The rules specify these salary reimbursement percentages for pupil services personnel and should reduce the workload involved by eligible entities by no longer requiring detailed full-time equivalency information to be reported for reimbursement.
The rule first applies to state aid distributed in the 2008-09 school year. Emergency rules were promulgated by the department effective May 30, 2008, in order to establish instructions this spring as to how school districts are to account for these pupil services staff on special education claim forms.
Comparison with federal regulations
None
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota do not have administrative rules relating to the payment of salaries of licensed school nurses, social workers, psychologists, and counselors.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
In the 2005-07 biennial budget, DPI requested and the Legislature and Governor approved adding licensed school nurses and licensed school guidance counselors as eligible categories for cost reimbursement under special education categorical aid. At that time it had come to DPI's attention that several school districts had hired a school psychologist rather than a school counselor simply because the psychologist was eligible for partial reimbursement by special education categorical aid whereas the counselor was not. Further, students with disabilities were receiving services from school nurses, contributing to the high cost of special education, but such services were not reimbursable with categorical aid. Adding the school nurses and school guidance counselors was proposed to help ensure special education categorical aid was not being abused.
Prior to 1999, the state statute regarding special education categorical aid provided that school psychologists' and school social workers' eligible costs would be reimbursed at 51%, and special education teachers and other staff at 63%. This difference reflected the fact that teachers were spending their entire FTE instructing students with disabilities. Pupil services staff were generally serving all students, including students with disabilities. In 1999, the Governor removed the percentages because the state had not reimbursed at these rates since 1985. Since the percentages were removed, DPI staff considered whether to: (1) use the same rate of reimbursement for all positions, (2) require districts to report FTE for the identified positions to determine reimbursement, or (3) determine a standardized reimbursement rate for each profession. The second alternative, requiring districts to report FTE, was selected. Since that time, however, districts' reports of eligible special education costs have been quite varied. In fact, there is significant concern that some districts are submitting inaccurate claims. Due to this concern, DPI staff and some school districts are far from satisfied regarding the current practices of reporting eligible costs.
Under
2007 Wisconsin Act 221, DPI would establish an “eligible costs" rate that is standard for each profession (the third alternative that was considered in 1999) (x% of nurses' salary and fringe are eligible, y% of counselors' salary and fringe are eligible, z% of social workers' salary and fringe are eligible, etc.) instead of having districts report actual FTE for each professional. Reviews of the Fall Staffing Report and Special Education Aid claims indicate that the rates vary significantly among professions. For some professions, rates may vary significantly within professions. DPI would, therefore, use average percentage of work times.
The Wisconsin Council of Administrators of Special Services (WCASS), and the other members of the School Administrators Alliance (SAA) supported the Act via 2007 Assembly Bill 906. Those include WASDA, AWSA and WASBO.
Under the new law and proposed rule, implementing this reimbursement will become easier for school districts and other eligible entities. Eligible entities will simply report the number of eligible pupil services personnel to receive reimbursement (based on the percentage determined by the department by rule) rather than report the full-time equivalency of each eligible pupil services personnel position.
Note: Current claims are prorated at 28%, and without a substantial increase in the special education categorical aid appropriation, such prorating will continue.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
N/A
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Currently, the salaries of school nurses, school social workers, school psychologists, and school counselors employed for a special education program are among the costs that are eligible to be reimbursed by the state through special education aid. If the amount appropriated for such aid is insufficient to fully reimburse the costs, the amount paid is prorated.
This rule specifies the average percentage of work time that each of the personnel categories specified above spends providing services to children with disabilities, and provides that the percentage of the salaries of personnel in that category is the cost eligible for reimbursement from the state.
State fiscal effect
There will be no overall fiscal effect for the department. The rules will not change the amount of special education categorical aid. It could simply change the distribution of the aid to school districts.
Local fiscal effect
The rules could have an effect on school districts. Since districts are currently reporting the percentage of time that each professional is working with students with disabilities, once specific percentages of each profession are in administrative rules, districts could gain or lose special education categorical aid. For example, a district that has been reporting their school psychologist as working 100% time with students with disabilities could lose aid as the rule only allows for 84% reimbursement. On the other hand, a district that has been reporting their school psychologist as working 25% time with students with disabilities could gain aid.
Private sector fiscal effect
The proposed rules will have no significant economic impact on small businesses, as defined in s.
227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Notice of Hearing
Transportation
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
85.16 (1),
227.11 (2) (a) and
348.25 (3) and
(8) (e), Stats., interpreting s.
348.25 (8) (e), Stats., the Department of Transportation will hold a public hearing to consider the amendment of Chapter
Trans 250, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to internet and telephone call-in fees.
Hearing Information
Date and Time:
|
Location:
|
July 9, 2008
11:00 a.m.
|
Hill Farms State Transportation
Bldg., Room 144-B
4802 Sheboygan Avenue
Madison
|
An interpreter for the hearing impaired will be available on request for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter at least 10 days prior to the hearing.
Parking for persons with disabilities and an accessible entrance are available.
Submission of Written Comments and Agency Contact Person
The public record on this proposed rule making will be held open until close of business the day of the hearing to permit the submission of comments in lieu of public hearing testimony or comments supplementing testimony offered at the hearing. Any such comments should be submitted to Carson Frazier, Department of Transportation, Bureau of Vehicle Services, Room 255, P. O. Box 7911, Madison, WI 53707-7911. You may also contact Ms. Frazier by phone at (608) 266-7857 or e-mail:
carson.frazier@dot.state.wi.us.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Transportation
Statutes interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
The Department is authorized by s.
348.25 (8) (e), Stats., to administer issuance of permits for overweight and over-sized transport, including charging a fee for issuance by internet and telephone call-in.
Related statute or rule
Plain language analysis
Section
Trans 250.04 establishes the fee for obtaining an oversize and/or overweight routing permit or permit amendment that is applied for or issued by Internet or telephone call-in procedures.
2003 Wis. Act 33, Section
2604, amended s.
348.25(8)(e), Stats., to provide that the amount of the fee is to be established by the Department by rule, and shall approximate the cost to the Department for providing this service. The current $5 fee was based on the Department's cost to provide telephone and internet service in 2003. Recently, the Department has determined that the current actual cost per transaction is about $1.49, but that is subject to change in the future as the Department's annual cost assessment indicates.
This rule making amends s.
Trans 250.04 to establish that the Department shall determine the fee annually to approximate the cost to the Department for providing the transaction, not to exceed $5 per transaction. In determining the fee per transaction for the current year, the Department shall review, from the previous year, the total cost of the service, the number of transactions, and other material factors. The current fee shall be published on the Department's internet web site and in communication materials distributed to eligible motor carriers. This approach is modeled on ch.
Trans 196 language that was promulgated in 2005 for Internet and phone registration renewal transactions.
Comparison with federal regulations
No federal regulations relate to this fee.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Michigan: Michigan currently accepts credit cards for some transactions, and does not charge a convenience fee. Michigan anticipates expanding credit card acceptance without imposing a convenience fee.
Minnesota: Minnesota accepts credit cards, and does not charge a convenience fee. If customer uses a VitalChek product or interface, the customer pays that company's processing fee directly.
Illinois: Illinois accepts credit cards and does not charge a convenience fee for credit card usage per se, but does charge $1 fee for transmission of permit via fax, regardless of method of payment.
Iowa: Iowa does not accept credit cards directly, as Iowa by law cannot use tax revenue to pay merchant fee nor create a related service fee. In Iowa, a private third-party vendor has a terminal in the Iowa main office, for use by customers who wish to pay oversize/overweight permit fees using credit cards. The vendor charges a fee based on cost of the transaction; the minimum fee is $6.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
The Department has successfully implemented fee calculation and publication under ch.
Trans 196. Under the proposed rule amendment, the convenience fee for oversize/overweight permit applications by internet and telephone call-in procedures will be treated similarly.
The Department has the capability to determine the fee annually to approximate the cost to the Department for providing the transaction, not to exceed $5 per transaction. In determining the fee per transaction for the current year, the Department shall review, from the previous year, the total cost of the service, the number of transactions, and other material factors.
The Department recognizes that if the cost were to exceed the amount that the Legislature has previously approved ($5 per transaction), the Department must seek Legislative oversight through the rule making process.
Analysis and supporting documentation used to determine effect on small businesses
Small businesses represent most motor carriers that apply for oversize/overweight permits, using the Internet or telephone call-in procedure. In 2007, almost 28,000 oversize/overweight charge-card transactions occurred. The average permit transaction amount was just under $60, and the average transaction cost to DOT was $1.49.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The Department concludes that reduction of the convenience fee will reduce the cost to small businesses. The Department's Regulatory Review Coordinator may be contacted by e-mail at
ralph.sanders@dot.state.wi.us, or by calling (414) 438-4585.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
The Department estimates that because it is prohibited from charging fees to any department of a county, town, or municipality or any branch of the United States government, or any foreign government for oversize/overweight permits by s.
Trans 250.08, there will be no fiscal impact on the liabilities or revenues of any county, town, municipality, nor any branch of the United States government, nor any foreign government.
Anticipated costs incurred by private sector
The Department estimates that since oversize/overweight permit application by Internet or telephone call-in is a minor portion of state or private sector activity, there will be no fiscal impact on state or private sector revenues or liabilities.
Text of Proposed Rule
SECTION 1. Trans 250.04 is amended to read:
Trans 250.04 Internet fee and telephone call-in fee. In addition to any other applicable fee under this chapter, the department shall charge a $5 fee for each permit or amendment which is applied for or issued by the internet procedure or the telephone call-in procedure. The fee shall be determined by the department annually to approximate the cost to the department for providing the transaction, not to exceed $5.00. In determining the fee per transaction for the current year, the department shall review, from the previous year, the total cost of the service, the number of transactions, and other material factors. The current fee shall be published on the department's internet web site and in communication materials distributed to eligible motor carriers. Only one internet fee or telephone call-in fee shall be charged when a permit or amendment is applied for and issued by the internet procedure or the telephone call-in procedure.
Notice of Hearing
Workforce Development
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss.
49.155 and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., the Department of Workforce Development proposes to hold a public hearing to consider an emergency rule relating to the repeal of
EmR0807, the emergency rule affecting section
DWD 56.04 that was effective March 30, 2008, relating to child care enrollment underutilization.
Hearing Information
June 27, 2008
|
MADISON
|
Friday
10:00 a.m.
|
G.E.F. 1 Building
Room H405
201 E. Washington Avenue
|
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and will be afforded the opportunity to make an oral presentation of their positions. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their facts, views, and suggested rewording in writing.
Visitors to the GEF 1 building are requested to enter through the left East Washington Avenue door and register with the customer service desk. The entrance is accessible via a ramp from the corner of Webster Street and East Washington Avenue. If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at the hearing, please call (608) 267-9403 at least 10 days prior to the hearing date. Accommodations such as ASL interpreters, English translators, or materials in an alternative format will be made available on request to the fullest extent possible.
Copies of Proposed Rule
A copy of the proposed rules is available at
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. This site allows you to view documents associated with this rule's promulgation, register to receive email notification whenever the Department posts new information about this rulemaking order, and submit comments and view comments by others during the public comment period. You may receive a paper copy of the rule or fiscal estimate by contacting:
Elaine Pridgen
Office of Legal Counsel
Dept. of Workforce Development
P.O. Box 7946
Madison, WI 53707-7946
(608) 267-9403
