A ballot measure that provides funding for both local roads and regional public transportation is drawing criticism from some Tooele County residents.
Sending 40 percent of the revenue from Proposition 1 out of the county to the Utah Transit Authority is too much, according to Stansbury Park resident Wade Hadlock.
“While public transit is needed, and roads need to be maintained, this new sales tax provides too much money for public transit and it is not the best way to pay for maintaining the roads,” wrote Hadlock in an argument against Proposition 1 that he posted on social media.
Proposition 1 is a proposal on this fall’s general election ballot to add 25 cents in sales tax for every $100 in non-food purchases. The money will be earmarked for transportation funding.
Citing a Salt Lake Tribune article from June 29, 2015, Hadlock claims that Tooele County already pays 11.2 percent more in revenue to UTA than it receives in services.
“The proposed sales tax is not good for rural counties like Tooele County because 40 percent is too much to be giving to UTA, the tax is not distributed fairly, and local governments have better options for funding roads,” wrote Hadlock.
Chris Sloan, a local real estate broker who represents Tooele County on the UTA board, disagrees with Hadlock’s assertion that Tooele County pays more to UTA than it receives in service.
As a UTA board member, Sloan said he can’t endorse Proposition 1, but he can educate and provide information.
“Since 2001, Tooele County has sent $24 million in revenue to UTA while receiving $33 million in services,” Sloan said.
Sloan said his figures are based on publicly available documents. The revenue generated by Proposition1 will be used in Tooele County, according to Sloan.
“The UTA board adopted a resolution in August that requires any new revenue from the local option sales tax to be spent in the county it came from,” he said.
Proposition 1 is the result of a two-pronged piece of legislation passed by the 2015 state Legislature to address transportation funding needs.
Sixth substitute House Bill 362 reformed the state’s gas tax and provided an option for a local option sales tax to fund transportation expenses.
By pegging the motor vehicle fuel tax to the wholesale price of gas, HB 362 will effectively raise the motor vehicle fuel tax, commonly called the “gas tax,” by a nickel a gallon starting Jan. 1, 2016.
Gas tax funds are distributed by the state, with roughly 70 percent going to state infrastructure and 30 percent going to counties and municipalities, according to Abby Albrecht, director of the Utah Transportation Coalition, a group of businesses, counties and municipalities that advocates for transportation causes.
The group supported HB362 and is backing Proposition 1 statewide.
The 30 percent of gas tax for local projects is allocated to communities based on population and mileage of qualifying roads.
HB 362 also allowed county commissions to place a measure on a ballot for a .25 percent local option sales tax to be used for transportation expenses.
The Legislature prescribed that revenue from the additional sales tax may be used to pay for improvements to state and local highways, county and city roads, public transit, and traffic and pedestrian features, including sidewalks, curb and gutter, signs, signals and lighting.
In order to collect the new tax, county commissioners must first vote to place the proposed tax on a ballot. Then voters must approve the new tax in an election.
Once approved by voters, in a county like Tooele that is served by a transit authority, 0.10 percent of the new tax will go to the transportation authority. In Tooele County’s case that is UTA.
The remaining 0.15 goes to county and municipal governments, with 0.5 percent designated as the county’s share and .010 percent to be divided among cities, towns, and unincorporated communities using a formula based on population and the point of sale.
Hadlock’s objection to Proposition 1 is also based on the formula that will be used to distribute the local portion of the tax.
“The new sales tax distributes half of the tax based on population and the other half to the city where the stores are located. The new sales tax will leave very little revenue for maintaining rural roads in areas like Erda and Lake Point. Ophir will receive only $356 extra per year to help maintain their roads. A county like ours with so many rural roads will be hurt by a sales tax for transportation as opposed to the fuel tax,” wrote Hadlock in his statement against Proposition 1.
Hadlock suggested local governments use property tax to fund transportation needs instead of sales tax.
“Our county and local cities have another option for funding transportation. Local cities can choose to fund transportation shortfalls with property tax revenue instead of this new sales tax. Unlike the new sales tax, property tax revenue is paid by both residents and businesses, and we wouldn’t have to hand 40 percent of it over to UTA,” wrote Hadlock.
