The cities covered in the report are:

• Ballwin
• Blue Springs
• Cape Girardeau
• Chesterfield
• Columbia
• Florissant
• Independence
• Jefferson City
• Joplin
• Kansas City
• Lee’s Summit
• O’Fallon
• Springfield
• St. Charles
• St. Joseph
• City of St. Louis
• St. Peters
• University City
• Wentzville
• Wildwood

Click here to read more, or download the report by clicking on the link below.

The post Tax Burden in Missouri’s 20 Largest Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Bizarre, right? I thought so and wrote a whole paper about it. The good news is CON laws are falling out of favor across the country, and there are rumblings in the Missouri Legislature that CON elimination could be a major priority in 2022. The bad news is it isn’t 2022 yet.

In the meantime, the old and broken system lingers, and as The Missouri Times reported this week, seasoned health care providers who want to serve Missourians (or just serve them better) are still having to go hat in hand to beg the government to let them offer care for people. Indeed, the Health Facilities Review Committee (HFRC), which grants or denies certificates, was back at work, and the absurdity of the system was once again front and center.

Among the lowlights, an hour-long debate over a pair of proposed senior living facilities in St. Charles County stands out. Opponents argued that the new facilities would pressure existing providers to find quality employees, presumably because the newer facilities would pay better and would, of course, be newer. (“Competition for staff” is a common objection at these hearings.) Opponents also argued that a lot of certificates of need had already been issued in the region, but the holders of many of those certificates haven’t opened facilities yet and thus a certificate shouldn’t be issued here.

In other words, opponents wanted the application denied not because there were too many facilities serving St. Charles County, but because there were too many certificates. What nonsense.

And then there are the applications to add or upgrade existing equipment.

Barnes-Jewish in St. Peters needed to ask the HFRC for permission “to replace its cardiac catheterization lab where doctors work to restore blood flow after a stroke” with a new $2.8 million investment. It was approved. A cancer center in North Kansas City was approved for a “$2 million replacement for its PET/CT system which administrators said was lacking.” It was approved. A Kansas City area provider wanted to add a $2.6 million MRI unit. Approved. Obviously.

Again, why is the state involved in this at all?

The idea that the government has any business interfering with qualified health providers creating or upgrading facilities is absurd and counterproductive to the public interest. I’m hopeful that next year will be the year that CON requirements are finally eliminated in Missouri. It’d be a great thing for providers and patients alike.

The post Missouri’s Health Facilities Review Committee Shouldn’t Exist appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The partners have expressed interest in developing a vast retail, commercial, and residential district that, if subsidized, could cost taxpayers millions. Unfortunately, history in the Saint Louis region shows that if you ask you shall likely receive, even if the project is of questionable merit. A prime example of this occurred in 2010 when a Walmart located in both Saint Ann and Bridgeton (two adjoining suburbs of Saint Louis) relocated a spot in Bridgeton 2 miles down the road in order to capture $7 million in public subsidies. Kroenke's plan would not only be costly for Maryland Heights residents; it would also likely move economic activity from other areas in the region, rather than creating new activity.

Periodically reshuffling existing businesses across the metro area was not the original purpose of tax increment financing (TIF). TIF was intended to encourage the development of blighted areas in need of economic growth. Instead, it is often used as a subsidy to attract businesses to areas that are already economically healthy, forcing other government entities like school districts to shoulder the costs of those decisions.

Then there is the separate question of whether it's wise to subsidize construction in a flood plain.  Flooding is still a threat in the areas where the Kroenke development would be built. In fact, as recently as last year hundreds of families were forced to evacuate their homes as a result of flooding. Saint Charles County and the Great Rivers Habitat Alliance (GRHA) have sued Saint Peters over flood plain developments in the past for environmental endangerment, and David Stokes, executive director of the GRHA and a former Show-Me staff member, contends that further development on the flood plain “will just make the [environmental] problems we’ve experienced in the past even worse.” 

Fortunately, Saint Louis is beginning to acknowledge the TIF problems we’ve been discussing for years at the Show-Me Institute.  In the past, municipalities could simply override a county veto with a two-thirds vote and proceed with the projects of their choice, but this year legislation passed both the House and Senate that would limit municipality overrides to financing costs of demolition and clearing land. If this law goes into effect on August 28 as expected—the governor has not technically signed off on it yet—then the seemingly limitless public financing of projects like Kroenke's might be scaled back considerably. 

If subsidizing construction on the flood plain is economically questionable, would hurt local school funds, and could actually threaten the safety of nearby residents, shouldn’t the flood plains be left alone?  

The post TIF in a Flood Plain–A Recipe for Trouble appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The Department of Revenue (DOR) announced that 169 cities, 50 counties, and 62 special districts will opt out of the sales tax holiday this August 5-7. The opt-out will require consumers to pay local sales taxes as enacted by the municipality or county but will leave the exemption on the 4.225 percent state sales tax in place.

But what’s the point of a sales tax holiday if municipalities can opt out?

The resulting dissimilarity in tax rates among Missouri’s municipalities distorts consumer behavior and impacts local vendors unequally. For example, vendors in municipalities that have enacted local sales taxes and have opted out will suffer because local consumers will purchase goods in neighboring municipalities that offer the full exemption. In my case, the local Best Buy lost my business due to no fault of its own.

For all price-conscious college students, we offer the following lists of cities, counties, and special districts to avoid.

Be sure to check out previous Show-Me Institute opinions about the sales tax holiday.

The post Where Not to Go on the Sales Tax Holiday appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The few cities that already have such a tax will keep it, and there is an exception for Saint Peters. I don’t know why they get an exception, but that is probably a topic for another post. On the whole, this is a very good change that will reduce the constant quest by cities to look for new revenue sources every place they can.

Thanks to John Combest for the link to the original article.

The post More Good News From the State Legislature appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Hotels in Jefferson City already experience a high tax burden. They pay commercial property tax rates and the Cole County property tax surcharge. The hotels must obtain business licenses, liquor licenses, restaurant health inspections, etc., just to open and operate. Guests at the hotels pay the standard state and city sales tax of 7.725 percent for the rooms, as well as Jefferson City’s current 3-percent charge on top of that.

The question is not whether the current taxes are reasonable. In comparison with most other cities, they are. But the voters of Jefferson City should consider whether this is the time to tell their elected officials “enough.” Voters in three suburbs of Saint Louis did exactly that in response to hotel tax proposals in November. Voters in Clayton, Richmond Heights (both within Saint Louis County), and Saint Peters (in Saint Charles County) overwhelmingly rejected hotel tax proposals at the polls. The voters sent a message to local elected officials that they wanted difficult budget issues to be dealt with through greater fiscal discipline, not higher taxes. The voters of Jefferson City should give strong consideration to saying the same thing.

The private sector is capable of providing a conference center if there is a genuine market for one in Jefferson City. The taxpayers do not need to build one, even if the “taxpayers” in this case are mostly visitors from other areas. The city of Saint Louis used tax dollars to build a convention center hotel a decade ago, an investment that has worked out poorly. The hotel was unable to make its bond payments and was literally sold on the courthouse steps in 2009.

Nobody knows whether Jefferson City’s proposed conference center would also fail. It is reasonable to suspect that demand for hotels in Jefferson City is more inelastic than in many other Missouri locations, because many of those who travel to Jefferson City do so because they have matters that require the visit, regardless of the cost. However, although Jefferson City may face a lower risk than many other cities of losing business after a hotel tax increase, it does not follow that the tax should be increased.

Conference centers are not a core responsibility of local governments. There is almost nothing about a conference center that fits the economic definition of a public good. The hotel that developers plan to build next to the conference center is privately funded, and the backers of that project will undoubtedly direct their investment more efficiently than the promoters of a publicly funded conference center. Private investment in the conference center would have greater positive consequences than public subsidy, and taxpayers would not be on the hook if the hotel fails.

The voters and taxpayers of Jefferson City should think twice about assigning the role of developer to city government. Although hotel guests may be an easy mark for higher taxes, this does not mean that voters should use them to enlarge the portfolio of city hall. Rejecting this tax proposal would tell Jefferson City’s leaders that the residents want responsible, limited government, not government expansion and higher taxes.

David Stokes is a policy analyst for the Show-Me Institute, an independent think tank promoting free-market solutions for Missouri public policy.

The post New Hotel Tax a Bad Idea for Jefferson City appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I applaud the citizens of these three cities for rejecting the proposed taxes. It would have been so easy for the majority to vote to increase somebody else’s taxes — that somebody being any unknown travelers staying in the hotel. Whatever the reason for the defeat, this is good news for fiscal discipline. Now these cities may have to make the tough budget choices that other cities are making, rather than just raising taxes and moving budget items around so they fit under the heading of “tourism.”

The post Musings on the Hotel Tax Vote appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post Talkin’ Hotel Taxes in St. Louis With McGraw Tomorrow Morning appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The first section of the law lists all the types of businesses cities are allowed to license and tax. A very revealing part of the law adds another word (emphasis added):

and to license, tax, regulate and suppress ordinaries, money brokers, money changers […]

The law then proceeds to get even worse, where it specifically forbids three cities from applying hotel taxes larger than a certain (very small) amount. Now, far be it for me to argue in favor of letting cities tax more, but it is still ridiculous that the legislature allows some cities to enact hotel taxes and forbids others from doing so. This law limits the taxation options of only three cities: St. Peters, Woodson Terrace, and Edmundson. The mayor of St. Peters has recently asked for an investigation, but that is not the point of my post.

Missouri has way too many “special laws” that apply only to certain areas or municipalities. Many of those laws allow for higher taxes or increased government authority. Just because this one limits taxes is not a good reason for it to apply so selectively, although I guess that makes it very slightly better than the others. I hope the cities targeted by the law challenge this and win, and I hope that it leads to fewer specially targeted laws all around. More to come on this from the Show-Me Institute in the future.

The post Special Laws Get Special Attention appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Proposed new pay for St. Charles County Council — $14,375

CURRENT AREA SALARIES:

St. Louis County Council $20,000 or $12,500*

St. Peters aldermen $14,525

St. Charles County Council $12,500

St. Charles City Council $10,200

O’Fallon City Council $7,600

Wentzville aldermen $5,500

Lake Saint Louis aldermen $5,500 or $2,400*

* Amount depends on when term began.

Two additions: St. Louis city aldermen, of which there are a lot (28), make a little more than $30,000 a year. Jackson County (aka, Kansas City area) councilmembers have a neat little trick, in that they earn 24 percent of whatever circuit judges earn, so in order to find out their salary you have to look up what judges make — which I don’t feel like doing. Circuit judges probably make right around $100,000, so for the sake of argument Jackson County councilmembers probably make around $24,000. Please remember that these are all part-time positions.

For the positions above that have two salaries listed, it is because pay raises can’t go into effect during one’s current term. So, for example, on the St. Louis County Council, which raised its own salary in 2005, you have people who joined the council in 2007 (Colleen Wasinger and Barbara Fraser) making a higher salary than people who have been on the council since 2001 (John Campisi and Michael O’Mara). That’s not a criticism of the law. I’m just pointing out how it works.

I don’t think any of the county council salaries discussed here are too high, nor is the proposed St. Charles raise inappropriate. I do think Saint Louis city pays too much, on the whole, for its Board of Aldermen salaries, but I would recommend lowering the number of aldermen rather than cutting their salaries. If salaries are too low, you limit the number of people who can consider serving — even among the already limited number of people interested in public service. Those who can serve for little or no money are limited to the retired, the independently wealthy, those whose spouses are the main breadwinners (no jokes, please), and those whose jobs work seamlessly into the position (such as a union business agent). You have to pay enough that it is worth the time for the majority of people to be able to do the job if they so choose — or, more exactly, if the voters so choose.

You also have to be careful not to pay too much. This is taxpayer money, after all, and these jobs are defined as part-time. With too high of a salary, you also get people interested in the position whose main goal — how do I put this nicely? — may not be public service. I will refrain from listing any examples of this for fear of a lawsuit … which assumes that someone is still reading this post. Over and out.

The post Should St. Charles Councilmembers Get a Pay Raise? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.