Transportation, Transit, Proposition 1, and HB 215

Open Response to Commissioner Bill Lee's Request for Input

Utah County Commissioner Bill Lee sent an email to city councilors in the county discussing HB 215 and asking for our input. This is an issue that many in our District feel strongly about, on both sides of the question. I imagine that some of you would be interested as well in the thoughts that I shared with Commissioner Lee, so I am posting them below. I should note that they are fairly similar to what I expressed in a letter to the editor that I wrote about a year ago that was published in the Herald, Deseret News, and Tribune. (I linked to the Tribune because they published it in full.)

As always, I invite your feedback, either by email, in the comment section below, on Facebook, or Twitter.

Commissioner Lee,

Thank you for reaching out to council members across our county on this topic. The funding of our transportation system is an important issue on the state, county, and local level.

To answer your question, yes, I agree with the ULCT position, decided on by its Legislative Policy Committee, and articulated by Cameron Diehl. The way I see it, we have serious challenges facing our county and local transportation systems, and it would be irresponsible to try to address it solely by funding our roads. I don't see funding UTA as coming at the expense of our cities, but as a way to support our cities with a regional transit system that can't be built by the cities in isolation.

I believe that UTA has been very effective in establishing the roots of the robust transit system that we will need more and more as our county grows. Unfortunately, UTA has also exhibited some significant lapses in ethics and judgment which has undermined the public's trust in the organization. I feel that much of the opposition to Proposition 1 is attributable to this lack of trust. But the failings of UTA does not diminish our need to build a viable transit system (if we want to maintain our quality of life and the usability of our roads as our county population blooms). Instead of turning our backs on mass transit, we need to demand more accountability from UTA and support the efforts by new UTA Board Chair H. David  Burton and the new board members to change the culture and to hold it to the highest ethical standards, in order to win back the public's trust.

As you requested, I am sharing my thoughts with you, I am expressing my thoughts to Cameron Diehl (by copying him on this email), and I am contacting my state representatives (who are also copied). I will also be active on this issue in the interim. I acknowledge that not all of my fellow council members, nor constituents for that matter, will agree with me on this issue.

Thanks again for reaching out to us, and for your service to our community.

Sincerely,
David Harding
District 5 Councilor
Provo Municipal Council

On 02/18/2016 06:43 PM, Bill Lee wrote:

Dear City Council Members,

With the defeat of Proposition 1 last year, many have asked, "Now what?"

This year Rep. Brian Greene ran a bill (HB 215) to change some of what was concerning to many in our county. HB 215 would give more local control to the cities by changing the allocation formula of the proposed 4th quarter-cent sales tax so that 80% of the revenue would go to the cities and 20% to the county. (Contrast this with Proposition 1, which would distribute the money as follows: 40% to the cities, 40% to UTA, and 20% to the county.) As you can see, HB 215 would give the cities twice as much revenue as Proposition 1. HB 215 also provides tremendous flexibility by allowing cities to give a portion of their sales tax revenue to UTA if they so choose.

Here is the concern I have. Last week, I attended the legislative committee hearing on HB 215, expressed my concerns for more local control, and asked that this bill be heard on the House floor. We had a county commissioner, a mayor, and a citizen there to speak in favor of the bill. On the other hand, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce and the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) were there to speak against the bill. Cameron Diehl from the ULCT spoke against the greater funding and local control that HB 215 would provide. According to Cameron, Proposition 1 is some sort of grand bargain agreement that was made by special interest groups, and the legislature should not tinker with it even though voters in many counties (including Utah and Salt Lake Counties) rejected it.

Unfortunately, HB 215 did not make it out of committee.

Here is my question: As city council members, do you share Cameron's opinion that you do not want to change Proposition 1 even though it was so soundly defeated in our county? Do you agree with him that you do not want your cities to receive double the amount of revenue that HB 215 provides? In my view, we have serious road issues that need to be addressed, but trying to make counties fit a one-size-fits-all "grand bargain" that funds UTA at the expense of our cities does not make any sense.

If you would like to see HB 215 brought back in the future, here are a few things that you can do. First, call Cameron Diehl and express your thoughts; his office number is ###-###-####, his cell is ###-###-####, and his email is cdiehl@ulct.org. Second, please let me know what your thoughts are on this issue; my cell number is ###-###-####, and my email is WilliamL@utahcounty.gov. Third, talk with your state representatives; remember, most Utah County legislators voted against the bill last year (HB 362) that created Proposition 1. Fourth, it's going to be really hard to pull this back up during this legislative session, so we all need to be active on this issue in the interim.

Thank you for all that you are doing. Feel free to contact me at any time.

Best regards,

Bill Lee
Commissioner
Utah County

P.S. I showed this email to Commissioner Graves as well before sending it out, and he expressed that he agrees with the sentiments I have shared here. Please also reach out to him on this issue at gregg@utahcounty.gov or at ###-###-####.