Author: Terri Hall

Woman gets $11,000 toll road bill!

Posted on by

Link to article here.

Woman receives toll road bill for more than $11,500
2/25/2009
By: Bob Robuck
News 8 Austin

Samone Murray handles a stack of bills from TxDOT.

It all began with a woman who received a $4,000 bill from the Texas Department of Transportation for toll road usage and penalties.

Now, another woman has come forward with a bill a lot larger than that.

Samone Murray was recently laid off from her job as an administrative assistant. As such, money has been tight, a factor that only added to her shock when she received a toll bill for more than $11,500.

“Eleven thousand dollars in administrative charges — that’s not going to happen,” she said. “That will not be paid, not by me. That’s ridiculous.”

The actual toll charges on the bill amount to about $358 and the remaining $11,142 is attributed to administrative fees.

“At first I laughed and thought, ‘Well, maybe I’m reading this wrong. I’m a little tired or something,'” she said. “So I put it down and came back to it, read it again and immediately called my sister, and she said, ‘Are they crazy?'”

Murray’s problem actually started in December, when she received a number of invoices, for tolls assessed six months earlier, each including a $5 administrative fee. Since Murray did not receive any notices or bills prior to that month, she said she didn’t know that every time she used the toll road, somebody was adding a new charge to her account

“I called customer service and they explained, ‘Well maybe it was going to a different address,’ and I said, ‘Well I’ve been here long enough to have gotten them from you before, so what would be the difference?'” Murray said.

Murray said she’s had a TxTag on her car the entire time and always passes under the readers in the toll plazas. She said the toll lights never signal a problem.

Though she said she called customer service several times, no one could explain why Murray owed so much. At one point, Murray said, a customer service representative increased the bill right over the phone, without giving Murray an explanation.

In the end, she said a representative told her she now owes more than $13,000.

For more than a week, News 8 Austin has tried to get a representative from TxDOT to explain and to detail the workings of the toll road system and third parties involved. They said they’re working to get that information and may have something later this week.

Tolls still on table for interchange at 281/1604

Posted on by

Link to Express-News article here. Link to WOAI news story here.

Trying to have it both ways…

“It is not going to be a toll project,” RMA Chair Bill Thornton told the Express-News. On the SAME day, Thornton told WOAI radio, “One of the contingencies that TxDOT has tied to that money, though, is that it be done as a toll project.”

It’s no wonder the public can’t get a straight answer from these agencies…perhaps the old adage fits here: if their lips are moving, they’re lying!

THEN, in the same Express News article…

“…the ramps would link to both the existing freeway lanes and eventually the toll lanes.” – Clay Smith, TxDOT

So which is it, fellas? You can’t both be right! A skeptical public knows better, you will toll these roads even if they’re paid for unless lawmakers rein it in!

02/24/2009
Crammed 1604 point might not need tolls
By Patrick Driscoll
Express-News

Within four years, motorists could be whooshing over long-awaited interchange ramps at U.S. 281 and North Loop 1604, past what today is one of San Antonio’s worst traffic snarls.

And thanks to a federal jolt of money coming this way, the ramps would not be tolled, as recent plans have called for.

“Shock of shocks. It is not going to be a toll project,” said Bill Thornton, chairman of the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority, an agency initially created five years ago to build toll road projects. “We look for all methods of financing that we can find.”

The Metropolitan Planning Organization, which oversees how federal transportation dollars are spent in Bexar County, voted unanimously Monday to use local and state funds from the $787 billion stimulus package to build four of the eight planned interchange connectors.

The $140 million project tops a list of seven recommendations being forwarded to the state, including an $8 million plan to reconfigure U.S. 281 intersections north of Loop 1604 to temporarily loosen traffic knots until a better fix is found.

The four interchange ramps at Loop 1604 target the junction’s heaviest traffic, connecting northbound U.S. 281 to both directions of the loop and  linking both directions of the loop to southbound U.S. 281. Construction could start within a year and finish by the end of 2012, with the improvements carrying an estimated 50,000 vehicles a day after opening.

Drivers would get to skip over the notorious traffic signals and frontage roads that tie up traffic today.

“It’s horrible,” said Rick Garza, who sometimes fights the traffic while delivering meals. “I know we can’t work miracles, but something can help.”

Critics of plans to toll 47 miles of U.S. 281 and Loop 1604 on the North Side remain leery despite the funding twist.

“While we welcome any nontoll funding to finally complete these projects, we have to ask, what will this interchange connect with? Toll lanes or nontoll lanes?” said Terri Hall, founder of Texans Uniting for Reform and Freedom.

Texas Department of Transportation planner Clay Smith said the ramps would link to both the existing freeway lanes and eventually the toll lanes.

The MPO will get only $43 million in stimulus money for roads but expects to get some of the state’s $1.5 billion share. The Texas Transportation Commission will hand out its goodies Thursday.

“We don’t know what they’re going to do,” MPO Director Sid Martinez said.

Based on past funding, San Antonio could see about $80 million of the commission’s stimulus dollars. The MPO is hoping to get at least $130 million from the state and match it with $20 million, enough to pay for the interchange ramps and to widen Loop 1604 at Randolph AFB to four lanes from FM 78 to Graytown Road.

That would leave $22 million in local stimulus funds to be allocated later.

The local planning board also submitted a best-case scenario, in case the state gives $237 million to San Antonio. The MPO would then put up all its $43 million, and the to-do list would grow to add, from highest priority to least:

36th Street: Add lanes from U.S. 90 to Billy Mitchell Road — $16.5 million.

Interstate 10: Add four lanes from North Loop 1604 to Huebner Road — $40 million.

Wurzbach Parkway: Build four lanes from Blanco Road to West Avenue — $32 million.

Wurzbach Parkway: Build four lanes from Jones Maltsberger Road to Wetmore Road — $33 million.

U.S. 281: Reconfigure intersections north of Loop 1604 — $8 million.

Though a suggested redesign of U.S. 281, to eliminate cross traffic and rely on added U-turns to ease traffic, came in last on the MPO’s list, the idea has ardent champions.

“The super street must be funded somehow,” said City Councilwoman Diane Cibrian, who sits on the MPO board and is running for mayor.

_________________________________________________________

Thornton: TxDOT Demands Toll on 1604-281 Project

Even if federal stimulus tax dollars build it
By Jim Forsyth
WOAI Newsradio

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Texas Department of Transportation may have thrown a monkey wrench into a local proposal to have money from the stimulus bill signed last week pay for long debated improvements to the 281/1604 interchange on the far north side, 1200 WOAI’s Bud Little reports.

“One of the contingencies that TxDOT has tied to that money, though, is that it be done as a toll project,” said former mayor Bill Thornton, who chairs the local Regional Mobility Authority.

When the RMA voted last month to place the 281 improvements up for consideration for stimulus money, Thornton and other RMA officials said because the money would be provided by the federal government, tolls would not be needed.

Thornton, who is a long time supporter of toll projects, says if the state agrees to place the project on the list for stimulus funded projects, local officials will have a decision to make.

“One of the proposals that is before us, is that TxDOT would send the money to our region, primarily to do the 281/160-4 interchange,” Thornton said.  “Clearly, that is an area that needs to be addressed.”

Thornton said the question is whether the community is ready to move ahead with construction of that interchange, or ‘do we want to pass this opportunity and leave things as they area, and hope and wait until the next opportunity.’

“These are difficult times, our government is already spending money it doesn’t have.  If you can place that money into a fixed, firm asset which can bring value to San Antonio for many decades to come, that might be a great place to put those investments.”

Thornton says the question is, ‘are we going to fish or cut bait.’

“Are we going to build an interchange, or are we going to let this opportunity pass and hope for some other funding source in the future,” Thornton says.

TxDOT will have the final say on where more than $2 billion in infrastructure projects earmarked for Texas will be spent.

Ft. Bend Commissioners vote for control of Grand Parkway

Posted on by

Link to article here.

After Heated Debate, Court Takes Step Proponents Say May Put Parkway Under Local Control
Ft. Bend News
February 24, 2009
By Bob Dunn

Over strenuous objections by two members, Fort Bend County Commissioners Court approved a complex agreement proponents said gives county officials their best shot at controlling development of the Grand Parkway locally.

But Precinct 3 Commissioner Andy Meyers and Precinct 1 Commissioner Richard Morrison said they believe the agreement – approved on a 3-2 vote – may obligate Fort Bend County to make a future payment of $100 million or more to the state of Texas.

The agreement approved Tuesday is between Fort Bend, six other regional counties and the Texas Department of Transportation. Titled “Market Valuation Waiver Agreement for SH 99 (Grand Parkway),” the document does more than waive a valuation study of the Grand Parkway project. (Such a study is required as part of Senate Bill 792, passed by the state Legislature last year.

The agreement also appears to define the Grand Parkway as “a single project that will ultimately include the full scope of work included in the Terms and Conditions.” Those terms were included as an exhibit to the main agreement.

The Grand Parkway, a proposed giant ring around Houston running through parts of Harris, Fort Bend, Brazoria, Galveston, Liberty, Chambers and Montgomery counties, has generated significant opposition.

So-called Segment D, running from U.S. 59 north to Interstate 10 in Fort Bend County, is the only portion of the parkway that’s been built. TXDot has stated that its preference is to construct the parkway as a series of toll roads, which many residents in Fort Bend oppose.

The idea of running Segment C from U.S. 59 south past Greatwood in Fort Bend County has infuriated residents of that community and nearby subdivisions.

County Judge Bob Hebert said a market valuation study of the Grand Parkway project would take two years or more to complete. By that time, he predicted, the Texas Legislature will have decided to reauthorize funding for TXDot, and possibly could designate the Grand Parkway as a state project – a designation the project currently carries.

Hebert and Precinct 4 Commissioner James Patterson said they believes that by waiving the requirement for a market valuation study, the stage is set to allow Fort Bend, Harris and the other five regional counties to meet and see whether consensus exists to make the Grand Parkway a locally controlled project, taking it out of TX Dot’s hands.

If such consensus were reached, Hebert said before Tuesday’s meeting, the seven counties could create a new entity to develop the Grand Parkway on behalf of the counties. Although the agreement passed Tuesday refers to “a single project,” Hebert said it would be developed locally in sections, based on economic demand.

“The citizens of Greatwood and Bridlewood have a bigger influence and voice with local government – as we certainly saw in the last election – than they do in state government,” Hebert said prior to the meeting.

He referred to Morrison’s victory in the November elections over former Precinct 1 Commissioner Tom Stavinoha. Greatwood residents’ strong opposition to Segment C of the Grand Parkway was seen as a major issue in the race.

On Tuesday, Morrison told court members he had spoken just before the meeting with an attorney who had authored the market valuation waiver agreement, and shared concerns he had about the document. Morrison said the attorney had agreed with concepts Morrison described for making certain changes to the document. In order to make such changes and give the revised document to the Fort Bend County Attorney’s Office for review, Morrison asked to table the vote on the Market Valuation Waiver agreement for a week.

Although commissioners almost routinely grant each other such requests, Morrison’s request was rebuffed.

“What in here are you concerned with?” Patterson asked him, holding up the agreement.

“No. 6 -” Morrison began.

“That’s a simple statement,” Patterson said.

“I can read, commissioner, I can read it,” Morrison said. “I have read it.”

Section 6 of the agreement reads, “Development of a market valuation for the Grand Parkway Project is waived.”

Morrison and Meyers’ concerns stem from a provision in SB 792 that indicates if a county or group of counties decides to develop a project such as the Grand Parkway locally, once certain conditions are met, the local development entity would have to:

“Commit to make a payment into a toll project subaccount in an amount equal to the value of the toll project as determined by the market valuation…” or:

“Commit to construct…additional transportation projects in the region in which the toll project is located with estimated construction costs equal to the market valuation of the toll project…”

“I don’t think this agreement, the way it’s written, gives us local control,” Morrison told the other court members. “…it ties the hands of those in the future.”

Hebert and Patterson argued that provisions Morrison referred to in the senate bill could not apply to the Grand Parkway until and unless Fort Bend and the other six counties agreed to create a local entity to develop the parkway. And, Hebert said, a waiver of the provisions quoted above are “implied” by TXDot’s agreement to waive the market valuation study.

“Anything is negotiable,” said Precinct 2 Commissioner Grady Prestage, after about 10 minutes of debate on the issue. “I suggest we go ahead and do it,” whether it’s 5-0 or 3-2 or whatever.”

Prestage, Hebert and Patterson then voted to approve the agreement, trumping “no” votes by Meyers and Morrison.

Overpass to nowhere, a stimulus bill fiasco

Posted on by

IMMEDIATE RELEASE

AGUA/TURF question status of 281/1604 interchange, stimulus funds

San Antonio, TX, February 23, 2009 – AGUA and TURF have concerns about the status of the 281/1604 interchange in light of the Metropolitan Planning Organization’s (MPO) vote today to submit it as a “shovel ready” project for stimulus funds.

“While we welcome ANY non-toll funding to FINALLY complete these projects, we have to ask…what will this interchange connect with? Toll lanes or non-toll lanes? Will it only connect with what’s there now or what? How can they build an interchange without knowing what sort of lanes it’ll connect with?” Terri Hall, Founder of TURF, asks.

Enrique Valdivia, President of the Board of Aquifer Guardians in Urban Areas (AGUA) wondered, ”We’re concerned that stimulus money is being used to fund projects within the scope of the issues we’ve raised in our lawsuit.”

Hall says the non-toll fix to 281 and1604 and the interchange should all be on the table. While the toll road clearance has been pulled, there are provisions in the law that would allow all these improvements to move forward as scaled down non-toll projects if the politicians would demand that TxDOT work with community groups to agree on a less invasive, more affordable plan.

“Until now, TxDOT and the RMA have REFUSED to negotiate. They want a massive toll road that steals our freeway and raids our wallets,” Hall said.

Citizens have been clamoring to get the original, non-toll freeway plan built on 281 for 4 years, and they have recently launched a campaign to pressure politicians in the area to get the job done. View it here. The freeway fix was promised in public hearings in 2001, had environmental clearance, no opposition, and it was funded with gas taxes in 2003. Then the Texas Legislature, including State Rep. Frank Corte and Sen. Jeff Wentworth, voted for Governor Rick Perry’s toll road plans. That’s when 281 FREEway improvements were turned into a toll plan instead.

“It’s all about the money. Our politicians want to tap the vein and charge 281 commuters an extra tax to get to work in order to fund their pet projects elsewhere. It’s highway robbery and citizens, rightly, went nuclear to stop it,” Hall declared.

Though the Alamo Regional Mobility Authority (ARMA) and TxDOT stubbornly claim there is no money or environmental clearance to fix 281, [the money is still there in Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) documents], $425 million total, which is more than enough for the less invasive original plan AND the interchange at 281/1604 and the most congested areas of 1604.

“The stalemate over 281 isn’t about lack of money or lack of clearance, it’s about a lack of political will. It’s about rogue bureaucrats and unresponsive politicians who can magically produce $20 million for an overpass for wealthy campaign donors in the Dominion, yet they’d have us believe the same ‘can’t’ be done on 281. The pathway to a solution the taxpayers and environmental groups are happy with is ripe for the picking, but our politicians refuse to choose it. They want our money, and they don’t care about the environment or whose lives’ they’re wrecking to do it,” Hall noted.

###

Obama nixes charge by mile idea

Posted on by

Link to article here.

Obama Nixes Mileage Tax Idea
President Says He Won’t Adopt Policy Considered By Transportation Chief
By Associated Press
WASHINGTON, Feb. 20, 2009

President Barack Obama will not adopt a policy to tax motorists based on how many miles they drive instead of how much gasoline they buy, his chief spokesman said Friday.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs commented after Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood told The Associated Press that he wants to consider the idea, which has been proposed in some states but has angered many drivers.

“It is not and will not be the policy of the Obama administration,” Gibbs told reporters, when asked for the president’s thoughts about the policy and LaHood’s remarks.

Gasoline taxes that for nearly half a century have paid for the federal share of highway and bridge construction can no longer be counted on to raise enough money to keep the nation’s transportation system moving, LaHood told the AP in an interview Thursday.

“We should look at the vehicular miles program where people are actually clocked on the number of miles that they traveled,” the former Illinois Republican lawmaker said Thursday.

LaHood spokeswoman Lori Irving said Friday that the secretary was speaking of the idea only in general terms, not as something being implemented as administration policy.

Most transportation experts see a vehicle miles traveled tax as a long-term solution, but Congress is being urged to move in that direction now by funding pilot projects.

The idea also is gaining ground in several states. Governors in Idaho and Rhode Island are talking about such programs, and a North Carolina panel suggested in December the state start charging motorists a quarter-cent for every mile as a substitute for the gas tax.

A tentative plan in Massachusetts to use GPS chips in vehicles to charge motorists by the mile has drawn complaints from drivers who say it’s an Orwellian intrusion by government into the lives of citizens. Other motorists say it eliminates an incentive to drive more fuel-efficient cars since gas guzzlers will be taxed at the same rate as fuel sippers.

Besides a VMT tax, more tolls for highways and bridges and more government partnerships with business to finance transportation projects are other funding options, LaHood, one of two Republicans in Obama’s Cabinet, said in the interview Thursday.

“What I see this administration doing is this – thinking outside the box on how we fund our infrastructure in America,” he said.

LaHood said he firmly opposes raising the federal gasoline tax in the current recession.

The program that funds the federal share of highway projects is part of a surface transportation law that expires Sept. 30. Last fall, Congress made an emergency infusion of $8 billion to make up for a shortfall between gas tax revenues and the amount of money promised to states for their projects. The gap between money raised by the gas tax and the cost of maintaining the nation’s highway system and expanding it to accommodate population growth is forecast to continue to widen.

Among the reasons for the gap is a switch to more fuel-efficient cars and a decrease in driving that many transportation experts believe is related to the economic downturn. Electric cars and alternative-fuel vehicles that don’t use gasoline are expected to start penetrating the market in greater numbers.

A blue-ribbon national transportation commission is expected to release a report next week recommending a VMT.

The system would require all cars and trucks be equipped with global satellite positioning technology, a transponder, a clock and other equipment to record how many miles a vehicle was driven, whether it was driven on highways or secondary roads, and even whether it was driven during peak traffic periods or off-peak hours.

The device would tally how much tax motorists owed depending upon their road use. Motorists would pay the amount owed when it was downloaded, probably at gas stations at first, but an alternative eventually would be needed.

Rob Atkinson, chairman of the National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission, the blue-ribbon group that is developing future transportation funding options, said moving to a national VMT would take about a decade.

Privacy concerns are based more on perception than any actual risk, Atkinson said. The satellite information would be beamed one way to the car and driving information would be contained within the device on the car, with the amount of the tax due the only information that’s downloaded, he said.

For more info:

  • National Surface Transportation Infrastructure Financing Commission

    By Associated Press Writer Joan Lowy
    © MMIX The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

    • Blatant taxpayer-funded lobbying by local govt for transportation tax hikes

    Posted on by

    Link to article here.

    As if TxDOT’s lobbying for toll roads on the taxpayer’s dime isn’t bad enough (read about our lawsuit to stop it), local government gets off scott-free since their thievery has been deemed legal by default. We MUST DEMAND and end to taxpayer funded lobbying on ALL levels of government!

    Sun, Feb. 15, 2009
    North Texas officials want more money for transportation lobbying

    By DAVE MONTGOMERY

    AUSTIN — After committing more than a quarter of a million dollars in lobbying fees for a major transportation bill, North Texas officials are asking suburban cities to step up with more money to push the legislation “over the goal line.”HillCo Partners, one of Austin’s blue-ribbon lobbying firms, has been hired to lead the charge in behalf of the bill, designed to fund road and rail improvements in the traffic-clogged Metroplex.

    But HillCo’s 13 registered lobbyists don’t come cheap. And the total price tag apparently remains a work in progress as the Austin firm tries to persuade lawmakers to approve a rewritten version of legislation they rejected two years ago.

    Fort Worth, Arlington and the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition have agreed to pay HillCo $275,000 for its transportation lobbying efforts. The coalition and Fort Worth approved separate contracts of $100,000 each, while Arlington authorized $75,000.

    The transportation coalition, composed of 38 cities and four counties, is also asking for additional payments from smaller suburban cities in what it predicts will be a hefty and costly undertaking. The bill, which will be outlined at a news conference Monday, is considered one of North Texas’ top legislative priorities.

    Solicitation letters sent to member cities propose payments of $5,000 each for cities with more than 25,000 residents and $2,500 for cities with fewer. The payments can be made separately to HillCo or sent to the coalition as an “addendum” to its $100,000 contract with the firm, said Vic Suhm, the coalition’s executive director.

    Appeals to the suburbs

    “We need the participation of our region’s suburban cities to muster the resources we need to achieve success,” said the letter from Mayors Ken Shetter of Burleson and Oscar Trevino of North Richland Hills. Shetter is coalition chairman and Trevino, a former chairman, is on the executive committee.

    In the letter, the mayors proclaimed a “good start” on behalf of the funding bill but said “it is going to take a monumental effort to get us over the goal line. … While smaller cities can’t match the large commitments Fort Worth and Arlington have made, we can and should do our part.”

    Most towns and cities in Tarrant County are coalition members, as are businesses and chambers of commerce.

    In the solicitation mailings, Shetter and Trevino noted that the coalition, “in partnership with the region’s largest cities and counties, has engaged HillCo as our legislative advocate to help get this critical legislation passed this session.”

    What’s next

    Sponsors of the legislation, called the Texas Local Option Transportation Act, will outline their plans at a news conference today at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller, plans to file a bill in the House, and Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, will introduce a companion measure in the Senate.

    Approval by the Legislature would allow voters in North Texas counties, including Tarrant, to decide from a menu of taxes and fees that would fund road improvements and a multi-county regional rail network.

    The plan, earlier called Rail North Texas, is a reworked version of a bill that died in the 2007 Legislature. It never made it out of committee because of objections to using sales tax as a method of financing. The sales tax is not part of the new measure.

    HillCo, formed in 1998 by consultant Bill Miller and former state Rep. Neal “Buddy” Jones, has well-established ties in North Texas. In addition to its work on the transportation issue, the firm also promotes the legislative agendas of a dozen towns and cities, including Fort Worth, Arlington, Dallas, North Richland Hills, Burleson, Southlake, Irving and Denton.

    The state government is prohibited from using public money for lobbying services, but the prohibition does not extend to cities, said Tim Sorrells, a spokesman for the Texas Ethics Commission. City officials say professional on-the-ground lobbyists are vital to help cities with their legislative needs, although some taxpayer advocates criticize the expenditure of tax money to private lobbying firms.

    “People who make that charge really haven’t worked in the trenches down here,” said Miller, the HillCo executive. “If you’re down here part-time, then you won’t be successful.”

    ‘Biggest, baddest partner’

    Shetter said coalition officials considered other firms but agreed that HillCo, with its track record for success, had the best chance of reversing North Texas’ fortunes from the previous legislative session. “You want sort of the biggest, baddest partner you can get,” the Burleson mayor said.

    The coalition has paid HillCo a portion of its $100,000 contract for transportation lobbying and is paying the remainder on a monthly basis, said Suhm, the executive director. Fort Worth is finalizing its $100,000 transportation contract to HillCo after it was approved by the City Council on Tuesday, said Reid Rector, the city’s director of governmental relations.

    The fee for transportation lobbying, he said, is separate from Fort Worth’s $93,000 contract with HillCo to represent the city’s other legislative issues in Austin, Rector said.

    The Arlington City Council expanded its professional services contract with HillCo on Dec. 2 to pay the company an additional $75,000 to “promote a regional transportation system,” according the council’s minutes.

    Under a contract approved by the Arlington council Sept. 2, the city is paying HillCo $8,000 per month for the five months of the legislative session and $6,667 per month when the Legislature is not in session. The council also authorized $36,500 for a legislative consultant in another contract modification with HillCo on Feb. 3, according to council minutes.

    Amassing resources for victory

    Shetter and Trevino said the ultimate cost of the lobbying effort on the transportation bill has not been determined. The coalition, they said, felt that it is necessary to ask its suburban members to contribute to the effort, both to raise additional money and to give them a stronger stake in the outcome.

    “We’re talking about millions of dollars of economic development,” Shetter said. “When you’re trying to get something like that for a region, you don’t want to do things on the cheap. I want to make sure we have all the resources we need to see this thing through to the end.”

    Miller, HillCo’s co-founder, said that he was unaware of the request for the additional payments from coalition members.

    “I’m happy that people see the value of hiring us and want to see us paid,” he said. “That’s encouraging.”

    Miller said HillCo met with North Texas officials throughout the summer before getting the green light to take the lead on the transportation bill. The company’s lobbyists are working en masse to pass the legislation, he said, adding that HillCo is engaged in the most comprehensive deployment of “manpower and womanpower” since he co-founded the firm more than a decade ago.

    “I’ve seen more HillCo people at these meetings than any other deal I’ve done,” Miller said. “We have a big pool of talent, and we’re deploying it as fast and furiously as we can.”

    Although elected officials also participate in the effort and make contact with lawmakers, Miller said, HillCo is “quarterbacking the play” and directing strategy.

    “We have to persuade people to support it, to find ways to make it attractive to them,” he said. “Or to persuade them that their opposition is unwarranted. It’s a classic lobby deal.”

    A fundamental challenge, Miller said, is to convince lawmakers that the 2009 bill is not the same one the Legislature considered in 2007.

    “The principal thing we’re fighting is the history of the bill,” he said. “It’s a totally new bill, and we have to re-educate people.”

    No free ride for TxDOT in the Texas House

    Posted on by

    Link to article here. TxDOT had better be ready for this pit bull…

    No free ride for TxDOT in the Texas House
    San Antonio Express-News
    By Patrick Driscoll on Feb 16, 2009

    State Rep. Joe Pickett, D-El Paso, once said the Texas Department of Transportation’s strong-arming to push toll roads on local communities could come back to bite.

    Looks like the new speaker of the Texas House has just handed Pickett some teeth.

    pickett.jpg
    Joe Pickett
    straus.png
    Joe Straus

    Signaling what’s sure to be a bumpy ride for TxDOT and its toll-road and privatization agenda, House Speaker Joe Straus, R-San Antonio, last Thursday named Pickett as chairman of the Transportation Committee.

    “I have a lot of confidence in him,” Straus said. “I think he’s independent, he’s smart, he’s constructive, but he doesn’t mind asking tough questions. From the mail I’ve received regarding transportation issues, that’s the kind of profile of a chairman I was looking for.”

    Pickett, who serves on a regional transportation planning board and helped write TxDOT budgets while on the House Appropriations Committee, a few years ago accused the agency of threatening to pull funds to pressure toll critics in El Paso.

    “It is the state’s way or the highway, I mean tollway,” he said in a widely circulated letter titled, “TxDOT trampled on us.”

    • ‘TxDOT trampled on us’
    • Toll angst in El Paso

    In the last legislative session, Pickett filed a bill to replace the Texas Transportation Commission, which oversees TxDOT, with an elected commissioner. Ruth Jones McClendon, D-San Antonio, who Straus also put on the Transportation Committee, has revived the idea with a similar bill this session.

    • Another anti-toll strategy
    • HB 565 (McClendon)

    Before the 2007 session, Pickett warned that TxDOT might get beaned in its own game of hardball. As the session came to a close, he said a bill nipping the agency’s tolling power makes it clear “the public is telling TxDOT that ‘We don’t trust you. We have lost faith in what you are doing.’ ”

    • This is tense
    • Freeze on private toll roads ready for vote

    Now, with so many key questions needing answers — such as what mix of gas-tax dollars, toll-road fees and private financing should pay for transportation, and how should TxDOT be reorganized as part of a sunset bill — Pickett finds himself in one of the driver’s seats.

    And Straus doesn’t want the ball dropped.

    “I just feel like transportation is going to be addressed in a much more serious way this session,” he told the San Antonio Express-News Editorial Board today.

    Local option tax no good without sunset, accountability

    Posted on by

    Link to article here. How can the taxpayers support this array of tax increases when NO ONE, not even the Sunset Commission, has dug into TxDOT’s books to find the waste and abuse? Also, these could be permanent taxes even after certain projects are paid for. Any tax increase should be tied to specific projects and sunset after it’s paid for.

    Posted on Tue, Feb. 17, 2009
    North Texas voters could be asked to approve taxes and fees for transportation
    By GORDON DICKSON

    D/FW AIRPORT — Voters in counties across the Dallas-Fort Worth region could be asked to approve new taxes and fees for roads and commuter rail as soon as spring 2011, according to supporters of a sweeping transportation bill filed Monday.Dozens of legislators, mayors and other supporters of the Texas Local Option Transportation Act gathered Monday at Dallas/Fort Worth Airport. One by one, they expressed optimism that the measure will pass during the current legislative session, triggering what likely would be a multi-year process of identifying transportation needs in each county and taking the issues to voters.Senate Bill 855 would allow counties to hold elections and ask voters to raise new monies for development of commuter rail lines or to supplement funding for road projects. It’s being pitched as a remedy for North Texas’ gridlock and air pollution problems.

    “If we don’t have a forward-thinking transportation system, we won’t have economic development in this region 25 years from now,” said state Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas, who filed the Senate version of the bill. The House version is being filed by Rep. Vicki Truitt, R-Keller.

    Taxes and fees

    The bill would allow Tarrant County and other neighboring counties to hold local option elections, asking voters to raise a menu of taxes and fees, within these limits:

    Motor fuels tax, up to 10 cents per gallon, indexed to increase gradually with a cost of living measure known as the producer price index. This is the equivalent of a cost-of-living increase for the construction industry.

    “Mobility improvement fee” tacked onto car owners’ annual vehicle registration fee, up to $60 a year. This would be added to existing registration fees. In Tarrant County, fees are $51 to $69, depending on the vehicle.

    Parking fee, up to $1 per hour per vehicle per parking space.

    Vehicle emissions fee, up to $15 a year.

    Driver’s license fee, equal to the renewal cost — currently $24 for a basic noncommercial license. This could potentially double current amount paid by motorists.

    New resident impact fee up to $250, paid by car owners registering vehicles in Texas for the first time.

    However, two of those funding sources — a motor fuels tax, and a mobility improvement fee — could require a constitutional amendment. The Texas Constitution currently doesn’t allow those funds to be used for transit or rail, and constitutional changes require a two-thirds vote statewide.

    Carona on Monday also filed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment allowing those funds to be used for freight and passenger rail. If that bill passes, the amendment would be placed on a Nov. 3 ballot.

    If lawmakers approved the Texas Local Option Transportation Act during the current session, supporters wouldn’t anticipate widespread opposition to a constitutional amendment, said Vic Suhm, executive director of the Tarrant Regional Transportation Coalition.

    Calling an election

    Each county would identify its road and rail needs, and set up a funding mechanism to take to voters.

    Elections could be called by a county commission vote. Or, counties could be compelled to call elections if presented with resolutions from cities with a combined population of at least 60 percent of the county, or a petition signed by 10 percent of that county’s voters in the most recent gubernatorial election.

    A public hearing would be required before the local option election. Ballot language would include a description of each project, including cost of construction and maintenance, financing method and expected retirement of bonds.

    If voters approved the measure, existing agencies would issue bonds and manage the project. In Tarrant and Johnson counties, the lead agency for transit would be the Fort Worth Transportation Authority.

    More challenges ahead

    Crucial to the success of the Texas Local Option Transportation Act is ensuring that small cities are comfortable with the arrangement and don’t feel they’re being pushed around by the population centers such as Fort Worth, Truitt said. That can be accomplished by careful negotiations with those cities and their county officials, she said.

    “This bill is an equitable and flexible approach to a complicated region,” Truitt said.

    The bill is currently written as a local bill primarily affecting counties in the Dallas-Fort Worth area, as well as Bexar, Hays and Travis counties in the San Antonio/Austin area. Carona said he expected to continue talking with state leaders from other metro areas who also are interested in applying the legislation to their transportation needs.

    Taking action locally

    Supporters attending Monday’s announcement included Sen. Wendy Davis, D-Fort Worth, who recently was appointed to the Senate transportation committee, and Arlington Mayor Robert Cluck.

    Fort Worth Mayor Mike Moncrief surveyed the bipartisan group at D/FW’s administration building and remarked that he felt like he was witnessing an historical moment — perhaps a first step in the Metroplex breaking its long addiction to the single-occupant vehicle.

    Rep. Todd Smith, R-Euless, predicted that an improved transportation system would redefine the North Texas lifestyle and that future generations “will have trouble envisioning a time before that transportation system existed.”

    Carona said many state leaders, including Gov. Rick Perry, had agreed to support the Texas Local Option Transportation Act. He said the biggest challenge for the next two to three months would be ensuring that supporters of the plan continue to pitch it with the correct message.

    Mainly, he said, the key is persuading skeptics that it’s not simply a tax bill, but a legislative response to grassroots demands for a better transportation grid.

    Bill Watch
    SB 855: Texas Local Option Transportation Act Description: Allows counties to hold local option elections, asking voters’ permission to raise taxes and fees for road and rail projects. Options include motor fuels taxes, vehicle registration and driver’s license fees, parking and emissions fees.How to track: Go to www.legis.state .tx.us and search for Senate Bill 855 by Sen. John Carona, R-Dallas.

    Economist: Gas tax fairest way to fund roads

    Posted on by

    Link to article here.

    Radio Iowa News
    Economist says gas tax is “fairest” way to fund roads
    Wednesday, February 18, 2009
    An Iowa State University economist says the gas tax is the “fairest” way to raise money for road construction and maintenance.

    I.S.U. economist David Swenson told members of the House and Senate Transportation Committees he analyzed the impact of a 10-cent-per-gallon increase in the state tax on gasoline. “Nearly all of us drives to work so we want to get a handle on the commuting costs of a gas tax,” Swenson said.

    According to Swenson, the average Iowa commuter would pay from $33 to $100 a year more a year if there’s a 10 cent hike in the sate gas tax. The range accounts for variations in fuel efficiency of the cars Iowans drive as well as the miles Iowans drive to work. Swenson warns if gas prices rise again to the $4 level — and Iowans begin driving less — the amount of state gas taxes will go down as well.

    Swenson also points out as Iowans buy more fuel-efficient cars, the amount of gas they’ll be buying will also decline. “So what you’re getting out of the gas tax is an upfront level of revenue that you would expect to tail off over time,” Swenson said.

    The Senate Transportation Committee is considering a bill which would increase the state tax on gasoline by eight cents a gallon. According to Swenson’s calculations, an eight-cent hike in the gas tax would have little impact on the driving patterns of Iowans.

    Gasoline today in the state’s capitol city is selling for $1.67 per gallon. The average price in Iowa is currently $1.89 per gallon. At its peak on July 16, 2008, pump prices reached $4.02 per gallon in Iowa.

    The state of Massachusetts has begun exploring the idea of charging motorists a tax based on the number of miles they drive.

    "Merger" nothing short of hostile takeover of Via by RMA

    Posted on by

    Link to proposed draft legislation here.

    TURF Statement on proposed creation of Consolidated Transportation Authority
    RMA Board Meeting
    February 11, 2009

    The RMA’s involvement in lobbying for this change in legislation is obvious to any casual observer, especially in trying to persuade the Transportation Task Force to modify their initial plan to simply dissolve the RMA and turn it into a merger instead. This constitutes illegal lobbying for the passage of specific legislation (violation of Texas Government Code Chapter 556.005), particularly in the RMA’s attempts to lobby to keep their jobs. We are bringing this to the attention of law enforcement officials.

    The fundamental question is, why a merger instead of just dissolving the RMA? The ATD can do toll projects as well as most every other type of transportation project. We do not need to continue $1 million in salaries and benefits for employees who perform the same function of an existing board.

    The language of this proposed legislation is so broad and liberal (it even states to construe it as liberally as possible in the text) that its powers could be construed to mean just about anything!

    Here’s just the start of our list of concerns:
    It allows the authority to toll a road without a vote if they use local funds instead of state money! The bill allows CDAs, including concession fees, which the people of Bexar County are adamantly opposed to, and even Judge Nelson Wolff himself stated publicly that he’s against a CDA with concession fees that take the money and control of our highways away from the people of Texas.

    This bill throws fiscal responsibility and accountability to the wind. The authority could impose ANY kind of tax allowing total runaway taxation and bureaucracy run amok. The bill likewise allows the authority to steal money from one project to pay for another known as “system financing,” which results in one part of the community being overtaxed to subsidize projects elsewhere.

    This lacks transparency and makes following the money trail near impossible. It allows un-elected bureaucrats to use taxes for purposes the taxpayers never intended. A tax should be tied to a specific project and sunset when the project is paid for, period. If more money is needed down the road, then you come to the voters and ask for it. Taxation in perpetuity in the hands of a band of unelected bureaucrats is legalized thievery.

    If a road is tolled, it should be paying for the pavement those motorists are driving on, not used as a targeted tax to subsidize projects elsewhere. This bill creates the ability to co-mingle funds and pots of money to deceive voters and hide the fact that certain projects are not self-sustaining or truly viable projects. This authority would be more of the same elitist attitude we’ve seen from this Board….just give us your money because we know how to spend it better than you do.

    The bill would allow the authority to form its own government-owned corporation to finance its own projects, which was defeated by the last Legislature. Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse, the level of self-interest and incentive to make poor investment decisions (knowing the taxpayers will bail you out) is staggering!!

    Lastly, it’s clear the intent of this authority is to engulf the Hill County and outlying counties into its boundaries by hook or by crook. The people and their elected representatives in the outlying areas have clearly spoken at past MPO meetings that they DO NOT WANT THIS!

    A more detailed analysis of our concerns are attached. When will the public comment on the specific proposed legislation begin since last week’s hearing failed to produce the bill?
    ________________________________________________________________

    Specific areas of concern by section:
    1) Sec 451.901 6) (c) allows for monitoring of citizens

    2) Sec 451.901 6) (f) allows for concession fees (presumably through CDAs and private sheisters)

    3) Sec 451.901 7) can lump virtually any transportation project into their “system,” which allows for “system financing” (code for stealing from Peter to pay Paul; targeted tax on one set of folks to give it to another, or subsidize another)

    4) Sec 451.901 13) creates the ability to co-mingle funds and pots of money to subsidize ANYTHING without coming to the voters or doing so in a transparent way. It also allows an un-elected Board to levy taxes of all sorts without direct representation. It creates the ability to deceive voters and hide the fact that certain projects are not self-sustaining or truly viable projects.

    5) Sec 451.902 – allows them to “liberally construe” the law to do anything they want. [again in Sec  Sec 451.905 (d)]

    6) Sec 451.903 (b) (1) mentions multiple counties. It was clear at the MPO meeting last October that the people nor their elected representatives in the Hill Country want to have anything to do with Bexar County toll roads and MPO agenda. The language of this bill makes it clear in multiple places that this new entity could perform a hostile takeover of the Hill Country through designating a project outside the county lines as a “system.”

    7) Sec 451.903 (b) (2) transfers the RMA’s toxic debts and its $1 million dollar salaries, benefits, and pensions to VIA/ATD with no assurances in writing that TxDOT will continue to fund this failed agency (and why should they?).

    8) Sec 451.904 references planning and development of “mobility” (code for toll) projects in the authority’s county(ies) AND region thereby allowing toll projects in areas outside Bexar County where residents may be adamantly opposed to them. Allows the authority to make transportation decisions for other counties!

    9) Sec 451.904 (d) transfers RMA salaries, pensions, employees and obligations to ATD…this doesn’t shrink government for maximum efficiency, it bloats the agency with guaranteed work and wages for RMA employees who have yet to produce ANYTHING in 5 years!

    10) Sec 451.905 (a) grants virtually unlimited powers to itself by this nebulous statement “has the power necessary or convenient to carry out this subchapter or to effect a purpose of this subchapter” (“to effect purpose” has staggering legal implications)

    11) Sec 451.905 (f) can impose ANY kind of tax (except property tax)…total runaway taxation and bureaucracy run amok

    12) Sec 451.905 (i) – this section is governed by Sec. 451.705.  “SUBSEQUENT ELECTIONS.  (a)  If the initial election under Section 451.702 is held only in the principal municipality, or if the voters of another municipality or the unincorporated area of a county do not vote to join the district at the initial election under Section 451.702, the governing body of the other municipality or the commissioners court of the county may order an election in the municipality or the county at a later date on the question of joining the district…”

    People would only be able to vote for or against the proposed tax hike, and aren’t given a real choice of between methods of financing and the specific projects that a tax hike would fund. A tax should be tied to specific projects, not placed in a pot of money that can be used on things the voters didn’t directly approve. That would be the only fair way to do an election on transportation issues…you are given choices, not yes or no roads!

    13) Sec 451.905 (i) could form its own government-owned corporation to finance its own projects! Talk about the fox guarding the henhouse, the level of self-interest and incentive to make poor investment decisions (knowing the taxpayers will bail you out) is staggering!!

    14) Sec 451.907 (4) (b) allows two RMA board members to be holdovers (not to mention Henry Munoz is already running the board).

    15) Sec 451.907 (f) (2) prohibits elected official to serve as director of this taxing entity. That’s precisely who should be serving on this Board, it’s called taxation WITH representation, not the other way around!

    16) Sec 451.907 (D) allows board member to receive financial compensation for real property acquired by the authority if he/she can claim it wasn’t known at the time of his/her initial appointment. The Board member ought to resign from the Board in such an instance and, at a minimum, recuse himself by abstaining from voting on the item. (Basic conflict of interest and bad ethics to not force recusal!)

    17) Sec 451.909 (b) allows them to still issue debt without it being its report to the county/city in its strategic plan, so what’s the point of the reporting to them and having a plan if it can be ignored? This isn’t accountability; it’s just checking a box!

    18) Sec 451.910 potentially allows the authority to overtake/govern outlying areas by designating a project a “system” without that territory’s permission. This section allows them to steal from one project or area to subsidize another. Bad public policy and co-mingles the money making transparency difficult.

    19) Sec 451.911 (d) allows debt to be sold to private entities for private gain and allows debt for up to 50 years versus the traditional 30 yr municipal bond terms.

    20) Sec 451.912 vague wording, “all powers are cumulative” and can be exercised either independently or in combination (with who? or what?) What does this mean? Could it mean in concert with a private toll operator like a Cintra?

    21) Sec 451.913 this section should tie ANY sales and use tax to specific projects. By allowing a big pot of money to be used at the board’s sole discretion without notifying voters of what projects types it could fund, they could finance a toll road WITHOUT A PUBLIC VOTE, which was promised when the ATD was formed. So this is a loophole, even Tuggey admitted they could toll without a vote if they didn’t use state money and used local money instead! You can be sure they’ll exploit it!

    22) Sec 451.918 E. would allow CDAs, which the people of Bexar County have consistently rejected (hence the moratorium and the kabosh on the 281/12604 CDA in the 2007 legislative session (SB 792).

    Subchapter M of Sec 451 in the Transportation Code allows for the withdrawl from an authority, so surely there’s a away to dissolve the RMA, too. However, when you look at the procedure to withdrawl, in some cases, up to 20% of registered voters must sign a petition for a withdrawl election, which is a near impossible threshold to meet! After withdrawl, the region withdrawing has to pay back all the funds it ever received from the authority (again making it near impossible to withdraw)!

    By contrast, the existing law on the public hearings to create a Metropolitan Rapid Transit Authority takes just 500 signatures and the City can call for election to create one, but it takes 20% of ALL voters to dissolve it. That’s NUTS! The RMA and Via gave less than a week’s notice for its public hearing February 5, this law says it should be at least 2 weeks and published in the paper for those 2 weeks. Without a bill to scrutinize or comment on, Sec 451.653 could not be fulfilled. See below…

    Sec. 451.652.  NOTICE OF HEARING.  (a)  Notice of the time and place of the hearing on the creation of an authority, including a description of the area proposed to be included in the authority, shall be published once each week for two consecutive weeks in a newspaper of general circulation in the alternate municipality. The first publication of the notice must be published not later than 15 days before the date scheduled for the hearing.

    (b)  The governing body of the alternate municipality shall furnish a copy of the notice under Subsection (a) to the Texas Department of Transportation.

    Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1995.

    Sec. 451.653.  CONDUCT OF HEARING.  (a)  The governing body of the alternate municipality shall conduct the hearing on the creation of the authority at the place and time specified in the notice of the hearing. The hearing may be continued during the periods necessary to complete the hearing.

    (b)  Any interested person may appear at the hearing and offer:

    (1)  evidence on the issues described by Section 451.654(a); or

    (2)  other facts bearing on the creation, construction, or operation of the proposed transit authority system.