What Cape needs - A convincing proposal

Mayor Jay Knudtson and the Cape Girardeau City Council would like for city residents to tell them why they voted against four tax and fee issues earlier this month, leaving the city millions of dollars short of funding for critical operating expenses and capital improvements.

City utility customers will receive questionnaires in their monthly bills. City officials hope they will get enough responses to help them decide what to do next.

The city's financial shortfall has been under a magnifying glass for two years. A task force of city employees began studying the city's financial situation in earnest in 2001. Last year, that task force recommended a three-quarter-cent increase in the city sales tax to raise $6 million a year. A task force of residents took up the matter and made two sets of recommendations. The second plan was adopted by the city council and placed on the April 8 ballot. Voters rejected a quarter-cent sales-tax increase, a local use tax, storm-water fees and the extension of a 10-cent property tax that, combined, would have generated $4.1 million a year.

Like the mayor and city council, many Cape Girardeau residents are wondering what should be done to meet a progressive city's future needs. What the city already has in hand is two years of analysis, discussion and review of what the city must do to maintain high-quality services. Those challenges haven't changed. The case for pay increases, capital improvements and equipment purchases have been made.

To best understand what to do next requires a look at what led to the defeat of the four issues on this month's ballot:

Low voter turnout: About one in five of the city's registered voters went to the polls -- fewer than a year ago when the choice of a new mayor was the biggest issue.

Ineffective organization: Some campaign strategists might suggest that a low voter turnout would be an advantage in an election like this -- provided an effective effort has been made to get favorable voters to the polls. City officials made dozens of informative presentations about the issues, mostly to organizations that generally would be considered supportive of city growth and development. In spite of this organized effort, voters opposing tax and fee increases -- with no organized effort -- outnumbered proponents.

Confusing ballot issues: Instead of one ballot issue, there were four. Some voters went to the polls expecting each issue to be linked to specific items, even though city officials had carefully explained all four issues would generate revenue for a priority list of major spending. Despite the fact that the four issues (generating $4.1 million) would have cost taxpayers less than the one big increase in sales tax ($6 million) favored by the city employee task force, it was easy for voters to perceive that four taxes and fees would take more money from their pocketbooks than just one tax.

The water park debate: The city made a good case for the need to replace the aging swimming pool at Capaha Park. But a multimillion-dollar water park seemed like too much of a fix to some voters who didn't accept the notion that the facility would lead to economic development. Some officials, including the mayor, had hoped the water park would be such an attractive feature (even though it was last on the priority list of needs) that it would bring out supportive voters for all four issues on the ballot. It didn't.

No sunset provision: The idea that a tax never goes away was enough to keep some voters from making a commitment to new funding schemes that rely on taxation. One idea that gives voters some assurance that they will have an opportunity to vote again on taxes is a sunset provision, which was missing in the four issues on this year's ballot.

The economy: Part of the city's financial bind in recent months has been the result of lower-than-expected sales-tax revenue, thanks to a sluggish economy. But some voters have questioned if all the proposed taxes and fees would be needed if there is a solid economic rebound.

Responses to the city's questionnaire that will be included with utility bills are likely to produce even more reasons why voters made their choices on April 8. Keep in mind that city residents who didn't bother to go to the polls will also have an opportunity to respond.

What's needed now is a plan voters will support -- a plan based on two key points:

1. Tax issues based on compelling needs and convincing arguments that will get enough votes to pass. That's certainly been the experience in recent years in Cape Girardeau regarding school bonds and city street improvements. And voters this month showed they are not in an anti-tax mood in elections around Missouri. Many local issues in other cities and counties were approved.

2. Because so much of the city's revenue comes from sales tax, any plan for additional taxes must protect businesses and the public in the event of an economic rebound. This is why a sunset provision is so important.