Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

An example of the potential costs and savings compared to the current rule was provided by the Waukesha County Division of Planning and Zoning. Waukesha County issues approximately 281 permits per year for activities that involve either increasing or modifying the existing impervious surfaces within the shoreland zone. (Table 1) The county does not currently require permits for driveways or walkways, which under the current and proposed NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code, may require a permit. Therefore, utilizing 281 permits per year for comparative analysis is a conservative estimate of the potential workload and costs savings for the county. A random sample by Waukesha County of 41 shoreland properties revealed that none of the properties were below the existing impervious surface standard of 15%, approximately half of the properties were above 15% but below the current maximum impervious standard of 30% and the remaining half of the properties exceeded the maximum impervious surface standards. (Table 2) Extrapolating that data across the entire county suggests that any increases in impervious surfaces within the shoreland zone of Waukesha County will likely require permits and shoreland mitigation, or a variance.

The proposed rule would ease the administrative workload and costs for the county because most of the lakes and some of the rivers within Waukesha County would be considered highly developed shorelines. Thus the proposed changes to the impervious surface standards would reduce the number of administrative permits required with mitigation by 49%, because properties within highly developed shorelines that have less than 30% impervious surface on their lot would not be required to obtain a permit from the county or implement a shoreland mitigation plan. Further, the number of variances required for properties to exceed the maximum impervious surface standards would decrease at least 36% but could also decrease more if those properties could show that the impervious surfaces are draining away from the waterbody or are being treated by an engineered stormwater system.

Table 1. Waukesha County Shoreland
Permitting
Average number of annual permits 2006-2011

Activity	Average # Permits
New Homes	48
Remodel/Additions	120
Accessory Buildings	46
Decks/Patios	67
Total	281
*Note- Permits are not currently issued for driveways/walkways

Table 1. Waukesha County Average Percentage of
Impervious Surface for Riparian Lots

% Impervious Surface	# of Example Sites	% of Example Sites
0-15%	0 of 41	0%
>15-30%	20 of 41	49%
>30-40%	15 of 41	36%
>40-60%	6 of 41	15%

PART III

Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule

Water Quality, Natural Scenic Beauty and Fish & Wildlife Habitat

The primary impacts to Wisconsin's lakes and rivers from the proposed rule language will result from the changes to the impervious surface limits, particularly the proposed increase in impervious surface limits for highly developed shorelines, and the proposed change that would allow lateral expansion of nonconforming structures within the setback. These proposed changes to the current rule will allow more development within the shoreland zone than what is currently allowed under NR 115, Wis. Adm. Code, which is likely have long range implications on the water quality, natural scenic beauty, and fish and wildlife habitat of Wisconsin's lakes and rivers.

Impervious surfaces and development within the shoreland zone impact water quality by increasing runoff and pollutant loading into the waterway, which can result in sedimentation, soil erosion, increases in water temperature, increases in phosphorous and algae in lakes and rivers. Impervious surfaces and development within the shoreland zone impact fish and wildlife habitat due to declines in water quality and elimination of shoreline and nearshore habitat by the removal of vegetation or sedimentation that covers important habitat. Numerous studies have shown that fish and amphibian species decline significantly as impervious surfaces and development increases within the shoreland zone. Additionally the diversity of species, including birds and aquatic insects, declines as development occurs. Most of the studies have found that when impervious surfaces exceed 12% within a watershed, that the fish and wildlife diversity declines sharply.

While some studies have shown that maintenance of a shoreland buffer and stormwater ponds may mitigate some of these impacts to fish and wildlife habitat, the studies agree that there are no longer detectable benefits once the impervious surfaces in the watershed exceed 30%. However, it is important to note that once impervious surfaces exceed 30% within the watershed, the impacts on water quality and fish and wildlife habitat begin to be marginalized over time. Consequently, those watersheds that already exceed 30% impervious are likely already experiencing impacts to water quality and fish and wildlife habitat, such that the proposed rule changes may not result in any further measurable impacts over time. Therefore, while the proposed changes to the impervious surface limits and the nonconforming structure standards may result in impacts to the shoreland zone over time, the impacts are expected to be larger for those watersheds that currently have a lower percentage of impervious surfaces or development, whereas the already highly developed watersheds in the state may not have any noticeable or significant changes in water quality or fish and wildlife habitat.

Although studies have shown the substantial benefits to water quality, habitat and natural scenic beauty from maintaining a shoreland buffer and limiting impervious surfaces within a watershed, there is insufficient data or robust models that can calculate the actual costs and dollar values. To calculate the costs of declining water quality, habitat, and natural scenic beauty, a model would need to determine people's willingness to pay via contingent valuation surveys of riparian property owners, recreational users of the waterways and passive users, who would enjoy the shoreland zone for the important functions it provides, such as bird habitat for bird watchers and ornithologists.

Counties & shoreland property owners

The long-term effects of the proposed rule revision for counties are reduced administrative costs and greater flexibility for administering a shoreland zoning ordinance as described above. Additionally shoreland property owners will benefit from the increased flexibility and decreased permit requirements when the property owner seeks to expand the impervious surfaces or a nonconforming principal structure. Shoreland property owners enjoy many benefits from higher water quality, including improved fishing and wildlife viewing, opportunities to recreate in clear water, and increased enjoyment of natural beauty. Consequently, property owners may also experience costs from the proposed rule revisions in the form of decreased property value as a result of additional development.

A number of different studies have estimated the effects of increased water clarity (Secchi measurements) on property values. These studies used hedonic pricing models to examine the change in property values occurring over time. Studies, particularly those in Wisconsin, have found a change of $7,894 to $17,892 in property value for an increase in water clarity of one meter in depth. Lower valued properties would probably experience less of a change than higher valued properties. Therefore, if the proposed rules allow for additional development within the shoreland zone and if some waterbodies experience a decline in water quality over time, it is reasonable to conclude that the proposed rule language may have a negative impact on property values over time. However, it is difficult to estimate the potential impacts to property value, in large part because it will depend upon many variables, including the degree of impacts, the real estate market and the type of waterbody.

PART IV

Compare with Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)

Minnesota and Wisconsin have considerable inland water resources and have developed shoreland zoning standards with similar goals and standards for development. Other neighboring states to Wisconsin lie within a different ecological landscape and contain few inland water resources. The approaches to shoreland zones taken by other neighboring states have less in common than Minnesota and Wisconsin and in general offer fewer protections for the shoreland zones.

Minnesota

The State of Minnesota has a shoreland program that is also being revised. The Minnesota DNR's website states that an increase in development pressure around lakes and rivers has raised concerns about water quality and impacts on lake use, therefore resulting in the need to review current shoreland minimum standards in the state. Minnesota bases their shoreland program on statewide classification of all surface waters based on size and shape, amount and type of existing development, road and service accessibility, existing natural character of the water and other parameters. Waterbodies are classified as natural environment lakes, recreational development lakes, general development lakes, remote river segments and forested rivers. Each class has specific standards associated with the shoreland ordinance including building setbacks, lot sizes and widths, bluff impact zones, slope requirements, impervious surface limits and others. The state has a somewhat similar standards in treatment of nonconforming structures and limits impervious surfaces to 20%, which is a lower limit than Wisconsin's current rule and would be significantly less than the proposed highly developed shoreline standard in the proposed rule.

Michigan

The State of Michigan has a wild and scenic rivers protection program to provide special protection to designated rivers. This program is managed similarly to other wild and scenic river protection programs nationwide. The protection standards are outlined in Natural River Zoning Rule 281 which outlines standards for river setbacks, minimum lot widths, special vegetation management standards, and nonconforming structure improvements. The program applies only to wild and scenic rivers. Inland lakes or rivers that are not designated are not protected under the program. Additional activities that may have potential impacts to the public trust or riparian rights, or that may impair or destroy the waters or other natural resources of the state, including inland lakes and streams, the Great Lakes, wetlands, and groundwater, are regulated by the Department of Environmental Quality.

Illinois

The State of Illinois regulates inland waters through an administrative code detailing conservation measures for public waters. The purpose of the program is to protect the public's interests, rights, safety and welfare in the State's public bodies of water. More specifically, construction is regulated to prevent obstruction to, or interference with, the navigability of any public body of water; encroachment on any public body of water; and impairment of the rights, interests or uses of the public in any public body of water or in the natural resources thereof. Illinois does not have a specific program for shoreland management or shoreland ordinance requirements.

Indiana

The state of Indiana regulates lake-side construction activities and provides standards for the activities along and within public freshwater lakes. The state also has standards for nonconforming uses and nuisances including the removal of a lawful nonconforming use if the structure or facility affects public safety, natural resources, natural scenic beauty or the water level of a public freshwater lake. Indiana does not have a specific program for shoreland management or shoreland ordinance requirements.

Iowa

The state of Iowa has an integrated watershed management and surface water regulation program which includes motor regulations and slow-no-wake areas to reduce shore erosion and an invasive species program to help safeguard the biological integrity of the lakes and river systems in Iowa. Iowa does not have a specific program for shoreland management or shoreland ordinance requirements. Most of Iowa's environmental programs are directly mandated by the federal government and required components of Environmental Protection or Federal Emergency Management Agency programs.

Notice of Hearing

Public Defender

rulemaking_notices CR 13-049 CR 13-049

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to ss. 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m), 977.075, and 277.11 (2), Stats., the State Public Defender (SPD) will hold a public hearing to consider adopting proposed permanent rules to revise ss. PD 3.02 (1), 6.01, and 6.02 (1) relating to a new case category of felony diversion.

Hearing Information

Date:   Monday, July 29, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   Office of the State Public Defender
  315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor
  Madison, WI 53703

If you have special needs or circumstances regarding communication or accessibility at a hearing, please call [phone] at least 10 days prior to the hearing date.

Copies of Proposed Rules, Fiscal Estimate, and Economic Impact Analysis

You may obtain a free copy of the rules, fiscal estimates, and economic impact analysis by contacting the Office of the State Public Defender, Attn: Devon Lee, 315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor, Madison, WI 53703. You can also obtain a free copy by calling [phone] or e-mailing [e-mail].

Place Where Comments Are to Be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

Written comments on the proposed rules may be submitted no later than August 1, 2013, and can be faxed to [phone] to the attention of Devon Lee, emailed to [e-mail], or mailed to the attention of Devon Lee at the Office of the State Public Defender, 315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor, Madison, WI 53703.

Analysis Prepared by the Office of the State Public Defender

Statutes interpreted

Sections 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m) and 977.075, Stats.

Statutory authority

Sections 977.02 (3) (a) and (4m) and 977.075, Stats.

Agency authority

Section 977.02 (3) (a), Stats., requires the public defender board to consider the anticipated costs of effective representation for the type of case in which the person seeks representation. Section 977.02 (4m), Stats., requires the state public defender board to promulgate rules for payments to the state public defender under s. 977.075, Stats. Section 977.075, Stats., requires the state public defender board to establish by rule a fee schedule that sets the amount that a client responsible for payment shall pay for the cost of the legal representation if the client does not pay the applicable discount fee.

Related statutes or rules

None.

Plain language analysis

This proposed rule will revise three sections of the PD administrative code to include a new “felony diversion" case category. This proposed case category will apply to cases in which the SPD and the prosecutor negotiate felony diversion agreements as an alternative to the filing of formal criminal charges.

SPD case categories reflect the anticipated cost of retained counsel and set the required payment amounts for legal representation. The proposed rule adds the felony diversion case category to three schedules: cost of retained counsel, s. PD 3.02 (1); payment for legal representation, s. PD 6.01; and discount option, s. PD 6.02 (1). The SPD currently provides representation in diversion cases within the case category of “special proceedings." The new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations

There are no existing or proposed federal regulations that address the activities of the proposed rules.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

Adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan, and Minnesota) generally require defendants to reimburse the state or county for the cost of public counsel. Those states do not have rules like Wisconsin regarding the cost of retained counsel, payment for legal representation, and discount options for particular case types.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

None.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis

The rule will require individuals who are represented in felony diversion cases to pay $240 toward the cost of their representation, which is lower than for other felony cases. Clients also have the option to pay a lower discount amount of $60 as provided in s. PD 6.02 (1). As this rule would impact only individual clients of the SPD, there is no anticipated economic impact of implementing the rule.

Effect on Small Business

None.

Agency Contact Person

Devon Lee, [e-mail] or [phone]

Office of the State Public Defender

315 N. Henry Street, 2nd Floor

Madison, WI 53703.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA 2049 (R 07/2011) ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Administrative Rule Chapter PD 3, Indigency Criteria, s. 3.02. Administrative Rule Chapter PD 6, Payment for State Public Defender Representation, ss. 6.01 and 6.02.
Subject
Creation of Felony Diversion case category.
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S			None
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
X No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues		⍽ Increase Costs ⍽ Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy ⍽ Local Government Units		⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors ⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? ⍽ Yes X No
Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
The anticipated cost of counsel reflects the likely cost for a prospective client to hire a private attorney. The SPD includes this amount in its determination of an applicant's financial eligibility for SPD services. The required payment for legal representation reflects the average attorney costs for the SPD in the respective case categories. A new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases.
Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
This rule has no economic or fiscal impact on specific businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units or the state's economy as a whole. There are no implementation or compliance costs.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
A new felony diversion case category will more accurately reflect the amount of time attorneys spend when representing clients in felony diversion cases. The rule will require individuals who are represented in felony diversion cases to pay $240 toward the cost of their representation, which is lower than for other felony cases. This increased cost reflects the significant time attorneys invest in felony diversion cases. Clients also have the option to pay a lower discount amount of $60 as provided in PD s. 6.02 (1).
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
There are no long range implications of implementing the rule.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
The case categories used by the office of the state public defender are unique to the SPD and have no federal equivalent.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
Neither Illinois nor Michigan has a statewide public defender system. In Iowa, courts order defendants to repay the costs for a public defender to the extent they are able. In Minnesota, courts may require a defendant to reimburse the state for legal fees.
Name and Phone Number of Contact Person
Devon M. Lee Legal Counsel WI State Public Defender [phone]

Notice of Hearing

Public Service Commission

rulemaking_notices CR 13-048 CR 13-048

(PSC Docket # 1-AC-229)

The Public Service Commission of Wisconsin proposes an order to repeal ss. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (j) and (3), 113.0406 (7), 134.062 (2), 134.063 (1) (L), 134.13 (7), 185.33 (18), and 185.37 (2) (L); to amend ss. PSC 113.0301 (1m) (i), 134.062 (1) (k), and 185.37 (2) (k); and to create ss. PSC 113.0408, 113.0409, 134.051, 134.053, 185.30, and 185.305, relating to applications for service and the Fair and Accurate Credit Transactions Act.

Hearing Information

Pursuant to s. 227.16 (2) (b), Stats., the commission will hold a public hearing on these proposed rules.

Date:   Monday, July 29, 2013
Time:   10:00 a.m.
Location:   Amnicon Falls Hearing Room
  Public Service Commission Building
  610 North Whitney Way
  Madison, Wisconsin

This building is accessible to people in wheelchairs through the Whitney Way (lobby) entrance. Handicapped parking is available on the south side of the building.

The commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to get this document in a different format should contact Justin Chasco, as indicated in the previous paragraph, as soon as possible.

Written Comments

Any person may submit written comments on these proposed rules. The hearing record will be open for written comments from the public, effective immediately, and until Monday, August 12, 2013 at noon. All written comments must include a reference on the filing to docket 1-AC-229. File by one mode only.

Industry: File comments using the Electronic Regulatory Filing system. This may be accessed from the commission's web site (psc.wi.gov).

Members of the Public: Please submit your comments in one of the following ways:

•   Electronic Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov, and click on the “ERF - Electronic Regulatory Filing" graphic on the side menu bar. On the next page, click on “Need Help?" in the side menu bar for instructions on how to upload a document.

•   Web Comment. Go to the commission's web site at http://psc.wi.gov, click on the “Public Comments" button on the side menu bar. On the next page select the “File a comment" link that appears for docket number 1-AC-229.

•   Mail Comment. All comments submitted by U.S. Mail must include the phrase “Docket 1-AC-229 Comments" in the heading, and shall be addressed to:

    Sandra J. Paske, Secretary to the Commission

    Public Service Commission

    P.O. Box 7854

    Madison, WI 53707-7854

The commission does not accept comments submitted via e-mail or facsimile (fax). Any material submitted to the commission is a public record and may appear on the commission's web site. Only one comment may be submitted per person during a comment period. The commission may reject a comment that does not comply with the requirements described in this notice.

Analysis Prepared by the Public Service Commission of Wisconsin

Statutory authority and explanation of authority