Who pays for public transit?

The two-year effort to expand public transit, both in the Treasure Valley and around the state, was close to collapsing last week.

Two of the member organizations of the Moving Idaho Forward coalition could not agree on a compromise needed to move forward with a bill to allow a local option tax to fund regional transportation projects. And now, despite the compromise endorsed by at least one coalition member, the House is preparing to move forward with its own local option bill – without the support of the coalition.
The trouble began more than a week ago when the Boise Metro Chamber of Commerce executive committee decided to endorse a constitutional amendment for local option taxation, but only if it was implemented with the transportation bill proposed by Moving Idaho Forward.
On March 10, one business day later, the board of directors of Valley Regional Transit, another coalition member, voted to oppose the same amendment. By the end of the week, the Boise chamber had withdrawn its endorsement.
The proposed amendment allows cities or counties, but not regions, to vote on local options initiatives at November election. The vote would require a two-thirds supermajority to pass.
The coalition introduced transit legislation during the last legislative session, but the bill died in the House Revenue and Taxation Committee – largely due to opposition from House leadership. That legislation would have given regional transportation authorities the ability to ask voters for permission to levy a local option sales tax to pay for public transit.
The coalition has changed its strategy this year by modifying its proposal so that local option funds could be spent on roads and public transit, depending on the needs of the region.  In order to expand support for the issue and emphasize the state-wide importance of transportation, the coalition also adopted a name change: Moving Idaho Forward. Members now include agencies and business organizations, as well as individual business and community leaders and elected officials from around the state.
The Boise chamber had decided the additional compromise on the constitutional amendment was necessary to move the public transportation bill forward, or risk waiting another year.
“The chamber and others have worked hard on this legislation for nearly two and a half years,” Ray Stark, a senior vice president at the chamber, said. “We would not endorse the constitutional amendment without the implementing legislation. The chamber executive committee position reflects a realization that the Idaho Legislature may never agree to reduce the supermajority and that we need to move forward with the rules for local option.”
The bill’s supporters had been reluctant to accept a constitutional amendment because it would restrict the operation of a regional transit authority.
“It’s like the community college [vote], where Ada County passed by 80 percent and Canyon County didn’t reach the supermajority,” Valley Regional Transit spokesman Mark Carnopis said. “If Ada supports it and Canyon doesn’t, where does it put us? We’re a two county transportation authority. How can we build outside our border?”
Last week, House Majority Leader Mike Moyle, R-Star, said he planned to introduce the local option amendment at the end of the week, followed by his own public transportation bill.
Moyle’s proposal would shift power even further away from the regional transportation authority and place it with the county commissioners.
“I want commissioners to have the final vote, not a bunch of people I didn’t vote for,” Moyle said.
Stark said the Boise chamber is reviewing Moyle’s bill to decide if it’s still acceptable to the coalition’s vision, but he didn’t think it would be possible for the coalition to meet together with the Legislature moving so quickly.
On March 13, the same day Moyle’s bill was introduced, the chamber’s board of directors rejected the compromise proposed by the executive committee.
It has been the position of the chamber that a local option tax should be regional, not county by county, or you create an uneven playing field, Nancy Vannorsdel, president of the Boise chamber, said.
“Obviously this is not a place where we want to be,” she said. “We don’t want to be in opposition to the governor or leadership over at the Legislature, but we do have to be prepared to do what’s right for our business constituency. The county by county vote sets a dangerous precedent.”  
Over the next several days, chambers around the state, the chamber alliance, cities, counties and other organizations will be reviewing the issue, Stark said.
“The coalition still believes their bill would be more appropriate, but it’s not being considered by House leadership,” Stark said.
In a year where Idaho’s transportation infrastructure may be approaching a crisis, public transit hasn’t been a big part of the debate. Most of the focus has been on funding ongoing operations and maintenance costs.
Outside the Treasure Valley, the effort to make local option taxation a statewide issue hasn’t received much support from the business community.
The Twin Falls Chamber of Commerce recently polled its members on their support of a local option tax. Only 44 percent of respondents supported the concept, while 37 percent said they would vote in favor of such a tax if it were allowed by law.
About 174 members, or 15 percent of the chamber’s membership, responded to the survey, Twin Falls Chamber President Shawn Barigar said.
“We think the snapshot that came back is there’s not enough information on it,” Barigar said. “It’s not high profile enough for people to have an informed opinion on it. It’s difficult to explain the complexity of it in a three minute survey. I don’t think there’s overwhelming support or opposition. Any tax is a liability for business, but transportation is also critical and we need to figure out some way to pay for it. The bottom line is the Twin Falls chamber is not going to be strong voice on the local option tax one way or another.”
The Twin Falls chamber will stick to the positions it drafted last fall – namely financial discipline within the Department of Transportation and a limited increase of vehicle registration fees, Barigar said.
Gov. C.L “Butch” Otter hasn’t had much luck finding traction with his transportation priorities either.
Earlier this month the governor withdrew his transportation package – which included increased vehicle registration fees – a few days after submitting it to the Legislature.
At a meeting of the Idaho Press Club earlier this month, Otter said he was “surprised at the lack of support from cities and counties.” He claimed the chambers of commerce had cut and run.
Stark doesn’t agree.
“Chambers across the state strongly support increased funding for transportation,” Stark said. “The situation developing in the Idaho Legislature was very fluid with specifics and it’s difficult to blame chambers on the many funding options that need many weeks to work through the House, Senate and gubernatorial process. He should be more upset with the House of Representatives’ late proposals than he should be at the chambers.”
There have been a few successes with transportation funding this year.
Stark said he was pleased that GARVEE funding made it through the Legislature’s Joint Finance and Appropriations Committee without trouble.
“It could have been a source of controversy, but it looks like we’re beyond that now,” he said. “We’re still hopeful that the Legislature and governor will agree on legislation for increased funding for the state and local systems.”