Patrol may suffer loss of money with Prop B

JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. -- The same provision of Proposition B that could help improve funding for the Missouri State Highway Patrol also has the potential to cost the patrol money and even expose it to a lawsuit over an unconstitutional use of highway fund revenue.

At issue is language in the transportation tax package that clarifies restrictions on how the patrol can spend money from the state road fund.

At present, two-thirds of the patrol's $179.3 million budget comes from the road fund under a provision of the Missouri Constitution that allows fuel tax revenue to be used for "administering and enforcing any state motor vehicle laws or traffic regulations."

While none of the $483 million in additional taxes Proposition B would levy is specifically earmarked for the patrol, supporters argue that more money in the road fund could result in more money for the patrol, if lawmakers and the governor authorize a funding boost.

Proposition B, which Missouri voters will decide on Tuesday, calls for raising the state fuel tax by 4 cents to 21 cents per gallon and increasing the state sales tax by a half-cent to 4.725 cents on the dollar. The patrol would only be eligible for a share of the fuel-tax revenue, which accounts for less than a third of all new revenue in the package.

In recent years, the patrol's take from the road fund has been capped at roughly $120 million. A bill Gov. Bob Holden signed into law in May rescinds that limit, but similar language is included in Proposition B.

However, that section of the ballot measure also reinforces the constitutional restriction on what patrol functions the General Assembly may pay for out of the road fund. It further puts a legal burden on the patrol not to spend highway money appropriated to it for any purpose other than enforcement of traffic and vehicle laws.

That provision is also part of the recently signed law. However, whereas Proposition B would prevent the patrol from inappropriately spending highway money next year, the other measure sets that deadline at July 1, 2007.

State auditor's view

In an audit issued in June 2001, State Auditor Claire McCaskill said lawmakers were being too liberal in their use of road funds in the patrol's budget. Among the areas McCaskill thought road money was being used, at least in part, for non-highway purposes included funding forensic labs, administrative expenses and paying employees of the patrol's Drug and Crime Control Division who don't generally work the roads.

Because many of the patrol's highway and non-highway related functions are intertwined from a budgetary standpoint, it is difficult to quantify exactly how much road money is being inappropriately given. Virtually every segment of the patrol's budget for the current fiscal year is partially funded with road money.

McCaskill supports Proposition B and said tightening the diversion of road money to the patrol and other state agencies is an important and needed reform to force lawmakers and the patrol to comply with the state constitution or face consequences.

"We definitely believe a taxpayer would have standing to bring a lawsuit forcing the highway patrol and everyone involved to follow the constitution," McCaskill said.

In the patrol's response to the audit, it admitted that some functions would be best paid for out of general revenue, the state's most flexible funding source. The patrol said it had requested more general revenue, but lawmakers instead chose to use road funds.

Follow the leader

Patrol spokesman Capt. Chris Ricks said the patrol simply follows the General Assembly's lead.

"If we go to the legislature and they appropriate highway funds for certain areas, we take that as an appropriate expenditure," Ricks said.

Some spending items that at first glance seem to have little to do with highways are actually related, Ricks said. For example, the forensics lab criticized in the audit processes evidence collected by road troopers.

The patrol has nothing to fear from the stricter language in Proposition B, Ricks said.

"We feel we can justify all the money we get out of the highway fund in accordance with the constitution," Ricks said.

Proposition B requires the Missouri Department of Transportation's inspector general to annually audit the patrol's compliance with the restrictions.

Rodney Gray, director of the pro-Proposition B campaign Time for Missouri, said the measure wouldn't create any problems for the patrol. The campaign has paid for the television advertisements that claim the measure would "help secure funding" for the patrol. However, Gray said the proposal would force lawmakers to more closely follow the constitution.

"It is intended to put the burden on the General Assembly to make sure highway funds are appropriated correctly," Gray said.

The solution to avoiding the problem, should Proposition B prevail, would be for lawmakers to replace any road funds used for questionable purpose with general revenue. However, with general revenue in short supply, that could prove difficult. Assuming legislators followed the new law, if they couldn't come up with general revenue to replace highway money, certain patrol functions could take a budget hits.

That is as it should be, McCaskill said.

"If they don't have enough money to do their primary functions, they probably need to let some of those other functions go," McCaskill said.

State Sen. Larry Rohrbach, a leading Proposition B opponent, said that if lawmakers continue with business as usual, it could create "a reasonable amount of havoc" with the patrol's budget should a taxpayer choose to file a lawsuit.

"It certainly has the potential to make things worse for them," said Rohrbach, R-California.

mpowers@semissourian.com

(573) 635-4608