GUEST COMMENTARY: New 911 tax increase is the wrong call

Friday, March 29, 2013 | 6:00 a.m. CDT

Boone County voters will decide Tuesday whether to add a three-eighths-cent sales tax for Public Safety Joint Communications. The 911 center and emergency management are vital services, but Proposition #1 is NOT the answer.

Frankly, Joint Communications has been neglected by our public officials. Various agencies have irresponsibly held back from their existing budgets vital funds to pay their fair share of growing 911 needs for decades now.

I had the opportunity to tour the 911 center and found things just as Proposition #1 proponents describe: severely understaffed, cramped quarters, obsolete equipment, sensitive radio equipment relegated to the backup generator shack, etc.

Manager Joe Piper, in his modest office that doubles as a training room, confirmed that cost-sharing is largely proportional based on call volume for each agency. However, funding through the 13 user agencies they work for has not made it to joint communications in proportion to higher demand for emergency services in our growing community and other modern trends.

To try and keep up acceptable levels of service, Piper continually asks each budget cycle, but the response from the agencies is that they don't have the money.

Joint Communications reports to Columbia City Manager Mike Matthes, so I went to one of his morning coffee hours to chat. I then had discussions with several who are actively campaigning for Prop. #1: Boone County Commissioners Karen Miller and Janet Thompson, as well as Sheriff Dwayne Carey, and a few others.

I observed that everybody was sure careful with his or her words. Yet I refrain from pointing a finger at any anybody in particular, as I sensed long-standing complications beyond the control of their respective offices.

I learned that some agencies have been able to "invest" at certain times in the past, and sometimes not. Some have chipped in more over time, some less so. This rose suspicions with me that budgetary politics has been at play.

The fact is, we are all already paying taxes (via property, sales, land line telephone, etc.) for various packages of emergency services. We entrust public servants to allocate those funds for all the things they need to help keep us safe, as the case may be: fire stations, police cars, staff, training, pensions, as well as planning for disasters, radio communications for officers in the field and answering the phone.

Like any organization, you budget some resources to answer the phone. I don't see other parts of emergency budgets in nearly this dire need. I don't see firetrucks broken down on the side of the road, waiting for parts to be found on eBay. Are they telling us they can't find a small part of existing larger budgets to help answer the phone?

Even Grass Roots Organizing is alarmed that if Prop. #1 passes, sales taxes at many local stores would shoot up to 8.6 percent, particularly burdening low-income citizens purchasing life essentials.

If combined with two separate pending proposals in Missouri, we could see sales taxes here jump to more than 10 percent. Where's the tipping point when citizens instead go shop in other towns, or online, or not at all?

If Prop. #1 passes, we will collectively pay in $9.2 million more annually, but the city will redirect the $1.7 million it currently spends to other things. In an economy where many are struggling to get by, our community cannot afford to pay so much more for services we all thought we were already paying for.

Prop. #1 has no sunset provision, either. So even after a new $11 million bomb-proof bunker is paid off, this tax carries on automatically.

I don't blame proponents for seeking a solution, but I don't appreciate the mantra that "there is no Plan B" — that it's their way or the highway. I have heard some offensive scare tactics, too: claims if this doesn't pass, good luck with that 911 call for your grandpa's heart attack or if your young daughter is home alone during a break in.

I respect our public emergency agencies, but they need to pay their (our) fair share into vital 911 services, from the money we are already paying. If one or more agencies do, in fact, need more money — for stations, trucks, staff and answering the phone — then they should be going to their respective existing tax bases and have a vote on that.

Prop. #1 is not the answer. Instead, we should demand government accountability, not continuing to sweep problems under the rug with a taxpayer bailout. 911 needs our support, so let's instead find a more sustainable solution that works for everyone.

Steve Spellman hosts “The Mid-Missouri Freedom Forum” on KOPN/89.5 FM on Tuesday from 5 to 6 p.m. Questions? Contact Opinion editor Elizabeth Conner.

Like what you see here? Become a member.

Show Me the Errors (What's this?)

Report corrections or additions here. Leave comments below here.

You must be logged in to participate in the Show Me the Errors contest.


Bill Weitkemper March 29, 2013 | 7:34 a.m.

Well said and I agree. See the comments I posted on March 21 at

(Report Comment)
dan elliott March 29, 2013 | 9:25 a.m.

Exactly correct - the 2 million that is currently spent by the city and other entities will be like found money for those tax authorities. I have not heard anyone say that they will look to roll back other taxes that are currently being used to pay for 911. Instead, these other tax authorities will have "found" new money and spend as they wish while we pay for a new top tier center and staffing with a new tax. And I suppose when this new bunker is paid off we will need to build a back up bunker or replace all equipment or whatever, as we can see, when a tax is enacted it is rarely stopped. SO, a vote YES is a vote for the old tax to coninue and a new tax to start. I will vote NO until they tell me they will reduce the taxes that are currently being used for 911.

(Report Comment)
Richard Saunders March 29, 2013 | 11:07 a.m.

You forgot to put quotes around "government accountability."

(Report Comment)
Ellis Smith March 29, 2013 | 1:23 p.m.

Government accountability = oxymoron

Oxymoron = = When your ox is gored, accidentally or intentially, by some moron

A large suburb of Buenos Aires, Argentina is named "Moron." However, this is a Hispanic surname and is supposed to be pronounced to rhyme with "bone."

(Report Comment)

Leave a comment

Speak up and join the conversation! Make sure to follow the guidelines outlined below and register with our site. You must be logged in to comment. (Our full comment policy is here.)

  • Don't use obscene, profane or vulgar language.
  • Don't use language that makes personal attacks on fellow commenters or discriminates based on race, religion, gender or ethnicity.
  • Use your real first and last name when registering on the website. It will be published with every comment. (Read why we ask for that here.)
  • Don’t solicit or promote businesses.

We are not able to monitor every comment that comes through. If you see something objectionable, please click the "Report comment" link.

You must be logged in to comment.

Forget your password?

Don't have an account? Register here.