Cars travel down Lincoln Street earlier this summer. A proposed tax on vehicles in Sitka was put on hold Tuesday night. (KCAW photo/Ed Ronco)
A motor vehicle tax cruising toward approval two weeks ago came to a screeching halt last night. The Sitka Assembly postponed the idea until September. A committee of citizens and Assembly members will look at the issue between now and then.
The tax would have charged $200 for passenger cars every two years. The fee would have been $400 for commercial vehicles, $100 for trailers and $50 for motorcycles. The idea was to use the money to help fund repairs and maintenance to Sitka’s roadways. (Click for an earlier story that includes details on the tax.)
But residents who showed up at the Assembly meeting said they didn’t like it.
Matt Donahoe talked about his son’s household.
“The nut for them for two years, the increase in taxes, is nearly $1,000,” he said. That includes a truck that doesn’t go anywhere, but has a commercial kitchen in it, two trucks, a motorcycle and a boat trailer.
“Most of these vehicles are not used much,” Donahoe said. “It seems like it should be – at least the ones with internal combustion engines – should be based on fuel consumption.”
Donahoe wasn’t alone in preferring a fuel tax.
“I did some brainstorming and I think that would be much more equitable. Heavy trucks cause more damage but they use more fuel, so they pay more. And lighter cars wouldn’t cause as much damage to the roads; they’d pay less because they have better fuel efficiency,” resident Matt Hunter said. “Also, if you drive more you pay more. The more you weigh down the roads, the more you should pay.”
Other residents gave other reasons for their opposition.
Dave Durham said a 5-ton commercial truck would be in the same category as a pickup truck used in a business, but the damage to the roads is different between the two. Michelle Putz said the tax doesn’t incentivize less road use. Brady Fink said he’s a car hobbyist, and didn’t think it would be fair to be taxed for cars he doesn’t drive. And Sherry Aitken told the Assembly that a large burden would fall on local businesses with commercial vehicles.
Thor Christianson moved to table the measure and the Assembly went along with that plan, but not before discussing some of its options. A fuel tax, Christianson said, is not among them, apparently because of the state.
“They’re kind of protective of that right, to tax fuel,” Christianson said. “I think we can do it but we’d have to jump through some real troops to do it.”
Municipal Attorney Theresa Hillhouse clarified. She said the state lets municipalities tax only property and sales. Various cities have tried to call a fuel tax a fee of some sort, but that the state pays close attention to it and makes it difficult to pull off. Instead, Alaska gives back a percentage of the state fuel tax to cities, as compensation for pre-empting the cities from levying the tax themselves.
What to do about this measure – the extra tax on motor vehicles – will be sorted out by a committee. It consists of Assembly members Mim McConnell, Phyllis Hackett and Bill Paden, along with citizens Michelle Putz, Matt Hunter and Sherry Aitken.
The item will appear again on the Assembly agenda in early September.
