The Current ICC funding plan directs the Governor to allocate AT LEAST $265 million in general fund revenues toward the ICC in fiscal years 2007 through 2010. That's $265 million from the General Fund for just one transportation project -- money that could be used to fund:
- GCEI and Thornton in general
- Medicaid/MCHP
- Health care for the uninsured
- School construction
- Proper staffing of child welfare caseworkers
- Proper staffing of foster care
- Substance abuse
- Other trasportation projects
- Every other program that has received steep budget cuts the past three years
With no additional funding stream in sight, with the incredible strain on the budget for the next round of Thornton increases coming, with the incredible inflation that we've seen in Medicaid the past few years, the last thing we should do is place another huge burden on the general fund. But the ICC would mandate at least another $265 in general fund expenditures. It doesn't add up and it cannot be done without drastic cuts in other areas of the budget.
What else will be cut so we can lay down this giant slab of concrete?
TAKE ACTION: Call or Fax your all your elected officials. Ask them oppose the ICC because THE ICC WOULD DIRECTLY IMPACT FUNDING FOR IMPORTANT BUDGETARY PRIORITIES.
To contact your elected officials, visit http://mdelect.net.
SAMPLE LETTER:
RE: Oppose The ICC
Dear decision-maker,
The current ICC funding plan threatens badly needed transportation funding in our area, and the state's general fund for education and other services. To fund the ICC, Governor Ehrlich is considering cutting projects, while severely limiting federal funds for important transit, roads, and other transportation solutions far into the future.
Without legislative oversight, the Governor plans to bog down the Md. Transportation Authority, a major investment source for new transportation projects in Maryland, with $1.2 billion in debt, four times what it currently owes, all for a single poorly performing project, which the State's own study shows would not relieve traffic on the Beltway, I-95, or I -270.
We need funding for a wide range of transit and road improvements. If the ICC funding plan passes, we’ll be mortgaging our transportation future. I urge you to oppose the ICC because it is an irresponsible, unwise transportation priority, and we can spend this money better.
Sincerely,
[[Name, Address]]
Talking points on the ICC funding plan
- The current ICC funding plan would require cuts to transportation projects around the state in order to fund the ICC.
- ICC GARVEE bonds borrow money against future federal transportation funds. Payments for the amount borrowed are skimmed off the top each year before Maryland's share of federal transportation aid dollars are given to the state. This limits investment in other projects.
- In addition to GARVEE bonds, Gov. Ehrlich is directing the Md. Transportation Authority, who manage all state toll facilities, to borrow $1.2 billion for the ICC, severely limiting its ability to invest in other transportation needs around the state. The ICC would increase the agency's debt four times it's current amount, and require 25% of all revenues (80% of which come from tolls) to be dedicated to debt service (70% of which is for the ICC).
- If there are any cost overruns for the ICC or state transportation revenue shortfalls over the next 20 years, more cuts to more projects would become necessary to make sure the ICC debts are paid. Cost overruns are common with mega-projects like the ICC.
- ICC funding could impact school construction and other capital needs because bond rating agencies classify GARVEEs as tax-supported debt. This means GARVEEs could limit what can be borrowed for other projects like school construction.
- Why are we investing so much money in a road which fails to address regional traffic congestion? According to the Maryland Department of Transportation's own study, the ICC would add more traffic to the Capital Beltway than if it were not built, and I-95 and I-270 would see no change. More than half the local roads studied either see an increase in traffic congestion, or see no change at all with an ICC.
- There is a wide range of transportation projects we could invest in which would serve the needs of more people in more places for less money than building an ICC. To learn more, visit www.SaveCommunities.org, and look at the report on alternatives.
