Much has happened since we last wrote about the details of the Governor’s Toll Scheme back at the end of November.
Since then, the Governor, after 7 months of pushing, prodding, and cajoling, has released the preliminary locations of the gantries. If you live in South County, how are you liking those gantry locations? Can you picture having to drive to Providence, hitting maybe 4 or 5 toll gantries? Looking at the Providence area is like looking at a map of houses for sale. There are so many red balloons, you can’t even get your pointer to click on some of the hidden balloons!
Also since November, the RI Trucking Association released a study by IHS Global Insight that blew up the Governor’s toll revenue projections. So let’s look back on those projections. When Governor Raimondo released what she thought was a great plan, her truck toll revenue was $100 million. She quickly revised that down by 40% when she had to correct for her gaffe in the truck classification. Now, if IHS is closer to the mark, her original plan will be revised downward by another 30%. That means she will be left with only 30% of her original revenue. OUCH! How can she, or Speaker Mattiello, or Senate President Paiva Weed still believe it is a good plan now that 70% of the revenue has been lopped off. In addition to that, her interest costs rose 70% when she revised the plan. Hmmm….revenue estimates down 70%, costs up 70%. What business model would indicate that is still a good plan?
Even 38 Studios May Have Had A Better Risk/Reward Ratio.
The IHS study has a table (on p. 7) that looks at the economic impact of the toll plan. IHS has concluded that the Governor’s own impact study indicates less than one-tenth of a percent of impact on expected annual growth from the toll plan. And IHS believes even that is inflated. So why would the Governor and the Speaker and the Senate President take such a huge risk with so little expected economic return? Why would they push for this truck toll plan when all indications are that, ultimately, it will have to be a plan to toll cars?
Many have speculated that the plan was proposed to pay back the Governor’s private union supporters along with her Wall Street friends (they each receive roughly $600 million). And the Senate President supports it because she is backed by private unions. And the Speaker supports it because he will realize much in the way of horse trading that will go on, not the least of which has been speculated, is the appointing of Mr. Timothy Willamson to a judgeship (have you heard Tolls for Timmy?).
And what is left out of that equation? The taxpayer, as they always are in RI politics. Although we think the taxpayer actually is in the equation. OSTPA has said that we believe tolls are expected to be a line into the taxpayer vein.
Thankfully, the Republican Policy Group began the crusade, the StopTollsRI.com coalition beat the drum, talk radio has hammered both the plan and the Senators that voted for it when there was no information available, and many of you have taken matters into your own hands letting your legislators know exactly where you stand on the issue.
Will this legislation pass? It’s unknown at this point. But will you remember what they wanted to do to you when November rolls around? They’re gambling that you won’t.
Related Slideshow: 10 Biggest Questions Facing Truck Tolls in RI
The Administration has put forth a number specifics that have changed since the original proposal, including the original “17-22” tolling locations changed to simply 17, and the reduction of toll amount from “$40-$50” to $30. However, the Administration just got the green light last month by the Feds to move forward with the loosely-defined plan, which included inquiring as to whether the undersides of bridges could be tolled — which the Feds said now.
Where will the tolls be located?
Where had they been considering bridge undersides, and why?
The loosely-defined plan has opened up the Administration to criticism that is moving to fast.
The Senate approved an updated version of the truck toll plan last General Assembly session. With no fall General Assembly session scheduled after much speculation, the lawmakers will ostensibly resume taking up the issue upon return in January or soon thereafter.
Will a more detail proposal be made public prior to the new session, or will the nuts and bolds — and gantries — be kept under lock and key until they’re unveiled at a Finance Committee hearing?
Does 80% of the $500 Million really only go to cover 6/10 Interchange?
The administration is proposing a $500 million revenue bond - and anticipating refinancing of federal debt as well as an influx of new federal funds - to provide the basis to cover costs for the project dubbed “RhodeWorks."
However, of that $500 million bond, $400 million of it would go to just one project - the much needed repairs on the crumbling 6-10 connector, which represents less than 1% of all state roads.
Granted, not all of Rhode Island’s roads are in as dire condition at the 6/10 connector, but how much will the state have to spend — or bond — if $400 million goes to one project alone?
With Rhode Island still smarting (will it ever not) from 38 Studios, the issue of a non-voter approved bond has taken on the appearance of a four-letter word.
The Republican Policy Group has put forth a no-toll — and no-bonding plan, but the administration continues to make that case that despite the costs associated with bond debt, it will cost less for RI to pay for the projects now.
In case you missed it, former Attorney General Arlene Violet wrote a scathing review of the state’s bonding industrial complex this week in the Valley Breeze, which is worth the read.
Will the General Assembly consider alternative proposals?
The Republicans have their no-toll, no-bond, pay-go proposal. The Center for Freedom and Prosperity put forth a “P3” proposal for a public-private partnership. The Trucking Association put forth their own no-toll plan, with increased fees and taxes instead to pay for the infrastructure costs.
And State Rep. Doreen Costa has put forth a call to put any bond question before voters. How much, if any, of these other approaches will see the light of day at the General Assembly? The chances might be slim, but the opposition is vocal — and mobilized. Don’t expect bond opponents to go anywhere anytime soon.
The current proposal, as it sands, is to toll only trucks of a certain size — Class 8 to Class 13. However, that doesn’t have Rhode Islands worried that in the event of revenue shortfalls, that the classifications could be expanded.
Even if the Governor and General Assembly assured Rhode Islands that would never happen, there might be some discussion - and debate - around ensuring that’s the case. Raimondo worked to increase the cigarette tax (already the third highest in the country) this past session. The state’s revenue from gambling will continued to take a hit as competition from Massachusetts ramps up. Could — or should — a stipulation be put in any legislation that if the toll plan is to be expanded, it would need to go before voters?
Do recent projection shortfalls (Medicaid and rental tax)) call into questions revenue projections?
Raimondo had anticipated saving just over $70 million in Medicaid reform in this year’s budget, but the state’s Office of Health and Human Services said the number they were looking was almost two million short of that mark, and the the state’s revenue and caseload estimating conference pegged gap as even higher, as first reported by the Providence Journal.
Most recently, WPRI noted that the rental home tax the Governor had touted fell $1 million short of expectations in the first month alone. The administration is depending on a revenue stream of $60 million year, which leads us to our next question.
What happens if the state doesn't meet the revenue?
The projections put forth from the administration show that the state expects to collect $60 million a year from the tolls to pay for a thirty revenue bond. This was after the administration shifted gears from a 15 year, $700 million bond that was depended on $100 million in revenue a year.
The Republican Policy Group recently held a press conference on “missing inconvenient information,” at which is asserted that “half of the proposed tolls or $30 million comes from pass-through truckers, while the remaining half is paid by three sources: local trucks delivering out-of-state, instate/out-of-state trucks delivering in Rhode Island.
However, the impact study projects only $12.79 million in additional cost from inbound traffic and $5 million from all local and outbound traffic. The figures don't add up. Approximately, $12 million in annual toll revenue is unaccounted for.”
RI Trucking Association spokesperson Bill Fischer has questioned repeatedly what would happen if the trucks simply bypass the state.
“We’d be on the hook for these bonds,” said Fischer. "We're saying charge us more in fees, focus on the diesel tax. We're worried about what no one has talked about, and that's evasion. It's a big deal because you don't need to go through Rhode Island to drive from New York to Boston. We still have to make the bond payments. These guys have computer programs that incorporate the fees and tolls.
The burden is being placed on the local guys." The Republican Policy Group has questioned whether diversion had been thoroughly vetted, as well. “Did the report account for diversion through Connecticut to avoid tolls as it relates to IFTA fees? Currently, truckers remit IFTA (International Fuel Tax Agreement) taxes to each state based on miles traveled. When they divert to avoid tolls, our state will lose these taxes. What is the corresponding loss in revenue?
As part of the overall project cost of just over $1 billion, $500 million would come from the revenue bond, $120 million would be achieved through existing bond refinancing, and $400 million is slated to come from the federal government for the 6-10 transit project.
Will that go by the wayside if the Feds don’t come through? What will that mean for future projects?
