Understanding H.B. 170: The Transportation Funding Act of 2015

Similar documents
Georgia Transportation Update: H.B. 170/106 The Transportation Funding Act of State Senator Steve Gooch (SD 51)

Alabama Transportation Conference. February 9 th, 2015

A New Model for Funding Transportation Virginia s Sales Tax Approach

Bringing Virginia s Transportation Funding Up to Speed. August 25, 2014 John W. Lawson Chief Financial Officer

$1,516 $925 $19 $2,460 $422 $1,270 $261 $413 $94 = $715 = $274 = $62 = $13 = $555 = $19 = $148 & HWY

Transportation Package HB 2017

HB 2313 Conference Report. February 21, 2013

Financial Resources Report BAY COUNTY DIRECTION 2035 SHAPING OUR FUTURE LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN. Prepared for

Financial Snapshot October 2014

NCDOT Funding Overview

Forecast Highlights. HUTD Revenues, FY Biennium Change from EOS '16 Forecast

Transportation Funds Forecast February 2017

DOTD s Response to House Resolution 178 (2016)

Technical Report No. 4. Revenue and Costs

Tax Plan Needs Course Correction House Transportation Package Leaves out New Revenues, Could Harm Key Services

Technical Report #2: Financial Resources Final Adopted Plan January 2016

Financial. Snapshot An appendix to the Citizen s Guide to Transportation Funding in Missouri

Interested Parties William E. Hamilton Transportation Needs and Revenue Distribution

Transportation Primer

NRI COMMITTEE SESSION

Transportation Funds Forecast November 2017

Scott E. Bennett, P.E. Director. Conway Businesss Expo

Fiscal Year Commonwealth Transportation Fund Budget June 2014

21 st Century Transportation Committee Finance Subcommittee

Transportation Trust Fund Overview

1 HB By Representative McCutcheon. 4 RFD: Transportation, Utilities and Infrastructure. 5 First Read: 22-MAR-12.

Chapter 5: Cost and Revenues Assumptions

Transportation Finance Overview. Presentation Contents

Indiana Transportation Funding Update

Transportation Funds Forecast November 2018

Contents. Alamo Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. Introduction S. St. Mary s Street San Antonio, Texas 78205

5/3/2016. May 4, Item #1 CITIZENS PARTICIPATION

Fayetteville Chamber of Commerce

INVESTMENT STRATEGIES

Fund 200 Revenue vs Expenses. $- Fy 06 Actual Fy 07 Actual Fy 08 Actual Fy 09 Modified Fy 10 Adopted

APPENDIX FOR THE METROPOLITAN LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN Forecast of State and Federal Revenues for Statewide and Metropolitan Plans

Other States Models. House Select Committee on Strategic Transportation Planning and Long Term Funding Solutions.

Randy Ort Assistant Chief - Administration. Southwest Arkansas Transportation

The Oregon Department of Transportation Budget

Chapter 3: Regional Transportation Finance

The Butler Center For Business And Economic Research

MPOAC REVENUE STUDY. Study Update Northwest Florida Regional TPO January 18, 2012

Fiscal Year Commonwealth Transportation Fund Budget June 2018

Transportation Funding Overview & Revenue Background

Fiscal Year 2018 Annual Report to the Joint Commission on Transportation Accountability Relating to the Hampton Roads Transportation Fund

Chapter 4: Available Funds and Financial Scenarios

Transportation Funding in the Charlotte Region

Fully Utilized Transportation Funding Sources

State DOT Revenue Distribution Strategies. Final Report. Prepared for. Michigan Department of Transportation. Prepared by

Transportation Finance: An Overview

MPACT64. Transportation Infrastructure for Colorado. We Can t Afford to Wait

How did we get here?

Intersection Between Oregon s System of Highway Funding and Potential Carbon Policies

Overview of Minnesota Highway and Transit Finance. Metropolitan Council Transportation Committee June 22, 2015 and July 13, 2015

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SENATE, No th LEGISLATURE

FISCAL MEMORANDUM HB 534 SB 1221 HB 534 SB April 4, 2017

TESTIMONY. The Texas Transportation Challenge. Testimony Before the Study Commission on Transportation Financing

Fiscal Year Commonwealth Transportation Fund Budget June 2015

Addressing Virginia s Transportation Needs: A 3-Step Process. Delegate S. Chris Jones Southern Legislative Conference July 19, 2015

NOTICE OF ELECTION 2021 $10,000, $10,000, $10,000, $10,000,000

HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY MPO 2035 LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLAN

Fund 200 Revenue vs Expenses. Relationship between current debt levels and legal debt limits:

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND AND PROVIDENCE PLANTATIONS Annual Report Dated February 1, 2018 Regarding Motor Fuel Tax Bonds

Transportation Funds Forecast

INVESTING STRATEGICALLY

Joint Appropriations Subcommittee on Transportation

Chairman Wathan Spade, Executive Director

Increased Transportation Infrastructure Investment Critical to State s Continued Economic Development

Estimated Financial Summary for the Highway and Bridge Construction Schedule

Keep Wisconsin Moving Smart Investments Measurable Results

TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN THE STATES

COLLECTION AND DISTRIBUTION OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDS

Technical Appendix. FDOT 2040 Revenue Forecast

OVERVIEW: Minnesota Transportation Finance

Department of Revenue Analysis of S.F (Pogemiller) Revenue Gain or (Loss) F.Y F.Y F.Y F.Y (000 s)

MPOAC REVENUE STUDY. MPOAC Revenue Study Governing Board and Staff Directors Joint WORKSHOP January 26, 2012 Tallahassee, FL

Transportation Funding

2035 Long Range Transportation Plan Update

Study of Indiana Transportation Infrastructure Funding Mechanisms

Pasco County, Florida. Multi-Modal Mobility Fee 2018 Update Study

2013 Supplement to the Minnesota Tax Handbook

Finance and investment in transport infrastructure: Case study of the United States & lessons for Ghana

Overview of State Highway Fund 0006 Revenues and Allocations, the Texas Mobility Fund, and the Texas Rail Relocation and Improvement Fund

Focus Colorado: Economic And Revenue Forecast

Briefing Points for Revenue Alternatives, FY 2009 Mary E. Forsberg, Research Director February 2008

STATE OF NEW JERSEY. SENATE, No th LEGISLATURE

Monthly Financials November 30, 2017

Meeting Future Transportation Funding Needs

Transportation Funding State Comparisons. 21 st Century Transportation Committee August 21, 2008

Monthly Financials May 31, 2016

Danny Straessle. Public Information Officer. Paragould Chamber of Commerce

Findings & Recommendations Discussion

September 10, Estimate of Additional Annual Construction and Maintenance Dollars Needed Scenario 1

CASH MANAGEMENT & CONTRACT AWARDS

Funding Transportation Improvements

and Motor Carrier Tax (IFTA)

State of Alabama Transportation Infrastructure Funding

APPENDIX B TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM #2 TRANSPORTATION FUNDING

Eastern Shore Delegation Breakfast. June 21, 2014

Mobility Plans and Fees in Florida

Transcription:

Understanding H.B. 170: The Transportation Funding Act of

Recent History in Transportation Funding 2007 Joint Study Committee on Transportation Funding 2009 S.B. 200: Transportation Governance 2010 H.B. 277: Transportation Investment Act 2012 3 of 12 regions adopted a regional T-SPLOST 2014 Joint Study Committee on Critical Transportation Infrastructure Funding H.B. 170/106: The Transportation Funding Act

2014 Joint Study Committee Final Report Findings Georgia s dependence on federal transportation funds is a problem due to federal funding uncertainty in the short and long-term. Georgia s transportation budget = 54% federal funds versus Florida s transportation budget = 27% federal funds. Reduced purchasing power of an unindexed excise tax due to increased costs and inflation over 40% reduction since 1993 and a 52% projected reduction by 2023. $74 billion funding gap over the next 20 year horizon based on the Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan for 2005 to 2035. 3

2014 Joint Study Committee Final Report Funding Gap Three different levels of need and the annual funding gap association with each: $1.0 $1.5 billion additional, annually to preserve the current transportation system at acceptable levels. $2.1 $2.9 billion additional, annually to address critical needs Sub such as Titles increasing regional mobility, interstate capacity, Body transit Text availability, and building new interchanges. $3.9 $5.4 billion additional, annually to address the full universe of needs including passenger rail systems. 4

The New Gasoline Excise Rate 7.5 (Previous Excise) + 11.8 (Previous 3% & 1% 4 th Penny ) + 6.7 (HB 170 Adjustment) 26.0

Motor Fuel Excise Tax Additional Motor Fuel Revenue FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 $665,950,000 $740,700,000 $791,750,000 $824,250,000 $837,050,000 Previous Motor Fuel Rates & HB 170 Rates Motor Fuel Type Prior Law H.B. 170 Difference Gasoline 19.3 /gallon 26 /gallon +6.7 /gallon Diesel 21.3 /gallon 29 /gallon +7.7 /gallon Tax levied on distributors and NOT retailers. Net effect of H.B 170 = $32.16 per year OR (@ 12,000 miles/year & 25mpg) $2.68 per month Local sales tax capped and will NOT be assessed on the price of motor fuel above $3.00 per gallon. 6

Hotel/Motel $5 Nightly Fee (Based on UWG College of Business Estimate) FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 $158,100,000 $158,100,000 $158,100,000 $158,100,000 $158,100,000 Collected as general funds but MUST be appropriated to transportation purposes. Transportation purposes = roads, bridges, public transit, rails, airports, buses, seaports, accompanying infrastructure and services to provide access to transportation facilities, and general obligation debt and other multiyear obligation issues to finance such purposes. If NOT appropriated to this purpose, fees reduced by ½ after one year and REPEALED after subsequent year if still not appropriated. 7

Heavy Vehicle Impact Fee FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $50 annual registration fee: vehicles between 15,500 & 26,000 lbs. $100 annual registration fee: vehicles over 26,000 lbs. DOR Registrations (03/15/15) 38,022 vehicles between 15,500 & 26,000 lbs and 32,780 vehicles over 26,000 lbs. Like hotel/motel fee, fees collected as general funds but MUST be appropriated to the same multi-modal transportation purpose and subject to the same repeal provision if not appropriated for two years. 8

Other Revenues Generated Source FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 Alt. Fuel Fee $3,400,000 $3,600,000 $3,900,000 $4,250,000 $4,650,000 Alt. Tax Credit $16,400,000 $90,100,000 $124,300,000 $155,600,000 $187,200,000 Jet Fuel Tax $21,400,000 $26,100,000 $28,900,000 $30,200,000 $31,600,000 Total $37,800,000 $116,200,000 $153,200,000 $185,800,000 $218,800,000 The $200/$300 Alternative Fuel Vehicle Annual registration fee has the same index as motor fuel but fees are not explicitly dedicated. Revenues derived from the elimination of the exemption on jet fuel tax on or after July 1, 2017 are intended to be used for a state aviation program or airport related purposes to comply with the requirements of federal law (49 U.S.C. Sections 47107(b) and 47113. 9

HB 170 Total Additional Revenues (Based on Averaged Estimates) FY 2016 FY 2017 FY 2018 FY 2019 FY 2020 $870,250,000 $1,023,600,000 $1,111,950,000 $1,177,400,000 $1,223,600,000 These additional total revenues include additional dedicated motor fuel collections, dedicated fees, and non-dedicated fees. 10

Regional & County 1% T-SPLOSTs Streamlines Transportation Investment Act and authorizes individual counties to proceed with a T-SPLOST. Allows the regions to proceed with a regional T-SPLOST referendum by majority of the counties in the region without additional authorization from the General Assembly. Effective July 1, 2016 for the Atlanta Regional Commission and July 1, 2017 for all other regions, individual counties can proceed with a county Sub T-SPLOST Titles if a regional T-SPLOST is not enacted. The following guidelines apply: County-only T-SPLOST can be for period of up to 5 years. County-only T-SPLOST can be levied in any increment of.05% up to a maximum of 1%.

In Addition to Capital & Routine Maintenance Needs still exceed Revenue Responsibility Traffic Operations $35M identified in annual additional need. Bridge Maintenance $456M identified in annual additional need. prioritize remaining Investment Sub among Titles Capital Construction $1B identified in annual additional need. Managed Lanes $60M to $500M identified in annual additional need. Opportunity

Structural Opportunities from Added Investment Reduces reliance on federal funds for capital program. Strategically allocate funds by source. Pursue GEPA process vs. NEPA process. Reduced risk of delay due to short-term funding. Better systemic maintenance and advancing project schedules. Additional opportunities for local governments through LMIG and county T-SPLOSTs.