The Wasatch County Council next month will consider a small transit sales tax to continue providing and perhaps expand High Valley’s popular and controversial free microtransit service.
The councilors this week discussed officially joining the transit agency, but were wary that this would open them up to another transit tax beyond the 0.3% one they put on next month’s agenda. They also talked about the possibility of a ballot measure.
“I put together some metrics that I think we can use to talk about because some of the discussion centered around how we would establish success in this place,” County Executive Dustin Grabau said at the top of the conversation.
He showed that in March, there were 12,231 microtransit trips with a 57.2% aggregation, meaning about 7,000 of those trips were shared at some point during the route.
“I think 7,000 trips is something to be proud of,” he said. “We provided all of those connections at a more efficient rate than had they taken place in single occupancy vehicles.”
According to rider surveys dispersed through the High Valley Transit app, 38% of the riders used the service to get to work and 88% of survey respondents said they were more likely to visit nearby businesses when using the service. Responders also indicated 21% of riders have a disability and only six or seven high school students use microtransit to get to school each day.
He also shared a 2020 statistic from an American Public Transportation Association study that showed every $1 invested in public transportation leads to $5 in economic return, $3 of those in actual business transactions. Every $1 million, he said, creates 50 jobs and people who switch from driving to utilizing public transit systems save about $10,000 annually.
“There are certainly deviations from that. But in general, I think it gives you an indication that if people are able to get around — even if it’s teens joyriding to hang out at Walmart, they’re more likely to buy something when they’re at Walmart,” he said. “Some people provided statements when they filled out the survey about their ability to live in the community because they don’t have to have a second car or that they can get to their job.”
Still, even the statistics that support the county keeping and growing its current transit options didn’t make up for the fact that after there was less county tax revenue than expected last year, the system is running at a 20% deficit.
“What do we do now?” Grabau asked councilors. “What I wanted to present is what I think are the four general options of what we can do with our transit service, and I ranked them in order of least budget impact to most budget impact.”
Option 1: Cut 20%
The benefit of the first option is that it would not cost the county anything, nor would it cause any tax raises, Grabau said.
“The cons are we would have a decreased service level,” he said.
There would be longer wait times and more restricted hours, which could lead to less confidence in the transit system.
“I think we lose credibility,” he said. “You end up with people who have a lack of confidence in transit or are unwilling to invest in it.”
Option 2: Short-term funding
“We do have things like our fund balance and some potential other revenue sources that we are looking into, but nothing concrete,” Grabau said.
The advantages would include a sustainable service level and no need to raise taxes in the immediate future.
The drawback is that short-term funding is short-term and thus unsustainable.
“What do we do come 2026?” Grabau asked.
Option 3: Sales tax with property tax offset
“We’re still trying to work through if that is possible,” Grabau clarified. “This advantage to this approach is that it would fund our current and potential future transit needs.”
In a previous meeting, he had identified some of those as a transit line stretching from Utah County to Wasatch County, paratransit service riders with disabilities would be able to reserve in advance, an expanded line connecting the valley to Park City, and more microtransit availability.
“There are some disadvantages,” Grabau said.
He wasn’t sure if the option would impact 2024 property taxes. If the funding is needed to close the deficit gap, he said, property taxes would not see much of a decrease.
“We need $600,000 to close that funding gap,” he said.
“Does that mean we could do option 2 and 3 both?” Councilor Mark Nelson asked.
“Yes,” Grabau answered. “You could say for 2024, we’re going to use fund balance and we are either going to look at or … adopt a transit sales tax.”
Option 4: Sales tax, no offset
“That has some advantages in that we get the most rapid service expansion. Some of those funds could be used for additional public safety services,” Grabau said. “The biggest disadvantage is it has the largest impact to taxpayers.”
Grabau recommended further investing in public transportation, saying it would be more than worth it in the future and cutting back on current services in his opinion would “do more harm than good to those people who do use transit.”
“We have an accelerating growth rate of utilization,” he said. “I think we genuinely want to continue.”
He said he would opt for the second or third options, leaning toward the third to stop the problem from returning next year.
Councilor Erik Rowland didn’t agree with Grabau’s all of assessment.
“I’m finding myself agreeing with the third option, but I don’t really agree with your recommendation to not do the first option. I think this actually will go hand in hand with helping pass the third option,” he said. “If this really is a public service and the public is utilizing it, to me it’s more responsible that we stick to our budget and the send the message, ‘Sorry, we didn’t have the funds to pay for this, we have to reduce it. If you want it, this is what it’s going to take to keep it.'”
Then, he said, taxpayers would understand that to retain transit services would take more tax revenue. He said they could vote for that in a ballot measure.
Grabau said he thought reducing the existing transit options would fall below “a minimum viable transportation service.”
Other councilors were more hesitant to reduce what currently exists.
Nelson said he believed a ballot proposition for a tax raise would be “a terrible idea,” given the community’s lack of real knowledge about High Valley Transit in the county.
He said that popular local Facebook pages — such as Ask (Heber, UT) and Wasatch County Politics — spread misinformation that could cause community members to want to shut the system down.
“I think that we need to join High Valley Transit,” Nelson said. “I think that’s our future. I think that’s the obvious way for us to go.”
He proposed putting the a 0.3% transit sales tax on the council’s June meeting agenda.
The tax, Grabau specified, would not be implemented on grocery or gas costs.
Councilor Steve Farrell agreed with Nelson, explaining that growth in tourism dollars can help relieve the property tax burden on county residents.
Near the end of the discussion, Rowland once again pushed for a ballot initiative, though he was left without support for the idea. Nelson’s motion passed 5-1, with Rowland being its lone opponent.