Policy Blog

July 16, 2008

Water Supply and Sustainability

Yesterday, the Water Policy Study Committee heard from Laurel Reeves -- Water Appropriations Program Manager at the MN Dept. of Natural Resources, Division of Water Resources -- and John Wells -- Strategic Planning Director at the MN Environmental Quality Board. The topic was water quantity and the sustainability of water usage in Minnesota. (The presentations are available by clicking on the July 15 meeting on the committee's website.)

One way this meeting and the next two meetings will be helpful to the committee is by giving us ideas of how to narrow our focus. The main task in front of the committee, as the charge is currently, is to figure out how everyone involved in water in Minnesota can participate in water management, based on the appropriate roles and responsibilities of each group -- but I think it will be helpful to approach this through the lens of a particular policy question.

The first question, then, is: what policy question should we address?

I'd like to try using this blog as a method to start to discuss ideas that were raised by Tuesday's presentations. These ideas don't have to be fully-formed yet. I'm hoping we can use this as a forum just to start to get discuss our thoughts as we continue to hear from speakers.

So, What questions do you have about the presentations? What issues did they raise from a policy perspective? What ideas do you have for directions the committee could take?

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 1:59 PM | Comments (6)

July 1, 2008

Get Involved with the Water Policy Study Committee

The Water Policy Study Committee is about to get going, and I wanted to give all of you interested folks a space to give us your feedback and participate in the project from the very beginning.

First, a few words on what the committee will be doing:

The premise of the committee is that Minnesota needs a more comprehensive approach to water policy. Often, we think of water management as government's responsibility, and the rest of us can feel disconnected from what is viewed as "water policy." This type of perspective can work on some issues (like reducing industrial pollution), but it's falling short in many ways (like controlling the pollution that runs off individual families' lawns).

We need to change the way we think about water management in order to handle the coming challenges in water policy. (Even in Minnesota, where we usually consider ourselves to be water-rich, water quality issues, projected population grown, and increasing demand are creating concerns for the future.) All water users -- including government, business, nonprofits, communities, and individuals -- need to be able to see their roles and their responsibilities within in.

The committee's primary task will be to draft principles that can guide collaborative water management in Minnesota, based on the appropriate roles of everyone involved.

Where you come in:

This work will be better if it's based on the participation of more than just the 30 people on the study committee, so we're going to be trying out a few different ways for other interested people to plug in, including:

  • Starting the committee off with a series of public presentations. On July 15th, July 29th, and either August 11th or 14th (TBD), we'll be inviting in speakers from various state agencies and other organizations to help frame some of the major issues and the big questions in water policy in Minnesota. Click on the meeting dates to see more details, forward invitations along to friends or coworkers you think might be interested, and come yourself.

  • Sending regular email updates with details about the committee's work. If you'd like to join this group, email Jim Horan at jhoran@citizensleague.org.

  • Using this blog more often to give readers updates and ask for feedback on questions the committee is struggling with.

What ideas do you have on how to engage more people in this work? Any suggestions for using email, blogs, etc. based on things you've been involved with in the past? Let me know your comments.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 2:56 PM | Comments (0)

May 22, 2008

2008 Citizens League Policy Advancement

Many of the Citizens League's positions were advanced through legislation in the 2008 session. Here is a summary of what happened in major areas of our policy work.

1. TRANSPORTATION ADVANCEMENT
More transparent pricing and more choices come with increased funding

Value Capture Study (HF2800)
$300,000 (reduced from a proposed $325,000 in the budget bill) is appropriated to the Center for Transportation Studies at the University of Minnesota. Included will be the exploration of two recommended mechanisms from the 2005 Citizens League report "Driving Blind" among other types of value capture. Value capture is one way for beneficiaries of transportation investments to pay more directly based on the benefit received.

Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA)
To offer a choice for solo drivers to buy free flow on I-35W from downtown Minneapolis to Lakeville and provide increased transit and other choices in the congested corridor.

  • $133 million in federal funding
  • $55 million in state funding
  • Free-flow pricing (HOV lane conversion and dynamic shoulders)
  • Bus rapid transit (BRT) from Minneapolis to Lakeville
  • Expansion of flex-time based on results-oriented work environment model

Parts of the state matching funds were provided in House File 2800 ($24 million) and House File 380 ($21 million). Senate File 3058 is the UPA policy bill and was signed into law on May 11.

Additional impacts of the UPA:

  • Expands discussions of region-wide pricing and transit improvements
  • Lakeville joins metro transit taxing district and gets a lot of benefit with park and rides stations, bus-rapid transit (BRT) and high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lane.

2. TAX POLICY ADVANCEMENT (HF3149)
Direct homeowner property tax relief and examination of subsidies

Higher thresholds for the property tax refunds
Direct property tax relief for homeowners and renters based on ability to pay was increased by $25 million from a maximum of $1,450 to $1,850. The Citizens League position is that there should be no cap on the Property Tax Refund (PTR) program (from our 2000 report "Assessing Minnesota's Property Tax."

More appropriate Mall of America subsidy package
No use of the regional tax base sharing pool called Fiscal Disparities to subsidize the phase II parking ramp. More financing from mall users and more scrutiny if any level of government backs the bonds. The Citizens League opposed a fiscal disparities exemption for the MOA expansion.

JOBZ and LGA
Changes based on the Legislative Auditors report on JOBZ and a study of LGA were included in the tax bill.

3. HEALTH CARE ADVANCEMENT (SF3780)
The final health care reform package is an important starting point to transform the system from a market reform perspective. It includes several important provisions which we will address in a separate post. Critical mass for the amount of the medical care delivery system that will be subject to the reforms is a big question. What level and type of governance that is needed to reveal value in medical care is also an open question.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 12:32 PM | Comments (0)

May 7, 2008

Urban Partnership Agreement could bring Lakeville into the Metro transit system

An unexpected benefit of the pending Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) -- which will bring in $133 million in federal money to fund bus rapid transit (BRT) on I-35W -- is that it could bring Lakeville into the Metro Transit Taxing District. The Lakeville City Council just approved a deal with the Met Council as part of extending BRT beyond Burnsville, according to the Star Tribune.

The Legislature has until May 12 to pass the policy language associated with UPA or we will lose the federal funding. Stay tuned for more details.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 11:50 AM | Comments (0)

April 30, 2008

Citizens League Opposes Fiscal Disparities Exemption for MOA

The Citizens League sent the following letter to all members of the Minnesota House of Representatives on April 21, 2008. (For more information on fiscal disparities, see the Citizens League property tax studies page.)

****

Members of the Minnesota House of Representatives:

We urge you to oppose any efforts to exempt the Mall of America Phase II from the fiscal disparities pool. The provision that is included in the Senate Omnibus Tax Bill is directly counter to the intended purpose of fiscal disparities and should not be part of the House bill. The provision attempts to use fiscal disparities as a subsidy tool. Fiscal disparities is not a subsidy tool, it is a structural part of the property tax base in two important regions of Minnesota: the Twin Cities Metropolitan Area (since 1971) and the Iron Range (since 1995). Fiscal disparities is intended to reduce disparities in property tax base wealth among communities in a given region.

Why Fiscal Disparities is Fundamentally Different from Subsidy Tools
Fiscal disparities is designed to reduce competition between communities for commercial-industrial (CI) tax base. Subsidy tools and payments (TIF, abatement, bonding, LGA) tend to promote competition between communities rather than reduce it. When important decisions are made regarding subsidy tools and payments, we require processes such as local government approval or a statewide weighing of priorities. Without applying these processes, we have yet to determine whether there is a need for a subsidy for MOA Phase II.

Fiscal disparities has no evaluative process as a subsidy tool because it is based on a fundamentally different premise and perspective than subsidy tools, namely that each community benefits from being part of the region. In other words, we are all in this together.

From the perspective of fiscal disparities, the provision in the Senate Tax Bill essentially says that MOA Phase II does not benefit from being part of the metro region. This inversion of the policy purpose would quickly lead to more perverse effects when implemented.

  • The end-of-session proposal in 2007 would have had the effect of increasing rates directly on other CI property in the region. That provision essentially required other business property owneres -- in some cases direct competitors -- to pay for the MOA Phase II parking ramp.
  • The proposal for 2008 tries to dampen the direct effect on other businesses by spreading the subsidy to renters and homeowners. This is achieved by essentially exempting MOA Phase II from the fiscal disparities pool and allowing that tax base to be used to build the parking ramp.

The 2008 proposal more directly violates the structure of fiscal disparities by spreading the effect beyond CI property to homeowners and renters.

There is No Precendent
Some have stated that the precedent already exists for use of the fiscal disparities pool as a subsidy tool, but MOA Phase I did not employ either of the above options. MOA PHase I was allowed to take out a loan from the fiscal disparities pool. Although a loan approach does not as directly violate the structure of fiscal disparities, the Citizens League did not and does not support that option either. The problem with the loan arrangement continues today as the repayment has been deferred from its original date and could be deferred again.

There have also been questions raised about the exemptions of pre-1979 TIF districts throughout the metro area. Legislators did not want to disrupt the payments from existing TIF districts in the wake of the first statewide TIF law in 1979, so they provided exemptions. This one-time "grandfathering" of TIF districts more than 20 years ago does not set the precendent that MOA Phase II would set today.

Setting a Bad Precedent
The precedent set by either of these proposals would make fiscal disparities a desired approach for subsidy, since there are no established processes to evaluate who should receive it. On what policy basis could we then deny use of the pool to others who compete with the MOA? Why should other malls and the myriad other businesses that may compete with the MOA first be required to subsidize their competitor and then not be subsidized in the same manner when they build or expand? Why should other projects of regional and statewide importance not seek a subsidy through fiscal disparities?

Fiscal Disparities Should Operate the Same on the Iron Range as it does in the Metro Area
Because it has been in place for a shorter period, the Iron Range fiscal disparities pool is not discussed as much, but it has now been in place for 13 years. The Citizens League would not support violation of the Iron Range fiscal disparities pool in this manner either.

Fortunately, a similar type of project on the Iron Range (infrastructure to support a private interest of regional and statewide significance) has gone through the usual legislative process for bonding and has had to compete with other projects of state and regional significance to be included. The bonding bill that was signed into law on April 7 included $28 million for infrastructure to support a new steel plant in Itasca County, one of the counties in the Iron Range fiscal disparities pool. What if the proposal was to exempt that steel plant from the Iron Range fiscal disparities pool? The Citizens League would also oppose that based on the same policy grounds and would see no good reason why that steel plant should not contribute to the health of the Iron Range regional tax base.

Bonding would also be an appropriate way to consider subsidizing MOA Phase II if legislators deem it is more appropriate than using TIF (providing that state exemptions are required; otherwise it is a local decision).

We are all in this together, and we respectfully request that legislators oppose the use of th metro fiscal disparities pool to subsidize the MOA Phase II.

Sincerely,

Sean Kershaw
Executive Director

Bob DeBoer
Director of Policy

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 10:27 AM | Comments (0)

April 10, 2008

This Opportunity for Health Care Reform Cannot Be Missed

By Duane Benson and Peter Gove

For more than 25 years, the Citizens League has pushed for market reform through meaningful competition and universal access in the delivery of medical care. In 2006, we co-chaired a Citizens League study committee on medical facilities that independently reached some of the same conclusions as a 1981 Citizens League committee: namely that escalating health care costs in are the result of a dysfunctional market and ineffective regulation. Our most important conclusion in 2006 was that we must build the proper information system for a market to function in medical care.

Based on this work, the Citizens League contributed to the Governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force. (Executive director Sean Kershaw was a member.) Legislation has been introduced -- based on the Task Force work -- that is focused on a comprehensive approach to health care reform, one that doesn't just address state law and regulation, but also identifies what providers, other organizations and citizens need to do to transform the health care system.

Legislative authors -- Sen. Linda Berglin (SF3099) and Rep. Tom Huntley (HF3391) -- and Governor Pawlenty are on the same page in most respects of the reform efforts because of the work of the Transformation Task Force, and passing comprehensive reform is a real possibility. We urge these leaders to keep working on a comprehensive solution this session.

Competition in the medical care market should no longer be focused on insurance companies and employers, who act as proxies for medical care delivery. The fundamental change that health care reforms must achieve is true provider competition to deliver the best care for the maximum health of the population served.

Here are the three things that we think must occur for meaningful reform.
  • The development of an information system that supports decisions based on value
  • Payment reform based on "total cost of care"
  • Governance structures that set the ground rules for a functional market, but don't over-regulate

It starts with information
Intertwined throughout the current legislative proposals are the building blocks for the information system that must be developed to support informed choices when it comes to medical care. This is the only way for consumers to make decisions based on the value of the care provided.

For example, providers would be expected to implement and use electronic medical records systems as a condition of payment. Statewide standards for electronic medical records would be developed and established. Without these steps, finding out where the best value is in our medical care system is next to impossible.

Value determinations would be based on the results a provider produces for similar groups of patients. The legislation would set up a Health Care Value Reporting Committee that would not be a government agency, would be publicly accountable, and would be made up of professionals in the medical field.

Payment reform must be based on "total cost of care"
The key concept in payment reform from the Transformation Task Force work is something called total cost of care. Today, much of our medical care is paid for based on the number of specific procedures or services provided. Providers are reimbursed more for treating illnesses than for helping patients take the necessary steps to prevent illnesses. These incentives are actually counter to focusing on population-wide health.

To change these incentives, we must move away from paying for procedures toward paying for population health. This is a difficult proposition, but must be done. Providers must compete to provide health care for the groups they serve based on the condition of that group. How effective a provider is at keeping a group healthy and responding to medical needs in the most cost-effective way will determine how much value they deliver -- and how much they earn.

Government must play a role in establishing the governance structures
There will never be a functioning market in medical care without government setting the rules for it to occur. Despite laudable efforts at better information by health care providers in recent years, there is no way to construct a "consumer report" on who is best at keeping people healthy and responding to their medical needs in the most effective and cost-efficient way. That is why we think that the Health Care Value Reporting Committee in current legislation, along with the total cost of care payment reform, is absolutely essential for meaningful reform.

Having government set up the ground rules, however, does not require that government run the system. We think that would go beyond the needed transformation and potentially damage a health care system that is currently excellent in many ways.

Universal access is within our grasp
Minnesota already has the structures in place to provide the means for universal access. Minnesota Care was established in 1992 and included a provider tax to help pay for universal access. With 93 percent of the population insured, we must make sure that affordable health care is available to those in that final 7 percent who cannot afford insurance. There will always be some who choose to remain uninsured even though they can afford it, and we are unconvinced that mandatory enforcement will be cost-effective.

The Health Care Access Account, which is made up from the proceeds of the provider tax, is an area of the state budget that is currently running a surplus. Rather than enacting new taxes and fees to pay for greater access or diverting that revenue to other budget needs, the Health Care Access Account should ensure affordable access for all as other reforms move forward. Although budget realities will make that difficult to achieve in 2008, it must be the direction we set now for the next budget cycle (2009-2010).

Is this a crossroads for market reform in medical care?
Establishing a functional market in medical care will not happen overnight, and political reality dictates that we honestly ask the following question: if there is not the political will today to implement these three measures -- an appropriate information system, total cost of care payment reform, and a governance structure that sets the appropriate ground rules for success -- is the time for developing a functioning market in medical care over?

If the answer is yes, then we are left with only regulatory approaches in an attempt to control costs and provide quality, and anything that would have a chance of being effective would have to be much stronger and more comprehensive than the old approaches. A much more government-centered health care system would need to be re-examined if the existing forces in health care are unwilling to develop the basics for a functional market.

The other option is to do nothing as costs spiral out of control from ever increasing technological advances that are not governed by market forces. Without the benefits of meaningful competition, suppliers will naturally oversupply the most profitable technologies and services which will not be judged on value. This is unacceptable in our view.

Overcoming the politics
For certain, the reforms will upset the status quo in the medical care industry as it is a supplier-driven industry without sufficiently informed consumers. Most of us base our medical decisions on the level of coverage provided by insurers or the best package offered by an employer (if one exists) and have no way of determining the value (quality and cost) of our medical care providers.

Some think that the legislation based on the Transformation Task Force work is an over-wrought government solution. Others think that government needs to step in more strongly and set up an single-payer system. They are both wrong in our view. Government must take some extraordinary steps to support a functioning market, but the key will be that government not run the system, but will require the information and payment structure for true competition based on value-based decision-making.

Minnesota offers wonderful options in medical care in many instances, but we know that a functioning market where decisions can be based on the best value will support a healthier population and make our medical care consistently better and more affordable for all.


Duane Benson and Peter Gove co-chaired the Citizens League Medical Facilities Study Committee (click here to view the study committee's recommendations).

Benson is currently executive director of the Minnesota Early Learning Foundation. He was executive director of the Minnesota Business Partnership from 1994 to 2003 and was state senator from Lanesboro from 1980 to 1994, where he was selected as Senate Minority Leader three times.

Gove recently retired as an executive and officer of St. Jude Medical, the second largest medical technology company headquartered in Minnesota. Prior to his business career, Peter spend a decade in state and federal government, including as executive director of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency and legislative director for U.S. Senator Wendell R. Anderson.

Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 4:01 PM | Comments (0)

February 26, 2008

Important Provisions in the Transportation Bill

The veto override of the transportation finance bill (HF2800) included several provisions that advance the Citizens League policy agenda on transportation.

Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA): The Citizens League was instrumental in starting the discussions last year that led to Minnesota's successful application for a UPA grant from the federal government. House File 2800 included $25 million of the required $55 million in state matching funds necessary to receive $133 million in federal funding to reduce congestion in the I-35W corridor from Downtown Minneapolis to Lakeville. Most of the federal funding is directed to constructing bus rapid transit (BRT) on I-35W. The UPA is the top transportation policy priority for the Citizens League this year.

Value Capture Study: House File 2800 includes $325,000 for the Center for Transportation Studies to perform a study on funding roads and transit with value capture. This is one of the transparent funding mechanisms that the Citizens League called for in the 2005 report Driving Blind.

Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA) Outreach Grant: The Hubert H. Humphrey Institute will receive $200,000 to assist MnDOT and the Met Council provide outreach on the implementation of the UPA. The Humphrey Institute was an important part of the successful outreach to establish MNPASS on I-394.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 2:12 PM | Comments (0)

February 5, 2008

Help Advance Transportation Policy February 8

Citizens League staff and a key group of board members have been working and listening over the last four months to find out how the Citizens League can be helpful in creating a long-term, sustainable approach to our transportation funding needs as outlined in the 2005 report, "Driving Blind."

Join Citizens League board members Tom Horner, Dee Long, Kevin Goodno and Lee Anderson on Friday morning at 8:00 a.m. to help the Citizens League advance our transportation funding principles.

Driving Blind called for creating a transportation market through more choices and greater transparency in transportation funding. To do this, prices must be developed and established for those who use and derive benefit from the transportation system.

Pricing vs. Tolling: If you look at the top recommendation in the report, you will note that we did not differentiate pricing and tolling. This is because many experts simply think of pricing as a form of tolling. But let us clarify now the fundamental differences:

Tolling is never a choice. You pay a flat toll to use all lanes of the road, at all times, whether it's congested or not, and the revenue is used for building and maintaining roads, not to help provide more choices.

Free-flow pricing is a market mechanism that responds directly to the demand for free flow in a congested corridor. As proposed in Minnesota, free-flow pricing is giving solo drivers a choice to buy access to a free-flow lane (shared with transit and carpoolers) on our congested highways. There is no price when there is no congestion, and when there is congestion, solo drivers always have the choice to continue driving in the "free" lanes. Free-flow pricing will provide needed funds to support more transportation choices, particularly if it is implemented system-wide. The revenue from free-flow pricing must support choices in the corridor (or system) where it is applied.

Transparent funding mechanisms recommended in Driving Blind are all represented at the bottom of page 2 of the 2008 Transportation Policy Priorities
document that we are using with everyone who wants to discuss the Citizens League approach.

How we got here
Two years after the issuance of Driving Blind, the Citizens League proposed the idea of holding a "road pricing" summit in early 2007. From that event, Minnesota became involved in pursuing the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA), which is based on providing multiple choices to reduce congestion. The UPA is also based somewhat on the European experience in London and Stockholm, where significant transit investments were made at the same time that pricing was implemented.

The UPA approach makes sense for building a system with more choices, but the Driving Blind report did not specify that major new transit facilities should be required to implement pricing because, unlike some other approaches, the Minnesota approach always provides a choice. London and Stockholm were implementing pricing systems where everyone has to pay to enter the center of the city, which is more like a toll. Putting a lot more into transit into central cities makes all the sense in the world when you are requiring all vehicles to pay to enter the center of the city. This will also be the model if New York City implements pricing.

Decision 1: In the Minnesota approach to free-flow pricing:
--Should new transit facilities be required to implement pricing?
--Should pricing be required whenever major new transit facilities are planned and constructed?

This arrangement would have the potential to leverage all investments to create the greatest market effect when increasing choices. Driving Blind called for the implementation of pricing whenever there were major highway investments (like the Crosstown reconstruction), but we did not arrive at this more broad and comprehensive application. If we answer the first question with a yes, then we must have sufficient revenues to build more transit facilities.

Decision 2: If we need to build more transit facilities, what position should the Citizens League take on a sales tax to fund transit? None of the more transparent funding sources that we propose in Driving Blind have been tested yet in Minnesota, so they need to be developed and implemented before we know how much funding they will provide. The Citizens League does not have a recent position on dedicating sales taxes, but we have been historically wary of dedicating the states general sources of revenue since we elect our Legislature to make those decisions. The sales tax was implemented at three cents in 1967 as a way to fund K-12 education across the state, and the Citizens League was very involved in this approach through the school funding formulas behind the "Minnesota Miracle," yet Minnesota does not dedicate the sales tax to education. So whether to support the use of a dedicated sales tax for transit remains an open policy question for the Citizens League.

Decision 3: In considering a position on the dedication of sales taxes, there are a number of conditions and decisions to make about how that could occur.
--Should the Citizens League support a dedicated sales tax if the transparent funding mechanisms that we propose are also implemented as part of a plan for regional free-flow pricing?
--Should the sales tax dedication be reconsidered after the other sources are developed (2020 sunset for example)?
--Should the sales tax be regional or statewide?

Decision 4: In the attempt to advance our principles for transportation funding, what are the best ways for the Citizens League to proceed? What are the strategies? Advancing our principles on transportation does not necessarily mean taking positions on other proposals.

If you would like to attend this meeting, please email Brian Bell at bbell@citizensleague.org.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 12:37 PM | Comments (0)

January 24, 2008

Help Advance Health Care Policy January 30

Join the Citizens League for a meeting to advance our health care policy. We will be joined by the co-chairs of the 2005-06 Medical Facilities Study Committee, Duane Benson and Peter Gove. In addition, Maureen Reed and Sean Kershaw -- who are both serving on the Governor's Health Care Transformation Task Force -- will attend. The purpose of the meeting will be to continue the evaluation of the connections between the work of Transformation Task Force and the 2006 Citizens League report, Developing Informed Decisions. That discussion began at the January 8th meeting of the Policy Advisory Committee.

The Transformation Task Force takes a more comprehensive approach than the Citizens League work of 2006 (which is mainly focused on market reform and medical facility expansion), but there are many connections between the two based on the key areas of information and governance.

First, look at the outline of possible connections, which gives you the context and specific references to then look at the latest draft of the Transformation Task Force.

To further examine the connection, it is also good to review the 2007 legislative summary and the bill authored by Rep. Tom Huntley and Sen. Geoff Michel (HF1987/SF1911).

A cursory examination of Citizens League policy history reveals that we have addressed most of the fundamental areas that the Transformation Task Force is grappling with now.

In addition to information and governance, the Citizens League addressed other areas that are present in the Transformation Task force work over the last 30 years: price and market functionality in the 1981 report, Paying Attention to Difference in Price, and access and insurance in the 1987 report, Start Right with "Right Start" (A Health Plan for Minnesota's Uninsured).

That work culminated in the February 1992 statement Health Care Access for All Minnesotans.

We will need the help of our members to examine the connections between the Transformation Task Force and our earlier work in the coming months as this work is considered by the Legislature, so join us on January 30!

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 9:00 PM | Comments (0)

January 16, 2008

Transportation Policy Priorities for 2008

The Citizens League continues to work on implementing our transportation policy agenda based on the 2005 study committee report "Driving Blind." For the 2008 legislative session we have three priorities. Priority #1: Fund and implement the Urban Partnership Agreement (UPA). Priority #2: Establish the mechanisms that will provide the choices represented by the UPA in all congested areas. Priority #3: Integrate More Transparent Funding to Support Transportation Choices and Improve the Safety of Roads and Bridges. Stay tuned for opportunities to engage in these implementation efforts. To read our current position, click here.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 1:32 PM | Comments (0)

November 5, 2007

Different kinds accountability in schools

I know it seems like we've abandoned the policy blog, but I hope you'll bear with us. I'm going to be posting on here more frequently in the coming weeks.

For the time being, check out Peter Levine's post on school accountability.

Levine calls for more "social accountability" in schools, in the form of direct citizen involvement in monitoring school budgets and administration. I'm intrigued by the notion but not sure how it might work. What information do people need to monitor their schools? Is that information available now, and is it available in an understandable format? What do parents and students and other community members want to know in order to judge their schools?

The Citizens League has done a little bit of work on this topic, as a part of our MAP 150 property tax facts project. We met with citizens around the state and learned from them what information they needed to make decisions about whether or not to support school referenda in their communities - and then we gathered that information in one easy-to-use website. Click here to check it out.)

Posted by Victoria Ford at 12:51 PM | Comments (0)

August 16, 2007

Star Tribune commentary clarification

This morning's Citizens League commentary in the Star Tribune, "A bridge falls, and a policy window opens," drew a number of questions about this statement: "In 1970, Minnesotans paid about $3.75 per vehicle mile traveled in gas taxes. Today it's about $2 per mile when adjusted for inflation." The numbers should have read that Minnesotans paid 3.75 cents per vehicle mile in 1970 and are paying around 2 cents per vehicle mile today.

The statement should also have specified that these are highway miles. The numbers that support this statement come from the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) and were part of the Citizens League Transportation Study Committee report "Driving Blind." (see link below)

To see the relevant graphic, look at the Price of Minnesota Highways

After contacting MnDOT today, I am awaiting more details on the calculations, but here is the simplest way that I remember the explanantion from three years ago.

--Take the amount of miles traveled by all vehicles on highways in Minnesota and divide it into the amount of revenue raised by the gas tax that was spent on highways in 1970. The answer is 3.75 cents.

--Take the amount of miles traveled by all vehicles on highways and divide it into the amount of revenue raised by the gas tax and spent on highways in 2002 and adjust for inflation. The answer is 2.20 cents.

Therefore, with additional vehicles traveling more miles on more roads, and presumably, buying more gas (changes in efficiency of vehicles have an impact here), when we adjust for inflation, Minnesotans, as a whole, are paying significantly less in gas taxes for highways per vehicle mile traveled.

I assume in my statement that we have fallen from about 2.2 cents in 2002 to closer to 2 cents today, but I don't have the actual number.

Posted by Bob DeBoer at 6:12 PM | Comments (3)

August 1, 2007

July 2007 Minnesota Journal Supplement (How Minnesota Compares on Taxes and Expenditures)

The July 2007 Minnesota Journal analyzed data from the publication "How Minnesota Compares" by the Minnesota Taxpayers Association. Specifically, we looked at other states like Minnesota that have relatively high personal income and compared taxes and expenditures per $1,000 of personal income.

The figures and tables below include what was publishing in the Minnesota Journal on taxes. Below we also include the comparison of expenditures. The research arm of the Minnesota Taxypayers Association that collects this data from the Census Bureau and publishes it is the Minnesota Center for Public Finance Research.

How Minnesota's mix of taxes and spending compare with the rest of the country:
2005 Sources of State Revenue (pdf)
2005 Sources of Local Revenue (pdf)
2005 State and Local Expenditures (pdf)

How Minnesota Compares in Tax Collections and Expenditures
Table 1: 2005 Minnesota State and Local Tax Collections (pdf)
Table 2: 2005 Tax Comparison of State With Highest Personal Income (pdf)
Table 3: 2005 Minnesota State and Local Expenditures (pdf)
Table 4: 2005 Expenditure Comparison of States With Highest Personal Income (pdf)

(Comparisons are of the top 22 states in personal income per $1,000 of income)


Posted by Annie Levenson-Falk at 4:36 PM | Comments (0)

June 15, 2007

Citizens League 2007 Legislative Summary

Want to know more about how the Citizens League fared during the 2007 Legislative Session?


Click here for a summary...

Posted by Victoria Ford at 12:29 PM | Comments (0)

extended interview with Sean Kenney

Click here to download the full interview with Bob DeBoer and Sean Kenney (a short version of the interview is in the June 2007 edition of the Minnesota Journal).

Posted by Victoria Ford at 12:21 PM | Comments (0)

Subscribe to this blog (RSS 2.0). View the archives or view by category →