City won't benefit from county tax plan

On Tuesday, voters in Scott county will decide the fate of a proposed half-cent law enforcement sales tax. The proposed sales tax would replace a similar sales tax approved in 2000 to help build the new county jail. The tax approved in 2000 contained a sunset provision which means it expires next year. The proposal on the ballot Tuesday contains no sunset provision.

Back in December, I had the pleasure of meeting with the County Commission to hear their plans for the law enforcement tax. The idea sounded good. But the more I thought about the idea, the more problems I found.

I told Presiding Commissioner Jamie Burger at the time that I could support such a measure. And as much as I hate going back on my word, this time I must. I have the utmost respect for Commissioner Burger on a personal and professional level. He's a born leader who may well someday seek higher office. But despite my early support, the tax plan does far too little for Sikeston and for that reason - as well as a lack of sunset - I don't think Sikeston voters should support this plan.

Of course, I'm not alone in this thinking. At the urging of Public Safety Director Drew Juden, the Sikeston City Council this week voted unanimously to withdraw their support from the tax plan. The reasoning is simple. Sikeston has unmet needs for Public Safety functions and this countywide tax could well doom a similar proposal for Sikeston.

Some have portrayed this tax as a battle between the north and south ends of Scott County. Though it's easy to reach that conclusion, that really is not the case. The plan on the ballot Tuesday is a case of competing interests. Though we are indeed a proud part of Scott County, we also must face some stark realities at home. Our police station is showing substantial signs of age and raises have not been forthcoming for Public Safety personnel, unlike their counterparts at the county level.

We want and need a top-notch county jail because - like it or not - Sikeston sends a majority of the inmates to the county jail. And we strongly support a fully functioning law enforcement presence in the county because crime there eventually filters to Sikeston. But we've shown our support in 2000 when every precinct in Sikeston approved funding for the new jail.

Now it's our turn.

I believe if the tax is rejected by voters on Tuesday that the Sikeston City Council will soon craft a law enforcement sales tax for our community. It will contain a sunset provision so it doesn't carry on forever and it will contain the essentials to equip our Public Safety officers and to provide modern facilities that are sorely needed. That proposal is of far greater importance and interest than the plan on Tuesday's ballot.

In an ideal world, both tax plans might gain approval. But the world is not ideal and all levels of government must do their job on the resources available. The county, in this case, has a valid argument for their funding needs. But the city of Sikeston has a far more urgent argument for our needs here in Sikeston.