urbanSTL

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ you are right the sky isn't failing, it never does but with no additional state funds to match our cut of federal funds in a given year we will send about $800m to DC via the federal gas tax we pay here and get $0 back (also 15.5% of the federal gas tax goes to transit)

So wait. First, thanks for the info. I never claimed to know about every aspect of this.

So, this is completely ***** ***** from top to bottom then? There's nothing about that deal that makes any sense or am I crazy? Let me get this straight. Missouri takes in taxes on gasoline and ultimately sends the money to the Federal Government who in turn redistributes the money but only to states who can come up with more money (on top of the originally collected gas tax money) and states who don't are just out of luck? So, like, Montana could end up with all the gas tax money collected in Missouri, theoretically? That setup is similar to the mafia isn't it? Extortion?

I'm confused and you can bet 90% of the voters aren't going to have an clear understanding of this. What a disaster.

How is it that we got ourselves into a postion to not have the funds needed to get the Fed money in the first place? We blew it then had to scramble and raise taxes? Eh, nevermind.....

yes it is very confusing. Basically for each gallon of gas you buy; there is 35 cents of tax

17 cents stays here, 12 goes to MoDOT. 3 to the county you bought it in, 2 to the city. (City of stl gets all 5)

18 goes to DC, of that 2.2 goes to the transit account and the rest into the highway trust find. Each state is allocated certain amount based on a formula. Allocation for our state is normally about $1billion, about $150-200 goes to EWG where cities and counties compete for it and the rest, about $800 million is for MoDOT to match 80/20 ...basically MoDOT builds a bridge, pays for it and submits a request for 80% of the
cost.

How we got here? MoDOT gets about $1billion a year in state rev but before it can match federal funds it has to give $250m
To highway patrol, $300m for debt service, $450m system management ( salaries and benefits for 5,100 employees, use to be 6500 in 2010) and about $70m a year for IT, fleet and keeping the lights on at all the buildings
Basically at this point and for the next 2-3 years the only reason MoDOT can match fed funds is from built up credits from
When they bonded a lot from 2001-2010 and paid a lot with state funds up front.

I think we came out ahead, at least in 2013, in receiving federal funds. With 4 billion gallons of fuel taxed that's somewhere between $736M and 976M in federal fuel taxes paid. I give a range because the fed gas tax is 18.4 cents and the diesel tax is 24.4 cents. Anyone know the ratio of gas/diesel in MO? We got $1017M. I wonder how that looks over the recent past.



An interesting chart from Pew. This is nationwide.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-an ... astructure

look at the financial sections of past STIPs and going forward, the current stip has projections to 2019
http://www.modot.org/plansandprojects/

I've literally spent all my reading time in the last 3-4 months reading the stip and other highway financing docs just to get a handle on this.

My current doc is a thick book on state contribution to transit by state. I'll report back in a few weeks

quincunx wrote: An interesting chart from Pew. This is nationwide.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-an ... astructure

That is very interesting, coupled with that MoDOT 2013 rev chart...seems like here 99.9% of state rev is from user fees (gas tax, car sales tax and license fees) and that doesn't seem to be the norm around the country...


http://t4america.org/maps-tools/state-plans-tracker/
That shows how other states are raising funds for transportation. Maryland below


This would raise $4.4 billion over six years, which includes borrowing ability against future revenues. It would:

Index the gas tax to inflation starting immediately (with a ceiling of no more than 8% in any given year.)
Add a 3 percent sales tax at the pump, phased in over a period of three years starting summer 2013.
Requires indexing transit fares charged by the MTA to inflation via the consumer price index.
The sales tax on gasoline will increase to 4% if the congressional ban on internet sales tax is lifted, otherwise, the tax goes up 5% if Congress does not lift the ban
Modes aren’t defined, but it does fund the unified state transportation trust fund which funds ALL modes.

See page 60 of the city's budget for what it gets from the fuel tax, $8M. Interesting bit about how it's down because the city's population is down. Of course they didn't take the streets with them; we just built more elsewhere!

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... o-S-82.pdf

quincunx wrote:See page 60 of the city's budget for what it gets from the fuel tax, $8M. Interesting bit about how it's down because the city's population is down. Of course they didn't take the streets with them; we just built more elsewhere!

https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/d ... o-S-82.pdf

Cities pot is distrbuited by population only I think, for the counties pot it's a bit different
http://www.mocounties.com/images/1254/d ... cr_649.pdf

roger wyoming II wrote:It took awhile for Trailnet to publicly weigh in on Amendment 7 (I believe largely due to transitional leadership issues), but they've finally come out in opposition:
http://www.votenoamendment7.com/why-vot ... dium=email

They make a good point, that I hadn't though of. CIDs and TDDs, which typically add a 1% sales tax can be valuable tools for development (IKEA) and neighborhoods (Downtown, the Grove, South Grand, etc.). They are approved locally and in most cases with the direct approval of the impacted businesses.

We tend to think about the retail in place with sales taxes to be pushed close to or above 12 percent, in some cases. But what about the potential developments or new commercial districts? Instead of adding 1% above the existing tax for the desired improvements, now they are looking at 1.75%. What is the willingness of Downtown businesses to renew their CID? South Grand? Or, starting a new one for the next up and coming commercial district?

I would argue that these local or neighborhood approved discretionary sales tax increase do more for livability than the proposed transportation tax.

Another pro tax ad this one focusing on safety. Encouraging driving further, faster, and more often is the opposite of safety IMHO.

The League of Women Voters has come out against amendment 7.

http://lwvmo.files.wordpress.com/2014/0 ... 1-2014.pdf

If this sales tax amendment does pass, I suspect that the mix of projects actually constructed will be even more heavily weighted towards highway projects than the "project list" indicates. The "highway mafia" is very adept at delivering projects. Much more so than those responsible for delivering bicycle, pedestrian, or transit projects. It's one thing to put a project on a list. It is an entirely different matter to define the project, clear environmental and regulatory hurdles, develop detailed construction plans, and then finally build a project.

In 1997/1998 when the Missouri state motor fuel tax rose to its current level of 17 cents per gallon, the price of gas at the pump was only about a dollar a gallon. Missouri should raise the gas tax, not the sales tax, to provide more money for its roads and bridges.

^ every project on that list will start construction by year 10 of the tax, the actual goal is to have all projects complete by end of year 10. I know that MoDOT has worked with GRG and other none highway project sponsors to develop a schedule and to see when they can deliver

But I do agree that some of these other agencies are not as proficient as MoDOT when it comes to getting projects done on time.

^ I think you have to put a disclaimer on your comment. The Federal Highway trust fund dollars is distributed differently for highways than the dollars that are put into the transit fund if not mistaken.

In other words, MoDOT will know roughly how much federal highway matching dollars it will have available each year by the established given formula and therefore can plan on getting stated highway projects done if it generates the required state match. Obviously, this tax if passed does that. However, matching funds for any stated transit projects on the sales tax list, say the St Louis streetcar, is competing with projects on a national basis for federal matching dollars not to mention any local matching dollars that might be needed or not.

^ correct.

Anti-seven op-eds in the Kansas City Star and on StreetsBlog USA:

John Lamping: Missouri road tax proposal is a cynical grab by special interests

http://www.kansascity.com/opinion/reade ... 28719.html

Will Missouri Voters Go Along With the Highway Lobby’s Money Grab?

http://usa.streetsblog.org/2014/07/30/w ... oney-grab/

dbInSouthCity wrote:^ every project on that list will start construction by year 10 of the tax, the actual goal is to have all projects complete by end of year 10. I know that MoDOT has worked with GRG and other none highway project sponsors to develop a schedule and to see when they can deliver

But I do agree that some of these other agencies are not as proficient as MoDOT when it comes to getting projects done on time.

Not all of the projects on the list will be built because there will not be sufficient funds (from the tax increase and other revenue sources that are currently anticipated) to build them all. Each project will have to be "developed/scoped/more precisely defined". That development process will "discover" complications for each project that will need to be addressed in order to bring the project to construction....problems with soils, permits, needs for little slivers of right of way, hydrology, environmental mediation, utilities etc... that were not known at the point in time when they were placed on "the list". The exact story for every project will be different. But, each project will cost more than currently anticipated. On average, a lot more. And, that is on top of construction inflation which probably was accounted for when "the list" was developed.

Another important fiscal detail. I don't think this has change since I retired from the business... Federal highway funds remain available for the fiscal year they were allocated and for three fiscal years thereafter. Redistribution of funds to other states doesn't happen until that third year.

^ i disagree with that part, there has been a 15% inflation factor applied to ALL projects on the list. Of course for projects in the early years its overkill. Also there is no growth projected in the revenue If there is a yearly 2% growth, that's $500million extra over the 10 years, so the projects on the list will get done.
As for a discovering the unforeseen, that happens all the time...each project is scoped with contingencies

The trucking and road construction special interests have gone too far in lines 77-85 of the amendment by forbidding a gas tax increase, toll highways and toll bridges for ten years in the State of Missouri. I was on the fence, however this overreach alone inspires me to vote no: http://www.sos.mo.gov/elections/2014ballot/HJR68.pdf

Also, the primary impetus is to repair roads and bridges. Shouldn't this be funded primarily by those that most damage them -- the trucking industry? The argument that a gas tax will likely deflate over time is valid and thus a better tact would be to charge trucking companies by mileage on Missouri roads. This can easily be calculated via GPS-outfitted semi-trucks and reported by trucking companies to the government.

Once again, this is an example of monied special interests shirking fiscal responsibility and punishing the common Missourian.

innov8ion wrote: thus a better tact would be to charge trucking companies by mileage on Missouri roads. This can easily be calculated via GPS-outfitted semi-trucks and reported by trucking companies to the government.

thats already done via the IFTA- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... _Agreement

dbInSouthCity wrote:

innov8ion wrote: thus a better tact would be to charge trucking companies by mileage on Missouri roads. This can easily be calculated via GPS-outfitted semi-trucks and reported by trucking companies to the government.

thats already done via the IFTA- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internatio ... _Agreement

^ Great find. However, I question whether appreciable revenue is raised and if it’s equitable in contrast to the damage done to our roads and bridges. If not, shouldn't it be raised?

^ thats a bit tricky and i would guess its probably not enough to 100% cover the damage...I dont know if anyone keeps track how much that itself raises, i think it just goes into one big fuel tax account...but ill make some calls to modot motor carrier and see what they know.