Comparison with federal regulations
24 CFR 570.483(d) allows the Department to use CDBG funds for activities that address the national objective of meeting an “urgent local need." The criteria under this objective specify that the funded activities must be designed to alleviate existing conditions which pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and which are of recent origin or recently became urgent. In addition, the Department must determine that the state grant recipient is unable to finance the activity on its own, and that other sources of funding are not available to carry out the activity.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
Michigan:
Michigan does not set aside or limit the use of CDBG funds for emergency assistance in either state statute or administrative rule or in their Annual Plan submittal to HUD. In the event of a disaster, Michigan amends their Annual Plan to enable CDBG funds to be used for emergency assistance as needed.
Minnesota:
Minnesota does not set aside CDBG funds for emergency assistance in either state statute or administrative rule or in their Annual Plan submittal to HUD. In the event of a disaster, Minnesota amends their Annual Plan to enable CDBG funds to be used for emergency assistance. The Minnesota Small Cities Development Program does have a policy to limit CDBG funding to $1.4 million per community for each event.
Iowa:
Iowa does not set aside or limit the use of CDBG funds for emergency assistance by state statute or administrative rule. The current Iowa Annual Plan sets aside 5 percent of the CDBG annual allocation for emergency assistance. Iowa amends their Annual Plan if additional funds are needed.
Illinois:
Illinois does not set aside or limit the use of CDBG funds for emergency assistance in either state statute or administrative rule or in their Annual Plan submittal to HUD. In the event of a disaster, Illinois amends their Annual Plan to enable CDBG funds to be used for emergency assistance as needed.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
There were no factual data or analytical methodologies used to develop the proposed rules.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
The proposed rules should have a minimal effect on small business. There were no supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business, and an economic impact report was not prepared.
Small Business Impact
Summary
The amended rules are not expected to adversely effect small business. Grants to repair or replace public infrastructure and facilities would only have a positive impact.
Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
Types of small businesses that will be affected by the rules
Businesses that receive payments from funds which become available because of the rules.
Reporting, bookkeeping and other procedures required for compliance with the rules
No new reporting, bookkeeping or other procedures are necessary for compliance with the rules.
Types of professional skills necessary for compliance with the rules
No new professional skills are necessary for compliance with the rules.
Rules have a significant economic impact on small businesses
No.
Environmental Impact
The Department has considered the environmental impact of these proposed rules. In accordance with chapter Comm 1, the rules are a Type III action. A Type III action normally does not have the potential to cause significant environmental effects and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. The Department has reviewed these rules and finds no reason to believe that any unusual conditions exist. At this time, the Department has issued this notice to serve as a finding of no significant impact.
Fiscal Estimate
Summary
Due to limited funding, the overall number of CDBG grant awards is not expected to change significantly. The increased workload for grant specialists processing and underwriting more emergency assistance grants will be offset by a decrease in non-emergency grant applications. Therefore, the proposed rule revisions are not expected to have any significant fiscal effect on the Department.
The proposed rules will not impose any significant costs on local governments or the private sector, because CDBG emergency assistance grants also include administrative funds for the local government.
State fiscal effect
None
Local fiscal effect
None
Long-range fiscal implications
None known
Submission of Written Comments
Interested persons are invited to appear at the hearing and present comments on the proposed rules. Persons making oral presentations are requested to submit their comments in writing, via e-mail. Persons submitting comments will not receive individual responses. The hearing record on this rulemaking will remain open until November 17, 2008, to permit submittal of written comments from persons who are unable to attend the hearing or who wish to supplement testimony offered at the hearing. E-mail comments should be sent to
srockweiler@commerce.state.wi.us. If e-mail submittal is not possible, written comments may be submitted to Sam Rockweiler, Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53708-0427.
Copies of Proposed Rules
The proposed rules and an analysis of the rules are available on the Internet by entering “Comm 108" in the search engine at the following Web site:
http://adminrules.wisconsin.gov. Paper copies may be obtained without cost from Sam Rockweiler at the Department of Commerce, Division of Environmental and Regulatory Services, P.O. Box 14427, Madison, WI 53707, or at
srockweiler@commerce.state.wi.us, or at telephone (608) 266-0797, or at Contact Through Relay. Copies will also be available at the public hearing.
Agency Contact Person
Jeanne Storm, Wisconsin Department of Commerce, Division of Housing and Community Development, P.O. Box 7970, Madison, WI, 53707-7970; telephone (608) 264-6110; e-mail
Jeanne.Storm@Wisconsin.gov.
Any inquiries for the small business regulatory coordinator for the Department of Commerce can be directed to Sam Rockweiler, as listed above.
Notice of Hearing
Government Accountability Board
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that pursuant to sections
5.05 (1) (f) and
227.11 (2) (a), Stats., and interpreting section
7.41, Stats., the Government Accountability Board will hold a public hearing to consider adoption of an emergency rule to repeal and recreate Chapter
GAB 4, Wis. Adm. Code, relating to observers at a polling place or other location where votes are being cast, counted or recounted.
Hearing Information
The hearing will be held:
Date: November 11, 2008
Time: 9:30 a.m.
Location: Government Accountability Board Office
7 West Main Street
Madison, Wisconsin
Analysis Prepared by the Government Accountability Board
Statute interpreted
Statutory authority
Explanation of agency authority
This rule recreates Chapter
GAB 4, Election observers, interpreting s.
7.41 of the Wisconsin Statutes – Public's right to access. The board is empowered by s.
7.41 (5), Stats., to promulgate rules consistent with the supervisory authority of a chief inspector at any polling place on election day, regarding the proper conduct of individuals exercising the right under s.
7.41, Stats., to readily observe all public aspects of the voting process in an election.
Existing Chapter
GAB 4 (formerly Chapter ElBd 4), was adopted to implement s.
7.39, Stats., relating to the appointment of election observers at polling places in a municipality. Subsequent to the enactment of s.7.39, Stats., the legislature enacted a much broader statute, s.7.41, Stats., that expanded the class of persons who may observe the proceedings at a polling place to include "any member of the public." Because any member of the public has the right to observe merely by being present, appointment as an observer was no longer necessary, thereby rendering s. 7.39, Stats., obsolete and necessitating its repeal. Consequently, the legislature repealed s. 7.39, Stats., in
1999 Wisconsin Act 182.
In
2005 Act 451, the Wisconsin Legislature expanded the number of locations at which observers had the right to observe to include “the office of any municipal clerk whose office is located in a public building on any day that absentee ballots may be cast in that office, or at an alternate site under s.
6.855 on any day that absentee ballots may be cast at that site for the purpose of observation of an election and the absentee ballot voting process."
The Government Accountability Board now needs to promulgate a new rule implementing the new, amended s.
7.41, Stats., by setting forth standards of conduct applicable to persons who are present at a polling place, or elsewhere, for the purpose of observing all public aspects of an election, including voting, and the counting and canvassing of ballots.
Related statute or rule
Sections
5.35 (5),
7.37 (2) and
12.13 (3) (x), Stats., relating to maintaining order at the polling place, and other locations where observation of the public aspects of the voting process is taking place, and enforcing compliance with the lawful commands of the inspectors at the polling place.
Plain language analysis
This rule repeals and recreates rule chapter GAB 4, relating to observers and observation of the public aspects of the voting process at polling places and other locations where observation of the public aspects of the voting process is taking place.
Comparison with federal regulations
Observers and observation of the voting process is a matter of state regulation, not federal regulation. Consequently, no federal legislation or regulation applies to observers in Wisconsin or any other state.
Comparison with rules in adjacent states
The States of Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota all have legislation that allows persons to observe at the polling places in that state, but none of those states allows any member of the public to show up at a polling place and observe because each of those states requires prospective observers to register with the municipal clerk before the election and receive authorization to observe.
Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies
Adoption of the rule was not predicated on any factual data or analytical methodologies, but on observation eliminating provisions of the former Ethics Board's and Elections Board's rules that were inconsistent with the provisions or intent of the new law merging those agencies into the new Government Accountability Board.
Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business
Preparation of an economic impact report is not required. The Government Accountability Board does not anticipate that the repeal and recreation of the described provisions will have an economic impact.
Small Business Impact
The creation of this rule does not affect business.
Fiscal Estimate
The creation of this rule has no fiscal effect.
Agency Contact Person
Michael Haas
Staff Counsel, Government Accountability Board
17 West Main Street, P.O. Box 2973
Madison, Wisconsin 53701-2973
