•
Hotels, motels, bed and breakfast, tourist rooming houses, restaurants, temporary restaurants, vending machines, and vending machine commissaries: Section
254.68, Stats., require the department to establish by rule, permit fees, pre-inspection fees, re-inspection fees, fees for operating without a permit, and fees for untimely permit or license renewal. Section
254.69 (2) (am) and
(d), Stats., authorizes the department to grant agent status to certain local health departments for issuing permits to and making investigations or inspections of hotels, bed and breakfast, tourist rooming houses, restaurants, temporary restaurants, and permits local health departments with agent status to establish separate fees licensure, including fees for pre-inspections. Section
254.71 (6) (a) and
(c), Stats., requires the department to promulgate rules establishing a fee for certification and recertification of food protection practices to individuals and for issuing of certificates, including application, submittal and review. Section
254.74 (1) (a) and
(d), Stats., requires the department to administer, enforce, and prescribe rules and standards for hotels, bed and breakfast establishments, tourist rooming houses, restaurants, temporary restaurants, vending machines, and vending machine commissaries. Section
254.85,
(1), and
(2), Stats., authorizes the department to enter the premises of lodging and food establishments to inspect the premises, secure samples or specimens, examine and copy relevant documents and records or obtain photographic or other evidence needed for enforcement of rules or statutes, and to issue orders to protect the public health safety and welfare. Section
254.86, Stats., authorize the department to suspend, revoke, refuse to issue a permit required under s.
254.68, Stats. Chapter
HFS 195 are the department's regulations authorized under ss.
254.68, Stats., for hotels, motels, and tourist rooming houses. Chapter
HFS 196 are the department's regulations authorized under ss.
254.68,
254.69,
254.71,
254.74,
254.85,
254.86, Stats., for restaurants. Chapter
HFS 197 are the department's regulations authorized under ss.
254.68,
254.69,
254.71,
254.74,
254.85,
254.86, Stats., for bed and breakfast establishments. Chapter
HFS 198 are the department's regulations authorized under ss.
254.68,
254.69,
254.71,
254.74,
254.85,
254.86, Stats., for vending machines and vending machine commissaries.
Related statute or rule
See “Statutes interpreted" section.
Plain language analysis
Before a person may operate a tattooing or body piercing establishment, recreational or educational camp, campground, hotel, motel, tourist rooming house, bed and breakfast establishment, restaurant, vending machine, or vending machine commissary, the person is required by state law to have a permit or a license issued by the department. In addition, state law prohibits a person from being a tattooist or body piercer without a license, or operating or maintaining a restaurant unless the person or a manager holds a current, valid certified manager's certificate from the department.
The department's Food Safety and Recreational Licensing (FSRL) section conducts the licensing and permitting, inspection, and enforcement activities required under state law for practitioners and establishments regulated under chs.
HFS 173,
175,
178,
195,
196,
197, and
198. In addition, FSRL staff conducts complaint investigations, and provide training and consultation activities to persons seeking a license or permit. As part of the department's general responsibility for oversight of public health, FSRL staff also routinely conducts inspections, without reimbursement, for state, local and private sector entities for activities that are not directly related to the department's regulatory responsibilities. Examples of special condition inspections include sanitation inspections of liquor establishments for liquor licenses, establishment pre-purchase compliance inspections for persons intending to purchase DHFS-regulated facilities, preliminary inspections of complex waterpark facilities, and food safety inspections at schools participating in the National School Lunch (NSLP) or School Breakfast Programs (SBP).
The activities conducted by FRSL staff are supported entirely by fee revenue paid by practitioners and persons licensed or applying to operate an establishment. The department does not receive general purpose revenue for its licensing, permitting, inspection, or enforcement activities. At current fee revenue levels, the Department projects a program deficit of $699,540 in state fiscal year (SFY) 2009 that will increase to $1,799,056 in SFY 2010.
To maintain revenue sufficient to conduct the department's public health regulatory activities, the department proposes to increase current fees, create new fees, and promulgate rules. In order to ease the impact of increased fees, the department is proposing a two-phase fee increase. An initial fee increase will go into effect in state fiscal year 2010 and a second, and generally smaller, fee increase will go into effect in SFY 2012. This two-phased fee increase approach should ensure that the FSRL program can operate without a deficit until 2014. The changes are as follows:
•
HFS 173, relating to tattooing and body piercing establishments, the department proposes to increase license fees, pre-inspection fees, and practitioner fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for late renewal, a fee for operating without a license, a fee for a duplicate license, and a fee for special condition inspections. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a licensee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
•
HFS 175, relating to recreational and educational camps, the department proposes to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a permittee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
•
HFS 178, relating to campgrounds, the department proposes to increase permit and late renewal fees and to create pre-inspection and re-inspection fees, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a licensee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
•
HFS 195, relating to hotels, motels, and tourist rooming houses, the department proposes to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a permittee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
•
HFS 196, relating to restaurants, the department proposes to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, a fee for operating without a certified operator, and a fee for special condition inspections. In addition to proposed changes relating to fees, the department also proposes to modify ch.
HFS 196 to revise the complexity rating formula under s.
HFS 196.04 for restaurants that handle frozen pre-formed meat patties, chicken breasts, and breaded, chopped or comminuted meats. Specifically, the department intends to re-categorize entities that handle frozen pre-formed meat patties, chicken breasts, and breaded, chopped or comminuted meats to the same level that applies to raw meat handling. Entities that handle frozen and preformed meat patties, chicken breasts, or breaded, chopped or comminuted meats are currently categorized as less complex. Retail food service establishments are rated for complexity based on an evaluative formula. Entities that handle raw meat, poultry and seafood pose a greater risk for introducing food-borne contamination and, as such, have a higher level of complexity and an expectation for more frequent and detailed inspections. However, the department has determined through program evaluation that there is no discernable difference in risk between handling frozen pre-formed meats and raw poultry, meat or seafood. The revision of the risk-based complexity rating formula may, in some instances, result in higher fees. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a permittee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
•
HFS 197, relating to bed and breakfast establishments, the department proposes to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees; and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. In addition to modifying and creating fees, the department may update the rules as needed to ensure continued consistency between rules and current practice. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a permittee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
•
HFS 198, relating to vending of food, the department proposes to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees; and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. In addition to modifying and creating fees, the department may update the rules as needed to ensure continued consistency between rules and current practice. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a permittee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
Comparison with federal regulations
There appear to be no proposed or existing federal regulations relating to fees or general operating requirements for the businesses operating.
Comparison of rules in adjacent states
Illinois: The State of Illinois has very little centralized environmental health regulatory infrastructure. Illinois has no state fee structure for providing environmental health regulatory services such as restaurant, lodging, or public pool inspections. Each local public health jurisdiction may create its own environmental health services fee structure. Given the different regional levels of affluence and local costs of living in Illinois, local environmental health regulatory fees vary widely. For this reason, it is difficult to compare Wisconsin's state Food Safety and Recreational Licensing (FSRL) fees to similar fees in Illinois.
According to the Illinois Department of Public Health's website (
www.idph.state.il.us), “Currently, [the Illinois Department of Public Health] IDPH provides very limited direct environmental health services through some of its regional offices. IDPH staff only respond to complaints about food service establishments; no routine inspections are provided to promote quality food handling practices in restaurants."
Iowa: In Iowa, food service establishments, lodging facilities, and vending machines are regulated by the Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals' Food and Consumer Safety Bureau. Pools and water attractions and tattooing and body piercing are regulated by the Iowa Department of Public Health.
Food Service Establishment Fees
The Iowa Department of Inspections and Appeals (IDIA) raised their environmental health service fees on July 1, 2007. The IDIA sets fees according to a food service establishment's (restaurant's) annual gross sales. According to Judy Harrison, Chief of the Food and Consumer Safety Bureau, food service establishments must provide proof (i.e. quarterly financial reports) of gross sales or they will be charged the highest fee.
Iowa and Wisconsin based their food service establishment fees structures on very different principles: food establishment annual gross sales versus risk of food-borne illness due to food preparation complexity. Iowa's existing fee schedule and Wisconsin's proposed schedule are presented side-by-side below. Although the basis for the fee schedules is quite different, Wisconsin's proposed fees are in relatively the same range as Iowa's fees for food service establishments.
Iowa's 2007 Food Service Fee Schedule
|
|
Wisconsin's Proposed Food Service Fee Schedule
|
Food Service Establishment Annual Gross Sales
|
Fee
|
|
Food Service Establishment Type
|
Proposed SFY 2010 Fee
|
Proposed SFY 2012 Fee
|
$1 to <$50,000
|
$67.50
|
|
|
|
|
$50,000 to <$100,000
|
$114.50
|
|
Restaurant, Pre-Packaged
|
$90.00
|
$105.00
|
$100,000 to <$250,000
|
$236.25
|
|
Restaurant, Simple
|
$195.00
|
$230.00
|
$250,000 to <$500,000
|
$275.00
|
|
Restaurant, Moderate
|
$300.00
|
$330.00
|
=$500,000
|
$303.75
|
|
Restaurant, Complex
|
$430.00
|
$540.00
|
Mobile Food Unit
|
$27.00
|
|
|
|
|
Temporary Food Establishment
|
$33.50
|
|
Temporary Restaurant
|
$150.00
|
$170.00
|
Farmer's Market
|
$100.00
|
|
|
|
|
Lodging Fees.
Iowa's fees for lodging facilities are based on the number of guest rooms per facility. Iowa does not differentiate among tourist rooming houses (TRHs), bed and breakfasts (B&Bs) and hotels. Wisconsin sets different fees for TRHs, B&Bs and hotels. In Wisconsin, hotels have base fees with proposed additional, per-room fee. Although the different bases for Iowa's and Wisconsin's lodging fees make a comparison difficult, the respective current and proposed lodging fees are presented below.
Iowa's 2007 Lodging Fee Schedule
|
|
Wisconsin's Proposed Lodging Fee Schedule
|
Number of Lodging Facility Guest Rooms
|
Fee
|
|
Lodging Type
|
Proposed SFY 2010 Fee
|
Proposed SFY 2012 Fee
|
1 – 15 Rooms
|
$27.00
|
|
Bed and Breakfast
|
$100.00
|
$110.00
|
16 – 30 Rooms
|
$40.50
|
|
Tourist Rooming House
|
$120.00
|
$135.00
|
31 – 75 Rooms
|
$54.00
|
|
|
|
|
76 – 149 Rooms
|
$57.50
|
|
Hotel, 5 – 30 Rooms
|
$165.00
|
$205.00
|
=150 Rooms
|
$101.25
|
|
Hotel, 31 – 99 Rooms
|
$260.00
|
$280.00
|
|
|
|
Hotel, 100 – 199 Rooms
|
$330.00
|
$355.00
|
|
|
|
Hotel, 200 + Rooms
|
$400.00
|
$490.00
|
Vending.
Iowa and Wisconsin take different approaches to ensuring the safety of food in vending machines – making a comparison of these fees very difficult. The respective food vending fees are as follows:
Iowa's 2007 Vending Fee Schedule
|
|
Wisconsin's Proposed Vending Fee Schedule
|
Units
|
Fee
|
|
Unit or Vending Type
|
Proposed 2010 Fee
|
Proposed
SFY 2012 Fee
|
Vending Machine (First Machine)
|
$20.00
|
|
Vending Machine Commissary
|
$230.00
|
$280.00
|
|
|
|
Vending Machine Storage
|
$150.00
|
$215.00
|
Each Additional Vending Machine
|
$5.00
|
|
Vending Machine Operator
|
$125.00
|
$125.00
|
|
|
|
Vending Machine Sticker
|
$8.00
|
$9.00
|
The department was not able to compare its fees for campground and recreational and educational camps with Iowa's fees.
Michigan: Michigan has no statewide structure or schedule for environmental health regulatory service fees. Similarly, Michigan state agencies do not provide environmental health services. Each local jurisdiction (typically county) in Michigan is required to have a local public health agency and each local agency must provide environmental health regulatory services. Fees are locally set. With each fee, a surcharge is remitted to the state for maintenance of a centralized office to provide oversight and technical support.
In Michigan, differing levels of affluence and local costs of living result in widely varying local fee structures. The State's annual surcharge fees are developed and are raised each year based on specific cost-of-living indexes. A letter, dated August 31, 2007, from the Michigan Department of Agriculture to all Local Health Departments detailed the 2008/2009 state adjustments to food service license fees. The state surcharges on local health departments fees will be as follows:
Michigan's 2008/2009 Additional State Fees (“Surcharges") onto Local Health Department Fees
|
Pool or Pool Feature Type
|
Fee
|
Food Service Establishment
|
$27.00
|
Food Service Establishment, Non-Profit [501(C)(3)]
|
$0.00/$5.00
|
Mobile Food Establishment
|
$27.00
|
Mobile Food Commissary
|
$27.00
|
Temporary Food
|
$8.00
|
Temporary Food, Non-Profit [501(C)(3)]
|
$5.00
|
Special Transitory Food Unit
|
$40.00
|
Special Transitory Food Unit, Non-Profit [501(C)(3)]
|
$5.00
|
Schools
|
$27.00
|
Vending Machine Location
|
$3.00
|
In Michigan, local public health agencies collect annual environmental health regulatory service license fees. The state surcharge is added to the local fee and is remitted to the state. Local food service fees are based on facility size (seating).
Minnesota: Minnesota maintains a fee schedule and environmental health regulatory service system very similar to Wisconsin. Chapter
157 of the Minnesota Statute entitled, “Food, Beverage, and Lodging Establishments", contains Minnesota's 2007 fee schedule. As in Wisconsin, local public environmental health regulatory agencies may, and often do, assess higher fees. Minnesota's fees in comparison to Wisconsin's proposed 2008 fees are as follows:
Minnesota's 2007 Environmental Health
Service Fee Schedule
|
|
Wisconsin's Proposed Food Service Fee Schedule
|
License Type
|
Fee
|
|
License Type
|
Proposed SFY 2010 Fee
|
Proposed SFY 2012 Fee
|
Annual Hospitality Fee (All food, beverage and lodging establishments)
|
$35.00
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Base Fee (All food, beverage and lodging establishment except Special Event Food Stands)
|
$150.00
|
|
|
|
|
Annual Base Fee (Special Event Food Stand)
|
$40.00
|
|
|
|
|
Food Service, Limited Menu/Pre-Packaged*
|
$235.00
|
|
Restaurant, Pre-Packaged
|
$90.00
|
$105.00
|
Food Service , Small/Simple*
|
$285.00
|
|
Restaurant, Simple
|
$195.00
|
$230.00
|
Food Service, Medium/Moderate*
|
$345.00
|
|
Restaurant, Moderate
|
$300.00
|
$330.00
|
Food Service, Large/Complex*
|
$545.00
|
|
Restaurant, Complex
|
$430.00
|
$540.00
|
Temporary/Mobile Food Carts/Stands*
|
$240.00
|
|
Temporary Restaurant
|
$150.00
|
$170.00
|
Certified Food Manager
|
$28.00
|
|
Certified Food Manager
|
$10.00
|
$15.00
|
School, Second Annual Inspection
|
$300.00
|
|
|
|
|
Lodging*
|
$185.00
|
|
Hotel, 5 – 30 Rooms
|
$165.00
|
$205.00
|
Lodging (per sleeping accommodation unit, not to exceed $800)
|
$8.00
|
|
Hotel, 31 – 99 Rooms
|
$260.00
|
$280.00
|
|
|
|
Hotel, 100 – 199 Rooms
|
$330.00
|
$355.00
|
|
|
|
Hotel, 200 + Rooms
|
$400.00
|
$490.00
|
Operating without a License (mobile food unit, seasonal or special event food stand)
|
$50.00
|
|
Operating without a License
|
$749.00
|
$749.00
|
Operating without a License for =30 days (restaurant, food cart, lodging establishment)
|
$100.00
|
|
Operating without a License
|
$749.00
|
$749.00
|
Operating without a License for >30 days (restaurant, food cart, lodging establishment)
|
$300.00
|
|
Operating without a License
|
$749.00
|
$749.00
|
*Includes Annual Hospitality Fee and applicable Annual Base Fee
In almost every license type, the environmental health regulatory service fees assessed by the Minnesota Department of Health exceed those proposed by the Wisconsin Division of Public Health.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The department developed the proposed fees by researching demographic trends, economic growth, the number of regulated establishments, environmental health regulatory staffing levels, and operating costs. The proposed fees and related administrative codes were established in collaboration with representatives of the regulated industry and its small businesses. The department's collaborative efforts were intended to ensure that any regulatory burdens and fiscal impacts were minimized. In many cases, the department and the collaborating regulated industry representatives replaced flat fees (fees not based on facility size, complexity or risk) with a series of graduated fees that were differentiated according to facility size, complexity and public health risk. From an evaluation of past and present conditions, the department developed projections for future workloads and operating costs. Operating expenses for State Fiscal Year 2010 were used as the benchmark for the revenue neutral fee increases. The department relied on all of the following sources to determine the impact the proposed fees and rules may have on small businesses:
•
The 2002 Economic Census – Wisconsin Geographic Series, which is compiled by the U.S. census bureau every five years for each year ending in “2" and “7" and contains the latest available economic data compiled on businesses located in Wisconsin.
•
Criteria adopted by the department and approved by the Wisconsin Small Business Regulatory Review Board to determine whether the department's proposed rules would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses. Pursuant to the department's criteria, a proposed rule would have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small businesses if at least 10% of the businesses affected by the proposed rules are small businesses and if operating expenditures, including annualized capital expenditures, increase by more than the prior year's consumer price index or revenues are reduced by more than the prior year's consumer price index. For the purposes of this rulemaking, 2007 is the index year. The consumer price index is compiled by the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics and for 2007 is 2.8 percent.
•
Records maintained in the department's Digital Health Department Field Licensing and Inspection Program (FLIP) on the regulated entities, as of August 2007. This data was used to determine the number of entities licensed or certified by the department or its agents.
•
An August 10, 2005, press release (Scott Larrivee, Public Information Officer) from the Wisconsin Department of Administration (DOA), entitled Wisconsin Population Continues to Rise, that states “Estimates released by the Department of Administration's Demographic Services Center today show a four percent increase in Wisconsin's population since the 2000 U.S. Census." Over a five-year period, the four percent increase represented an average population growth of 0.8% per year. Because the department had no historical data on the rate of increase of regulated establishments, the department determined that the number of regulated facilities will grow at a rate roughly equivalent to the growth of Wisconsin's population. Therefore, for the purpose of projecting programmatic inspection loads and eventual fee revenue, regulated establishment growth was projected at 0.8% per year.
•
Inflation rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics for a 20 year period from 1987 through 2007, for use in projecting future department operating costs.
•
Department data regarding historical staffing levels of department environmental health inspectors during the period 1999 through 2007. The following are the results.
Year
|
1999
|
2000
|
2001
|
2002
|
2003
|
#Inspectors
|
26
|
26
|
25.75
|
26
|
25
|
Year
|
2004
|
2005
|
2006
|
2007
|
|
#Inspectors
|
24
|
23.5
|
22
|
22
|
|
•
Wage increase data from the Wisconsin Science Professionals (WSP). Additional wage increase data was obtained from the State of Wisconsin Office of State Employment Relations' (OSER)
Compensation Plan 2005-2007, to assess the influence of wage increases on program operating costs and to accurately project future operating costs. The WSP provided the FSRL Section with draft
Wage Adjustment Summaries, 1989 through 2003-05 Contracts. The summary, dated January 2006, was prepared by Marie Stewart. From the WSP and from OSER data, the FSRL Section determined that, for the period 1987 through 2007, the wages of DPH Environmental Health regulatory service staff rose an average of 2.3% per year. In its November 2007
WSP Bargaining Bulletin, the WSP referenced an October 2007 presentation by the union to the Wisconsin legislature's Joint Committee on Employment Relations (JCOER). The presentation highlighted the “Forgotten 8" job classifications – which includes Environmental Health Specialists and Public Health Sanitarians – whose wages have not kept pace with similar or identical classifications in neighboring states. The WSP discovered the following average hourly pay differentials for Environmental Health Specialists and Public Health Sanitarians between Wisconsin and neighboring Midwestern states. In each case, the hourly wages of Wisconsin Environmental Health Specialists and Public Health Sanitarians, as shown below, trailed behind those of the colleagues in neighboring Midwestern states.
Classification:
|
Environmental Health Specialist – Advanced
|
Environmental Health Specialist – r
|
Public Health
Sanitarian – Advanced
|
Public Health
Sanitarian - Senior
|
Average Wis. Hourly Pay Differential to Neighboring Midwestern States:
|
-$6.16
|
-$3.35
|
-$5.56
|
-$5.18
|
•
Standards published in the draft Voluntary National Retail Food Regulatory Program Standards (January 2005) published by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) which includes recommendations on resource and staffing levels. The FDA in Standard No. 8 Program Support and Services, recommends staffing levels of one full-time staff devoted to food for every 280 – 320 inspections performed to determine an estimate or recommended levels of inspections.
•
Department data on the number of inspections performed by department inspectors. The department determined that approximately 30% of licensed facilities will require re-inspection each year. Therefore, inspectors will perform 1.3 annual inspections per facility. Using the FDA recommended level of 280 – 320 inspections per inspector; each inspector should have a workload of 215 – 246 establishments. The department determined that its workforce of 22 inspectors (as of August 2007) had a workload of 734 licenses establishments per department inspector. This workload is three times higher than that recommended by the FDA.
•
Time study data of state and local agent health department inspectors, conducted by the department in Summer 2007. The study sought to determine the amount of time that was spent by a representative group of inspectors on the categories of food safety and recreational licensing licenses. In the survey, the department asked inspectors to identify the amount of time (as percent) they spent on restaurants, schools (food service inspections), lodging, campgrounds, public pools and water attractions, campgrounds, vending machines and body art (tattooing and piercing). The study determined that inspectors were allocating their time in the following manner:
Category
|
Restaurants
|
Schools (Food Service)
|
Lodging
|
Pools & Water Attractions
|
Camp-grounds
|
Vending Machines
|
Body Art
|
% of Time
|
52%
|
8%
|
18%
|
8%
|
6%
|
1%
|
7%
|
In meetings with trade associations representing sectors of the regulated community, the trade associations sought to have licensing and inspection fees based on the time required to perform the inspections. Therefore, these time study data were used as the basis of allocating FSRL operating costs to the various regulated community sectors
•
Fee data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and state and local public health agencies in California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Ohio, Oregon, and West Virginia. The data revealed no single trend or set of principals upon which most environmental health regulatory fee structures are based. Jurisdictions in general base their fees on facility risk, facility size, gross revenue, inspection time, programmatic costs, flat fees or various combinations of those factors.
•
The Wisconsin Fee Structure Revision Workgroup, a workgroup assembled by the department to assist the department in developing the proposed fees and rules. The following individuals were members of the workgroup. The Committee met formally on September 11, 2007 and November 15, 2007. Informal meetings and conversations were held in between meetings:
Name
|
Office
|
Organization
|
Susan Quam
|
Executive Director
|
Wisconsin Restaurant Association
|
Peter Madland
|
Executive Director
|
Tavern League of Wisconsin
|
Tricia Pugal
|
President, Chief Executive Officer
|
Wisconsin Innkeepers Association
|
Kris Ullmer
|
Administrator
|
Wisconsin Bed & Breakfast Association
|
Lori Severson
|
Executive Director
|
Wisconsin Association of Campground Owners
|
Andrea Yenter
|
Camp Operations Manager
|
Wisconsin Lions Camp
|
Patrick Finnegan
|
Aquatics Director
|
Chula Vista Resort
|
Chet Gerlack
|
Executive Director
|
Association of Wisconsin Tourism Attractions
|
Cliff May
|
Owner
|
In Your Fact Tattooz
|
Jeff Parks
|
President & Chief Operating Officer
|
CL Swanson (Vending)
|
Dale Grosskurth
|
Environmental Health Director
|
Marathon County Health Department
|
Tim Banwell
|
Environmental Health Director
|
Rock County Health Department
|
Jeff Kindrai
|
Health Officer
|
Grant County Health Department
|
Susan Lorenz
|
Health Officer
|
Columbia County Division of Health
|
Carol Drury
|
Sanitarian
|
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
|
Scott Vesely
|
Program Manager – Campgrounds, Body Art
|
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
|
James Kaplanek
|
Section Chief
|
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
|
David Pluymers
|
Program Manager – Recreational Waters
|
Wisconsin Division of Public Health
|
•
Department data on existing and potential local health department agents to ascertain the number of local health departments that would begin as agents of the department and deliver environmental health service delivery in state fiscal years 2008 and 2009. Educated estimates were made regarding the number of additional local public health jurisdictions that would provide environmental health regulatory services in subsequent years. The current and projected number of state and local agent health department licensed facilities were as follows:
State Fiscal Year
|
Total
Number of Facilities*
|
Number of DPH Inspected Facilities
|
Number of Agent LPHD Inspected Facilities
|
2006
|
|
|
|
2007**
|
32,256
|
16,154
|
16,102
|
2008
|
32,514
|
14,525
|
17,989
|
2009
|
32,774
|
13,471
|
19,303
|
2010
|
33,036
|
13,207
|
19,829
|
2011
|
33,301
|
12,939
|
20,362
|
2012
|
33,567
|
12,665
|
20,902
|
2013
|
33,836
|
12,386
|
21,450
|
2014
|
34,106
|
12,102
|
22,005
|
2015
|
34,379
|
11,812
|
22,567
|
2016
|
34,654
|
11,517
|
23,137
|
Assumptions:
* Projected 0.8% growth per year.
** Count of facilities in FLIP on 7/23/07.
In SFY 2008, Sauk, Juneau, Adams, Franklin Counties will become Agent LPHDs.
In SFY 2009, Vernon, Richland, Grant, Iowa, Lafayette and Crawford Counties will become Agent LPHDs.
After SFY 2009, 2.5 new Agent LPHDs per year with an average of 362.55 facilities per LPHD.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
The department's Food Safety and Recreational Licensing (FSRL) program provides licensing and inspection regulatory services for restaurants, lodging, public pool and water attraction, body art and vending establishments. The state's service delivery is supported entirely by program revenue through licensing, inspection and other regulatory service fees. The proposed changes to the fee schedules contained in HFS 173 -Tattooing and Body Piercing; HFS 175 – Recreational and Educational Camps; HFS 178 – Campgrounds; HFS 195 – Hotels, Motels and Tourist Rooming Houses; HFS 196 – Restaurants; HFS 197 – Bed and Breakfast Establishments; and HFS 198 – Vending of Food will increase and create fees for environmental health regulatory service delivery for state-licensed establishments. In order to better sustain the program and ease the impact of increased fees, the FSRL program has proposed a two-phase fee increase. An initial fee increase will go into effect in state fiscal year 2010 and a second, and generally smaller, fee increase will go into effect in SFY 2012. This two-phased fee increase approach should ensure that the FSRL program can operate without a deficit until 2014.
The proposed fee increases should raise FSRL program revenue to a level where, for an approximately two-year period, the program's revenue will support program operating expenses. Despite losing permanent full-time employee positions and keeping operating costs increases at a level lower than that of inflation, current program fee revenue is not adequate to support the FSRL program. The proposed fee increases will allow the FSRL program to once again cover its operating costs.
The impact of the proposed fee increases on small businesses will be varied. The proposed fees schedules generally reflect a typical increase of $20 to $100 for an annual operating license. Most FSRL fees have not kept pace with the rate of inflation for the past several years and, in general, the current and proposed annual license fee burdens are small. The proposed fees will increase operating costs for small businesses. However, the annual impact of most fees is small – particularly when evaluated in respect to the rate of inflation. The proposed fee increases will be at a level well below the revenue and expense increases brought about by the change in the 2007 consumer price index of 2.8%.
Based on input from regulated industry representatives, the financial burden will be less on those businesses that comply with state codes and act to protect public health and safety. A greater fiscal burden will be borne by those establishments that require repeated re-inspections and operate without licenses. Small business revenues should not be impacted by these fee increases.
The direct impact of the proposed fee changes on businesses is limited to the respective license or permit fees and fees for pre-inspections. Licenses and the associated fees are required under state law. Licensing and permit fees generally help the department to off-set the required annual inspections and consulting activities of the regulated entities by the department.
The pre-inspection fee reflects the department's cost of the activities performed by department staff to help an entity achieve compliance with applicable statutes and rules for department licensure. A pre-inspection by the department may include, but is not limited, to a review of an entity's site and operational plans, multiple on-site inspections, and unlimited consultation periods. The legislature, under the authorizing statutes, requires the department to conduct at least one pre-inspection of an establishment before the department issues a license to the establishment and requires the department to establish, by rule, fee costs of the pre-inspection. The pre-inspection and resulting pre-inspection fee is a one-time only fee charged to applicants for a new initial license to operate an establishment. The pre-inspection requirement and resulting fee does not affect licensed operators, unless changing to a new establishment.
The proposed re-inspection fee, fee for late renewal, fee for operating without a license (or in the case of restaurant, a fee for operating without a certified food manager) will only affect entities found by the department to be out of compliance with state law or the department's administrative rules. For example, an entity may be assessed a re-inspection fee if upon a routine inspection or complaint investigation, the entity is found to have a violation that can affect public health and safety causing a follow-up inspection to determine whether the violation has been corrected as ordered. The newly created re-inspection fee paid by deficient operators helps to minimize the programmatic fee increases on code-compliant operators.
The proposed special condition inspection fee will only affect non-licensed entities. As part of the department's general responsibility for oversight of public health, FSRL staff currently conducts inspections, without reimbursement, for state, local and private sector entities for activities that are not directly related to the department's regulatory responsibilities. Examples of special condition inspections include sanitation inspections of liquor establishments for liquor licenses, establishment pre-purchase compliance inspections for persons intending to purchase DHFS-regulated facilities, and food safety inspections at schools participating in the National School Lunch (NSLP) or School Breakfast Programs (SBP).
At current fee revenue levels, the department projects a program deficit of $699,540 in state fiscal year (SFY) 2009 that will increase to $1,799,056 in SFY 2010, and projected to continue to increase each state fiscal year unless the fee changes proposed in this order are implemented. If this occurs, the department would be forced to reduce staff, which would lead to less frequent inspections, and impede public health and safety.
To maintain revenue sufficient to conduct the department's public health regulatory activities for SFY 2010 through SFY 2012, the department proposes to increase current fees and create new fees. To ease the impact of increased fees, the FSRL program proposes a two-phase fee increase. A fee change will go into effect in state fiscal year 2010 and a second, and generally smaller fee increase will go into effect in SFY 2012. Fee information specific to the regulated entities follows.
HFS 173 – Tattoo and Body Piercing
Proposed fees for tattoo and body piercing establishments for SFY 2010 (applicable for licenses issued from April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2011) and for SFY 2012 (applicable for licenses issued on or after April 1, 2011)
Business Category
|
Current Fee
|
Proposed SFY 2010 Fee
|
Difference from
Current to 2010
Proposed
|
Proposed SFY 2012 Fee
|
Difference from SFY 2010 Fee to SFY 2012
Proposed Fee
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
Amount
|
Tattoo or Body Piercing
License Fee
|
$ 100
|
$ 125
|
$ 25
|
$ 135
|
$ 10
|
Tattoo or Body Piercing
Pre-Inspection Fee
|
$ 75
|
$ 240
|
$ 165
|
$ 255
|
$ 15
|
Tattoo or Body Piercing
Re-inspection Fee
|
$0
|
$ 150
|
$150
|
$ 180
|
$ 30
|
Tattoo and Body Piercing (Combined) License Fee
|
$ 150
|
$ 205
|
$ 55
|
$ 220
|
$ 15
|
Tattoo and Body Piercing (Combined) Pre-Inspection
|
$ 75
|
$ 375
|
$ 300
|
$ 400
|
$ 25
|
Tattoo and Body Piercing (Combined) Re-Inspection
|
$0
|
$ 240
|
$240
|
$ 295
|
$ 55
|
Tattoo and/or Body Piercing Practitioner's License
|
$ 50
|
$ 50
|
$ 0
|
$ 60
|
$ 10
|
Tattoo and/or Body Piercing Temporary Event License Fee (per event)
|
$ 100
|
$ 100
|
$ 0
|
$ 100
|
$ 0
|
Late Fee
|
Fee for Operating Without a License
|
Duplicate Fee
|
Fee for special condition inspections
|
$85
|
$749 ($150 for practitioners)
|
$15
|
$175
|
The department proposes to increase license fees, pre-inspection fees, and practitioner fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for late renewal, a fee for operating without a license, a fee for a duplicate license, and a fee for special condition inspections. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a licensee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
The department regulates tattooists, tattoo establishment, body piercers, and body piercing establishments, and combined tattoo and body piercing establishments under ch.
HFS 173. The department does not regulate establishments that engage only in ear piercing.
Data obtained from the department's FLIP database indicate that the department licenses approximately 38 establishments that perform tattooing or body piercing and 45 establishments that perform both tattooing and body piercing, for a total of 83 licensed establishments. The department's data also shows that approximately 837 individuals are licensed to practice in these establishments. These industries are included under the North American Classification System (NAICS) industry code 812199. According to the NAICS data, the total gross annual receipts for the 226 establishments included under industry code 812199 is $36,514,000 making average gross annual receipts for 226 establishments to be $161,566. NAICS reports that the total number of paid employees in these 226 establishments is 1,273 for an average of 5.6 employees per establishment.
Based on a review of the department's data and a review of the NAICS data from the 2002 U.S. Economic Census for Wisconsin, the department has determined that it is likely that all of the businesses regulated under ch.
HFS 173, are small businesses as that term is defined under s.
227.114, Stats.
The proposed license fee for these businesses for the 2010 and 2012 state fiscal years, represent for either a tattoo or body piercing establishment the equivalent of an annual increase of approximately $3 since the fee was established in 1998. For a combined tattooing and body piercing establishment the proposed fee is equivalent to an annual increase of approximately $6 since the fee was established in 1998.
The proposed pre-inspection fee for these businesses is a one-time only fee for operators seeking initial licensure or to operate a new establishment. The amount of the increase represents the complexity of the services needed and provided and the value of the services to public health and safety, and to the person seeking licensure.
The re-inspection fee, fee for late renewal, and fee for operating without a license would not affect entities that are in compliance with state law and applicable administrative rules. The fee for a duplicate license is assessed only if the licensee requests a duplicate license. The special condition inspection fee would only be charged to un-licensed persons seeking inspection and consultation services from the department.
The proposed fee changes do not have a significant economic impact on tattoo and body piercing establishments.
HFS 175 – Recreational and Educational Camps
Proposed fees for recreational and educational camps for SFY 2010 (applicable for licenses issued from April 1, 2009 through March 31, 2011) and for SFY 2012 (applicable for licenses issued on or after April 1, 2011)
License type
|
Current fee
|
Proposed SFY 2010 Fee
|
Difference from Current to SFY 2010 Proposed Fee
|
Proposed SFY 2012 Fee
|
Difference from SFY 2010 Fee to SFY 2012 Proposed Fee
|
|
|
|
Amount
|
|
Amount
|
Recreational-Educational Camps
|
$200
|
$440
|
$240
|
$505
|
$65
|
Rec-Ed Camps Preinspection
|
$0
|
$1,050
|
$1,050
|
$1,200
|
$150
|
Rec-Ed Camps Reinspection
|
$0
|
$630
|
$630
|
$720
|
$90
|
Late Fee
|
Fee for Operating Without a License
|
Duplicate Fee
|
Fee for special condition inspections
|
$85
|
$749
|
$15
|
$175
|
The department proposes to increase permit, pre-inspection, and late renewal fees and to create a re-inspection fee, a fee for operating without a permit, and a fee for special condition inspections. The proposed rules include fee schedules, provisions clarifying the department's authority or a permittee's requirements under state law relating to the initial and renewal application process, failure to pay fees, and enforcement.
The department regulates recreational and educational camps under ch.
HFS 175. Often, these camps are run by religious, educational, community service and/or other not-for-profit organizations. Recreational and educational camps do not include overnight planned programs at licensed hotels or motels or sports team tournaments or training camps. Although there is no formal data, there appears to be little diversity in the size of Wisconsin's recreational and educational camp est
ablishments. Anecdotally, most camps are located in rural or wooded settings and provide seasonal camping experiences to groups of children and young adults.
Data obtained from the department's FLIP database indicates that the department licenses approximately 256 establishments that provide recreational and educational services. Roughly 35 of these camps are inspected by department inspectors. The other 221 camps are inspected and licensed by local agent public health departments.
This industry is included under the North American Classification System (NAICS) industry code 721214. According to the NAICS data, the total gross annual receipts for the 124 establishments included under industry code 721214 is $70,154,000 making average gross annual receipts for 124 establishments reported by NAICS to be $565,758. NAICS reports that the total number of paid employees in these 124 establishments is 843 for an average of 6.8 employees per establishment.
Based on a review of the department's data and a review of the NAICS data from the 2002 U.S. Economic Census for Wisconsin, the department has determined that it is likely that all of the businesses regulated under ch.
HFS 175, are small businesses as that term is defined under s.
227.114, Stats.
The proposed license fee for these businesses for the 2010 and 2012 state fiscal years represent the equivalent of an annual increase of approximately $28 per year since the fees were last revised in 2002.
The proposed pre-inspection fee for these businesses is a one-time only fee for operators seeking initial licensure or to operate a new camp. The amount of the increase represents the complexity of the services needed and provided to open a new camp and the value of the services to public health and safety and the person seeking licensure.
The re-inspection fee, fee for late renewal, and fee for operating without a license would not affect entities that are in compliance with state law and applicable administrative rules. The fee for a duplicate license is assessed only if the licensee requests a duplicate license. The special condition inspection fee would only be charged to un-licensed persons seeking inspection and consultation services from the department.
The proposed fee changes do not have a significant economic impact on recreational and educational camps.
