Is Mission's proposed 'driveway tax' the best way?

31 May 2010 -- A couple of cities in Texas had done it, along with more than a dozen in Oregon and at least one in Colorado. So Mike Scanlon, city administrator for Mission, thought: Why not?

That's how the debate on what some wags called the Mission "driveway tax" got started.

The idea is to raise more revenue for street maintenance and a new bus line by taxing the number of car trips generated by various land uses, from homes to businesses. The charge for a single-family home — about $72 a year — would be low compared with a giant trip generator like the local Target outlet.

After a summer of public hearings and newsletters, the City Council will decide in August whether to approve the new tax.

Scanlon said the city is facing a financial squeeze. Revenue is dropping and so is state aid to municipalities. Services have been cut. Yet the backlog of infrastructure maintenance is growing.

Scanlon said the usual tax options looked especially unpalatable. With commercial property values falling, raising the property tax would simply shift more of the burden to residential. And after the recent 1-cent increase in the state sales tax, that levy was getting to prohibitive levels, especially for a city close to the state line.

Paying for streets the old way — using special assessments on owners along the upgraded street — would cost residents $300 to $500 a year, he said.

Then Scanlon heard about the "transportation utility fee" concept, which worked a bit like the stormwater fee already on the books in many Kansas City area cities.

The stormwater fee, too, is linked to land use, although it's based on the amount of impermeable surface at a site. Businesses with big parking lots and a lot of flat-roofed stores pay more than single-family home owners.

One question with a "driveway tax" involves equity. Should the fee be the same for big houses as well as small homes? And what of the wisdom of imposing a fee on trips, one that would rise with inflation. Would critics be right in branding it a freedom-of-movement tax?

The City Council should weigh the alternatives carefully, along with the risk of hobbling the city in the regional competition for capital.