Recommendations on how to get highway user revenues back to county and municipal governments – and how much money is really needed – dominated discussion as the Blue Ribbon Commission on Maryland Transportation Funding worked toward finalizing recommendations for the governor and General Assembly.
Commission Chairman Gus Bauman said that the final report will be a sort of “second chapter” to the recommendations it sent in February. Meeting in Frederick Tuesday, members looked over some drafts of policy suggestions gleaned from previous discussions and written up by commission staff.
But problems arose from the very beginning. The first recommendation on the draft was that the General Assembly pass legislation that would allow local jurisdictions to create their own taxes to use for road construction.
“It seems to me if we are doing this, we’re waving the white flag,” said member Lon Anderson, director of government and public relations for AAA Mid-Atlantic. “The state is never going to come up with enough money, so we’re letting the municipalities go.”
Judith Davis, the mayor of Greenbelt representing the Maryland Municipal League on the commission, said that while local governments are desperate for more funds, the state should meet its obligations. Local governments received millions of dollars from the state to use on road projects in less critical budget times, but those funds have lately been taken to meet other government needs.
Bauman said that the recommendation was not intended as a method to give up on state funding, but as a way to give local governments more flexibility. However, he said, it is clear that the commission does not exist to make recommendations to local governments. He recommended deleting the recommendation.
“We’re going down a path that could undercut our core mission,” he said. “This raises more complications than necessary.”
Regardless of whether creating local funding mechanisms are included in the commission’s recommendations, members started talking about how much money might be needed in order to meet the state’s transportation needs and return funding to local governments. The commission initially recommended the state raise $800 million in new transportation funds through new revenues and bonds. Factoring in legislative changes made during the General Assembly session, that recommendation goes down to $520 million.
Several commission members didn’t think $520 million in new revenues would be enough to give some money to local jurisdictions for projects. Figures were not formally discussed on Tuesday, but some members recommended that the commission increase the new revenue target to $870 million.
“That’s possible, but is it probable?” asked Del. Tawanna Gaines, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with transportation.
Commission members left the finances of the recommendation – and whether it should be conservative or extremely optimistic – for a later meeting. Other items discussed by the commission include:
- Requiring an extremely quick timetable for the legislature to approve any public-private partnership for transportation. The draft recommendation at the end of Tuesday would be that all review and approval take no more than 10 days.
- Ending subsidies for transit ridership that come out of the transportation trust fund. Currently, subsidies – mostly for people involved in social services programs – come out of money that would otherwise go to the trust fund for transportation. Commission members agreed that subsidies are valuable, but should be paid for by the agencies that sponsor them.
- Doing assessments to determine if transportation loans for local governments are a good idea.
By Megan Poinski
[email protected]
MBTroup says
From the story: “Several commission members didn’t think $520 million in new revenues would be enough to give some money to local jurisdictions for projects. Figures were not formally discussed on Tuesday, but some members recommended that the commission increase the new revenue target to $870 million.
“That’s possible, but is it probable?” asked Del. Tawanna Gaines, who chairs the Appropriations subcommittee dealing with transportation.”
Ah, now the General Assembly wants to employ Michael Scott Paper Company accounting principles. The problem apparently isn’t that funds for Peter were used to pay Paul. The problem is that there aren’t new revenue sources (sarcasm). let’s not beat around the bush, this discussion is about how hight to raise the gasoline tax.
Oh and I though Delegate Gaines’ name looked familiar. She of “how do you pay back a grant” fame.
https://rockville.patch.com/articles/state-lawmakers-ok-local-road-money-infusion-4
So taxes that are ostensibly collected for road funds became grants when the State wanted the money, but now they’re taxes again when we want to use said taxes for their inherent purpose. I think she would actually win at 3 card monte.
Geobart says
Kind of reminds me of a hybrid between “Name that Tune” (or “What Do We Call It Now?” and the classic “shell game”.
Born and Raised Here says
How about the State repay the Highway Fund the countless millions it borrowed, stole, raped, pillaged, etc to balance the budget from all of the years past. How about Highway Tax Funds used only for transportation projects that benefit everyone, not the very few. How about fixing the real problem of dumb politicians spending our money like theres no tommorrow. How about we start treating this government like the child it is, “when you learn to take care of what you have, then maybe we will give you more, but NOT untill!”. The problem this country and state have is called “Stupid” and I hate to tell you this, but it can’t be fixed!