Underfunded Jacksonville? Time to fix?

[jaxlongtimer]

An underlying theme for many items discussed on The Jaxson is the lack of City funding to pay for them.

Using this column this week by former Mayor Delaney and Jeanne Miller on behalf of the Jacksonville Civic Council to jump start a discussion on this issue.

Emphasis added.
https://www.jacksonville.com/story/opinion/2021/03/07/guest-column-time-comprehensive-public-finance-solution/4595876001/

OPINION
Guest column: Time for a comprehensive public finance solution
Your turn
John Delaney and Jeanne M. Miller

With a host of advantages from climate and location to arts, culture, sports and recreation, Jacksonville is poised to realize its promise as one of the South's great cities. A major impediment, however, is the city's lack of an adequate and sustainable public funding structure.

Whenever Jacksonville's future is discussed, funding is the elephant in the room. The city's chronic capital and operational shortfalls have factored into countless issues of public debate, including education and public pension reform. That is why the Jacksonville Civic Council, a nonpartisan group of business and nonprofit CEOs focused on Jacksonville's success, has made strengthening Jacksonville's public finance structure a major focus of its strategic plan.

In a November 2019 letter to the Jacksonville City Council, JCC identified Jacksonville's need for revenue as a precipitating factor in the attempted sale of JEA. JCC also requested that the City Council initiate a "thorough, transparent process" to identify the city's financial requirements and determine how to meet them in a sustainable manner. Although that process has yet to take place, City Hall is still the appropriate place to convene it -- and our elected officials are the right people to lead the conversation.

The Civic Council has powerful data to contribute. In 2018, JCC collaborated with researchers at Jacksonville University and the University of North Florida to conduct a fiscal analysis of Duval County and comparable Florida cities and counties. Updated annually, the JCC-JU-UNF study revealed that Jacksonville has the lowest property tax rates and lowest property tax revenues of its peer cities. It also showed that while comparable Florida communities enjoy significant supplemental revenue from impact and other fees, as well as special taxing districts, Jacksonville receives little in the way of additional income except a dividend from owning JEA.

The combination of lower property rates, lower property values than peer cities, and a lack of alternative revenue sources leaves Jacksonville seriously underfunded. The city spends less per capita on municipal services than its comparable communities, negatively affecting law enforcement, public safety, landscaping, libraries, parks, downtown, the arts and more. Jacksonville typically spends less on public infrastructure as well, leading to a backlog of pressing capital needs such as septic tank removal and drainage improvements.

As we seek a fair and comprehensive solution to the city's finance woes, there is reason for hope. Conventional wisdom has always held that tax and fee increases would be rejected by Duval County residents. But over the past 45 years, our citizens have repeatedly shown their willingness to invest in Jacksonville at the ballot box, approving six of seven sales tax initiatives to meet infrastructure and education needs, with the seventh failing by a very slim margin.

Clearly, our citizens are ready to provide for local government when the case is presented in a way that makes sense. Now, it is up to our leaders to identify the city's needs, make the case for funding them, and put Jacksonville on the path to a financially sustainable future.

John Delaney, Chairman, Jacksonville Civic Council

Jeanne M. Miller, President & CEO, Jacksonville Civic Council

[marcuscnelson]

An hour ago Nate Monroe tweeted about a plan by Mayor Curry and other city leaders to double the gas tax in order to fund $1b in infrastructure and public works.

3 cents would go to City Hall, the other 3 to JTA. The City is planning $300m in road projects over the next five years. There will be a story about it in the coming days.

[jaxlongtimer]

An hour ago Nate Monroe tweeted about a plan by Mayor Curry and other city leaders to double the gas tax in order to fund $1b in infrastructure and public works.

3 cents would go to City Hall, the other 3 to JTA. The City is planning $300m in road projects over the next five years. There will be a story about it in the coming days.

Subject to more details, maybe the Mayor finally got one right (as they say, even a blind pig finds acorns once in a while ).  I have always thought raising gas taxes was appropriate for several reasons and wondered why we don't do it more often:

1. Puts burden of roadway costs on the users and may encourage them to consider mass transit or other more efficient modes of transit.
2. By increasing the cost of commuting, encourages more density and less urban sprawl.
3. The more expensive gas is the more frugal users will be using it.  This drives more development of, or transition to, more efficient vehicles and encourages less driving which, in turn, reduces greenhouse gases and reduces other impacts on the environment in furtherance of dealing with climate change.  It also reduces the need to rip up our environment in the name of oil extraction and delivery.
4. Less driving may also mean less road maintenance expense and infrastructure spending, particularly expanding or building more roads.
5. And, by encouraging less demand for oil, it reduces dependency on foreign countries, improves our trade balance and reduces revenues supporting those we deem our enemies, human rights violators and/or unreliable partners (Russian, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, etc.).

[thelakelander]

Pending the details, I have no complaints about raising the gas tax to fund local projects. We can't squeeze blood out of a turnip. So if we want more, we'll need to find ways to locally finance local dream projects.

[marcuscnelson]

Someone also mentioned on Twitter that odds are, we may only have anther decade or so of being able to effectively use the gas tax before EV adoption demands a transition to some other sort of user fee for roadway use, so it's a good time to make the most of it.

I'm especially curious what exactly JTA would use their share for. Half a billion could go a long way for mass transit, or they could somehow spend it all to add another lane to JTB.

There's also the $2-4 trillion infrastructure bill that could pass later this year that attention is beginning to turn to, now that the American Rescue Plan is almost certainly on its way to the President's desk. Between Lawson, Rutherford, and perhaps Cammack, there's a chance we could get something out of that if we make a decent case for it. I'd like to think Rubio and Scott would acquiesce, although in Scott's case it's possible he'd demand cuts to anything that isn't the Jax-Tampa expressway.

[marcuscnelson]

An article is out now.

Jacksonville Mayor Lenny Curry and the Jacksonville Transportation Authority have been meeting with City Council members about a possible increase and extension of the local gas tax that would pay for a $930 million list of transportation projects.

Apparently this increase would generate $1.08 billion over about thirty years, $539 million for each group. Personally, I doubt that number, again seeing as EV adoption will likely pick up during that time and begin reducing gas tax income.

JTA would direct its share of the gas tax money for transit projects such as modernization of the elevated Skyway structure in downtown, making hundreds of bus stops compliant with Americans with Disability Act standards, and putting in place the "complete streets" concept that designs road corridors for motorists, bicyclists, pedestrians and transit riders.

The single most costly JTA item involves the Skyway system of elevated tracks and stations in downtown. JTA wants to eventually retire the Skyway trains and replace them with smaller automated vehicles that would travel the elevated structure and at street level.

The list shows JTA would spend $378 million to rehabilitate that existing system and make it ready for autonomous vehicles while also expanding the Skyway network into the downtown area neighborhoods of Riverside and Five Points, the sports complex, the Springfield neighborhood and UF Health Jacksonville, San Marco, and a route into the Southside.

"The Skyway obviously had its challenges over the years, but it clearly is an asset for downtown going into the future if we're truly to develop downtown," Ford said.

Uh... what? Isn't this like, double the cost of the entire existing system? The proposed system is something like 10 miles long, right? That makes AVs nearly $38 million per mile? Am I taking crazy pills, or are they?

[jaxlongtimer]

^ It's multiple times the original cost of the system.  This is a huge waste of resources as the ROI will be very small if not negative.  It will fail both because the Skyway has never produced due to numerous design and operating cost issues and, as discussed often here, the JTA version of AV is nonstarter.  Adding the two together will get you a great big minus.

For a fraction of that money we could abandon the Skyway and tear it down (see Mayor Curry, he knows how to get that done!)/make it into the Jacksonville version of NYC's Highline and start over with trolleys or most anything else in mass transit, dedicated bike/pedestrian ways, 2 way streets, road diets, road maintenance/upgrades in the NW quadrant, etc.  It's time to spread these dollars out and not concentrate them in a single proven boondoggle that, at best, will never serve a decent percentage of the population.

Next, we will find out a chunk of the proceeds are for Khan's projects.  I hope this is not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

[Charles Hunter]

Did I miss it? The article refers to lists of projects from the City and JTA, but I didn't see a link to them.

Subject to more details, maybe the Mayor finally got one right (as they say, even a blind pig finds acorns once in a while ).  I have always thought raising gas taxes was appropriate for several reasons and wondered why we don't do it more often:

1. Puts burden of roadway costs on the users and may encourage them to consider mass transit or other more efficient modes of transit.
2. By increasing the cost of commuting, encourages more density and less urban sprawl.
3. The more expensive gas is the more frugal users will be using it.  This drives more development of, or transition to, more efficient vehicles and encourages less driving which, in turn, reduces greenhouse gases and reduces other impacts on the environment in furtherance of dealing with climate change.  It also reduces the need to rip up our environment in the name of oil extraction and delivery.
4. Less driving may also mean less road maintenance expense and infrastructure spending, particularly expanding or building more roads.
5. And, by encouraging less demand for oil, it reduces dependency on foreign countries, improves our trade balance and reduces revenues supporting those we deem our enemies, human rights violators and/or unreliable partners (Russian, Iran, Saudia Arabia, Venezuela, etc.).

I agree with your first point.
The rest, not so much.  A six-cent gas tax increase is less than a 3% increase per gallon at today's gas prices, and will likely be an increasingly smaller percentage over the life of the tax.  The pump price goes up and down that much frequently.  Not enough of an increase to foster wholesale changes in commuting behavior, especially with the lack of alternatives in Jacksonville.  A caveat to that statement is if JTA uses its three cents to truly improve transit - and that doesn't include sedan-sized AVs in mixed traffic.  Also, IF the gas tax increase were to change driving behavior, the gas tax would not produce to projections, resulting in fewer projects.

Now, if you want to increase gas taxes by 50-cents per gallon, then you might see some systemic changes (or a noose).

[WAJAS]

^ It's multiple times the original cost of the system.  This is a huge waste of resources as the ROI will be very small if not negative.  It will fail both because the Skyway has never produced due to numerous design and operating cost issues and, as discussed often here, the JTA version of AV is nonstarter.  Adding the two together will get you a great big minus.

For a fraction of that money we could abandon the Skyway and tear it down (see Mayor Curry, he knows how to get that done!)/make it into the Jacksonville version of NYC's Highline and start over with trolleys or most anything else in mass transit, dedicated bike/pedestrian ways, 2 way streets, road diets, road maintenance/upgrades in the NW quadrant, etc.  It's time to spread these dollars out and not concentrate them in a single proven boondoggle that, at best, will never serve a decent percentage of the population.

Next, we will find out a chunk of the proceeds are for Khan's projects.  I hope this is not a wolf in sheep's clothing.

370 million is the cost of the original system in today's dollars, which doesn't include the conversion to the newer cars. They are pretty much completely rebuilding the system with the exception of the stations, supports, and ROW. New cars, new guideways, and new expansion to other areas make the cost make sense to me, but that statement is also pretty vague in what that cost is going towards. Does someone want to ask for clarification?

[marcuscnelson]

Did I miss it? The article refers to lists of projects from the City and JTA, but I didn't see a link to them.

No link to the actual list yet.

Now, if you want to increase gas taxes by 50-cents per gallon, then you might see some systemic changes (or a noose).

The later sounds a lot more likely in this state. Which is probably why state law limits it to 12 cents. Any increases beyond that would probably have to be federal, which means FTA oversight (which might not necessarily be a bad thing in this administration). A combination of increased gas taxes, aging highway removals (and not allowing states to go ham with federal dollars for new ones), and substantially improved transit would be very much transformational.

[Charles Hunter]

As others have said here, the per-gallon fuel tax has a limited life-span.  With increasing fuel efficiency in petrol-engines, and increasing fleet share of hybrids and total electrics, with historic increases in vehicle miles traveled flattening, and perhaps declining, coupled with increasing costs to build and maintain infrastructure, the gas tax will fall farther and farther behind. 

A new user-fee model is needed.  Some jurisdictions have been experimenting with "per mile" fees, and there are several different models being tested.  One stumbling block is the public's fear of intrusions into their privacy - they don't want the government to know where and when they have driven. On the other hand, the phone they carry in their pocket tracks their movements unless they take action to disable it.  Several insurance companies now offer discounts for customers who allow their driving to be monitored by the company - either by a device plugged into the car's computer or their smartphone. This may increase acceptance of allowing someone else to monitor your movements.  There are also simpler per-mile plans that just have the driver report their odometer readings periodically. This doesn't allow peak-hour or location pricing, but it eliminates the "Big Brother" aspect.

[Tacachale]

From what we know now, I'm in support of this. Details can be hammered out.

[vicupstate]

The best way to make sure this proposal is defeated at the polls is to spend a significant amount of the money on the skyway. It was a mistake from the beginning, and makes even less sense today than it did originally.

[thelakelander]

^They should fund the entire Emerald Trail network. That will be more popular to the average taxpayer and have more economic spin-off than something like the U2C. It is also something that should be tied to infrastructure projects that help resolve flooding. Perhaps it's included? I'll wait for the list.

[marcuscnelson]

The Daily Record finally posted a list of projects.

Skyway/U2C projects total $378,840,000.

However, there's also $3.3 million marked for "JRTC Rail Terminal Project Development," which includes:

Coordinate and request the Federal Transit Administration to enter into the Project Development Phase 
Complete PD&E/NEPA analysis and documentation 
Produce 35 percent design plans for the track and associated infrastructure to support the PD&E/NEPA 
Obtain commitments on the right‐of‐way required for the station 
Develop defined capital cost estimates