I was recently asked due to the failure of the service fee “why I persisted to talk about the issue?” Politically speaking would it not be better to let the issue just die? Some political pundits might agree with the individual, however, the answer is not so simple. We still idle in traffic, we are overwhelmed by commuter traffic and pollution…so why should I as an elected official turn my back on the problem?
Yes, to ignore the problem until after Election Day may be the safer path to choose, but is that the right course for Monongalia County. The sole purpose for this blog page was to allow residents the opportunity to voice their ideas and a handful has stepped up to discuss and share publically their concerns for the community, regarding roads and methods to fund our local needs.
As for me I have proposed one idea within these few pages, while I am not surprised those who oppose any change would be the majority of respondents to the blog, I am however, surprised that this same majority offered few suggestions to dig ourselves out of this quagmire.
In all fairness, not everyone wanted me to post their comments, and for those who thought I would not post their comments in fear I would look bad…you were obviously wrong.
Regarding the service fee, a friend of mine from Texas who follows local Monongalia County politics and this blog finds it odd that a minority of Monongalia residents would complain about a referendum vote in which the voters had the choice to determine the outcome of the issue. I too, share this thought; when the decision could just as easily have been left up to the legislature to initiate service fee without voter input.
I have said this before and perhaps it needs to be revisited, but sometimes legislators do not have a complete or comfortable feel for what their constituents are thinking on a particular issue. Any legislator that would oppose a referendum legislation which could prevent the voter from voicing his or her opinion on an issue should be questioned. I myself have voted in favor of 4 local referendum pieces of legislation in the past 8 years…legislation which allowed voters to determine the outcome.
Now allow me to climb down off my soap box to speak to any proposed legislation. First, this blog site allowed me to gather useful information and secondly, flush out any problems I had in my own proposal.
My conclusions are as followed.
Several times it was suggested that a fee be placed on WVU students and out of state employees. While both ideas may have merit it still falls far short of the needed appropriations. The idea of personal property fee is nothing new, we presently pay personal property taxes, yet not in the form of levies as proposed; again this would be a voter determination, as was the service fee.
While many ideas were offered and most were “let the other guy pay perspective”; after careful consideration I choose to believe we must carefully step back and take small steps beginning with the development of a Road Board Authority(RBA). The RBA would be similar in nature to the present School Board Authority, with a board of directors who would determine which Counties would receive funding. Applications to the RBA would include proposals, feasibility studies, and engineering plans before a project would be considered. Presently, 36 of 55 counties have requested road appropriations and all 55 counties have requested feasibility studies…again taxing the resources of our state budget even further. If counties are asked to pay for their own studies and engineering plans may of those counties which are looking for road funds would fall by the wayside, thus allowing true projects to rise to the top.
In addition, monies for all road projects would be funded through general revenues of which the legislature would appropriate $100 million in its first year and as needed in subsequent years. This would have one significant benefit... allowing present gas tax and license fees to be used exclusively for the maintenance of our 36,000 road miles and bridges across the state.
As always I look forward to your comments.
Respectfully,
Robert “Bob” Beach
WV House of Delegates
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Thursday, June 5, 2008
WELCOME...
.JPG)
Most would agree transportation issues do exist in Monongalia County, however, the debate rages on for a method to secure funds to make the necessary upgrades to improve our transportation problems in and about the region.Federal funding has all but dried up, state dollars are linked to formulas which permits fair distribution of transportation dollars for 10 Department of Highway Districts. The present road fund, as the recent budget indicates is approximately $1 billion dollars and yet, this just barely covers the cost of maintaining the 36,000 miles of highways and bridges across the great State of West Virginia.
What is the solution?
The solution is complex and not without headaches. The following pages examine one possibility and more importantly allows the residents of Monongalia County to debate the issue and offer comments or suggestions. I only ask the debate remain civilized and constructive. I will not permit personal attacks or comments lacking thought and substance. Blind comments, those without personal names attached will not be permitted, if your statement has value then so does your name.
I have maintained since the beginning that a local fee concept is sound, however, the original plan did deserve “tweaking” in order to address the concerns of the public. This plan takes into account all concerns expressed by the populace of Monongalia County.The following plan is not a fee in the context it was used before, but rather this plan affords those of lower income to pay little or nothing. It does not increase the gas tax as some have proposed. It does not attach wages, nor does it force Monongalia County to seek hand outs from Charleston or Washington D.C. Simply put, we help ourselves overcome hours of idling in traffic each year.
Together, we can continue our leadership role in the state and develop a working formula, which will in fact act as the benchmark for future road and infrastruture development across the state.
While the funding issue is primary, it must be stated that I believe that some of our road problems can be corrected through managed lane strategies and signage at peek times. This site will also explore methods presently in place in other cities to address congestion mitigation…I welcome your ideas in this area as well.
Take time to review the site and offer your comments now or after you have had time to digest the information, either way I want to hear from you. If I have overlooked a concern or issue then by all means bring the issue to the table for discussion.
What is the solution?
The solution is complex and not without headaches. The following pages examine one possibility and more importantly allows the residents of Monongalia County to debate the issue and offer comments or suggestions. I only ask the debate remain civilized and constructive. I will not permit personal attacks or comments lacking thought and substance. Blind comments, those without personal names attached will not be permitted, if your statement has value then so does your name.
I have maintained since the beginning that a local fee concept is sound, however, the original plan did deserve “tweaking” in order to address the concerns of the public. This plan takes into account all concerns expressed by the populace of Monongalia County.The following plan is not a fee in the context it was used before, but rather this plan affords those of lower income to pay little or nothing. It does not increase the gas tax as some have proposed. It does not attach wages, nor does it force Monongalia County to seek hand outs from Charleston or Washington D.C. Simply put, we help ourselves overcome hours of idling in traffic each year.
Together, we can continue our leadership role in the state and develop a working formula, which will in fact act as the benchmark for future road and infrastruture development across the state.
While the funding issue is primary, it must be stated that I believe that some of our road problems can be corrected through managed lane strategies and signage at peek times. This site will also explore methods presently in place in other cities to address congestion mitigation…I welcome your ideas in this area as well.Take time to review the site and offer your comments now or after you have had time to digest the information, either way I want to hear from you. If I have overlooked a concern or issue then by all means bring the issue to the table for discussion.
I would encourage you to visit the link listed on the right hand side of the page; Keep WV Moving offers information that allows the reader to understand the major differences between WV Highway system and others states. As an example, did you know that West Virginia maintains 94% of all highways across the state? Compared to the national average of 20%. WV Dept. of Highways maintains 74% more roads then states two and even three times our size. Check it out.
LOCAL LEVY?
How much would a local levy generate annually?
The following legislation is not designed to be the final product, but rather a foundation in which to develop homegrown legislation.
Since 1928 the State of West Virginia has passed several constitutional amendments dealing with road improvements and as recently as 1998 residents of West Virginia have adopted legislation allowing the state to fund road bonds through taxes. While debt limits were established, projects were not spelled out in the legislation, thus allowing road projects to be at the discretion of the Department of Highways.
The proposal presented here deals with local decisions regarding our infrastructure, accountability and method to generate needed revenues. One solution to be discussed is the option to create a new infrastructure levy. Presently, State Constitution requires uniformity in the application of tax rates, in addition to the maximum allowable tax rate as determined by a constitutional amendment during the 1930’s. Furthermore, state code dictates Class language as well.
Class I deals with farm personal property. Class II deals with owner occupied dwellings and Class III & IV deal with all else, including personal property.
This proposal deals only with Class III & IV personal property, primary because we can regulate the impact on low income or those individuals without personal transportation; such as, automobiles, motorcycles and motor homes. Secondly, vehicles on the highways have created the problem.
While the State Constitution requires uniformity it creates a hurdle that must first be overcome if we are to apply the levy only to personal property. This can only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. In essence, we must ask for permission from the residents of West Virginia to create a local infrastructure levy.
Local levies or fees allow revenues generated to remain here in Monongalia County. While some concerns lie with the counties ability to manage the funds, it should be noted that all highway projects are in fact a responsibility of the state and managed as such during development and construction. Any local monies generated are used for the debt service associated with infrastructure development. Additionally, any levy brought before the voter must spell out the terms and projects for which the monies will be used.
How much would a local levy generate annually?
Under the proposed language Monongalia County would generate $7.3 million dollars annually or $73 million over 10 year period, just short of the proposed 30 year, $80 million project in the original Service Fee scenario. While Monongalia County can generate $7.3 million other counties could generate far less or a great deal more dependent on the population and Class III & IV property on the books, which would also correspond with the need of infrastructure dollars needed in a particular region. Seemingly, it should go without saying that a smaller county similar to Ritchie or Wetzel Counties would not have the same infrastructure needs as Kanawha or Jefferson County.
The following legislation is not designed to be the final product, but rather a foundation in which to develop homegrown legislation.
Since 1928 the State of West Virginia has passed several constitutional amendments dealing with road improvements and as recently as 1998 residents of West Virginia have adopted legislation allowing the state to fund road bonds through taxes. While debt limits were established, projects were not spelled out in the legislation, thus allowing road projects to be at the discretion of the Department of Highways.
The proposal presented here deals with local decisions regarding our infrastructure, accountability and method to generate needed revenues. One solution to be discussed is the option to create a new infrastructure levy. Presently, State Constitution requires uniformity in the application of tax rates, in addition to the maximum allowable tax rate as determined by a constitutional amendment during the 1930’s. Furthermore, state code dictates Class language as well.
Class I deals with farm personal property. Class II deals with owner occupied dwellings and Class III & IV deal with all else, including personal property.
This proposal deals only with Class III & IV personal property, primary because we can regulate the impact on low income or those individuals without personal transportation; such as, automobiles, motorcycles and motor homes. Secondly, vehicles on the highways have created the problem.
While the State Constitution requires uniformity it creates a hurdle that must first be overcome if we are to apply the levy only to personal property. This can only be accomplished through a constitutional amendment. In essence, we must ask for permission from the residents of West Virginia to create a local infrastructure levy.
Local levies or fees allow revenues generated to remain here in Monongalia County. While some concerns lie with the counties ability to manage the funds, it should be noted that all highway projects are in fact a responsibility of the state and managed as such during development and construction. Any local monies generated are used for the debt service associated with infrastructure development. Additionally, any levy brought before the voter must spell out the terms and projects for which the monies will be used.
How much would a local levy generate annually?
Under the proposed language Monongalia County would generate $7.3 million dollars annually or $73 million over 10 year period, just short of the proposed 30 year, $80 million project in the original Service Fee scenario. While Monongalia County can generate $7.3 million other counties could generate far less or a great deal more dependent on the population and Class III & IV property on the books, which would also correspond with the need of infrastructure dollars needed in a particular region. Seemingly, it should go without saying that a smaller county similar to Ritchie or Wetzel Counties would not have the same infrastructure needs as Kanawha or Jefferson County.
PROPOSED LANGUAGE
LEVY LANGUAGE
The following legislation is not designed to be the final product, but rather a foundation in which to develop homegrown legislation.
The purpose of this legislation authorizes Monongalia County, upon acceptance by a majority of legal voters to impose an “Infrastructure Levy (IL)” not to exceed 0.355 per $100 valuation on all Class III and IV taxable personal property; excluding Class I and Class II real property as defined by code. (See formula below)
Proceeds are to be collected and dispersed by the County Assessor into a separate account within the County budget. Revenues collected and their allocation are here forth limited to any debt service associated with infrastructure projects within Monongalia County and as determined by the voters of Monongalia County.
The Infrastructure Levy is limited to 10 years and may be renewed or extended, but only upon approval by voters of Monongalia County through referendum vote to accept the aforementioned extension or renewal.
Additionally, any Levy referendum vote is limited to either primary election or general election ballots.
Revenues collected are strictly prohibited from use for any administrative cost, feasibility studies or project management.
Please note the above language speaks to Monongalia County, however the legislation will be crafted to permit all counties to adopt IL legislation upon local voter approval and the approval of a Constitutional Amendment.
The following legislation is not designed to be the final product, but rather a foundation in which to develop homegrown legislation.
The purpose of this legislation authorizes Monongalia County, upon acceptance by a majority of legal voters to impose an “Infrastructure Levy (IL)” not to exceed 0.355 per $100 valuation on all Class III and IV taxable personal property; excluding Class I and Class II real property as defined by code. (See formula below)
Proceeds are to be collected and dispersed by the County Assessor into a separate account within the County budget. Revenues collected and their allocation are here forth limited to any debt service associated with infrastructure projects within Monongalia County and as determined by the voters of Monongalia County.
The Infrastructure Levy is limited to 10 years and may be renewed or extended, but only upon approval by voters of Monongalia County through referendum vote to accept the aforementioned extension or renewal.
Additionally, any Levy referendum vote is limited to either primary election or general election ballots.
Revenues collected are strictly prohibited from use for any administrative cost, feasibility studies or project management.
Please note the above language speaks to Monongalia County, however the legislation will be crafted to permit all counties to adopt IL legislation upon local voter approval and the approval of a Constitutional Amendment.
Summary:
- The languauge sets the maximum allowable levy at 0.355.
- Term of levy is set at 10 years.
- Levy only applies to personal property, Class III & Class IV. Language will excludes all mobile homes and real property.
- Revenues are colleceted by the County Assessor.
- Revenues are deposited in a seperate account within the county budget.
- Revenues can not be used for administrative, feasibility studies or project management.
- WV State Dept of Highways retains management responsibilities.
- Must go before the voters for approval as a constitutional amendment.
- All road projects and the levy must go before the individual county voter for approval.
- Renewal or extension of levy must go before the voters.
- Elections are limited to the General, Primary, or in some limited cases special elections, where upon the County has other issues coming before the residents.
LEVY FORMULA
How Are Vehicles Valued for Tax Purposes?
The WV Tax Department is required to value vehicles by using a nationally recognized organization which establishes values of used vehicles.
The State Tax Department has contracted with the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and uses its July edition. Of the three values appear for each vehicle, "retail", "trade-in", and "loan" value, the state uses the lowest value - "loan" value to assess your vehicle, NADA produces a computer tape which matches all vehicle values with the vehicle identification number (VIN).
Monongalia County Assessor's Office enters the VIN in the State computer network for each vehicle. The computer in Charleston reads the VIN and then assigns the "loan" value to that specific vehicle. There is no consideration given to high or low mileage, body condition, add-on options, etc. You are taxed only on the basic model. Since WV taxes 60% of the market value. The computer takes 60% of the loan value and applies the appropriate levy rate. (See formula)
____________________________________________
The WV Tax Department is required to value vehicles by using a nationally recognized organization which establishes values of used vehicles.
The State Tax Department has contracted with the National Automobile Dealers Association (NADA) and uses its July edition. Of the three values appear for each vehicle, "retail", "trade-in", and "loan" value, the state uses the lowest value - "loan" value to assess your vehicle, NADA produces a computer tape which matches all vehicle values with the vehicle identification number (VIN).
Monongalia County Assessor's Office enters the VIN in the State computer network for each vehicle. The computer in Charleston reads the VIN and then assigns the "loan" value to that specific vehicle. There is no consideration given to high or low mileage, body condition, add-on options, etc. You are taxed only on the basic model. Since WV taxes 60% of the market value. The computer takes 60% of the loan value and applies the appropriate levy rate. (See formula)
____________________________________________
Infrastructure “Road” Levy Formula
Step 1
Loan Value of Personal Property X .60 = Assessed Value
Step 2
Divide assessed value by 100 = value
Step 3
Value X .3500 = annual levy dollars
__________________________________________________
Example A. $25,000
$25,000 loan value X.60 = 15000
15000 divide by 100 = 150
150 X .3500 = 52.50 annually
Example B. $15,000
$15000 loan value X .60 = 9000
9,000 divide by 100 = 90
90 X.3500 = $ 31.50 annually
Example C. $5,000
$5,000 loan value X .60 = 3000
3,000 divide by 100 = 30
30 X .3500 = $10.50 annually
Example D. $2,500
$2,500 loan value x .60 = 1500
1,500 divide by 100 = 15
15 x .3500 = $ 5.25 annually
Step 1
Loan Value of Personal Property X .60 = Assessed Value
Step 2
Divide assessed value by 100 = value
Step 3
Value X .3500 = annual levy dollars
__________________________________________________
Example A. $25,000
$25,000 loan value X.60 = 15000
15000 divide by 100 = 150
150 X .3500 = 52.50 annually
Example B. $15,000
$15000 loan value X .60 = 9000
9,000 divide by 100 = 90
90 X.3500 = $ 31.50 annually
Example C. $5,000
$5,000 loan value X .60 = 3000
3,000 divide by 100 = 30
30 X .3500 = $10.50 annually
Example D. $2,500
$2,500 loan value x .60 = 1500
1,500 divide by 100 = 15
15 x .3500 = $ 5.25 annually
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
