March 29, 2024

A bridge too far?

A key principle to employ when expenses outweigh revenues is making sure that government is operating as efficiently as possible. Raising taxes should be used as a last resort. The current high-pressure push to raise the gas tax by 10-cents per gallon seems to violate that principle and causes concerns.

For starters, this is a regressive tax that will hit low and middle-income Iowans the hardest. This should be reason enough for the legislature to avoid the path of least resistance.

Secondly, are we certain that all the DOT’s less-essential spending has been cut and redirected to infrastructure priorities? Currently, there is $166 million taken off the top of the Road Use Tax Fund for 17 various projects and programs that have nothing to do with roads and bridges. Some of this money has been going to DOT administrative operations, but what about the rest of that $166 million? Is it more important than repairing our infrastructure? And shouldn’t the DOT’s administrative costs be coming out of the General Fund anyway?

I do applaud the DOT taking steps towards more efficient operation of their department. They need to be commended for the millions of dollars they have saved Iowa taxpayers thus far. However, are there other non-essentials that Iowa road funds are going towards.

What about the sculpted, colored concrete median on I-80 for 8 miles through Iowa City?

What about the new large semi parking lot at the Wilton rest area, less than 20 miles from the world’s largest truck stop at Walcott?

What about the new bridge in Dallas County that won’t be used for years due to the lack of an existing road connecting to it? (Yes, even Iowa has a bridge to nowhere.)

Then there is the issue of the Road Use Tax Fund (RUTF) distribution formula. Secondary roads are approximately 80 percent of our infrastructure and it is where we see the most need for maintenance and repair. Yet only 32.5 percent of the RUTF is allocated for this portion. Of that 32.5 percent, only 8 percent is designated for our farm-to-market roads. Shouldn’t addressing the disparity in this distribution formula be part of the conversation and solution as well?

Lastly, there is the issue of whether a gas tax increase is a long-term solution. The Legislative Services Agency (the bureau that is responsible for crunching the numbers for state government) has projected that revenue from the 10-cent-hike decreases over time. Translation: we may be looking at another gas tax increase just a few years from now.

This past week, legislators were able to read, for the first time, a study bill which proposes a 10-cent per gallon increase in the fuel tax. If it were only a gas tax hike, it would be bad enough.

However, HSB 129 also includes a significant increase in various other transportation-related permits and fees.

What initially began as a proposed increase in just the gas tax, has now blossomed into a license to raise other fees at the same time. This has caused several legislators who were openly supportive of the gas tax increase at first, to be reluctant in their support of the overall bill. In their zeal to raise additional fees, the authors of HSB 129 have jeopardized some critical support needed for its passage and — in the long run — may have gone (pardon the pun) a bridge too far.

With the above accountability questions being ignored and all of the little extras that have been attached to the gas tax bill (that do nothing long-term to address the infrastructure needs), I am still a solid NO on raising the gas tax. Instead, I have offered other solutions to funding our infrastructure and my hope is that those will be given serious consideration now that the fate of HSB 129 is questionable.

Rep. Greg Heartsill (R-Columbia) serves for Iowa House District 28.