Iowa Utilities Board Fiscal Year 2004 Regulatory Plans Pursuant to Executive Order Nine, August 1, 2003

Report for Iowa Utilities Board

The Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) Program in Iowa, 1999 – 2000

The issue of effectively holding juveniles accountable for criminal behavior is a topic of public concern and debate. Congress created the Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant (JAIBG) program and appropriated new federal funds through the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP). The goals of the program are to reduce juvenile delinquency, improve the juvenile justice system, and increase accountability for juvenile offenders.

Farm-Level Analysis of Risk Management Proposals, March 2000

This paper presents a detailed report of the representative farm analysis (summarized in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #01-00). At the request of several members of the Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition, and Forestry of the U.S. Senate, we have continued to analyze the impacts of the Farmers’ Risk Management Act of 1999 (S. 1666) and the Risk Management for the 21st Century Act (S. 1580). Earlier analysis reported in FAPRI Policy Working Paper #04-99 concentrated on the aggregate net farm income and government outlay impacts. The representative farm analysis is conducted for several types of farms, including both irrigated and non-irrigated cotton farms in Tom Green County, Texas; dryland wheat farms in Morton County, North Dakota and Sumner County, Kansas; and a corn farm in Webster County, Iowa. We consider additional factors that may shed light on the differential impacts of the two plans. 1. Farm-level income impacts under alternative weather scenarios. 2. Additional indirect impacts, such as a change in ability to obtain financing. 3. Implications of within-year price shocks. Our results indicate that farmers who buy crop insurance will increase their coverage levels under S. 1580. Farmers with high yield risk find that the 65 percent coverage level maximizes expected returns, but some who feel that they obtain other benefits from higher coverage will find that the S. 1580 subsidy schedule significantly lowers the cost of obtaining the additional coverage. Farmers with lower yield risk find that the increased indemnities from additional coverage will more than offset the increase in producer premium. In addition, because S. 1580 extends its increased premium subsidy percentages to revenue insurance products, farmers will have an increased incentive to buy revenue insurance. Differences in the ancillary benefits from crop insurance under the baseline and S. 1580 would be driven by the increase in insurance participation and buy-up. Given the same levels of insurance participation and buy-up, the ancillary benefits under the two scenarios would be the same.

Report on the Early Out Incentive (EOI) programs, including a Buy Out Program, for the period November 20, 2001 through February 28, 2006

Report on the Early Out Incentive (EOI) programs, including a Buy Out Program, for the period November 20, 2001 through February 28, 2006

Consumer Advisory Bulletin, How to Find Reputable In-Home Health Care and Service Plans, January 2008

The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division receives hundreds of calls and consumer complaints every year. Follow these tips to avoid unexpected expense and disappointments. This record is about: How to Find Reputable In-Home Health Care and Service Plans

Consumer Advisory Bulletin, "Credit Card Protection Plans" -- Paying for What You Can Do for Free?, January 2008

The Attorney General’s Consumer Protection Division receives hundreds of calls and consumer complaints every year. Follow these tips to avoid unexpected expense and disappointments. This record is about: "Credit Card Protection Plans" -- Paying for What You Can Do for Free?

Iowa 2008 Medicare Part D Stand-Alone Prescription Drug Plans, 2008

Medicare Deductible, co-insurance and premiuns form, and rescription drugs plans.

Tax Credit Evaluation Study: Tax Incentive Programs Used by Biofuel Producers, March 2009

During the 2005 Legislative Session the Iowa Department of Revenue received an appropriation to establish the Tax Credits Tracking and Analysis Program (TCTAP) to track tax credit awards and claims. In addition, the Department was directed to perform periodic evaluations of tax credit programs. The purpose of these studies is three-fold: (1) To provide a comparison of the Iowa tax credit program to similar federal and other states’ programs (2) To summarize information related to the usage of the Iowa tax credit (3) To evaluate the economic impact of the tax credit program.

Final Report Energy Efficiency Plans and Programs Study Committee, February 2009

The Legislative Council created the Energy Efficiency Plans and Programs Study Committee for the 2008 Legislative Interim pursuant to the passage of S.F. 2386 during the 2008 Legislative Session, which provided, in Section 8: The Legislative Council is requested to establish an interim study committee to examine the existence and effectiveness of energy efficiency plans and programs implemented by gas and electric public utilities, with an emphasis on results achieved by current plans and programs from the demand, or customer, perspective, and to make recommendations for additional requirements applicable to energy efficiency plans and programs that would improve such results. In conducting the study and developing recommendations, the Committee shall consider testimony from the Iowa Utilities Board, rate and nonrate-regulated gas and electric utilities, the Consumer Advocate, state agencies involved with energy efficiency program administration, environmental groups and associations, and consumers.

Use of Incentive/Disincentive Contracting to Mitigate Work Zone Traffic Impacts, 2012

Incentive/disincentive clauses (I/D) are designed to award payments to contractors if they complete work ahead of schedule and to deduct payments if they exceed the completion time. A previously unanswered question is, “Did the costs of the actual work zone impacts that were avoided justify the incentives paid?” This report answers that question affirmatively based on an evaluation of 20 I/D projects in Missouri from 2008 to 2011. Road user costs (RUC) were used to quantify work zone impacts and included travel delays, vehicle operating costs, and crash costs. These were computed using work zone traffic conditions for partial-closure projects and detour volumes and routes for full-closure projects. Conditions during construction were compared to after construction. Crash costs were computed using Highway Safety Manual methodology. Safety Performance Functions produced annual crash frequencies that were translated into crash cost savings. In considering an average project, the percentage of RUC savings was around 13% of the total contract amount, or $444,389 of $3,464,620. The net RUC savings produced was around $7.2 million after subtracting the approximately $1.7 million paid in incentives. In other words, for every dollar paid in incentives, approximately 5.3 dollars of RUC savings resulted. I/D provisions were very successful in saving RUC for projects with full-closure, projects in urban areas, and emergency projects. Rural, non-emergency projects successfully saved RUC but not at the same level as other projects. The I/D contracts were also compared to all Missouri Department of Transportation contracts for the same time period. The results show that I/D projects had a higher on-time completion percentage and a higher number of bids per call than average projects. But I/D projects resulted in 4.52% higher deviation from programmed costs and possibly more changes made after the award. A survey of state transportation departments and contractors showed that both agreed to the same issues that affect the success of I/D contracts. Legal analysis suggests that liquidated damages is preferred to disincentives, since enforceability of disincentives may be an issue. Overall, in terms of work zone impact mitigation, I/D contracts are very effective at a relatively low cost.

Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grand Fund Outcomes Report and FY2002 Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary, January 2002

This document contains two related, but separate reports. The Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Outcomes Report is a summary of outcomes from services and activities funded through the Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund in FY2001. The Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary describes Iowa communities’ current prevention and sanction programs supported with funding from the Division of Criminal and Juvenile Justice Planning (CJJP) during FY2002. The material in Juvenile Crime Prevention Community Grant Fund Outcomes Report is presented in response to a legislative mandate to report specific prevention outcomes for the community Grant Fund. It includes a brief description of a Youth Development Results Framework established by the Iowa Collaboration for Youth Development. Outcomes are reported using this results framework, which was developed by a number of state agencies as a common tool for various state programs involving youth development related planning and funding processes. Included in this report is a description of outcomes from the prevention activities funded, all or in part, by the Community Grant Fund, as reported by local communities. The program summaries presented in the Juvenile Justice Youth Development Program Summary provide an overview of local efforts to implement their 2002 Juvenile Justice Youth Development plans and include prevention and sanction programs funded through the combined resources of the State Community Grant Fund and the Federal Title V Prevention, Juvenile Justice & Delinquency Prevention Act Formula Grant and Juvenile Accountability Incentive Block Grant programs. These combined funds are referred to in this document as the Juvenile Justice Youth Development (JJYD) funds. To administer the JJYD funds, including funds from the Community Grant Fund, CJJP partners with local officials to facilitate a community planning process that determines the communities’ priorities for the use of the funds. The local planning is coordinated by the Iowa’s Decategorization Boards (Decats). These local officials and/or their staff have been leaders in providing oversight or staff support to a variety of local planning initiatives (e.g. child welfare, Comprehensive Strategy Pilot Projects, Empowerment, other) and bring child welfare and community planning experience to the table for the creation of comprehensive community longterm planning efforts. The allocation of these combined funds and the technical assistance received by the Decats from CJJP is believed to have helped enhance both child welfare and juvenile justice efforts locally and has provided for the recognition and establishment of connections for joint child welfare/juvenile justice planning. The allocation and local planning approach has allowed funding from CJJP to be “blended” or “braided” with other local, state, and federal dollars that flow to communities as a result of their local planning responsibilities. The program descriptions provided in this document reflect services and activities supported with JJYD funds. In many cases, however, additional funding sources have been used to fully fund the programs. Most of the information in this document’s two reports was submitted to CJJP by the communities through an on- line planning and reporting process established jointly by the DHS and CJJP.

July 2009 Rail Company Abandonment Plans Map, 2009

This is a map of railroad lines in Iowa under study to be abandoned.

Classification and Pay Plans FY2014, June 2013

This document Classifications and Pay Plans is produced by the State of Iowa Executive Branch, Department of Administrative Services. Informational document about the pay plan codes and classification codes, how to use them.

Incentive-Disincentive Clause, HR-521, 1985

There is an urgent need to complete projects in high traffic urban areas in the shortest possible time. These road user benefits resulting from faster construction will minimize public inconvenience, safety hazards and a total cost to the public. The incentive - disincentive clause in the contract will encourage the contractor to expedite all phases in the contract. A copy of this special provision is part of this work plan and other details of construction are included in the plan and specification of Project F-65-4(34)--20-77.

Classification and Pay Plans FY2016, June 2015

This document Classifications and Pay Plans is produced by the State of Iowa Executive Branch, Department of Administrative Services. Informational document about the pay plan codes and classification codes, how to use them.