City still faces challenge of raising revenue

Call the four-tax package considered in the April election The Ballot Measures That Wouldn't Go Away.

Since Cape Girardeau residents overwhelmingly defeated all four, there has been much conjecture and hand-wringing by city leaders over what happened.

And while many Cape Girardeau voters have made their feelings clear in various manners and forums, the city council considered sending out a questionnaire about the tax issues in utility bills. When it was pointed out this would be an extra expense for a cash-strapped city, Mayor Jay Knudtson and council members decided on a roundtable meeting.

They invited the entire city to attend the May 12 event. Seven people showed up. One of them didn't live in the city.

The turnout shouldn't have surprised anyone.

In March -- prior to the vote on the four tax issues, the Citizens Finance Task Force, which headed up promotion for the tax issues, sent out 1,700 postcards to residents of areas prone to flooding from storm water to a forum.

The purpose of the forum was to tell these voters how revenue from the proposed storm-water fees on the ballot would benefit them.

The task force set up 300 chairs. Thirty people showed up, counting city officials and employees.

At last week's roundtable discussion, the man city officials had quoted in their campaign presentations as a supporter of the four tax issues announced that he had, indeed, voted against all four items on the ballot. John Heckrotte also said residents of Cape Girardeau don't trust their city government.

To refresh, the four ballot issues were a quarter-cent sales tax for fire department needs, a 2 percent local-use tax on out-of-state purchases above $2,000, a monthly storm-water fee and replacement of a 10-cent property tax due to expire.

The measures would have raised an estimated $4.1 million a year in added revenue for operating expenses, replacement of city equipment, construction of storm-drainage improvements, a new fire station, expansion of the police station and a water park.

Jess Hopple, who serves on one of the city's Vision 2020 committees, said he voted for all four issues, but the ballot language simply was too complicated for most people. And, he said, voters told him they cast ballots against all four measures because they didn't want a water park.

The conversation at the roundtable calls to mind our editorial of April 13. It said the funding needs identified by the Citizens Finance Task Force weren't tied to specific taxes. People didn't make the connection between a tax and a specific need.

It said people were thrown off by the campaign emphasis on a water park. Even if Cape Girardeans wanted to vote for one, they couldn't figure out how to do so based on the ballots they were presented at the polls.

Melvin Gateley, a Citizens Finance Task Force co-chair, attended the roundtable to say there should have been a sunset provision on the tax issues.

We'll say it once again: The voters of Cape Girardeau have shown they will approve taxes they can understand and that have an end date. That's not what they were given on the April ballot.

The need for additional city revenue has been well-documented by the city and its various task forces. Now it needs a simple proposal with clear-cut spending priorities and sunset provisions. This is the kind of plan that could be expected to pass muster with voters.