Second election set for Jordan Valley tax district

The ballot issue to establish the Convention and Entertain-ment Community Improvement District, a taxing district to fund Jordan Valley Park projects, failed in January due to low voter turnout.

Make that no voter turnout.

The first attempt to create the new CID failed when the only ballot cast that of Springfield developer John Q. Hammons was turned in after the deadline.

A new election is being held to approve the CID, and the deadline for the ballot to be postmarked is May 7. The ballot is scheduled to be mailed out April 22.

The new CID

The election creating the district establishes four revenue sources to help pay back bonds to finance nearly $49 million in construction projects. Those projects are a $25 million multipurpose arena, a $12.5 million exposition center and a $11.25 million parking deck.

The revenue sources proposed on the ballot are:

A sales tax of up to 4 percent on lodging, food, drink and other retail sales in the district, earmarked for arena costs.

A 25-cent surcharge on event tickets and registrations for admission to the proposed Hammons baseball park, events arena, the exposition center and trade center. This revenue would pay for the parking garage.

A $1 surcharge on admission tickets and registrations to the events arena, which would help pay for the construction of that facility.

A real estate tax surcharge of $3 per $100 of assessed valuation on property in the district. It would be devoted to paying for the exposition center.

Pending voter approval, the Convention and Entertainment CID's draft budget for the 2002-2003 fiscal year has been submitted to the city. It totals $270,000, which includes an estimated $220,000 in revenue from the new real estate and sales taxes.

The proposed Convention and Entertainment CID encompasses an irregularly shaped area that extends as far as Kim-brough Avenue on the west, the Burlington Northern railroad tracks on the north, National Avenue on the east and Walnut Street on the south.

There are only two owners of the approximately 50 properties in the zone: the city of Spring-field and developer/hotel magnate John Q. Hammons.

It also means they are the only two voters in the election to create the district, however Hammons, according to election officials, also is delegated to vote in the city's interest.

Election problems

Last November, the Spring-field law firm of Yates Mauck Bohrer Elliff Croessmann & Wieland PC, which is handling the bond-financing business for the projects, put together the election ballot and sent it to the Greene County Clerk for certification.

The ballot was supposed to include the four revenue source issues listed above, however the last item, the real estate surcharge, was inadvertently omitted.

As a result, the Greene Coun-ty Clerk's Office, unaware that an item was missing, certified the ballot and published it on Nov. 21 in the first of two official notices of election, said Betty Young, an election coordinator in the County Clerk's Office.

Young said the second legal notice was scheduled for publication Jan. 2, and the deadline for the mail-in ballot was Jan. 22. It was mailed to voters on Jan. 7.

In early December, planners of the taxing district caught the ballot error and notified the clerk's office. In order to get the ballot legally amended and back on schedule for the election, Yates Mauck Bohrer had to go to Greene County District Court, said attorney Carl Yates.

The order permitting the ballot addition was signed by Judge Don Burrell on Dec. 19, said attorney Joe Bohrer, who handled the law firm's court application for the change.

Young said the county clerk's office got the amended first legal notice published Dec. 22, which put things back on schedule for the election.

However, the mail-in ballot on which Hammons voted approval of the plan didn't get mailed and postmarked until a day after the Jan. 22 deadline, Young said. That made the ballot null and void, and required election promoters to start over, she said.

In a recent inquiry to his office about the matter, Ham-mons, through an assistant, said he didn't want to talk about it at that time, but he might in a couple of weeks.

The first election process cost $2,841, according to Young, including an extra $560 for the corrected election advertisement.

However, she said, this election shouldn't be as costly since some of the expenses are for items from the first time that can be used again.

City officials said the cost of the elections will be paid for with money from the building project revenue bonds.