BLOOMFIELD, Mo. -- The ballots have been printed putting a one percent Stoddard County use tax before voters in the Nov. 7, 2017, Special Election. The commission discussed the proposed use tax at a recent meeting.
The special election is necessary for voters to elect a state representative in District 151 (all of Stoddard County and a small portion of Scott County). Herman Morse will be the Republican candidate on the ballot, while Curtis Clark will be the Democratic candidate.
Presiding Commissioner Greg Mathis said he wanted a discussion on the use tax because it was approved as a non-agenda item at the Aug. 28 meeting. He noted that last day to put an issue on the November ballot was Aug. 31, so the commission had to take action. The vote to put it on the Nov. 7 ballot was 2-1, with Mathis voting against it.
The Missouri Supreme Court ruled in March 2012 a sales tax could not be levied on vehicles, boats and some equipment purchased out of state. The state moved to continue collection of tax revenue until 2016, but required each local entity to put the use tax on the ballot and have it approved by voters. Gov. Jay Nixon signed an extension of the tax until 2018, but it again required local voter approval. If it fails to pass, then no county tax will be collected on those purchases of out-of-state in 2019.
Mathis asked each commissioner to express their view on the proposed use tax proposal.
Commissioner Steve Jordan noted that the tax on out-of-state purchases of new cars had been in place since 1959.
"This is just a continuation of the past," said Jordan. "We are not trying to impose any new tax."
Commissioner Carol Jarrell echoed that view. She noted if the tax fails, then the county will lose revenue which will mean cuts in service.
"This is not a new tax," stated Jarrell. "I think the people of Stoddard County have a right to voice their opinion."
Jarrell also said it put local new car dealers at an unfair disadvantage because buyers would have to pay the sales tax.
Mathis noted if the issue fails, the county would lose an estimated $150,000 in revenue annually.
Mathis said he voted against putting the use tax on the ballot because it has been before county voters two times. He said the county put it on the ballot when he was first voted to the commission, and it failed. It was an effort to collect sales taxes on internet purchases. He said it failed again in 2013 when it was put on the ballot. At that time it was known that the county would lose revenue from the state court ruling, and it still failed.
County voters rejected a county use tax in April 2013 by a 1,238 to 1,491 vote.
"How many times do you put it on the ballot?" asked Mathis.
Mathis said without the approval of the use tax, cuts will have to be made in county services and likely in number of employees.
"The commission has been good in the past at funding office holders with what they need," said Mathis. "I think there will have to be some cuts made if the tax fails."
The Use Tax Proposition to be on the Nov. 7 ballot reads:
"Shall the county of Stoddard impose a local use tax on out-of-state purchases at the same rate as the total local sales tax rate, currently one percent, provided that if the local sales tax rate is reduced or raised by voter approval, the local use tax shall also be reduced for raised by the same action? The use tax return shall not be required to be field by persons whose purchases from out-of-state vendors do not in total exceed two thousand dollars in any calendar year. The purpose of the proposal is to eliminate the current sales tax advantage that non-Missouri vendors have over Missouri vendors."
"Approval of this proposition will result in a continuation of local revenue to provide vital services for Stoddard County."
Fund balances review
County Clerk Joe Watson reviewed fund balances with the commission for the various offices and departments in the county. Watson said auditors wanted the county to review budgeted items before the end of the year.
"We in the past have made blanket adjustments at the end of the year," said Mathis.
Watson noted the following budget over runs:
* Court costs - Watson said the account was approximately $27,000 above the amount budgeted in both revenues and expenditures. He said the budget was $200,000, while actual totals were $227,906.26. He said the account was a "transfer in and a transfer out," so it was not an over run. Mathis said it was impossible for the commission to predict the court costs because it fluctuated each year.
* PA Administrator Fund - Watson said the fund was $1,395.20 above the budgeted expenditures. He said it was possible that funding would "catch up" by the end of the year.
* Recorder Maintenance Fund - The fund is 130 percent above the amount budgeted for expenditures. He said the budget was $11,500, while $14,898.99 was actually expended. Mathis said the Recorder Fund had a reserve of $47,166.60. He said the recorder's office had to replace a copier, but the reserve was sufficient to cover the amount over budget.
* Commercial Property Surcharge - Watson said this was again an "in and out" fund, but it was 107 percent over budget. He said the county just needed to do the paperwork to meet the request of the auditors.