13 resultados para auditing and legal fees
em Iowa Publications Online (IPO) - State Library, State of Iowa (Iowa), United States
Resumo:
As an expansion of SF2088, the Department of Administrative Services-Information Technology Enterprise (DAS-ITE) was asked to further analyze the potential costs and savings if the current practice of charging credit card and overhead fees (“value-added fees”) were to be eliminated. Value-added fees reflect the costs an agency incurs while providing online services, and those costs will always exist.. DAS-ITE researched these costs and identified ways of making the associated fees less burdensome to the citizens of Iowa. The three alternatives provide different ways in which agencies can recover those costs; they could be borne by either an annual appropriation or adjustment of the online service “price” to include the fees within the cost of the online transaction. An additional alternative is presented to leave the current value-added fee practices in place. Recognition must also be made of the fact that traditional forms of conducting business with the State of Iowa, face-to-face and paper-based transactions, are inherently more costly. These delivery channels are effectively subsidized by the agency as a “cost of doing business” and the associated expense of the transactions is not passed on to the customer.
Resumo:
Independence, respect, and equality are values important to all people. These values help define the concepts of autonomy (independence and freedom) and self-determination (the right to make decisions for one’s self). Because these rights are so valued in our society and are something that most of us would value for ourselves, the “least restrictive alternative” should always be considered before taking away a person’s civil and legal rights to make decisions for him or herself. The least restrictive alternative is an option, which allows a person to keep as much autonomy, and self-determination as possible while providing only the level of protection and supervision that is necessary. Some examples may include: representative payee for certain government benefit checks, joint bank accounts or advance directives for health care.
Resumo:
Independence, respect, and equality are values important to all people. These values help define the concepts of autonomy (independence and freedom) and self-determination (the right to make decisions for one’s self). Because these rights are so valued in our society and are something that most of us would value for ourselves, the “least restrictive alternative” should always be considered before taking away a person’s civil and legal rights to make decisions for him or herself. The least restrictive alternative is an option, which allows a person to keep as much autonomy, and self-determination as possible while providing only the level of protection and supervision that is necessary. Some examples may include: representative payee for certain government benefit checks, joint bank accounts or advance directives for health care.
Resumo:
It is commonly regarded that the overuse of traffic control devices desensitizes drivers and leads to disrespect, especially for low-volume secondary roads with limited enforcement. The maintenance of traffic signs is also a tort liability concern, exacerbated by unnecessary signs. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Traffic Control Devices Handbook provide guidance for the implementation of STOP signs based on expected compliance with right-of-way rules, provision of through traffic flow, context (proximity to other controlled intersections), speed, sight distance, and crash history. The approach(es) to stop is left to engineering judgment and is usually dependent on traffic volume or functional class/continuity of system. Although presently being considered by the National Committee on Traffic Control Devices, traffic volume itself is not given as a criterion for implementation in the MUTCD. STOP signs have been installed at many locations for various reasons which no longer (or perhaps never) met engineering needs. If in fact the presence of STOP signs does not increase safety, removal should be considered. To date, however, no guidance exists for the removal of STOP signs at two-way stop-controlled intersections. The scope of this research is ultra-low-volume (< 150 daily entering vehicles) unpaved intersections in rural agricultural areas of Iowa, where each of the 99 counties may have as many as 300 or more STOP sign pairs. Overall safety performance is examined as a function of a county excessive use factor, developed specifically for this study and based on various volume ranges and terrain as a proxy for sight distance. Four conclusions are supported: (1) there is no statistical difference in the safety performance of ultra-low-volume stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections for all drivers or for younger and older drivers (although interestingly, older drivers are underrepresented at both types of intersections); (2) compliance with stop control (as indicated by crash performance) does not appear to be affected by the use or excessive use of STOP signs, even when adjusted for volume and a sight distance proxy; (3) crash performance does not appear to be improved by the liberal use of stop control; (4) safety performance of uncontrolled intersections appears to decline relative to stop-controlled intersections above about 150 daily entering vehicles. Subject to adequate sight distance, traffic professionals may wish to consider removal of control below this threshold. The report concludes with a section on methods and legal considerations for safe removal of stop control.
Resumo:
The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.
Resumo:
The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.
Resumo:
The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.
Resumo:
The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.
Resumo:
The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.
Resumo:
The National Uniform Crime Reporting System began with 400 cities representing 20 million inhabitants in 43 states on January 1st, 1930. Since the establishment of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, the volume, diversity, and complexity of crime steadily increased while the UCR program remained virtually unchanged. Recognizing the increasing need for more in-depth statistical information and the need to improve the methodology used for compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data, an extensive study of the Uniform Crime reports was undertaken. The objective of this study was to meet law enforcement needs into the 21st century. The result of the study was NIBRS (National Incident Based Reporting System). Adoption of the NIBRS system took place in the mid 1980’s and Iowa began organizational efforts to implement the system. Conversion to IBR (Incident Based Iowa Uniform Crime Reporting) was completed January 1, 1991, as part of a national effort to implement incident based crime reporting, coordinated by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Justice Statistics of the U.S. Department of Justice. Iowa was the fifth state in the nation to be accepted as a certified “reporting state” of incident based crime data to the national system.
Resumo:
Today, many of Iowa’s counties are experiencing an increase in rural development. Two specific types of development were focused on for this research: rural residential subdivisions and livestock production operations. Rural residential developments are primarily year round single-family homes, though some are vacation homes. Livestock production in Iowa includes hog, beef, and poultry facilities. These two types of rural development, while obviously very different in nature and incompatible with each other, share one important characteristic: They each generate substantial amounts of new traffic for Iowa’s extensive secondary road system. This research brings together economic, spatial, and legal analysis methods to address the impacts of rural development on the secondary road system and provide county engineers, county supervisors, and state legislators with guidance in addressing the challenges associated with this development.
Resumo:
The transportation system is in demand 24/7 and 365 days a year irrespective of neither the weather nor the conditions. Iowa’s transportation system is an integral and essential part of society serving commerce and daily functions of all Iowans across the state. A high quality transportation system serves as the artery for economic activity and, the condition of the infrastructure is a key element for our future growth opportunities. A key component of Iowa’s transportation system is the public roadway system owned and maintained by the state, cities and counties. In order to regularly re-evaluate the conditions of Iowa’s public roadway infrastructure and assess the ability of existing revenues to meet the needs of the system, the Iowa Department of Transportation’s 2006 Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) report to the legislature included a recommendation that a study be conducted every five years. That recommendation was included in legislation adopted in 2007 and signed into law. The law specifically requires the following (2011 Iowa Code Section 307.31): •“The department shall periodically review the current revenue levels of the road use tax fund and the sufficiency of those revenues for the projected construction and maintenance needs of city, county, and state governments in the future. The department shall submit a written report to the general assembly regarding its findings by December 31 every five years, beginning in 2011. The report may include recommendations concerning funding levels needed to support the future mobility and accessibility for users of Iowa's public road system.” •“The department shall evaluate alternative funding sources for road maintenance and construction and report to the general assembly at least every five years on the advantages and disadvantages and the viability of alternative funding mechanisms.” Consistent with this requirement, the Iowa Department of Transportation (DOT) has prepared this study. Recognizing the importance of actively engaging with the public and transportation stakeholders in any discussion of public roadway conditions and needs, Governor Terry E. Branstad announced on March 8, 2011, the creation of, and appointments to, the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission (CAC). The CAC was tasked with assisting the Iowa DOT as they assess the condition of Iowa’s roadway system and evaluate current and future funding available to best address system needs. In particular the CAC was directed to gather input from the public and stakeholders regarding the condition of Iowa’s public roadway system, the impact of that system, whether additional funding is needed to maintain/improve the system, and, if so, what funding mechanisms ought to be considered. With this input, the CAC prepared a report and recommendations that were presented to Governor Branstad and the Iowa DOT in November 2011 for use in the development of this study. The CAC’s report is available at www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020/pdfs/CAC%20REPORT%20FINAL%20110211.pdf. The CAC’s report was developed utilizing analysis and information from the Iowa DOT. Therefore, the report forms the basis for this study and the two documents are very similar. Iowa is fortunate to have an extensive public roadway system that provides access to all areas of the state and facilitates the efficient movement of goods and people. However, it is also a tremendous challenge for the state, cities and counties to maintain and improve this system given flattening revenue, lost buying power, changing demands on the system, severe weather, and an aging system. This challenge didn’t appear overnight and for the last decade many studies have been completed to look into the situation and the legislature has taken significant action to begin addressing the situation. In addition, the Iowa DOT and Iowa’s cities and counties have worked jointly and independently to increase efficiency and streamline operations. All of these actions have been successful and resulted in significant changes; however, it is apparent much more needs to be done. A well-maintained, high-quality transportation system reduces transportation costs and provides consistent and reliable service. These are all factors that are critical in the evaluation companies undertake when deciding where to expand or locate new developments. The CAC and Iowa DOT heard from many Iowans that additional investment in Iowa’s roadway system is vital to support existing jobs and continued job creation in the state of Iowa. Beginning June 2011, the CAC met regularly to review material and discuss potential recommendations to address Iowa’s roadway funding challenges. This effort included extensive public outreach with meetings held in seven locations across Iowa and through a Transportation 2020 website hosted by the Iowa DOT (www.iowadot.gov/transportation2020). Over 500 people attended the public meetings held through the months of August and September, with 198 providing verbal or written comment at the meetings or through the website. Comments were received from a wide array of individuals. The public comments demonstrated overwhelming support for increased funding for Iowa’s roads. Through the public input process, several guiding principles were established to guide the development of recommendations. Those guiding principles are: • Additional revenues are restricted for road and bridge improvements only, like 95 percent of the current state road revenue is currently. This includes the fuel tax and registration fees. • State and local governments continue to streamline and become more efficient, both individually and by looking for ways to do things collectively. • User fee concept is preserved, where those who use the roads pay for them, including non¬residents. • Revenue-generating methods equitable across users. • Increase revenue generating mechanisms that are viable now but begin to implement and set the stage for longer-term solutions that bring equity and stability to road funding. • Continue Iowa’s long standing tradition of state roadway financing coming from pay-as-you-go financing. Iowa must not fall into the situation that other states are currently facing where the majority of their new program dollars are utilized to pay the debt service of past bonding. Based on the analysis of Iowa’s public roadway needs and revenue and the extensive work of the Governor’s Transportation 2020 Citizen Advisory Commission, the Iowa DOT has identified specific recommendations. The recommendations follow very closely the recommendations of the CAC (CAC recommendations from their report are repeated in Appendix B). Following is a summary of the recommendations which are fully documented beginning on page 21. 1. Through a combination of efficiency savings and increased revenue, a minimum of $215 million of revenue per year should be generated to meet Iowa’s critical roadway needs. 2. The Code of Iowa should be changed to require the study of the sufficiency of the state’s road funds to meet the road system’s needs every two years instead of every five years to coincide with the biennial legislative budget appropriation schedule. 3.Modify the current registration fee for electric vehicles to be based on weight and value using the same formula that applies to most passenger vehicles. 4.Consistent with existing Code of Iowa requirements, new funding should go to the TIME-21 Fund up to the cap ($225 million) and remaining new funding should be distributed consistent with the Road Use Tax Fund distribution formula. 5.The CAC recommended the Iowa DOT at least annually convene meetings with cities and counties to review the operation, maintenance and improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system to identify ways to jointly increase efficiency. In direct response to this recommendation, Governor Branstad directed the Iowa DOT to begin this effort immediately with a target of identifying $50 million of efficiency savings that can be captured from the over $1 billion of state revenue already provided to the Iowa DOT and Iowa’s cities and counties to administer, maintain and improve Iowa’s public roadway system. This would build upon past joint and individual actions that have reduced administrative costs and resulted in increased funding for improvement of Iowa’s public roadway system. Efficiency actions should be quantified, measured and reported to the public on a regular basis. 6.By June 30, 2012, Iowa DOT should complete a study of vehicles and equipment that use Iowa’s public roadway system but pay no user fees or substantially lower user fees than other vehicles and equipment.
Resumo:
It is commonly regarded that the overuse of traffic control devices desensitizes drivers and leads to disrespect, especially for low-volume secondary roads with limited enforcement. The maintenance of traffic signs is also a tort liability concern, exacerbated by unnecessary signs. The Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA) Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) and the Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE) Traffic Control Devices Handbook provide guidance for the implementation of STOP signs based on expected compliance with right-of-way rules, provision of through traffic flow, context (proximity to other controlled intersections), speed, sight distance, and crash history. The approach(es) to stop is left to engineering judgment and is usually dependent on traffic volume or functional class/continuity of system. Although presently being considered by the National Committee on Traffic Control Devices, traffic volume itself is not given as a criterion for implementation in the MUTCD. STOP signs have been installed at many locations for various reasons which no longer (or perhaps never) met engineering needs. If in fact the presence of STOP signs does not increase safety, removal should be considered. To date, however, no guidance exists for the removal of STOP signs at two-way stop-controlled intersections. The scope of this research is ultra-low-volume (< 150 daily entering vehicles) unpaved intersections in rural agricultural areas of Iowa, where each of the 99 counties may have as many as 300 or more STOP sign pairs. Overall safety performance is examined as a function of a county excessive use factor, developed specifically for this study and based on various volume ranges and terrain as a proxy for sight distance. Four conclusions are supported: (1) there is no statistical difference in the safety performance of ultra-low-volume stop-controlled and uncontrolled intersections for all drivers or for younger and older drivers (although interestingly, older drivers are underrepresented at both types of intersections); (2) compliance with stop control (as indicated by crash performance) does not appear to be affected by the use or excessive use of STOP signs, even when adjusted for volume and a sight distance proxy; (3) crash performance does not appear to be improved by the liberal use of stop control; (4) safety performance of uncontrolled intersections appears to decline relative to stop-controlled intersections above about 150 daily entering vehicles. Subject to adequate sight distance, traffic professionals may wish to consider removal of control below this threshold. The report concludes with a section on methods and legal considerations for safe removal of stop control.
