Sales Tax may be on county’s August Ballot
By Brandy Nance
Originally published 02:00 p.m., May 1, 2008
Updated 02:00 p.m., May 1, 2008
A sales tax question could be on the August ballot if governing bodies in Lyon County approve the proposal by the Sales Tax Committee.
The Lyon County commissioners and Emporia city commissioners met in a joint meeting Wednesday afternoon and discussed a variety of issues, including the sales tax proposal. Dan Slater, controller for Lyon County, said the committee decided to recommend that Lyon County proceed to put the sales tax question on the August ballot. The percentage of the sales tax still needs to be determined.
Slater said the money would be distributed as follows: the sales tax revenue first would be divided in half by population and then distributed to all the cities in the county, and the second half would be divided by a percentage of property tax in the last abstract year — meaning a reduction in property taxes.
The plan would give smaller cities the opportunity to use the money to fulfill needs that go beyond the ordinary distributions. Slater said the county will use the money distributed for lower property taxes. It will not be treated as extra money to pad budgets. Emporia City Commissioner Jeff Longbine agreed.
“I don’t see it as a free rein to open the budgets,” Longbine said.
In addition, there will be a five-year sunset on the sales tax, meaning if the public doesn’t think the governing bodies are using the money appropriately, the tax will go away.
Michael Halleran, court trustee, said homeowners in Lyon County should take a look at the proposal.
“If you own a home in Lyon County you have to look at this proposal very seriously,” Halleran said. “For the homeowner of Lyon County ... they still have to pay the tax. It just provides this tax to be spread over a wider area. It allows transients who come into Lyon County to assist us in maintaining the level of (services) in the (county).”
It’s becoming harder and harder for the county to raise funds to pay for rising costs in areas such as fuel and equipment.
“I think we’ve about tapped out the property owners,” Miller said. “If you (overtax) them it will force them to leave because they can’t afford to stay there.”
In other matters, commissioners talked about the possibility of Amtrak train service coming to Emporia. Emporia City Manager Matt Zimmerman said Emporia has joined the Northern Flier Alliance, which includes the areas between Kansas City and Oklahoma City. The Kansas Department of Transportation has asked Amtrak to do a study and the company has agreed, Zimmerman said. Amtrak would study proposed day-train stops in Lawrence, Topeka, Emporia, Newton, Wichita and Arkansas City.
“We see this as beneficial to Lyon County because it allows our residents easier access via train,” Zimmerman said, “... and someone from Kansas City could come down and enjoy our downtown. I think it could improve our tourism possibilities.”
Under the plan, Emporia would be responsible for providing a train station. The state would be responsible for other costs associated with the train.
In other business:
F The two entities discussed the five-year Waste Management plan. Kansas statute requires that each city and county create, maintain and update its plan every five years. Lyon County updates its every year.
F A report was given on the Law Enforcement Task Force. Back in March, Springstead, a consultant company hired by the city and county, conducted interviews with city and county personnel. The report is due back this week.
gazette_reader (anonymous) says...
I'm confused. Are we being asked to vote on HOW the money is being spent, or whether or not to INCREASE the sales tax?
I would really like to see Amtrak bring service back to Emporia. We have family in KC and frequent other spots between here and there, and I would love to have four hours (two up, two back) to read a book or nap instead of drive.
May 1, 2008 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
neighbor (anonymous) says...
Taxes must go up they way they spend them and they too are feeling the increased fuel and energy costs. Sales tax is the only fair tax, everyone buys something, so most everyone pays the tax(with a few exceptions that should have their exemptions revoked) instead of property owners paying the majority of taxes.
May 2, 2008 at 8:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
madpoet (anonymous) says...
Am I the only person to laugh at Zimmerman's comment that we'd get tourists from KC if we got an Amtrak station? It would be nice for commuters etc. but I doubt it'll spike our tourism much. Considering how many college students and others who rent, not own, a home a sales tax would be more fair. I just hope the money is used wisely on services we need like street and sewer repair and not on things we don't like a clock tower or some such waste of money and space.
May 2, 2008 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
gazette_reader (anonymous) says...
Thanks for the clarification, Kstrebuchet.
May 2, 2008 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
momus (anonymous) says...
I guess I'm going to have to disagree about the fairness of a sales tax versus property tax system. A pull factor under 1 would indicate that we are loosing shopping dollars out of town. A significant amount of those shopping dollars (according to our latest study) are for higher ticket items like furniture, higher priced clothing and technology. I guess my point is that sales tax is not evenly distributed amongst different socioeconomic groups, thus not "fair". Furthermore, sales tax hikes may increase the negative pressures on pull factor by influencing the end pricing of products, thus creating a zero sum gain for tax receipts.
I'm not a big fan of blanket property tax increases either. However, if the county/city were to implement a "highest and best use" property methodology during the appraisal process, local government entities could obtain more tax dollars from properties based on optimum usage (i.e. if a slumlord allowed a property to deteriorate to the point where its value was significantly lower than if they had kept the property up, the property would not exist at its "highest & best" usage). This system could encourage property upkeep (or at least transition) and increase tax revenues while insulating the general populace (somewhat) from a tax increase.
May 2, 2008 at 12:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )