The City of Spokane last night pulled the trigger on creating a transportation benefit district. City Council members voted 5-2 to create a TBD, meaning the council will have the ability to enact a tax of up to $20 on your vehicle license tabs. They could ask for a higher tax as well but that would require a public vote.
The decision did not enact the tax, just cleared the way to do so. Hearing on enacting a proposed fee could be held as early as November.
While the money raised by the tax would have to be spent on street and transportation projects, the law allows the city to divert other revenue currently spent on streets.
SRTC is part of an effort to get a countywide TBD started. The City says it supports that effort, but doesn't want to wait while the rest of the County decides if they're in or not. They want to start collecting money sooner rather than later, considering the City's financial shortfall. So for now, they're going to move ahead with their own TBD and if a regional district is formed later, the City's will likely be dissolved.
Do you think the City should have waited for the rest of the County to form a Transportation Benefit District or do you think they did the right/responsible thing?
6 comments:
The county has been waiting for the city and the city has been waiting for the county before either forms a TBD, so this starts the ball rolling. The city ordinance has an out if the county forms a TDB or it sunsets in 6 years. I really think we need a county wide TDB if they are going to have a TDB. Otherwise it just drives more businesses to the county.
Charles, how would it drive more businesses to the county?
Last year the City of Spokane increased the Business License to balance their budget, this year a TDB. If you were setting up a new business or a new branch where would you put it? In the city and pay all these city only taxes or across the street in the county? Will it be the straw that breaks the back of existing businesses?
Unless a business has a huge number of vehicles, this won't affect a business' bottom line much. They could probably save at least $20 on their electric bill by switching light bulbs. And if they do have a large vehicle count, an extra $20 per year amounts to nearly nothing in the overall scheme of purchasing vehicles, maintaining a vehicles,and paying for insurance.
I would argue that the location of land, lease agreement, condition of property, etc. will all have a much greater effect than a $20 annual fee on any vehicle the company might use.
Well I did watch the city council meeting last night and I agree $20 is not much and that the city is in bad shape and needs the money for street repairs, but I still think a county wide TDB would be much better than a city only one. I also agree the city has few choices on where to raise more money to keep from laying off 120 people in 2011.
I think a countywide TBD is needed as well. We have to think regionally and what is best for the entire region, not just each jurisdiction. And the entire region is hurting financially so if we can solve at least part of everyone's problem by forming a regional TBD, why not?
Of course, I understand why the City went ahead with what they did, but my hope is that their move will light a fire under the other jurisdictions (at least nine of the 14 governments within Spokane County must support a TBD, and they must represent at least 75% of the county population to get the TBD passed). The money raised from a regional TBD would go to maintain our current streets and build new transportation facilities.
Each jurisdiction would get back 70% of the money collected within their boundaries to use however they wish, as long as it's on transportation projects. The other 30% would be pooled and used for larger projects of 'regional significance', such as the North Spokane Corridor, which is where the 'regional planning' part comes in.
Post a Comment