The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0589.006 2002-2004 ~JMtVlO! N~~' ~y ~~il~. - Harry Kim Dixie Kae[su Mayor Managing Director •i q!'• oF'A~" Peter L. Hendricks Deputy Managing Director QCour~tp of ~aY~ai`i 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hflq Hawaii 96720-4252 • (808) 96t-8211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA. 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 . Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808)329-5226 Fax (808) 326-5663 April 16, 2004 The Honorable Aaron S.Y. Chung, Chairman Committee on Finance Hawaii County Council 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Bi11260 Relating to Vehicle Weight Tax Dear Chairman Chung: Thank you for allowing me to present my comments on Bill 260, which, if adopted, will increase the annual County vehicle weight tax for passenger vehicles from $.005 to $.0075 per pound, and for trailers and commercial trucks from $.O1 to $.02 per pound. This proposal is presented as an alternative to the increase in fuel tax that was presented by this administration. There are two issues I would like to discuss. They are (1) why I feel a fuel tax increase is the best and fairest way of raising necessary funds for highway maintenance, traffic division, and the transit agency; and (2) the need for increased funding. FUEL TAX PROPOSAL The administration proposal is to increase the County fuel tax on gasoline and diesel fuel by 6¢ a gallon. This amount is based on what the Department of Public Works and the Transit Agency presented as their needs to get their job done in an optimal fashion. Details of what the funds would be used for were presented to you. We fully recognize that while there is never a good time to increase taxes, now is seen as an especially bad time to raise the fuel tax because of the record high price of gasoline. We understand that. However, it is our responsibility to inform you of the needs of our departments, and your responsibility to review those needs and balance the need for funds to perform these basic services with other factors. If it is felt by the Council that it would be a hardship to impose a 6¢ per gallon fuel tax increase at this time, a smaller increase could be adopted. Consideration could even be given to a phased-in increase over several years. We would obviously appreciate any increased resources, and would prioritize and utilize any additional funds in the most effective manner. ~q,~~~ Comm. No._J v Ref. To: PreseM~d~ Ref, pat~Pff ~ 9 ~nnd 1lawai~i County is an equal opportunity provider ;uid employer. April 16, 2004 The Honorable Aaron S.Y. Chung Page 2 It would have been appreciated if the proposal as sent to you was discussed and analyzed for these possible alternatives rather than indefinitely postponed. The weight tax proposal before you today would raise a portion of the funds we projected as needed. If that portion is what the Council sees as the amount of additional funds it wants to provide for highway maintenance, setting a fuel tax increase in an amount to raise that smaller portion would be preferable to an increase in the vehicle weight tax. Advantages of a Fuel Tax Increase Fairness While I recognize that there is no one correct answer to the question of which is more equitable, I do believe that the fuel tax is a fairer method to raise funds for transit, highway maintenance, and traffic division needs. The fuel tax takes into account the amount a vehicle is driven on our roads. It is appropriate that the persons who use the roads the most are the ones who pay for keeping the roadways in a good and safe condition, which includes everything from signs, striping, shoulders, drainage ditches, culverts, etc. Easier for public In addition to being more fair, I believe the fuel tax is easier for people to pay than increased weight tax. For budgeting purposes, I believe that for most people it is easier to pay smaller amounts over a period of time than to pay a larger amount at one time once a year. Police report problems already with unregistered vehicles and theft of weight tax stickers, and increased weight tax may increase these problems. Visitors pay for impacts There are 7,000 U-drive vehicles registered in the County of Hawaii. These are rented by visitors, and visitors usually drive long distances to see the sights of our island. The fuel tax increase would result in visitors paying their fair share keeping our roads in good and safe condition, and for our transit system. NEED FOR INCREASED FUNDING I am glad to see that the Council understands that our highway maintenance program does need additional funding to do its job, as evidenced by this proposal to increase the weight tax. However, the proposal before you does not fully fund the highway maintenance needs, provide any funds for the traffic division or for the County's transit program. These two areas, along with the highway division, are truly in critical need of funds, and I ask for your serious consideration of their needs. Highway Maintenance There is much more to highway maintenance than road repairs and the repaving program. The weight tax proposal presented would fund the laborers requested in the fuel tax increase proposal, but not the equipment operators. Among other things, equipment operators are essential for mowing the grass along the shoulders of our roadways, which is critical for sight distance as well as proper drainage along road shoulders. Proper road maintenance is necessary for the safety of our roads, and mowing the grass, trimming April 16, 2004 The Honorable Aaron S.Y. Chung Page 3 overhanging branches, cleaning drainage channels and culverts, and other such jobs are a critical part of our overall maintenance program. Traffic Division The traffic division is responsible for striping our roads and highways, maintaining traffic signs, traffic signals, and street lights. These are all important components of safe roads for our people. There is presently only one crew based in Hilo that is responsible for all for striping and signs islandwide, and they cannot keep up. You can probably think of several roads you travel on daily where the striping is worn to the point where it is difficult to see. Furthermore, this is only part of the traffic division's responsibilities. The engineering and design staff of the traffic division has needs that are equally pressing. This section must, among other duties: > review plans for subdivisions and roadways > conduct inspections > evaluate the need for new traffic control devices > conduct traffic studies, address traffic flow problems to relieve congestion > evaluate the installation of traffic calming measures > process and address police accident reports. The present level of staffing cannot keep up with these critical tasks. The traffic division truly has needs that we should not continue to ignore. Transit Agency Throughout the County, people bring up public transportation as a key need. The public sees enhanced transit services as important in: > keeping our youth involved in constructive after school activities to decrease the use of drugs > decreasing traffic congestion by providing an alternative method for people to get from home to work > providing disabled, seniors, students and lower income persons with low cost transportation to enable them to work, go to the doctor, go to school, etc. An increase in resources would enable the agency to add needed routes such as: > Pahala to Ocean View afterschool service > Kohala to Kona shuttle > Intra Kona shuttle > South Kohala service expansion > Pahoa service expansion > Waikoloa afterschool service (ongoing) > Hamakua and Ka`u handivan service CONCLUSION Attached is a brief listing of the pros and cons of raising the fuel tax vs. the weight tax. In conclusion, I would like to repeat that our proposal of a 6¢ increase in the fuel tax was for discussion. We are open to any amount the Council feels is appropriate at this time. It is April 16, 2004 The Honorable Aaron S.Y. Chung Page 4 hoped that this letter has adequately conveyed why we feel a fuel tax increase is fairer than an increase in weight tax. It is also hoped that this has explained why the traffic division and transit agency needs should also be considered, but be assured that whatever the Council adopts, we will implement in the most efficient and effective manner possible. Thank you for your consideration of my comments. ha, / arry Ki MAYOR April 16, 2004 The Honorable Aaron S.Y. Chung Page 5 Attachment PROS ANI) CONS OF FUEL TAX VS. WEIGHT TAX Below is a brief summary of the differences between the weight tax and fuel tax which points out the pros and cons of each. Fuel Tax: Pros: > Takes vehicle usage into account > Easier because small amount paid each time fuel is purchased > Visitors also pay their fair share Cons: > Seen as regressive because of impact on persons who must commute long distances to jobs, shopping > People see impact of increase each time they fill their tanks with fuel Weight Tax Pros: > "Cakes vehicle weight into account, and weight is a factor in wear and tear on roads > Paid only once a year, so people only feel the increase once a year > Does not penalize those who must commute long distances to jobs, shopping Cons: > Does not take actual vehicle usage into account > Difficult for people to budget for a large payment at one time > May result in more unregistered vehicles being driven on the roads, exacerbating an existing problem > Does not assess visitors for their impact on our roads