Rule-Making Notices (Hearing Notices)

Section 227.11, Stats., authorizes agencies to promulgate administrative rules. Section 196.02 (1), Stats., authorizes the commission to do all things necessary and convenient to its jurisdiction. Section 196.02 (3), Stats., grants the commission specific authority to promulgate rules. Section 196.491 (3) (a), Stats., references commission rules about certificates of public convenience and necessity.

Statutes interpreted

This rule interprets s. 196.491 (3), Stats.

Related statutes or rules

None.

Brief summary of rule

Currently, s. 196.491, Stats., requires the commission to send a copy of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN) to clerks and public libraries. While s. PSC 111.51 (4) currently requires the commission to send an electronic copy of an initial CPCN application to municipal and town clerks and public libraries, it requires the commission to send a paper copy of a completed application.

2013 Wisconsin Act 10 made changes to s. 196.491, Stats., to require the commission to send an electronic copy of both an initial and a completed CPCN application to clerks and public libraries. Upon request, the commission is also required to send a paper copy of the application. This rulemaking will make the 2013 Wisconsin Act 10 changes to s. PSC 111.51 (4).

Comparison with existing or proposed federal regulations

The commission is not aware of any existing or proposed federal regulations on this matter.

Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states

The Illinois Commerce Commission generally uses electronic filing and services of records related to their proceedings, however, their administrative code does not specify the manner in which CPCN applications will be served upon interested persons. (Ill. Admin. Code tit. 83, pt. 200.150 (h)). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires applicants to file paper copies of CPCN applications and serves those paper copies on interested agencies of government. Minn. R. 7849.0200 (2). The Michigan Public Utilities Commission's administrative rules do not identify the manner in which CPCN applications will be provided to local units of government (Mich. Admin. Code. r. 460.7601), but generally require parties serve paper copies upon interested parties (Mich. Admin Code r. 460.17105). The Iowa Utilities Board requires applicants to file paper copies of applications for CPCN in paper form and transmits those forms on behalf of the applicant to other “regulatory agencies." Iowa Admin. Code r. 199-24.3(476A).

Effect on Small Business

This rulemaking will not have an effect on small business. The s. 227.114 (12), Stats., definition of “small business" states that to be considered a small business, the business must not be dominant in its field. Since electric utilities are monopolies in their service territories, they are dominant in their fields and, so, are not small businesses.

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

This rulemaking will not have an effect on small business. The s. 227.114 (12), Stats., definition of “small business" states that to be considered a small business, the business must not be dominant in its field. Since electric utilities are monopolies in their service territories, they are dominant in their fields and, so, are not small businesses.

Fiscal Estimate

This rule will result in no fiscal impact since it only changes how CPCN copies are delivered by the commission. Further, even if there were a fiscal impact, it would be the result of the law change and not this rulemaking.

The Economic Impact Analysis for this rulemaking follows below.

Contact Person

Questions regarding this matter should be directed to Justin Chasco at [phone] or [e-mail]. Small business questions may be directed to Anne Vandervort at [phone] or [e-mail]. Media questions should be directed to Nathan Conrad, Communications Director at [phone]. Hearing or speech-impaired individuals may also use the commission's TTY number, if calling from Wisconsin [phone], if calling from outside Wisconsin [phone].

The commission does not discriminate on the basis of disability in the provision of programs, services, or employment. Any person with a disability who needs accommodations to participate in this proceeding or who needs to get this document in a different format should contact Justin Chasco, as indicated in the previous paragraph, as soon as possible.

Text of Proposed Rule

SECTION 1. PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. is amended to read:

PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. As soon as is practicable, but no more than 30 days after the commission has determined that a CPCN application is complete, the commission shall send a paper an electronic copy of the complete application to the clerk of each municipality and town in which the proposed facility is to be located and to the main public library in each county in which the proposed facility is to be located.

SECTION 2. Effective date. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

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: [phone]
ADMINISTRATIVE RULES Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original   ⍽ Updated   ⍽ Corrected
2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter PSC 111, Requirements For Strategic Energy Assessments, Certificates Of Public Convenience And Necessity, And Fixed Financial Parameters For Certain Rate Base Electric Generating Facilities1
3. Subject
The electronic delivery of applications for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (CPCN)
4. Fund Sources Affected			5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR   ⍽ FED   ⍽ PRO   ⍽ PRS   ⍽ SEG   ⍽ SEG-S
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
This rulemaking is intended to harmonize PSC regulations with 2013 Wisconsin Act 10 which requires the Commission to send a electronic copy of an application for a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to clerks and public libraries.
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.
Citizens' Utility Board, League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Municipal Electrical Utilities of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Counties Association, Wisconsin Industrial Energy Group, Wisconsin Towns Association, Wisconsin Utilities Association, Wisconsin Alliance of Cities, all electric utilities
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
Members of the League of Wisconsin Municipalities, Wisconsin Towns Association, and Wisconsin Alliance of Cities.
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.
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
The rulemaking with will bring Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. into conformity with 2013 Wisconsin Act 10.
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
The rulemaking with will bring Wis. Admin. Code § PSC 111.51 (4) (b) 2. into conformity with 2013 Wisconsin Act 10.
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
Not applicable.
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
The Illinois Commerce Commission generally uses electronic filing and services of records related to their proceedings, however, their administrative code does not specify the manner in which CPCN applications will be served upon interested persons. (Ill. Admin. Code tit. 83, pt. 200.150 (h)). The Minnesota Public Utilities Commission requires applicants to file paper copies of CPCN applications and serves those paper copies on interested agencies of government. Minn. R. 7849.0200 (2). The Michigan Public Utilities Commission's administrative rules do not identify the manner in which CPCN applications will be provided to local units of government (Mich. Admin. Code. r. 460.7601), but generally require parties serve paper copies upon interested parties (Mich. Admin Code r. 460.17105). The Iowa Utilities Board requires applicants to file copies of applications for CPCN in paper form and transmits those forms on behalf of the applicant to other “regulatory agencies." Iowa Admin. Code r. 199-24.3(476A)
17. Contact Name				18. Contact Phone Number
Lisa Farrell				608-267-9086

This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.

Notice of Hearing

Revenue

rulemaking_notices CR 13-102 CR 13-102

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN That, pursuant to section 70.32 (2) (c) 1i., Stats., the Department of Revenue will hold a public hearing to consider permanent rules revising Chapter Tax 18, relating to assessment of agricultural property.

Hearing Information

Date:   Tuesday, January 14, 2014
Time:   1:30 p.m.
Location:   Events Room
  State Revenue Building
  2135 Rimrock Road
  Madison, Wisconsin 53713

Handicap access is available at the hearing location.

Appearances at the Hearing and Submittal of Written Comments

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 person listed below or to adminrules.wisconsin.gov no later than January 14, 2014, and will be given the same consideration as testimony presented at the hearing.

Place where Comments are to be Submitted and Deadline for Submission

Comments may be submitted to the contact person shown below no later than the date on which the public hearing on this proposed rule order is conducted. Information as to the place, date, and time of the public hearing will be published in the Wisconsin Administrative Register.

Dale Kleven

Department of Revenue

Mail Stop 6-40

2135 Rimrock Road

P.O. Box 8933

Madison, WI 53708-8933

Analysis by the Department of Revenue

Statutes interpreted

Section 70.32 (2) (c) 1i., Stats.

Statutory authority

Section 70.32 (2) (c) 1i., Stats.

Explanation of agency authority

Section 70.32 (2) (c) 1i., Stats., provides that agricultural use "means agricultural use as defined by the department of revenue by rule…"

Related statute or rule

There are no other applicable statutes or rules.

Plain language analysis

The proposed rule revises s. Tax 18.05 (1) to provide further clarity regarding what land in federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs should be classified as agricultural property that qualifies for use-value assessment.

Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal regulation

There is no existing or proposed federal regulation that is intended to address the activities to be regulated by the rule.

Comparison with rules in adjacent states

The department is not aware of a similar rule in an adjacent state.

Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies

Section Tax 18.05 (1) currently defines what land in specific federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs qualifies for agricultural use. This listing has not been updated since 2000.

The proposed rule will address changes in the listed programs that have occurred since the rule was enacted and will also identify general criteria for determining what land that is in federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs qualifies for agricultural use under the subchapter. This will provide consistency and clear standards for property owners and assessors.

Analysis and supporting documents used to determine effect on small business

This rule order makes changes to reflect current law and current department policy. It makes no policy or other changes having an effect on small business.

Anticipated costs incurred by private sector

Complying with the proposed rule will not have a fiscal effect on the private sector.

Effect on Small Business

This rule order does not affect small business.

Agency Contact Person

Please contact Dale Kleven at [phone] or [e-mail], if you have any questions regarding this rule order.

Text of the Rule

SECTION 1. Tax 18.05 (1) (d) and (e) are repealed and recreated to read:

Tax 18.05 (1) (d) Commencing with the January 1, 2015 assessment, land without improvements subject to a temporary federal or state easement or enrolled in a temporary federal or state program if that land was in agricultural use under par. (a), (b), or (c) when it was entered into the easement or program, and that the terms of the easement or program do not restrict the return of the land to agricultural use under par. (a), (b), or (c) after the easement or program is satisfactorily completed. Qualifying easements and programs shall adhere to standards and practices provided under the July 2011 No. 667 version of s. ATCP 50.04, 50.06, 50.72, 50.83, 50.88, or 50.98. The Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual, authorized under s. 73.03 (2a), Stats., shall list the qualifying easements and programs according to the ATCP provisions.

(e) Commencing with the January 1, 2015 assessment, land without improvements subject to a permanent federal or state easement or enrolled in a permanent federal or state program if that land was in agricultural use under par. (a), (b), or (c) when it was entered into the easement or program. Qualifying easements and programs shall adhere to standards and practices provided under the July 2011 No. 667 version of s. ATCP 50.04, 50.06, 50.72, 50.83, 50.88, or 50.98. The Wisconsin Property Assessment Manual, authorized under s. 73.03 (2a), Stats., shall list the qualifying easements and programs according to the ATCP provisions.

SECTION 2. Effective date. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin Administrative Register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

ADMINISTRATIVE RULES FISCAL ESTIMATE AND ECONOMIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Type of Estimate and Analysis
X Original ⍽ Updated ⍽ Corrected
Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number
Chapter Tax 18 – Assessment of Agricultural Property
Subject
Property subject to use value assessment
Fund Sources Affected			Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG⍽ SEG-S
Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
⍽ No Fiscal Effect ⍽ Indeterminate	⍽ Increase Existing Revenues X Decrease Existing Revenues		X Increase Costs X Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Decrease Costs
The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply)
⍽ State's Economy X Local Government Units		⍽ 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
The rule provides clarification regarding what land in federal and state pollution control and soil erosion programs qualify as agricultural land for purposes of agricultural use value assessment.
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)
Some of the affected land is currently assessed as "undeveloped" land. Such land is currently assessed at 50% of market value. The average statewide value for "undeveloped" land in 2012 was $636 per acre. "Agricultural" land is assessed at use value. The average statewide value for "agricultural" land in 2012 was $177 per acre, which is $459 per acre less than the value for "undeveloped" land. To the extent that a farmer's land can shift from "undeveloped" to "agricultural" as a result of the rule, his or her property taxes will decrease. Total property taxes will not change due to the rule. Instead, there will be a shift in property taxes. The department does not have information to determine the portion of program land that was in agricultural use when it was entered into a program or whether the programs adhere to the standards and practices provided in ATCP 50.04, 50.06, 50.72, 50.83, 50.88, or 50.98. If all such program land qualifies, the department estimates approximately 87,000 acres may be affected by this rule, the rule will cause a reduction in statewide taxable property value of about $40 million. Based on the average net tax rate for agricultural and undeveloped land for the 2012-13 property tax year of $18.1676 per $1,000 in value, about $725,000 in property taxes would be shifted under the rule. Comments on the economic impact were received from Erin O'Brien of the Wisconsin Wetlands Association. Ms. O'Brien was consulted about her comments regarding the limited economic impact of the rule changes, in part based on a study performed by the Wisconsin Wetlands Association that showed lands in programs not covered by the current rule were often currently assessed as agricultural land. The Department of Revenue requested data from that study, but ultimately determined that the sample size of five counties was too small to rely on to make any assumptions and the economic impact of the rule change should not account for erroneous assessments, but rather be based on the regulatory requirements as written. Ms. O'Brien's comments also highlighted the nominal economic impact of the potential property tax shift on individual property owners, which is reflected in the estimated statewide economic impact above. Lastly, she commented on the tangential positive economic impact of wetlands. This rule does not deal specifically with wetland restoration or conservation, and to the extent that this is an indirect effect of the rule change, the department is unable to measure the impact. The Department of Revenue received several other comments on the current and proposed rule, but none that commented on the economic impact of the proposed rule.
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
Clarifications and guidance provided by administrative rules will permit local assessors to assess the affected lands on a more consistent basis.
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
No long-range implications are anticipated.
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
N/A
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
N/A

FISCAL ESTIMATE FORM				2013 Session
X ORIGINAL ⍽ UPDATED	LRB #
	INTRODUCTION #
⍽ CORRECTED ⍽ SUPPLEMENTAL	Admin rule #		Tax 18: Agricultural Use Value Assessment
Subject Proposed order of the Department of Revenue relating to sales tax filing frequency
Fiscal Effect

State:   X No State Fiscal Effect   Check columns below only if bill makes a direct appropriation or affects a sum sufficient appropriation ⍽ Increase Existing Appropriation     ⍽ Increase Existing Revenues ⍽ Decrease Existing Appropriation     X Decrease Existing Revenues ⍽ Create New Appropriation			⍽ Increase Costs - May be Possible to Absorb Within Agency's Budget ⍽ Yes ⍽ No   ⍽ Decrease Costs
Local: ⍽ No Local Government Costs
1. ⍽ Increase Costs	3. ⍽ Increase Revenues		5. Types of Local Governmental Units Affected:
⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory	⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory		X Towns     X Villages   X Cities
2. ⍽ Decrease Costs	4. X Decrease Revenues		X Counties X Others	All taxing entities
⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory	⍽ Permissive ⍽ Mandatory		X School Districts ⍽ WTCS Districts
Fund Sources Affected ⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS ⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S		Affected Ch. 20 Appropriations

Assumptions Used in Arriving at Fiscal Estimate:

There are several programs available to property owners under which the permitted uses of the land are limited for purposes of conserving natural resources, preventing erosion, enhancing stream quality, and the like. Under the existing statutes and rules for determining which land qualifies for assessment under the "agricultural use value" rules, some program land is not being assessed at use value because the state or federal program in which the land is enrolled is not on the list of qualifying programs in Tax 18 and many of these programs do not permit crops to be grown or animals to be grazed on this land.

The intent of this rule is to clarify this situation so that the land under these programs will qualify for "agricultural use value" assessment in the same circumstances as other program land.

Currently, land under these programs would potentially be classified as "undeveloped" land, which by law is assessed at 50% of market value (average statewide value in 2012 was $636 per acre). "Agricultural" land is assessed at use value (average statewide value in 2012 was $177 per acre). The difference in value in 2012 was $459 per acre. To the extent that a farmer's land can shift from "undeveloped" to "agricultural" as a result of the rule, his or her property taxes will decrease.

Total property taxes will not change due to the rule. Instead, there will be a shift in property taxes. The department does not have information to determine the portion of program land that was in agricultural use when it was entered into a program or whether the programs adhere to the standards and practices provided in ATCP 50.04, 50.06, 50.72, 50.83, 50.88, or 50.98. If all such program land qualifies, the department estimates approximately 87,000 acres may be affected by this rule, the rule will cause a reduction in statewide taxable property value of about $40 million. Based on the average net tax rate for agricultural and undeveloped land for the 2012-13 property tax year of $18.1676 per $1,000 in value, about $725,000 in property taxes would be shifted under the rule.

Notice of Hearing

Safety and Professional Services

General Part I, Chs. 301—319

Commercial Building Code, Chs. 361—366

rulemaking_notices CR 13-105 CR 13-105