In a letter to the editor in today's Joplin Globe, former Joplin City Council member Morris Glaze said cityi residents he has spoken to support the police and fire departments, but do not offer the same approval for the tax proposal.
I have talked to very few Joplin voting residents who support the use of property and personal property tax to be used to fund the new wage matrix for both departments.
2 comments:
Well, the city of Joplin has spent a lot of money in a slick campaign to win this with manipulation of the vote % to pass, the timing of the election, and the refusal to discuss Plan B. We will see if it works, I guess.
Tussle at the City Council meeting tonite 8/1/22 Monday.
City attorney claimed it takes only 50% to pass this new property tax.
Citizen claimed it would take 66.6 % to pass.
Quoted State Constitution, section 11, c.
Other applicable statutes, rules below for a home charter city, Joplin is one.
It appears the citizen may be correct. 66.6% needed to pass.
See paragraph 9, on the enabling language from the city records, they said they are abiding by section 94.400 of the revised statutes of Missouri; then read the requisite statute the city used to justify the vote below. Hancock amendment does not change this. Since this is not a sales tax or a bond issue special percentages to pass do not apply.
Title VII CITIES, TOWNS AND VILLAGES
Chapter 94
< > • Effective - 28 Aug 1994 bottom
94.400. Maximum rate of tax — how increased — extension of period of increase — continuation of levy. — 1. All cities in this state which now have or may hereafter contain a population of not less than ten thousand and less than three hundred thousand inhabitants according to the last preceding federal decennial census, framing and adopting a charter for its own government under the provisions of Section 19, Article VI of the Constitution of this state, known as "constitutional charter cities", may by city ordinance levy and impose annually for municipal purposes upon all subjects and objects of taxation within their corporate limits a tax which shall not exceed the maximum rate of one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation, and may by city ordinance levy and impose annually an additional tax at a rate in excess of said one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation, but not to exceed forty cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation for any one or more of the following purposes, to wit: Library, hospital, public health, and museum purposes, except that the rate of tax levy of one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation for general municipal purposes may, in addition to the aforesaid rate and purposes of increase which may be voted by city ordinance, be further increased for general municipal purposes for a period not to exceed four years at any one time when such rate and purpose of increase are submitted to a vote of the voters within such cities and two-thirds of the voters voting thereon shall vote therefor, but such increase so voted shall be limited to a maximum rate of taxation not to exceed thirty cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation.
2. The legislative body of any such cities may submit the question of increasing the levy when in the opinion of such legislative body the necessity therefor arises and the question shall be submitted by such legislative body when petitioned therefor by voters equaling in number five percent of the voters of such cities voting for a mayor at the last election at which a mayor was elected.
3. The question shall be submitted in substantially the following form:
Shall there be a ______ cent increase in tax levy on one hundred dollars valuation for general municipal purposes for ______ years in the city of ______?
4. If such increase of levy shall be voted, then such increased levy shall be effective for the number of years designated, and no longer, but such cities through their legislative bodies may submit any such proposal for continuing such increase of levy at any time for like periods not to exceed four years each.
5. Any city that has a levy for recreation grounds in excess of two mills on August 28, 1994, may continue the levy at that rate without any further action. Any levy for recreation purposes which is two mills or less on August 28, 1994, shall be for purposes of computing the amount permitted by law considered to be under section 90.010. Any increase in the levy for recreation grounds after August 28, 1994, shall be in accordance with procedures set forth in section 90.010.
Post a Comment