That buzz you hear is coming from City Hall, where Mayor Ralph Becker is proposing a new fee for residents and businesses to pay for basic streetlights.
The goal is to create a sustainable, recession-proof revenue source to keep the city’s streets sufficiently lighted and safe. But swapping programs — an enterprise fund rather than a property tax assessment would fund streetlights — would not immediately pay for energy efficient bulbs or make neighborhood lights more decorative.
 |
Join the Discussion |
 |
Post a Comment |
And the City Council sees a glaring problem: Property taxes for streetlights would not be reduced by an equivalent amount, making the new fund a "hidden" tax.
"We have to be more transparent about that," Councilman Carlton Christensen said Tuesday. "I’m not comfortable going forward thinking you’re going to slip in a $2 million tax increase without some process that is more transparent."
The fee-based program, unveiled by a consultant and utilities staffers, calls for $2.8 million per year to keep the city’s 14,000 intersection and mid-block lights on. About 700 bulbs recently went dark and have not been replaced. Since 2008, when budgets were cut during the recession, city leaders have scrambled to find a streetlights solution.
"The base level we looked at was to bring the funding up to pre-2008 realities," explained Jeff Niermeyer, the city’s public utilities director. "Really, what the community is getting is a sustainable funding option."
Right now, capital residents pay $2.33 a month, on average, for streetlights. That is billed under property taxes. The fee-based approach would expand the property pool to include tax-exempt parcels such as schools, churches and public buildings. That reduces the average residential amount four cents, to $2.29 per month.
But businesses also would be billed based on how much street frontage they occupy, meaning larger commercial properties could pay substantially more. For instance, the consultant noted the Irving Schoolhouse Apartments in Sugar House would see its monthly bill soar from $84 to $211. Downtown’s modest-sized Judge Building, by contrast, would see its monthly bill shrink by four bucks.
"Depending on what you do with the property tax, it’s probably a savings for some of those smaller-footprint commercial buildings," Christensen allowed.
Yet the loudest opposition is coming from business owners, including four members of the city’s streetlights committee who comprised the four dissenting votes on a fee-based system.
"We’re hearing a lot from small businesses," said Councilwoman Jill Remington Love, "... that they would be hit harder."
Councilman Charlie Luke says he likes the idea but cannot ignore many residents’ "angst."
"Telling them that they are going to be paying for something in a different way," he said, "is going to be a tough sell."
Consultants suggest the existing property tax collected for streetlights could instead be used for parks and other maintenance. That debate will unfold during the council’s spring budget process.
The proposed change would not impact those neighborhoods that pay for enhanced service — often with decorative lamps like the ones gracing Harvard-Yale — under the private-lighting program.
It also would not result in energy efficient bulbs — at least until 2016. But that upgrade also would boost residents monthly bills — to $3.70.
Copyright 2012 The Salt Lake Tribune. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
