Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 70
70
state incurs a cost of $0.27 per transaction plus $1,500 per Administration costs: Overarching program management
month to support electronic filing. In total, the processing of costs not associated with auditing, enforcement, or collections
electronic payments costs the state $307,911 annually. Florida in 2007 were reported to be $1,353,101, with an additional
also allows distributors a 2.0% collection allowance. In addi- $351,057 in indirect costs. The respondent estimated a total
tion, the respondent reported $51,266 in debt collection activ- of $3.6 million in total administrative costs associated with
ities and $83,136 in indirect costs associated with collections. motor fuel tax collection in 2007, which is the same amount
Administrative costs: Program administration costs in reported to FHWA.
Florida were reported as $345,115 in 2007, with an additional
$501,390 in indirect costs. Due to the discrepancy between
4.3 Cost Estimates for Tolling
the $2 million reported by the respondent of the question-
naire and the $24 million reported to FHWA, a transporta- Although widespread, the ability to impose tolls on high-
tion analyst from the Department of Transportation was ways, causeways, bridges, and tunnels varies greatly through-
contacted. The respondent indicated that the FHWA total out the United States. In some states (e.g., Florida and Texas),
was reported by three departments broken down as follows: state and local agencies have broad authority to impose tolls
on highway infrastructure. This authority, however, is typi-
· Department of Revenue: $14,010,475 withheld from admin- cally limited to the development of new infrastructure; several
istrative charge on fuel taxes, states have statutes that expressly forbid the tolling of existing
· Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles: infrastructure. In other states, toll authority may be granted to
$3,944,276 withheld from fuel use tax (permits), and either state or local public agencies, but not both. Other states
· Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services: restrict tolling to a few pilot projects and/or bridges.
$6,805,832 costs of inspection fuel. Moreover, some states (e.g., Virginia) permit the develop-
ment of concession agreements which allow private agencies
to operate and collect tolls from road facilities, while current
Idaho
statutes in other states (e.g., Maryland) preclude private enti-
Point of taxation: Diesel (distributor); gasoline (distributor). ties from developing and operating toll facilities. Finally, some
According to Idaho Code Section 63-2403, Idaho is a "first states expressly prohibit the imposition of tolls (e.g., Nevada).
receiver" state, meaning the first fuel distributor to receive the Additional restrictions focus on the tolling of existing fed-
fuel from an Idaho pipeline terminal or importer is responsi- eral Interstates, which is generally prohibited. In this manner,
ble for paying Idaho fuel tax and transfer fees. the selection of toll agencies for analysis was limited to the
Auditing costs: Idaho employs 17 auditors who conduct jurisdictions that permit tolling as well as have a reasonably
distributor, IFTA, and refund audits. In 2007, the state spent long history in the collection of toll revenues.
$860,444 in labor costs associated with auditing activities. Of
that total, $433,473 is dedicated to licensing IFTA auditors.
4.3.1 Methodology
Idaho receives a special grant from FHWA to conduct joint
audits with the IRS and other jurisdictions, but does not The general methodology for analyzing administrative,
include the grant amount in the overall auditing expenses. collection, and enforcement costs incurred by toll agencies
Indirect costs, such as rent, utilities, and training services, involved the following:
amounted to $233,238. Total auditing costs totaled $1,083,682
in 2007. · Selection of the toll agencies for analysis by taking into
Enforcement costs: Idaho did not report any costs associ- account facility type, system age, governance structure, and
ated with enforcement activities. toll-collection systems.
Collection costs: Idaho allows distributors to file returns in · The collection of financial data from 2003 to 2007. Most of
either electronic or paper form. Further, it allows distributors this data has been compiled from comprehensive annual
to pay using electronic funds transfers (EFT). Costs associated financial reports (CAFRs). Operational statistics have also
with operations and maintenance of the electronic filing been compiled. All of the agencies under review have pre-
system amounted to $210,000 in 2007, and transaction fees pared data for at least 3 years.
totaled $8,760. The state spent an additional $108,714 on man- · To normalize the data between toll agencies, it was neces-
ually processing tax returns and payments. Debt collection sary to differentiate between and separately analyze capital
activities conducted by state-employed personnel amounted to and operational costs for toll systems. Although most agen-
$303,686 in 2007, and an additional $230,000 was spent on indi- cies have begun to install ETC systems, open road configu-
rect costs associated with collections. Collection costs totaled rations, or video tolling systems, implementation rates tend
$861,160 in 2007. to vary greatly.
