ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
FISCAL ESTIMATE
AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
| |||
Type of Estimate and Analysis
| |||
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
| |||
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| |||
Ch. ATCP 110 and 111, Home Improvement Practices and Basement Waterproofing
| |||
Subject
| |||
Home improvement practices and basement waterproofing
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
X GPR
⍽ FED X PRO ⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
20.115 (1) (a) and (jb)
| ||
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
|
X 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
| |||
ATCP 110, Home Improvement Practices, helps ensure fair transactions between home improvement contractors and their customers. This rule regulates many different types of home improvement, remodeling, and repair projects. This rule has been in existence since 1940 and has been modified a number of times, most recently in 2001.
The changes proposed in this rule, generally, represent updates and revisions to keep the rule consistent with current industry practices. It does not represent a major shift in policy from the existing rules.
| |||
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)
| |||
Local Governments
This rule will not impact local governments.
Home Improvement Contractors – General
This proposed rule is updated to reflect current practices in the home improvement industry. The rule will reduce the cost of compliance on home improvement contractors by reducing required paperwork, streamlining processes, and eliminating unnecessary, burdensome requirements. In general, the rule benefits both contractors and consumers by providing additional flexibility, while retaining prohibitions against unfair business practices. Contractors that take advantage of the proposed rule's added flexibility may incur minimal cost as they revise their standard contracts to conform to the new rule.
Home Improvement Contractors that Specialize in Major Reconstruction or Rebuilding of Existing Structures
The current rule (generally) regulates any home improvement work that is done on an existing residential building (see ATCP 110.01 (2), the definition of “home improvement," for a more precise description). The current rule does not, however, regulate new home construction. Under this proposed rule, very large projects, those where the value of the project is greater than the assessed value of the property, would be outside the scope of the rule. This allows contractors who do this type of work to interact with their customers as they would when building a new home.
| |||
Basement Waterproofers
Ch. ATCP 111 regulates business practices by basement waterproofers. This proposed rule streamlines the code by moving these provisions into a section of ATCP 110. However, it does not make any substantive changes to the requirements.
Utility Rate Payers
This rule does not impact utility rate payers.
General Public
Chs. ATCP 110 and 111 impact buyers of home improvement services by placing certain requirements and restrictions on home improvement contractors. This proposed rule does not represent a measurable change from this impact.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
Benefits
Home improvement contractors
The proposed rule is intended to reduce the cost of compliance to contractors, which will in turn lead to increased efficiency and profitability. The rule also retains important prohibitions against unfair trade practices that harm honest businesses and consumers. This rule should benefit home improvement contractors.
General Public
The rule provides additional flexibility in transactions between contractors and consumers. Consumers may benefit when contractors' gains in efficiency and flexibility translate into lower costs and increased competition.
Alternatives
DATCP could continue regulating the home improvement industry under existing rules. However, this proposed rule updates and refines existing ATCP 110, Home Improvement Practices. The intent of this rulemaking is to modernize and streamline the requirements, but without sacrificing important consumer protections.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
Implementing the rule will benefit business, consumers, and the general public. The rule modifications will provide flexibility for businesses while retaining protection for consumers.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
The federal government does not, in general, regulate home improvement practices.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
Most states, including all of Wisconsin's neighbors have home improvement practices laws. Many of the provisions in ATCP 110 are common in these other states as well.
Illinois regulates home improvement practices through its Home Repair and Remodeling Act and its Home Repair Fraud Act. These provisions are generally similar to Wisconsin's Home Improvement Practices rule.
Iowa grants consumers a private right of action, which enables consumers to sue businesses that engage in deceptive or unfair practices, misrepresentation, or failure to disclose material facts. This law covers home improvement practices, among other areas.
Contractors who do home improvement work in Minnesota and Michigan are required to obtain a license from the state (there are some exceptions). In Minnesota, licensed contractors are required to pay into the Minnesota Contractor's Recovery Fund. This fund compensates people who have suffered losses due to a licensed contractor's fraudulent, deceptive or dishonest practices, misuse of funds, or failure to do the work the contractor was hired to do.
|
STATE OF WISCONSIN
DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION
DOA-2049 (R03/2012)
|
Division of Executive Budget and Finance
101 East Wilson Street, 10th Floor
P.O. Box 7864
Madison, WI 53707-7864
FAX: (608) 267-0372
|
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES
Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis
|
1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
| ||||
X Original ⍽
Updated
⍽ Corrected
| ||||
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
| ||||
Ch. Phar 18, prescription drug monitoring program (PDMP)
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Revise the rule too be consistent with 2013 Act 3, removing veterinarians from the definition of “practitioners" and the requirement to collect and submit data to the PDMP.
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED
X PRO
⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG
⍽ SEG-S
|
20.165 (1) (a)
| |||
6. 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 Cost
| ||
7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
| ||||
⍽ State's Economy
⍽ Local Government Units
|
⍽ Specific Businesses/Sectors
⍽ Public Utility Rate Payers
⍽ Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A)
| |||
8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million?
⍽ Yes X No
| ||||
9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule
| ||||
The rule as it currently reads is not consistent with 2013 Act 3, which removed veterinarians from the definition of “practitioners" no longer requiring them to collect and submit data to the PDMP.
| ||||
10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments.
| ||||
Veterinarians
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
None identified.
| ||||
12. 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)
| ||||
None known.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The rule will be consistent with 2013 Act 3, which removed veterinarians from the definition of “practitioners" no longer requiring them to collect and submit data to the PDMP. Doing nothing with result in a rule not reflecting state statues.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
None known.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
There is no existing or proposed federal regulation.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
An Internet-based search for similar prescription drug monitoring programs revealed that the states of Illinois, Michigan, and Minnesota allow veterinarians to access their on-line reporting website or specifically require veterinarians to report dispensing through their statues or codes. The search did not reveal that Iowa codes or statutes require or exempt veterinarians from reporting to their prescription drug monitoring program.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Jean MacCubbin
|
608-266-0955
|