect on farmland property taxes. For example, under the current permanent and emergency rules, an acre of grade 1 soil in Dodge County was assessed and then frozen at $261 per acre. Assuming an average Dodge County tax rate of $21.48 per $1,000 of assessed value, property taxes levied on a 200 acre farmland in 2005 were about $1,120 ($261 x 200 x 0.02148). Under the proposed permanent rule, a grade 1 soil would be assessed at $276 ($261 x 1.06) per acre. Because agricultural land value growth will be smaller than the growth of total equalized value, property tax on agricultural land as a percent of total levies is expected to decrease statewide. Property tax changes will vary by municipality, however, based on local decisions and changes in state aid.
Under the proposed rule, there will be no loss of state forestry tax revenue. To the extent that the current permanent rule would result in negative values for agricultural land and therefore a loss of state forestry tax revenue, the proposed rule would result in an increase of $413,000 in state forestry tax revenues ($2.1 billion x .0002).
Relative to the valuation of agricultural land under the emergency rules that were adopted to avoid negative values, however, the proposed rule will result in a forestry tax revenue increase of about $23,000.
Effect on Small Business
This proposed rule order does not have a significant effect on small business.
Text of Rule
SECTION 1. Tax 18.07 (1) (b) 1., 2., 3., are amended to read:
Tax 18.07 (1) (b) Net rental income per acre. 1. Beginning in 1997 2006 and in each year thereafter, net rental income per acre for each category of agricultural land in each municipality shall be calculated according to the income attributable to a landowner under a crop-share lease. The department shall assume a lease agreement where the income and direct operating costs are distributed equally between the landowner and farm operator. The department shall adhere to professionally accepted appraisal practices in determining gross income, cost of production, and net income that are attributable to a landowner under a crop-share lease. Net income shall be calculated by subtracting average total cost of production per acre under subd. 3. from average gross income per acre under subd. 2.
2. Beginning in 1997 2006 and in each year thereafter, the landowner's average gross income per acre for each category of agricultural land in each municipality shall be calculated by multiplying the category's 5-year average corn yield per acre, adjusted for the typical productivity of that category, by the 5-year average corn market price per unit of output.
The product shall be reduced by 50% to reflect a crop-share lease with equal distribution of income. Yield per acre shall be based on the federal soil conservation natural resource conservation service's soil productivity indices and corn market price data shall be obtained from the Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection. If the federal soil conservation natural resource conservation service and the Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection are unable to provide, or to provide timely, soil productivity indices and corn market price data, respectively, comparable data shall be obtained from other generally acceptable sources.
3. Beginning in 1997 2006 and in each year thereafter, the landowner's average total cost of production per acre for each category of agricultural land shall be calculated by multiplying the category's 5-year average corn yield per acre, adjusted for the typical productivity of that category, by the 5-year average cost of corn production. calculated from farm expense information obtained from the Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection, the university of Wisconsin, federal agencies, or farm credit services associations. In calculating the 5-year average cost of corn production, the department shall include the direct operating costs incurred by the landowner under a crop-share lease, which shall include the cost of seed, fertilizer, lime, manure, chemicals, commercial drying, interest on operating capital, or their equivalent. The total cost of corn production is reduced by 50% to reflect a crop-share lease with equal distribution of direct operating costs. The 5-year average cost of corn production shall not include those costs incurred by a farm operator under a crop-share lease, which includes labor, opportunity cost of unpaid labor, machinery, fuel, repairs, overhead, or their equivalent. An additional landowner cost for operational management, equal to 7.5% of the average gross income determined in subd 2., shall be subtracted from the average gross income calculation in subd. 2. Property taxes are not a farm expense for purposes of calculating average total cost of production per acre. Yield per acre shall be based on the federal soil conservation natural resource conservation service's soil productivity indices and cost of corn production data shall be obtained from the Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection. If the federal soil conservation natural resource conservation service and the Wisconsin department of agriculture, trade and consumer protection are unable to provide, or to provide timely, soil productivity indices and cost of corn production data, respectively, comparable data shall be obtained from other generally acceptable sources.
SECTION 2. Tax 18.07 (1) (b) 4., 5., 6., and 7. are repealed.
SECTION 3. Tax 18.07 (1) (c) 5. is amended to read:
Tax 18.07 (1) (c) 5. The capitalization rate for each municipality for each assessment year shall be 11% or calculated by adding the sum of the statewide 5-year moving average rate for the year prior to the assessment year and to the net tax rate of that municipality for the property tax levy 2 years prior to the assessment year, whichever is greater.
SECTION 4. Tax 18.07 (1) (c) 6. and 7. are repealed.
SECTION 5. Tax 18.07(1) (d) 1. and 2. are created to read:
Tax 18.07 (1) (d) 1. Beginning in 2006 and in each year thereafter, increases and decreases in the use values for each category of agricultural land in each municipality shall be limited to the prior year's percentage change in the statewide equalized value. When determining the percentage change in the statewide equalized value, the department shall exclude the value of agricultural land and new construction. New construction shall include increases in land value due to higher land use, new subdivisions, and increases in improvement value due to new construction, completion of improvements partially assessed, remodeling and additions, and land improvements such as addition of curb, gutter, sewer, water, or their equivalent. The amount of new construction shall be reduced by the loss of land utility and loss of property value due to full or partial destruction, removal, contamination, or their equivalent.
2. The department shall calculate the percentage change from the previous year's use-values to the current year's use-values according to the formula in 18.07(1)(b). Increases and decreases in the use values for each category of agricultural land in each municipality shall be limited to the percentage change determined in subd 1. If the increase or decrease is less than the percentage change determined in subd. 1, the use value per acre will equal the value calculated by the department according to the formula in 18.07(1)(b).
SECTION 6. Tax 18.07 (3) (a) is amended to read:
Tax 18.07 (3) (a) The assessor shall determine the use value of each parcel of agricultural land based on the use value per acre for that category of agricultural land in that municipality provided by the department, adjusted by the assessor to reflect more accurately the use value of that parcel of agricultural land.
