It is deceitful to say that voters are voting for a new bridge when they go the polls on Nov. 6. If voters vote “Yes” on Proposition A, the Taney County sales tax proposition for a one half of one percent retail sales tax increase, they are approving the creation of a fund of money that the Taney County Commissioners can spend for economic development purposes just about any way they want.
The law authorizing the tax is new. Its purpose is to provide, those entities able to get the voters to approve the tax, with a pool of funds for economic development. The law specifically states that expenditures out of that fund must be submitted to a seven person Economic Development Tax Board (EDTB), composed of one member from a school district in the county, two from cities, towns, and villages within the county, and four members appointed by the Taney County Commissioners. The three members, other than the four appointed by the Taney County Commissioners, are basically, appointed as the effected entities agree and the Commission has no say in the matter.
The EDTB considers the proposal, votes on whether or not to recommend approval, and forwards its recommendation to the Taney County Commissioners. The law specifically states, “The governing body of the city or county shall have the final determination on use and expenditure of any funds received from the tax.”
Why hasn’t the Taney County Commission taken the appropriate steps to set up the EDTB? Isn’t that an important part of the process and something that voters would want to know as they consider whether or not they want to vote for the approval of the tax?
The law does not contain a specific definition of “economic development.” It does however, include a non-inclusive list of items such acquisition of land, installation of infrastructure for industrial or business parks, improvement of water and wastewater treatment capacity, extension of streets, and public facilities directly related to economic development and job creation that gives an indication of what “economic development” is.
The ballot for the Proposition A tax contains a Note reading, “Commission priorities include, but are not limited to “Taneycomo Bridge and community recreation facilities. All expenditures under this tax are subject to final approval by the Commission.”
Some might ask, “How was the determination made that ‘community recreationfacilities’ are an economic development activity authorized by the law?” Could it be in the same way that some stretched the definition of “blight” and other aspects of the states Tax Increment Financing (TIF) laws to cover the development of Branson Hills?
To an ole Seagull, it appears that a new bridge is a “carrot,” that those wanting a tax for other purposes, are using in the hopes of getting access to funds for their pet projects. The truth of the matter is that, about a year of inconvenience aside, the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) has the funding, is in the process of planning for, and will rehabilitate the existing bridge into a condition that will handle the projected traffic for the next 30 years.
For what it matters, an Ole Seagull believes that if the measure fails and the citizens of Taney County want a new bridge built that the resources are currently available to do so. He further believes that with Taney County handling the financing that the project could be completed in a timely manner, avoid the closing the current bridge, and, more than likely, that Taney County would receive reimbursement from MoDOT and other entities for a substantial portion of the cost.
The Taneycomo Bridge is not the question voters should be asking themselves about as they vote on the Proposition A Tax. The question they sholuld be asing themselves is “Would I be voting for this tax if the Taneycomo Bridge was not involved?”
