Highway Funding, is it a Critical Issue?

You be the judge... Current funding for 2010 for Idaho's Roads:



$508 Million (2009 spending authorization for 2009 was $492 million)
$297 million in unspent money from the Connecting Idaho Fund
$191 million in Federal "stimulus" money
$82 million additional bonding authority for GARVEE
$36 million in GARVEE cost savings from 2009
$18 million in additional funding through the elimination of the ethanol gas exemption
$17 million in discretionary "stimulus" funding

$1.250 Billion available to Idaho road managers in 2010 (almost twice what it had in 2009) for road projects and preservation and maintenance.

The budget provided to the House for ITD has road project funding that was twice that of preservation and maintenance, a 2:1 ratio of building over preserving.

Every penny of increase fuel taxes gains ~$4.4 million to the Highway Distribution Account (HDA), so the recent 6 cent increase amended by the Senate on the House bill to eliminate the ethanol exemption would have added an additional $26.4 million. The House voted down this amendment for a multitude of reasons, but mostly because we are in an economy where adding tax burdens on our citizens was just not appropriate.

While it appears we are more than flush with funding for ITD for the current budget year under consideration, it just would not be prudent to increase taxes on citizens already being taxed at a rate of being the 13th highest in the nation per capita.

We are already putting our tax Dollars in the state's "bank", they just aren't going to the correct accounts.

The state and local road managers have in excess of $300 million more than last year to address the state's transportation needs as outlined by the governor. The "stimulus funds" can also be used for preservation and maintenance, yet none of those funds were dedicated to that effort... why? Idahoans will see a record number of highway projects undertaken this year and into the next to address road maintenance and preservation needs, bridge repair and replacement as well as interstate congestion. Anyone indicating that the House has "done nothing to improve the current conditions" is just dead wrong.

Do we have a funding crisis for Idaho roads for 2010? You be the judge... let me know your thoughts.


Cheers,
Marv

The Idaho Stimulus...

Margaret Thatcher once said, "The trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money"

We are trying to determine the current revenue rate of the state for 2010 to set our budget. As required by the Idaho Constitution, we are required to have a balanced budget at each year's end. Forecasted revenue for 2010 is down, way down and budget setting was to begin next week. That budget would be reflective of Idaho's economy and would become, as is the 2009 budget, the baseline for budgeting in 2011 and so on.

With the new stimulus package from Washington DC being set up for the Gov's office to request funds in the next 45 days, creates some issues. The Executive branch will have to understand what the 1100 page law now is and how to use those funds to meet the needs of Idaho, while not wrapping Idaho up with federal strings that typically come with "free money". But the Gov can not execute those funds unless they have been authorized by the Legislature (and in the stimulus bill, they kind of forgot to include that process).

We have put the normal budgeting process on hold to better understand just how the Legislative and Executive branches can most effectively and efficiently meld the funds into our process to move forward.

In my humble opinion, we need not knee jerk and do something silly before we truly understand the size of the tiger's tail we are about to grab. It makes sense to me to set our budget on what we know today and follow that up with a "stimulus supplemental" bill to keep the two separate. I don't think we will continue to get "socialist money" forever and need to ensure we are able to keep sight of what our true Idaho revenue and costs are to run our state.

One-time money rolled into our budget will cloud our process and our thinking.

Your thoughts?

$25 Child Support Fee Re-targeted...

This spring Idaho received a mandate from the Federal government that those that are using the Child Support Payment administration program within Health and Welfare needed to pay $25 for it's use. This money would be used back in Washington D.C. to reduce the Federal deficit (yes, that deficit that was caused by overspending of the folks back east).

Options for paying for this program were to charge the users; custodial parent, non-custodial parent or State general funds used to operate the Department of H&W. The department determined after consideration of all fees and taxes paid by everyone, that the custodial parent receiving child support payments should be required to pay the $25 annual fee.

As one would imagine, there was quite an outcry from those custodial parents about having to not only raise their children on child support payments, but also have to pay a $25 fee to boot. Many calls, letters and emails were sent to the Department as well as the Governor's office.

It appears that there has now been a reversal of this issue, the charges will now be borne by the non-custodial parent. I received the following letter from the Governor and the Dir. of H&W this week:

"You received a letter in September from the Department of Health and Welfare about Idaho's implementation of the federally mandated $25 annual child support fee to aid in reducing the federal deficit. The department decided at the time to charge the fee to custodial parents.

Health and Welfare began collecting fees on October 1, 2007. After implementing the federal mandate, the department and the Governor's Office received considerable feedback from the public and custodial parents. Upon further review, we feel it is in the best interest of children and the State to reverse the previous decision and collect the $25 fee from non-custodial parents.

The temporary proposed rule assessing the fee to custodial parents is being rescinded and vacated effective December 6, 2007, and will publish in the January 2, 2008, Administrative Bulletin. This rule will be presented for approval during the 2008 legislative session.

Health and Welfare stopped collecting the fee from custodial parents effective December 7, 2007. The department is coordinating refunds to all custodial parents who had already paid the fee. Although this proposed change in rule add an additional cost to non-custodial parents, the rule change helps ensure children received full child support.

We realize the negative impact the $25 fee has, regardless of who pays the fee imposed by congressional action; however, the department must comply with federal law. As Governor, I have written Health and Human Services Secretary Michael Leavitt expressing concern about the action taken to balance the budget on the backs of states and children receiving child support. We hope our decision to assess the fee to non-custodial parents will minimize the impact to Idaho children.

If you have question that this letter does not address, please don't hesitate to contact Russ Barron (barronr@dhw.idaho.gov) or Kandee Yearsley (yearslek@dhw.idaho.gov) by email or by telephone (208-334-5815). "

It frustrates me that any citizen of Idaho is being "charged" to pay for a deficit caused by overspending at the federal level in the first place. Idaho citizens should not approve of this happening at all and I will be interested to find out what kind of response Gov. Otter receives back from Secretary Leavitt. Putting this kind of burden on family members that are already in a stressful situation (either custodial or non-custodial) does not help them get themselves back on track to a normal life.

This type of governmental regulation is exactly what the Family Task Force looked for during our hearings this summer and we will be focused on abating. Any government regulation that puts further burden upon already stressed families is not appropriate and should be avoided if at all possible. In the long run, policies such as this not only cost families (in Dollars and increased stress) but puts further burden on the state tax payer as well.

Your thoughts?....

A Road Less Traveled....

As I was returning to my office this morning from the Urban Land Institute meeting in the Grove Hotel I noticed something. After a full morning of discussions regarding how we are going to fund more transportation infrastructure (i.e. raising this tax or that fee) I suddenly realised that I seemed to be going almost twice as fast going back to the office at 11:00 am than when I came to the meeting at 7:30 am...

We discussed local option sales tax increases of up to 1 cent, increasing registrations, increasing fuel taxes, increasing property taxes... the "increasing" discussions seemed to be never ending. Everyone seemed to have a plan to fix our woes with some sort of increased taxes. We know that we have issues that need to be funded, but it was not until Gov. Otter's Chief of Staff (Jeff Malman) got up and mentioned that we are now also working on how we can better spend the dollars we do have... I know it's easier to just raise a tax here or there and throw money at the issue, but if we are not spending the money we have wisely, aren't we putting a band aid on the real problems?

Getting back to my drive back to the office... why was it that I had a much easier commute back to Meridian later in the day than I had to Boise in the Morning? Well anyone and everyone knows it's because we all need to get to work in the morning and then come home at night at about the same time.

This lead me to think that we might also have "social engineering" issue that compounds our infrastructure issue. Why do we all (repeat... ALL) need to use our roads at the same time? Typically it's due to local business desires to have their folks change shift or start their work day all about the same time.

We do have infrastructure issues that need funding and we are going to have to find those dollars somehwere. Within the mix of "increased tax solutions" that are on the table, shouldn't we consider some "social engineering solutions" as well? Just how much would it cost the state to provide incentives to business encouraging/requiring "flex" hours or a change their shift schedules to times outside of the standard morning and evening commutes? Can we compare this cost of influencing our social behavior to the millions we are talking about spending for (in the Treasure Valley) 4 to 5 hour period each day that our roads are jammed with traffic... ?

As an example, how many people at Micron alone are beside us in traffic the mornings trying to get to work? What if a company the size of Micron were to move their shift change from 7:00 am to 7:00 pm to say... 9:00 am to 9:00 pm? And what if they were to encourage their normal "8 - 5'rs" into a more flexible schedule? That single action alone could take thousands of cars out of the early morning and evening commutes and spread the higher utilization of the roadways over a larger period of time. Less time commuting means less impact on our air quality, better fuel economy and happier drivers.

Employers aren't going to resolve our lack of funding issues, but do play a major role in why we have traffic issues at certain times of every day. I hate to see us pay for and build a huge infrastructure that will only be flexed 4 to 5 hours of every day because we choose to be inflexable in our travel requirements.

We need to put some "social engineering" options on that table to resolve our transportation issues... it's going to take a package of things, this needs to be one that's considered.

Thoughts?