Voters approve Phoenix Prop 104

In a major, major win for business groups and transit advocates, Phoenix voters approved a 0.7-cent sales tax increase that will go toward funding a mix of rail and road projects around the region.  The seemingly controversial ballot measure (it’s a tax increase, after all!), garnered a whopping 55 percent of the vote.  Brenna Goth of the Arizona Republic has more:

The city’s 0.4 percent sales tax for transit will increase to 0.7 percent for transportation, beginning Jan. 1 and lasting 35 years. The sales tax is the foundation of a $31.5 billion plan that will be funded by a variety of sources including federal grants and fares.

[…]

The success of Prop. 104 is a victory for Phoenix leaders promoting the tax since the City Council approved the measure in March. Mayor Greg Stanton, who formed a citizens committee last year to envision Phoenix’s transportation future, spent much of the summer campaigning for the measure over his own bid for re-election.

Supporters of MovePHX, the campaign in favor of the plan, crowded DeSoto Central Market to watch early results. They joined Stanton’s election night party at the downtown spot near the light rail.

Stanton claimed victory for Prop. 104 after early results were released, calling the infrastructure investment a historic moment for Phoenix.

“This is a great night for the future of the city of Phoenix,” Stanton said.

More than half of the Prop. 104 plan’s funding will go to maintaining and improving bus service throughout the city. Less than a third will pay for running current light rail service and building new routes.

About 7 percent will fund street improvements such as repaving roads, constructing new streets and adding sidewalks and bike lanes. The last 10 percent will pay for debt service and an operating reserve.

The most contested aspect of the proposal was the planned tripling of light rail miles in the system. Potential new routes will connect from the current line to reach destinations such as Paradise Valley Mall, south Phoenix, 79th Avenue, Grand Canyon University and Metrocenter Mall.

Monica Keyes, 33, dropped off her ballot at the Memorial Presbyterian Church off East Thomas Road on her way to work Tuesday.

She said she voted in favor of Prop. 104. “I use public transportation and I think it’s great that it’d expand,” she said. “I think it makes it a better place to live in our community.”

Prop. 104 won support from the majority of the City Council as well as business, health and education leaders in the run up to Tuesday’s election.

Developers who are expected to benefit also weighed in their support (courtesy Mike Sunnucks of the Phoenix Business Journal):

Tim Sprague says he has some selfish reasons for celebrating Phoenix voters’ approval of Proposition 104 Tuesday night.

Prop. 104 is the city’s newly approved 0.7-cent sales tax that will be earmarked for transportation including 42 miles of new light rail lines as well as street improvements and express and night buses.

Sprague is an infill developer of the condominiums on Portland Street and apartments on Grand Avenue. He’s also been part of urban developments in Portland.

Sprague hopes approval of Prop. 104 will help convince his four urban-minded adult children to move back to Phoenix. He said approval of the measure will help further infill and urban developments in a traditionally suburban Maricopa County.

While I don’t know the entire story, it appears that the pro-Prop 104 folks were both (1) extremely organized and (2) weren’t afraid at doing some good ol’ fashioned GOTV.  Building support around ballot initiatives is never easy.  This is especially true for ballot initiatives that call for a tax increase.  It will be interesting to see the post-election dissection to see what was done here that could inform other local transportation ballot campaigns around the country.

Follow-up on Yesterday’s Harris County Bond Vote Announcement…

Given the announcement yesterday about four major bond proposals in Harris County, the Houston Chronicle’s Gabrielle Banks provided more details on the nature of this proposal (emphasis added).

Commissioners Court voted unanimously Tuesday to put four bond measures totaling $848 million on the November ballot to address tremendous population growth in Harris County during the past two decades.

“When you consider that Harris County has more people than 24 states, it really isn’t that much,” County Judge Ed Emmett said.

[…]

The referendum will create four separate ballot items: a $700 million bond for roads and bridges, a $60 million bond for parks, $24 million to update the overcrowded animal control facility and $64 million for flood control improvements.

These bond measures will not result in tax increases. Unlike taxes, municipal bonds are essentially loans that a government requests with voter approval. Private investors purchase bonds, which, in turn, fund cities, counties, school districts or other government entities. Bonds are commonly thought to be safe investments. Eventually, Harris County will have to pay back the bond debt.

Figuring out how big of a loan to ask for is often a balancing act between those who manage the balance sheet and those who have spending priorities.

Such was the case Tuesday. The budget manager and county engineer had come up with preliminary numbers. Precinct 3 Commissioner Steve Radack asked whether the county’s budget could withstand bumping the parks bond from $24 million to $60 million. Without missing a beat, budget manager Bill Jackson nodded, stating $60 million would be fine.

“All of the commissioners have in their minds those hot projects that we are just dying to get done,” said Jack Cagle, who represents Precinct 4. His top priorities include completing construction on Kuykendahl and Gosling Road bridges as well as improving mobility on a number of east-west corridors like Telge, Eldridge and Gosling.

Cagle also hopes to fund development of the Spring Creek and Cypress Creek greenways, since more neighborhoods and communities have requested access to outdoor trails.

“We’re excited to continue these projects if the voters approve it,” Cagle said. “If not, we’re going to be in a situation where we have a penny’s worth of budget and $10 worth of projects.”

Radack said bonds allow civic leaders flexibility in how they distribute funds. If voters approve the bonds, it could be years before the money is all spent or if there is a calamity the county might spend it immediately. “I’ll put on the agenda projects I think are important, but the priorities can change instantly,” Radack said. His overall priorities are “to improve mobility, reduce congestion, improve safety – in the most economically prudent way possible.”

[…]

But Emmett said the commissioners should get going immediately in their efforts to educate voters about why bonds are on the ballot in the first place: “Once we approve this this morning, then it’s time to start getting people engaged in the process of supporting the bond election. That’s important.”

Mr. Emmett is exactly right–voter outreach should have begun yesterday (preferably before then.)  As we have seen in Montgomery County and elsewhere recently, failed bond elections can mean a year or more before voters may be ready to consider another election.  Working diligently to communicate these benefits to voters and dispel any myths will be key to a successful outcome for the county.

Here are my recommendations for a successful outreach effort and, ultimately, a successful bond election outcome.

My Recommendations for Harris County:

(Note: I am in not affiliated with Harris County in any way.  These recommendations are entirely my own.)

1. Evaluate Strengths and Weaknesses.  Conduct a thorough analysis of the strengths and weaknesses associated with these four bond election packages NOW. (As in Day 1.)  Preferably, develop a short report that takes the perspective from a likely supporter and a likely opponent.  From there, develop a matrix that enables you to predict the type of message that will be crafted by your opposition and how you plan to address it.
2. Craft a SHORT but Clear Message.  After thoroughly evaluating the four bond packages and how they will be perceived by supporters and opponents, develop a short message to voters. A trend in infrastructure bond elections lately is to tie it into a transportationy-type language (e.g., “Move Harris County Forward, GO Harris.”  My personal opinion is to avoid it–it’s overused and mostly ineffective.  Instead, tie this message to things people care about, like growing the economy and reducing commute times.
3. Deliver Effective Message to the Right People.  The greatest challenge I see for these four ballot measures is that they’ll appear on the ballot alongside the statewide Proposition 7. Frankly, some voters will look at the ballot and decide which one they don’t think is necessary.  While both are critical, quite frankly some conservative voters may pick and choose which one of these they will support.  Make it clear that these projects are critical to keeping up with the county’s unprecedented growth and that those bond dollars will be spent locally will be critical.  Finally, in the past, bond elections were won with 70 percent of the vote.  In this new era, voters (especially voters who show up during non-Presidential years) take any bond election with a major dose of skepticism.  Making an effort to mobilize quickly as misconceptions and flat-out falsehoods as the arise will help ensure long-term success.

Harris County to put $848M bond referendum on ballot this November

After reporting about several infrastructure ballot initiatives around the country, today it appears my hometown county of Harris has decided to move forward with a $700 million bond referendum for the upcoming November 3rd ballot.  Rapid growth, especially in the northern and western portions of the county, are the primary reasons for the referendum.  @DugBegley has more background on this bond proposal:

Harris County Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to put four bonds totalling $848 million on the November ballot, marking the first time a county bond referendum has been before voters since the Astrodome plan was rejected in 2013.

Harris County Commissioners Court voted Tuesday to put four bonds totalling $848 million on the November ballot, marking the first time a county bond referendum has been before voters since the Astrodome plan was rejected in 2013.

The need for such measures stems from tremendous population growth in unincorporated parts of Harris County, John Blount, the county engineer, wrote in a July 21 letter introducing the four-part proposal to the commissioners. The county’s population has grown 75 percent between 2000 and 2014, according Blount.

As noted previously by Mr. Begley and others, past experience and other high-profile bond referendum failures elsewhere in the region suggests this referendum isn’t a shoo-in. No doubt, the county will have to work very hard to sell this to voters.  Furthermore, the referendum will appear alongside a statewide $2.5 billion transportation proposition, which may make some voters start to question the need to approve all this new spending for transportation. Either way, add this to an already long list of major local transportation and infrastructure funding referendums coming up this November.

Election Watch: Salem-Keizer, OR Payroll Tax Increase for Transit

Up for election in November is a ballot measure to levy a payroll tax to fund more frequent bus service in Salem, Oregon. (By the way, proposing a local business payroll tax increase to fund transit is the first instance I’ve ever seen.  This must only work in beautiful places.)  Transit leaders in this community of about 160,000 have approved a ballot measure that calls for a 0.21 percent business payroll tax levy that is estimated to bring in about $5M per year. This new revenue is expected to fund more weekend service, later weekend service, holiday service, and even help implement a student bus pass program.

Already it appears proponents are checking all the necessary boxes to make sure voters are made aware of this ballot measure.  Leaders have even put this election with a catchy transportationy-sounding moniker signaling progress (“Moving Forward“), which seems to be a trend for transportation ballot measures these days.  While a quick Google search hasn’t yielded any mobilized opposition to this measure as of yet, the risks to this measure at this point seem to be most likely to come from the business community since they are the ones that will be taxed. Like the massive proposition in Phoenix, this will also likely be one election to watch closely.

Election Watch: Phoenix Proposition 104

Last week I posted story summarizing data on transportation ballot measures so far this year. This week, I’ll focus in a little more on elections of interest. Coming up in August, there will be several key ballot measures around the U.S.  One such measure, which faces voters in Phoenix on August 25th, calls for increasing a 0.4-cent transit sales tax to 0.7 cents to be imposed for a period of 35 years. This measure is estimated to raise an additional $18 billion from 2015 to 2050 and will help fund rail and other transit projects in the Phoenix region.  The official ballot language for this proposition reads as follows:

Proposition 104
An Ordinance To Fund A Comprehensive Transportation Plan For Phoenix To Maintain And Expand The Light Rail and Bus Systems, Improve City Streets And Roadways, And Provide Phoenix Residents With More Transportation Choices.

Description
Chapter 14 of the Phoenix City Code shall be amended where applicable to set the portion of the transaction privilege and use tax rate for transportation to seven-tenths of one penny per dollar for a period of 35 years beginning on January 1, 2016.

The funds will support a comprehensive, multi-modal transportation plan that provides Phoenix residents with more transportation choices, including light rail and buses, as well as builds and improves public streets and roadways. To advance transparency, public input, and government accountability, all expenditures under this plan shall be reviewed by a Citizens Transportation Committee.

The revenues raised may be spend for activities including the following:

• Expanding light rail and high-capacity transit to serve more Phoenix neighborhoods and employment, education and entertainment centers;
• Adding bus service to unserved major arterial streets and increasing bus service frequency on existing routes;
• Extending bus and Dial-a-Ride service hours to coincide with light rail service throughout the transit environment;
• Improving streets and roadways throughout the City by fixing potholes, resurfacing streets, increasing ADA accessibility, and adding new sidewalks, street lights, bike lanes and bus pullouts;
• Building new roads and bridges and upgrading technology for more efficient traffic operations;
• Increasing security measures throughout the City’s public transit system, including transit vehicles, bus stops, light rail stations and park-and-rides; and
• Providing additional transportation services, including shade at all bus stops, wireless Internet technology on buses and light rail cars, reloadable transit fare cards, and real-time data for trip planning.

This measure also addresses City payment for utility relocation required by projects in this plan.

A lower tax rate shall be adopted for the sale or use of a single item of tangible personal property on the value in excess of $10,000.00.

Question
Shall Chapter 14 of the Phoenix City Code be amended as described above to fund a comprehensive transportation plan for Phoenix?

As is nearly always the case with a tax measure, there are supporters and opponents. The region’s major universities (Arizona State University, the University of Arizona, and Grand Canyone University) have all officially endorsed it.  Supporters have written op-eds arguing that having transit options was the sole reason why they decided to live in downtown Phoenix. MovePHX, an advocacy group of the project made up of city council leaders and real estate developers, also strongly endorses the plan and has set up a website and a blog discussing facts of the proposition. Opponents, not surprisingly, say that the only groups who support this project are those who will benefit financially:

Phoenix City Councilman Sal DiCiccio is the lead opponent of Prop. 104. Other fiscal conservative groups such as the Arizona Free Enterprise Club also oppose the measure.

Free Enterprise Club President Scot Mussi said some of the business backing for Prop. 104 is coming from business and industries poised to benefit from construction contracts and increased transportation spending.

“The groups that are financially supporting the initiative are the ones most likely to financially benefit,” he said.

What’s most interesting is that Prop. 104 proponents seem organized and have united behind a single but coherent message while opponents’ “hell no!” message appears to be coming from disorganized mix of county and city GOP leaders.  This is surprising because this is a massive funding increase that, if approved by voters, will be around for a long, long time. While I have not been able to find polling data, the fact that city leaders appear to be divided on the issue possibly suggests that city leaders are calculating that this vote could go either way. No doubt this will be an election that will be worth keeping tabs on given the size and longevity of this proposition.

Week of July 20th: Monday Morning Round-Up

Rise and shine, it’s Monday morning.  Here’s a recap of the latest going on in the world of better infrastructure and initiatives around the country to fund more of it.

U.S.

U.S. Senate still holding strong to long-term transportation fix

Maryland considering a $517M, 10-year plan to improve busy I-81 corridor

How the U.S. Can Make Investing in Infrastructure Attractive to Pension Funds

Can Infrastructure Needs Trump Anti-Tax Instinct?

Around the World

“Bureaucracy, low quality in planning” blamed for infrastructure project backlog in Brazil

China is looking to invest €10 Billion in the EU’s new Infrastructure Fund

China celebrates Asian Infrastructure Bank Charter Signing

Tracking Transportation Ballot Measures in the U.S.

The Center for Transportation Excellence (CTE) is tracking transportation ballot measures throughout the U.S. this year.  CTE data reveal that, not surprisingly, most ballot initiatives over the past three years have passed. In 2012, 49 out of 62 measures passed.  In 2013, 11 out of 15 measures passed.  And in 2014, 42 out of 61 measures passed.  So what’s the record so far in 2015? Just above .500, meaning that 9 measures have passed while 8 have failed.  As is usually the case, measures that pass usually do so by a wide margin (≈70/30) while ones that fail usually do so by a very close one (≈48/52).  The $7.5 billion transit package in Vancouver that I wrote about last week is unquestionably the biggest tax increase package that failed while the $250 million bond package in Atlanta appears to be the largest successful initiative so far this year. Stay tuned, as many more initiatives will likely take place this November.

Montgomery County TX Commissioner’s Court: No road bond on the ballot this November

In a somewhat unsurprising move, earlier this week the Houston Chronicle’s Cindy Horswell reported that Montgomery County commissioners have decided not to pursue another road bond proposal for the upcoming November 2015 elections. This decision comes in the wake of a major defeat of a $350 million road bond proposal back in May.  As to why this bond package was defeated?  As is often the case with many failed infrastructure ballot initiatives, the answer is that there are a lot of answers.  In this case, it appears that confusion about what the bond package contained and a myriad of different engineering studies might have provided fodder to fuel the perception that the projects selected weren’t high priority.  (An effective mobilization by the opposition probably didn’t help, either.)  Together, these factors motivated Woodlands-area residents to show up in record numbers against it. The timing of the bond election (in May, in a non presidential year, while on a ballot already crowded with other big dollar bond election packages) could have also played a role.  But perhaps one factor that brought all these concerns together was the inclusion of one road project in particular (emphasis added):

But for most Woodlands voters, the bonds defeat came down to one key issue that Texas Patriot PAC president Julie Turner called the “poison pill” – the planned [Woodlands] Parkway extension.

Supporters argued the parkway extension would have provided a critical east-west connector between I-45 and Texas 249. Blair, the bond committee co-chair, said opponents failed to realize that even if the extension isn’t built, the traffic will still come.

[…]

But bond opponents say that extension project can wait, because there are other congested roads that need fixing first.

An excellent piece by Brian Walzel provided additional insight on the opposition’s perception of the flaws associated with this bond proposal:

[…]

Texas Patriots, a political action committee based in The Woodlands, is opposed to the bond proposal.

“We cannot support this bond, and the main reason is there is a poison pill, and that is The Woodlands Parkway extension,” Texas Patriots President Julie Turner said. “[The extension] will increase traffic in The Woodlands, and it does not alleviate anything—it makes traffic worse.”

Turner said the Texas Patriots could potentially support the bond if a formal list of projects was compiled that did not include the Woodlands Parkway extension.

Whether or not the bond package would’ve succeeded by omitting one controversial project is unclear; however, the decision not to put another bond proposal on the ballot this year makes clear that Montgomery County officials want to make triple sure the next bond package is not another miserable failure.  Getting this right is important because Montgomery County is currently one of the fastest-growing counties in the country (#13 according to 2014 U.S. Census data to be exact).  This growth means that investment in infrastructure probably needs to begin ASAP in order to be in place to handle the millions demographers are forecasting will be moving to Montgomery County in the next 50 years.

 

 

Elimination of Revenue Cap Could Come Before Houston Voters in November

Katherine Driessen of the Houston Chronicle reported over the weekend that Houston Mayor Annise Parker is working to convince City Council members to support a measure that would allow City residents to vote on adjusting a cap on how much revenue the City is allowed to bring in.  This cap limits the growth in revenues to factors such as population growth and has been an ongoing issue for at least the past several years.

Mayor Annise Parker plans to press City Council this month to reconsider loosening a decade-old revenue cap for public safety spending as talk of a looming budget deficit and possible service cuts grows more ominous around the dais.

The cap limits the growth in city revenues to the combined rates of inflation and population growth. Last year, the city hit the cap for the first time, forcing a property tax rate trim and preventing $53 million from flowing to city coffers. Next fiscal year, the triple threat of soaring pensions costs, revenue cap limitations and debt payments will leave the city facing a $126 million deficit.

Repealing or tweaking the revenue cap, however, is a difficult pitch to make to voters, who approved the limit in 2004. Parker would likely face a strong conservative campaign casting the city’s financial troubles as a spending problem rather than a revenue issue. Even city officials acknowledge that the revenue cap is no cure-all and would have to be coupled with reining in some expenses.

As noted by Ms. Driessen, the renewed interest in this issue is in part due to Moody’s recent downgrade of the city’s debt outlook (which I wrote about in a previous post).  Several Council members, including City Councilwoman Ellen Cohen, are now rethinking their previous positions on this issue. Deciding whether the problem is too much spending or not enough revenue is not as important as the fact that something needs to be done relatively soon.  If this proposal is approved by council members and is allowed to go before voters in November, it may make for an interesting debate topic among mayoral candidates.  In so doing, the outcome of this proposition might set a course for how the City handles other difficult fiscal matters in the future.

Clinton Announces Her Economc Plan

I’m a bit behind on this (I’ve been on vacation the past week,) but just a few days ago the WSJ reported that Democratic front-runner Hillary Clinton has announced her economic plan, making the case that infrastructure spending can indeed go hand-in-hand with economic growth:

In an effort to frame the campaign debate, the front-runner for the Democratic presidential nomination will argue that Republicans want to boost economic growth without regard to whether the middle class thrives. “She firmly believes that yes, we have to grow, but we have to grow together,” said a campaign official who previewed the speech.
To promote growth, Mrs. Clinton will urge tax cuts for small businesses, new government spending on infrastructure and promoting clean energy, the aide said. She also will propose ways to make it easier for women to succeed in the workplace, including support for child care and paid leave.

To address income inequality, Mrs. Clinton will call for raising the minimum wage, increasing taxes on the wealthy, boosting the power of unions and reducing health-care costs.

The campaign crafted the plan in the midst of a surge of support among rank-and-file Democrats for Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders, whose presidential candidacy includes unabashed calls for government spending to redistribute income and create more fairness.

While she’s certainly not the first candidate to make the connection, crafting an effective message linking infrastructure with economic growth that contrasts the “cut government waste/no new taxes” narrative that dominates today’s political conversation is no small feat. However, reminding committed to bringing infrastructure front-and-center into the presidential debates in 2016 could mean that if she wins, her administration would have the political capital to work with a (hopefully) more cooperative Congress to actually do something meaningful. Indeed, it will be interesting to watch the emergence of this message as her campaign moves forward.