Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance Gas Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Montgomery council debates narrowing proposed 3¢ gas tax hike to paving projects
Summary
Council members and staff discussed a proposed 3¢ increase in the city gas tax and whether the revenue should be dedicated specifically to paving or retained for broader road- and street-related maintenance.
Montgomery City Council members and staff on Feb. 18 debated whether to constrain a proposed 3¢ increase in the municipal gasoline tax to paving projects or leave the revenue available for a wider range of road- and street-related maintenance.
Council President opened discussion of Item 6, an ordinance to amend Section 16-107 governing special licenses and gasoline-and-oil tax provisions. City staff described the proposal as a 3¢ increase in the gas tax and reviewed the kinds of uses the revenue may cover.
“The the gas tax, proposal, basically was a 3¢ increase for gas tax,” City staff (Speaker 5) said. Staff noted the current gas-tax revenue is used for multiple purposes, including paying electricity bills for street lights and contributing to partial salaries of street maintenance workers. “Paving certainly would be my recommendation. We need we need to do a lot of paving here,” the same staff speaker added, urging more investment in paving work.
A councilmember (Speaker 8) asked whether the council should explicitly limit an increase to paving, arguing that without a directed allocation the money may not produce more or faster street resurfacing. “Doing the increase doesn’t guarantee that it's just gonna put more, improved streets in our city,” the councilmember said, and recommended a specific allocation for paving projects.
City staff and another council member cautioned that narrowing the ordinance language to paving-only could limit the city’s ability to use the funds for other road maintenance needs, including lighting, sidewalks, bridges and other adjacent infrastructure following inspection. One staff speaker cautioned that a narrower definition could prevent the city from using the money when a bridge or related structure needs repair after inspection.
Separately in the discussion, a council member (Speaker 7) raised the lodging tax, saying a 2.5% lodging tax enacted in 2004 had produced roughly $3.5 million annually and asked whether that stream could be reconsidered; a city staff member replied that the underlying debt service tied to that revenue runs through 2034, following a refinance.
No formal vote on the gas-tax ordinance was recorded in the transcript. Staff repeatedly said the precise programming of the gas-tax revenue would be addressed during the budget process, which the council ultimately approves.
Council members asked staff to return language options if the council wanted a dedicated paving allocation, and staff noted an ordinance amendment would be required to narrow eligible uses.
The discussion spanned uses, trade-offs and the mechanics of programming any increase into the annual budget.
If the council proceeds, the change would require an ordinance amendment and integration in the upcoming budget cycle; the transcript did not show a final vote on an ordinance amendment or adoption of a new rate.
