Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Sales Tax Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Jackson County delays vote on 1¢ sales tax ordinance after debate over spending restrictions and audit requirements
Summary
Jackson County commissioners on a motion laid on the table consideration of a proposed 1¢ sales surtax ordinance after debate over whether proceeds should remain restricted to the Transportation Trust for Road and Bridge.
Jackson County commissioners on a motion agreed to lay on the table consideration of a proposed ordinance to continue a 1¢ local sales surtax that currently sunsets Dec. 31, 2025, after extended discussion about how proceeds could be used.
Staff told the board the current ordinance deposits proceeds into the Transportation Trust Fund for Road and Bridge operations and the county projects about $5.8 million in revenue in the current budget year from the 1¢ levy. The draft ordinance presented to commissioners would broaden permissible uses to any public purpose allowed by statute; legal staff cautioned that broadening the language could trigger a Department of Revenue requirement for a performance audit before the ordinance takes effect.
County legal staff referred the board to the existing ordinance language (section 50‑20) that states proceeds “shall be used solely for operating expense of the County Road and Bridge Department.” The proposed draft, as written, would remove that exclusive restriction, and staff said that if the board modifies the use the Department of Revenue will require a performance audit of historic use before a changed ordinance could take effect.
Commissioners divided on the policy. Some said they wanted to keep proceeds restricted to road and bridge to ensure long‑term maintenance funding and to prevent the county from reallocating the money; others argued for flexibility to use the money for other statutory public purposes, noting that future changes to local surtaxes could require a referendum and that a sunset provision might not be advisable.
Board members also requested more information about the likely scope and cost of a Department of Revenue performance audit and asked staff to consult with the county’s auditor. Given those outstanding questions and the timing of the state budget process, the board voted to table the item and asked staff to return with further information and to place the ordinance discussion on a July agenda.
What’s next: The board asked county administration to coordinate follow‑up work, to find out the potential audit cost, and to bring the matter back for a July meeting and budget discussions.
