State senators in their first look at the transportation spending bill raised questions about the $1 billion in additional revenue sought, and called for a closer accounting of projects for which the money would be spent.
“A billion dollars, that’s a lot of money,” Sen. Lindsey Tippins, R-Marietta, told House Transportation Committee Chairman Jay Roberts, R-Ocilla, who presented his House Bill 170 to the Senate Transportation Committee Thursday.
Tippins said that the legislation should include a breakdown of how much would be spent on interstate and other federal highways, and state and local roads. While Tippins said he realizes a project by project listing would impractical, “I’d welcome at least being able to see what the general direction is, being able to explain the need so people can be able to understand.”
Senate Transportation Committee Chairman Tommie Williams, R-Lyons, added, “I think that’s everybody’s concern. If we had that much money, what would we do with it?” He told Tippins that the DOT’s long-term spending plan gives some answers.
Sen. Burt Jones, R-Jackson, said he’s “never had a clear explanation” of how the $1 billion figure was derived. “Could you help me and explain what’s the magical number of a billon to a billion and a half?” Jones asked.
Roberts answered that the figure came from reports by transportation experts that found that the $1 billion was the minimum needed to maintain existing roads. Another $2.2 billion would be needed to expand the system, with $5.4 billion to meet all needs.
Roberts said that the fiscal note on the legislation found that the excise tax would actually generate $780 million a year on the low end, and a little more than $1 billion a year by 2020 on the high end. He also said the $1 billion figure also includes $100 million in bonds for transit projects proposed for the state budget.
Williams also questioned the bill’s indexing, which would adjust the 29.2-cents-per-gallon fuel excise tax amount proposed in the bill according to increases in construction costs and fuel efficiency standards. Williams said he is concerned that “we come back in 10 years, and the excise tax has doubled.”
Roberts answered that history shows that inflation “doesn’t jump that much. It grows slowly.”
In response to another Williams question, Roberts disclosed that the 29.2-cents-per-gallon figure comes from combining receipts from local gasoline sales taxes with the present state fuel excise tax and sales tax. Roberts said the sales tax numbers come from an average price over the last four years of $3.39 per gallon. From a high of 30.1 cents per gallon in total receipts in 2011, the total fuel tax receipts have dropped to 21.8 cents, he said.
The 29.2 cent figure was in the original version of the legislation, surviving a number of changes in the House and a proposed amendment by House Majority Leader Larry O’Neal and Majority Whip Matt Ramsey to drop the number to 24 cents.
Williams also zeroed in on the bill’s provision allowing local governments to raise the percentage on “LOST” programs from 1 to 1.25 percent, to make up for that category of taxes no longer applying to fuel. Williams said that by his calculations, the rate should be raised to 1.34 percent.
Roberts in response said that the Georgia Municipal Association originally asked for 1.15 percent, but that the Association County Commissioners of Georgia asked for the higher amount to make them “whole.” But some counties, including Jones’ Butts County, would suffer significant losses despite the higher rate.
Smaller counties that derive most of their income from gas taxes also face a problem with school boards’ “E-SPLOST” programs. The bill allows them to spend their gasoline sales tax receipts from those type of taxes for school bus expenses. But that would leave them with no funds for other purposes.
“How does a county like Butts or Dade County, where most of the E-SPLOST is motor fuel, how can they spend that much money” on bus expenses, Williams wondered.
Sen. Steve Gooch, R-Dahlonega, co-chairman with Roberts of the special transportation study committee from which the bill derived, said “I’m convinced we need more money. There’s definitely a need.”
He said the Senate would make come up with its own proposals in the remaining weeks of the session, but “this bill is a dang good start.”
