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
| ||||
NR 50 – Law Enforcement Aids to Counties and Municipalities
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
The Bureau of Law Enforcement recommends promulgating administrative rules that modify section of Chapter NR 50.12, NR 50.13 and NR 64.15 relating to law enforcement aids to counties and municipalities
| ||||
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
X 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 proposed revisions are intended to provide consistency of eligibility and reimbursement standards for recreational vehicle patrol units. Inconsistencies include the definition of allowable hours for patrol units, limits to the percentage of reimbursable administrative hours, eligibility to include time law enforcement officers spend teaching safety education classes, and depreciation methods. The proposed revisions would also increase the allowable fringe rate percentage and change the dollar amount of capital equipment and repairs to capital equipment from $1,000 to $2,500 to reflect current day practices and expenditures
The proposed revisions would increase the number of patrol hours required for reimbursement eligibility as follows: all-terrain vehicle from 20 to 40 hours, snowmobile from 20 to 40 hours and waters safety patrol from 40 to 80 hours providing an increased law enforcement presence throughout the state which will have a positive effect on health and safety
The proposed revisions will provide consistency and standardization for the state, counties, and municipalities in the administration of the law enforcement aids program.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
Revisions will affect county sheriff, city, village, township and lake protection districts conducting ATV, snowmobile and water safety patrol activities.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
See list at end of this document.
| ||||
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)
| ||||
Proposed changes will have an overall positive economic impact on the county sheriff's departments and local municipalities identified in the list at the end of this document.
A review of the reimbursement payments for the past three years indicates that increasing the minimum patrol hour requirement could affect 5 ATV patrol units, 12 water safety patrol units and 5 snowmobile patrol units that would have to increase their patrol efforts in order to meet the minimum standards. However, the revision will provide for an increased law enforcement presence thereby providing a positive impact for health and safety.
The revisions propose capping the reimbursable administrative time to 30%, which is close to the amount used for federal grants and other aids program within the State of Wisconsin. While reducing the maximum administrative time allowed will impact patrol unit reimbursement claims, the intent of the law enforcement aids program is to provide reimbursement for law enforcement activities.
An analysis of the 174 patrol claims received for the 2013 boating season and the 2013-2014 ATV and Snowmobile seasons indicates that 78% of the patrols would receive an increase in their reimbursement payment, 10% would see a decrease in their reimbursement payment, and 12% of the patrols would need to increase their patrol numbers in order to meet the minimum standards proposed in this rule.
A final analysis will be completed after public comments are received.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The proposed revisions will provide consistency of eligibility and reimbursement standards for recreational vehicle patrol units. The revision will also provide for an increased law enforcement presence thereby providing a positive impact for health and safety.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
None
| ||||
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)
| ||||
N/A
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Roy Zellmer
|
608-212-5385
|
ATV
|
BOAT
|
SNOWMOBILE
|
MUNICIPALITY
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
ADAMS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
ASHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
BALSAM LAKE, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
BARRON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
BAYFIELD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
BIG CEDAR LAKE P&R DISTRICT
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
BROWN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
BURLINGTON, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
BURNETT COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
CALUMET COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
CHENEQUA, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
CHIPPEWA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
CHURCH PINE, ROUND & BIG LAKE
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
CLARK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
COLOMA, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
COLUMBIA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
DANE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
DEERFIELD, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
DELAFIELD, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
DELAVAN, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
DODGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
DOOR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
1
|
1
|
DOUGLAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
DOVER, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
DUNN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
EAGLE, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
EAST TROY, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
EAU CLAIRE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
ELKHART LAKE, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
FARMINGTON, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
FLORENCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
FOND DU LAC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
FONTANA, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
FOREST COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
FOX LAKE, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
GENEVA LAKE LAW ENFORCEMENT
| ||
1
|
GENEVA, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
GREEN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
GREEN BAY, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
GREEN LAKE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
HANCOCK, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
HARTFORD, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
IRON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
JEFFERSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
JUNEAU COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
KENOSHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
KEWAUNEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
LA GRANGE, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
LAC LA BELLE, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
LACROSSE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
LAFAYETTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
LAKE DELTON, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
LAKE GENEVA, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
LAKE MILLS, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
LANGLADE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
LAUDERDALE LAKE MGMT
| ||
1
|
LAVALLE, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
LEGEND LAKE PRD
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
LINCOLN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
LINCOLN, TOWN OF (LAKE WAPAGASSET/BEAR TRAP)
| ||
1
|
LINN, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
LITTLE CEDAR LAKE P&R DISTRICT
| ||
1
|
MANITOWISH WATERS, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
MANITOWOC COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
MARATHON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
MARINETTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
MARION, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
MARQUETTE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
1
|
1
|
MENOMINEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
MEQUON, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
MERTON, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
MILWAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
MILWAUKEE, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
MINOCQUA/WOODRUFF BOAT PATROL
| ||
1
|
MUKWONAGO, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
MUSKEGO, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
NORWAY, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
OAKLAND, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
OCONOMOWOC LAKE, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
OCONOMOWOC, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
OCONOMOWOC, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
OCONTO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
ONEIDA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
OSCEOLA, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
OUTAGAMIE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
OZAUKEE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
PADDOCK LAKE, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
PARK LAKE MGMT DISTRICT
| ||
1
|
PEWAUKEE, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
PIERCE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
PORT WASHINGTON, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
PORTAGE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
PRICE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
RACINE COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
RANDALL, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
RICHFIELD, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
RICHLAND COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
1
|
ROCK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
ROCK RIVER SAFETY PATROL
| ||
1
|
ROME, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
RUSK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
ST CROIX COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
SALEM, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
SAUK COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
SAWYER COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
SHAWANO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
1
|
SHEBOYGAN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
SILVER LAKE P&R DISTRICT
| ||
1
|
SILVER LAKE, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
SPRINGWATER, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
STEPHENSON, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
STURGEON BAY, CITY OF
| ||
1
|
SUMMIT, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
TAYLOR COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
THREE LAKES, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
TROY TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
TWIN LAKES, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
VILAS COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
1
|
1
|
WALWORTH COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
WASHBURN COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
WASHINGTON COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| ||
1
|
WATERFORD, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
WAUKESHA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
WAUPACA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
1
|
WAUSHARA COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
1
|
WEBB LAKE, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
WHEATLAND, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
WHITEWATER, TOWN OF
| ||
1
|
WILLIAMS BAY, VILLAGE OF
| ||
1
|
1
|
1
|
WINNEBAGO COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
|
1
|
1
|
WOOD COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
| |
46
|
123
|
62
|
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
| ||||
MPSW 1.09 and 1.095
| ||||
3. Subject
| ||||
Substance Abuse Specialty
| ||||
4. Fund Sources Affected
|
5. Chapter 20, Stats. Appropriations Affected
| |||
⍽ GPR
⍽ FED X PRO
⍽ PRS
⍽ SEG ⍽ SEG-S
|
20.165 (1) (g)
| |||
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
⍽ No Fiscal Effect
⍽ Indeterminate
|
⍽ Increase Existing Revenues
⍽ Decrease Existing Revenues
|
X Increase Costs
X 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 proposed rule clarifies and updates the educational and supervised training requirements for a person credentialed by the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board to treat alcohol or substance dependency as a specialty.
| ||||
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.
| ||||
The rule was posted for 14 days for economic impact comments and none were received.
| ||||
11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA.
| ||||
None. This will not affect local governmental units.
| ||||
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)
| ||||
This rule will not have an economic and fiscal impact on businesses, business sectors, public utility rate payers, local governmental units and the state's economy as a whole.
| ||||
13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The benefit is to clearly delineate the requirements for a person credentialed by the Marriage and Family Therapy, Professional Counseling and Social Work Examining Board to treat alcohol or substance dependency as a specialty.
| ||||
14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule
| ||||
The long range implication is the requirements are clearer and have been updated to reflect current practices and trends.
| ||||
15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government
| ||||
None
| ||||
16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota)
| ||||
Our neighboring states to not have requirements for a marriage and family therapist, professional counselor or social worker to obtain specified education or training to specialize in substance use disorder treatment.
| ||||
17. Contact Name
|
18. Contact Phone Number
| |||
Sharon Henes
|
(608) 261-2377
|