Historical June 1989 report or notice. Original dates, prices and contacts describe the source period; current availability has not been established.
The Missouri General Assembly recently approved a measure that would extend for another two years the authority of St. Louis City and St. Louis County to levy the 1/2 cent sales tax earmarked for transportation.
A large percentage of the funding derived from the sales tax is utilized to finance the Bi-State Development Agency.
All of the funds collected by the City under the sales tax are turned over to Bi-State.
The County keeps some money for other purposes and in the past matched the City’s contribution on a 2 to 1 basis.
Last year, the City provided Bi-State with funds totaling $17 million, the County $30 million.
The existing funding agreement is based on need, population and subsidy cost. Bus transportation is critical in relieving the congestion in the two central business districts of the region: the downtown area and Clayton.
In addition, public transportation is vital to those with low incomes and the elderly.
It is estimated that 2/3 of low income individuals and 1/2 of the elderly do not own a car. Approximately 1/4 of all households do not have a driver. Reducing transit revenue would severely restrict the independence and mobility of these individuals.
Some County officials have complained that St. Louis County pays a disproportionate share to Bi-State.
However, I believe you must look at the total transportation picture. St. Louis County receives a much larger subsidy for road construction from the state than the City. Approximately $350 million in federal highway dollars was allocated to the urbanized areas of the St. Louis region by the State Highway Department in both 1987 and 1988. Over the two year period, the City received 4% and 1%, respectively, of the highway money.
In 1987, St. Louis County received 69% of the funds and 65% in 1988.
This translates into approximately 16 and 69 times as much funding as the City. Overall, the County contributes more funding to Bi-State than the City; however, the County receives more highway money.
On a straight dollar basis, it is clear that the County receives a much greater tax subsidy than the City.
I have not objected to the County receiving the lion’s share of this money because I feel that the transportation needs of the community as a whole should be addressed, rather than focusing on inequities in funding among the City and County. Only through a cooperative approach to transportation can the economic viability of the region be ensured.
Originally published in The Times of Skinker-DeBaliviere, June 1989.
Read this article in the original newspaper issue.
Original source: SD_Times1989_06.pdf, printed page(s) 2; PDF page(s) 2.
