Conference adopts assumptions for proposed toll exemption for 100% service‑connected disabled veterans; staff to revise write‑up
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Jesse Atkinson of the Office of Economic and Demographic Research presented the analysis for a bill that would exempt tolls for veterans with a 100 percent service‑connected disability rating.
Nut graf: The analysis used Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles data on 100 percent disabled‑veteran vehicle tags as a starting point, then applied reductions and participation assumptions to estimate the number of exempted drivers and the resulting toll revenue loss. The conference adopted a set of assumptions for publication and directed staff to revise the write‑up accordingly.
Atkinson described key data and assumptions: the starting universe was the number of 100‑percent disabled‑veteran tags reported by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the write‑up referenced 179,000 tags), an adjustment to avoid double counting vehicles per household, a participation rate for eligible veterans who would obtain the administrative exemption sticker, and an estimate of annual tolls per driver derived by dividing aggregate Florida toll collections by the number of SunPass accounts. Analysts presented low, middle and high scenarios and discussed caveats, including geographic variation in toll exposure, administrative steps to obtain an exemption sticker, and potential bond‑holder concerns raised as a caveat (analysts later agreed to remove that bond‑holder bullet from the published note).
Conference decisions recorded in the transcript included: relabeling the revenue source as “tolls” (rather than a generic ‘‘highway safety fees’’), using a ramp‑up for participation of 85% the first year, 90% the second year and 95% thereafter, setting the out‑of‑state percent to 0 (to avoid double counting because toll collection totals include out‑of‑state users), and adopting a lower per‑driver toll estimate (roughly half the mid scenario) after discussion. Conference members asked staff to revise the spreadsheets to point from veteran counts to tag counts where appropriate and to circulate the revised write‑up to the group for posting. Jesse Atkinson agreed to rework the methodology and return an updated analysis for the conference book.
Ending: The conference recorded adoption of the analytic assumptions and directed EDR to rework the write‑up for final review and posting. The published note will show the adopted participation ramp and the revenue‑source label “tolls.”
Nut graf: The analysis used Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles data on 100 percent disabled‑veteran vehicle tags as a starting point, then applied reductions and participation assumptions to estimate the number of exempted drivers and the resulting toll revenue loss. The conference adopted a set of assumptions for publication and directed staff to revise the write‑up accordingly.
Atkinson described key data and assumptions: the starting universe was the number of 100‑percent disabled‑veteran tags reported by the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles (the write‑up referenced 179,000 tags), an adjustment to avoid double counting vehicles per household, a participation rate for eligible veterans who would obtain the administrative exemption sticker, and an estimate of annual tolls per driver derived by dividing aggregate Florida toll collections by the number of SunPass accounts. Analysts presented low, middle and high scenarios and discussed caveats, including geographic variation in toll exposure, administrative steps to obtain an exemption sticker, and potential bond‑holder concerns raised as a caveat (analysts later agreed to remove that bond‑holder bullet from the published note).
Conference decisions recorded in the transcript included: relabeling the revenue source as “tolls” (rather than a generic ‘‘highway safety fees’’), using a ramp‑up for participation of 85% the first year, 90% the second year and 95% thereafter, setting the out‑of‑state percent to 0 (to avoid double counting because toll collection totals include out‑of‑state users), and adopting a lower per‑driver toll estimate (roughly half the mid scenario) after discussion. Conference members asked staff to revise the spreadsheets to point from veteran counts to tag counts where appropriate and to circulate the revised write‑up to the group for posting. Jesse Atkinson agreed to rework the methodology and return an updated analysis for the conference book.
Ending: The conference recorded adoption of the analytic assumptions and directed EDR to rework the write‑up for final review and posting. The published note will show the adopted participation ramp and the revenue‑source label “tolls.”
View full meeting
This article is based on a recent meeting—watch the full video and explore the complete transcript for deeper insights into the discussion.
View full meeting