It wouldn’t be the holiday season without lights, gifts and end-of-year budgetary issues occupying government officials.

The latter has been a hot topic for the Utah County Commission for the last several weeks as it’s mulled multiple tax and budgetary issues.

This week, the Utah County Commission voted 2-1 to implement a tax of an extra penny for every four dollars spent on many taxable goods in Utah County.

Ultimately, it will generate about $22 million each year, making this tax quite the pretty penny.

The plan is for 40 percent of the returns to go to cities, 40 percent to the Utah Transit Authority, and 20 percent to the county.

Now, you may be looking at this and saying, “This looks a lot like Proposition 1.” Well, you’re not wrong. Proposition 1 was proposed back in 2015, and proposed a quarter-cent sales tax to be divvied the same as the current tax will be. But there’s one big difference between 2015 and the week before Christmas 2018.

In October, the commission and UTA came to an interlocal agreement which outlines how UTA’s portion would be used by the county. This gives the county much more oversight of the funds going to UTA.

Regulation, or a lack thereof, of UTA’s funding was the nail in the coffin that led to Proposition 1’s demise in 2015. UTA has quite a host of skeletons in its closet. Corruption, indictments and federal probes into handling of public funds just skim the surface of the mismanagement of the state’s largest public transit authority.

We completely understand and concede that UTA is a bit of a mess. Up until Monday, the county and the governor were deeply involved in a legal stalemate over Gov. Herbert rejecting the commissioners’ recommendation for the Utah/Tooele counties seat on the board. Kent Millington was agreed on as a compromise candidate. We’re happy a candidate has (finally) been agreed upon, but a little dismayed that it took legal threats to do so.

The Legislature didn’t fix UTA. The recent legal action didn’t fix UTA. It comes as no surprise to us that many people, including Commissioner Bill Lee, still have a sour taste left from prior interactions with UTA.

However, because of the interlocal agreement and the local responsibility that gives the county government, we as the Daily Herald Editorial Board believe this new tax is needed to fix our roads, transit and other county needs.

Raising taxes is never a popular option, especially when considering that most of our elected representatives and voters would likely be classified as fiscal conservatives. But we are of the opinion that it is unrealistic to say that taxes should never, or could never, be raised. This tax is long overdue. Roads and other infrastructure in our county are in dire circumstances and the can can’t be kicked any further down the crumbling road. Not with the county continuing to grow at exponential rates and forecasts showing populations doubling in the next several decades.

While this looks like Proposition 1, sounds like Proposition 1 and quacks like Proposition 1, it really is not. As previously stated, the oversight and regulation by the county is what really sets apart Proposition 1 from the current tax. Orem Councilman Sam Lentz even said in a meeting that he opposed Proposition 1, but was in favor of the tax because of the interlocal agreement.

We completely agree. Representatives from the Utah Valley Chamber of Commerce agree. Many cities in the county also agree, having passed resolutions favoring the tax implementation.

We don’t believe the Utah County Commission is raising taxes haphazardly. Just a week prior, the commission voted unanimously against raising property taxes. This was done so in the face of many budgetary strains, such as Sheriff’s Office staffing, salary adjustments for county employees and employing more nurses for the schools.

If the commission was throwing caution to the wind and raising taxes at every potential juncture, we would empathize with those who may have ire towards the commissioners. But we disagree with that sentiment and believe the commissioners are being judicious in their implementation of new taxes.

Without the property tax increase, the county will have to dip into reserves for hiring and personnel funding manners as previously mentioned. This is obviously not an ideal situation, as it would be more preferred that the budget allowed for such adjustments for departmental growth.

It is good news that such measures will not be needed for road and transportation improvements. We hope that the prudent observation of county funds continues next year when 100 percent of tax proceeds go to the county until July 1, 2019, when the funds are portioned out among the cities, county and UTA. The relationship with the county and UTA is understandably rocky, but we hope proper management and oversight of the newly-generated tax funds help pave a smoother relationship.