Sides far apart on road funding
By Kevin Flynn, Rocky Mountain News (Contact)
Published April 30, 2008 at 9:01 p.m.
Democrats put a plan on the table Wednesday that would reduce a proposed vehicle-registration fee increase from $25 to $10 and would dip into the state general fund for bridge and road repair.
Republicans, however, say they want no fee increase and want to instead tap deeper into the general fund and a surplus in the state's mineral severance tax.
But the big news is, the two sides are talking.
The Democratic plan in Senate Bill 244 would raise up to $260 million. The Republican proposal would result in $59 million, but not for a few years.
"We are still negotiating hour by hour, but we are trying to get to the full bridge safety amount," said Sen. Chris Romer, D-Denver.
"I'm glad we're having a serious conversation about funding transportation," said Rep. Frank McNulty, R-Highlands Ranch.
The bill, scheduled to go before the Senate Appropriations Committee today, originally would have boosted annual vehicle registration fees by $25, and added another fee that would have had owners of older vehicles paying up to $72 more a year. It also placed a new $6 fee on daily car rentals.
The money would have gone into separate trust funds to pay for bridge and road repairs.
But on Wednesday, Democrats put a plan on the table that cut the registration fee increase to $10 and eliminated the added fee on older vehicles, which had drawn a flood of complaints.
They also discussed halving the car rental fee to $3.
"We're saying meet us halfway," Romer said.
Republicans are willing to talk about the car rental fee, but not a registration fee increase. They want the road and bridge money to come from existing general fund revenue.
"That would prioritize a funding stream for transportation without raising fees or taxes," McNulty said.
The state's general fund is allowed by law to grow at a maximum of 6 percent a year. Republicans want to take 1 percent and dedicate two-thirds of it to transportation and one-third to a rainy-day reserve.
Democrats say diverting part of the general fund's annual increase could harm general fund programs, of which transportation isn't a part. But they are willing to dedicate the last half-percent of the annual growth to transportation, which would raise more money earlier.
"I am willing to advance any credible solution to the transportation problem,' said Rep. Joe Rice, D-Littleton. "But it has to be a meaningful amount and it also has to be fair where you get the funding from.
"At least everybody's interested enough to keep talking. I'm optimistic. You have well-meaning people around the table."
flynnk@RockyMountainNews.com or 303-954-5247
Post your comment
Registration is required. Click here to create your free user account, or login below.
Comments are the sole responsibility of the person posting them. You agree not to post comments that are off topic, defamatory, obscene, abusive, threatening or an invasion of privacy. Violators may be banned. Click here for our full user agreement.
Featured
-
DPS improvements
This interactive shows you how schools will benefit under the bond proposal.
-
2008 Voter’s Guide
Use our Ballot Builder tool to compare your viewpoints to the candidates.
-
Broncos Game Action
Slide shows of the Broncos-Jags quarter-by-quarter photos from Invesco.
-
Bronco Dean's rant
Listen to Bronco Dean's totally biased postgame rant about the Broncos-Jaguars game.
-
A Dozen on Denver
Manuel Ramos' story is featured this week on 'A Dozen on Denver.' Check it out!
-
Peak Picks
Submit your fall foliage photos to our contest and vote on other submissions.
-
Presidential Elections
See how Colorado counties have voted through the years.
-
County election profiles
A look at how residents in each Colorado county may vote.
-
A dream fulfilled
A Rocky Mountain News and MediaStorm production
May 1, 2008
5:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
Acemon writes:
Let's see our representatives agree to adding language which would restrict the newly collected taxes to roads and bridges only. If we're going to pay more for badly-needed repairs, then what would be the harm in preventing future politicians from raiding the funds to support their various pet causes?
I can already hear it: "Fix the roads? Bah! We need to save the children."
May 1, 2008
6:37 a.m.
Suggest removal
DeimosJB writes:
Our current automotive/road/bridge/sign taxes include fuel taxes, excise taxes, license taxes, registration taxes, usage taxes and so on. You wonder why gas is so expensive? Start with nearly $0.50 per gallon in state and federal taxes, higher than that if you use diesel fuel. (For reference, according to the latest congressional hearings, "big oil" companies make, on average, 8.3 cents per dollar, in line with the 7.8 cents per dollar that the average Dow Jones Company earns. Care to tell me again how big oil is the problem, and we just need to raid all their profits to solve our ills?) Back on topic, we don't need any new taxes to maintain our roads. We need to use the existing "automotive-specific" taxes for automotive specific purposes ONLY, rather than the government dipping into automotive-specific money whenever they want simply because it's there. If we use auto taxes for auto purposes only there will be enough money to maintain auto necessities (roads, signs, bridges, etc) with room to spare.
May 1, 2008
1:59 p.m.
Suggest removal
AC writes:
Acemon, the article already addresses your suggestion. The bill includes separate road and bridge repair trust funds where these funds would go, to be spent only on those. The bridge fund includes 122 specific bridge replacement or repairs.
DeimosJB: Taxes are *not* why gas is so high. Check out Exxon-Mobil's obscene profits the last two years. The gas tax in Colorado has not changed in 17 years. Since it's per-gallon, the buying power is in 1991 dollars, not today's. Priced concrete and steel lately? The total gas tax in Colorado is 40.4 cents. It's not enough to fix bridges, repave highways and expand new ones. On what basis do you think government uses auto tax revenue for non-auto purposes? That's entirely false. The gas tax goes into a trust fund for transportation. It is NEVER spent on non-transportation purposes. It's the other way around. Because the aut-related taxes are so inadequate for today's costs, transportation in Colorado has raided the GENERAL FUND for highways. Roads were wupposed to be user-paid, but we are subsidizing them with money that ought to go to education, corrections, etc.
May 1, 2008
2:31 p.m.
Suggest removal
Ztliano writes:
Raise our gas tax 50 CENTS more, at least it'll be the same price as California. And since we're all Californians here (HAHA) we won't care too much. Use the extra revenue for mass-transit and road work.