The head tax generates $4.5 million for local transportation projects.

Times are tough in Seattle for small and large businesses.  Everyone is trying to find ways to save money and weather the biggest recession in almost 30 years, and maybe since the end of World War II.

So it makes sense that the Seattle City Council would consider repealing a rather small tax on local businesses as a way of acknowledging this. Repealing the employee hours tax has been proposed by a couple of council members as a symbolic gesture to businesses.

But let’s take a quick look at the employee hours tax, often called the “head tax.”  It is $25 per employee and it doesn’t have to be paid for employees that don’t drive to work. Most employers admit that they don’t pay much tax, and businesses that have less than $80,000 in revenue are exempt. They do feel like it is a hassle. Too much paper work can be expensive in terms of time. But the form is only a couple of pages.

We do know that this arguably innocuous tax generates $4.5 million for transportation projects.  And this funding is part of the overall Bridging the Gap levy that was passed by Seattle voters to make small but critical infrastructure improvements to Seattle’s sidewalks and roads.

So we know that this symbolic gesture:

• will not create any new jobs or revenue for businesses;

• will eliminate $4 million dollars that currently pay for projects that employ people in the city; and

• will eliminate an incentive for employers to encourage their employees NOT to drive to work.

Now, supporters of the repeal acknowledge the first two of these items but deny the last point. Nobody has quit driving to work because of this tax. Do we have survey data?  Have collections gone down or up over since the tax was implemented? We really don’t know.

I find local, state and federal taxes annoying and confusing. But that isn’t a rationale to repeal them. Would simplifying the collection of the tax help? We don’t know that, either.

Are there other ideas out there that would create tangible benefits for business other than repealing the tax? Another thing that hasn’t been explored yet.

That is why tax supporters (including myself as a resident of Capitol Hill) are asking for more time to so the City Council can consider these questions. And here are some basic principles the council should consider during discussions this fall. Any repeal or alternative should:

• measurably improve the climate for business in Seattle;

• replace the revenue generated by the employee hours tax;

• create measurable targets for investment in transportation infrastructure and jobs; and

• have an incentive element to discourage driving and encourage alternatives.

If the council waits for the time to consider these principles perhaps there is a chance of finding a win-win solution to the question of how to improve the business climate without hurting neighborhood transportation projects.

Last week the Seattle Great City Initiative leader Michael McGinn hosted an end-of-the-year happy hour to toast the season and thank volunteers and supporters for their work. McGinn and Great City regular Brice Maryman were leading proponents for the successful parks levy that passed in November.

Great City has focused on trying to bring together neighborhood advocates, developers and environmentalists to be more supportive of growth.

There are some tremendous individuals with decades of experience in wide array of fields that are part of Great City. It was good to catch up with a few of those folks and talk about the last political year and the one coming up.

We started talking about the possibly three Seattle City Council seats that may be open next year and we hit on a lot of different topics. What three questions would we ask the burgeoning field of candidates? There were three that I distilled from our conversation that focused on transportation, density and affordability.

• Studies show that 1 new mile of highway construction creates between 1,400 and 2,300 tons of CO2. And a recent Sightline study indicated that “adding one mile of new highway lane will increase CO2 emissions by more than 100,000 tons over 50 years.” What will you do as a member of the Seattle City Council to reduce vehicle miles traveled and limit new highway construction in the city, especially on the waterfront?

• More than 60 percent of Seattle’s land is designated single family. The Puget Sound Regional Council projects that 1.7 million new people will be coming to our region in the next 20 years. As a member of the Council, what would you do to support accommodating Seattle’s share of that growth? Would you support the expansion of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units (DADUs) city wide? How would you create density in single family neighborhoods?

• With the economy in a severe downturn, concepts of affordability are changing and some would argue a major shift that may be systemic or even paradigmatic. What do you think the downturn means for housing affordability in Seattle and specifically what would you do to set definitions and goals for affordability? Please tie your answer back to the recent debate over incentive zoning.

So what would your questions be? What are the answers we should expect and demand?