Estimated read time: 4-5 minutes
This archived news story is available only for your personal, non-commercial use. Information in the story may be outdated or superseded by additional information. Reading or replaying the story in its archived form does not constitute a republication of the story.
PROVO — After the Utah Transit Authority didn't finalize an agreement by a county-imposed deadline, Utah County commissioners voted last week against placing a possible 0.25 percent sales tax hike to fund transportation projects on the fall ballot.
However, under the state law that allows for the tax hike — which previously failed before Utah County voters in 2015 — the commissioners could potentially still increase the tax without input from voters.
It's an option at least one Utah County commissioner says he's in favor of executing if UTA officials sign an agreement to give the county more control of UTA's share of the money, or about $8.8 million a year.
While UTA officials declined to discuss it during their board meeting this month citing no advanced notice on their agenda, Utah County leaders said they're expecting the agreement to be approved later this month.
"To me, let's get the agreement and then enact the tax," Commissioner Greg Graves said, reluctant to wait another year before collecting tax revenue for road projects county and city officials say are in dire need of funding.
However, the other two commissioners indicated they're not interested in enacting the tax without a vote, so if they don't put it on this year's ballot, perhaps they'll wait until the 2019.
"I would have loved to have pushed this through this year," said Utah County Commission Chairman Nathan Ivie. "It's just my gut is saying the timing is wrong."
Graves and Ivie voted against the ballot question, with only Commissioner Bill Lee voting in favor, saying as "nervous" as it made him to proceed with a ballot item, he felt "comfortable" with doing so since he felt confident UTA officials would eventually sign the agreement.
"Of course it makes me nervous," Lee said. "But in this case, I feel that it would be, for me, counterproductive to not put this on the ballot and allow the citizens to have a voice in this."
The tax, which was known as Proposition 1 in 2015 and failed in Utah County, would raise an estimated $22 million per year in Utah County, with revenue that would be divided by 40 percent to cities within Utah County, 20 percent to the county, and 40 percent to UTA for transit projects.
After the tax hike failed in major counties including Salt Lake and Utah counties, leaders attributed its failure to public dislike and distrust of UTA, thanks to the agency's scandal-riddled past.
Aiming to give cities and counties another chance to find a new revenue source for road funding, the 2018 Utah Legislature passed SB136 to both restructure UTA, in an effort to repair public trust, and also to give counties another shot at the tax hike.
However, Utah County leaders disliked that SB136 still included the 40 percent split of revenue to UTA, which is why they began negotiating an interlocal agreement with UTA months ago to help make the tax hike more palatable. However, up against a deadline this month to send the fall ballot to print, both the county and UTA ran out of time.
"This can come to the people next year," Ivie said. "We do need funding for roads, but maybe we need to let the smoke clear a little bit, have a clear vision of what we are doing, and let the public understand what is happening."
The commissioners' vote came after Orem Mayor Richard Brunst and former Utah County Commissioner Larry Ellertson both urged the commission to not put the tax hike on the ballot this year.
Brunst noted Orem is having a "tough time" funding the $6 million a year it needs to maintain its roads.
"If you want to enact it as a (commission), please do so. I would encourage that," Brunst said. "If you want to wait until next year to put it on the ballot, I would encourage that. But please do not do this this year. This is not reasonable, it will not be successful, and again the work has not been done."
Andrew Jackson, a UTA board of trustees member who represents Utah County, told the commissioners that the interlocal agreement is expected to come before committees and perhaps be approved by the full board toward the end of September, perhaps Sept. 27.
