A looming $3 billion hole in the state budget could mean that temporary tax increases put in place last year won’t be so temporary after all.

State legislators haven’t said yet whether they will extend the taxes as they try to balance a budget without the benefit of federal stimulus money that is set to run out next year. But it’s a political strategy that has worked in the past. How to balance the budget — with spending cuts, taxes or both — is sure to be a major issue in the coming election season.

The current budget, which takes the state through June 30 of next year, relies on roughly $1.6 billion in one-time stimulus money, plus another $1 billion or so from temporary taxes put in place in 2009 and set to expire next year.

Simply re-upping those increases — an extra penny-on-the-dollar in sales taxes and 2-to-3 percent income-tax surcharges on people making more than $100,000 a year — would make it a lot easier for legislators and the governor to balance next year’s budget.

“That’s one way of doing it,” said state Rep. Henry Michaux, the Durham Democrat who is the chairman of the House’s budget-writing Appropriations Committee.

But Michaux said the idea hasn’t been discussed, and he doesn’t “think it’s even on anybody’s radar at this point.” Asked about the possibility this week, Gov. Bev Perdue didn’t answer “yes” or “no,” but spoke instead of a general plan to make cuts, “re-create what government is about” and “shed things that are antiquated.”

But cuts on this level would be difficult, particularly with Democrats and Republicans alike eager to protect education funding, which makes up about 60 percent of the state’s general fund. Altogether, the expiring stimulus money, temporary tax revenues and other one-time changes add up to more than $3 billion, or roughly 14 percent of this year’s budget.

Holding on to temporary tax increases has been a way out for legislators faced with an economic slump in recent years. In 2001, the General Assembly bumped the state sales tax up half a penny, an increase that was supposed to be rolled back two years later. But that increase stayed on the books until 2006, when it was cut in half.

The fourth-of-a penny increase that remained is still in place.

State Sen. Peter Brunstetter, R-Forsyth, said he thinks that “privately a number of (leading Democrats) have already conceded that that’s what their intention is” this time. But every seat in the General Assembly is up for re-election this November, and Democrats may not retain the healthy majorities they’ve built in both the House and Senate.

Calls for cuts and a hard-line on tax increases will be part of the GOP mantra this election season. Republican legislators called for the state to overhaul its budget and prepare for next year repeatedly during the last legislative session, which ended in July.

But big-dollar specifics were hard to come by. Even the conservative John Locke Foundation, which published its “obligatory list of bad and pointless spending” in North Carolina last month, recommended only about $130 million in cuts to the state budget. It targeted food banks, a dropout prevention program, several economic development programs and various energy-research programs for cuts.

Whether those are good cuts or not “just kind of depends what you think government’s core function is,” Brunstetter said.

The state’s budget picture won’t really begin to coalesce until early next year, when Perdue rolls out her budget recommendations and the General Assembly returns to work in Raleigh. But next month will be key, as the state’s official economists are expected to release a report on revenue collections.

If those numbers, or future ones, don’t show a significant uptick in tax collections, “you really are going to be in sort of a bind,” Michaux said.

Some parts of the budgeting process are already under way. Perdue said she told her cabinet this week to “begin to figure out what it is that they can get rid of.” She reiterated a desire to privatize many of the state’s technology functions, and some parts of the prison system, in an effort to save money.

Michaux said he sees “what appear to be duplicative programs” the state could cut, particularly in the education, health and human services and economic development departments.

“We may be able to shrink that budget by another billion,” Michaux said. “After that, it gets dicey.”

By Travis Fain

SPECIAL TO THE JOURNAL

Published: August 23, 2010

RALEIGH

Facing a long list of pricey transportation projects, the Seattle City Council may create a new citywide transportation taxing district that could lead to higher property and sales taxes, higher car-tab fees and someday maybe even local toll roads.

The new taxing district, which would follow city boundary lines, could generate millions of dollars in new taxing authority.

Creating the district wouldn’t require public approval, but raising sales and property taxes would.

Once a transportation district is in place, the council could raise car-tab fees by up to $20 without a public vote to fund bike and pedestrian improvements and to pay for road maintenance.

The council already is considering raising existing parking taxes to design and pay for major projects like the sea-wall replacement.

“I’d like to look at all of the options and see what the implications are,” said Councilmember Tom Rasmussen, Transportation Committee chairman.

As for tolling city streets, Rasmussen said, there are no specific proposals. He acknowledged the subject would be “very, very controversial.”

The Legislature passed a law in 2008 allowing cities to set up “transportation benefit districts.”

Edmonds, Des Moines, Lake Forest Park, Olympia and Shoreline are among the cities that already have done so.

“What I hear from people in the community … is that everyone wants more sidewalks, more crosswalks, greater safety. And people also say the public will pay for it,” Rasmussen said.

“We’re in the middle of a deep recession, and I don’t know whether the voters would be willing to tax themselves … That’s why we want to have a review,” he said.

The proposed Seattle taxing district would be governed by the City Council and overseen by an advisory committee.

The tax proposals are a variation on taxes Mayor Mike McGinn proposed in July.

The mayor wanted to raise car-tab fees by $20 and increase the parking tax from 10 percent to 15 to 20 percent.

The council’s proposal would raise the parking tax to 12.5 percent.

Tuesday, the mayor was supportive of using a new district to raise taxes.

“The broad outline of what Rasmussen is talking about — there’s alignment here,” said McGinn. “What I hear in the community is that it’s a governmental basic: We should take care of our streets and bridges.

“It’s the big projects that gather a lot of attention, … but we have to make sure we are taking care of the basics. That’s what this is about,” McGinn said.

Seattle has several big, unfunded transportation expenses coming up. This year alone, the city’s Department of Transportation is facing an $8 million shortfall.

The city also needs to come up with $235 million to replace the city’s crumbling downtown sea wall; $57 million for its portion of the Mercer Street West construction project; and $122 million for waterfront improvements related to the Alaskan Way Viaduct replacement.

Plus, the city promised King County this summer it would contribute $15 million toward a new South Park Bridge, and it has big gaps in funding its pedestrian and bicycle master plans.

Rasmussen’s proposal also would postpone for at least a year a public vote on a property-tax increase to pay for the sea wall.

McGinn proposed in January asking voters to pay more property taxes to jump-start sea-wall replacement.

The council says it can use parking-tax revenue for design work on the sea wall, delaying the ballot measure.

Seattle’s new tax proposals come four years after voters approved a $365 million, nine-year “Bridging the Gap” property-tax levy for street maintenance, sidewalks, traffic signals and trails.

Emily Heffter: 206-464-8246 or eheffter@seattletimes.com
By Emily Heffter

Seattle Times staff reporter

DOT secretary says there may not be “the courage” in Congress to take on issue

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood came under fire Tuesday from House lawmakers over infrastructure financing, taking heat from those for and against raising taxes to pay for highway and transit projects.

LaHood restated the Obama administration’s opposition to raising federal fuel taxes, and defended his remarks from last week that various other “outside the box” financing ideas could help cover surface transportation needs without a tax hike.

The secretary told a highway builders conference July 23 that “raising the gas tax is not an option.” But senior members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee challenged him on the issue, including ranking Republican Rep. John Mica, who seemed to believe he had turned LaHood against a tax increase at the hearing.

The Florida Republican told LaHood the November election would bring “a conservative wave” that would leave Congress less willing to raise federal fuel taxes.

Although LaHood and other officials have repeatedly said the president and the DOT do not favor raising the gas tax while the economy is weak, Mica asked LaHood if he was “going to continue advocating a gas tax increase” to fund transportation needs.

LaHood said over his 18 months as DOT secretary “I’ve never advocated a gas tax. The president is opposed to raising the gas tax . . . We have almost 10 percent unemployment in America. People can little afford to buy a gallon of gasoline, let alone if we were to raise the tax on it. So I do not advocate, the administration does not advocate, raising the gas tax.”

Mica told LaHood, “I’m glad to hear you join me in declaring it dead.” Mica also said he favors a much larger discretionary infrastructure fund than the $4 billion a year the administration is seeking, and said he would want such a fund to be about 10 times that size.

But Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who chairs the highways and transit subcommittee, chided LaHood for suggesting the nation’s transportation needs could be met by a combination of current-level Highway Trust Fund taxes, the proposed discretionary spending fund, road or bridge tolls and greater use of partnerships that combine public money with private investments.

“Are we going to toll 150,000 bridges so we can rebuild them or bring them up to snuff?” DeFazio asked, citing the number of those identified as needing repair. “Are we going to toll the entire federal interstate (highway) system?”

LaHood said the administration favors infrastructure investment and agrees with T&I Committee Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., “on the lion’s share” of what Oberstar proposed in a $450 billion surface transportation reauthorization bill.

“The only thing we need, the only thing, is about $450 billion,” LaHood said. “You know as well as I do, the Highway Trust Fund is deficient. So I don’t know if the courage is around here to do something about that. So the reason I talk about tolling, public-private partnerships, the infrastructure fund, is that we need to think outside the box about how we’re going to do all the things that the president wants to do, that Ray LaHood wants to do, that you all want to do.”

He said “we love doing transportation projects at DOT . . . We need to work together to find the resources to get a bill (through Congress) and to get the job done.”

Contact John Boyd at jboyd@joc.com.

John D. Boyd | Jul 27, 2010 9:21PM GMT
The Journal of Commerce Online – News Story

Ten counties have already decided to put local-option sales taxes on the November ballot, including Orange, Harnett and Robeson. Durham County commissioners were expected to vote Monday night on whether to add their county to the list.

Durham County officials said the county could raise nearly $8 million a year with a quarter-cent increase in the sales tax.

“I think the counties have gone through this budget theme for a couple of years now, and the citizens are starting to see the impacts hitting them personally,” said Todd McGee, spokesman for the North Carolina Association of County Commissioners. “They’re seeing their libraries being closed earlier. They’re seeing parks being closed. They’re seeing other services being cut, and the citizens are starting to feel it.”

In 2007, state lawmakers gave cash-strapped counties the option of asking voters if they would agree to a land-transfer tax or a higher sales tax to help deal with growth issues like building new schools and roads and extending water and sewer lines.

The land-transfer tax has been defeated every time it’s been put on the ballot, and the quarter-cent sales tax idea has failed 44 times, including twice in Harnett County and once each in Cumberland and Robeson counties.

Still, voters have approved a local-option sales tax 16 times, including eight of 10 referenda since last November. Cumberland County voters even changed their minds and approved a sales tax increase in a second vote. Lee and Duplin counties also have approved the added sales tax.

Reporter: Cullen Browder
Web Editor: Matthew Burns
Posted: 6:12 p.m. yesterday

ATLANTA, Ga. — The Georgia Department of Transportation is busy trying to implement the framework of a regional sales tax proposal that would fund transportation projects in 12 different regions statewide.

Approved by the Georgia General Assembly and signed into law by Gov. Sonny Perdue, HB 277 completely overhauls the way GDOT funds local transportation projects, Senior Planner Todd Long said.

The regions comprise the same areas as the existing Regional Development Commissions. Southwest Georgia’s region consists of Baker, Calhoun, Colquitt, Decatur, Dougherty, Early, Grady, Lee, Miller, Mitchell, Seminole, Terrell, Thomas and Worth counties.

According to Long, HB 277 would allow for those counties to levy a one-percent sales tax for 10 years that would fund transportation projects and programs specifically within the region, meaning the money raised in the district stays in the district.

Voters in the majority of the counties within the region will have to approve an August 21, 2012 referendum for it to pass, although individual counties will not be allowed to opt out of the funding.

Long said that the reason for the change in the way GDOT funds projects comes as the push for more fuel efficient vehicles has grown, which reduces the amount of revenues GDOT has been able to generate through the motor fuel surcharge.

“We’re getting to the point where its becoming not feasible to keep up with the maintenance and growth of infrastructure demands using just the motor fuel tax,” Long said.

A new funding mechanism for road and transportation projects is a double-edged sword for local governments that have watched as funding for GDOT’s Local Assistance Road Program, or LARP — the program that helps local government fund vital infrastructure improvements — has been steadily reduced, but who are also hesitant for change.

LARP will be replaced when HB 277 is implemented.

“There are definitely concerns,” Early County Commission Chairman Richard Ward said. “But compared to going year to year with LARP and watching it dwindle to a pittance, I’d be proud to get something down here to use, even if it doesn’t come directly into Early County, so long as it comes to the region.”

“Frankly, we’re tired of watching money flow into Atlanta and getting only unfunded mandates in return,” he said.

One of Ward’s biggest concerns, is one that GDOT is still grappling with — the extent of the Georgia Department of Revenue’s involvement in the whole process.

While Long has said money will have to sent to the Department of Revenue in Atlanta and then be divided back to the counties like current sales taxes are, its unclear whether GDOT would be willing to consider allowing the counties themselves to collect the sales taxes and remit them to Atlanta.

“I have some real issues with the Department of Revenue,” Ward said. “There is no transparency for the money that is being collected and returned now. How are we going to ensure that everyone is treated fairly?”

In Dougherty County, some officials share the same concern, citing an example last year when the DOR both released and withheld sales tax revenues for what they said were mistakes — one involving a manufacturer who apparently mistakenly paid sales taxes on exempt items for years and the other involving an unknown collection of sales taxes that ultimately was dispersed evenly to all counties who were participating in special local option sales tax programs.

The Georgia Open Records Act — the law that supposedly promotes open and transparent government to the public — specifically exempts the Georgia Department of Revenue.

As for the details of the initiative, Long provided The Herald a copy of a powerpoint presentation he’s been making around the state which explains much of the program.

Each region will have a roundtable which will consist of the county commission chairs and one municipal representative, meaning that each county would have two representatives on the roundtable.
These roundtables will ultimately set the projects that are to be funded using the sales taxes but the projects will come from a list developed or approved by the state.

Just like a SPLOST referendum, funding can only be granted to projects approved by the voters such as engineering, property acquisition, construction, maintenance, etc.

A portion of the funding, which is roughly estimated to be between $40 to $50 million per year in the Southwest Georgia Region, will be designated for discretionary use by local governments within the region. Based on the former LARP formula, that discretionary amount will be 25 percent in the SWGA Region.

At the end of the 10-year period, the tax can be reinstated or renewed with another project list through a vote of the majority of the counties in the region and special act of the Georgia General Assembly.

The Georgia State Financing and Investment Commission will serve as the trustee for each district’s funds, while GDOT will manage the budget, schedule, execution and delivery of all projects in the state.

A project’s status and whether it is over or under budget will be published and maintained by the Commissioner of the DOR on a website.

The bill also calls for the creation of several new transit-related government entities.

These include the Local Maintenance and Improvement Grant Program which combines former state-aid and LARP programs to help fund local projects; a Transit Governance Study Commission to prepare a report on the feasibility of linking regional public transit; and the Georgia Coordinating Committee for Rural and Human Services Transportation which will be part of the Governor’s Development Council and will examine how transportation services are provided throughout the state and make recommendation to the Office of Planning and Budget.

Posted: 12:00 AM Jul 25, 2010 July 25, 2010
Reporter: J.D. Sumner, government writer
Email Address: j.d.sumner@albanyherald.com

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood said a combination of current-level gas tax receipts, road and bridge tolling and President Obama’s proposed infrastructure fund could offer a way to fund a long-term federal infrastructure program without new taxes.

Appearing before a heavily attended conference in Washington, D.C., of the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, LaHood vowed “raising the gas tax is not an option” to increase money available for federal transport spending.

LaHood said the Highway Trust Fund’s income stream is “insufficient” to meet all the needs, and said “tolling can raise a lot of money” to augment it. The Obama administration has also asked Congress for a new $4 billion ongoing infrastructure fund that DOT would administer much like discretionary stimulus program grants, and LaHood said more use of creative public-private partnerships could help as well.

Adding up all such efforts, he said, raises the possibility of “a path forward without raising taxes.”

LaHood’s statement rejecting a fuel tax hike was the latest reiteration of the administration’s standing policy — to oppose raising federal gasoline and diesel fuel taxes while the economy is still recovering from recession and unemployment remains high.

But his July 23 comment also comes as the Department of Transportation prepares to issue guiding “principles” for how Congress develops its next multi-year surface transportation plan. Federal programs are due to expire at the end of this year unless lawmakers extend them again or pass a broad reauthorization that reshapes policy.

Many ARTBA members want the administration to back away from its fuel tax stance, and after his speech some were grumbling that a gas tax hike remains the simplest and least costly way to beef up transport infrastructure funding.

One ARTBA participant noted that LaHood early last year floated the idea of raising funds through a new tax on vehicle miles traveled, a concept that was soon rejected by the White House. Asked if a VMT plan could come back, LaHood quickly said, “No.”

Another participant asked him if a tax that helps transport programs could emerge from climate or energy legislation, but LaHood deflected the question by saying that is someone else’s portfolio. One bill offered by Sens. John Kerry, D-Mass., and Joseph Lieberman, I-Conn., would have directed billions of dollars into the Highway Trust Fund from sale of carbon emission allowances, but that legislation has failed to gain broad support.

– Contact John D. Boyd at jboyd@joc.com.

John D. Boyd | Jul 23, 2010 4:01PM GMT

A Game Changing Event
The latest listening session took place amid growing speculation by political analysts that the Democrats may lose control of the U.S. House of Representatives in November. This speculation has been reinforced by White House press secretary Robert Gibbs who commented on last Sunday’s “Meet the Press” and again at his regular press briefing the following day, that “there are enough seats in play that could cause Republicans to gain control.” Gibb’s conclusion was not inaccurate, given that about 60 Democratic seats are in jeopardy and Republicans need a net gain of only 39 to re-take the House. But, as Washington Post political observer Dana Milbank pointed out, when the president’s chief spokesman announces that his party is in trouble, it could become a self-fulfilling prophesy.

A Republican takeover of the House would add to the already significant political uncertainties surrounding the future of the multi-year surface transportation legislation. A Republican victory would mean almost certain congressional opposition to raising the gas tax in the next Congress. According to Grover Norquist, head of Americans for Tax Reform, a total of 173 members of the U.S. House and 412 candidates for House seats as well as 33 sitting senators and 70 candidates for the Senate have signed the so-called Taxpayer Protection Pledge. The Pledge commits them to oppose and vote against any and all tax hikes if elected or re-elected, and to focus on spending restraint rather than increasing taxes to pay for new spending. Unlike other similar promises this one is in writing, with a signature and two witnesses.

A Republican victory in the House would also mean an organizational realignment in the House congressional committees. The coveted chairmanship of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee would pass to Rep. John Mica (R-FL) who has already gone on record as saying that “the gas tax is dead” (see our NewsBrief of June 3, “Some Frank and Unscripted Comments from Capitol Hill.”) Nor would Rep. James Oberstar’s (D-MN) ambitious dream of a $500 billion six-year surface transportation bill necessarily remain intact under Republican House leadership, which would be anxious to distance itself from free-spending Democrats and may not fully share current transportation policy priorities of the Obama Administration .

Strengthening Republican resolve to avoid a fuel tax increase in the next Congress would be the projections by the Congressional Budget Office indicating that the surface transportation program is assured of adequate funding (i.e. at the levels authorized for FY 2009) at least through the end of Fiscal Year 2012. With assured funding possibly as long as mid-2013 (if our reading of the CBO projections is correct), a Republican Congress might well decide there is no reason to hurry and postpone consideration of a multi-year bill until after the presidential election of 2012 when a program of infrastructure investment can be considered in an environment less colored by electoral politics.

A Disappointing Session
The DOT Listening session was in some respects disappointing. In a typical “inside the Beltway” fashion, the meeting offered a tribune to a variety of special interests and advocacy groups to advertise their ideas, big and small, and to plead for government attention. For its part, the DOT leadership offered few hints as to its own thinking. However, since the goal of the “listening sessions” was for the DOT officials to, well… listen, they could be excused for revealing little of their intentions.
However, if the purpose of the listening sessions was to offer the DOT leadership exciting fresh ideas on how to reform and refocus the federal transportation program and how to give it new direction and a new sense of purpose, we think the assembled Washington transportation community could have done better.

But then, if White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs is indeed correct in his prediction, the U.S. Transportation Department need not worry about having to craft a reuthorization bill any time soon.

July19, 2010

At perhaps the worst possible time, improving and maintaining South Carolina’s disproportionately high volume of state-maintained roads is emerging as a top priority for the state. Lawmakers and other state leaders need to work diligently toward finding a solution — our state’s economic strength depends on it.

It’s no secret that South Carolina’s roads are in disrepair. But the magnitude of the problem is startling, particularly as the state budget continues to shrink because of the ongoing recession.

South Carolina will need $29 billion over the next 20 years to take care of its bridges and roads. For next year alone the state estimates it needs $931 million for road maintenance, but just $643 million is available, Greenville News reporter Tim Smith recently wrote.

The state Department of Transportation rates the state’s road system a “D”, meaning roads generally are in poor condition. The needs are exacerbated by the exceedingly high number of state-maintained road miles (more than 41,000) in South Carolina. In addition, South Carolina’s roads are consistently ranked as among the most deadly in the nation because they are poorly maintained and often poorly designed.

Finally, a 2009 report by the transportation research organization TRIP, found that 28 percent of South Carolina’s roads are in poor or mediocre condition.

This should be clear: High quality and well-maintained roads are essential to economic development. Manufacturers demand a reliable transportation system to get goods to and from their plants; and residents are entitled to safe roads to get them to and from work, school and activities.

The numbers demonstrate that maintaining and improving that needed infrastructure can’t be accomplished with current state revenues. There needs to be a serious discussion about where that money will come from, and that discussion shouldn’t be short-circuited by a close-minded aversion to any and all taxes.

Two ideas that have been talked about are public-private partnerships and toll roads. One need only look as far as southern Greenville County — where the Southern Connector toll road has defaulted on its debt — to see the hurdles that need to be
overcome if toll roads were used as a major source of highway funding. The state Legislature has considered — and likely will again — a bill that would expand the use of this mechanism. Though it’s not a statewide solution, if nothing else a bill
should be passed so the Connector can restructure its debt and so toll roads can be tried in other parts of the state where they might be more successful.

That leaves an increase in taxes or fees as the most plausible way to increase available transportation funding.

Transportation Secretary Buck Limehouse has suggested a 10 cents per gallon gasoline tax. A legislatively appointed tax study commission may well suggest that when it releases its report later this year, The News reported. Such a proposal
makes sense. Gasoline taxes are a sensible way to fund road maintenance, and South Carolina — where the gas tax hasn’t been raised in more than two decades — could absorb a modest gas tax hike. Such a tax increase would generate up to $320 million per year.

Yet some legislators say approval of a gas tax hike is unlikely given some lawmakers’ aversion to tax increase of any kind. As Sen. Larry Grooms told this newspaper, many in the General Assembly have signed pledges to not raise taxes.

Such pledges are shortsighted and ignore the reality that, at times, tax increases may be necessary to meet urgent needs. One recent example where a local government rose above the uproar against tax increases to meet pressing needs was Fountain Inn. There, the City Council approved a small 2.4 mill property tax increase to help fund capital projects. Had a majority of City Council members pledged to not raise taxes under any circumstances, such an action would have been impossible.

The disrepair of this state’s roads and the lack of apparent funding from elsewhere represents the sort of critical need that demands bold action from South Carolina lawmakers.

When lawmakers begin to discuss how to address this need, they shouldn’t let politically motivated promises stand in the way of doing what’s right for South Carolina. Every option — including increasing transportation-related taxes — needs to be on the table and seriously discussed.

June 22, 2010

The success or failure of state-level plans to increase gas taxes can be tied to how the media covers those proposals, concludes a recently released report from the University of Vermont Transportation Research Center. The report examines six states — Idaho, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Oregon, and Vermont — where lawmakers debated raising gas taxes between 2006 and 2009 to close infrastructure gaps.

Those proposed increases were approved by the state legislatures in Minnesota in 2008, and Vermont and Oregon in 2009. In Idaho and Massachusetts, governor-proposed increases were rejected by lawmakers. The New Hampshire State Senate voted down a measure to increase the gas tax that had been approved by that state’s House of Representatives.

“Clearly, there are many possible explanations for the success and failure of gasoline tax increases at the state level,” acknowledges the report. “In each state, the details of the policy debate, the relationships between political parties and policy actors, and the overall context differ.”

Nonetheless, the report does draw on news coverage of those proposals in the local media as well as Associated Press wire service reports to find at least some clues to the ultimate policy outcomes. States such as Minnesota and Vermont, as outlined in the report, proved successful in enacting gas tax increases due to the huge emphasis on phrases like “crumbling infrastructure” in news reports. That imagery of aging and crumbling infrastructure, the report notes, proved especially resonant among lawmakers and the public.

Oregon, the report underscores, proved similarly successful in pushing through an increase because of the focus on economic progress. “Policymakers in the legislature and executive branch consistently emphasized the link between gas-tax increases and job creation,” according to the report.

The gas tax increase proposals fared less well in states like Idaho and Massachusetts, the report suggests, because the stress was on long-term transportation budget gaps and financing mechanisms rather than more evocative phrases. “In both states, the debate in the news discourse became about transportation funding, not the deteriorating system,” according to the report. “In Massachusetts, the debate became particularly complicated because of competing revenue raising proposals and legislative and executive branch initiatives to restructure the state transportation agencies.”

These case studies of media coverage and proposed gas tax increases, the report indicates, might also hold valuable lessons with respect to the ongoing debate over the federal surface transportation reauthorization. “The data suggest that in the states where the news discourse emphasized either crumbling infrastructure or economic progress there was a corresponding success in the policy domain for pro-gas-tax policy-makers,” the report concludes.

A copy of this 21-page report, “Gasoline Taxes: An Examination of News Media Discourse Related to Gas Tax Funding in Six States,” is available at http://tinyurl.com/UVTRC-Report.

RALEIGH Motorists living in Raleigh could see a $5 jump in their annual vehicle tax for each car, truck or SUV they own if the City Council agrees with the proposed budget for next year presented Tuesday by Raleigh City Manager J. Russell Allen.

Allen’s $620.4 million budget for the 2010 fiscal year beginning July 1 doesn’t include a property tax increase or any layoffs of city staff. It does factor in the elimination of 24 vacant positions, mostly from the city’s solid waste and public works departments, and delays replacing city vehicles, including two fire engines and 46 police cars, according tocity budget documents.

The proposed budget is 11.1 percent less than the city budget this year.

Water rates are also expected to rise about 9 percent this summer. Successful consumer conservation efforts and an increase in debt payments for expanding the city water-and-sewer system have left the system that serves Raleigh and several surrounding communities struggling to stay in the black.

The prolonged recession and a drop in sales and property tax revenues have left Triangle communities, including Raleigh, scrambling to find ways to cover their bottom lines. The city’s general fund was facing a $7.5 million shortfall for the next fiscal year, mostly from a significant drop in sales tax revenue.

To cover that gap, Allen told the council he had to trim in several places, including cutting by 10 percent money earmarked for arts programs and grants that go to human services groups like the Interfaith-Food Shuttle and other nonprofits that provide services to city residents.

“There were a lot of difficult decisions,” Allen told the City Council.

The $5 increase for every vehicle registered to city residents would provide additional revenue to Raleigh’s public transit system, which runs the city’s CAT bus system as well as the Accessible Raleigh Transit program that coordinates and provides transportation for disabled city residents, Allen said. Two weeks ago, the city council allocated $1 million extra to keep the ART program running.

A public hearing on the proposed budget is scheduled for 7 p.m. June 1 at the council chambers in the Avery Upchurch Government Complex, 222 W. Hargett Street.
Published Wed, May 19, 2010 04:45 AM
Modified Wed, May 19, 2010 09:32 AM
sarah.ovaska@newsobser ver.com or 919-829-4622