Department of Public Instruction
125 South Webster Street
P.O. Box 7841
Madison, WI 53707
Written comments on the proposed rules received by Ms. Slauson at the above address no later than December 17, 2003, will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing. Comments submitted via email will not be accepted as formal testimony.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Public Instruction
Section
115.29 (4), Stats., allows the state superintendent to establish the standards by which high school graduation equivalency is determined. The state superintendent issues a general educational development (GED) certificate and a high school equivalency diploma (HSED). To receive either the GED certificate or HSED, candidates must pass the GED test battery. The passing test scores are determined by the state superintendent and established in rule under ch.
PI 5. The proposed rules modify Chapter
PI 5 to reflect national GED test score changes made to the program and state fee charges allowed under the program. These modifications resulted from the following:
• The 2002 Series GED Test content and the standard score scale used to determine passing scores changed dramatically from the 1988 series. Previously, the GED test scale ranged from a minimum of 20 to a maximum of 80 with a passing score set at 40 and an average of 45 on the five tests (reading, writing, mathematics, science and social studies) in the battery. The 2002 Series GED test scale ranges from a minimum of 200 to a maximum of 800. The proposed rule requires a passing standard score be not less than 410 on each of the five tests, with an average of 450 on the five tests in the battery. The 410 minimum score represents a 6% increase in performance expectations on the mathematics test, a 2% increase in performance expectations on the reading test, and a 3% increase in performance expectations on the science test.
• 2003 Wisconsin Act 33, the 2003-2005 biennial budget, allows the state superintendent to promulgate rules establishing fees for issuing a GED certificate or HSED. The rules may provide exemptions from the fees based on financial need. The fee will be charged to an individual applying for a GED certificate or HSED on or after January 1, 2004. GED/HSED fees were not charged in the past but are now allowed and necessary because the Act eliminated general purpose revenue (GPR) used to support GED program administration. Administration funds are necessary to operate the GED program and include approving test accommodations; opening, monitoring and closing test centers; reviewing and approving alternative curriculum; reviewing and approving credential awards; and issuing GED/HSED credentials.
Fiscal Estimate
GED FEE:
The rules allow a high school graduation equivalency declaration or a general educational development certificate (HSED/GED) credentialing fee to be charged to individuals.
2003 Wisconsin Act 33 authorized the department to charge fees for issuing a HSED/GED, creating a program revenue appropriation to fund the program. In FY04 (1/1/04-6/30/04), the department expects to incur GED administration costs of $61,800. In FY05 (7/1/04-6/30/05), the department expects to incur GED administration costs of $123,500.
Fees were not charged in the past but are now allowed and necessary to replace the loss of state GPR administration funds which were used, in part, to support program staff and fees charged by the GED Testing Service (GEDTS). Further, if fees are not charged, the department would have insufficient funds to provide for approving of test accommodations; opening, monitoring and closing test centers; reviewing and approving alternative curriculum; reviewing and approving of credential awards; and issuing HSED/GED credentials.
With some exceptions (approximately 60% of the credential recipients will be exempt or charged lower fees), the department proposes to charge $25 to issue a credential to anyone applying for a HSED/GED on or after January 1, 2004. Exemptions from the fees are allowed for adults and juveniles in corrections and for persons 65 and older. A reduced fee of $10 will be charged to low-income individuals.
In FY04 (1/1/04-6/30/04), the department anticipates generating a total income of $71,152 (half the income expected in FY05). In FY 05 (7/1/04-6/30/05), the department anticipates generating a total income of $142,305 using the following assumptions based on previous years' data:
4,150 applicants will be charged $25 for a credential 4,150 X $25 = $103,750
2,768 applicants will be eligible for a reduced fee of $10 2,768 X $10 = 27,680
1,000 applicants will request a duplicate credential/transcript 1,000 X $10 = 10,000
35 applicants will request emergency credentials
35 X $25 = 875
$142,305
=======
GED TEST SCORE:
The GED passing test score is set at the standard established by the GEDTS (410 minimum with an average of 450). If Wisconsin sets a higher score, the GED Testing Service requires the department to conduct a statewide norming study. If such a study is conducted, the anticipated minimum cost to the department is $33,500 based on the following information:
In 1993, the department conducted a statewide norming study sampling 40 schools at a cost of $12,715.
In 2004, the department must sample 80 schools (required by the GEDTS). It is assumed that because the number of participating schools has doubled the cost to conduct the study will double from the 1993 amount. In addition, if substitutes have to be hired for the 80 participating schools, another $8,000 should be added (80 schools X $100 per substitutes).
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
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant to s.
227.11(2), Stats., and interpreting s.
70.32 (2r) (c), Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing at 2135 Rimrock Road, Madison, WI, (Department of Revenue Building), Events Room, on the
16th day of December, 2003 at 9:00 a.m. to consider the amendment of rules related to 2004 agricultural use value. These changes were made in an emergency rule enacted on October 3, 2003 and are proposed as permanent rule changes as described below. The proposed rule changes relate only to the 2004 use values.
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and may make an oral presentation. It is requested that written comments reflecting the oral presentation be given to the department at the hearing. Written comments may also be submitted to the contact persons shown below no later than December 23, 2003, and will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.
Proposed order of the Department of Revenue
The Wisconsin Department of Revenue hereby proposes an order to create Tax 18.07 (1) (b) 4. and 5. and 18.07 (1) (c) 6.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Revenue
Pursuant to s.
70.32 (2r) (c),Stats., agricultural land is assessed according to the income that could be generated from its rental for agricultural use. Wisconsin Chapter
Tax 18 specifies the formula that is used to estimate the net rental income per acre. The formula estimates the net income per acre of land in corn production based on a 5-year average corn price per bushel, cost of corn production per bushel and corn yield per acre. The net income is divided by a capitalization rate that is based on a 5-year average interest rate for a medium-sized, 1-year adjustable rate mortgage and net tax rate for the property tax levy two years prior to the assessment year.
For reasons of data availability, there is a 3-year lag in determining the 5-year average. Thus, the 2003 use value is based on the 5-year average corn price, cost and yield for the 1996-2000 period, and the capitalization rate is based on the 5-year average interest rate for the 1998-2002 period. The 2004 use value is to be based on the 5-year average corn price, cost and yield for the 1997-2001 period, and the capitalization rate is to be based on the 1999-2003 period.
The data for the 1997-2001 period yields negative net income per acre due to declining corn prices and increasing costs of corn production. As a result, reliance on data for the 1997-2001 period will result in negative use values.
Under the proposed rule order, the 2004 average net income per acre of agricultural land is to be based on the following:
• the 5-year average corn yield per acre from 1996 to 2000,
• the 5-year average market corn price per bushel from 1996 to 2000, and
• the 5-year average cost of corn production per bushel from 1996 to 2000.
The rule also specifies that the 2004 use values will be based on a capitalization rate that is the sum of the following:
• the 5-year average interest rate for a medium sized, 1-year adjustable rate mortgage for farm loans for the period from 1998 to 2002, and
• the net property tax rate for each municipality for 2001 taxes, payable 2002.
Section 1: Tax 18.07 (1) (b) 4. and 5. and (1) (c) 6. are created to read as follows:
18.07 (1) (b) 4. To avoid negative use values in 2004, the 2004 average gross income per acre for each category of agricultural land shall be calculated as described in subd. 2, except that each category's 5-year average yield per acre shall be based on yield data from 1996 to 2000, and the 5-year average market price per unit of output shall be based on market price data from 1996 to 2000.
5. To avoid negative use values in 2004, the 2004 average total cost of production per acre for each category of agricultural land shall be calculated as described in subd. 3, except that the 5-year average cost of production per acre shall be based on cost data from 1996 to 2000.
18.07 (1) (c) 6. To avoid negative use values in 2004, the 2004 capitalization rate for each municipality shall be calculated as described in subd. 5, except the statewide moving average rate, as described in subd. 4, shall be based on data from 1998 to 2002, and the net tax rate for each municipality shall be based on 2001 taxes, payable 2002.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
The proposed rule will have no adverse impact on small businesses.
Fiscal Estimate
Under the current rule, the 2004 use value of agricultural land would be based on the 5-year average corn price, cost and yield for the 1997-2001 period, and the capitalization rate is based on the 5-year average interest rate for the 1999-2003 period.
Using the data for these periods, it is estimated that agricultural land would be valued at -$1.95 billion. It is unclear how property with negative values would be taxed. If it is assumed that a negative assessment equates to an exemption of the property, the current formula will result in an estimated property tax shift of $34 million in 2004 from owners of agricultural land to owners of other taxable property [$1.96 billion 2003 agricultural land value x .0175 estimated 2004/05 town tax rate per $1,000 of value].
Under the proposed permanent rule, the 2004 use values are to be based on the same data used to calculate the 2003 use values. As a result, 2004 statewide agricultural land values will approximately equal the 2003 value of $1.96 billion.
Under the proposed rule, local assessors will apply 2003 unit values to calculate 2004 values; as a result, there will be a savings in local assessment costs, since most parcel records will not require updating.
Under the proposed rule, there will be no loss of state forestry tax revenue. To the extent that the current rule would result in an exemption of agricultural land and therefore a loss of state forestry tax revenue, the proposed rule would result in an increase in $392,000 in state forestry tax revenues ($1.96 billion x .0002) relative to current law.
Contact Persons
Rebecca Boldt
Division of Research and Policy
Department of Revenue
2135 Rimrock Road
(608) 266-6785
Scott Shields
Office of Assessment Practices
Division of State and Local Finance
2135 Rimrock Road
(608) 266-2317
Notice of Hearing
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to s.
41.17 (4) (g), Stats., the Wisconsin Department of Tourism will hold a hearing at the time and place shown below to consider a proposed order to create s.
Tour 1.03 (3w) relating to the joint effort marketing program.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held at the Department of Tourism, Meeting Room 2B, 201 West Washington Avenue, Madison, Wisconsin, on Monday December 15, 2003 at 10:00 a.m.
Written Comments
Written comments on the proposed rules may be sent to the contact person by Monday December 29, 2003. Written comments will receive the same consideration as written or oral testimony presented at the hearing.
Analysis Prepared by the Department of Tourism
Section
41.17, Stats., creates a joint effort marketing program and s.
41.17 (4) (g), Stats., authorizes the Department to adopt rules required to administer the program. The Joint Effort Marketing program provides for grants to non-profit organizations engaged in tourism activities that are directed at increasing tourism spending in a local area. Grant funds may be used for the development of publicity, the production and media placement of advertising and direct mailings that are part of a project and overall advertising plan of the applicant organization intended to increase tourism in Wisconsin.
Funding may be used for advertising of an event, for advertising of a sales promotion and for destination marketing advertising that is not tied to an event or promotion, but which is directed at extending the tourism market for the applicant and which has been identified by the Department as a market for the state.
The proposal would allow the secretary of the department to waive the requirement that a project be directed at a local area for a project that will make a substantial impact upon the state's tourism economy.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to 227.14 Stats., the proposed rule will have minimal impact on small businesses. The initial regulatory flexibility analysis as required by 227.17 (3)(f), Stats., is as follows:
(1) Type of small business affected by the rule: None
(2) The proposed reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rule: None
(3) The types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rule: None.
Fiscal Estimate
The proposed rule has no fiscal effect.
Contact Person
