No one likes to pay more taxes, but Iowans might have no choice but pay an increased fuel tax to address long-term infrastructure needs, State Auditor David Vaudt told the Iowa Independent in an interview last week.

State Auditor David Vaudt

State Auditor David Vaudt

“The gas tax is historically where we’ve gotten the funds for our roads and bridges,” said Vaudt, a possible 2010 GOP gubernatorial candidate. “It can provide a more long-term revenue stream than other options.”

Both chambers of the Legislature are currently weighing bills that would raise the fuel tax 8 cents over two years. In addition to legislative Democrats, conservative groups like the Iowa Farm Bureau and local chambers of commerce have voiced support for the increase, along with Republican state Agriculture Secretary Bill Northey. Iowa hasn’t increased its fuel tax since 1989.

The millions of dollars the state will receive from the recently passed federal stimulus bill will help in the short run, Vaudt said, but once that money is gone, Iowa will still be left with the question of how to maintain its roads.

“One thing we haven’t seen enough details on yet is how much the federal stimulus is going to bring to Iowa that might be used for infrastructure related projects and how that is going to impact the needs analysis,” Vaudt said. “But that is just going to be a short-term fix. That money will be gone in a few years, and we will still need a revenue stream to maintain our infrastructure.”

Warren Jenkins, Vaudt’s chief deputy auditor, said consumers are also going to be more receptive to a fuel tax increase if it helps them avoid other costs.

“I think people are looking at whether it’s going to help avoid a repair bill for their cars because (of) the poor condition of the roads and bridges,” he said. “Whether it’s a blown tire or alignments or general wear and tear because the roads are so bad, there is a trade-off there that I think people get.”

Vaudt said another factor that could soothe taxpayers’ fears is that the funds raised by increasing the gas tax are constitutionally protected from being shifted to another project.

“The money will be spent on what it was collected for, as opposed to being shifted over to pay for other things,” he said. “I think that’s part of what is generating more support for gasoline tax than what we’ve seen in other areas.”

Opposing a gas tax increase are Gov. Chet Culver, a Democrat, and Republican legislative leaders. Culver has said he prefers his $700 million bonding plan. Vaudt said bonding would have the same short-term effect as the federal stimulus, except it will need to be paid off over 20 years.

“I think if you take a look at it, if you use bonds, it’s going to be a fix over a short-term period of time versus a gas tax that will provide a steady revenue stream,” Vaudt said. “The other part with bonding is you’re going to pay interest costs, too.”

Another factor to consider, Vaudt said, is how much infrastructure work Iowa can undertake in a short time period. The federal stimulus money will fund “shovel-ready” projects that can start soon.

“There would be a lot of money put into construction,” he said. “Do Iowa companies have the capacity to do all that work or will we be bringing in out-of-state workers to do some of it, especially if we pass bonds on top of that? It’s something we should be looking at, as I don’t think we have all the details on the table yet.”

Iowa’s infrastructure needs are the victim of short-term thinking, Vaudt said, and it is time that changed.

“If we did longer-term planning, we would have the ability to at least take a look at what we’re doing, what the requirements are upcoming and how we’re going to meet those needs,” he said, adding: “There is no magical right or wrong answer. I think if you talked to the average taxpayer, they would say they don’t want taxes increased, period. But at the same time Iowa has to decide what revenue stream we need in order to provide these services.”