One of thie big debates in advance of the General Assembly session is on something called “Devolution”. It’s kind of a wonky debate and I think I’ve got a handle on it but I might get some of the pieces not quite right. The debate has to do with who takes care of the secondary road system and who pays for it. The division of respobsibility is along County/City lines.
As I understand it, in the 1930’s the State created the system for road maintenance that we currently use. The State simply assumed responsibility for maintaining the secondary road system in the Counties. You’ll see VDOT trucks and employees working on the roads in the Counties. Now, for the cities, they created 2 funds: a urban capital fund and an urban operating fund. They did this as they directed the cities to maintain the secondary road system within their borders and agreed to pay us to do that. This is the system we currently use. I don’t believe there has been much, if any, money in the capital fund for awhile. The operations fund is still there but, as evidenced by the condition of our roads, is underfunded. Given economic conditions, that isn’t unexpected.
The proposal, as I understand it, is to take all of the urban money, put it into a pot with some other VDOT money and push the responsibility for all local road maintenance to the local level: cities and counties. The Counties are, understandably, not exactly wild about this as they would have to stand up this capability and that’s a lot of work. Cities don’t like it as they don’t want their pot of money mixed up with anyone else’s. There’s also some concern about how efficient it would be and the impact that the absence of some central planning would have.
I suppose that, as a philosophy or approach, devolution doesn’t bother me. I have concerns about efficiency but VDOT hasn’t exactly been a model of efficiency so a different approach might make sense. A hybrid approach where more urban counties have to assume responsibility might make sense. Our City already does the work anyways so it isn’t anything new for us. We already have staff, trucks and all the other stuff so it’s a question of who pays for it. Most states appear to use hybrids.
I will say that we need to have this discussion with our eyes open though. The elephant in the room is money. If the state is going to mix all of the pots of money together, they have to make sure that there’s enough money in there to get it done. At least to start with! What happens with these deals is that, over time, the state will transfer an increasing part of the responsibility for funding this to the localities. Localities don’t ever like it but we’re used to it.
What does bother me is that we’re having this policy discussion about increasing local responsibilities in the context of the elimination of significant local taxes. As I’ve stated elsewhere, I’m not wild about over-reliance on the property tax. I don’t think that ends well.
December 11, 2011 at 6:26 pm
One thing I have noted in all this wonk talk is VDOT/DRPT, or more precise the Commonwealth Transportation Board, will still have the say on approval of road projects. Unless I missed it, if the road has a State Number or Interstate Number, CTB still has the say so. Okay, may work for new road project approval, but if pushing the road maintenance down on local gov’t, they need to also pass local coordination & approval.
The Govenor’s Reform Commission when it came to Transportation had such things as: lift the mandate Airport Property Lease be approved by State and leave it to local government; eliminate madate VDOT of oversight of certain local road projects; eliminate the SYIP when there is no funding for any project; elimanate local gov’t submitting plans that affect a State highway to VDOT; and change the mandate secondary road projects have to go through Richmond and just local district director review/approve.
As I said, if the mandate to maintain is coming down to local gov’t, then like the Reform Commission says, put the authority in the hands of local gov’t to do as they know best about the roads. But don’t forget the funding stream coming from Richmond along with the freedom to use it to meet local needs!
December 12, 2011 at 9:28 am
This idea does have some promise. It would leave the decision on when and where the locality should build a road. We, in Northern Virginia, would no longer be paying for the Lynchburg Bypass (as an example) as the sacrifice of gridlock in Northern Virginia. While the initial response is fear of loss of funds, could we be in a position to stop sending our tax dollars elsewhere in the Commonwealth and to control our own destiny.
December 12, 2011 at 11:28 am
Commentary by VaCO Executive Director Jim Campbell this morning in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on devolution makes a good read:
http://www2.timesdispatch.com/news/commentary/2011/dec/11/tdcomm04-state-forces-local-taxes-higher-ar-1533593/
December 12, 2011 at 12:09 pm
If you want someone to get excited about a post regarding how our roads get funded, you have to figure a way to work the term “buttholes” into the dialogue. Gets people all spun up, and they start launching blogs and targeting elected officials with the accuracy of a small tornado. Writing about “potholes” won’t cut it.
December 12, 2011 at 1:56 pm
One thing I left out, if the State wants us to take care of the roads, then the State should provide us with the income from the tax on gasoline sales.
December 12, 2011 at 2:10 pm
@Mo: The state does share some of the gas tax proceeds with us and those go to pay for VRE and the Bus system. There is some left-over money in the gas tax fund and for the past several years we’ve used that to pave roads b/c we have had to eliminate almost all road maintenance budgets. The excess isn’t anywhere near enough to support the entire road maintenance/building budget tho.
I think that letter to the Editor Ray linked to has it about right.
December 12, 2011 at 9:29 pm
Maybe to get people excited they need to feel the kick in the wallet if what the State plans to do happens. Problem is, most won’t feel it as they don’t even pay attention to items in the CIP. Just focusing on roads, there is $170mil in the approved plan:
http://www.manassascity.org/DocumentView.aspx?DID=4146
And that is not even figuring in as roads under VDOT perview when expanded may also mean opportunity to replace other infrastructure. And that is a whopping load of bucks too – just look at what Mike Moon said tonight about the Portner & Battle Street flooding issue. $1.3mil that is unfunded at the moment to just fix the pipes.
Maybe if Andy tossed up the guesstimate of the rise in the taxes the folks would all come out of the woodwork 🙂
December 12, 2011 at 9:51 pm
VA Association of Counties (VaCO) just released its “Capitol Contact” titled: Say ‘no’ to develution:
http://app.bronto.com/public/?q=preview_message&fn=Link&id=dkdee0sa53epbo0ehgdq1cvfrcp7f&ssid=205&t=3
December 13, 2011 at 10:24 pm
Wasn’t there some kind of referendum a few years back that would have produced a revenue stream for roads? I think it’s end was merciful and quick, but I’m glad we’ve recently been promised the first one percent of state revenue that shows up after 5% growth. I won’t be holding my breath.
December 24, 2011 at 3:45 pm
asdfasdfasdfasdf