One penny, three legs, no guarantees

It's the question about the local-option sales tax extension I get most often - what happens if we approve LOST for flood protection in Cedar Rapids and efforts to secure needed state and federal funding fail?

A good question. We'll start by checking on the three legs of the proverbial stool.

There's the March 6 leg, when local voters will decide the fate of a 10-year, penny-per-dollar sales tax extension that would, over a decade, raise roughly $180 million to $200 million for flood protection on both sides of the Cedar River.

That money would provide a sizable local match for leg No. 2, potential state funding, which could come from a bill making its way through the Legislature. It cleared the Senate Appropriations committee unanimously this past week with broad bipartisan support. It still has a long way to go, but its prospects for passage, at this point, are bright.

The bill would provide $30 million annually, likely for 20 years, to communities across Iowa for flood mitigation projects. No community could receive more than $15 million yearly, and state assistance can't exceed the local contribution. So basically, Cedar Rapids' project could get significant state help, perhaps in the neighborhood of $150 million over 10 years. A state board would be created to consider applications and hand out dough.

But there's a big catch. The bill requires that at least 20 percent of the total project, or $30 million, whichever is less, come from the federal government. It's a curious provision, considering that the whole reason we're talking about state help is because the feds aren't coming through in the clutch. But lawmakers want state bucks to be last money in.

And I'm not going to sugarcoat it. The federal leg looks downright rickety. The federally blessed east-bank protection project has not yet received even enough money for engineering and design, let alone construction. President Obama's 2013 budget released this past week has no money for the project. Funds may still be found, but likely only a fraction of what's needed.

On the bright side, if the local tax passes, it won't take effect until July 1, 2014. That gives local leaders more than two years to push for federal help. Economic and political conditions may change.

So, yes, tax approval carries risks, no doubt about it. The basic risk is $18 million to $20 million. That's the amount of tax that could be collected in one year of an extension before voters can legally repeal it. If outside funding collapses, and voters want out, a repeal vote could be called by a petition drive, just like the one that put the extension on the ballot.  The money collected before repeal wouldn't be lost, and local leaders could spend it on another priority.

Still. that's a lot of risk, clearly. But I think it pales in comparison to the dollars risked by homeowners and owners of businesses big and small who decided to reinvest in the city's historic core neighborhoods, based, in part, on city promises that flood protection would be a community priority. Voting “yes” vastly improves the chances of keeping that promise.

Concerns about federal funding are prudent. But, in reality, a “no” vote could actually make Cedar Rapids more reliant on federal generosity. If the local tax and state legislation pass, the city could potentially craft a funding structure for flood protection on both banks that includes as little as $30 million in federal assistance. If it fails, more than $60 million will be needed just to finish east bank protection. And you can probably forget about the west bank.

So if you're looking for ironclad guarantees of success, you're not going to find them. But if you think both-banks flood protection should still be a community priority, it's tough to see how it happens without a local tax extension.