Effective the 1998-99 school year, 1997 Wis. Act 27 renames the PSEO program to be the youth options program. The youth options program differentiates between an institution of higher education (IHE) and a technical college. The term “institution of higher education” includes a center or institution within the UW system, a tribally controlled college or a private, nonprofit institution. A private institution or tribally controlled college must notify the department of its intent to participate in the program by September 1 of the previous school year.
For IHE's, the youth options program will operate essentially the same as it did under the PSEO program. However, the program changes participation and payment requirements relating to technical colleges, making it necessary to revise the rules. The rules modify provisions relating to technical colleges, including general requirements for participating pupils, parents/guardians, school boards, technical colleges, transportation reimbursement, appeals, and state superintendent responsibilities.
By January 30, school districts must notify pupils of program changes effective in the 1998-99 school year; by March 1, pupils must notify school districts of their intent to participate in the program. Therefore, the Department promulgated emergency rules effective January 16, 1998, in order to notify pupils, school districts, IHE's and technical colleges of the necessary timelines and requirements to participate in the revised youth options program in time for the upcoming school year.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions Used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate
1991 Wis. Act 39 created the postsecondary enrollment options (PSEO) program. Beginning in the 1992-93 school year, any public school pupil enrolled in the 11th or 12th grade could enroll in a center or institution within the University of Wisconsin system, a Wisconsin technical college system (WTCS) school or a private, nonprofit institution of higher education if the private institution notified the state superintendent of its intent to participate in the program by September 1 of the previous school year.
Effective the 1998-99 school year, 1997 Wis. Act 27 renames the PSEO program to the youth options program. The youth options program differentiates between an institution of higher education (IHE) and a technical college. The term “institutions of higher education” now excludes technical colleges, but includes a center or institution within the UW system, a tribally controlled college or a private, nonprofit institution. A private institution or tribally controlled college must notify the Department of its intent to participate in the program by September 1 of the previous school year.
For IHE's, the youth options program will operate essentially the same as it did under the PSEO program. However, the program differentiates between participation in an IHE, and a technical college, making it necessary to revise the administrative rule as it relates to technical colleges. The rules modify provisions relating to technical colleges, including general requirements for participating pupils, parents/guardians, school boards, technical colleges, transportation reimbursement, appeals, and state superintendent responsibilities.
The rule itself is not expected to have a fiscal effect separate from the legislation created under the Act. Therefore, this fiscal note is based on the provisions in 1997 Wis. Act 27.
Local Costs:
Under previous law, local costs would be incurred only if a pupil took a postsecondary course which had been approved by the school board for high school credit and was not comparable to a course offered at the school district. These costs included tuition, fees, books and other necessary materials directly related to the course. This formula was used regardless of how many postsecondary credits a pupil took under the program.
The provisions under the Act which may have a fiscal effect on school district costs include:
1. Changing how school boards are to pay a technical college, based on the number of credits a pupil takes each semester.
A school board is still required to pay only for courses taken for high school credit at a technical college under the program. For each semester in which a pupil is enrolled at a technical college under the program, the school board is required to pay to the technical college an amount as follows:
• If the pupil is enrolled for less than seven credits that are eligible for high school credit, an amount equal to the cost of tuition, course fees and books, at the technical college.
This formula is essentially the same as the formula under previous law and should not affect local costs.
• If the pupil is enrolled for seven credits or more that are eligible for high school credit, an amount equal to one-half of the school district's average per-pupil cost for regular instruction and instructional support services in the previous school year, as determined by the Department, multiplied by the result of dividing the number of credits taken for high school credit by 15, as illustrated below:
Average per pupil cost X Number of technical college
in previous school year course credits taken
2 15
The amount to be paid using this formula would depend on the number of pupils participating in the technical college, the number of credits taken, and the district's average per pupil cost in the previous school year. These amounts are indeterminable.
2. Requiring a school board to pay for some technical college credits that are comparable to courses offered in the school district if the pupil is attending a technical college for 10 or more credits in a semester.
Previous law did not require a school board to pay for any postsecondary course that was comparable to a course offered at the school district. The Act states that:
• A school board will not be responsible for payment for courses taken by the student that are comparable to courses offered in the district if the student takes nine or fewer credits per semester.
This provision is the same as current law and will not increase local costs.
• A school board will be responsible for payment for courses taken by the student that are comparable to courses offered in the district not to exceed one-half the total number of credits taken, or six credits per semester, whichever is less, if the pupil takes ten or more credits per semester.
Again, the amount to be paid by the school district would depend on the number of pupils participating in the technical college, the total number of credits taken, the total number of comparable credits taken, and the district's average per pupil cost in the previous school year. These amounts are indeterminable.
3. Eliminating the requirement that a school district offer a course if the school board determines that the number of resident pupils enrolled in a postsecondary course at a postsecondary institution is equal to or greater than the number normally required for the district to offer the course and if the board expects the situation to continue in the next school year.
This provision will provide local school districts the flexibility to determine whether a course should be offered, rather than being required to offer a course. It is not known how many school districts have had to offer a comparable course under this provision. Therefore, the potential cost savings are indeterminable.
4. Allowing a school board to refuse to permit a pupil with exceptional educational needs (EEN) from attending a technical college under the program if the school board determines that the cost to the school district would impose an undue financial burden on the school district.
This provision allows local school districts to restrict the participation of a pupil with an exceptional educational need if the cost to do so would create an undue financial burden. Again, the potential cost savings are indeterminable.
Technical College Costs:
The provisions which may have a fiscal effect on technical colleges include:
• Denying a technical college the ability to reject a pupil's application based on space availability.
• Denying a technical college the ability to limit a pupil to taking 15 credits at the technical college.
The Department is unable to estimate the costs to technical colleges relating to these provisions. A copy of the proposed rule has been submitted to the Wisconsin Technical College Board with a request for a fiscal note.
State Costs:
The Act provides that the $20,000 appropriated to reimburse the costs of transportation for those pupils or pupils' parents or guardians who are unable to pay for transportation under the youth options program also be used to pay for transportation costs under the open enrollment program. It is not known if these funds will be sufficient to reimburse all the transportation claims that will be made under both programs.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules are not anticipated to have a fiscal effect on small businesses as defined under s. 227.114 (1) (a), Stats.
Notice of Hearing
State Fair Park Board
The State of Wisconsin, State Fair Park Board announces that it will hold a public hearing on proposed rules (proposed ss. SFP 2.07 (2) and (3), 2.16 (4) (b) and (5) (b), 2.18 and ch. SFP 7), relating to the required age to do certain things and a bond schedule.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held at:
February 11, 1998 Room 172
Wednesday Wis. Dept. of Agriculture Bldg.
At 4:00 p.m. 2811 Agriculture Dr.
MADISON, WI 53718
Handicapped accessible
Written Comments and Copies of Rule
The public is invited to attend the hearing and make comments on the proposed rule. Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until February 18, 1998, for additional written comments.
A copy of this rule may be obtained free of charge, from the State Fair Park Board at:
State Fair Park Board
P. O. Box 14990
West Allis, WI 53214-0990
Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
An interpreter for the hearing-impaired will be available on request for this hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by contacting Margaret Cain at (414) 266-7000. Handicap access is available at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the State Fair Park Board
Statutory authority: s. 42.01 (3) (a)
Statute interpreted: s. 42.01 (1), (2) and (3)
The current rule contains 6 instances in which specific actions are prohibited if a person is under 18 years of age.
1. It prohibits persons under 18 years of age from carrying, possessing, receiving possession or transferring possession of paint in a spray can.
2. It prohibits selling spray cans of paint to any person under 18 years of age; and requires display of a sign stating “It is unlawful to sell spray paint to persons under 18.”
3. It prohibits selling or transferring spray paint containing a harmful substance to any person under 18 years of age.
4. It prohibits selling or transferring toxic glue to any person under 18 years of age, except it does not prohibit transferring one tube or container of toxic glue to a person under 18 years of age when the glue is provided along with a model kit as long as the model kit needs approximately that amount of glue to assemble the kit.
5. It prohibits a lessee who has a contract permitting the sale of alcoholic beverages from employing a person under 18 years of age for serving, selling or vending alcoholic beverages.
6. It prohibits employing a person under 18 years of age unless the employer has on file a child labor permit authorizing the employment.
This proposed rule changes each reference from 18 years of age to 17 years of age except it does not change the age requirement for persons selling, serving or vending alcoholic beverages. The current requirement that persons serving, selling or vending alcoholic beverages be 18 years of age or older is not changed. These changes will bring the rule into conformity with current statutes and local ordinances.
The proposed rule also repeals and recreates the bond deposit schedule. The current rule establishing a bond deposit schedule does not address several violations which were identified in SFP rules promulgated in 1996. This proposed rule establishes bond deposits for additional types of violations and changes the amount of bond required for some violations and continues the policy of expelling anyone camping at the State Fair Park after revocation of a RV permit.
Fiscal Estimate
Assumptions Used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate
This proposed rule addresses two portions of the rules of the State Fair Park Board. First, it addresses several subsections of ch. SFP 2 in which a minimum age for doing some specific thing is 18 years of age. Under the amendment, most of these references to age are changed from 18 years of age to 17 years of age. The Board does not believe this change will cause any fiscal impact. The existing staff have enforced the 18 year age requirement in the past, so the Board does not expect any additional fiscal impact with the new age level.
The second portion of the rules affected by this proposed order is the bond schedule. In September, 1996, new SFP rules numbered chs. SFP 1 through 6 were published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register. Chapter SFP 7 was also published, but it did not include changes which were needed under the newly-published chs. SFP 1-6. This proposed order changes the bond schedule to provide bond amounts for violations of provisions created in the 1996 rules. Since this order does not create new violations, there should be no additional fiscal impact. The persons who enforce chs. SFP 1-6 will simply have an accurate bond schedule to use.
There is no local government fiscal impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
This rule proposal has minimal effect on small businesses in Wisconsin. To the extent that it does affect small businesses, it grants them additional rights without imposing any additional costs.
This rule changes several references in SFP rules from 18 years of age to 17 years of age. This means that if something was previously prohibited for persons under 18 years of age, it is now prohibited for persons under 17 years of age. There is one exception to this lowering of age. Current rules require persons serving, selling or vending alcoholic beverages to be 18 years of age or older. That provision was not changed. These changes do not have a negative impact on small businesses.
The other thing this rule does is establish a bond schedule for persons who violate provisions of chs. SFP 1-6. Since this will only apply to persons who violate the rules, it is not anticipated that this will have an effect on small businesses. While it is true that small businesses may be faced with paying a forfeiture, that is completely within their control because they are able to determine whether they will violate the rules and, therefore, whether they will be subject to the bond.
