Fiscal Responsibility, World Realities & the
Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project
Summary
- KTAP is a coalition of 25 citizen organizations and businesses (below)
- KTAP addresses the two-bridge plan proposed by the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project
- KTAP addresses no specific transportation plan other than the two-bridge plan
- KTAP finds the financial plan of the Kentucky/Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project to be unrealistic (below)
- KTAP's Transportation Statement proposes a pause in spending until a realistic financial plan is in place (below)
Initial Financial Plan of the Bridges Project
The Initial Financial Plan (IFP) of the Bridges Project is an unrealistic draft. The IFP calls for alternative funding sources on the local level to help raise the $2,644,000,000 needed to meet Kentucky's share of costs. The IFP and GLI define these “Creative Financing” sources as:
* tolling one to all bridges,
* higher vehicle registration fees ($30-$40 increases),
* higher local gas taxes,
* higher sales taxes,
* insurance taxes,
* higher property taxes,
* hotel room taxes,
* car rental taxes,
* local taxing districts,
* private development financial participation and
* borrowing (bonds and bond secured grants).
Questions regarding these alternative income streams follow below.
The IFP can be found at: http://www.kyinbridges.com/ .
Senate and House Bills
Senate Bill 7 will not fund the Bridges' $345 Million needed for the current biennial budget period. Neither the Senate Bill nor the House Bill guarantees future funding.
KTAP Transportation Statement
Our region deserves transportation solutions that:
- Address the financial, energy and environmental realities of the 21st Century
- Meet the needs of all people, regardless of socioeconomic status
- Are developed through an open, understandable public process
World, national and regional conditions have significantly changed since the start of the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project in 1992. The $4.1-Billion project has not adjusted to today’s financial, energy, and environmental constraints. Its Environmental Impact Statement is no longer valid for informed decision-making (*). Further, the decision-making process has become less, not more, open to the public and public officials.
These current conditions demand that transportation officials show the taxpayers how they will pay for this project—the costliest in Kentucky’s history. The Financial Plan required by federal law (23 USC §106(h)) should be produced immediately and subjected to a thorough public process for review and comment.
Until that time, no further funds should be spent on the Ohio River Bridges Project.
Endorsing Organizations
Bicycling for Louisville
Bike Couriers Bike Shop
Borders and Borders
Coalition for the Advancement of Regional Transportation - CART
Community Farm Alliance - CFA
Deer Park Neighborhood Association
EarthSave
Fellowship of Reconciliation - FOR
Greater Louisille Sierra Club
Justice Resource Center
Kentuckians For The Commonwealth
Kentucky Alliance Against Racist and Political Repression
Kentucky Interfaith Power and Light
Kentucky Resources Council - KRC
Knob and Valley Audobon Society
Legacy Homes
Lincoln-Darst Foundation
Louisville Climate Action Network - LCAN or Louisville CAN
Louisville Peak Oil Group
Protect Our Woods - Southern Indiana
River Fields
Safe Streets Louisville
Spatial/Static Design
Sustainable Agriculture of Louisville
The Society of International Railway Travelers
West Jefferson County Community Task Force Board
Organizations may be listed as an Endorsing Organization by contacting Jackie Green -
j@bikecourier.org - 502-583-2268.
Contact
Jackie Green -
j@bikecourier.org - 502-583-2268
Questions regarding the Initial Financial Plan and the Senate and House Bills
Tolling, higher vehicle registration fees and local gas taxes all discourage private motor vehicle use.
Why build greater motor vehicle capacity while simultaneously discouraging private motor vehicle use?
What transportation options are left to the public if the discentives are successful in reducing private motor vehicle use?
SENATE AND HOUSE BILLs
The Senate and House Bills are tax bills designed to raise funds for the Bridges and other interstate highway projects. The Bills place on the shoulders of local government the burden of taxing their own constituents.
Do the Bills give the newly created taxing and administrative authority too much range and too little accountability?
Do the Bills require the newly created taxing and administrative authority to go back to local and state government before raising tax rates, condemning properties, hiring consultants, letting contracts, etc.?
Should Senate Bill 7 more closely define what is meant in Section 4 (2) by "other funds pledged"?
Should every funding mechanism available to the newly created taxing and administrative authority
be defined, specified and listed.
Should the newly created taxing and administrative authority have no mechanisms available to it outside of that list?
What is the term of this newly created taxing and administrative authority? Perpetuity? Five years? Upon reaching a specific dollar threshold?
Should every action of the newly created taxing and administrative authority be transparent with all books and every meeting open to the public?
How likely is it that local government will give to a newly created taxing and administrative authority wide ranging, unregulated, unsupervised, long term taxation powers, particularly if the taxes discourage business and push citizens out of their cars while providing no alternative to driving?
TOLLING
What is Indiana's position on tolling the Louisville area bridges?
Are Jefferson County legislators and Metro Council members going to be told how much bridge tolls would be before they are asked to vote on tolling legislation?
What is the Attorney General's opinion of the proposed tolls? (The Attorney General's office is entrusted with the duty of protecting and promoting the interests of the Commonwealth's consumer public. This duty and authority is specifically extended in K.R.S. 367.150 to require the Attorney General to represent consumers' interests in any rate-making proceedings, to investigate matters affecting the human environment and consumer affairs and to communicate the interests of consumers to state officials. Tolling of public highways operates similar to rates for public utilities in that it is intended as a cost-recovery mechanism and is applied directly to a broad-base of consumers as a cost for accessing and using a public necessity. As such, any discussion of tolling a major public highway would fall under the purview of the Attorney General's duties and it should investigate the impact of tolling the bridges project on the citizens of the Commonwealth and intervene in any discussion of tolling in order to represent consumer interests.)
If one bridge is tolled how many other bridges would be tolled?
Which bridge(s) would be tolled?
What would be the toll fare? (In an October 2007 GLI Transportation Committee meeting Build the Bridges Coalition representatives were asked if they had specific sums in mind for tolls. They answered: "Not that we want to talk about." They then mentioned a figure over $7.00.)
How much are tolls per car? per truck (per axle)? per motorcycle?
Who (government, businesses) is exempted from the toll?
How is the disproportionate burden on lower income people alleviated?
What protections will there be from significant raises in tolls over the years?
What level of tolling will the public tolerate? (In an October 2007 GLI Transportation Committee meeting Build the Bridges Coalition representatives were asked what level of tolling will the public tolerate. They answered: "We don't know.")
Will tolls be eliminated once the construction bonds for the bridges are paid off?
Is action by the Indiana legislature required to create a tolling entity?
Will toll income from/for KSIORB be disbursed both to Indiana and to Kentucky? Per what formula?
Will toll income be applied only to the new bridges and Kennedy Interchange construction?
Who will be the tolling agency?
Who will oversee the tolling agency?
How will the tolls impact the decisions of shoppers, diners and employees to cross the river?
How will the reduction in sales impact the retailers and restaurants as customers shop locally to avoid the tolls?
What are the physical details of the tolling infrastructure?
What changes to the roadways are required to accommodate the tolling infrastructure?
Where these questions examined in the FEIS?
HIGHER VEHICLE REGISTRATION FEES
Will all motor vehilces be subject to higher registration fees?
If not, what vehicles will be subject to higher registration fees?
How much will the fees be for each category of vehicle?
Will there be exceptions for government vehicles? business vehicles? EMS vehicles?
How will the fees impact lower income citizens?
How many vehicles will be registered out of the region to avoid higher registration fees?
Where these questions examined in the FEIS?
LOCAL TAXING DISTRICTS
Who will be taxed?
How much?
How is the Financial Plan affected by Louisville's current $9.6 million shortfall in the current fiscal year budget (due to a decline in projected revenue from a net-profit tax on business)?
How will similar shortfalls impact the Financial Plan?
Will local taxing districts drive businesses and residents from the local area and to remote suburban areas?
Where these questions examined in the FEIS?
HIGHER LOCAL GAS TAXES
How much will gas taxes go up?
What is the impact of increased gas taxes on travel?
What is the impact of increased gas taxes on cross river traffic demand?
What is the impact of increased gas taxes on the lower income?
Where these questions examined in the FEIS?
PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION
What does that mean?
BONDS
Isn't Louisville nearing the limit of its borrowing through municipal bonds?
How much more debt can Louisville carry without negatively affecting the city's credit rating?
What sectors of Louisville's population will the impacted by the debt caused by bond secured grants?
For how long?
BOND SECURED GRANTS
Isn't Louisville nearing the limit of its borrowing through municipal bonds?
How much more debt can Louisville carry without negatively affecting the city's credit rating?
What sectors of Louisville's population will the impacted by the debt caused by bond secured grants?
For how long?
8664
Many have asked why 8664 is not an organizational endorser of KTAP's Transportation Statement and if KTAP endorses 8664. KTAP addresses no specific transportation plan other than the Kentucky/Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project. KTAP addresses the unrealistic financial plan of the Kentucky/Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project. KTAP requests financial realism.
8664 has been asked to endorse the Transportation Statement. Why 8664 has not endorsed the plan is best answered by 8664.
(*) Environmental Impact Statement
There have been a number of legal, scientific, and local developments since completion of the EIS in the Bridges Project that highlight the inadequacy of the EIS in light of present day financial, energy, and environmental constraints. For example, the Bridges EIS did not address CO2 emissions or evaluate the expected CO2 emissions from the project. Tailpipe emissions of CO2 contribute to global warming. Since completion of the EIS, Mayor Abramson has signed onto the U.S. Conference of Mayors’ Climate Protection Agreement (http://www.usmayors.org/climateprotection/agreement.htm), which includes a commitment to transportation options that reduce global warming pollutant emissions. In 2007, the U.S. Supreme Court held that CO2 is a pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act. Furthermore, a study published this month by Stanford University scientist Mark Jacobson identifies direct links between CO2 emissions and increases in human mortality (http://www.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/CO2PapGRL1207.pdf). Therefore short-term and long-term CO2 pollution and emissions associated with the Bridges Project must be evaluated.
Media
"Abramson, others endorse bill that could mean tolls"
Courier-Jounal, 30 January 2008, Marcus Green
"Paying for Spans May Need New Strategies - Leasing, tolls may be in the future"
Courier-Journal, Sunday, 6 January 2008, Marcus Green
"Financial options urged for bridges - Road fund cannot cover cost"
Courier-Jounal, 18 January 2008, Marcus Green
http://www.courier-journal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2008801180416
Frankfort Testimony
Kentucky House of Representatives
House Budget Review Subcomittee on Transportation
Hearing on the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project
Monday, 28 January, 2008
2:00 p.m.
Introduction to KTAP Testimony by Jackie Green
==============================================
Good afternoon. My name is Jackie Green. With me are:
* K.A. Owens, Vice Chair of Kentuckians for the Commonwealth
* Aloma Dew, from the Sierra Club
* Barry Zalph, Executive Director of Bicycling for Louisville.
I am a small business owner and one of the spokespersons of Kentuckiana Transportation Action Partnership, or KTAP. We are here today testifying on behalf of KTAP, a coalition of 25 citizen organizations and businesses from both sides of the river. We four, and KTAP as a whole, thank Chairman Pasley, subcomittee members, observing legislators, Cabinet Secretary Prather and KYTC staff for your service to the Commonwealth and for this opportunity to testify.
KTAP addresses the two-bridge plan as proposed by the Louisville-Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project. We address no specific transportation plan other than the two-bridge plan. KTAP partner organizations agree unanimously that the financial plan of the Bridges Project is unrealistic. Our Transportation Statement proposes that no further funds should be spent on the Bridges Project until a realistic financial plan is in place.
What is a realistic financial plan? A realistic financial plan addresses the financial, energy, socioeconomic, and environmental realities of the 21st century. Regional, national and world conditions have significantly changed since the start of the Bridges Project in 1992. This 4.1 Billion Dollar project has not adjusted to the new realities.
Further, taxpayers deserve to know in advance the most intimate details of how they and their children will pay for this, the costliest project in Kentucky’s history and the costliest one in our planned future. There are too many unanswered questions pertaining to the finances of this project. Some of those unanswered questions are found on the KTAP website. The printed info you received today includes a copy of the KTAP website. The website addresses questions on Senate Bill 7, on tolling, on higher vehicle registration fees, on local taxing districts, on higher local gas taxes, on bonds, on grants secured by bonds and on public private partnerships. Those and other revenue raising measures are being considered for the financing of the Bridges Project.
Thus far this session, the General Assembly has received bad news concerning the state of the Commonwealth’s finances – namely, the fact that our transportation budget is in deep trouble. KTAP brings good news. In the next two years, Kentucky can free up as much as 345 Million Dollars to spend on more pressing transportation needs by not spending the same 345 Million Dollars on a project that cannot be completed in a manner consistent with current plans, cost estimates, and available funds.
The Bridges Project has been designed to proceed through a phasing of project stages. Project phases include: Environmental Study, Design, Acquisition, Utility Relocation and Construction. Project phasing offers major built-in seams in the project. These seams are natural places to pause and evaluate. There are also minor seams within each major phase. Let's take the opportunity presented by these seams. Let's re-evaluate this project and its financing in light of the realities of the new century. Our proposal offers a course of action to slow the financial hemorrhaging that places the Commonwealth at risk.
It appears that the hopes and dreams for two new bridges now rest solely on Senate Bill 7. Senate Bill 7, however, will not fund the Bridge’s 345 Million Dollars requested for this current biennial budget period. With or without Senate Bill 7, we still face a financial crisis this year.
In future years, the bridges project continues to face a financial crisis because Senate Bill 7 is a tax bill. It is a tax bill that is activated only if local elected officials vote to tax their constituents. What happens if local elected officials, deciding that the supposed benefits of this project do not merit the additional tax burden to their constituents, what happens if local elected officials vote down this tax? Where then will the money come from?
The Bridges Project has its roots in 1954. That's fifty four years ago. Alot has changed in the past 54 years. And we can be assured that the next 54 years are going to be very unlike the 1990s. As late as 1992 the public and our political leadership could not have known that co2 emissions would be regulated, that oil prices would triple (with every sign of continuing to rise), that the need to live more sustainably would require us to radically rethink transportation. In 2007 the Commonwealth's leadership could not have known that the economy and our budget would take the turn they have. Today, knowing much more than we did a year ago, we need to exercise fiscal responsibility and address the new realities.
KTAP asks you, our legislators, to recognize the new realities and demand with us a transportation plan that responsibly addresses financial, energy, socioeconomic and environmental concerns.
Thank you, Chairman Paley. If there are no immediate questions, ...