Property tax relief is a worthy target for the local sales tax being discussed by some Lawrence city commissioners, but history shows that preserving that relief is an elusive goal.

The 1 percent countywide sales tax approved by Douglas County in 1994 was promoted as a way to pay for a new county jail, space for community health agencies, increased parks and recreation facilities and capital improvements in the county’s smaller cities. Part of the promise also was a reduction in the Lawrence and Douglas County property tax mill levies. The figures thrown out at the time were a 2-mill reduction for the county and a 4-mill reduction for the city.

The record shows that those promises were kept, at least temporarily. Not only were all the capital projects funded, but both the city and county recorded significantly lower mill levies. From 1994 to 1995, the city dropped its mill levy from 28.035 mills to 22.87 and the county’s levy declined from 29.78 mills to 25.5 mills.

It didn’t take long, however, for the property tax mill levy to creep back up. By 2003, just eight years later, the county’s mill levy had once again risen above its pre-cut, 1994 level. The levy in 2003 was 29.86; by 2006, it was 30 mills.

The city has done a little better job of maintaining the property tax relief, but its current budget shortfall may cause some observers to ask at what price. The city’s mill levy also crept above the 1994 rate in 2003, when it hit 28.1 mills, but it then declined to 26.4 mills in 2006.

Of course, as all local property owners know, a steady or slightly lower mill levy has not meant they were paying lower property taxes over the last decade or so. Rapid increases in property valuations have caused property tax bills to rise drastically for many residents.

Concern about the level of those taxes is reflected in current conversations about a possible half-percent or 1-percent city sales tax. City commissioners are looking at ways to fund various capital improvements without raising property taxes and are considering including property tax relief as an additional carrot to voters.

A half-cent tax seems to be gathering some support among commissioners, but it couldn’t be expected to produce enough income to fund the grander proposals for a new public library or major new athletic facilities. Commissioners, therefore, are focusing more on the need for street improvements and new economic development efforts. The street projects are a pretty (excuse the pun) concrete investment, but voters would want to know exactly how the economic development component would be spent.

They probably also would want a solid figure on how much property tax relief they would receive. And they would want to know what will happen in 10 years when commissioners promise the sales tax will go away. Exactly how likely is that? Maybe the economic development efforts the tax would fund would raise our property tax base enough to make up for the decline in sales tax, but it seems more likely that city officials will have found another essential use for that sales tax revenue and will seek to have it renewed.

Maybe that’s not a bad thing, but it’s food for thought as commissioners – and voters – look at ways to rebalance the local tax burden.