Topic: State could lose millions
started by: Madd Max
Posted by Madd Max on Nov. 29 2007,1:49 pm
According to a letter sent to Gov. Tim Pawlenty and obtained by 5 EYEWITNESS NEWS, the state’s in violation of Federal regulations. It said if Minnesota doesn’t make changes, and make them fast, the state could lose millions in highways funds.The problems center on the way Minnesota polices commercial licenses for commercial truck drivers.
In 2004, the Federal government ordered the Minnesota Department of Public Safety to fix more than 70 problems.
But when the auditors checked this past August, they found nearly half had still not been fixed after three years.
"The audit has offered us an opportunity to look at the areas that we really need to focus in on," said Patricia McCormack of the Minnesota Department of Public Safety.
One of those unfixed problems could carry a hefty price tag. Right now, when a commercial driver gets a ticket or causes an accident in Minnesota, a paper record is sent to the Feds.
But officials want those records sent electronically. And if Minnesota doesn't start doing that by the end of next September, the state could lose $22 million in federal highway funds.
"Many people are talking about additional state taxes in order to increase funding for transportation," said Phil Krinkie of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota. "Seems to me that it should be a high priority within the administration...to get into compliance."
At a time when Minnesota is so focused on fixing roads and bridges, the timing couldn't be worse.
Minnesota is one of 11 states currently at risk of losing Federal funding.
Posted by Madd Max on Nov. 29 2007,1:51 pm
Here is a link to the Fed's Letter to T-Paw.< http://kstp.com/kstpImages/MN.pdf >
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 29 2007,6:03 pm
So far, it looks like their biggest beef is that they don't like the way that the State is reporting. The State is making the reports, it's just that it is doing it by paper.Businesses also get threatening letters from government bureaucrats, threatening dire consequences if they don't knuckle under and do things the way the bureaucrats want it--the latest being electronic submission of required forms.
Federal transportation folks have a long history of browbeating states and businesses. Recall that a few years ago, the FAA was conducting "regulation by press release"--charging Northwest Airlines with several hundred violations of the Federal Aviation Regulations--and releasing their charges to the press--even before the airline could respond. As it turned out, all but a few of the hundreds of "violations" were for the same thing--operating one airplane with one of the toilets inoperative. Every time the airplane took off, the FAA charged Northwest with a maintenance violation. Never mind that the toilet was sealed off and couldn't be used--that the aircraft had more than the required number of toilets--that the problem was scheduled for maintenance at the next inspection--that safety of flight was not compromised. When the idiocy of the regulators was finally disclosed, everyone in the industry got a good laugh at the FAA--but to those who only read the Red Star, all they remember is "Northwest maintenance violations." The government charges in public, and apologizes in private.
Another example of Dept. of Transportation overzealous prosecution. Recall when the speed limit was lowered to 55? The DOT issued similar stern warnings to States--if you don't comply and lower your speed limits, you may lose Federal funds. Several states refused to charge speeders unless they were GROSSLY over the speed limit--they were charged only with "wasting gas". The law proved unenforceable, and the speed limit was raised.
Personally, I dislike the government collecting tax dollars from us, then threatening severe consequences if we don't voluntarily comply.
Who do they think they are, the School Administration?
Posted by grassman on Nov. 29 2007,6:19 pm
I HAVE to file my MN sales tax on line, not that I mind but they are assuming every buisness owner has a computer. I believe if they are making everything computer oriented that should probably make everything more efficient, hence not as many paper pushers. It always means less personel in the buisness world, does it mean the same in the public financed govt. body?
Posted by jimhanson on Nov. 30 2007,12:18 pm
QUOTE
It always means less personel in the buisness world, does it mean the same in the public financed govt. body?
That would be a RHETORICAL QUESTION--neither expecting or deserving of an answer! 
Speaking of sales tax filing--we got hit with a sales tax audit about a month ago. Most of it went fine--we deal mainly in fuel and maintenance, and mainly to repeat customers. The auditor spent 3 days examining the last 4 years--it took us over 40 hours to find and submit the required documentation. No major issues, but did find some surprising items--
The volume of the pop machine--THERE's a good one. Measured how much we bought, vs. how much sold. The difference--how much was consumed on airplanes. We probably spent 8 man-hours accounting for the pop machine.
Tax on freight. When we send out a customers part, we recapture the cost of the freight. They say that in MN. it is now taxable. I told them that when I take something to UPS, they don't charge me tax--they said it is taxable because we are reselling it to the customer--even if we don't mark it up. Consequently, we simply charge the customer the labor we use to send the part.
The State wants to charge tax on labor used to repair parts. I said that I thought labor was usually not subject to tax--the triggering item was the work order statement that we "fabricated" a part--and fabrication was taxable. I explained that the FAA requires that we identify the source of all parts, and thus the use of the term "fabricate"--even though the parts fabricated were to repair a larger part. Caught between two government agencies.
We pay for temporary help in mowing and snow blowing. We pay the self-employed person, we issue a 1099 (equivalent to a W-2)--but the State says that while snow removal is not taxable, mowing IS. I asked about turf maintenance using large farm tractors--farming is NOT, but the tax auditor couldn't give an answer for turf maintenance. What's the difference between lawn mowing and snow blowing?
I asked our accountant if she knew about these items--she did not--but related an even bigger horror story. A retail firm in town sells at retail, but also has a consulting business. They had not been charging sales tax on their consulting labor, as labor is generally tax exempt. They were charged a HUGE amount--though the State does generally exempt labor, they had changed the law about 3 years ago in an unpublished "opinion", stating that consulting labor was now taxable. Of course, the company couldn't go back and charge tax to their clients retroactively.
It was more of a nuisance than a financial cost. Once again, it's cheaper to just pay the tax than to fight with them--and the tax people COUNT on that. I asked our accountant why so many business people were getting audited--this is the first in 25 years for us. She said that the State of Minnesota hired 44 new auditors for sales tax--it was easier to concentrate on businesses than individuals.
Who pays for these extra taxes? Not the businesses--the cost is passed on to the consumer--unless the business decides to relocate across the border. No WONDER that Sioux Falls regularly advertises on Minnesota radio stations to "move your business to South Dakota."
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,12:29 pm
Reminds of the time MN attempted to collect sales tax from MN patients who saw a doctor in Northwood. The IA doctor refused to collect and pay that tax and I never heard another thing about it. Can you imagine? The state wanted to collect sales tax from another state.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 30 2007,12:43 pm
Simple solution: Stop paying taxes.They can't put us all in jail.
Posted by TameThaTane on Nov. 30 2007,12:48 pm
That's why they take it out of your check before you get it.
Posted by Botto 82 on Nov. 30 2007,1:15 pm
Not if you claim a gadzillion exemptions.
Posted by hymiebravo on Dec. 02 2007,12:50 pm
QUOTE
The volume of the pop machine--THERE's a good one. Measured how much we bought, vs. how much sold. The difference--how much was consumed on airplanes. We probably spent 8 man-hours accounting for the pop machine.
I could see why they would look. A high volume machine could generate a nice little supplemental stream of unreported fun money.
Paticularly your $1.00 and up a pop softdrink/soda machines.
Or " pop" if you live in Minnesota.
QUOTE
The State wants to charge tax on labor used to repair parts. I said that I thought labor was usually not subject to tax--the triggering item was the work order statement that we "fabricated" a part--and fabrication was taxable. I explained that the FAA requires that we identify the source of all parts, and thus the use of the term "fabricate"--even though the parts fabricated were to repair a larger part. Caught between two government agencies.
I guess I could see how everything could be considered fabricating.
QUOTE
What's the difference between lawn mowing and snow blowing?
About 70 degrees farenheit or so. lol
I would imagine a great deal of lawnmowning goes unreported.
QUOTE
They had not been charging sales tax on their consulting labor
Hard to muster up any sympathy for people who get paid for telling other people what to do. IMO Its like feeling sorry for a guy who has his own plane. lol
It would be a lot nicer to see substantial advancements and cuts in places related to goverment waste and innefficiencies.
But until then...
That little kid with that Lemonade stand on the corner better watch out. Hes probably next on the list. lol
Posted by TameThaTane on Dec. 02 2007,12:53 pm
1/3 of the people work in government. It's always that third wanting to extract more from the other 2/3's. Government should be no more than 15% of the total.
Posted by jimhanson on Dec. 02 2007,1:00 pm
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 15 2008,2:45 pm
QUOTE
Bridges or Boondoggles?
The State bonds for zoos, arenas and trails. Why not bond for something important?
ST. PAUL – As it did in 2007, the 2008 legislative session will most likely come down to a showdown over how to pay for road and bridge projects. Like last year, Minnesotans will again see proposals to raise any tax that has even the slightest connection to transportation funding such as an increase in the gas tax, new wheelage taxes, dedicated sales tax increases and higher license tab fees.
As was clearly demonstrated last year, Governor Pawlenty and Minnesotans had no appetite for tax increases. 2008 should be no different.
Minnesota State Legislators should look to a source of funding that is routinely misspent on government boondoggles and has gone largely untapped when it comes to long-term capital projects that are clearly of statewide significance: Minnesota needs to start using state G.O. bonds for road and bridge projects.
Why aren’t we already doing this? “It’s simple,” says Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, “legislators want to pay cash for highway projects in order to use the credit card for local pork barrel projects. If bonding bills were primarily made up of necessary road and bridge projects, there would be little room left for the “pork” that legislators bring home to their districts to help with their re-election efforts.”
Because the legislature has a self-imposed guideline to limit state debt payments to 3% of the State’s general fund, the 2008 bonding bill should come in at a maximum of $965 million. Of that number, state legislators should allocate a major portion of the bonding bill to road and bridge projects.
Krinkie concluded: “If increased transportation spending is really as much of a priority for state legislators as they say it is, then sacrificing Faribault’s Paradise Center for the Arts, the Hyland K70 Ski Jump in Bloomington or the St. Louis County Equestrian Facility, just to name a few, shouldn’t be a problem.”
###
At the Taxpayers League's press conference on January 11th, a copies of a Minnesota Free Market Institute analysis were distributed that made the case as to why Government Obligation (G.O.) bonds should be used for road and bridge projects.
Also at the press conference Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie pointed to a number of road and bridge projects that should be included in future bonding bills and also projects that state legislators have historically used the bonding bill to fund.
Local Pork Projects
v Hyland K70 Ski Jump – Bloomington
v St. Paul RiverCentre Loan Repayment
v Duluth Zoo Polar Bear Exhibit
v Spicer Historic Military Plane Enclosure
v Target Center Bond Repayment
v State Fair Fish Habitat Display
v Anoka County Bike and Pedestrian Trail
v Rochester National Volleyball Center
v St. Louis County Equestrian Facility
v Austin Area Success Center
Roads and Bridges
v I-35 from Proctor to Duluth
v Highway 61 Hastings bridge
v Highway 71/197 in Bemidji
v Highway 52 Lafayette bridge
v Highway 52 Cannon Falls interchange
v I-35E Cayuga bridge over the Mississippi
v Highway 14 Waseca bypass
v Highway 36 Stillwater Lift bridge
v Highway 19 in Redwood Falls
v Highway 610 between I-94 and 169
The State bonds for zoos, arenas and trails. Why not bond for something important?
ST. PAUL – As it did in 2007, the 2008 legislative session will most likely come down to a showdown over how to pay for road and bridge projects. Like last year, Minnesotans will again see proposals to raise any tax that has even the slightest connection to transportation funding such as an increase in the gas tax, new wheelage taxes, dedicated sales tax increases and higher license tab fees.
As was clearly demonstrated last year, Governor Pawlenty and Minnesotans had no appetite for tax increases. 2008 should be no different.
Minnesota State Legislators should look to a source of funding that is routinely misspent on government boondoggles and has gone largely untapped when it comes to long-term capital projects that are clearly of statewide significance: Minnesota needs to start using state G.O. bonds for road and bridge projects.
Why aren’t we already doing this? “It’s simple,” says Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota, “legislators want to pay cash for highway projects in order to use the credit card for local pork barrel projects. If bonding bills were primarily made up of necessary road and bridge projects, there would be little room left for the “pork” that legislators bring home to their districts to help with their re-election efforts.”
Because the legislature has a self-imposed guideline to limit state debt payments to 3% of the State’s general fund, the 2008 bonding bill should come in at a maximum of $965 million. Of that number, state legislators should allocate a major portion of the bonding bill to road and bridge projects.
Krinkie concluded: “If increased transportation spending is really as much of a priority for state legislators as they say it is, then sacrificing Faribault’s Paradise Center for the Arts, the Hyland K70 Ski Jump in Bloomington or the St. Louis County Equestrian Facility, just to name a few, shouldn’t be a problem.”
###
At the Taxpayers League's press conference on January 11th, a copies of a Minnesota Free Market Institute analysis were distributed that made the case as to why Government Obligation (G.O.) bonds should be used for road and bridge projects.
Also at the press conference Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie pointed to a number of road and bridge projects that should be included in future bonding bills and also projects that state legislators have historically used the bonding bill to fund.
Local Pork Projects
v Hyland K70 Ski Jump – Bloomington
v St. Paul RiverCentre Loan Repayment
v Duluth Zoo Polar Bear Exhibit
v Spicer Historic Military Plane Enclosure
v Target Center Bond Repayment
v State Fair Fish Habitat Display
v Anoka County Bike and Pedestrian Trail
v Rochester National Volleyball Center
v St. Louis County Equestrian Facility
v Austin Area Success Center
Roads and Bridges
v I-35 from Proctor to Duluth
v Highway 61 Hastings bridge
v Highway 71/197 in Bemidji
v Highway 52 Lafayette bridge
v Highway 52 Cannon Falls interchange
v I-35E Cayuga bridge over the Mississippi
v Highway 14 Waseca bypass
v Highway 36 Stillwater Lift bridge
v Highway 19 in Redwood Falls
v Highway 610 between I-94 and 169
Posted by MADDOG on Jan. 15 2008,2:46 pm
QUOTE
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 14, 2008
Contact: Phil Krinkie
(651) 294-3590 ext 202
Governor’s bonding proposal a good start
But doesn’t go far enough to fund state highways
ST. PAUL – Governor Pawlenty today released his 2008 capital investment proposal and with it came one step closer to slowing the annual crush of wasteful pork projects that state legislators use to buy their re-elections. The last two major bonding bills (in 2005 and 2006) topped out at nearly $1 billion with little money designated for transportation projects. This year, Governor Pawlenty is aiming to spend $255 million of his total billion dollar proposal to fund road and bridge projects – more than any other bonding bill in the history of Minnesota.
“This is certainly a good start for the 2008 capital investment bill,” said Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and former chairman of the House Capital Investment Committee. “We absolutely agree with the Governor’s proposal that the bonding bill should focus on road and bridge projects. However, it’s unfortunate that the Governor doesn’t suggest using Government Obligation (G.O.) bonds for state highway projects. But anything that sets out to trim the amount of fat that is usually spent on local pork projects is a welcomed start.”
At a Capitol press conference last Friday, Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie laid out a similarly-themed bonding proposal that would use G.O. bonds for Minnesota road and bridge projects.
Another disagreement that the Taxpayers League has with the Governor’s proposal is the suggestion that Trunk Highway Bonds be used to pay for repairs at various state facilities including the office building at 395 John Ireland Boulevard. “The public shouldn’t be told that there isn’t enough revenue for state road and bridge projects when over $50 million in gas tax dollars are going to build or repair state buildings. These projects should be funded with state general fund dollars.”
Krinkie concluded: “All state infrastructure projects should be judged based on their public benefit. Higher Education and Environmental projects should compete equally with state highway projects for funding.
< http://www.taxpayersleague.org/ >
January 14, 2008
Contact: Phil Krinkie
(651) 294-3590 ext 202
Governor’s bonding proposal a good start
But doesn’t go far enough to fund state highways
ST. PAUL – Governor Pawlenty today released his 2008 capital investment proposal and with it came one step closer to slowing the annual crush of wasteful pork projects that state legislators use to buy their re-elections. The last two major bonding bills (in 2005 and 2006) topped out at nearly $1 billion with little money designated for transportation projects. This year, Governor Pawlenty is aiming to spend $255 million of his total billion dollar proposal to fund road and bridge projects – more than any other bonding bill in the history of Minnesota.
“This is certainly a good start for the 2008 capital investment bill,” said Phil Krinkie, President of the Taxpayers League of Minnesota and former chairman of the House Capital Investment Committee. “We absolutely agree with the Governor’s proposal that the bonding bill should focus on road and bridge projects. However, it’s unfortunate that the Governor doesn’t suggest using Government Obligation (G.O.) bonds for state highway projects. But anything that sets out to trim the amount of fat that is usually spent on local pork projects is a welcomed start.”
At a Capitol press conference last Friday, Taxpayers League President Phil Krinkie laid out a similarly-themed bonding proposal that would use G.O. bonds for Minnesota road and bridge projects.
Another disagreement that the Taxpayers League has with the Governor’s proposal is the suggestion that Trunk Highway Bonds be used to pay for repairs at various state facilities including the office building at 395 John Ireland Boulevard. “The public shouldn’t be told that there isn’t enough revenue for state road and bridge projects when over $50 million in gas tax dollars are going to build or repair state buildings. These projects should be funded with state general fund dollars.”
Krinkie concluded: “All state infrastructure projects should be judged based on their public benefit. Higher Education and Environmental projects should compete equally with state highway projects for funding.
< http://www.taxpayersleague.org/ >
Posted by Common Citizen on Jan. 15 2008,5:51 pm
QUOTE
Another disagreement that the Taxpayers League has with the Governor’s proposal is the suggestion that Trunk Highway Bonds be used to pay for repairs at various state facilities including the office building at 395 John Ireland Boulevard. “The public shouldn’t be told that there isn’t enough revenue for state road and bridge projects when over $50 million in gas tax dollars are going to build or repair state buildings. These projects should be funded with state general fund dollars.”
Posted by Madd Max on Feb. 19 2008,2:12 pm
State hasn't invested enough in its roads, report saysDescribing a lack of money to maintain and fix Minnesota highways, the Legislative Auditor said today that the state has relied on borrowing millions of dollars to finance highway expansion projects "but has not invested adequately to maintain many existing highways."
By MIKE KASZUBA and PAT DOYLE , Star Tribune
Last update: February 19, 2008 - 12:37 PM
Describing a lack of money to maintain and fix Minnesota highways, the Legislative Auditor said today that the state has relied on borrowing millions of dollars to finance highway expansion projects "but has not invested adequately to maintain many existing highways."
The report is likely to lend support to calls this legislative session by DFLers to raise gasoline taxes to finance road and highway repairs.
Gov. Tim Pawlenty, who has threatened to veto the legislation, has instead used the state's bonding authority to borrow money to pay for the work. A $7.7 billion transportation spending proposal being pushed by DFLers is scheduled for House and Senate floor votes Thursday. Pawlenty and the DFLers, who control both the House and Senate, have battled over transportation spending in recent years, with the governor vetoing previous attempts to pass the first gas tax hikes since the 1980s.
Adjusted for inflation, revenues from Minnesota motor vehicle and fuel taxes have declined since 2003, and the state made substantial use of debt financing to support the state trunk highway system, the report said. While the Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT) has a policy of spending money first to preserve the existing highway system, in practice over half of trunk highway construction spending since 2002 has gone toward expanding the system while important preservation needs have not been met. Since 2002, the quality of state trunk highways has generally declined, the report said.
MnDOT commissioner Carol Molnau, in a letter accompanying the report, said the findings were "helpful" and "will contribute to enhanced discussions among all parties on how to cost-effectively preserve our critical transportation infrastructure." She said that federal highway officials had regularly found the state's bridge inspection program to be in compliance with federal standards.
Pawlenty's office did not respond immediately to the report. Although much attention has been focused on bridges in the aftermath of the collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge, the structural condition of bridges has generally improved, the report said. But it said the state lacks money to deal with both preserving and expanding its highway system. For preservation alone, the report said, MnDOT estimates it will need about $672 million a year between 2012 and 2018 - an amount equal to the forecasted revenues available for all trunk highway construction.
Much of the report focused on a decline in revenue for road, highway and bridge work over the years, which it attributed to motor vehicle and fuel taxes not keeping pace with inflation. It noted that those taxes accounted for about two-thirds of highway money in 1998, but dropped to about half of the revenue last year.
Staffing at MnDOT dropped from a peak of 5,649 in 2001, just before Pawlenty took office, to 4,555 in 2007 - a 19 percent decline.
The report comes six months after bridge's collapse on Aug. 1, the highest-profile tragedy in MnDOT's historythat left 13 dead and injured more than a hundred. MnDOT, Pawlenty and Molnau have been under intense criticism since the collapse, and some critics have attempted to link the governor's refusal to authorize new taxes for transportation spending to the tragedy.
Last month, the National Transportation Safety Board said that while the exact cause of the collapse was still under investigation it was focused on whether a series of steel plates -- known as gussets -- may have been improperly designed when the bridge was built in the 1960s. The NTSB, in a comment that drew criticism and later led federal investigators to soften their initial findings, said there was no evidence that MnDOT's maintenance of the bridge played a role in the tragedy.
Though the report was muted in its criticisms of MnDOT's bridge work, the legislative auditor said that the agency appeared to be completing high-priority bridge repairs but was falling behind on routine maintenance. In addition, the report said, MnDOT "does not adequately document its follow-up on inspectors' maintenance recommendations."
Posted by stitch0852 on Feb. 23 2008,9:04 pm
Seems to me I remember reading in some form of media (online or printed document) that there were several projects proposed this past year and they were trying to get the funding from the transportation fund, yet none of those projects were transportation related.I think the government show stop, take a deep breath, stop all funds from going out. Make a list, project vs where funding comes from. Any that come from the transportation funds should have a closer look. If it is not a transportation related project, funding stops from that rice bowl for the project.
I bet if they did this, there would be plenty of money to fund the roads.
Rising property values
Increased gas prices
Increased food prices
Higher cost of living overall
Higher taxes (let's not forget the referendum plus any more they will try to shove through in the future "for the children")
Higher interest if credit cards are used
Higher taxes for licensing and drivers licensing (if passed)
Why would those in government even consider taxpayers would be open to more taxes?
Posted by Wolfie on Feb. 24 2008,12:29 am
I remember when I received the memo about taxing labor in the mail from the dept of revenue, I called for clarification and this is how it was explained to me. If item A is broken and you repair it back to the specifications it had when it left the factory, ie factory original, then the labor was NOT taxable. But if item A is broken or not and you repair it or modify it so it is BETTER than factory original then the labor is taxable. After getting that clarification, which I saw as two names for the same shade of gray, I just started charging tax on all labor. Customers don't really care, its usually a few pennies, and its easier to collect more tax then needed then not enough.