The Giesen Perspective

Heading into the Third Week of the General Assembly

DATE: Monday, January 22, 2007

 

TO THE FOREFRONT—TRANSPORTATION

 

As the Assembly finishes its second week of this year’s short session the conversation in the Halls of Government center around the Republican “Compromise Transportation Plan.”  This is now being referred to as just The Republican Plan.  Since even before the Assembly officially started on January 10^th, it was rumored a group of Republican Senators and Delegates were huddling behind closed doors trying hard to come up with a transportation package that they might be able to sell to the GOP majorities in both houses.

 

While not directly involved in these talks, it was generally acknowledged that The Speaker of the House, Delegate William Howell, had blessed these discussions and hoped for a break through in the stalemate which kept the Assembly “technically in session” for over 240 days in 2006.  When the “Republican Press Conference” was held last Thursday, The Speaker was right in the middle of the presentation and in fact the press release was distributed by G. Paul Nardo, The Speakers chief aide. 

 

The senior Republican Senators and Delegates directly involved in working out the compromise “to build consensus for the passage of a comprehensive transportation plan” were Senators Tommy Norment (Majority Floor Leader), Walter Stosch (Majority Leader), Fred Quayle & Ken Stolle (members of the Senate Finance Committee along with Norment and Stosch), and Marty Williams (Chairman of the Senate Committee on Transportation) and from the House Delegates Dave Albo (Chairman of the House Courts of Justice Committee), Kirk Cox (Majority Whip), Morgan Griffith (Majority Floor Leader) and Terry Kilgore (Majority Caucus Chair from Scott County, and twin brother of the GOP candidate for Governor in 2005).  All members of this group maintained they garnered detailed input from many of their colleagues in both chambers.  The Democrats maintain just as strongly that they were not consulted, but then it is a Republican Plan!

THE REPUBLICAN PLAN

 

The Republican House members have stressed the last two years that sprawl has had an increasingly burdensome impact on the rising cost of maintenance of our streets and highways.  VDOT noted last year that over 200 new miles of suburban subdivision streets have been taken into the system for the state to maintain for each of the last several years.  According to VDOT officials, it is getting worse.  Many zoning decisions are made without any consideration for the congestion the new developments might create on adjoining streets and highways.  At least, this has been the contention of many House Republicans.  The Governor has also stated his concern for the lack of cooperative planning between local governments and VDOT.  Interestingly, legislation has now been introduced by the Administration and by the Republicans to “ensure that state government and localities work together to properly handle growth.”

 

The Republican Plan includes legislation to “curtail sprawl, limit traffic congestion and plan better” by requiring counties (town and cities would be permitted) to create “Urban Development Areas” in their Comprehensive Plan; and, to “improve the relationship between state and local governments which will pay dividends over time, urban counties (those over 90,000 population) would be given the opportunity to accept responsibility for the maintenance of all or a portion of their existing secondary road system by creating “Urban Transportation Service Districts” in exchange for these counties being given broader authority to charge an impact fee for road maintenance.  Finally, to address skyrocketing maintenance costs VDOT would be required to define a “Local Subdivision Road” and a “Local Collector Road,” and would be prohibited from accepting for maintenance purposes any new “subdivision roads” into the Commonwealth’s statewide system. 

 

Funding for the Republican Plan isn’t too much of a surprise.  Most of the continuing money is from the General Fund – an additional $250 million per year with an additional 50% of any surplus dedicated to transportation - estimated at $227 million in FY 2008 and $64 million in the out years.  The plan would rely on Abusive Driver Penalties (a new fine), an increase in overweight truck penalties (an increase in fines), and heavy truck registration (a new fee).  These three together are expected to raise $91 million per year.  An equalization of the diesel fuel tax (oh my, an increase in a tax) should raise $20 million a year and an increase in the vehicle registration fee of $10 (an added fee, not a tax increase).  These changes are forecasted to raise $496 million on a continuing basis. 

 

Proposed regional transportation authorities for Northern Virginia $(383 million) and Hampton Roads ($209 million) will raise the indicated amounts for expenditures in their regions IF all of the localities in the region agree to the taxes authorized by the state. 

 

Please note that if all of these recommendations were to become law the annual infusion of money into the transportation system would be over a billion dollars a year.  This is the amount everyone has been talking about for several years.  However, over half of this would be concentrated in two areas of the state.  The most congested areas without doubt, but two of the smaller land areas. So, the plan would also authorize the state to borrow some $1.3 billion dollars for transportation from 2008-2012 and some $700 million in new bonds beginning in 2012.  All parties have stated the Insurance Premium Taxes ($134 million per year) should be dedicated to transportation.  The Assembly has been authorizing their use by the Transportation Trust Fund for several years.  The Republican Plan dedicates this source of revenue to pay the debt service on FRAN bonds (and in the future, one would assume to cover the debt service for the new bonds being authorized.)

 

DEAL OR NO DEAL

 

On Friday I discussed this new Republican Plan with one of its architects.  He stated it wasn’t the plan he and I would have devised if we had been the only ones working on it.  He reminded me that in my years in the assembly I learned that the art of getting something accomplished was “compromise.”  I acknowledged this was the case.  Then I asked if there was any room left for more compromises with the 120 some legislators who were not directly involved in the discussions?  The answer was, “…this is just too fragile a plan, and my feeling is the package is going to have to stand or fall as a package.  This comment reminded me of Howie Mandel pointing his finger at a contestant on NBC’s very popular new game show and saying in a very strong voice, “Legislators, is it a DEAL OR NOT DEAL?”

 

If this position of “there’s no more room for additional compromises” is maintained though out the process, then my feeling is it will by NO DEAL!  For instance, it is well known the Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee doesn’t like floating bonds to build highways.  In addition, he and others on the finance committee are worried about using general funds for transportation.  Many others have expressed concerns about the dedication of “50% of the future general fund surpluses to transportation.”  What happens when the estimates of state revenue are too high and there is a downturn general fund income.  Will the Transportation Trust Fund have to give money back to the General Fund or will the state just stop building roads for a while?  Is this plan really a sustainable, dedicated source of funds with which to solve the transportation problems of the state?  Probably not; nevertheless, it is a plan and the parties are talking and that is a VERY GOOD SIGN.

 

 

HOW TIME CHANGES WHOSE OX IS BEING GORED

 

In the 1970s Delegate Ray Garland, R—Roanoke, led an effort by the then very small Republican delegation to have legislative redistricting done by a special non-partisan commission.  All of these bills which were introduced came to a quick demise at the hands of the Democrat Majority on the Privilege and Elections (P & E) Committee. 

 

On Friday (the 12^th) the present P & E Committee met; but now the Majority is strongly Republican.  So things have changed and guess what?  You are right!  The proposal to create an independent bi-partisan, redistricting commission was defeated on a party-line vote.  This time, however, the bill was sponsored by the Democrats.  The Republican Majority on the P & E Committee soundly defeated the measure. 

 

Both sides may want to look at history while they claim redistricting is a political process, therefore who better to do it than the politically elected legislators!  In the early 90s the Democrats, who had defeated all Republican efforts to de-politicize the process, gleefully paired eight sitting Republican Delegates into four districts.  They also redrew the congressional district which the then Congressman George Allen represented so that in the words of a senior Democrat leader, “He’ll have to have a seeing-eye dog to find his district.”  The Democrats put George in the 3^rd District with Congressman Bliley.

 

So what happened?  Four of the “displaced Republican Delegates” ran for the State Senate and were elected along with their colleagues who stayed in the House.  Two of those elected in this “unintended consequence” of redistricting are now major leaders of the Republican Majority. In addition, George Allen took the opportunity to run for Governor and he won.   

 

It would appear to a casual observer, the citizens of Virginia don’t take kindly to high handed use of legislative power!

 

Then there is the present effort of the House Democrats to force the Republican Leadership to start taking recorded votes in subcommittees.  Last year rules were adopted to allow bills to be killed in a subcommittee without a recorded vote and without the bill being heard before the full parent committee.  Prior to last year, subcommittees could only “recommend action” for the full committee to take on a particular piece of legislation.

 

Republican leaders reminded the Democrats that any subcommittee member may still ask for a bill to heard before the full committee even if a subcommittee has voted to kill it. 

 

The Democrat chief patron (all 40 Democrats signed the recommended rules change) stated, “A consequence of the rules change last year, whether intended or not, is that we have reduced our own accountability to our voters.” 

 

The subcommittee meetings subjected to this rule are held in public.  Of course, some of them are held early in the morning and others late at night.  But, “…if the public can find them they are held in public!”

 

In the fading years of the Byrd Machine control of the General Assembly the very large Democrat Majority dominated all of the committees of the Assembly.  In fact, very few meeting committees even had a Republican or a “Liberal Democrat” serving on them.  Then committee meetings were held in public UNTIL it came time for a vote on a controversial piece of legislation (such as the budget).  The chairman of the committee then banged the gavel and called the committee into executive session.  Everybody except members of the committee had to leave the room.  This meant staff, reporters, other legislators, friends, advocates, and family.  The next day only the number of ayes and nays was reported in the calendar.  There were no names mentioned.  The media and other members really had to dig to find out how a particular member on the committee voted. 

 

Republicans tried to change the system, but to no avail.  In 1968 the election of John Warren Cooke to the position of Speaker finally moved the Assembly to one of inclusiveness and openness.  Every member received active committee assignments and both parties were represented on all committees.  Votes were taken in open session and recorded in the calendar.

 

So, now whose ox is being gored?

 

 

Links to Previous Giesen Perspectives:

Jan. 15, 2007 Dec. 18, 2006 Nov. 22, 2006 Nov. 10, 2006 Sept. 7, 2006 August 23, 2006 June 30, 2006 June 1, 2006 May 24, 2006 April 10, 2006 March 30, 2006 March 20, 2006 March 6, 2006 Feb. 27, 2006 Feb. 17 and 19 2006 Feb. 10, 2006 Feb. 3, 2006 Jan. 27, 2006 Jan. 23, 2006 Jan. 16, 2006 Dec. 21, 2005 Nov. 9, 2005 Oct. 21, 2005 Sept. 16, 2005 Aug. 26, 2005 Aug. 19, 2005 July 7, 2005 June 8, 2005 May 27, 2005 April 7, 2005 March 10, 2005 February 21, 2005 February 14, 2005 February 8, 2005 January 31, 2005 January 15, 2005 December 23, 2004 November 19, 2004

 

 

© 2007 Eldon James & Associates, Inc.