Stephen Joost has made the rounds in the community, espousing the reasons why extending the gas tax another 20 years is a bad idea.
On Thursday, he presented to a group that stands to benefit from extension, but won’t have a say on the matter.
Instead, the Jacksonville Transportation Authority will be able to sign the interlocal agreement that results from any extension passing – a matter likely to be heavily debated in the coming months by City Council.
Joost has been a vocal critic, not about the extension itself, but about the 20-year length. He hasn’t given a suggested time frame.
“It’s a dying revenue source,” he said of the tax that is set to expire in 2016.
Fuel efficiencies, curbed driving habits and vehicles with more efficient mileage rates all have contributed toward the 6-cent gas tax’s revenue decline in recent years, a trend Joost says will continue.
He told the board that over the past 10 years the city has collected, when adjusted for inflation, 20 percent less than projected.
Mayor Alvin Brown also strongly opposes the extension.
Council President Bill Gulliford has proposed legislation to extend the tax for 20 years. With the extension, a road projects list worth more than $230 million is attached.
The transportation authority could bond about $100 million toward chipping away at that list, using its share of the tax over time to cover the cost.
Joost, though, says the unreliability of the tax would result in projects being dropped because of a lack of revenue.
“I don’t want to go down that road again,” he told the board in reference to dropping planned projects because of a lack of revenue.
Instead, Joost said the bill needs to be withdrawn, deferred or delayed significantly to allow further review.
If it is, he said he will ask the mayor and council president to form a task force to look into the issue for possible alternatives, such as a dedicated sales tax or a delay until alternative fuels are taxable in 2019.
The task force, he proposes, would have leadership from JTA and Florida Department of Transportation and feature members from neighborhoods, businesses and others.
Gulliford disagrees with the idea.
“He’s not getting the urgency,” Gulliford said of Joost. “There’s an urgency here. … I don’t want a task force, I don’t want a study, I don’t want another committee.”
Gulliford maintains the urgency lies in the relatively low interest rates on borrowing and lower overall prices on contractors and construction.
Joost told the board he concedes that interest rates are low, but the risk in lack of revenue the first few years outweighs the issue and there is time for further discussion.
Authority board member Isaiah Rumlin said he tends to agree with Joost’s stance and stated he didn’t see the need to rush the issue.
Board member Ed Burr saw it differently than his colleague.
If the tax isn’t extended, Burr said, there is no alternative in place and 20 percent of the transit budget would be affected — meaning cuts in services such as paratransit and the elimination of free fares for seniors.
“If there was an alternate choice today, we’d take that choice,” Burr said, later telling Joost the authority would be conservative in its revenue estimates from the tax.
Under the current makeup, the 6 cents would be divvied up between the authority and city. The authority would receive 5 cents while the city would receive 1 cent that would be further divided between road improvement and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure.
Joost said he would vote no on the matter if it was put before him today.
“The easy thing to do is to do what we’ve always done,” he said.
A vote won’t be today, but it could be soon –– the substitute version of the legislation, which includes the projects list, was introduced Tuesday and should be in council committees for debate next month.
@writerchapman
(904) 356-2466