Editor:

Voters in the city of Beeville have a unique opportunity to support economic development by voting against the city’s sales tax proposition this November. The funds in question amount to about $200,000 per year, which is approximately one-fourth of the total sales taxes currently allocated to economic development.

If this proposition passes, then about $200,000 annually would be taken from economic development and spent on street repair and street maintenance. Now, no one is against good streets, but in this case, the city proposition would actually divert funds from one incredibly important activity, being economic development, to another municipal purpose (streets) which should already be funded by the city’s general budget.

For those who support this proposition we would ask, “Why has it become necessary to raid the economic development fund to pay for city streets?”

In 1996, the citizens of Beeville approved a sales tax in the amount of ½ of 1 percent to fund economic development. During the subsequent 11-plus years, about $10 million has been generated by this special sales tax. Unfortunately, instead of being used for direct economic development, these monies were treated as a part of the city’s budget and used for basic city infrastructure.

Consequently, the so-called economic development funds were not available through any reasonable means or process for economic improvement, but instead were spent in accordance with the only proposal submitted, that being a wish-list submitted by and on behalf of the city of Beeville, and spent almost exclusively for city purposes.

Which brings us to the current election. The law has been changed so that it is now legal to spend economic development sales tax funds on city streets (previously this could have been done legally only under certain limited conditions). The city has put this proposition before the voters, and supporters of this measure contend it would lead to better streets. That may be true. One has to wonder about this sales pitch considering expenditures were previously made out of the economic development sales tax fund to seal coat city streets (an improper use of the funds), and now the streets need more repair and maintenance. More importantly, why hasn’t street repair and maintenance been covered by the city’s general fund? Do other cities dip into their economic development funds for this sort of municipal function?

A review of the cities in Texas which adopted economic development sales taxes shows that out of more than 500 communities, only 32 of those have subsequently allocated part of the sales tax to street repair and maintenance. Now, this is where it gets interesting. Not one of those communities is a stand-alone city like Beeville! Virtually all of them are small, bedroom type communities which for the most part are surrounded by urban areas, or in the alternative, are so small that they have no realistic economic development prospects. The only community larger than Beeville to transfer part of its economic development sales tax fund to street maintenance and repair was Flower Mound, Texas. In talking to those folks, Bee County Chamber representatives discovered that economic development was proceeding so fast in Flower Mound that the Chamber exec there said that they needed to slow it down! Flower Mound’s growth problems have been so significant that they even issued a moratorium on building permits.

This should be an eye-opener. Diverting economic development funds into street repair and maintenance is a sure-fire formula to bring everything to a screeching halt! And don’t fall for the argument that this is only one-fourth of the economic sales tax pot. The total amount allocated in Beeville to economic development is not large when compared with the funds available to our competitors, so every penny counts! Additionally, the city has already grabbed the lion’s share of all of the monies generated by the economic development sales tax, at least until recently.

Beeville is faced with a choice — do the right thing by focusing important resources on economic development, or take the quick and easy path to good streets, but wonder why we will need them if the businesses and investors who could have come here instead go to those communities which had the insight, wisdom, good sense and leadership to make themselves more appealing. The city’s sales tax proposition is not good public policy — it is not in the best interests of this community. The Chamber urges support for economic development, the lifeblood of any community, by your vote against the city sales tax proposition.