COMMITTEE
HCS HJR 9 -- SCHOOL DISTRICT TAX RATES
CO-SPONSORS: Stoll (Lumpe)
COMMITTEE ACTION: Voted "do pass" by the Committee on Education
- Elementary and Secondary by a vote of 22 to 2.
This proposed constitutional amendment raises the tax limit from
$1.25 to $2.75 on each $100 of assessed valuation imposed by
school districts and deletes the "three times" formula for
determining which tax levies require a supermajority,
substituting a flat $6.00 limit, beyond which the supermajority
is required. The proposed amendment also adds a new section to
the constitution permitting the school board of any district
whose 1995 levy was set by federal court order to establish a
lower rate. The voters in such districts must approve any levy
greater than the court-ordered rate.
FISCAL NOTE: Cost to General Revenue Fund of $0 in FY 1998,
$98,100 in FY 1999, & $0 in FY 2000.
PROPONENTS: Supporters say that Article X, section 11(b) puts a
cap on school district levies; the current cap of $1.25 was set
in 1945. The cap forms the basis for calculating which levies
must achieve a majority vote pursuant to section 11(c) and which
a two-thirds majority. This constitutional amendment addresses
the SB 380 requirement of a minimum $2.75 levy to be eligible
for state education aid and to keep accreditation. St. Louis
school districts that do not receive any desegregation funding
and are hold-harmless districts would benefit from the
amendment, since increases in these districts almost always
achieve a majority but do not gather the required two-thirds
majority. The platforms of several educational organizations
favor a simple majority for tax levies, rather than the tiered
"three times" approach.
The federal-court-ordered levy in Kansas City is $4.96. When
Kansas City achieves unitary status, the tax levy will fall back
to $2.41, and these districts will potentially lose their
accreditation. Most educational organizations, and the business
community, favor an approach that would help districts under
court desegregation orders remain solvent after they achieve
unitary status. Problems with Hancock amendment limitations
should not arise, since a constitutional amendment that is later
in time and narrower in scope would not be presumed to conflict
with the limitations.
Testifying for the bill were Representative Lumpe; Cooperating
School Districts of Kansas City; Missouri Council of School
Administrators; Cooperating School Districts of Greater St.
Louis; University City School District; Missouri School Board
Association; Kansas City School District; Missouri National
Education Association; and Missouri School Teachers Association.
OPPONENTS: There was no opposition voiced to the committee.
Becky DeNeve, Research Analyst