Use Taxes on the Ballot Again in Missouri

Use taxes in Missouri are simply sales taxes on goods delivered to your home from out-of-state sellers. Local governments have been authorized to collect use taxes for a long time—predating the internet, even—but such taxes had not been widely adopted until the past two years. Collecting sales taxes on Sears catalog purchases used to be a lot of work for little revenue. The internet has changed that. The Supreme Court decision several years ago in the South Dakota v. Wayfair case, changes to state law in 2021, and, most obviously, the tremendous increase in e-commerce during the pandemic have all combined to greatly increase the need or desire (depending on your point of view) for governments to tax online sales.

For purposes of comparison, e-commerce now makes up over 15 percent of total sales in the United States. For municipalities around Missouri, 15 percent is a lot of sales not to tax. While many cities and counties have already adopted use taxes in recent years, there are many more proposing new use taxes on the April 2 ballot. The list includes Pleasant Hill, Centralia, Hallsville, Cool Valley, and the constant requesters in Raymore, Northwoods, and Velda City. (Feel free to notify me of others.)

It is a central tenet of tax policy that a tax base should be as broad as possible. The more expansive the tax base, the lower the rate that must be imposed to fund the functions of government. Raymore, for example, estimates it will receive $1.8 million per year from the proposed use tax. (It should be noted that Raymore has asked its citizens to approve a use tax in 2021 and 2022, both of which were rejected by voters. Raymore is a perfect example of why we need HB 2058 to pass, but I digress.)

Raymore has stated that it intends to use the use tax revenues for police, public works, highway maintenance, and park maintenance. Those are all reasonable uses, of course, but use taxes should not be approved simply to grow municipal government revenues. The use tax could be approved by voters to responsibly expand the tax base and equalize the competition between online and physical stores, but cities should also offset the increased taxes by lowering other, more harmful taxes. Imposing a use tax in a revenue-neutral manner is not a new idea. It is exactly how the Missouri Legislature addressed this issue with the state’s new use tax law in 2021.

The simplest way for these cities to offset the revenue increases from the use tax would be to lower city property taxes slightly. That would lead to a wider tax base, fairer competition between businesses, and lower tax rates for all taxpayers. Raymore’s property tax rate of 1.2447 per $100 of assessed value is very high compared to other cities that don’t have a fire department. (Raymore is served by an independent fire district.) Lowering that rate would be a good way to offset, at least in part, the new tax increases. Reducing the various municipal utility tax rates—especially for cities with already low property taxes—could also be a good exchange.

The imposition of a use tax in these cities could be a positive policy change. It could also be an easy way for politicians to just raise taxes one more time. By having city officials pledge to enact offsetting revenue reductions, these Missouri municipalities can reap the public benefits while curtailing the tax impact on residents and businesses. That is a plan that I think most taxpayers and voters could support. Without such a commitment, though, the use tax is just another tax increase.

In Peaceful Village, the Voters Vote Next Month

Peaceful Village is a small, nicely named municipality in Jefferson County, just south of St. Louis. I don’t know if it has a theme song, but it should, and we all know what it should be. And, yes, there are almost certainly (mountain) lions that have slept near Peaceful Village.

On April 2, the residents are voting on disincorporating the city. This disincorporation proposal is a clear example of the Anna Karenina Principle at work. This is the rare example where the municipality’s zoning codes are less strict than the county’s codes. Some residents of the area want to disincorporate the city because they are opposed to a treatment center being built in the village. Building the center is legal under the village’s rules but would be illegal (from a zoning perspective) under the county rules. This is a twist on a zoning fight that you don’t see every day.

It is also worth noting the strange circumstances under which the village came into existence in 2008:

In 2007, the Missouri Legislature had passed a controversial law, supported by former Speaker of the House Rod Jetton, to help a wealthy donor create his own village. The donor wanted to bypass building and zoning regulations in southwest Missouri. The short-sighted law was repealed a year later, but dozens of landowners across the state had already tried to take advantage of it.

There is a part of this fight where I side with the municipality. According to some village leaders, the village is allowing the building of some treatment centers after the county has prevented their construction elsewhere. I am not in a position to verify that claim, but I personally think it should be easier for charities to build treatment and charitable shelters in Missouri.

But in the bigger picture, would Missouri benefit from having fewer small municipalities like Peaceful Village? Probably, but not necessarily in each instance. The worst abuses at the local government level in Missouri are found in the special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs. Yes, we are awash in bad municipal policies in Missouri, but those policies are  found in large, medium, and small municipalities.

In recent years, we have had municipalities in Missouri disincorporate because of corruption, flooding, and, perhaps most commonly, just a general malaise about the community. I don’t know where Peaceful Village fits in on that list. To paraphrase Tolstoy, every unhappy village is unhappy in its own way.

I am glad the people of the village are voting on disincorporation. If the village isn’t meeting the needs of its residents in a manner that justifies the taxes it charges (which I think are comparatively low), then it deserves to go away. That will be up to the residents and voters, as it should be.

The Ads in Favor of the New Royals/Chiefs Sales Tax Are Misleading

On February 29, I sent the following email to the general managers of four television stations in Kansas City:

On or around Tuesday, February 27, your television station began airing a 30-second ad for The Committee to Keep The Chiefs and Royals in Jackson County. As you know, the Federal Communications Commission “expects broadcasters to be responsible to the community they serve and act with reasonable care to ensure that advertisements aired on their stations are not false or misleading.” Since the referenced ad contains statements that are misleading and in a substantial way misinform your viewers about what is at stake in the April 2 election, I am writing to ask that you pull the ad from the air.

    • At around the 11 second mark, the narrator urges viewers to, “Vote yes on question 1 that keeps the Chiefs and Royals in Jackson County.” As you know, the ordinance on which Jackson County voters are being asked to vote does not compel either team to remain in the county.  The language of the ordinance, available online here, merely states that a new sales tax is contingent upon several factors, a new lease being among them.  As you also know, there is no new lease agreement as of this writing.
    • At about the 22 second mark, the ad states that the measure includes, “no new taxes.” This is also demonstrably untrue. The voters of Jackson County are being asked to vote on the measure exactly because it is a new tax. The 2006 measure approved by voters, available online here, contains no language regarding an extension. The measure voters are being asked to approve in this election, available online here, clearly distinguishes in section 2 the difference between the current levy and “the new levy.”

I appreciate that a 30-second spot cannot be an exhaustive discussion of the matter at hand. But the claim that the vote imposes no new taxes is incorrect. Were there no such vote, the current tax would expire on September 30, 2031. Also, the current tax was for different things than the new, longer time-frame tax. The Committee to Keep The Chiefs and Royals in Jackson County could state that the new tax is the same amount as the current tax, but the claim that there is no new taxes intentionally leaves the impression that nothing will change. In fact, voters are agreeing to a new and different tax, and for a much longer period of time.

The Committee is perfectly able, given their resources, to make any number of arguments in the few weeks of the campaign. I do not doubt that they will. But your station should insist that their paid media be clear and honest with your viewers. This ad is substantially misleading and should be pulled off the air.

Thank you for your time and attention. I look forward to your decision.

I received a reply from only one of them, who wrote on March 2:

Thank you for your email.

 I appreciate you reaching out with your concern.

We have reviewed the ad and the advertiser’s substantiation for the factual statements.  Based on this information we will continue to run the ad.

The ad – and any contrary speech — is part of the open and robust political discourse upon which the First Amendment is based.

I asked to be provided with the advertiser’s substantiation of its statements, but have not yet received it. We will share that with you if and when we receive it.

Catching up on Telemedicine

Is Missouri ready to reclaim its spot as a national leader in telemedicine? The numerous Missourians still struggling with healthcare access would certainly hope so.

Missouri used to be a leader in telemedicine. During the pandemic, various rules and regulations that stifled telemedicine access were waived, and in their absence, the service grew immensely popular. But today, the waivers have long since expired, and telemedicine is once again too difficult to access. All that has to happen to return Missouri to the top of the national pack on telemedicine access is for the state’s legislature to act.

A little more than a month ago, the Cicero Institute put out a report grading each state on telemedicine access, and offered specific reforms that would help states move up the rankings. Cicero’s conclusions for Missouri were in line with what my colleagues and I have written before: it’s currently too difficult to get some prescriptions via telemedicine, and it should be easier for healthcare providers who aren’t specifically physicians in Missouri to care for Missourians via telemedicine.

Fortunately, there are several bills being considered in this legislative session that would significantly improve Missouri’s telemedicine laws. One approach would make it easier to establish the physician–patient relationship virtually. This would in turn make it easier for providers to prescribe medications to patients they’d never seen in person.

Another approach expands the definition of “telehealth services” to include audio-only technologies. Not everyone has access to a computer, phone, or internet that is capable of transmitting video. Further, not every medical service that could be provided virtually requires the provider to see the patient visually. For example, some psychologists may be able to safely care for patients over the phone.

Perhaps most importantly, both approaches are currently allowed by Medicare in some circumstances and were allowed in Missouri when the telemedicine waivers were in effect a few years ago. None of this is to say that there aren’t some situations where telemedicine treatment may not be appropriate, or that there may be times when an audio-only visit isn’t sufficient. But when telemedicine can safely and appropriately provide a service, Missourians ought to be able to choose that option. Missouri has several years of firsthand data showing that telemedicine access can be expanded without sacrificing patient safety, and more states are recognizing the benefits of the service.

Missouri’s lawmakers should act soon because the state’s healthcare access problem isn’t going away, and expanding telemedicine services is one of the best ways to address it.

Arguments for a New Stadium Fall Apart Like Bad Concrete

Leaders of the Kansas City Chiefs held a press conference on Wednesday to unveil their plans for the Truman Sports Complex should the Royals move their stadium downtown. If anyone doubted that the April 2 vote is really about Royals owner John Sherman wanting to move the team to a new stadium downtown, this event made it clear.

The Chiefs are putting in a relatively small amount of money for renovations. According to Kansas City PBS affiliate KCUR:

The total cost of the proposed renovations is estimated at $800 million. Chiefs Chairman Clark Hunt says the Hunt family would pay $300 million of that total. Jackson County taxpayers would be on the hook for the remainder . . .

Got that? Taxpayers are putting up the lion’s share of the renovations to a stadium owned by billionaires. It gets worse. As if learning that taxpayers will fund the majority of the Chiefs’ plans isn’t bad enough, Chiefs President Mark Donovan chose to insult voters’ intelligence. Again, according to KCUR:

Unlike the Royals, who last year cited structural concerns at Kauffman Stadium as one of the main reasons for building a new downtown facility, the Chiefs intend to stay in the same arena bowl over the long haul. Arrowhead opened in 1972, one year before Kauffman Stadium.

Donovan chalked the contrast up to construction differences.

“Believe it or not,” Donovan said, “One team got a good batch of concrete, one team didn’t.”

This is more ridiculous than it sounds because we already know, thanks to KMBC News, that Kauffman Stadium is perfectly fine:

The Royals have repeatedly said the concrete has an issue, but a study reveals that Kauffman Stadium is in “satisfactory condition,” consistent with a “first-class” MLB baseball stadium.

Jackson County voters are being asked to support a new tax because John Sherman, the billionaire owner of the Royals, wants a new stadium in downtown Kansas City. The Chiefs don’t need a new tax. The existing Royals stadium isn’t falling apart. The deal won’t add value to downtown or be good for residents. This press conference made it fair to wonder how much of this is just a power play for personal gain.

Spin vs. Reality: The Jackson County Stadium Tax Proposal

On April 2, 2024, Jackson County voters will be asked to approve a new 3/8 percent sales tax to support improvements to “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

 

Learn more here: https://bit.ly/3SPIAGQ

 

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Chiefs Team President Accidentally Speaks Truth

A Kinsley gaffe, named for the journalist and Slate editor Michael Kinsley, is “when a politician tells the truth—some obvious truth he isn’t supposed to say.”

Chiefs President Mark Donovan committed such a gaffe when he spoke at a press conference to unveil planned renovations at Arrowhead Stadium. He was asked why the Chiefs aren’t planning to build any retail developments if the Royals leave the complex to move their stadium downtown. He responded: “Right now in this market, this is not a location that is worthy of developing. As harsh as that sounds, it’s just the reality from a business standpoint.”

At the very least, this was an impolitic thing to say about the region. Located between Kansas City and Independence on Interstate 70, the location would seem to have a lot of potential. More importantly, Donovan concedes what many economists conclude and what Show-Me Institute researchers have been pointing out for years: stadiums do not generate economic growth.

Rest assured, I will be adding Donovan’s comment to my PowerPoint deck on the many false claims of economic development impact statements.

Velda City and Northwoods Are Basically Stalking Their Citizens

What do we call people (usually men) who keep asking women out again and again and again despite repeated rejections? We call them stalkers.

What do we call cities that keep asking voters again and again for tax hikes despite repeated rejections? Well, nothing, I guess, but we should call them stalkers, too.

Right now, the best examples are the two small municipalities of Velda City and Northwoods in North St. Louis County. For the upcoming municipal elections in April, Velda City residents are being asked to approve three (three!) taxes that they voted down last year. This includes a marijuana tax and a use tax that they rejected in the April 2023 elections. The third tax increase is a utility tax increase that voters have rejected twice (twice!) recently, in both 2022 and 2023.

In Northwoods, voters are once again being asked to approve a use tax despite voting against the tax in both April 2023 and April 2022. This is ridiculous, and it isn’t a one-time problem.

Last year, for the April municipal elections, four municipalities within St. Louis County placed a use tax proposition on the ballot despite the fact that voters in those cities had rejected the use tax just one year before. Those four municipalities were Chesterfield, Fenton, Town and Country, and the previously discussed Northwoods. Chesterfield voters, in particular, have basically told the city, “I don’t want to go out with you,” and the city responds, “That’s ok, I’ll ask you out again tomorrow.”

Maryland Heights was even more aggressive. There, voters rejected a use tax in November of 2022 yet there they were again in April 2023, voting just five months later on the exact same tax increase proposal.

The Hancock Amendment thankfully requires the public to vote on municipal tax increases. But it violates the spirit of the amendment and common decency to just put taxes on the ballot over and over until the public passes them. While all the examples I have given are in St. Louis County, I assure you this is a problem statewide.

Missouri House Bill 2058 has been introduced to require a minimum space of two years before an issue can be put back on the ballot once it is defeated. This change is sorely needed for Missouri voters. The people of Velda City and Northwoods deserve a break from their governmental stalkers.

Listen: The Latest on the New KC Stadium Tax

On February 28, Patrick Tuohey joined Mundo in the Morning on KCMO to discuss a new 3/8 percent sales tax being proposed to support “funding for park improvements consisting of Arrowhead Stadium and its surrounds, and a new Major League Baseball stadium in Jackson County.”

The vote will be on April 2.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging