9.0. EDSR 04-11-2005 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Printer version: Traffic fee stirring debate among tenants,property managers Page 1 of 2 startribune.comClose window Last update:April 4,2005 at 7:19 AM Traffic fee stirring debate among tenants, property managers Dan Mitchell Published April 4,2005 Commercial and multifamily property managers and some of their tenants are bristling over the possibility that Minnesota cities soon might be allowed to impose a fee on landowners based on the amount of traffic their property generates. A bill in the Legislature would allow cities to charge a"transportation utility fee" based on the number of vehicle trips generated by each property. Fees would be collected via utility bills, and the revenue would be used for road maintenance and improvements. The theory is that because apartment complexes and commercial properties create the most traffic, they should pay for improved roads. Property taxes have been the main source of money for local roads,but "it's increasingly difficult" to rely on them, said Jim Miller, director of the League of Minnesota Cities. "Property taxes are the most onerous taxes there are." Opponents of the bill say local governments are just trying to raise taxes without angering voters. "This is not a fee, it's a tax," said Jack Horner, a lobbyist for the Minnesota Multi-family Housing Association. The bill gives city officials a way to raise revenue "without taking any political heat," he said. While the basis for the fee might seem logical, Horner contends that it's inherently unfair. First, it's not always the case that a big apartment complex or commercial property is the cause of a lot of road wear. Properties on the edge of a municipality, for example,might create more traffic for a neighboring town than its own. Horner also said the cost would be passed on to tenants in the form of higher rents, forcing tenants to pay regardless of how much they drive and even if they don't own a car. Miller counters that it's "easy to find examples where something like this seems unfair." The fee is nevertheless the most equitable way to fund road budgets, since property taxes also are passed on to renters, he said. And while the fee might not make property taxes go down, "they wouldn't go up as fast." The bill would leave most of the details up to the municipalities themselves,which could open the door for abuse, Horner said. Under the bill,there is no cap on the fee, and the formulas for assessing it are so complex that "it would give [governments] the ability to skew it however they want to skew it. So if there's a big complex or commercial property in town, there would be a strong temptation to hit that property very hard." • Miller called that conclusion "simplistic, and, frankly, insulting. I don't know any city councils that are going to gleefully say, 'Let's do it just because we can do it.' " http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/story.php?template=print_a&story=5326083 4/4/2005