LETTERS: SCOTT COUNTY NEEDS TAX

To the editor:

The Scott County Commission is seeking voters to approve a quarter-cent sales tax for the county's general revenue fund on the April 1 ballot. The quarter-cent sales tax would produce $700,000 in revenue. It would cost consumers 25 cents on each $100 purchase.

It would give a major boost to the county's ability to pay for additional expenses in the areas of law enforcement, court services, juvenile office and repairs to county roads and bridge replacement.

This would be the county's first tax rate increase since 1979 when the present half-cent sales tax was approved by voters. This 1979 half-cent version of the county sales tax requires a rollback of the property tax levy for the county's general revenue fund in an amount of 50 percent of the sales tax revenue produced. So while the sales tax produces $1.4 million, $700,000 is refunded to taxpayers by reducing the property tax levy. At present, the property tax levy is 8 cents per $100 assessed valuation for the general fund, and it is the general fund that pays most of the bills for county offices and meets most of the expenses for the courthouse.

The rollback, or refund, of $700,000 causes a reduction of 26 to 28 cents in the property tax rate for the general fund and is computed each year based on each year's sales tax receipts, which usually brings the property levy to about 8 cents.

The quarter-cent sales tax on this year's April 1 ballot carries no rollback provision, so the quarter-cent rate would produce the same amount of net revenue as the existing half-cent sales tax with the rollback required.

None of us enjoys asking for a tax rate increase, but the county needs this revenue to keep pace with increasing costs in law enforcement, court services and road and bridge upgrades.

We cannot hid from the fact that people are building more residences on our rural roads. Our 140 miles of cold-mix asphalt roads must be maintained. Heavier farming loads are crossing the old wooden bridges and using the asphalt roads.

We must provide for this usage. It's not the time to complain. County bridges cannot be a bottleneck in the farm economy. Nor can bridges be a safety factor for school buses. We must get rid of these old, unsafe bridges, and we must maintain our investment in the existing asphalt roads.

Part of our road and bridge fund comes from a separate 28-cent property tax levy per $100 assessed valuation, but our tax assessment base is lessened by the existence of special road districts in and around the cities of Sikeston and Scott City. Our 28-cent levy is applied to only 35 percent of the total county valuation.

When you add the 8-cent general fund property tax levy to the 28-cent road and bridge property tax levy, the county receives about $400,000 in revenue from property taxes each year.

Compare this $400,000 to the $700,000 in net sales tax revenue, and you can see that the two principal county operating funds are much more dependent on sales tax than a property tax levy.

For the past five years, the county commission has transferred some general fund revenue to the road and bridge fund, an average of $80,000 per year and $150,000 each of the past three years. In 1997's budget, we stopped that transfer to the road and bridge fund to meet the needs in the areas of public safety and court services.

We intend to keep our streets safe: the criminals arrested, charged by the prosecutor, tried in the courtrooms and jailed. We need the quarter-cent sales tax increase to keep the effort moving.

During the past two and a half years, we have replaced 18 bridges. Some of these were ordered closed by state inspectors. On others, severe load-limit restrictions were posted to the extent that school buses wouldn't cross them.

These bridges were replaced using some general fund money.

They cost anywhere from $6,000 to $60,000 each.

We haven't got all the closed bridges replaced yet, and there are load limits on many others.

Since 1995, in the area of public safety or law enforcement, we have added three road deputies and a second court bailiff, and we have increased salaries for the jailer/dispatchers. In 1997, instead of deputies being on call at their homes after midnight, there is now 24-hour road patrol for the first time in Scott County. The law enforcement and jail budget is just over $1 million in 1997. This is 35 percent of the total general fund budget and a 48 percent increase in funding for this department since 1995.

The prosecutor and judges are telling us we need another full-time assistant prosecuting attorney. We now have two full-time prosecutors and one part-time plus a full-time investigator and clerical positions in the prosecuting attorney's office. The 1997 budget for this department is 47 percent more than 1994, and we still have not hired the third attorney.

We have spent $70,000 boarding prisoners out of the county in the past four months, because the 48-bed county jail is full.

In 1995, we failed to receive voter approval for a quarter-cent sales tax to meet these expenses. During 1996-97, we have implemented 70 percent of the services that the failed quarter-cent sales tax was intended to support. This has caused some deficit spending and has lessened our limited cash reserve.

County officers and employees are using tax money carefully. Some are doing without funding for equipment. We are not implementing any upgrades of office programs. There have been no new hires in the administrative offices. And there have been no across-the-board pay increases.

The ballot language for the April 1 election reads: "Shall the County of Scott impose a countywide sales tax of one-fourth of one percent? This tax will be used to provide additional revenue for county budgets based on their need for expansion and upgrading of services."

BOB KIELHOFNER, Presiding Commissioner

WALTER BIZZELL, 1st District Commissioner

DEWAINE SHAFFER, 2nd District Commissioner

Scott County Commission

Benton