Last week, I submitted testimony on House Bill (HB) 1511, which would protect St. Louis–area business owners from being forced to install, operate, and maintain electric vehicle (EV) charging stations on their own dime. The legislation would not prevent mandates for the installation of EV chargers. However, it would require St. Louis–area governments to pay for their mandates. You can read the full testimony here.

HB 1511 was filed because some St. Louis municipalities (the City of St. Louis and Brentwood, among others) are forcing business owners to install and operate EV chargers (on their own dime) following new construction or significant renovation. There are a few reasons why such mandates are a bad idea.

Remember when people thought MySpace was the future? It is possible (although I think not likely) that EVs could suffer a similar fate.

Fully electric vehicles are only 1% of the cars on the road.

Governments are assuming that the EVs of the present are also the vehicles of the future. A new type of electric vehicle could emerge (like when Facebook surpassed MySpace) and make premature government investment unnecessary. A whole new technology like hydrogen-fuel cells could emerge as the best way to power our transit in the future.

Additionally, EV chargers that are currently on the market are in their early stages. The typical public charger used in cities (also known as a Level 2 charger) takes 4–10 hours to charge an EV from empty to 80%. As charging technology improves, faster options will hopefully become available. Will there need to be a mandate for new construction each time the technology improves?

As EVs make up a bigger share of cars on the road, and as developers hopefully improve charging speeds, establishments such as apartments, hotels, and restaurants will likely seek to lure this growing consumer base with EV chargers. There is no need to force any business to build charging stations that cost $2,000–$5,000

As of right now, public chargers are rarely used. The market can grow at its own pace. I see gas stations everywhere, but I do not fill up all the time. I usually fill up when I am nearing empty and it is convenient for me. EV owners typically follow a similar pattern, as over 90% charge their car at home daily (55%) or weekly (38%).

According to a 2023 survey:

• Only 4% of EV owners report using a Level 2 public charger daily.
• Approximately 14% of EV owners report using one weekly.
• Approximately 16% use one monthly.
• Approximately 46% say they “rarely” use a public charger.
• Approximately 21% say they have never used one.

It’s possible that plug-in electric chargers will never be popular.

The current legislation is restricted only to the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County. But why is it so limited? Unfunded mandates for EV chargers are bad policy wherever they are in the state.

The post Who Will Be Getting Charged for New EV Chargers in STL? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

COVID-19 appeared to accelerate this student loss, as Missouri saw a decline in enrollment of 20,000 students in the fall of 2020. When enrollment rebounded slightly the following year, it was fair to wonder if Missouri could eventually regain the 20,000 who had left. However, according to recent enrollment data from the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE), enrollment is trending downward once again.

Below is a graph that maps Missouri’s K-12 public school enrollment since fall 2011 (the 2011–2012 school year):

Source: Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (DESE)

*Fall 2023 has a dashed line because the enrollment figure is preliminary and not final. *

It’s possible that the students we lost during the pandemic simply aren’t “coming back,” as Missouri enrollment resumed its pre-pandemic decline in both of the past two years. With this in mind, we need to evaluate policy options in light of a shrinking student body.

As I have discussed before, the general trend of declining student enrollment and rising teacher employment reveals that the proclaimed “teacher shortage” is due to specific deficiencies in the teacher pipeline—not a growing student body.

School districts also need to evaluate which classes and services they can provide to their student body. As I discussed recently, declining enrollment and participation led to Brentwood being unable to field a football team. As a result, the district merged its football team with Clayton, which led to a solid playoff run.

These kinds of policies will be needed as enrollment continues to decline. Districts may need to share classes with each other. Some districts may need to go a step further and pool their resources. There are many costs associated with meeting federal and state regulations in a school district, and merging two shrinking districts into one could increase the amount of funding devoted to instructing students.

The K-12 enrollment decline isn’t what we want, but it appears to be what we’re getting. Policymakers at the state and district levels need to plan accordingly.

The post Missouri Public-School Enrollment Continues to Fall appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

For decades, the state and the federal government have poured billions into the system to try to balance the disconnect between students living in wealthy neighborhoods and students living in poor neighborhoods. The wealth gap between neighborhoods was referred to as the “big white elephant” by the board member who provided the first quote. As it turns out, monopolistic bureaucracies are reliably terrible at solving this problem. Complicated funding formulas try to take into account how much residents of local districts could contribute to public education based on the value of all property in the district in an attempt to redistribute funds from wealthy districts to poor districts. The result is that some districts, such as Brentwood and Ladue, receive about $600 per student from the state, and others—mostly small rural districts—receive as much as $16,000 per student. The federal formula to redistribute resources to low-income districts, also known as Title I, is ridiculously Byzantine and political.

Here’s the problem with “resource deployment.” It hasn’t worked. The achievement gaps between low-income and non-low-income students in Missouri have only gotten wider. In 2019, 45 percent of non-low-income 8th graders scored Proficient or higher in reading on the Nation’s Report Card, compared to just 21 percent of low-income 8th graders. The gap in math was even larger–27 percentage points. In 2003, the gap in reading was 19 percentage points and the gap in math was 22.

We cannot equalize opportunity using a top-down approach. Resources should be deployed to families to spend at the school of their choice. I continue to assert that if low-income families were given the responsibility for choosing which schools received their children’s public education funding, four out of five families would not accept below grade level results.

The post Resource Deployment Isn’t the Solution appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Saint Louis County, Saint Louis City, and Brentwood have decided to mandate that new construction and major renovations for several types of properties (residential and/or commercial, depending on the jurisdiction) must be accompanied by EV charging stations. None of these mandates consider the $5,000-per-charger cost businesses will face, and some of these regulations impose a substantial fine for being a day late and an EV charger short.

Some places—like apartments and office buildings where people park for hours at a time—are a good fit for EV chargers. But for other places, a charging station could actually be a liability. Think of places like diners or convenience stores, whose business models rely on getting people in and out quickly. The last thing the owner of a small diner needs is someone who comes in and occupies a table for an hour or longer, nursing a coffee while his car charges. That’s why decisions about where the chargers should be installed are best left to businesses rather than being determined by a one-size-fits-all government mandate.

If local officials want more EV charging stations, perhaps they should first clarify where they can be built rather than dictating where they must be built. Ironically, the municipal codes for the Saint Louis jurisdictions mandating chargers are mum about where chargers can be built outside of the areas where they are mandatory. This lack of clarity results in several weeks of permitting and site plan reviews, which often vary by jurisdiction. This is backwards. Dozens of municipalities nationwide have amended their codes to allow EV chargers to be built wherever property owners see fit and have fast-tracked the permitting process to finish, in some cases within a day. For example, Kane County, Illinois, and Bellevue, Washington, allow EV chargers to be built in all zoning districts. Several states, such as New Jersey, New York, and Oregon, have classified the installation of EV chargers as “minor work,” which helps speed up installation times and cut down on permitting costs. Chicago grants EV charger installation permits within a day and even provides a guide for the installation process. These are all simple ways to speed up the proliferation of EV chargers without twisting anyone’s arm.

Local officials are right to recognize that fueling an EV is different than fueling a traditional car. Due to the time it takes to charge, EV drivers won’t be waiting in lines at centralized “electron stations.” Rather, they’ll incorporate charging into their everyday life. As more Missourians buy EVs, it will make good business sense for more businesses and property owners to install EV charging stations, either to retain current customers or attract new ones. What EV driver wouldn’t the option of charging his or her car while at the grocery store or while typing away at work? Likewise, charging stations at apartment complex could become an appreciated—or even expected—amenity for prospective tenants.

Policymakers could also make it easier for Missourians to buy EVs. Currently some uncertainty exists about the validity in Missouri of the direct sales model that many EV companies use to sell their cars. Several years ago, Tesla was taken to court over the legality of selling its cars to customers without using a franchised dealership. While Tesla eventually won, it’s not clear if other EV companies would be granted the same freedom to sell. With many more EV companies using direct sales entering the market, ensuring they can operate in Missouri can bring EVs to thousands more residents.

EVs come with many benefits. They help improve local air quality and reduce the transportation sector’s overall environmental impact. For Saint Louis EV drivers, charging their EV at home can lead to hundreds of dollars of fuel cost savings each year compared to a gasoline-powered car. EVs have lower lifetime maintenance costs than gasoline-powered cars. EVs can succeed on their own merits; forcing the hand of property owners is the wrong way to speed up the EV adoption process.

The post EV Charging Stations Don’t Need Mandates to Succeed appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The rule they’re considering would require electric vehicle charging stations be built with “new and substantial renovations and additions [at least 50 percent of the unit’s final floorspace] on single-family two family and townhomes and new multi-family residential developments.” The Brentwood Planning and Zoning Commission rejected a similar proposed mandate last month, but the Brentwood Board of Aldermen has revived the idea, with the Brentwood mayor indicating they may pass a bill on the matter.

Each EV charger costs an average of $5,000 to install, but it is still unclear who will pay for them. Ameren offers property owners subsidies for EV charging stations up to half the cost, but that still leaves thousands of dollars unaccounted for.

Additionally, their deliberations are vague concerning how many EV charging stations would be required per property. Would it be one per family in the case of townhomes? Would it be a percentage of total parking spaces available, as the new Saint Louis County ordinance requires? Would families that don’t use an EV be paying for their EV-driving neighbor’s charging station?

The board of aldermen’s proposal is not finalized, but the idea should be rejected. Let property owners install EV charging stations at their own pace based on the market demand for them. EV charging stations have grown rapidly across the country for the past several years without mandates like the one Brentwood officials are considering.

In the near future, equipping townhomes and apartments with EV charging stations may indeed make good business sense, either to keep existing tenants or attract new ones. But shouldn’t business and property owners be the ones deciding where to place EV charging stations rather than government officials?

The post Brentwood Considering Mandating EV Charging Stations in New Townhomes and Apartments appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

* Edmundson's Commercial Rate of 0.5 was just raised to 1.0.

** The total commercial property in these cities is so small that it raises very little money, whatever the rate may be.

Assessed values and rates are 2014 figures taken from the Missouri State Auditor's Office 2014 Property Tax Rates

Former Show-Me Institute Policy Researcher Michael Rathbone has taken Edmundson to task over this issue before, but the other municipalities listed have similar (if less extreme) taxation policies, shifting much of the cost of government services away from residents and onto commercial property owners. Residents in these areas might enjoy the low tax rates on their property (if they pay property tax at all), but it is short-sighted—not to mention unfair—to expect the owners of commercial property to pick up the slack.

The post Higher Property Taxes: The Cost of Doing Business? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

According to University City Council member Paulette Carr, the delay was caused by a lack of mutual aid. Ordinarily when there is an emergency call in University City, EMS personnel and firefighters from surrounding cities such as Clayton and Brentwood are available to help. Most of the fire departments in this part of the county provide relief for one another to help lighten the load and improve response times. This is how mutual aid works.

According to Carr, Clayton had an ambulance ready to go. Under these circumstances, a 15-minute delay was unnecessary.

We’ve been told by reliable sources that the other fire departments in the region recently blacklisted University City from the mutual aid agreement. University City contracted out for EMS with a private company earlier this month, against the wishes of some of the bosses in the county firefighters union. The result: if you don’t play by our rules, we won’t cooperate with you.

When there’s a labor dispute between a private sector union and a private business, it doesn’t cause this kind of problem. If UPS and the Teamsters can’t work well together, consumers can use FedEx instead. There is not an alternative fire service for citizens of University City to use. When it comes to the government, union executives cannot afford to let petty disagreements stop the delivery of services.

A handful of executives in the St. Louis County firefighters union seem to be playing games with people’s lives. If they can’t put service to the public above getting their way on every little thing, then perhaps they don’t belong in our government. 

The post Playing Games with Lives appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Another long-time example of shared services is emergency dispatch. We wrote a number of blog posts about the issue several years ago. Few cities have operated their own emergency call centers, which is a good thing. There are obvious economies of scale in sharing resources here, which is why so many cities have done it.

Brentwood is a particularly wealthy city due to the high level of shopping within the city, the high assessed valuation combined with limited government-service needs of Brentwood Forest, and more. So, it has been able to do something on its own that other cities have not been able to afford, such as operating its own emergency dispatch. There is nothing automatically wrong with that, but now officials are thinking about trying to save money by participating in the East Central Dispatch Service 9-1-1 center, which serves many other cities in mid-Saint Louis County.

I think this is a no-brainer “yes” decision for Brentwood. Even if the short-term savings are small, the long-term benefits of being in the larger system would be noticeable, primarily, greater access to a larger pool of resources (technology, employees, back-up systems, etc). Phone calls do not take longer to get to Olivette than they take to get to Brentwood. There are certain things cities do NOT have to do themselves, and emergency dispatch is at the top of the list.

Let’s be honest here. Opposition to this is about protecting public sector jobs in Brentwood, not about public safety. Brentwood should participate in the East Central Dispatch Service.

The post Brentwood Should Join Consolidated 9-1-1 System appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Specifically, the vetoed legislation aimed to shelter public entities from disclosing minutes, votes, and records; it also allowed for closed meetings.

Without public access to important information — whether it is school district board minutes or the budget of fire protection districts — injustices may go unnoticed and our public officials may be tempted to act in unethical and elusive ways.

Take, for example, a recent embezzlement scandal in Brentwood. As Chad Carson reported, the city administrator of the suburban municipality was found to have stolen nearly $30,000 of city funds. That money, largely from tax receipts, was thrown away at a riverboat casino. Increased government accountability is the only effective solution Missouri citizens have to prevent such abuses in the future.

It is improbable to assume that the general public will suddenly besiege public entities with information requests — commonly known as Sunshine Law Requests. Therefore, the protection of this right is critical to policy analysts and journalists statewide who, in their endeavor for truth, rely on accountability. After all, your government cannot be accountable without transparency.

We often chastise our elected officials’ performance — ironic, since we elect them. However, when they strive to bolster the sense of public duty, as Gov. Nixon illustrated here, some praise and an attaboy are due.

So now, even as the mercury seems to higher and higher each day, Missourians can feel good about greater openness, transparency, and accountability in government.

The post Veto by Nixon Secures Transparency of MO Government appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Would it surprise you to learn that the State Auditor does not have the jurisdiction to audit the Brentwood Fire Protection District?

According to the State Auditor’s website:

The State Auditor’s office does not have original jurisdiction over most local governmental entities except school districts or counties with no county auditor. Therefore, the only way the State Auditor’s office can obtain jurisdiction to perform an audit in these areas is either through the petition process, or through a governor’s request.

This year, the Brentwood Fire Department has been allotted $2,190,664 from the city budget. The Post-Dispatch alleges that anywhere between $12,000 and $28,000 was misused every year.  The city could hire an independent auditing firm to investigate, but various firms have missed this is in the past.

If Brentwood residents want the State Auditor to review how their taxpayer dollars are spent, residents must petition for an audit. According to Ch. 29.230 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, the petition requires a minimum number of signatures. In Brentwood’s case, the petition would need 15 percent of the total number of ballots cast for a gubernatorial candidate in the most recent election.

In the 2008 General Election, 4,805 of the 5,738 registered voters in Brentwood cast ballots, according to information provided by the St. Louis County Board of Election Commissioners.  Some of those ballots may not have included votes for a gubernatorial candidate, but, assuming that they did, 721 registered voters must sign the petition to trigger an audit under state law.

For additional information regarding an audit request, please visit the State Auditor’s website by clicking here.

The post A “How To” Guide for Brentwood Residents appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

But, as anyone who has lived in the St. Louis area for a long time knows, tax increment financing is not always so successful.  The St. Louis Business Journal article reminds us of the year 1991, when the city of St. Louis backed the bonds for Midland Group’s $53 million St. Louis Marketplace. When the retail center didn’t meet revenue projections, the city was on the hook for $3 million. Also instructive is a January 2009 report by the East-West Gateway Council of Governments, which found that 80 percent of TIF money during the previous 15 years was devoted to retail projects, and that instead of creating growth, the process has simply moved temporary growth around.

Even when TIFs are successful, such as in the case of Brentwood Promenade, there are numerous other concerns with using this financing method. Although TIFs are intended to be used to develop “blighted” areas, they are often utilized in areas where development would have happened anyway, which deprives municipalities of revenues in the short term that are instead being used to pay for the project. Even worse, the designation of “blight” can allow the government to condemn property through the use of eminent domain.

But perhaps the most insidious trait of tax increment financing is that it gives government the power to decide exactly which developments will take place, and where, rather than allowing development to happen as it naturally would under market conditions. The economic advantages afforded to those who receive the TIF open the door for political favoritism, which should have no place in development. Equally important, it is not the government’s responsibility to oversee retail development — which, as the East-West Gateway report shows, characterizes the overwhelming majority of these projects in the St. Louis area. So, even when these retail projects are successful and the city benefits, do the ends justify the means?

The post Do the Ends Justify the Means? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First — and this should be pointed out every time a politician talks about creating jobs — it should be pointed out that jobs are a cost, not a benefit. Goods and services are the benefits we get from the cost of working, and if we can create more goods and services with less work, we should. If Metro could transport the same number of people just as efficiently with half as many employees, that would be a clear benefit to the overall economy (Metro might even come close to breaking even if that happened). Furthermore, creating jobs by spending tax dollars ignores the unseen costs of the taxes. If that money had not been taxed away, taxpayers would have spent it on a multitude of goods and services, or saved it to be lent out to entrepreneurs, home buyers, and the like. With the tax in place, those goods, services, and loans (and the wages that depended on them) will never exist, so we will never know the true opportunity costs of spending more tax dollars on Metro.

With regards to the statement’s second sentence, the mailer never claims that the $15 billion in new development near the MetroLink was actually caused by the MetroLink. I take the absence of such a claim to be good evidence that Advance Saint Louis has no good evidence that MetroLink has substantially contributed to this new development. I’m sure MetroLink is at least a marginal factor in some of this development, but I’m sure a much bigger factor is that MetroLink runs through the most desired areas in the Saint Louis area: downtown, the Central West End, Washington University, Brentwood, Clayton, etc. MetroLink follows development, not the other way around.

Finally, the bottom of the mailer informs us that Metro “operates with one of the lowest costs per passenger to the taxpayer,” which ignores two important points: 1) relative comparisons tell us nothing about the absolute costs and benefits of the system and 2) a new tax to support Metro will obviously lower Metro’s ranking on that metric.

The post Advancing Saint Louis through Bad Economics appeared first on Show-Me Institute.