Judges: JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON, Attorney General
Filed Date: 6/4/1999
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 7/5/2016
Cristy Baker-Neel Scott County Prosecuting Attorney P. O. Box 160 Benton, MO 63736
Dear Prosecutor Baker-Neel:
This opinion is in response to your questions asking:
1. Can a single Capital Improvements Sales Tax be imposed pursuant to Section
67.700 , RSMo, to fund multiple capital improvements if the tax imposed by the County Commission and approved by the voters specifies each of the capital improvements to be funded by the tax?2. If so, must the ballot for submitting the tax to the voters for their approval pursuant to Section
67.700 , RSMo, reference the percentages of tax revenue which will be used for each particular capital improvement?
With regard to your questions, you state: "The Scott County Commission would propose that the proceeds from the sales tax be utilized to fund three (3) badly needed capital improvements within the County. These improvements would include repairs to the Scott County Courthouse, improvement of roads and bridges in the county and construction of a new jail facility." You also state there is no capital improvements sales tax currently being imposed by Scott County. Scott County is a third class county.
Section
67.700 . Sales tax for capital improvements may be imposed in certain counties, procedure — use of revenue — tax effective when — brackets to be established — rate of tax — sales tax revenue collected, defined. — 1. Any county, as defined in section67.724 , may, by ordinance or order, impose a sales tax on all retail sales made in such county which are subject to taxation under the provisions of sections144.010 to144.525 , RSMo, for any capital improvement purpose designated by the county in its ballot of submission to its voters; provided, however, that no ordinance or order enacted pursuant to the authority granted by sections67.700 to67.727 shall be effective unless the governing body of the county submits to the voters of the county, at a county or state general, primary, or special election, a proposal to authorize the governing body of the county to impose a tax under the provisions of sections67.700 to67.727 . The tax authorized by this section shall be in addition to any and all other sales taxes allowed by law.2. The ballot of submission shall contain, but need not be limited to, the following language:
Shall the county of . . . . . (county's name) impose a countywide sales tax at the rate of . . . . . (insert amount) for a period of . . . . . (insert number) years from the date on which such tax is first imposed for the purpose of . . . . (insert capital improvement purpose)?
[ ] YES [ ] NO
If you are in favor of the question, place an "X" in the box opposite "YES". If you are opposed to the question, place an "X" in the box opposite "NO".
If a majority of the votes cast on the proposal by the qualified voters voting thereon are in favor of the proposal, then the ordinance or order and any amendments thereto shall be in effect. If a majority of the votes cast by the qualified voters voting are opposed to the proposal, then the governing body of the county shall have no power to impose the sales tax authorized by sections
67.700 to67.727 unless and until the governing body of the county shall again have submitted another proposal to authorize it to impose the sales tax under the provisions of sections67.700 to67.727 and such proposal is approved by a majority of the qualified voters voting thereon.3. All revenue received by a county from the tax authorized by sections
67.700 to67.727 which has been designated for a certain capital improvement purpose shall be deposited in a special trust fund and shall be used solely for such designated purpose. Upon the expiration of the period of years approved by the voters under subsection 2 of this section or if the tax authorized by sections67.700 to67.727 is repealed under section67.721 , all funds remaining in the special trust fund shall continue to be used solely for such designated capital improvement purpose. Any funds in such special trust fund which are not needed for current expenditures may be invested by the governing body in accordance with applicable laws relating to the investment of other county funds.4. The sales tax may be imposed at a rate of one-fourth of one percent, three-eighths of one percent, or one-half of one percent on the receipts from the sale at retail of all tangible personal property or taxable services at retail within the county adopting such tax, if such property and services are subject to taxation by the state of Missouri under the provisions of sections
144.010 to144.525 , RSMo. [Emphasis added.]
* * *
We first address whether the ballot proposition may enumerate only one capital improvement purpose or may list several capital improvement purposes. Throughout Section
"It has long been the law of Missouri that doubleness in propositions submitted to voters . . . is to be condemned to prevent the yoking together of distinct things to the end that the two combined may attract a majority of the voters when neither separately might be able to do so." Henkel v. City of Pevely,
The submission of propositions containing more than one project has been approved in a number of cases. The typical situation is a proposition to issue bonds. The following submissions of bond issues have been held to be single and therefore permissible: to erect and furnish two school buildings, one on one site and one on another, [citation omitted]; to erect and construct athletic field bleachers, a 16 room high school building and a 4 room elementary school, Kellams v. Compton, supra, [
206 S.W.2d 498 (Mo. 1947)]; to construct, maintain and operate or purchase an electric light plant, [citation omitted]; to purchase schoolhouse sites, erect schoolhouses and furnish the same, and building additions to and repair old buildings, [citation omitted]; . . . to build new buildings and additional buildings, [citation omitted]; to build a courthouse, to equip and furnish it and to purchase more ground if more ground were needed for a suitable site, [citation omitted]; to build a schoolhouse in the first ward and furnish the same and to build an addition to and improve the schoolhouse in the second ward, [citation omitted]. . . . In these cases, as in cases wherein the several propositions contained in a single submission were interdependent [citation omitted], it is held that the rule prohibiting doubleness is not violated.
In addition to the cases summarized above, in State ex rel. PhelpsCounty v. Holman,
The three projects about which you are concerned are repairs to the courthouse, construction of a new jail facility and improvements to roads and bridges. In comparing these projects to the projects considered in the cases summarized above, we conclude that repairs to the courthouse and construction of a new jail facility constitute a single capital improvement purpose. Both relate to the construction and repair of county buildings. Such conclusion is consistent with the cases above, particularlyKellams v. Compton, supra, where erecting and constructing athletic field bleachers could be combined with erecting and constructing a high school building and elementary school andState ex rel. Phelps County v. Holman, supra, where expanding the county hospital could be combined with building a county nursing home facility.
We conclude that improvements to roads and bridges may not be combined with repairs to the courthouse and construction of a new jail facility. Improvements to roads and bridges is not naturally related or connected with the other two projects. Combining improvements to roads and bridges with the other two projects would result in "doubleness" in submissions at elections which is universally condemned. A voter, in order to get what he earnestly wants, may be forced to vote for something which such voter does not want.
Having concluded that the project for improvements to roads and bridges must be a separate proposition from the projects for repairs to the courthouse and construction of a new jail facility, we turn to the form of ballot. Section
Very truly yours,
JEREMIAH W. (JAY) NIXON Attorney General
Enclosure