Jackson County Property Tax Assessment Update

Posted on by Scott Tanner

As part of the ongoing saga of the 2023 Jackson County reassessment debacle, the Missouri State Tax Commission (STC) ordered Jackson County to lower all residential assessed valuations with an increase of fifteen percent or more to fifteen percent, which is the legal cutoff for additional inspection requirements by counties. Jackson County had completely failed to comply with the basic laws and rules for notifying property owners of their rights and deadlines as part of the reassessment process. It is not that the assessment increases are too high (although some no doubt are), but that the entire process violated the rights of the property owners who saw larger increases.

Many homeowners in Jackson County had seen their reassessments increase by more than fifteen percent, so this order by the STC was no small thing. Because of the major impacts on tax revenues for various local governments, the county sued the STC to stop the order. The judge ruled the other day, and the county lost.

The county will likely appeal this ruling, but the facts are pretty clear here. The Jackson County Assessor’s Office did not adhere to the requirements of the process, and property owners were harmed by it. I don’t see any way the appeals court changes this ruling (I am not a lawyer), unless the judges decide that the harm to the taxing districts overrides the rights of the property owners.

I have been writing about the history and issues of property reassessments in Jackson County for a long time. One hundred and thirteen counties can get their reassessments done correctly, and one can’t, so the problem is more with the management in Jackson County itself than with the reassessment process overall. Better management of the Jackson County Assessor’s Office is the first needed change. Beyond that, some policy changes are needed for Jackson County, including:

Jackson County may have been underassessed overall, but that doesn’t excuse the county from complying with the reassessment process laws. If the county appeals, I hope it loses again, and quickly.

Tariffs, Trade, and Economic Risk with Dominic Pino

Posted on by Susan Pendergrass

Susan Pendergrass and Dominic Pino, the Thomas L. Rhodes Fellow at the National Review Institute, discuss the current state of U.S. tariffs and trade policy, tariffs as a hidden form of taxation, common misconceptions about trade deficits, provide historical context for America’s protectionist tendencies, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Download a Transcript of this Episode

Timestamps:

00:00 Understanding Tariffs and Economic Perspectives
02:51 The Impact of Trade Deficits
06:05 The Role of Government in Trade Policies
08:59 The Consequences of Protectionism
12:02 Future Economic Predictions
15:05 Historical Context of Tariffs
18:03 The Confusion Surrounding Current Policies

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Platte County Commission Decision Not to Levy Taxes Upheld in Court

Posted on by Scott Tanner

My colleague David Stokes has written a good deal about an effort in Platte County to institute a sales tax to fund a children’s health fund. You can read those pieces here, here, and here. David argues that other similar funds in Missouri have had unsavory outcomes and the idea of politicizing charity itself is something we ought to avoid.

The measure passed, but the Platte County Commission voted unanimously not to implement the tax. The governing Missouri statute seems pretty clear, stating, “The governing body of a city not within a county, or any county of this state may, after voter approval under this section, levy a sales tax . . .” The commissioners argued the law gives them the discretion to levy the tax after a vote of the people (“may”) rather than require it (“shall”).

KCPBS’s “Week in Review” discussed the matter on February 28, and I pointed out that the commission’s position seemed strong. KCUR’s Brian Ellison argued the case was not as clear cut as I suggested.

Yet the day after a hearing on March 31, a circuit judge in Platte County agreed with the commission, issuing a decision immediately. The ruling concludes, “The plain language of §67.1775 gives the Commission discretion to levy or not levy the tax after voter approval.” Clear cut indeed.

Lastly, let me highlight one of the prescient arguments David put forward in September:

The two charitable agencies that gathered these petition signatures and are supporting this tax do great work for kids. Those two agencies, Synergy Services and Beacon Mental Health, are also going to benefit from this tax, and will almost certainly seek grants from it. (Both agencies have received funding from the Jackson or Clay county children’s services funds.) There is nothing wrong with that, but let’s not pretend that these charities have no self-interest in this process.

If we look to the last page of the October 28 Missouri Ethics Commission filing from the committee supporting the sales tax in Platte County, we can see that three charities contributed $13,000 to the YES campaign. David was correct—this effort incentivized Beacon Mental Health and other non-profits (Synergy Services seemingly did not donate to this campaign) to steer some of their valuable dollars to a political campaign, something we see too much of already. We should not be encouraging more of this.

The commissioners were right to oppose the sales tax. Platte Countians, regardless of how they voted on this matter, should be grateful for the commission’s willingness to make a stand against higher taxes and politicizing charities.

Attitudes on Open Enrollment in Missouri

Posted on by Avery Frank

Missouri families are still waiting for access to open enrollment. The Missouri House recently passed House Bill (HB) 711, but like years prior, open enrollment has not yet hit the floor in the Senate. Despite open enrollment stalling out in the legislature, the data indicate that Missourians want to see progress on this issue.

In February 2025, Saint Louis University (SLU) released an update on likely Missouri voters’ views on education policy, including open enrollment (the polling was conducted in 2024). The results showed broad support for open enrollment, including bipartisan approval and a preference for a universal model. SLU surveyed 900 likely Missouri voters and used both demographic and voting history data in an attempt to create a representative Missouri sample. One of the more interesting findings was the bipartisan agreement on open enrollment. Recent votes on open enrollment in the legislature have been split along party lines.

Figure 1 displays the general support for open enrollment among likely Missouri voters. Figures 2 and 3 indicate that the majority of likely Missouri voters prefer that an open enrollment policy be universal (meaning districts must accept students if they have seats) and let students transfer out. This suggests that a universal policy is not an “extreme” position, but one that is well aligned with public opinion. It is worth wondering whether carveouts and “compromises” that would restrict open enrollment reflect the priorities of students and families or those of other education stakeholders.

Figure 1: General Measure of Support for Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “Do you support or oppose the following policies . . . allow students to enroll in public schools outside of the school district where they live?”

Figure 2: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring Out with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may limit the number of students who transfer out of their district.”

Figure 3: Public Opinion on Limiting Students Transferring in with Open Enrollment

Survey Question: “If Missouri allows students to enroll in public schools outside their residential school districts (that is, the district where they live), indicate whether you support or oppose the following . . . school districts may opt out of having students transfer into their district.”

Universal Open Enrollment for Missouri Families

Different versions of open enrollment bills have circulated around Jefferson City, with the House passing a voluntary version (HB 711) and the Senate weighing a universal version (Senate Bill (SB) 215). A good open enrollment policy is a universal policy, and SB 215 would provide students with greater access to public schools that serve them best. Open enrollment is a pro-student, pro-family, and pro-public school policy. The research supports it, the public supports it, and Missouri students would benefit from a robust open enrollment environment.

Want to Learn More?

Susan Pendergrass and I address the most common objections to open enrollment in our recent paper, Open Enrollment: Erasing Seven Myths in Missouri. Read the full report here.

Crystal City to Vote on the Four-Day School Week

Posted on by Scott Tanner

On Tuesday, Crystal City voters will decide whether to retain their district’s four-day school week (4dsw) or return to a five-day school week (5dsw). Although the district has followed a 4dsw for several years, a new requirement under Senate Bill 727 mandates a public vote to adopt or retain a 4dsw for districts in communities that are sufficiently large, which includes Crystal City (the new law requires a vote in districts that are fully or partially located in charter counties or cities with more than 30,000 inhabitants).

Crystal City is among the first districts to hold such a vote. It will be fascinating to observe the outcome, which may serve as an indicator of how other districts will vote on this issue. It also raises the question of what options will be available to families who disagree with the vote.

Expanding School Choice Would Strengthen Missouri’s Educational Environment

Last year, my colleague James Shuls reported on results from a survey of Missouri parents on the 4dsw and school choice. In one key finding, 69% of respondents agreed or strongly agreed with the following statement: “If a school district moves from a 5dsw to a 4dsw, parents should be given the option to transfer their children to another school district.” This sentiment was consistent across party lines, with 67% of Republicans and 71% of Democrats in favor. Open enrollment would provide options for families who want something different than what the district decides.

While it is certainly worth mentioning that the 4dsw negatively affects academic performance in mathematics and English/language arts (ELA) on average, this may not be true for everyone, and some students may benefit. For example, supporters of the 4dsw often discuss how a 4dsw can reduce missed days for doctor’s appointments, allow for help on family farms, and lower “burnout” among both students and teachers. But many students need more consistent interaction with academic materials, and the 4dsw is not a good fit for some families’ schedules. The same survey also found that 84% of parents who “are not able to provide childcare on the fifth day” prefer a 5dsw.

Closing Considerations

The number of 4dsw districts grew this past year from 173 to 187 Missouri districts (based on my own compilation of school calendars). This means that about 36% of all Missouri districts use the 4dsw, including nearly half of rural districts.

For districts considering the switch, the research shows that it has several downsides, and on average, it reduces student learning. This suggests proceeding with caution. For parents who disagree with the results of a 4dsw vote, expanding school choice is an appropriate policy response.

Want to read more? Check out these publications:

Another Crack at the Income Tax

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Are you ready for spring? It appears members of Missouri’s general assembly certainly are. Before lawmakers left Jefferson City for spring break a couple of weeks ago, they passed a flurry of bills, including an income tax cut. If enacted, House Bill (HB) 798 would, among other things, eventually lower Missouri’s top individual income tax rate to 3.7% (from 4.7% today).

Going into the 2025 legislative session, it was clear that income tax reform was going to be a hot topic. Not only was it a top priority listed in the Institute’s 2025 blueprint, but numerous bills were also filed before the session began both to incrementally lower the income tax rate and to eliminate the tax altogether. Then, during his first State of the State address, Governor Kehoe officially stated his support for eliminating the individual income tax.

As my colleagues and I have written for many years, there are many good reasons for Missouri to abandon its reliance on the income tax. Decades of economic research have shown that the income tax is one of the most economically damaging forms of taxation, penalizing workers for their productive pursuits. But in recent years, 25 states (not counting Missouri) have lowered their income taxes, including many of Missouri’s neighbors, which should only increase our state’s urgency for meaningful income tax reform.

It’s no coincidence that year after year the fastest-growing states across the country are those without income taxes. If Missouri is serious about joining those states—and we should be—bold action in Jefferson City is necessary. While Missouri’s elected officials have been successful at lowering the state’s top individual income tax rate by 1.3% since 2014 (from 6% to 4.7% today), Missouri is still one of the states most reliant on income tax revenue.

Eliminating the income tax in a fiscally responsible way will not necessarily be easy given that Missouri’s budget has nearly doubled in size in recent years. But the process must start with a single step, and lowering the rate incrementally to 3.7% (what HB 798 proposes) is a great place to start. As lawmakers enter the home stretch of this year’s legislative session, there’s still a lot of work to be done if eliminating the income tax is truly the goal. Time will tell if their actions match their stated priorities.

A Sweet Deal for Sugar Creek

Posted on by Mike Ederer

The following letter appeared in the Kansas City Star.

There is a proposal to sell the Sugar Creek water and sewer systems to Missouri-American Water on the April 8th ballot. The company is offering Sugar Creek $5 million for the systems and guaranteeing an $8 million investment into improvements.

Sugar Creek needs to make improvements to its water and sewer systems. Sewer rates just went up this month, and water rates will likely increase, too. The question for voters is whether the city will fund those improvements via debt or whether Missouri-American will pay the city for the asset and fund the improvements itself.

Studies have shown that private utilities generally operate more efficiently than public utilities. Privatization of these two systems could result in a substantial infusion of money for the city, and placing the water and sewer facilities on the tax rolls would expand the tax base. That large payment plus the broader tax base could lead to tax cuts elsewhere in Sugar Creek.

The residents of Sugar Creek currently receive their gas and electricity from private utilities closely regulated by Missouri’s public service commission. Getting their water from Missouri-American Water would be no different, and this sale would greatly benefit the people of Sugar Creek.

Weighing Consumer Regulated Electricity to Meet Energy Demand Growth

Posted on by Scott Tanner

The Missouri Legislature recently passed Senate Bill 4 to address concerns about the state’s energy future. Much of the bill is about ensuring Missouri has sufficient energy sources in the future, as there is a lot anxiety about the rapid growth of large energy consumers, such as data centers and industrial manufacturers.

Managing this problem in the current system that is dominated by monopolies is difficult. But what if market forces could be infused into our current system to help address new demand?

An Introduction to Consumer Regulated Electricity (CRE)

One potential policy solution that could complement Missouri’s current system is consumer regulated electricity (CRE). While still a developing idea, CRE is worth considering as Missouri navigates an uncertain and potentially very costly energy future.

In theory, CRE would allow private investors to create new, independent electric power systems (both generation and transmission) using their own capital. These private grids would be scaled to specifically meet new demand growth from large consumers. In order for a CRE entity to operate appropriately, it would need to be free from restrictions placed by the Missouri Public Service Commission (MPSC). That means CREs would need to be unconnected to the regular grid and only serve new industrial and large commercial customers.

It should be noted that these CRE entities would still be subject to federal regulations, such as the Nuclear Regulatory Commission for nuclear projects. These entities would still need to meet federal safety standards.

Considering the Benefits of CRE in Missouri

Travis Fisher of the CATO Institute argues that these private grids—partly free of the massive regulatory red tape for utilities—could be developed more quickly, infusing needed competition and innovation into the energy sector. As “private energy islands” for new, large energy consumers, CREs could potentially relieve strain on the primary grid and ratepayers. Rather than relying on ratepayers to fund new power plants to accommodate rising industrial demand, the market could provide that solution.

This idea aligns with growing momentum in the private sector to pair small modular reactors with corporations (Google, Microsoft, Meta) urgently seeking energy sources tailored to their needs. CRE could allow the free market to guide this practice, and potentially, more quickly match demand with supply as companies would not be subject to current MPSC regulations that limit competition. This could be a boon for economic development in Missouri.

In theory, CRE would not tear down Missouri’s existing framework, but rather, complement it and allow private developers to target growing energy demand from the largest consumers, which are causing the most concern about reliability.

How Could We Potentially Bring this to Missouri?

Bringing CRE to the Show-Me State would likely require a modification of state statute to declare that CRE entities—if they are not connected to existing infrastructure and only serve large, industrial customers—are not subject to state regulation. New Hampshire is one state considering this concept. While further study is needed, CRE is a compelling idea that our lawmakers ought to consider.

Kansas City’s Data Center Boom: Another Costly Gamble

Posted on by Scott Tanner

Kansas City has offered billions in incentives to attract massive data centers from Meta and Google, hoping to secure long-term economic benefits. But as Thomas Friestad of the Kansas City Business Journal has reported in a two-part series, these projects come with significant costs and uncertainties​​. While city leaders tout them as major wins, questions remain about who truly benefits—and who foots the bill.

Spoiler alert: It’s taxpayers. Taxpayers foot the bill.

The scale of these data centers is staggering. As Friestad reports, the energy demand from these facilities is equivalent to 100 Walmarts or 40 hospitals​. Their massive electricity needs—driven in part by artificial intelligence—have led Evergy, the regional utility provider, to plan two new natural gas plants and expand renewable energy production by 3,000 megawatts over the next decade​.

While Evergy insists that existing customers won’t subsidize these projects, some experts aren’t convinced. The Missouri Office of Public Counsel warns that the increased demand could drive up energy prices across the region​. Even if Evergy builds enough capacity, ratepayers may still bear the costs of maintaining infrastructure that primarily benefits tech giants.

Kansas City approved up to $8.2 billion in tax incentives for Meta alone, a package more than three times the city’s annual budget​. Google has also secured generous tax benefits, though the full scope is still unclear​.

These incentives were pitched as a way to boost local schools and communities. But as Friestad’s reporting shows, and as regular readers of this blog have come to expect, the expected windfalls have been slow to materialize. The Smithville School District, which was promised rising tax revenues, has instead seen a fraction of what was projected. In 2024, Meta paid just $86,839 in property taxes to the district—far short of the more than $1 million in annual payments initially forecast​. Construction delays and city permitting issues have further postponed expected revenues.

The pieces highlight an important debate: Did Kansas City need to offer such massive subsidies at all? Economic development officials argue that data centers wouldn’t come without them, but others suggest that factors like cheap land, energy access, and infrastructure play a much bigger role​.

A broader trend is at play. At least 36 states now offer incentives for data centers, creating a nationwide bidding war​. Critics like Good Jobs First director Greg LeRoy argue that these subsidies often do little to sway a company’s decision, while shifting tax burdens onto residents​.

And while data centers bring major investments, they don’t create many full-time jobs—typically around 100 per facility, despite requiring billions in public support​.

As they have with entertainment districts, hotels, and sports stadia, Kansas City leaders are making a massive bet on data centers, banking on future economic gains. But as the Kansas City Business Journal’s reporting makes clear, the immediate costs are real, and the benefits remain uncertain. Will the promised revenues materialize? Will taxpayers ultimately bear the burden of subsidizing these projects?

The people of Kansas City should demand answers. If policymakers want to keep handing out billions in incentives, they owe the public clear, transparent explanations of when—and if—the promised returns will actually arrive.

Support Us

The work of the Show-Me Institute would not be possible without the generous support of people who are inspired by the vision of liberty and free enterprise. We hope you will join our efforts and become a Show-Me Institute sponsor.

Donate
Man on Horse Charging