School sales tax vote expected this week
By Dan Gearino, Journal Des Moines Bureau | Posted: Monday, April 21, 2008
DES MOINES -- An issue of vital interest to Sioux City -- the localoption sales tax for schools -- is in the spotlight this week as the Legislature races toward adjournment.
A bipartisan coalition, with key members from Northwest Iowa, is trying to rewrite the county-based tax and make it statewide. The plan has passed the House, but it is stalled in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, has said he won't allow debate on the bill unless more Republicans step forward to support it.
"We need bipartisan support," he said, "because the revenues that come up with this system flow significantly into Republican districts. If they're against it, Democrats aren't going to carry the water."
If the bill is going to pass, it needs to happen soon. Party leaders hope to finish the session sometime this week. They had hoped to finish by last Friday, but now expect to continue until at least Wednesday.
Gronstal said three Senate Republicans are on record supporting the sales tax bill, which is short of the eight or nine he thinks are needed. Democrats hold a 30-20 majority, but the party wants a strong Republican buy-in on any bill that is a major change in tax policy.
Two of those Republicans are from Northwest Iowa: Dave Mulder of Sioux Center and James Seymour of Woodbine. Both men said they expect the bill to be debated this week.
"I just think it's going to be good for our schools," said Mulder. Mulder has supported the proposal for years, while Seymour made his decision over the last few months. "I've been conflicted on this for some time," Seymour said.
Republicans, particularly those in rural districts, are getting pressure from two powerful groups: Iowans for Tax Relief, which opposes the bill, and the Iowa Farm Bureau, which supports it.
Seymour said he supports the bill because of specific benefits for schools in his district. The proposal would repeal the 1-cent school infrastructure local option sales tax, or SILO, and replace it with a statewide tax.
The new tax would give each school district the same amount of money per student, which would be an increase for most rural districts.
The SILO tax was passed in 1998 with strong support from Sioux City legislators and community leaders. The plan allowed retail-rich counties to make school improvements without raising property taxes. The Legislature revised the tax in 2003 to shift some of the money to retail-poor rural areas. The current system says that when counties renew the tax for a second 10 years, they can only keep $575 per student. Any excess is placed in a statewide pool for distribution to poorer areas.
If the new proposal was fully phased in this year, all schools would get more than $750 per student.
Sioux City school leaders support the bill, as do legislative Democrats from Sioux City. And yet, some of the most vocal opponents are the city's legislative Republicans.
Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said the plan is flawed because it takes control away from county voters. He also has concerns that the proceeds from the tax, an estimated $405 million per year, may be used for non-educational uses. "It could be scooped and used for something else," Wieck said.
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, also adamantly opposes the bill.
Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan, agrees with his party leaders. "I'm still looking for a compromise that protects the local voters and the promises that were made for them in the first place, and truly protects the purposes for which the revenue can be spent," he said.
While Republicans have internal divisions, they agree that Gronstal shouldn't need to depend on GOP votes to pass the bill. Democrats have a large enough majority that they could pass the measure on their own if they want to.
Regardless of Gronstal's comments, Mulder said he expects the bill to come up this week and he thinks it will pass.
Dan Gearino can be reached at 515-243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.
A bipartisan coalition, with key members from Northwest Iowa, is trying to rewrite the county-based tax and make it statewide. The plan has passed the House, but it is stalled in the Senate.
Senate Majority Leader Mike Gronstal, D-Council Bluffs, has said he won't allow debate on the bill unless more Republicans step forward to support it.
"We need bipartisan support," he said, "because the revenues that come up with this system flow significantly into Republican districts. If they're against it, Democrats aren't going to carry the water."
If the bill is going to pass, it needs to happen soon. Party leaders hope to finish the session sometime this week. They had hoped to finish by last Friday, but now expect to continue until at least Wednesday.
Gronstal said three Senate Republicans are on record supporting the sales tax bill, which is short of the eight or nine he thinks are needed. Democrats hold a 30-20 majority, but the party wants a strong Republican buy-in on any bill that is a major change in tax policy.
Two of those Republicans are from Northwest Iowa: Dave Mulder of Sioux Center and James Seymour of Woodbine. Both men said they expect the bill to be debated this week.
"I just think it's going to be good for our schools," said Mulder. Mulder has supported the proposal for years, while Seymour made his decision over the last few months. "I've been conflicted on this for some time," Seymour said.
Republicans, particularly those in rural districts, are getting pressure from two powerful groups: Iowans for Tax Relief, which opposes the bill, and the Iowa Farm Bureau, which supports it.
Seymour said he supports the bill because of specific benefits for schools in his district. The proposal would repeal the 1-cent school infrastructure local option sales tax, or SILO, and replace it with a statewide tax.
The new tax would give each school district the same amount of money per student, which would be an increase for most rural districts.
The SILO tax was passed in 1998 with strong support from Sioux City legislators and community leaders. The plan allowed retail-rich counties to make school improvements without raising property taxes. The Legislature revised the tax in 2003 to shift some of the money to retail-poor rural areas. The current system says that when counties renew the tax for a second 10 years, they can only keep $575 per student. Any excess is placed in a statewide pool for distribution to poorer areas.
If the new proposal was fully phased in this year, all schools would get more than $750 per student.
Sioux City school leaders support the bill, as do legislative Democrats from Sioux City. And yet, some of the most vocal opponents are the city's legislative Republicans.
Senate Minority Leader Ron Wieck, R-Sioux City, said the plan is flawed because it takes control away from county voters. He also has concerns that the proceeds from the tax, an estimated $405 million per year, may be used for non-educational uses. "It could be scooped and used for something else," Wieck said.
House Minority Leader Christopher Rants, R-Sioux City, also adamantly opposes the bill.
Sen. David Johnson, R-Ocheyedan, agrees with his party leaders. "I'm still looking for a compromise that protects the local voters and the promises that were made for them in the first place, and truly protects the purposes for which the revenue can be spent," he said.
While Republicans have internal divisions, they agree that Gronstal shouldn't need to depend on GOP votes to pass the bill. Democrats have a large enough majority that they could pass the measure on their own if they want to.
Regardless of Gronstal's comments, Mulder said he expects the bill to come up this week and he thinks it will pass.
Dan Gearino can be reached at 515-243-0138 and dan.gearino@lee.net.
Story Comments
Read More and Post Comments 0 comment(s)
Please note: The following are comments from readers. In no way do they represent the views of The Sioux City Journal or Lee Enterprises. We will not edit or alter your comments, but we do reserve the right to not post or to remove comments that violate our code of conduct. No comment may contain potentially libelous statements; obscene, explicit or racist language; personal attacks, insults or threats. Terms of Service
