Hey, there! Log in / Register
State raises price of car registration, inspections
By adamg on Wed, 03/12/2014 - 4:25pm
MassDOT announced today it's increasing the cost of car registration from $50 to $60 and the cost of annual inspections from $29 to $35.
The transportation agency says the money will help it close a gap in the RMV's budget. $1 of the inspection increase will go to the service stations that perform the tests:
MassDOT will host public hearings on the fee increases this spring. The new fees will go into effect July 1, 2014.
The fee increases are expected to bring in $55 million to $60 million a year.
Topics:
Free tagging:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
In a related development...
NOAA announced that the sun will rise in the East tomorrow morning...
Bad analogy
Inspection fees haven't gone up since 1999.
Wasn't there just a news
Wasn't there just a news story indicating that the RMV takes in more money than they need? I seem to recall Mr. Davey at MassDOT defending the practice in an interview as the surplus funds from the RMV helped pay for other expenses in the DOT.
Yes
WBZ Story, though the Eagle Tribune had much the same old story in 1999. Davey proved himself completely ignorant on the differences between a tax and a fee. All he knows is that they both have 3 letters.
He should read this: http://www.mass.gov/anf/budget-taxes-and-procurement/admin-bulletins/pro...
Reasonable and overdue.
This is totally reasonable and overdue. N.B., I say this as someone who currently pays a higher registration fee than these revised fees every year because I'm vain.
My only request is that we use some of the additional funds to move even more RMV functions online.
Online services WHY fees should go DOWN!
Because many of the RMV services have moved online, costs to run the RMV have not increased, hence no need to increase the fees for those services! The RMV has a monopoly on its services so that is why fees are limited by state law to the cost of the service provided. Otherwise, there is no limit to how much they could rise.
Heard it was to cover
Heard it was to cover increasing payroll costs. Surly townies don't come cheap, after all.
The average RMV employee
Makes about $35-$40K. Pretty cheap.
And big cities don't have townies (except Boston and that's with a capital T), small college towns do.
Plus, Plus
Health care plans costing $15--$20k and pensions adding another $5-$10k. Total comp is probably in the $60k range - and the health care is tax free and perhaps the pension as well (??) as I think municipal pensions are tax free - or is that just cops, firemen and teachers - not sure.
MassDOT will host public
you're holding public hearings but have already set the amount of the increase and the date it takes effect. what purpose do the public hearings serve then exactly?
Hearings are legally required
However, listening to what is said or doing anything based on comments is not required. A transcript will be made and available by request as typical in hearings. So, in the end, there is little point to hearings.
You don't understand the process
They don't go in with a blank "so what do you think". They have the proposal on the table.
GAP??? LIARS LIARS LIARS !!!
Basically, the RMV now takes in $600M in fees to provide $60M in service.
First, the fees have long been a violation of the state constitution. Second, the RMV isn't losing money, it has a 90% profit margin (fee profits are what is illegal). Third, this is a clear affront to taxpayers on the heels of WBZ-TV's I-Team report on Mass RMV having bigger profits than any nearby state. Fourth, a couple years ago there was a 51 million dollar surplus in the vehicle inspection trust fund, then it was transferred to the money pit, the MBTA. Fifth, fees apply state-wide to millions of residents who receive absolutely no benefit from the Boston area MBTA.
Government fees are to cover the cost of the service and be used for the service provided, and that's the problem for administratively set fees. Elected legislative bodies are allowed to assess taxes to raise revenue by a vote. Raising money with just appointees voting on it is why fees are restricted to just covering costs for the specific service provided.
WBZ Story,
State policy on setting of fee amounts,
State Law on setting of fees,
Unfettered disrespect for the law has been ongoing at the RMV for a very long time. The Lawrence Eagle Tribune did a series of articles in the summer of 1999 on the same subject. A citizen group earlier sued the state, but settled with the Weld administration on a fee rollback at that time. It will take more lawsuits to get the state to obey its own laws...
Quit whining
And move to NH where ... well ... see for yourself!
Or California. Or Texas.
MA is a very inexpensive place for registration fees. Very inexpensive.
Doesn't change the law
Fees may be relatively cheap, but it still stands that they're legally prohibited from using fees to finance other things. (Disclaimer: I haven't actually looked to see if the claims of fee surplus are true.)
Didn't we vote for casinos
so we would have an influx of state funding. According to Deval, $335mm annually for roads and bridges. So why are they raising this again, oooo ya it Taxachusetts.
No cuts
Massachusetts doesn't seem to be making cuts in spending anywhere, but you thinking putting all of our eggs in one basket (a basket which may not see a single egg for years, if at all) is a good idea?
EZ pass is now 80% of toll
EZ pass is now 80% of toll revenue, has cutting tollbooth collectors saved anyone any money? What about the creation of the DOT? There was only what, a $2.7MM efficiency in headcount reduction?
Has anyone considered replaced state pensions with a 401k? What about using technology to save money? Was there even a decline in the # of state employees when computers replaced paper over the past 20 years?
You're going to tell me that revenue per capita in MA has increased 5-fold since the late 1970s and that still wasnt enough? Population has only grown by 16% since then.
Revenue per capita growth since 1977
http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts/displayafact.cfm?Docid=513
Anon makes a good point
That per capita revenue is growing at almost 5% a year - almost double the rate of inflation meaning that half of the growth should be for incremental services - assuming zero additional efficiencies from economies of scale, technology etc. Anybody here getting about twice the services from state/local government they did 35 years ago?