Republicans Platform: Representative Christian on Accountability & Transportation

Texas Insider Report: DALLAS Texas - While serving as the Chairman of the Platform Committee at the Republican Party of Texas convention State Representative Wayne Christian (R-Center) for the first time in history led the committee to incorporate accountability standards upon which elected officials will be scored prior to an election. This new concept provides a way to hold elected officials accountable to the platforms legislative priorities.   Said Christian after the convention The platform is important to Republicans across the state because it represents what we believe as a party.  In the past it has been too easy for legislators to overlook the principles that this document outlines.  Citizens are looking for ways to hold their legislators accountable to their actions in Austin and Washington and by incorporating legislative priorities into the platform we put some real weight behind the document.   Prior to each primary election the State Republican Executive Committee (SREC) and other party officers will report on the voting record of each state and federal elected official relative to the legislative priorities.  The report will then be published providing voters with a clear picture of how their representatives fared on the issues that matter most to them.  Among other things the 46 priorities include enacting voter ID legislation expanding the protection of private property ownership and limiting taxes.    The priorities are rooted in the foundational principles of the Texas Conservative Coalition:

• Limited government
• Individual liberty
• Free enterprise and
• Traditional values Christian said. 

They provide a plan to successfully meet our challenges and strengthen our great state as well as a way to unite conservative legislators as we fight for principled public policies in the next legislative session said Christian. Concluded Christian My goal was to help instill faith in our party and the officials we elect to defend our values.  I am extremely proud of the document we crafted and am confident that it will provide a clear roadmap of our ideals for citizens and legislators alike.   Transportation Funding Analysis Published by the Texas Conservative Coaltion   Road construction and maintenance in Texas has been directly funded primarily by a combination of the motor fuels tax and transportation bonds. As the states population growth has accelerated in recent decades however the strain on parts of Texas transportation infrastructure has become acute- especially in and around large urban areas. This has placed a renewed focus on transportation financing and has led to legislative initiatives such as House Bill 855 (81R) which have attempted to create additional funding options for transportation projects. However despite legislative efforts to create new sources of transportation financing it is not at all clear that there is currently a lack of transportation funding in Texas. Overview: Transportation Funding in Texas In 2006 the Texas Transportation Commission projected that $188 billion would be needed for transportation infrastructure projects through 2030 and that this would result in an $86 billion funding shortfall. However it is not clear that the $188 billion projection by the Transportation Commission is accurate. A recent Grant Thornton review of TxDOT noted specifically that some members of the transportation community hold differing views on the actual amount of funding required to sustain the States transportation system for this period. The review cited a 2009 House Research Organization report which concluded that while the projected funding gap could help assess highway funding needs generally it should not be used to make policy or funding decisions because it contained costs that should not have been included a mathematical error and additional undocumented costs. In addition to the $188 billion projection by the Transportation Commission the 2030 Committee established by TxDOT in 2008 projected $315 billion in funding needs for transportation projects through 2030. The $315 billion projection is broader in scope than the $188 billion figure incorporating:

• Pavement maintenance that keeps 90 percent of roadways in good condition or better ($89 billion);
• Bridge maintenance ($36 billion);
• Urban mobility ($171 billion); and
• Rural mobility and safety ($19 billion).

It is worth pointing out that the largest portion of these costs - urban mobility - is not an exclusive state responsibility; historically cities and counties have funded around one-third of urban mobility costs. In light of these conclusions lawmakers should be reticent about providing additional revenue to TxDOT until the need for that revenue has been conclusively proven and the agency has improved its governance project management and accounting practices. This is particularly important in the current budget environment; with a revenue shortfall almost certain in the 2012-13 biennium there will be no additional funding from existing revenue sources that can be diverted to transportation projects. It is not clear that a transportation funding shortfall exists:

• Even if taken at face value the $188 billion funding need would require $7.8 billion per year for the period 2006 -2030. In the 6 year period 2006-2011 however the Legislature has appropriated $46 billion to the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) which is an average of $7.6 billion per year.
• If that rate of appropriations continues through 2030 the agency will have received a total of $182.4 billion since 2006. This would be just $5.6 billion less than the $188 billion that the Commission said was needed.
• These figures do not account for voter-approved transportation bonds or local transportation funding. Voters have approved new bonding authority for the Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) three times since 2000.
• Proposition 14 (2003) authorized $3 billion in new bonds backed by the State Highway Fundv and Proposition 12 (2007) authorized $5 billion in new bonding capacity.vi
• According to TxDOTs own project listings there are currently projects totaling at least $1.351 billion that are underway utilizing Prop. 14 financing and projects costing $991 million underway utilizing Prop. 12 funding.vii
• TxDOTs project expenditures in FY2009 reveal that more than $4 billion of funding is being shared among a wide range of transportation projects including preventive maintenance metro-area corridor projects statewide connectivity projects metro mobility and congestion mitigation.

The vast majority of current transportation projects are funded:

• Statistics from individual counties reveal that the vast majority of projects are adequately funded.
• For example TxDOT reports 45 projects that are currently on the books in Tarrant County. Every project in Tarrant County with a bid date prior to or during 2010 has been funded and of the 3 future projects that have not yet been funded none have a bid date in 2010 or 2011.viii
• In Dallas County TxDOT has 134 current scheduled projects. All but 16 are fully funded and only 2 of those have bid dates in 2010 or 2011.
• In Harris County TxDOT has 211 current scheduled projects. Only 43 of those projects are not fully funded but only 1 of the unfunded projects has a bid date in 2010 or 2011.
• In Travis County TxDOT has 86 current scheduled projects. Only 13 of those projects are not fully funded and only 3 of the unfunded projects have a bid date in 2010 or 2011.
• In Bexar County TxDOT has 48 current scheduled projects. Only 9 are unfunded of which 7 have bid dates in 2010 or 2011.

Raising taxes to fund transportation needs appears to be unnecessary and fiscally irresponsible: Raising taxes - either by increasing or indexing the rate of the motor fuels tax or creating local option transportation taxes & fees - is unnecessary in light of the fact that almost all current projects are funded and that enough revenue exists currently that could be used for transportation projects: The State Highway Fund

• As much as $3.8 billion has been diverted from the State Highway Fund over the past decade; this revenue should be used to fund transportation projects per the Texas Constitution.
• Ending diversions from the State Highway Fund is a fiscal imperative and a principled alternative to a tax increase.

Crowding Out of Transportation Funding

• Over the past two decades funding for health and human services programs has crowded out spending on transportation. In 1989 transportation spending was 12.3 percent of the state budget it is now just 7.6 percent. HHS spending has grown from 22.2 percent of the budget to 37.8 percent over the same period.
• If just a fraction of the new revenue that has been directed to HHS programs had been used on transportation projects over the past two decades Texas transportation infrastructure would likely be significantly better off today.
• Legislators must be cognizant of the fact that HHS programs have become an unsustainable drain on the states resources and that they now materially impact the states ability to adequately fund necessities such as roads and highways.

The Motor Fuels Tax

• Indexing the motor fuels tax to inflation would create another tax on auto-pilot much like the property tax.
• Property taxes in Texas are already fixed to some measure of inflation through the annual appraisal mechanism in which taxable property values are reassessed based on estimated changes in property value.
• The tremendous growth in property tax revenues and the burden this places on taxpayers is a stark warning to legislators against indexing the gas tax to inflation.
• It is fiscally irresponsible to index a tax to the rate of inflation a measure over which state policy makers have no control.
• Taxes should never be allowed to increase without a vote by elected officials or the electorate. Automatic tax increases lack accountability and bear negative ramifications for taxpayers.
• Tax rates and the revenue they yield should be based on the fiscal needs of the state and not set to increase annually based arbitrarily on the rate of inflation.

Local Option Transportation Taxes

• Local option transportation taxes should be rejected because current law already allows cities that are located within regional transportation authorities to use 4a and 4b sales taxes for transportation projects with voter approval.
• Since transportation infrastructure is a vital prerequisite to any meaningful economic development political subdivisions should ensure that they are fully utilizing all revenue options including 4a and 4b sales tax revenues to finance transportation projects at the local level.
• More broadly local officials should ensure that they are fully utilizing existing revenue sources (typically a one cent local sales and use tax) for transportation funding before new revenue sources are considered.