Is it just possible that no new sales taxes are needed to build a new bridge and avoid the closing of the Business Highway 65/MO 76 Bridge across Lake Taneycomo? But even if they are, how is it possible that the same Taney County Commission that put the tax on the ballot doesn’t know what percentage of that tax will be used for a new bridge?
On Sep. 5, a meeting to discuss the bridge and potential solutions was held at Hollister City Hall. Representatives of the cities of Hollister and Branson, Taney County, and the Missouri Department of Transportation, MoDOT attended. All three Taney County Commissioners were present.
The one half of one percent county wide retail sales tax that the commission had just put on the Nov. ballot was mentioned as a potential source of funding for the bridge. Having heard that the proposed tax had evolved from a tax to fund the Taney County Industrial Development Authority, IDA, county parks, and the historical society, the Ole Seagull asked the question, “How much of the proposed tax would go to helping resolve the current problem with the bridge?”
To his great surprise, the consensus of those talking about the proposed tax at the meeting, including all three of the Taney County Commissioners, was that the “steering committee” is still working on that. Well evidently, they are still working on it because when the Ole Seagull asked Taney County Presiding Commissioner Chuck Pennel the same question, late on the afternoon of Sep. 15, his response was, “At this time the steering group has not told me what the percentages are.”
The first thing that comes to an Ole Seagull’s mind is what is this steering committee stuff? Taney County already has a “steering committee,” elected by the voters, its County Commission, Chuck Pennell, Danny Strahan, and Ron Herschend. These are men that the Ole Seagull knows and respects. When it comes to the steering related to the need for new taxes and how those taxes are going to be spent he expects the steering to be done by them, not some nebulous unelected, and unaccountable, steering committee.
To an Ole Seagull, in terms of how what he calls the “Steering Committee” tax has evolved to its current state, it seems that the bridge is an add-on to improve the chances of getting the tax passed and, what an add on it is! In its earlier stages, it was a one eighth of one percent. Now it has grown to one half of one percent, a 300 percent increase, ostensibly because of the bridge.
Yet, there has not been one public announcement relative to what percentage of the Steering Committee tax is intended to be devoted to that purpose. More importantly, there has been no announcement of what the Taney County Commission that put the tax on the ballot will do to insure that, in fact, that percentage is devoted to solving the issues involved with the bridge.
Perhaps the more burning issue is whether an increase in the retail sales tax is even needed to build a new bridge. As was recently pointed out in connection with the emergency funding of the assessor’s office, Taney County has millions in a contingency fund. If they have that much for emergencies how much more does it have in other reserve funds? If the city of Branson’s sales tax revenues have grown by 15 percent over the record year of 2006, hasn’t the same thing happened at the county level?
It is almost inconceivable to an Ole Seagull that Taney County does not have the resources and ability to take the lead in obtaining the financing necessary to build a new bridge without the imposition of a new retail sales tax. In any event, is it inappropriate to ask just how much effort was spent exploring alternative methods of financing a new bridge before it was thrown in the Steering Committee tax increase hopper with the IDA, county parks, the historical society and, under the law that governs this particular tax, potentially a lot of other things?
