If there is any poetic justice to be served in the discussion about a proposed transportation utility for the City of Monroe, it will come in the form of a 5-5 City Council vote.
That would put the decision for whether to have a transportation utility or not squarely on the shoulders of Mayor Ron Marsh, who's been the driving force behind the proposal. Then he truly would own (or disown) the tax, and be held accountable for it in a 2010 election.
After a half-year of council debate in 2007 over vote counts and what constitutes a majority, the mayor was given the ability to break only ties of 5-5 on the City Council. Just last week, Marsh cast the deciding vote to grant a Class A liquor license to Santos Tinoco.
For the record, Marsh's decision in that vote was the right one. An argument made against granting the license was that the business would have only one operator's license. But Marsh correctly pointed out that the city does not have a requirement for the number of license holders in a business at the same time. Perhaps it's something the city should discuss instituting.
But back to the transportation utility.
A question-and-answer session on the proposal last week didn't include specific amounts that individual property owners would pay, and that was frustrating to some in attendance. The reality is that those specifics can't be available until an outside firm conducts a feasibility study, which the council and its Finance and Taxation Committee is considering.
The real decision is whether to move forward with that study. The firm, Municipal Economics & Planning, a division of Ruekert-Mielke, has told the city it would cost $40,000. Of that expense, $30,000 would go toward a feasibility study, which would include "implementing" the tax - by establishing a structure to determine specific fees and means to collect them. The other $10,000 would be spent informing and educating the public about the new tax.
The council could vote to do the study, then vote against implementing the utility later on. But it's unlikely aldermen - for political and fiscal reasons - would commit to spending $40,000 on a plan that won't be put in place.
So, for all intents and purposes, a vote on the study should be a vote to institute the utility. Absent of specific dollar amounts, the general premise of the utility is known. Properties would be charged based on the number of "trips" to and from the premises on a daily basis. Churches and schools would not be exempt, and would be among those who pay the most in the utility tax. Businesses also would pay more - their burdens depending on the traffic they generate. Individual homeowners would pay less - certainly a lot less in taxes than they'd pay in assessments to have their sidewalk done or street fixed.
Some other things learned during the Q&A last week was that utility revenue also could be used for street cleaning, snow removal, grant writing, engineering costs and perhaps even payrolls. And that those who already have paid for assessments in the past on sidewalk and street work would receive credits. That seems fair.
But as we've opined before, we believe a transportation utility would be a complicated mess that would be bad for business and, ultimately, bad for those individual home owners who may pass relatively little directly to a utility but pay even more indirectly to schools and businesses trying to make for their own costs.
Better to ask voters if they'd prefer to spend more in property taxes to pay for, and share, the cost of work on streets and sidewalks. Or decide where, within the current fiscal reality, streets and sidewalks rank as a budget priority. In other words, spend within your current means.
That would put the decision for whether to have a transportation utility or not squarely on the shoulders of Mayor Ron Marsh, who's been the driving force behind the proposal. Then he truly would own (or disown) the tax, and be held accountable for it in a 2010 election.
After a half-year of council debate in 2007 over vote counts and what constitutes a majority, the mayor was given the ability to break only ties of 5-5 on the City Council. Just last week, Marsh cast the deciding vote to grant a Class A liquor license to Santos Tinoco.
For the record, Marsh's decision in that vote was the right one. An argument made against granting the license was that the business would have only one operator's license. But Marsh correctly pointed out that the city does not have a requirement for the number of license holders in a business at the same time. Perhaps it's something the city should discuss instituting.
But back to the transportation utility.
A question-and-answer session on the proposal last week didn't include specific amounts that individual property owners would pay, and that was frustrating to some in attendance. The reality is that those specifics can't be available until an outside firm conducts a feasibility study, which the council and its Finance and Taxation Committee is considering.
The real decision is whether to move forward with that study. The firm, Municipal Economics & Planning, a division of Ruekert-Mielke, has told the city it would cost $40,000. Of that expense, $30,000 would go toward a feasibility study, which would include "implementing" the tax - by establishing a structure to determine specific fees and means to collect them. The other $10,000 would be spent informing and educating the public about the new tax.
The council could vote to do the study, then vote against implementing the utility later on. But it's unlikely aldermen - for political and fiscal reasons - would commit to spending $40,000 on a plan that won't be put in place.
So, for all intents and purposes, a vote on the study should be a vote to institute the utility. Absent of specific dollar amounts, the general premise of the utility is known. Properties would be charged based on the number of "trips" to and from the premises on a daily basis. Churches and schools would not be exempt, and would be among those who pay the most in the utility tax. Businesses also would pay more - their burdens depending on the traffic they generate. Individual homeowners would pay less - certainly a lot less in taxes than they'd pay in assessments to have their sidewalk done or street fixed.
Some other things learned during the Q&A last week was that utility revenue also could be used for street cleaning, snow removal, grant writing, engineering costs and perhaps even payrolls. And that those who already have paid for assessments in the past on sidewalk and street work would receive credits. That seems fair.
But as we've opined before, we believe a transportation utility would be a complicated mess that would be bad for business and, ultimately, bad for those individual home owners who may pass relatively little directly to a utility but pay even more indirectly to schools and businesses trying to make for their own costs.
Better to ask voters if they'd prefer to spend more in property taxes to pay for, and share, the cost of work on streets and sidewalks. Or decide where, within the current fiscal reality, streets and sidewalks rank as a budget priority. In other words, spend within your current means.
