HomeMy WebLinkAboutR2003-034RESOLUTION NO. ~Oa~-O~4
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DENTON, TEXAS ENCOURAGING
INCLUSION OF TRANSPORTATION FUNDING IN THE SCOPE OF THE
LEGISLATURE'S STUDY OF POSSIBLE TAX REFORM; AND PROVIDING AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, additional funding is urgently needed for investment in transportation
infrastructure to reduce urban roadway congestion, to improve highway safety, and to
provide statewide connectivity in Texas' transportation system; and
WHEREAS, revenue generated from current-level state highway user fees and taxes
can provide the additional funding urgently needed for investment in transportation
infrastructure; and
WHEREAS, the Legislature appropriated to the state highway fund less than $2.9
billion of the $6.9 billion revenue Texas collected from state highway user fees and taxes in
fiscal year 2002; and
WHEREAS, the 78th Texas Legislature requested that the Congress return to Texas
for needed transportation funding 95% of federal highway user fee revenue collected in
Texas, while the Legislature itself allocates only 37% of state highway user fee revenue to
fund transportation; and
WHEREAS, good public policy dictates that revenue from user fees and taxes be
allocated to support the public's use of the services and facilities from which the fee/tax
revenue flows; and
WHEREAS, select committees of the Texas Legislature are now studying possible
tax reform in anticipation of a possible Spring 2004 called session of the Legislature; and
WHEREAS, broadening the Legislature's tax reform agenda to include replacement
revenue for general government services now funded from highway user fee and tax revenues
would be sound public policy enabling the Legislature to allocate highway user fee and tax
revenue to fund needed transportation improvements; NOW THEREFORE,
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DENTON HEREBY RESOLVES:
SECTION 1: The Governor, Lieutenant Governor and Speaker of the House are
respectfully urged to expand the scope of the Legislature's current study of possible tax
reform to include replacement revenue for general government services now funded from
highway user fee and tax revenues in order that the Legislature may allocate annual highway
user fee and tax revenue to fund needed transportation improvements.
SECTION 2: A copy of this Resolution be distributed to state executives and
legislators.
PASSED AND APPROVED this the ,~L/~ day of
ATTEST:
JENNIFER WALTERS, CITY SECRETARY
APPROVED AS TO LEGAL FORM:
HERBERT L. PROUTY, CITY ATTORNEY
2003.
EULINE BROCK, MAYOR
S:lOur Docur~n~skLegislation\03 State\AlS Transporlalion Study Resolution.duc
Texas Tax Reform: 2004 ^
The Speaker ofthe House and the President ofthe Senate have each appointed public
school finance committees to develop a recommendation that will fund the Foundation
School Program, eliminate Robin Hood, and provide property tax relief. The
recommendation is expected to include a substantial tax reform proposal for
consideration by the Legislature in Spring 2004.
The scope of this tax reform should include transportation funding as well as public
school finance. The Legislature allocates 63% of state highway user fee revenues to
fund general government services wholly unrelated to transportation. Highway safety
and urban mobility needs have become too large to allow continuation of this diversion of
highway user fee revenues. Who knows when the next tax reform opportunity will arise?
Competing interests and complexities make it a subject that the Legislature rightly
chooses to address no more frequently than necessary.
Highway safety and the delays caused by urban roadway congestion have reached crisis
proportions in Texas. That they haven't received the same level ofpublicity and
attention given school finance ought not make them less important or urgent public
policy issues for the Legislature to address in its current tax reform deliberations.
Why should Texans care about urban mobility?
Commuters are spending an inordinate amount of time stuck in traffic going nowhere.
This is time lost forever...time away from family.
Economic prosperity requires urban mobility. Ifpeople and goods cannot move
around the metropolitan areas efficiently, growth will shut down, the economy will
stagnate, and Texans' quality of life will decline.
Urban mobility is important to all of Texas. The four major metropolitan areas make
up two thirds of the Texas economy. Their tax base generates the revenue that
supports the public services for all Texans--rural as well as urban.
Why should Texas invest more in transportation?
We're losing the battle. Roadway congestion has already risen to a high level. Texas
is home to 3 of the nation's top 6 cities for highest average annual delays due to
traffic. And the problem is getting worse. In Dallas/Fort Worth, the typical motorist
experienced an annual delay of 74 hours in 2000, up from 47 hours in 1994.
90% of the expected 2000-2025 Texas population growth of 9 million will live in one
of the four major metropolitan areas or the border region...Dallas/Fort Worth,
Houston, San Antonio, Austin, or the Border (Brownsville, Laredo, El Paso)...where
15 million of 21 million Texans already live.
During the 1990's decade, vehicle miles traveled increased by 41%, roadway lane
miles increased by 3%, and roadway congestion increased by 126%. If current trends
continue, by 2025 delay time from roadway congestion will increase by 350%.
Delay resulting from roadway congestion in the major metropolitan areas drains $6
billion annually from the Texas economy.
Texas Urban Roadway Congestion
Measure (in 000s) AUSTIN DFW HOUSTON SAN ANTONIO
1991 2000 1991 2000 1991 2000 1991 2000
Travel Time Index 1.13 1.27 1.19 1.33 1.25 1.38 1.07 1.23
Annual Delay (Person-Hours) 6,420 20,640 59,710 141,125 52,200 120,945 6,850 25,505
Hours of Congestion 5.0 7.2 5.6 7.0 6.0 7.0 3.0 6.6
Pement of Congested Travel 35 62 40 59 53 65 19 52
Congested Lane Miles 38 58 35 50 48 55 23 45
Annual Lane-miles Needed 58 62 232 305 114 194 56 73
Congestion Cost ($million) 95 400 885 2,640 780 2,285 100 475
Measure 1991-2000 Rate of Increase
AUSTIN DFW HOUSTON SAN ANTONIO
Travel Time Index 108% 74% 52% 229%
Annual Delay 221% 136% 132% 272%
Hours of Congestion 44% 25% 17% 120%
Pement of Congested Travel 77% 48% 23% 174%
Congested Lane Miles 53% 43% 15% 96%
Annual Lane-miles Needed 7% 31% 70% 30%
Congestion Cost 321% 198% 193% 375%
What level of investment is needed? What level of return would it provide?
Texas will need to invest $179 billion in new construction, reconstruction, and
maintenance over the next 25 years to maintain current congestion levels. That is $39
billion more than will be available if current practices and trends continue. To reduce
congestion to levels where trips during peak hours take no more than 15% longer than
trips during non-peak hours will require $78 billion more. (In 2000, the peak-period
travel penalty in Houston was 38%; it was 33% in Dallas/Fort Worth.)
The benefit-cost ratio for this $78 billion investment exceeds 5-to-1. The estimated
value from less delay, fewer gallons ofwasted fuel, and increased efficiencies to
business and commerce is $511 billion not counting the 120,000 new jobs that would
be created and the 775,000 tons of hydrocarbon emissions that would be eliminated.
What source of revenue should fund the additional investment needed?
Texas' use of toll revenue to expedite implementation of needed roadway capacity
improvements is well-established in Dallas and Houston and is now beginning to
expand to other metropolitan areas. Greater use of tolling will generate new revenue
that will help address Texas' unmet capacity needs, but it is not a panacea. Public
acceptance of tolls in new corridors will be far easier than in existing corridors. Toll
revenue alone will not be sufficient to establish and maintain a 1.15 travel time index
in Texas' major metropolitan areas.
Texas levies a variety of highway user fees that produce enough revenue to fund its
transportation needs if the Legislature would allocate that revenue to transportation
rather than to general government use. The $3.2 billion now allocated to General
Revenue could over the next 25 years fund the additional $78 billion investment
needed to reduce to 15% the peak period travel penalty in Texas' large urban areas.
JuO, xoo~
Delay caused by urban roadway congestion has risen to the level that Texas must
increase its level of investment in transportation. How do we rationalize asking
Washington to return 95% of federal highway user fees Texans pay when the Texas
Legislature chooses to allocate only 37% of state highway user fees to transportation?
Including transportation in the tax reform proposal to address public school finance
would enable the Legislature to allocate highway user fee revenues to transportation.
For example, if the Flat BAT (business activity tax proposed to the House Select
Committee on Public School Finance by David Hartman July 16) were 3.5% instead
of3.0%, Texas could not only fully fund its public school and transportation needs,
but also could eliminate the school property tax and several state business taxes
including the franchise, natural gas, insurance, utility, and oil production and
regulation taxes.
Distribution of Texas Highway User Fees & Taxes
Receipts GRF 001 SHF 006 [} Share
State Motor Fuel Tax *
Motor Vehicle Sales and Use Taxes
11$2,833,611,2981r~I 01[}152,078,114,281][}[ 73%
2,772,074,0751[}[ 2,768,732,863][}1 0lB 0%
Motor Vehicle Registration Fees ii 742,047,1291[}[
Motor Vehicle Rental Tax
otor Vehicle Inspection Fees H 109.414,7181~[
3,429,833]~I 730,019,548][1l 98%
ii 159621 8441E[ 159,621,8441111
70,357,615] 1
river License Fees Jl_ 114,972,8641 [ 113,506,992] 1 olB 0%
Driver Record Information Fees JI 49,920.055J[~l 49,920,055]~[
Motor Vehicle Certificates II 45,613,532_][}1 26,906,145][}1 18,707,3871~I 41%
Special Vehicle Registration Fees jJ 32,692,472j[}1 17,403,100]~I 15,289,3721[}1 47%
Motor Fuel Lubricant Sales Tax
Commercial Transportation Fees
Excess Fines from Speeding Violations
Annual Tx Hghwy User Fee Revenues
30,168,0001111 01[}1 30,168,0001[}1 100%
17,349,7501[~I 8,200,090l~]1 9,147,576][}1 53%
99,873][~[ 99,873][11 olB 0%
6.907,585,§10][}153,218,178,410][} I $2,881,446,1641[}1 42°/.
5% distributed to DPSJ [} I (356,806,646)1 [} [-'-----~
Net available for transportationl~I $2,524,639,5181[}[---~~
Constitutionally 25% - $695.1 million in FY 2002 -- is allocated to the Available School Fund.
State Highway Fund, Fiscal Year ending 08/31/02:
5,759,100,000 total revenue [40% federal reimbursements, 50% state highway fees and taxes]
5.524,300,000 total disbursements
Data compiled by the North Texas Commission from several sources:
Texas Cornptmller of Public Accounts
Governor's Business Council, Texas' Roadways- Texas' Future www.texasgbc.org (reports)
Texas Department of Transportation
Texas Transportation Institute, 2002 Urban Mobility Report
Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Transportation Researcher
July 2003