Voters in Wisconsin, Maryland to Decide on Better Protections for Transport Funds

Voters in Wisconsin and Maryland will decide in November on amendments that would bar lawmakers from raiding transportation funds to balance their states’ budgets.

In Wisconsin, backers of the amendment said it must pass for the state to move forward in search of new ways to pay for transportation improvements.

“The first step toward having a good public debate about alternative or additional revenue sources is restoring the public’s faith in the integrity of that fund,” said Steve Bass, vice president of governmental affairs for the Metropolitan Milwaukee Association of Commerce.

For two decades, governors in Wisconsin have diverted revenue from the fuel tax and license and registration fees to government functions other than transportation.

“When you pay your licensing fee, your car registration, those types of things, that’s what the intended purpose is, and when they’re not used for that, people find out and they get upset,” said Rep. Keith Ripp, chairman of the Wisconsin House Transportation Committee.

According to a 2013 report, Wisconsin needs $1.35 billion more in transportation money annually until 2023 just to maintain current conditions.

Ripp said policymakers will have to consider everything from tolling to higher fuel taxes and registration fees to raise that amount, “but first we have to protect that fund.”

Wisconsin truckers helped get the proposed amendment on the ballot, said Thomas Howells, who is about to retire as president of the Wisconsin Motor Carriers Association after 35 years.

“There’s been a lot of reluctance in Wisconsin to raise user fees because people are skeptical about where the money is going to be used,” Howells said.

In Maryland, more money is flowing into the transportation fund — $4.4 billion in additional money over the next six years — from new fuel and sales taxes approved last year.

“That makes it, perhaps, more ripe for being utilized for other purposes,” said Louis Campion, president of the Maryland Motor Truck Association, which is supporting the ballot measure that would put a lock on the fund.

“We’re just trying to protect and ensure that if we asked the citizens of Maryland to pay more in fuel taxes that we are willing to back that up with a guarantee that the money is used for the appropriate purpose,” Campion said.

Governors and lawmakers tapped Maryland’s transportation fund to avoid making hard tax decisions about how to pay for other government functions, said Maryland State Sen. James Rosapepe, who sponsored the bill that advanced the proposed constitutional amendment to the ballot.

“I’m a very strong supporter of dedicated revenues . . . because I think it increases public confidence so people understand what they’re buying,” Rosapepe said.

Most states have some sort of lock on the transportation funds that they generate through fuel taxes, but as a 2011 survey by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials found, the locks are not tamper-proof.

Between 1985 and 2011, for example, New Jersey officials raided the state’s transportation fund eight times to balance the budget, AASHTO said.

And some states, among them Alabama and Arizona, allow the fuel-tax revenue in their transportation funds to be spent on law enforcement activity related to roads.

Transportation advocates in other states also are trying to get stronger prohibitions on the diversion of transportation funds.

In 2010, voters in California approved a measure that prohibits lawmakers from using fuel-tax revenue for cash flow or budget balancing.

Connecticut transportation advocates have not been as successful. This year, they tried and failed to get a bill through the Legislature that would have put a constitutional amendment on the ballot to prevent diversions from the transportation fund.

“We’re sick and tired of having some of the highest fuel taxes in the country and the worst roads,” said Michael Riley, president of the Motor Transport Association of Connecticut.

“The money that we’re paying for highway user fees is being diverted regularly to general fund expenses,” Riley said.

Truckers pay 54.9 cents in taxes for every gallon of diesel they buy in Connecticut, and the American Society of Civil Engineers said in its 2013 infrastructure report card that Connecticut and neighboring Rhode Island have the highest percentage — 41% — of roads in poor condition.