More than two-thirds of Salt Lake City’s streets — about 400 miles in all — are in poor condition, according to a citywide survey of pavement condition completed last summer.
The price tag for fixing these streets and keeping them up tops $20 million a year, seven times more than the $3 million to $3.5 million a year the city currently spends. And delaying maintenance further could add up. Every dollar spent repairing roads in decent condition can grow to $8 or $10 once the pavement deteriorates to the point where it has to be completely rebuilt.
But the funding plan Salt Lake City Mayor Jackie Biskupski outlined during her State of the City speech Jan. 31 might not be the best way to pay for fixing potholes. Instead of hiking the city’s sales tax one-half cent and issuing $87 million in new bonds, an innovative measure known as a transportation utility fee (TUF) would be a fairer, more efficient way to pay for street repairs and maintenance.
TUFs are monthly charges that treat streets like other utilities. But instead of storm sewers or water delivery or storm water management, they pay for transportation infrastructure.
Nationwide, some 36 cities in five states use TUFs to pay for street maintenance. Two of these cities are right here in Utah. Highland City levies a flat $18.50 for all utility accounts. Provo charges a fee ranging from a low of $2.10 per multihousing unit and $3.50 per single-family house to a high of $91.50 for a public use generating more than 300 trips and $225.50 for a commercial establishment generating more than 600 trips.
Provo’s fee schedule demonstrates the advantage of TUFs: They place financial responsibility for street maintenance where it belongs — on users. Heavy users cause more wear and tear on our roads and receive more benefits from the transportation network than people who drive less frequently, so it stands to reason they should pay more.
Standard formulas developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers are one way to estimate the number of trips generated by different kinds of land uses. But work done right here at the University of Utah’s City and Metropolitan Planning Department could provide Salt Lake City a state-of-the-art model to predict levels of driving in different kinds of neighborhoods.
A countywide TUF could also curtail sprawl. Basing the fees on propensity to drive rewards businesses and residents in walkable, transit-friendly neighborhoods. Compact neighborhoods, in turn, increase per-acre tax revenues and reduce the per-person cost of providing public infrastructure and services.
Another advantage TUFs have over a one-time bond issue (which more than likely would also require more revenues to service the debt) is that they’re sustainable over time. Maintaining streets over the long term requires a steady stream of funding, not a one-time infusion.
City attorneys are currently considering the legality of instituting a TUF in Salt Lake City. Existing case law in Utah and other states provides a strong foundation for the fee. A key Utah Supreme Court decision in State v. Hutchinson (1980), for instance, confirms that cities and counties have “general powers to enact all necessary measures to promote the general health, safety, morals and welfare of their citizens, even where there is no specific grant of enabling authority.” This applies to TUFs under the safety and welfare provisions.
The biggest question mark for the future of TUFs in Salt Lake City is Capitol Hill. Guidance from the state that legislators will allow Utah cities and towns to establish user fees for transportation infrastructure would go a long way in filling the potholes jarring your commute to work.
Reid Ewing | The University of Utah
Reid Ewing is chairman of the Department of City and Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah.