Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Gasoline Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council delays vote on proposed gasoline and oil tax increase after extended debate over paving priorities
Summary
After more than an hour of debate, the Montgomery City Council voted to carry over consideration of a proposed gasoline and oil tax change for two weeks while members seek more detailed accounting and a street-priorities plan.
The Montgomery City Council on Tuesday voted to carry over for two weeks a proposal to amend the city's gasoline and oil tax, following extended debate about how additional revenue would be spent and whether district councils should receive greater paving authority.
Councilor Miss Pruitt asked the council to postpone action and "I'd like to see exactly where that gas tax money has been spent," saying she wanted the last several years of expenditures broken out before voting. The council then voted to carry the item over for two weeks for further review.
Council members and staff debated whether the revenue increase should be split among individual council districts or held centrally for larger, high-cost thoroughfare and bridge projects. A staff speaker described the scale of paving funding the city currently receives from its normal allocation and state programs, saying the city currently gets roughly $1.6 million from Rebuild Alabama and "about $3,000,000" in paving-related funds in a typical year (staff phrasing in meeting transcript). Supporters of the pause said additional time would permit the city engineer and finance staff to present which projects and nonpaving eligible expenses (for example, salaries for street maintenance staff and utilities for street lights and signals) are paid from the existing revenue streams.
Opponents of continued delay argued for a quicker decision. Council members who pressed for immediate approval said the city's major arteries and bridges are deteriorating and that splitting modest additional revenue nine ways would fail to address high-need corridors such as Atlanta Highway, Bell Road and Vaughn Road. Councilors also discussed using any added revenues as matching funds for larger Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) projects.
During the discussion, council members supplied estimates and examples used to show scale: one councilor noted that $225,000 roughly equates to about a mile and a half of repaving work and that major corridor projects can cost millions; staff noted large projects such as a $8 million corridor project where the local match was 20 percent.
The council did not adopt the proposed tax change. Instead, the motion to carry the item for two weeks passed, allowing staff time to supply a spending history and a prioritized list of specific paving and infrastructure projects for council review.
What happens next: staff will prepare and present the requested expenditure history and project estimates at the meeting scheduled after the two-week carryover. No ordinance or rate change took effect as of the meeting.
