For more than 40 years, Missourians have paid a small sales tax that supports state parks and soil and water protection programs. This year it is on the Aug. 4 ballot for a 10-year renewal.
After barely passing the first time it was on the ballot in 1984, the tax has been renewed four times by increasing margins, most recently in 2016 when it received 80% of the statewide vote and passed in every county.
Backers of the tax — a coalition of farmers, state park enthusiasts and environmentalists — would be happier about its chances for renewal if it was the only question on the primary ballot.
But it is not. Strong opposition groups have formed to defeat two measures sent to the ballot by lawmakers. Backers worry those campaigns could generate opposition to all ballot proposals.
One, Amendment 5, directly involves sales tax because it would give lawmakers a five-year window to increase the state sales tax rate, or add new items to the list of goods and services subject to sales tax, to generate revenue to reduce or eliminate the state personal income tax.
“The challenge is when voters go to the polls and they have all this stuff on the ballot,” said Jonathan Ratliff, a Republican political consultant working for passage of Amendment 1. “When they’re hearing millions of dollars of TV ads encouraging them to vote no on this amendment or that amendment, that they don’t just say ‘okay, I’ve heard the TV ads, I’m supposed to go in and vote no on these things because I don’t like them.’”
Through Friday, backers of Amendment 5 have purchased $2 million of broadcast ads. The four opposition groups have yet to make ad buys, but their funding reports show they can match or exceed supporters in the six weeks until the vote.
So far, Citizens for State Parks, Soil and Water has raised $109,221.
Spillover from other campaigns isn’t the only concern for backers, Ratliff said.
The question is on the primary ballot, when turnout is much lower than in a November general election. In most years, voters in the primary are overwhelmingly Republican and typically a tax-averse electorate.
And, Ratliff said, the campaign has to counter confusion about the difference between the parks and soils tax and the permanent Department of Conservation tax. The conservation agency, which is responsible for wildlife, fisheries and forests, has been criticized for high executive salaries as well as its handling of chronic wasting disease in white tail deer.
A controversial culling program ended in December.
“Because it has conservation in it, some people might get confused about that, and so we’re just making sure that they know ours is different,” he said.
The biggest contribution to the campaign so far is from the Missouri Soybean Association, which gave $50,000 last fall, 10 days after the committee was formed.
When the association’s governing board discussed the renewal, members were unanimous in praising what the program has done for farmers, said Ben Travlos, the association’s director of policy.
That contribution remains the largest donation so far to the campaign.
“They all pretty vocally said this is a big deal for each and every one of our communities,” Travlos said in an interview with The Independent.
Other farm groups that have helped include the Missouri Corn Growers, which donated $25,000, and Missouri Cattlemen, which gave $10,000. The Missouri Parks Association has also contributed, giving $10,000.
Ratliff said he expects national associations to donate soon and hopes the campaign can raise $1 million overall.
The one-tenth of 1% tax is split evenly between state parks and soil and water conservation districts and generates about $140 million a year. It is one of three earmarked state sales taxes — the other two are 1% for public schools and one-eighth of 1% for the Department of Conservation — and the only one that must be regularly renewed by voters.
If renewed, the overall state sales tax rate would remain at 4.225%, including the 3% tax for general revenue.
For the budget year that starts July 1, the tax will provide $42.5 million for operations in 57 state parks and 36 historic sites, with accumulated reserves allowing for $59 million for new maintenance and construction projects.
Soil and water conservation districts are slated to receive $69.7 million for grants supporting projects that control erosion and stabilize streams.
The benefits of the tax, backers say, range from free admission at every state park to enormous gains in controlling soil erosion. Before the tax was enacted, Missouri croplands lost an average of 10.8 tons of soil a year, a rate that has since been cut by more than half.
The Missouri state parks system turns 100 this year, and the anniversary of the first park was celebrated earlier this month at Sam A. Baker State Park in St. Francois County.
“Having a reliable or dedicated funding source, such as the sales tax, provides a predictable way to provide public services,” said Laura Hendrickson, who has worked in state parks for 30 years and currently serves as division director.
Not only does the tax pay for maintaining basic amenities like trails and restrooms, but it supports resource protection and restoration, she said.
“It allows us to plan out for capital improvements and to make sure that our infrastructure is solid in the years to come, and that’s a huge part of having a positive experience of being able to go outside with your family for solitude, or maybe a family reunion,” Hendrickson said.
With inflation eroding family budgets, the campaign will emphasize the value the tax provides, Ratliff said. Some voters might want to cut their costs by voting against renewal, he said.
The tax adds 10 cents to the cost of a $100 purchase. In exchange, Missouri is one of eight states where admission to state parks is free.
The soil and water conservation program provides grants, with most requiring cost-sharing with the landowner. The money goes to soil and water conservation districts in every county of the state and supports terracing of cropland, streambank stabilization and other practices that prevent soil from entering waterways.
The program works alongside federal programs like the Conservation Reserve Program, which pays for farmers to refrain from planting on highly erodible land, Ratliff said.
Since it was enacted, many farming practices have changed. Instead of deep plowing, no-till agriculture is common.
“You’re going to see more cover cropping systems now,” Travlos said. “You’re going to see more terracing and other types of conservation practices implemented on individual farms, and therefore subsequently have significantly reduced soil erosion. That again goes back to more and more clean water for our rural communities and just our state as a whole.”
If the tax is defeated, maintaining state parks and continuing soil and water grants would depend on how much general revenue the legislature was willing to allocate.
The tax would expire on June 30, 2028, if it is not renewed. That is the date the general revenue fund will be $627 million short of what would be needed to sustain spending at current levels, State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick said in a recent report.
When the tax was first enacted, Missouri spent about $7.7 million from general revenue for state parks, equal to about $24.6 million after adjusting for inflation. In the budget for the coming year, the general revenue appropriation for state parks is $214,970.
Replacing the $42.5 million in sales tax to operate state parks would be difficult, Hendrickson said.
“It would be a serious challenge, obviously,” Hendrickson said. “Not only in this fiscal year, or the next. In any fiscal year it would be a challenge, because you’re competing against all kinds of things.”
An earmarked tax established in the constitution protects the money from being raided when budgets get tight, said state Rep. Bruce Sassmann, a Republican from Bland.
Sassmann is alone among lawmakers in backing his support for renewal of the sales tax with a contribution to the campaign. He gave $400 from his personal funds on March 13.
“It is so obvious what that money is used for, especially in the parks tax, and how it benefits Missourians,” Sassmann said. “There are some tax dollars that we pay that go to the legislature, and the legislature just spends them willy-nilly, and sometimes I think we spend money like drunken sailors.”
There would be no support for sustaining parks funding if the tax is defeated, he said.
“The legislature would strip funding from parks if they could,” Sassmann said, “and this is just a perfect way to assure that parks and soil and water conservation get funding.”
This was first published by the Missouri Independent, a nonprofit, nonpartisan news organization covering state government, politics and policy, and is reprinted with permission.