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 142, Cranberry Marketing Order
| |||
Subject
| |||
Pesticide Use and Control
| |||
Fund Sources Affected
|
Chapter 20 , Stats. Appropriations Affected
| ||
⍽ GPR ⍽ FED ⍽ PRO ⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
None
| ||
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
| |||
This rule increases the maximum assessment the cranberry marketing board may charge to cranberry producers under Chapter ATCP 142, the cranberry marketing order as follow:
• The maximum assessment the cranberry marketing board may charge increases from ten cents per barrel to a maximum of 15 cents per barrel beginning the year this amendment to the marketing order becomes effective, to a maximum of 20 cents per barrel beginning in 2017 and to a maximum of 25 cents per barrel beginning in 2019.
DATCP administers Wisconsin's agricultural marketing law which authorizes the creation of marketing orders for agricultural commodities. Each marketing order board collects assessments from producers of the applicable commodity. The assessments may be expended by the board for promotion, research or consumer education of the commodity. The provisions of Ch. 96, Stats., and Ch. ATCP 140 Wis. Adm. Code and the applicable marketing order (Chs. ATCP 141 to 148) govern the organization of each of the seven marketing order boards, the election of marketing board members, the assessment of producers and the use of assessments.
Wisconsin produces more cranberries than any other state in the nation. In 2012 Wisconsin growers produced 4,830,000 barrels of cranberries. Cranberry is the state's No. 1 fruit crop in both value and acreage. The cranberry industry currently provides nearly $300 million annually to the state's economy and supports approximately 3,400 jobs across the state.
Cranberry assessments have been used effectively to expand the market for cranberries dramatically from a time when cranberries were thought of primarily for a relish at the Thanksgiving dinner to today when cranberries have become part of the everyday diet and are used in a wide range of dishes. Assessments also support crop and environmental research including sustainable production practices, nutrient management, water conservation and water quality protection. The current maximum rate of assessment of ten cents per barrel has existed since 1983. To continue the successful marketing and research, the Cranberry Board believes increased funding is required.
| |||
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.
Cranberry Growers
In 2012 cranberry growers collectively produced a total crop of 4,830,000 barrels valued at approximately $231 million. The price per barrel in 2012 was $47.80. At the assessment rate of 10 cents per barrel the assessment in 2012 equaled approximately .02 percent of the crop value. If the Cranberry Board assess at the maximum rates, the assessment, based on 2012 price per barrel, will equal .031 % of the crop value in 2015 and 2016, .042% in 2017 and 2018 and .052% thereafter. The result is a modest cost increase for each grower. However, if the use of assessments produces the kind of market share increase that the industry has seen in recent years the increased assessment cost will be more than made up for by increased sales.
Utility Rate Payers
The rule will have no impact on utility rate payers.
General Public
This rule indirectly affects the general public by increasing the ability of an important segment of the Wisconsin economy to maintain the impressive growth it has experienced in recent years.
| |||
Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| |||
Benefits
This rule will benefit cranberry growers by providing funding through increased assessments needed to produce the kind of market share increase that the industry has seen in recent years
General Public
The general public will benefit from this rule as a result of continued growth of an important segment of the Wisconsin economy.
Alternatives
The alternative is to leave cranberry assessments at the current level which has existed since 1983. To continue the successful marketing and research, the Cranberry Board believes increased funding is required.
| |||
Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| |||
Long-term, implementing the rule will benefit business, the general public, and the Wisconsin economy as increased assessment funding will help to continue the impressive growth of the cranberry industry in Wisconsin.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| |||
There is a federal marketing order for cranberries under which assessments are collected in a manner similar to the state cranberry marketing order. The state and federal marketing orders are operated cooperatively to effectively use the assessments for the benefit of cranberry growers.
| |||
Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| |||
There are very few cranberry producers in the surrounding states and none of the surrounding states have a cranberry marketing order.
Comments Received in Response to Web Posting and DATCP Response
No comments were received in response either to the posting on the DATCP external website or the statewide administrative rules website.
|
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 NR 162 - Clean Water Fund Program
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Rules governing the implementation of the Clean Water Fund Program
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
X FED
⍽ PRO
⍽ PRS X SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
n/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
X Local Government Units
|
X Specific Businesses/Sectors
X 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
| ||||
Anticipated rule changes will help streamline processes for awarding funding under the Clean Water Fund Program. Deadlines may be adjusted to better assist municipalities in submitting applications for funding, and language will be clarified with respect to eligible activities, projects and costs.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
Changes to ch. NR 162 may affect municipalities and their consultants who seek funding for water infrastructure projects from the Clean Water Fund Program.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
None up to now; local governments will be part of a future advisory group to identify rule changes.
| ||||
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)
| ||||
The rule will have minimal economic or fiscal impacts on businesses or municipalities seeking funding from the Clean Water Fund Program. Eligible costs and municipalities are prescripted by the federal government and won't be affected by the rule revisions.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
By streamlining processes and clarifying critiera for the program, there will be fewer questions and process times may be shortened for both the applicants as well as DNR staff. Without the rule revisions, the program will continue to interpret clumsy or outdated language to ensure we are implementing the program consistent with federal policies and guidelines.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
Implementing the rule revisions will enable the Department to be more timely in our administration of the Clean Water Fund Program.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
The anticipated rule revisions will be consistent with the Federal Clean Water Fund Act.
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Each of the neighboring states implements the Clean Water Fund Program with minor differences, adjusted to meet state-specific needs. Many of the states have more sophisticated programs; Wisconsin's implementation of the Clean Water Fund Program has historically been relatively basic. All programs must be in compliance with the Federal Clean Water Fund Act.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Robin Schmidt
|
608-266-3915
|
ATTACHMENT A
|
1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)
|
The rule does not modify the requirement that recipients of the Federal Clean Water Fund Program funds must be in compliance with DBE requirements. This rule will have no fiscal or economic effect on Small Businesses.
|
2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses
|
n/a
|
3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses?
|
⍽ Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements
⍽ Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting
⍽ Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements
⍽ Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards
⍽ Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements
⍽ Other, describe:
|
4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses
|
n/a
|
5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions
|
There are no enforcement provisions with respect to environmental regulations associated with this rule. There are provisions in the rule that recipients of funds must have approved plans of operation from the Department, and municipalities must have the financial means to repay loans associated with this program.
|
6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form)
|
⍽ Yes X No
|