The revised rules clarify current provisions, add new safety requirements and make the rules more flexible in recognitiion of changes in the industry. The definition of “camp" is modified to delete the limitation that a camp provide 4 or more consecutive nights of lodging, the effect being to permit a camp to operate the year around and to enable some camps to avoid having to obtain restaurant and hotel permits in addition to a camp permit; there is no longer a requirement for Department pre-approval of plans for a new or expanded camp; food safety and service requirements and related equipment and utensil requirements in ch. HFS 196, rules for restaurants, are made to apply also to camp dining halls; there are new rules for food safety and sanitation when food is prepared and served out-of-doors; and more flexibility is permitted in staffing for health care services.
The rules are minimum requirements for protecting the health and safety of campers and staff. Because of this, no special measures could be included in the revised rules to relieve small businesses, as such, of some of the requirements.
Notice of Hearing
Pharmacy Internship Board
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to s. 36.25 (20), Stats., and interpreting ss. 36.25 (20) and 450.045, Stats., the Pharmacy Internship Board will hold a public hearing at the time and place indicated below to consider a revision of rules affecting ch. Ph-Int 1, relating to the Pharmacy Internship Board.
Hearing Information
Date & Time Location
January 25, 2000 5120 Chamberlin Hall
Tuesday School of Pharmacy
12:30 P.M. UW-Madison
425 North Charter St.
MADISON, WI
Analysis Prepared By Pharmacy Internship Board
The profession of pharmacy, its roles, tasks, duties, and responsibilities have evolved greatly within the past five years. Similarly, the roles, tasks, duties, and responsibilities for interns enrolled in the state's pharmacy internship program have evolved as a prerequisite for pharmacist licensure in Wisconsin. Ending in 1999, the five-year baccalaureate degree has been replaced with the six-year Doctor of Pharmacy degree (Pharm.D.) as the entry-level degree into the pharmacy profession. With the inception of the Pharm.D., changes also have occurred in the didactic and experiential learning course work required by the American Council on Pharmaceutical Education, an accreditation agency, for schools and colleges of pharmacy nationwide. As a result, pharmacy students may now accrue all pharmacy internship hours while enrolled in the academic curriculum. This differs from the former baccalaureate degree where a minimum of 1000 of the 1500 hour pharmacy internship requirement had to be served extracurricularly. Furthermore, changes in experiential learning coursework, and the need for pharmacist preceptor supervision, now takes place earlier in the curriculum than in the past. The Pharmacy Internship Board needs to amend its current rules and make rule changes in light of this.
Other factors necessitate changes in the Pharmacy Internship Board rules. International pharmacy graduates (graduates from non-accredited schools and colleges of pharmacy) can pursue pharmacist licensure in Wisconsin as allowed by the Wisconsin Pharmacy Examining Board. A prerequisite to do this includes serving a pharmacy internship of 1500 hours before the state board exams are taken. Amendments and additional Pharmacy Internship Board rules are needed to reflect this change. Pharmacy residency programs (as a form of postgraduate professional training) will continue to emerge. Since some pharmacy residents elect not to pursue pharmacist licensure during this training, the Pharmacy Internship Board is needed to provide oversight and ensure adequate supervision and consumer protection. Pharmacy Internship Board rule amendments and changes are needed to reflect this. Last, pharmacists licensed in other states who have applied and are waiting to complete the Wisconsin pharmacist licensure exams often desire pharmacy internship licenses to practice in the interim period before they are licensed. Pharmacy Internship Board rule amendments and rule changes are needed to ensure these pharmacists are eligible to practice as pharmacist interns before being allowed to practice under the supervision of a registered pharmacist.
Other miscellaneous changes have been proposed, including registration expiration dates, fees and continuing education.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rules and rule changes are not foreseen to affect small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rules and rule changes are not foreseen to have a fiscal impact on the liabilities, and revenues of a county, city, village, town, school district, technical college district or a sewerage district.
The proposed rules and rule changes are not foreseen to have a fiscal impact on the state's current budgetary biennium.
Requests for Copies of Rule and Contact Information
Paul G. Rosowski, M.S., R.Ph.
Director of Pharmacy Internship
State of Wisconsin
1336 Chamberlin Hall
425 North Charter Street
Madison, WI 53706-1515
Telephone (608) 262-3717
Notice of Hearing
Revenue
Notice is hereby given that pursuant to ss. 70.32(2r) and 227.24, Stats., and interpreting s. 70.32(2r), Stats., the State of Wisconsin Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing, at the State Capitol, Room 417 North (the G.A.R. Room), in the City of Madison, Wisconsin, on the 7th day of January, 2000, commencing at 10:30 a.m. to consider the emergency rule promulgated November 30, 1999 relating to the assessment of agricultural land.
Analysis Prepared by the Wisconsin Department of Revenue
Statutory Authority: ss. 70.32(2r) and 227.24
Statute Interpreted: s. 70.32(2r)
Under current chapter Tax 18, use-value assessment of agricultural land is phased-in over the period from 1995 to 2008. During the phase-in, the assessment of a parcel of agricultural land is changed in steps, from its frozen 1995-1997 assessment to its use value. Full implementation of use value, that is, assessment based exclusively on the parcel's value in agricultural use, begins in 2008.
Under the emergency rule, use value assessment of agricultural land is fully implemented beginning in 2000.
This rule takes effect November 30, 1999, upon publication in the official state newspaper as provided in s. 227.22(2)(c), Stats.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Under s. 227.114(8)(a), this analysis is not required for an emergency rule promulgated under s. 227.24.
Fiscal Estimate
Under Chapter Tax 18, use-value assessment of agricultural land is phased-in over the period from 1995 to 2008. During the phase-in, the assessment of a parcel of agricultural land is changed in steps, from its frozen 1995-1997 assessment to its use value. Full implementation of use value, that is, assessment based exclusively on the parcel's value in agricultural use, begins in 2008.
Under the proposed rule, use value assessment is fully implemented beginning in 2000.
Summary of Fiscal Effect. The fiscal effect of advancing use value assessment from January 1, 2008, to January 1, 2000, is a reduction in the taxable value of agricultural land and a consequent shift in property taxes from agricultural land to other classes of taxable property. Equalizing state aid distribution formulas -- shared revenues and school aids -- will reallocate aids away from taxing jurisdictions with little or no agricultural land to jurisdictions where agricultural land is relatively more important. In addition, state forestry taxes will decrease under the proposed rule.
Reduction in Tax Base and Effect on Tax Rates. The 1999 statewide equalized value, excluding tax-increment district value increments (TID-out), is $261.1 billion. Based on department estimates, the 1999 value would have been about $258.9 billion, if agricultural land had been assessed according to its use value. Under the current rule, about $2.2 billion ($261.1 billion. - 258.9 billion.) in agricultural land value would be removed from the tax rolls in increments as use value is phased in between 1999 and 2008. Under the proposed rule, the entire $2.2 billion of equalized value is removed from the tax rolls in 2000.
Of the 1999 TID-out value of $261.1 billion, $2.2 billion represents 0.84% ($2.2 billion. / $261.1 billion.). Thus, the 1999 statewide average tax rate would have been 0.84% higher under the proposed rule than under the current rule. Assuming a 1999 average net tax rate of $22.15 per $1000, the 1999-2000 tax on a $100,000 property would be $2,215 under the current rule. If the proposed rule had been in effect for 1999, the average net tax rate would have been $22.34 ($22.15 * 1.0084) per $1,000, and the tax on a $100,000 property would have been $2,234 or $19 higher than under the current rule. The effect on tax rates by taxing jurisdiction is discussed below.
Municipal Tax Rates. Assuming municipal levies increase by 6% over 1998, under the current rule, total municipal levies in 1999 would be about $1.5 billion and the 1999 average municipal tax rate would be $5.74 ($1.5 billion. / $261.1 billion.) per $1,000. Under the proposed rule, the 1999 average municipal tax rate would be about $5.79 ($1.5 billion. / $258.9 billion.) per $1,000 or $0.05 per $1,000 greater than under the current rule. Tax rate changes will vary among municipalities, ranging from no change up to an increase of $1.73 per $1,000.
County Tax Rates. Assuming county levies increase by 6% over 1998, under the current rule, total county levies in 1999 would be about $1.2 billion, and the 1999 average county tax rate would be about $4.59 ($1.2 billion. / $261.1 billion.) per $1,000. Under the proposed rule, the 1999 average county tax rate would be about $4.63 ($1.2 billion. / $258.9 billion.) per $1,000 or $0.04 per $1,000 greater than under the current rule. Tax rate changes will vary among counties, ranging from no change up to an increase of $0.94 per $1,000.
School Tax Rates. Assuming 1999 school levies increase by 6% over 1998, under the current rule, total school levies would be about $2.9 billion and the 1999 average school tax rate would be about $11.11 ($2.9 billion. / $261.1 billion.) per $1,000. Under the proposed rule, the 1999 average school tax rate would be about $11.20 ($2.9 billion. / $258.9 billion.) per $1,000 or $0.09 per $1,000 greater than under the current rule. Tax rate changes will vary among school districts, ranging from no change up to an increase of $0.73 per $1,000. Technical college tax rates would increase by an average of about $0.01 per $1,000 under the proposed rule.
State Forestry Taxes. Assuming a $2.2 billion decrease in total value under the proposed rule, state forestry taxes would have decreased by about $440,000 ($2.2 billion. * 0.0002).
Administrative Costs. Municipal assessment costs may decrease under the proposed rule since local assessors would not have to calculate the annual changes required under the phase in.
The proposed rule would require minor revisions to the Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual. The cost of the revisions would be absorbed.
Contact Person
Following the public hearing, the hearing record will remain open until January 14, 2000, for additional written comments.
Copies of the complete rule text and fiscal estimate are available at no charge on request from Blair Kruger at the address listed below. An interpreter for the hearing-impaired will be available on request for the hearing. Please make reservations for a hearing interpreter by January 4, 2000, either by writing:
Blair P. Kruger
Division of Research and Analysis
Wisconsin Department of Revenue
125 S. Webster Street
Madison, WI 53702
(608) 266-1310
FAX: (608) 266-8704
Notice of Submission of Proposed Rules to the Presiding Officer of each House of the Legislature, Under S. 227.19, Stats.
Please check the Bulletin of Proceedings for further information on a particular rule.
Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
(CR 99-117):
Ch. ATCP 30 - Relating to pesticide product restrictions.
Ch. ElBd 7 - Relating to the approval of electronic voting equipment.
Chs. HFS 101 to 103 and 108 - Relating to providing eligibility under the BadgerCare health insurance program to families with incomes up to 185% of the federal poverty level that are not covered by health insurance, do not have access to an employer-subsidized family health care plan which is 80% or more subsidized and are not otherwise eligible for the Medical Assistance (MA) program under AFDC-related or SSI-related criteria.
S. HEA 11.03 - Relating to the Minority Teacher Loan Program.
Ch. NR 5 - Relating to boating enforcement and education.
S. Tax 11.67 - Relating to service enterprises.
