1 / 12

Pool Sales Tax Study Group Perspectives

This study examines the intricacies of sales tax distribution among municipalities in St. Louis County, focusing on the Pool Study Group's insights and perspectives. It highlights the need for equitable sharing of sales tax revenues, the importance of fostering a healthy economic region, and advocating for clear, calculable tax formulas. The analysis also addresses the impact of external trends like TIF payments, retail expansion reliance, and the potential for new revenue generators. Key recommendations aim to stabilize municipal planning and budgeting while maximizing funding for essential services and economic development.

alaura
Download Presentation

Pool Sales Tax Study Group Perspectives

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Pool Sales Tax Study GroupPerspectives

  2. Pool Study Group Black Jack Clarkson Valley Greendale Florissant St. Louis County University City Webster Groves Wildwood

  3. B Study Group • Who is in the pool? • 290,270 in A Municipalities • 401,953 in B Municipalities • 322,159 in Unincorporated County • 724,112 residents in the pool

  4. Pool Study Group Principles Foster a healthy region History of sharing, necessary and fair Common legislative message Focus on job-creating economic development Foster efficient, consistent, local government services

  5. Case for sharing Interwoven economic fabric Sales tax revenues dependent on a healthy region Infrastructure costs are shared Geographic and historic growth patterns

  6. Observations External trends are shrinking the “pie” Reliance on retail expansion TIF payments Location advantages Significant revenue can be gained by optional taxes

  7. New Revenue Generators Passage of ¼ cent – increase from $13 m to $35 m Parks and Stormwater – increase from $49 m to $70 m Capital Improvement – increase from $47 to $70 m Economic Development and Fire - $12M

  8. B City Perspectives • Simplify the formula • Clear, simple, calculable formula needed • Continue step formula rather than flat • Understand the impact of TIF on formula • Create a cap on contributions from POS cities

  9. B City Perspectives • Remove county annexation and incorporation charges • Remove from ¼ and 1 cent • Generate over $1.2 m for POS and $750,000 for B cities

  10. B City Perspectives • Changes in the ¼ cent optional tax • No pooling of tax; full amount retained by levying city • County is not eligible for ¼ cent sharing • County given legislative authority for ¼ cent • Capacity to compensate for pool contributions • Raise funding from $13 million to $35 million • Provide county with over $7.5 million

  11. B City Perspectives • Retain the pool • Instability in planning and budgeting with changes • Pool should be retained • All annexations stay in the pool • Cities can not leave the pool • County remains as part of the pool

  12. B City Perspectives • St. Louis County • County should separate municipal and county-wide functions and budgeting • County should be given authority for local options taxes

More Related