Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council Final Report 2008.

On April 27, 2007, Iowa Governor Chet Culver signed Senate File 485, a bill related to greenhouse gas emissions. Part of this bill created the Iowa Climate Change Advisory Council (ICCAC), which consists of 23 governor-appointed members from various stakeholder groups, and 4 nonvoting, ex officio members from the General Assembly. ICCAC’s immediate responsibilities included submitting a proposal to the Governor and General Assembly that addresses policies, cost-effective strategies, and multiple scenarios designed to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions. Further, a preliminary report was submitted in January 2008, with a final proposal submitted in December 2008. In the Final Report, the Council presents two scenarios designed to reduce statewide greenhouse gas emissions by 50% and 90% from a 2005 baseline by the year 2050. For the 50% reduction by 2050, the Council recommends approximately a 1% reduction by 2012 and an 11% reduction by 2020. For the 90% reduction scenario, the Council recommends a 3% reduction by 2012 and a 22% reduction 2020. These interim targets were based on a simple extrapolation assuming a linear rate of reduction between now and 2050. In providing these scenarios for your consideration, ICCAC approved 56 policy options from a large number of possibilities. There are more than enough options to reach the interim and final emission targets in both the 50% and 90% reduction scenarios. Direct costs and cost savings of these policy options were also evaluated with the help of The Center for Climate Strategies, who facilitated the process and provided technical assistance throughout the entire process, and who developed the Iowa Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory and Forecast in close consultation with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR) and many Council and Sub-Committee members. About half of the policy options presented in this report will not only reduce GHG emissions but are highly cost-effective and will save Iowans money. Still other options may require significant investment but will create jobs, stimulate energy independence, and advance future regional or federal GHG programs.

TIME-21 Funding Analysis A report to the Iowa Legislature, per Section 26, Senate File 2420, 82nd General Assembly

The 82nd General Assembly of the Iowa legislature, in Section 26 of Senate File 2420, required the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) to conduct an analysis of TIME-21 funding. Specifically the legislation requires the following: “The department of transportation shall conduct an analysis of the additional revenues necessary to provide at least two hundred million dollars annually to the TIME-21 fund by FY 2011-2012. The analysis shall include but is not limited to the amount of excise tax levied on motor fuel and adjustments that might be made to various fees collected by the department in order to create an appropriate balance of taxes and fees paid by Iowa drivers and out-of-state drivers. The department shall submit a report to the governor and the general assembly on or before December 31, 2008, regarding its analysis.” As a starting point to this analysis, a reassessment of long-range needs and revenues (including the estimated $200 million most critical annual unmet needs) was made. This was done by assessing changing trends in roadway conditions, revenue and construction costs since the original Study of Iowa’s Current Road Use Tax Funds (RUTF) and Future Road Maintenance and Construction Needs was completed December 2006.

TIME-21 Funding Analysis A report to the Iowa Legislature, per Section 26, Senate File 2420, 82nd General Assembly

The 82nd General Assembly of the Iowa legislature, in Section 26 of Senate File 2420, required the Iowa Department of Transportation (Iowa DOT) to conduct an analysis of TIME-21 funding. Specifically the legislation requires the following: “The department of transportation shall conduct an analysis of the additional revenues necessary to provide at least two hundred million dollars annually to the TIME-21 fund by FY 2011-2012. The analysis shall include but is not limited to the amount of excise tax levied on motor fuel and adjustments that might be made to various fees collected by the department in order to create an appropriate balance of taxes and fees paid by Iowa drivers and out-of-state drivers. The department shall submit a report to the governor and the general assembly on or before December 31, 2008, regarding its analysis.” As a starting point to this analysis, a reassessment of long-range needs and revenues (including the estimated $200 million most critical annual unmet needs) was made. This was done by assessing changing trends in roadway conditions, revenue and construction costs since the original Study of Iowa’s Current Road Use Tax Funds (RUTF) and Future Road Maintenance and Construction Needs was completed December 2006.

Federal AIP Funding For Iowa’s NPIAS Airports 2004-2007, September 13, 2004

Vision 100, the Century of Aviation Reauthorization Act, reauthorizes federal aviation programs through fiscal year 2007 and sets spending levels for the Airport Improvement Program (AIP), Essential Air Service, Small Community Development Grants, and other programs that develop and maintain facilities at airports around the country. A major component of the bill is the Airport Improvement Plan (AIP) program, which provides funding for airport rehabilitation and development projects.

Iowa Department on Aging Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Annual Report 2009, (Federal Fiscal Year October 1, 2008 through September 30, 2009), January 2010.

The State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program operates as a unit within the Iowa Department on Aging. Duties of all long-term care ombudsmen are mandated by the Older Americans Act. This office serves people living in nursing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, residential care facilities, nursing facilities in hospitals, elder group homes and assisted living programs. In order to carry out all of the mandates of the Older Americans Act this office recommends to increase the number of staff and create a volunteer ombudsman program. NOTE: The second file includes a correction to the report on page 8.

Federal Highway Administration Finding of No Significant Impact Collins Road NE (Highway 100) Cedar Rapids, Linn County, Iowa, December 17, 2009

The proposed project consists of improving approximately 2.6 miles of Collins Road NE (Highway 100) in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The project extends from the intersection of Center Point Road to approximately 750 feet east of its intersection with 1st Avenue.

Study Regarding Implementation of a Uniform Statewide System to Allow for Electronic Transactions for the Registration and Titling of Motor Vehicles

LEGISLATIVE STUDY – The 83rd General Assembly of the Iowa Legislature, in Senate File 2273, directed the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) to conduct a study of how to implement a uniform statewide system to allow for electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. PARTICIPANTS IN STUDY – As directed by Senate File 2273, the DOT formed a working group to conduct the study that included representatives from the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of the Attorney General, the Department of Public Safety, the Department of Revenue, the Iowa State County Treasurer’s Association, the Iowa Automobile Dealers Association, and the Iowa Independent Automobile Dealers Association. CONDUCT OF THE STUDY – The working group met eight times between June 17, 2010, and October 1, 2010. The group discussed the costs and benefits of electronic titling from the perspectives of new and used motor vehicle dealers, county treasurers, the DOT, lending institutions, consumers and consumer protection, and law enforcement. Security concerns, legislative implications, and implementation timelines were also considered. In the course of the meetings the group: 1. Reviewed the specific goals of S.F. 2273, and viewed a demonstration of Iowa’s current vehicle registration and titling system so participants that were not users of the system could gain an understanding of its current functionality and capabilities. 2. Reviewed the results of a survey of county treasurers conducted by the DOT to determine the extent to which county treasurers had processing backlogs and the extent to which county treasurers limited the number of dealer registration and titling transactions that they would process in a single day and while the dealer waited. Only eight reported placing a limit on the number of dealer transactions that would be processed while the dealer waited (with the number ranging from one to four), and only 11 reported a backlog in processing registration and titling transactions as of June 11, 2010, with most backlogs being reported in the range of one to three days. 3. Conducted conference calls with representatives of the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators (AAMVA) and representatives of three states -- Kansas, which has an electronic lien and titling (ELT) program, and Wisconsin and Florida, each of which have both an ELT program and an electronic registration and titling (ERT) program – to assess current and best practices for electronic transactions. In addition, the DOT (through AAMVA) submitted a survey to all U.S. jurisdictions to determine how, if at all, other states implemented electronic transactions for the registration and titling of motor vehicles. Twenty-eight states responded to the survey; of the 28 states that responded, only 13 allowed liens to be added or released electronically, and only five indicated allowing applications for registration and titling to be submitted electronically. DOT staff also heard a presentation from South Dakota on its ERT system at an AAMVA regional meeting. ELT information that emerged suggests a multi-vendor approach, in which vendors that meet state specifications for participation are authorized to interface with the state’s system to serve as a portal between lenders and the state system, will facilitate electronic lien releases and additions by offering lenders more choices and the opportunity to use the same vendor in multiple states. The ERT information that emerged indicates a multi-interface approach that offers an interface with existing dealer management software (DMS) systems and through a separate internet site will facilitate ERT by offering access that meets a variety of business needs and models. In both instances, information that emerged indicates that, in the long-term, adoption rates are positively affected by making participation above a certain minimum threshold mandatory. 4. To assess and compare functions or services that might be offered by or through a vendor, the group heard presentations from vendors that offer products or services that facilitate some aspect of ELT or ERT. 5. To assess the concerns, needs and interest of Iowa motor vehicle dealers, the group surveyed dealers to assess registration and titling difficulties experienced by dealers, the types of DMS systems (if any) used by dealers, and the dealers’ interest and preference in using an electronic interface to submit applications for registration and titling. Overall, 40% of the dealers that responded indicated interest and 57% indicated no interest, but interest was pronounced among new car dealers (75% were interested) and dealers with a high number of monthly transactions (85% of dealers averaging more than 50 sales per month were interested). The majority of dealers responding to the dealer survey ranked delays in processing and problems with daily limits on transaction as ―minor difficulty or ―no difficulty. RECOMMENDATIONS -- At the conclusion of the meetings, the working group discussed possible approaches for implementation of electronic transactions in Iowa and reached a consensus that a phased implementation of electronic titling that addressed first electronic lien and title transactions (ELT) and electronic fund transfers (EFT), and then electronic applications for registration and titling (ERT) is recommended. The recommendation of a phased implementation is based upon recognition that aspects of ELT and EFT are foundational to ERT, and that ELT and EFT solutions are more readily and easily attained than the ERT solution, which will take longer and be somewhat more difficult to develop and will require federal approval of an electronic odometer statement to fully implement. ELT – A multi-vendor approach is proposed for ELT. No direct costs to the state, counties, consumers, or dealers are anticipated under this approach. The vendor charges participating lenders user or transaction fees for the service, and it appears the lenders typically absorb those costs due to the savings offered by ELT. Existing staff can complete the programming necessary to interface the state system with vendors’ systems. The estimated time to implement ELT is six to nine months. Mandatory participation is not recommended initially, but should be considered after ELT has been implemented and a suitable number of vendors have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. EFT – A previous attempt to implement ELT and EFT was terminated due to concern that it would negatively impact county revenues by reducing interest income earned on state funds collected by the county and held until the monthly transfer to the state. To avoid that problem in this implementation, the EFT solution should remain revenue neutral to the counties, by allowing fees submitted by EFT to be immediately directed to the proper county account. Because ARTS was designed and has the capacity to accommodate EFT, a vendor is not needed to implement EFT. The estimated time to implement EFT is six to nine months. It is expected that EFT development will overlap ELT development. ERT – ERT itself must be developed in phases. It will not be possible to quickly implement a fully functioning, paperless ERT system, because federal law requires that transfer of title be accompanied by a written odometer statement unless approval for an alternate electronic statement is granted by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). It is expected that it will take as much as a year or more to obtain NHTSA approval, and that NHTSA approval will require design of a system that requires the seller to electronically confirm the seller’s identity, make the required disclosure to the buyer, and then transfer the disclosure to the buyer, who must also electronically confirm the buyer’s identity and electronically review and accept the disclosure to complete and submit the transaction. Given the time that it will take to develop and gain approval for this solution, initial ERT implementation will focus on completing and submitting applications and issuing registration applied for cards electronically, with the understanding that this process will still require submission of paper documents until an electronic odometer solution is developed. Because continued submission of paper documents undermines the efficiencies sought, ―full‖ ERT – that is, all documents necessary for registration and titling should be capable of approval and/or acceptance by all parties, and should be capable of submission without transmittal or delivery of duplicate paper documents .– should remain the ultimate goal. ERT is not recommended as a means to eliminate review and approval of registration and titling transactions by the county treasurers, or to place registration and titling approval in the hands of the dealers, as county treasurers perform an important role in deterring fraud and promoting accuracy by determining the genuineness and regularity of each application. Authorizing dealers to act as registration agents that approve registration and title applications, issue registration receipts, and maintain and deliver permanent metal license plates is not recommended. Although distribution of permanent plates by dealers is not recommended, it is recommended that dealers participating in ERT generate and print registration applied for cards electronically. Unlike the manually-issued cards currently in use, cards issued in this fashion may be queried by law enforcement and are less susceptible to misuse by customers and dealers. The estimated time to implement the electronic application and registration applied for cards is 12 to 18 months, to begin after ELT and EFT have been implemented. It is recommended that focus during this time be on facilitating transfers through motor vehicle dealers, with initial deployment focused on higher-volume dealers that use DMS systems. In the long term an internet option for access to ERT must also be developed and maintained to allow participation for lower-volume dealers that do not use a DMS system. This option will also lay the ground work for an ERT option for sales between private individuals. Mandatory participation in Iowa is not recommended initially. As with ELT, it is recommended that mandatory participation be considered after at least an initial phase of ERT has been implemented and a suitable number of dealers have enrolled to provide a fair assessment of participation rates and opportunities. The use of vendors to facilitate ERT is not initially proposed because 1) DOT IT support staff is capable of developing a system that will interact with DMS systems and will still have to develop a dealer and public interface regardless of whether a vendor acts as intermediary between the DMS systems, and 2) there is concern that the cost of the vendor-based system, which is funded by transaction-based payments from the dealer to the vendor, will be passed to the consumer in the form of additional documentation or conveyance fees. However, the DOT recommends flexibility on this point, as development and pilot of the system may indicate that a multi-vendor approach similar to that recommended for ELT may increase the adoption rate by larger dealers and may ultimately decrease the user management to be exercised by DOT staff. If vendors are used in the process, additional legislation or administrative rules may be needed to control the fees that may be passed to the consumer. No direct cost to the DOT or county treasurers is expected, as the DOT expects that it may complete necessary programming with existing staff. Use of vendors to facilitate ERT transactions by dealers using DMS systems would result in transaction fees that may ultimately be passed to consumers. LEGISLATION – As a result of the changes implemented in 2004 under Senate File 2070, the only changes to Iowa statutes proposed are to section 321.69 of the Iowa Code, ―Damage disclosure statement,and section 321.71, ―Odometer requirements.‖ In each instance, authority to execute these statements by electronic means would be clarified by authorizing language similar to that used in section 321.20, subsections ―2‖ and ―3,‖ which allows for electronic applications and directs the department to ―adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for applications made by electronic means.‖ In these sections, the authorizing language might read as follows: Notwithstanding contrary provisions of this section, the department may develop and implement a program to allow for any statement required by this section to be made electronically. The department shall adopt rules on the method for providing signatures for statements made by electronic means. Some changes to DOT administrative rules will be useful but only to enable changes to work processes that would be desirable in the long term. Examples of long term work processes that would be enabled by rule changes include allowing for signatures created through electronic means and electronic odometer certifications. The DOT rules, as currently written, do not hinder the ability to proceed with ELT, EFT, and ERT.

Audit report on the Iowa Federal Family Education Loan Program Division, a Division of the Iowa College Student Aid Commission, for the year ended June 30, 2010

Audit report on the Iowa Federal Family Education Loan Program Division, a Division of the Iowa College Student Aid Commission, for the year ended June 30, 2010

Rebuild Iowa Office Federal Recovery Framework Recommendations, Updated August 31, 2010.

The Rebuild Iowa Office and its' state and local partners recommendations about improving and streamlining the state and federal disaster recovery framework.

Iowa Department on Aging Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman Annual Report 2010 (Federal Fiscal Year October 1, 2009 through September 30, 2010), January 2011.

The State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program operates as a unit within the Iowa Department on Aging. Duties of all long-term care ombudsmen are mandated by the Older Americans Act. This office serves people living in nursing facilities, skilled nursing facilities, residential care facilities, nursing facilities in hospitals, elder group homes and assisted living programs. In order to carry out all of the mandates of the Older Americans Act this office recommends to increase the number of local long-term care ombudsman, develop a volunteer long-term care ombudsman program, clarify the definition of assisted living in Iowa, expand the long-term care ombudsman program into home and community based services, and reinstate the Iowa Office of Substitute Decision Maker.

Journal of the State Convention on Repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment, July 10, 1933

Proposing an amendment to the constitution of the United States. Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled (two-thirds of each House concurring therein), That the following article is hereby proposed as an amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which shall be valid to all intents and purposes as part of the Constitution when ratified by conventions in three-fourths of the several states. "Article-"Section 1. The eighteenth article of amendment to the Constitutionof the United States is hereby repealed. "Sec. 2. The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited. "Sec. 3. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by conventions in the several States, as provided in the Constitution, within seven yearsfrom the date of the submission hereof to the States by the Congress.” Jno. Garner, Speaker of the House of Representatives. Charles Curtis, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate

Iowa Department on Aging, Office of the State Long-Term Care Ombudsman, Annual Report 2012 (Federal Fiscal Year October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2011), January 2012.

The State Long-Term Care Ombudsman program (SLTCOP)operates as a unit within the Iowa Department on Aging. Duties of all long-term care ombudsmen are mandated by the Older Americans Act. This office serves people living in nursing, skilled nursing, residential care, and nursing facilities in hospitals as well as elder group homes and assisted living facilities. In order to carry out all of the mandates of the Older Americans Act this office recommends to establish a fully functioning volunteer ombudsman program that meets the criteria set forth in the Federal Older Americans Act as well as to strengthen family & resident councils, and to increase collaboration between the SLTCOP and Iowa’s Aging Network.

Audit report on the Iowa Federal Family Education Loan Program Division, a Division of the Iowa College Student Aid Commission, for the year ended June 30, 2011

Audit report on the Iowa Federal Family Education Loan Program Division, a Division of the Iowa College Student Aid Commission, for the year ended June 30, 2011

The Impact of Senate File 169 on Meth Abuse in Iowa A Report to the Legislature by Drug Policy, January 17, 2006

This report is respectfully submitted in satisfaction of the following Senate File 169 requirement, as approved by the 2005 Iowa Legislature: “The Drug Policy Coordinator shall report, in a joint meeting, to the Committee on Judiciary of the Senate and the Committee on Public Safety of the House of Representatives in January 2006 and in January 2007, the effects of this Act on methamphetamine abuse and related criminal activity.” (*Please note that all data contained in this document are preliminary, based on the most recent information available to the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy.)

Governor's Office of Drug Control Policy Five-Year Strategic Plan July 1, 2003-June 30, 2008

The Office of the Drug Policy Coordinator is established in Chapter 80E of the Code of Iowa. The Coordinator directs the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy; coordinates and monitors all statewide counter-drug efforts, substance abuse treatment grants and programs, and substance abuse prevention and education programs; and engages in other related activities involving the Departments of public safety, corrections, education, public health, and human services. The coordinator assists in the development of local and community strategies to fight substance abuse, including local law enforcement, education, and treatment activities. The Drug Policy Coordinator serves as chairperson to the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The council includes the directors of the departments of corrections, education, public health, public safety, human services, division of criminal and juvenile justice planning, and human rights. The Council also consists of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, substance abuse prevention specialist, substance abuse treatment program director, judge, and one representative each from the Iowa Association of Chiefs of Police and Peace Officers, the Iowa State Police Association, and the Iowa State Sheriff’s and Deputies’ Association. Council members are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate. The council makes policy recommendations related to substance abuse education, prevention, and treatment, and drug enforcement. The Council and the Coordinator oversee the development and implementation of a comprehensive State of Iowa Drug Control Strategy. The Office of Drug Control Policy administers federal grant programs to improve the criminal justice system by supporting drug enforcement, substance abuse prevention and offender treatment programs across the state. The ODCP prepares and submits the Iowa Drug and Violent Crime Control Strategy to the U.S. Department of Justice, with recommendations from the Drug Policy Advisory Council. The ODCP also provides program and fiscal technical assistance to state and local agencies, as well as program evaluation and grants management.