User Fees Stop Pass-through Traffic from Getting Free Ride

In debates over the ill-fated Amendment 7, which proposed a statewide transportation sales tax, opponents often pointed out that if Missouri used sales taxes to pay for roads, trucking companies essentially would get a free ride. Indeed, large trucks, which can do thousands of times the damage of a regular vehicle, make up a significant portion of traffic on Missouri’s interstates. In retort, proponents of using sales taxes to pay for highways have consistently stated that we all benefit from trucking, and that raising prices on commercial vehicles using Missouri highways will simply lead to those companies passing on their higher costs to Missouri consumers. However, Missouri freight data severely challenges this notion.

In the Missouri State Freight Plan, drafted by the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT), 2011 data showed that truck freight totaled over 500 million tons, carrying goods valued at approximately $711 billion. Proponents of using sales taxes to pay for highways argue that if it costs more to move those 500 million tons (by increasing user fees for commercial vehicles), shipping companies will charge higher prices to haul goods, leading to higher prices for Missourians.

However, setting aside the counterargument that charging shipping companies for the highways they use promotes efficient supply chains and local production, the fact is the vast majority of trucking freight in Missouri is not bound for Missouri. For example, of the 500 million tons of freight traffic in 2011, only 39 percent of that freight is either inbound or intrastate trucking. Forty-six percent of traffic by weight simply passes through Missouri. In terms of value of the goods transported, only 26 percent has a destination within Missouri while 61 percent of goods by value transit the state.

truck traffic MO

This means that if Missouri were to use general sales taxes—or any other type of non-user fee—to subsidize highways, the downstream price benefits would mostly accrue to consumers and producers in other states. Having commercial vehicles pay the actual costs of maintaining the highways might mean that prices rise on Missouri goods, but most of the effect would be exported to other states.

That’s why user fees are almost always preferable, when feasible, to general taxation; the cost of using the highway is internalized into the cost of the good, no matter where the final consumer lives. The use of general taxation to pay for highways would lead to higher prices for Missourians, who would provide a subsidized ride for shipping companies and artificially cheap products to residents of other states.

Arnold Wastewater Privatization: The Policy Breakdown

As Arnold residents prepare to decide on whether to sell the city’s wastewater facilities to Missouri American Water for $13.2 million, they should carefully consider both the possible positive and negative results of such a deal and whether the city of Arnold is getting a fair price for its facilities. And while we would argue this is a good deal for Arnold, residents should consider some general criticisms of water privatization deals, which are listed (with opponent responses) below:

Criticism: Privatized water systems mean higher rates for residents. Many cities that have privatized water or sewer systems, including Florissant, Missouri, have seen rates rise, usually faster than inflation.

Proponent response: Wastewater and water system privatizations often occur because cities are faced with expensive, necessary upgrades to sewer infrastructure. Cities that charge a utilities fee that is too low to generate enough funds for large upgrades are forced to decide between a large tax increase or subsidies from the general fund. In the case of Arnold, the city claims it will have to increase rates should privatization not occur. Luckily, Missouri American Water reports that its rate increases will be less than those the city would implement, even with necessary capital improvements.

Criticism: Cities are selling city assets in order to receive short-term cash infusions. This short-term gain will result in high utility fees in the long-term.

Proponent response: Just because cities could spend sales money foolishly, does not mean they will do so. In Florissant, the city spent a portion of the sales proceeds on immediate needs and put $10 million in a rainy day fund. Arnold plans to use proceeds to pay off existing debt, but beyond that residents should ensure that the city does not spend wastefully.

Criticism: Some cities with privatized water systems have seen the drinking water become unsafe. Companies looking to make a profit might cut corners and provide lower service.

Proponent response: Private water and wastewater management has a proven track record in the United States. The vast majority of municipalities that privatize their water or wastewater system end up renewing the contract. Like municipally owned water utilities, in individual cases private companies fail to meet safety standards, but this is not the norm. Also, the issue of water quality is less important under a wastewater system privatization than a water system privatization, for obvious reasons.

The residents of Arnold should carefully consider these questions surrounding the planned wastewater privatization deal, and whether both the funds the city will receive and benefits of private management outweigh the risks of selling a public asset.

Kansas City Airport Effort Still not Transparent

After a year considering the need for a $1.2 billion new terminal at MCI airport, the final report issued on May 30 to Mayor Sly James by the Airport Terminal Advisory Group (ATAG) leaves much to be desired—both in its thoroughness and accurate representation of the facts. On page 15, the report still asserts that airport funds cannot be used for the “City’s financial needs related to sewers, hotels, neighborhood development, unfunded pension obligations et.al.” This is demonstrably false; the city does use airport funds for other needs.

Even if the report is factually flawed, it aspires to ensure good government. On page 30, the report recommends more transparency:

In addition to KCAD [Kansas City Aviation Department], the City should provide for additional oversight to maintain transparency and improve two-way communication. This oversight (possibly in the form of an informal oversight committee) would be responsible for insuring City involvement and help to oversee the process over the next two years. The oversight committee could also assist in vetting the planning and design process and communicating it to the Mayor of Kansas City, Kansas City Manager, City Council, as well as the general public and local businesses.

Several months have passed, and none of this has been acted upon. It was ignored on the day the City Council received the report. Mayor James said in the July 10, 2014, City Council business session that discussed the report (remarks begin at 37:52):

The question was, as currently configured, does KCI meet the needs of Kansas City now and into the future? And if not, what are our options? Now, the options are being determined now by the airlines as they are in consultations—secret, private consultations—with the Aviation Department. That is their job. They will determine how much money they want to spend. And when they determine how much money they want  to spend they will pretty much tell us what they think we ought to do.

So much for transparency. Also, so much for the work of the ATAG in the first place; a year’s worth of work and $100,000 spent on consultants seems to have been wasted. (As for the financial costs and benefits of a new terminal, the Show-Me Institute has issued its own report.)

Kansas City leaders need to make sure that the mistakes of the past are not repeated. While it is good that the airlines are involved—they should have been all along—it does not bode well that the process is again opaque. When the time comes to present options to the public, the truth still may be that, according to Kansas City Star editorialist Yael Abouhalkah, “Director Mark VanLoh does not have the public credibility to lead on this extremely crucial project.” The voters of Kansas City have spoken clearly on this matter, and they deserve to get the transparency and accountability necessary for good public policy.

Missouri Charter School Law: A Soup Sandwich for Military Families?

army child

The Show-Me State forbids charter schools from opening in non-urban, accredited school districts, unless they are sponsored by the district itself. In effect, this means public school choice is limited to residents of unaccredited districts in Saint Louis and Kansas City. However, the need for school choice extends beyond those confines. This is especially apparent to Missouri’s military families.

Fort Leonard Wood, a U.S. military base located in the Ozarks, resides in Waynesville School District, which is home to 4,500 military impacted students. Educating these students can be difficult, since many have attended several school districts in several states within a span of just a few years.

These students come from a variety of backgrounds and have varying educational needs.

Waynesville School District is the only option for many students living on the base. Though the district performs relatively well compared to struggling urban districts, it is unfortunate that charter schools are not permitted in this area. Charters essentially are specialized public schools that serve the unique needs of students.

waynesville table image

In other communities, if parents are dissatisfied with the performance of their school district, they can move into another district. For military families, this is nearly impossible. This highlights just one problem of Missouri’s restrictive charter law—it disproportionately limits military families’ access to the school of their choice.

Some states have recognized how charter schools can meet the unique needs of military students. There are currently eight charter schools located on military bases across the United States. One such charter school is Sigsbee in Key West, Florida, which offers coursework in environmental science and marine life. Another is Belle Chasse Academy in Belle Chasse, Louisiana, specifically designed to address the diverse academic backgrounds of students whose parents are on active duty.

Military personnel already make sacrifices for their country; they should not have to sacrifice their children’s education as well. The expansion of charter schools is just one way Missourians can provide more access to better quality education for military families.

For more information about charter school reform, read James Shuls’ case study on the Louisiana Recovery School District.

 

 

New Friedman Foundation Report Explains Cost Savings from School Vouchers

In my paper, “Available Seats?: Survey Analysis of Missouri Private School Participation in Potential State Scholarship Programs,” I explained how Missouri could potentially save money from a private school choice program. The Friedman Foundation did me one better. Their new paper, “The School Voucher Audit,” examines how much money private school vouchers have actually saved taxpayers. Based on their estimates, “a cumulative total savings of at least $1.7 billion has been realized since 1990-91, the first year of the historic Milwaukee Parental Choice Program (MPCP), through 2010-11 . . .”

That is some serious savings! I encourage you to check out the slide share above or the full paper here.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging