Dear Representative <<Last Name>>:

My name is Theresa Roach and I am Active Communities Manager at the Crim Fitness Foundation located in Flint, Michigan. My department advocates for and supports policy, systems and environmental change that creates equitable access to safe opportunities to be physically active throughout Flint and Genesee County. I am writing to you on behalf of the Safe and Active Genesee for Everyone (SAGE) Coalition.

It has come to our attention that members of the Michigan House have proposed taking funds from transit and health and human services budgets and reallocating them to the infrastructure budget. While this may seem to be a good solution, both the transit budget and health and human services budget requires more funding. Members of the Michigan House should seek to maintain, if not bolster, the budgets for transportation and health and human services in order to promote economic growth and sustainability. 

Effects of Cutting Programs

Taking from the transit budget and reallocating those funds would have several negative effects on Michigan’s economy. The transportation department allocates 75 percent of its resources toward road agencies and the state trunkline construction and maintenance. Public transit is only 9 percent of its total budget. Further cuts to the transit budget would cause another increase in public transit fare and, potentially, cause removal of routes. Individuals would no longer be able to travel to work and could lose access to necessities such as grocery stores and medical services. This could cause significant public health concerns for Michigan’s workforce, such as those suggested by the University of Minnesota’s Rural Health Research Center. According to Pew Charitable Trusts, approximately 42% of people earning less than $25,000 a year depending on public transit to get to work daily. Businesses that rely upon these individuals for their workforce would need to relocate their businesses to communities with more reliable public transportation systems (likely out of Michigan). As the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) notes, removal of reliable transit from an area often leads to a decrease in land value and commercial development (21). Additionally, the NCSL found that individuals between the ages of 20 and 44 make up almost 55% of public transit riders. If a location lacks reliable public transit, younger generations elect to settle elsewhere (2). Budget cuts would significantly impact a city’s or county’s economic growth and sustainability by causing both businesses and constituents to leave. 

Cutting public health and human services funding would not save money, but would cost more in the long run. Health and human services funding mainly come from the federal government, despite its taking 45 percent of the state budget. The Michigan Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is clear that this state needs more, not less, funding for Essential Local Public Health Services. The DHHS argues that any more cuts to their funding would increase public health threats to the greater Michigan community (6). Additionally, DHHS shows that when funds are taken from the health and human services, the funds become a tax burden for taxpayers through increases in medical care costs. Ultimately, all Michigan residents suffer physically and monetarily when public health and human services funding is reallocated.

Alternatives

Instead of reallocating funds, we suggest bringing in more funds or using existing funds more efficiently. One option to increase the allotment would be financing using federal grant money from the U.S. Department of Transportation. This could take the form of bonds and grants, public-private partnerships (P3s), or value capture financing (NCSL 21). Financing is a long-term revenue stream possibility. One could argue that to acquire these funding alternatives would be difficult when there is limited availability for funds and a limited number of partnerships. While the concern is valid, much of this fiscal year’s Highway Trust Fund allocation has not been granted yet. P3s have the potential to yield multi-year funding opportunities. Additionally, value capture financing allows Michigan to gain revenue for its investments from those individuals or corporations that would benefit the most.

Another option to increase the infrastructure budget is to begin instituting vehicle miles traveled (VMT) fees, which will provide another long-term revenue stream. This policy has been proposed as a viable solution by many government agencies and policy experts, including the NCSL, the Mackinac Center, and the United States Department of Transportation. Some have argued that this policy will take more money from individuals. Truly, the policy will collect from those who use our state’s infrastructure the most and it rewards those who utilize public transit and alternative transportation methods. VMT fees are another effective long-term revenue provider.

One other option is to reduce the number of simultaneous highway programs to gain greater flexibility in spending and create longer-term fixes, similar to that proposed at the federal level. Though this solution means the state would not work on many of the infrastructure problems that affect constituents, this is a cost-effective alternative. Choosing to work on fewer improvements means money will go toward the most significant issues and can go farther toward long-term solutions rather than quick fixes. This means construction done will last longer and Michigan will have less road to mend in the long-term.

Conclusion

Rather than take from the health and human services budget and the transit budget, the Michigan House Representative should focus on instituting policies that generate more revenue to use specifically for infrastructure. Financing, vehicle miles-traveled fees, and reduced programs are all viable alternatives.

Sincerely,

Theresa Roach

Active Communities Manager

Crim Fitness Foundation

on behalf of Safe & Active Genesee for Everyone (SAGE)

810-235-7894        

troach@crim.org