The Spokane Valley City Council is smart to pull back on its proposed utility tax so that the city’s businesses and residents can weigh in more thoughtfully on the issue.

Initially proposed as a 6 percent tax on all utilities, the city put the measure forward as a replacement for a tax on phone lines that’s used to fund street maintenance. Revenue from the phone-line tax has declined consistently for years, while street repairs and maintenance costs have risen. That has left a void in funding that the city has yet to find a sustainable way to fill.  

At a recent public forum spearheaded by the Greater Spokane Valley Chamber of Commerce, city leaders said its streets largely are in good shape now, but that maintenance costs would increase dramatically if the city falls behind on repairs. They asserted that every dollar not spent on road preservation now would cost the city $8 in street reconstruction later.

The city deserves kudos for working to stay on top of road maintenance and is serving its business community and its citizenry well by not letting its streets fall into disrepair. At the forum, City Councilman Arne Woodard pointed out the Valley’s “sister city to the west,” referring to Spokane, as an example of what can happen when maintenance isn’t kept up.

“They’re now in a catch-up position, and they’ll never catch up,” Woodard said. 

During the past 15 years, the city of Spokane has made great strides in repairing its streets, and some within the city might disagree with Woodard’s assessment. Regardless, the city of Spokane’s experience does serve as a cautionary tale for the young city of Spokane Valley, which incorporated 13 years ago. 

While the city of Spokane Valley’s vision for street maintenance is laudable, that doesn’t mean, necessarily, that a 6 percent utility tax is the right funding mechanism. 

One attendee of the utility tax forum urged the city to look into forming a transportation benefit district, through which an additional fee could be imposed on vehicle tabs. One argument for such an approach is that the street users would be paying directly for maintenance of the streets. 

Another person questioned whether a utility tax would need to be as high as 6 percent to fund street preservation. At 6 percent, it appears as though the city would be funding a few other projects not related to road maintenance. If the intent truly is to fund repairs at the current levels, the city likely could move forward with a utility tax at a lower rate. 

A hybrid plan that includes a lower utility tax coupled with a transportation benefit district might be worth exploring. 

Regardless of the solution, taking action in a deliberate manner now to address street preservation funding makes sense for the city, and while a new tax or a rise in taxes shouldn’t be done without careful deliberation, it certainly could save the Valley businesses and citizens the painful cost of road reconstruction in the future.