The Salad Days in Sugar Creek

The Kansas City suburb of Sugar Creek is considering selling off its water system to Missouri American Water. The proposal is on the April 8 ballot.

Sugar Creek doesn’t operate its own water utility, which makes this proposal a little different from other privatization proposals. Sugar Creek buys water from the Independence municipal utility (which should also be privatized along with the Independence electric utility, but that’s another story).

Privatization, however, is still a very good idea for the residents of Sugar Creek. The main problem with public utilities is that customers are also voters, and politicians are hesitant to raise rates on their voters. This leads to an underinvestment in the system. As the City of St. Louis said in 2024 when it finally increased water rates:

Major I-64 Water Main Break Highlights Need for Long Overdue, Much-Needed Investment in City’s Water System

This was the city’s own water system it was talking about! Cheap rates have harmful consequences down the line.

Beyond that problem, studies have demonstrated that private utilities are generally more efficient than municipal utilities. In 2000, economist B. Delworth Gardner of Brigham Young University determined that private water utilities in Utah charged lower rates for water than comparable public utilities despite the large advantages in taxation and regulation that government utilities have. A recent comparison of public and private electric utilities in Florida concluded that private utilities outperformed public utilities in nine of 14 categories.

Missouri American Water is offering $5 million for the system and has promised to invest $8 million in upgrades over five years. The equipment would also go onto the tax rolls, expanding the property tax base for Sugar Creek. Most importantly, it would put water services in Sugar Creek in the hands of a more efficient private operator, which is closely regulated by the Missouri public service commission. The idea that Missouri American Water could use its monopoly power to keep raising rates is incorrect.

This policy change would be a very good move for the people of Sugar Creek.

Open Enrollment: Erasing Seven Myths in Missouri

The adoption of open enrollment in Missouri, which would allow any student to register at any public school in the state regardless of their residential district assignment, would be a significant change in our state’s public education landscape. Putting families in charge of where their children attend school would upend the status quo and require adjustments to everything from funding mechanisms to the transportation logistics. But just because it’s never been done in Missouri doesn’t mean that we would be leaping headlong into uncharted territory. Twenty-four states already have open-enrollment policies in place, so we know a lot about what to expect. Many of the fears and concerns being voiced by opponents of open enrollment in Missouri simply don’t reflect what we’ve seen in other states. This report addresses seven of the most common myths surrounding open enrollment.

Click here to read the full report.

Listen to a podcast featuring the authors of the report:

The Role of Culture and Character in Education with Jason Bedrick

James Shuls, senior fellow of education policy at the Show-Me Institute and head of the K-12 education reform branch of the Institute for Governance and Civics at Florida State University, and Jason Bedrick, research fellow in the Center for Education Policy at The Heritage Foundation, discuss the Phoenix Declaration. They explore the importance of cultural transmission, the distinction between education and indoctrination, and the necessity of grounding education in truth and goodness. The discussion emphasizes the role of schools in character formation and the importance of engagement in public education.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Can We Handle the Truth . . . of Our Cities’ Financial Status?

The “Financial State of the Cities 2025” report by Truth in Accounting provides a comprehensive analysis of the fiscal health of America’s 75 largest municipalities. Alarmingly, it reveals that 54 of these cities lack the necessary funds to meet their financial obligations.​

Kansas City and St. Louis are notably highlighted for their fiscal challenges. Kansas City is ranked 57th, while St. Louis is positioned at 59th. Both cities have been assigned “D” grades, indicating significant financial distress. This distress is quantified through the “Taxpayer Burden” metric, representing the amount each taxpayer would need to contribute to settle all municipal debts. In Kansas City, this burden amounts to $8,800 per taxpayer, whereas in St. Louis, it escalates to $9,800. ​

A primary factor contributing to these burdens is the underfunded pension liabilities in both cities. Unfunded pensions place taxpayers and city services at risk, leading to increased debt and financial instability. ​

The implications of such financial distress are profound. Residents may face reduced public services, increased taxes, or both, as cities strive to balance their budgets. Moreover, fiscal instability can deter business investments, stymie economic growth, and erode public trust in local governance.​ This is in addition to both cities’ struggles providing public safety.

Addressing these challenges necessitates a multifaceted approach. Cities must prioritize fiscal responsibility, ensure transparent accounting practices, and engage in proactive financial planning. Fostering economic development can help alleviate fiscal pressure, but it must be real development, not the sort we have seen for decades that merely transfers tax dollars to corporate cronies.

There is an urgent need for comprehensive fiscal reforms in both of Missouri’s largest cities. Without prompt and effective action, residents will bear the brunt of past financial mismanagement for years to come.

Missouri Pension System Pushes Out Another Great Educator

Sometimes the headline says it all. And sometimes a headline leaves us scratching our heads. Take, for example, this headline from the Maryville Forum: “Principal to retire in Missouri, teach in Iowa.” That’s a head-scratcher. Is the principal retiring if he is still working, just doing it in another state? Why would someone retire and then move across state lines to continue working?

Of course, the answer is obvious if you know anything about how educator pensions work in Missouri.

Missouri’s teacher pension system creates strong incentives for educators to retire as soon as they hit their pension’s peak benefit. This doesn’t mean they’re ready to stop working; it just means that staying on the job in Missouri would financially penalize them compared to retiring and working elsewhere. This system is problematic because it pushes experienced teachers, principals, and superintendents out of Missouri’s schools when they still have a great deal to offer.

When Missouri educators retire early, they take with them years of expertise and leadership. Instead of keeping our best and most experienced educators in Missouri classrooms, our pension system encourages them to leave for neighboring states. This harms our schools and weakens the overall quality of education available to Missouri students.

To fix this, we need pension reform. We should develop a retirement system that rewards long-term service without forcing educators into an artificial retirement timeline. Instead of a system that penalizes continued work, we should create one that allows educators to gradually phase into retirement, perhaps by working part-time or taking on mentorship roles while still accruing meaningful benefits.

Other states, such as Washington, have reformed their pension systems to better retain educators. Missouri should do the same. We cannot afford to keep losing our best teachers and leaders simply because our pension system makes it financially advantageous for them to retire and work elsewhere.

It’s time to change the incentives. Let’s keep our educators in Missouri, where they belong.

Ending Educational Redlining with Tim DeRoche

Susan Pendergrass speaks with Tim DeRoche from Available to All about the importance of open enrollment in public schools, particularly in Missouri, where strict residential assignment policies limit access to quality education. They discuss the issue of educational redlining, the impact of district boundaries, and the need for policy changes to ensure equitable access for all families. DeRoche highlights transportation challenges, funding models, and successful open enrollment policies in other states that Missouri could learn from.

Read Tim’s full report “Show-Me the Way Out: Overcoming Educational Redlining and Strict Residency Restrictions in Missouri’s Public Schools”.

Learn more about Available to All

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Download Episode Transcript

00:00 Introduction
03:11 The Case for Open Enrollment
06:02 Missouri’s Unique Challenges
09:07 The Impact of District Lines
12:13 Educational Redlining and Its Consequences
15:03 Resistance to Change in Missouri
17:58 Comparative Analysis with Other States
20:51 Transportation and Accessibility Issues
24:03 Funding Models and Their Implications
27:08 The Future of Education in Missouri

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

Concerns about Kansas City Animal Control Operations

There is a lot of controversy regarding animal control operations in Kansas City. Animal control in Kansas City has gone back and forth between public and private operations, and it could be changing again soon.

Animal control services are one of the prime municipal services ripe for privatization, either with for-profit veterinarians or (more commonly) non-profit animal welfare groups. For example, many of the cities on the Kansas side of the state line have contracted with Great Plains SPCA for shelter operations.

Kansas City has gone through a series of privatization efforts for both its animal shelter and animal control operations, as have many other cities and counties. Kansas City first outsourced its animal shelter to a private vet in 2009. The private operator saved taxpayers $175,000 and improved adoption rates at the same time. However, complaints regarding alleged animal abuse caused the city to terminate the contract in 2011 and briefly go back to city operation. Next, Kansas City turned over its animal shelter to KC Pet Project in 2012, and that privatization effort led to tax savings of $40,000 and a significant reduction in euthanasia for the animals. Later, in 2019, when Kansas City contracted with the same non-profit for animal control operations (e.g., capturing stray animals), city employees opposed it on familiar grounds:

City workers and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 500 worry about the loss of jobs and pensions if the city of Kansas City, Missouri, follows through with its plan to privatize the Animal Control Division.

Recently the operations of the shelter have been questioned due to a dispute between the non-profits that operate it. It seems the city will be retaking control of the shelter. Animal control operations are also apparently coming back under city control. Admittedly, one can see how capturing potentially dangerous animals is more of a police-like assignment than running adoptions from a shelter. I am not sure most volunteers are going to be enthusiastic about dealing with a wild, rabid pit bull.

Complaints about animal abuse, poor conditions, and more in animal shelters are common. As I said in a previous blog post, jails are hard places to operate, whether they are for people or animals. I suspect there is a core group of animal rights “volunteers” that are going to file complaints about any shelter that isn’t entirely a “no-kill” shelter. It doesn’t seem to matter if the shelter is operated by the government or by a non-profit.

The other part of this debate is that government employees are never going to stop fighting to bring back jobs and assignments that were contracted out. We have seen efforts to retake government control with Kansas City trash operations and University City ambulance services, to give just two examples. I don’t automatically believe the “complaints” filed against private providers in these situations. As a resident of University City, I can assure you that bringing the ambulance operations back under city (and fireman’s union) control was an orchestrated political plan.

Is this the case with the animal shelter and control operations in Kansas City? I don’t know. For the sake of the animals, I hope it works out for the best.

The Crime of Address Sharing: Why Open Enrollment Matters in Missouri

Missouri has both criminal and civil penalties for parents who use an address outside their residence to enroll their children in a different school district. This means parents could face fines and even criminal charges just for trying to give their child a better education. But there’s a solution: strong open enrollment policies. By allowing students to attend any public school with available space—regardless of their home address—Missouri can eliminate the need for families to risk legal trouble and empower parents with choice.

Learn more about strong open enrollment policies here.

Everyone Hates Property Taxes, Which Is Why We Should Depend on Them More

A version of the following commentary appeared in the Springfield Business Journal.

When the Emperor was trying to convince Anakin Skywalker to come over to his side in a regional political dispute, he famously told him, “I can feel your anger. It gives you focus. Makes you stronger.” Right now, we could use some of that well-focused anger when deciding on local tax increases in Missouri.

I get it. People hate property taxes. That’s not just conventional political wisdom—there are actually data to back that up. In one poll, 69% of respondents said their local property tax was too high, and 59% said it was unfair. In another poll taken regularly through the years comparing Americans’ views on taxes, the property tax was historically the least-popular tax. However, in the most recent poll (2023), the federal income tax (34%) edged out the local property tax (29%) as the “worst tax.” If you are almost as unpopular as the most hated tax, you are very unpopular. But the property tax does not deserve such contempt.

Other than a small cadre of hard-core political leftists, nobody really “likes” taxes, thankfully. People should be ambivalent about parting with their own money. They should want to get value for their tax dollars and expect that they be spent effectively. Most of all, they should be hesitant to pay higher taxes just because politicians want them to.

Not surprisingly, people like to tax other people more than they like to tax themselves. Because of our Hancock Amendment, residents get to vote on almost all tax increases in Missouri. I have closely followed hundreds of local tax increase campaigns around the state, and every campaign for a new sales tax, new hotel tax, or earnings tax renewal follows the same playbook. “With this tax increase, we can make sure those shoppers/tourists/commuters (pick one)  pay their fair share.” Convincing voters that other people are going to help fund their new service is a great way to get voters to fund what the government wants and not what the people need. Voters are more discerning on property tax increases because they know they are going to pay for it, and that’s a good thing.

Municipalities in Missouri depend less on property tax revenues than cities in any other state. That fact would probably surprise many readers. Cities depend heavily on various sales taxes, and our two largest cities depend primarily on local income taxes that also apply to nonresidents. The local governments that depend entirely on property taxes do so because they have no other choice under state law. Trust me, if they had a choice, every school district in the state would be operating a new casino with its own special sales tax right next to the high school.

All taxes impact economic growth. Poorly constructed tax systems that waste money on ineffective projects or corruption are bad for growth. Well-constructed systems that efficiently fund important public needs are good for growth. The trick is to get more of the latter and less of the former. The property tax goes to the local services that people see and use every day. When those services are well run, the tax is capitalized into higher home values, which everyone wants except at tax time. When those local services are poorly run, it hurts the value of your home, which everyone hates (also except at tax time). While any tax can be harmful if set too high, economic research indicates that local property taxes at reasonable levels harm economic growth less than other taxes, particularly destructive local income taxes.

If a local city or school district isn’t providing the services you want for the taxes you are expected to pay, it isn’t that hard to move to a different community. Families move for better school districts all the time. Older people regularly downsize to smaller homes with the resulting lower taxes and, often, within lower-performing school districts (e.g., The Gatesworth in University City). Variances in services and quality in a property tax system give people options to choose what is best for them and their families at different points in their lives. (The senior citizen property tax freezes expanding around the state remove that pressure in a contrived way that hurts communities just as much as it may help individual seniors.)

None of this is to say that the property tax system in Missouri doesn’t need reform. It’s a two-part system: assessments and taxes, and the assessment part definitely needs improvement. Electing the assessors in Jackson County and the City of St. Louis is a good place to start. Agricultural property taxes are all out of whack. The taxes on farmland are too low, while the taxes on grain, livestock, and farm equipment are absurdly inefficient. Local governments probably spend more money calculating the livestock taxes than they receive by collecting them. Business property taxes need reforms to protect commercial property from the same flaws of sales, hotel, and earnings taxes: voters targeting businesses to fund services that primarily benefit residents.

Why do people have a particular disdain for property taxes? Perhaps it’s because it’s the only tax many people pay all at once, so it seems to hurt more. Perhaps people buy into the silly argument that you never really own property if you pay a tax on it. Whatever it is, the fact that people dislike the property tax means voters are more careful about approving property tax hikes than other types of tax increases. As a result, governments need to make stronger arguments and show results to justify property taxes in the first place. The “focused anger” of voters, to paraphrase the Emperor again, is precisely why cities and counties in Missouri should depend more on property taxes, not less.

Hopefully, though, we will stop short of going fully over to the dark side. I can’t even imagine how high the taxes on a fully operational Death Star would be.

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