Patrick Tuohey and David Stokes join Zach Lawhorn to break down the key issues Missouri voters will decide on April 7th. They discuss whether local elections should stay in April or move to November, property tax limit votes happening in more than 90 counties, new fire district sales tax authority and what it means for taxpayers, the 1% earnings tax renewals in Kansas City and St. Louis, and Springfield’s convention center lodging tax returning to the ballot after voters already rejected it. They also discuss use taxes, senior property tax freezes, the economic development sales tax on the ballot in O’Fallon, and more.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post Missouri’s April 7 Ballot Breakdown with David Stokes and Patrick Tuohey appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Property tax relief has become a rallying cry for state policymakers across the country. Frustration over rising home values and the cost of living has driven lawmakers in states including Indiana, Ohio, and Wyoming to enact sweeping property tax cuts in recent sessions. But while these measures may look attractive on the campaign trail, they are already putting real strain on local governments that depend on property taxes to fund schools, public safety, and other essential services.

An article in the publication Governing titled “State Property Tax Relief Pushes Local Budgets to the Brink” highlights this emerging dynamic. Lawmakers in several states have pursued homeowner tax credits, rate caps, or other limitations without fully compensating counties, cities, and school districts for the revenue they lose. The result? Significant budget shortfalls, belt-tightening by local governments, and even more political pressure from local leaders to revisit state legislation cutting their revenue.

These developments matter to Missouri because they illustrate the unintended consequences of well-meaning tax cuts. As my colleague David Stokes has written in testimony before the Missouri Legislature, Missouri depends on property taxes to fund local services efficiently, and ill-designed state interventions can do more harm than good. Stokes emphasized that “Missouri’s property assessment and tax system needs reforms, but efforts to reduce it dramatically or eliminate it entirely go too far,” and that the state should not trade one revenue problem for another by hollowing out the tax base localities rely on.

What’s happening outside of Missouri mirrors Stokes’ concerns. In Indiana, a roughly $1.2 billion homeowner tax relief package enacted in 2025 will cost local governments an estimated $1.5 billion over three years, forcing many towns and counties to cut services or revise budgets mid-cycle. Wyoming’s 25 percent cut on assessed home value for tax purposes similarly leaves schools—which receive roughly 70 percent of property tax revenue—scrambling to balance their books.

Stokes has warned that limiting property tax growth without careful policy design reduces the property tax base, shifting the burden to other, more distortionary taxes. He argues that property taxes—particularly on land and real estate—are among the least harmful taxes to economic growth compared with income or sales taxes. Wholesale caps or freezes discourage local fiscal responsibility.

Missouri’s recent property tax changes—including the creation of “zero percent” and “five percent” counties where valuations can’t drive tax increases without voter approval—reflect a similar temptation to cut taxes without addressing the broader revenue implications. Stokes has noted that such approaches may do little to improve fairness while shrinking the tax base that supports schools and local services.

If policymakers in the Show-Me State pay attention to the experience of other states, they’ll proceed with caution. Cutting property taxes without sustainable alternate revenue exacerbates budget stress for counties and schools and shifts costs to taxes that are more damaging to growth, such as income or sales taxes. Ensuring that relief targets those most in need—as opposed to broad caps that change how local governments fund core services—preserves local autonomy and avoids the fiscal cliff other states are now confronting.

Missouri’s leaders should focus on reforms that improve fairness and economic efficiency—not simply reducing bills at the expense of services Missourians value.

The post David Stokes Was Right: Property Tax Caps Are Squeezing Local Budgets Nationwide appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Susan Pendergrass is joined by Elias Tsapelas, director of state budget and fiscal policy at the Show-Me Institute, to explain what was actually at stake in the recent federal government shutdown. They break down the debate over extended Affordable Care Act subsidies, why health insurance costs keep rising, how COVID-era provisions distorted the marketplace, and what Congress may do next.

Listen on Spotify

Listen on Apple Podcasts 

Listen on SoundCloud

Timestamps

00:00 Understanding the Government Shutdown
06:31 The Debate Over ACA Subsidies
09:10 Impact of the Affordable Care Act
13:24 Proposals for Health Care Reform
17:53 The Future of Health Care Costs

Transcript

Susan Pendergrass (00:00)
Well, this is going to be a very timely and interesting conversation with the Show-Me Institute’s own Elias Tsapelas. You are the Director of State Budget and Fiscal Policy, two things that are front and center right now, but I really wanted to just have you on to talk about a little bit of stuff around the recent government shutdown.

And I just want to say upfront, if I understand this correctly, the federal government can’t pay its bills unless it’s got an approved budget to pay the bills, right? And the fiscal year runs October 1st to September 30th. And if you don’t have a new budget for the next year, you can’t pay your bills. So it’s up to the Senate, the House, and the President to agree on a budget. And this past September, as has happened before, they could not agree, and Democrats were holding out, and that caused the government to shut down. What were Democrats saying they were holding out for?

Elias Tsapelas (00:52)
Well, I guess I should start with just a little caveat that some of what the Democrats were saying they were holding out for was not precisely what was on the table. So no matter what happens, health care premiums are going to be going up, that’s just a fact, because health care costs are up. Health care costs are going up everywhere. Hospitals, Medicaid, we see it everywhere.

Susan Pendergrass (00:56)
You know, fix it up for me. Why?

Elias Tsapelas (01:20)
What they were holding out for were these extended or expanded ACA subsidies, Affordable Care Act subsidies. We’re talking about the marketplace here. This is typically for people making between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty limit. For example, a couple of two: 100 percent of the federal poverty limit is about $21,000 per year, 400 percent is about $85,000 per year. That’s roughly the range you’re looking at.

Now, some small employers do purchase plans through the marketplace, but the big piece here is that the ACA provides subsidies for people. And the way it works, essentially, is that people pay a proportion of their income. If your income is 100 percent of the federal poverty limit, you’re going to pay roughly 2 percent of your income. Now, there are extended subsidies that change that calculation. But the point being, the law set out that if you make this amount of money, you’re only going to pay this much on health insurance, and the government is going to subsidize the rest. You are not sensitive to costs at all, because your costs are tied to your income.

Susan Pendergrass (02:54)
So, for example, if you earn $4,000 a month, theoretically, and I don’t know the numbers, the government would say you won’t pay any more than $300 in insurance premiums?

Elias Tsapelas (03:05)
Yep. And so that is a percentage that you pay scaled off how much income you have from that 100 to 400 percent. That is a core piece of how the Affordable Care Act worked, and everyone paid a portion based on the base subsidies.

Now, what the debate was about, or what Democrats were holding out for, was expanded subsidies, which came about during COVID as part of the American Rescue Plan, ARPA. And it did a couple things, but they were subsidies on top of regular subsidies. So this was not, “If this doesn’t happen, everyone is going to be paying unsubsidized plans.” This was an additional type of subsidy. These additional subsidies were set to expire at the end of the year, at the end of December. ARPA gave four years of subsidies.

Susan Pendergrass (04:04)
Because it was COVID related, temporary, and they said, “We’ll cover more of your premium through December 31, 2025.”

Elias Tsapelas (04:14)
Yes, I think part of the calculation was that people were going to like it so much that it would be hard to get rid of. And it’s certainly the case: if these subsidies go away, people will be paying more.

Susan Pendergrass (04:15)
Ahem.

Elias Tsapelas (04:27)
But that is not to say there would be no subsidies at all. These extended subsidies did a couple things. For people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, quick caveat: in Missouri, if you make under 138 percent, you’re on Medicaid, so you don’t pay anything, but in many states without Medicaid expansion, people go on the marketplace. What these expanded subsidies did is: if you made between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, you paid zero percent of your income. You got a plan for free.

You would still have some cost sharing, and the sliding scale up to 400 percent that the normal subsidies used was lowered, so people under regular subsidies who made 400 percent of the federal poverty limit were paying about 10 percent of their income. With the expanded subsidies, you’d only pay 8.5 percent, and the subsidies no longer stopped at 400 percent. They would go all the way up. You would never pay more than 8.5 percent of your income.

Susan Pendergrass (05:30)
Okay.

Elias Tsapelas (05:42)
But typically, people above 400 percent of the federal poverty limit don’t want to buy ACA plans because 8.5 percent of income is expensive. Still, a decent number of people were impacted. It costs a decent amount of money. The Congressional Budget Office says extending these expanded subsidies costs about $350 billion over 10 years. Very expensive. But there are a lot of issues here, which Republicans are pushing back on as they negotiate whether to extend these by the end of the year.

Susan Pendergrass (06:31)
So now we’re in this argument of whether we extend COVID subsidies or not. And like you said, Republicans seemed willing to say maybe a year, or maybe we’ll vote on it in December. Essentially the Democrats didn’t get any of what they asked for, right?

Elias Tsapelas (06:48)
Yeah. A key piece is that when Democrats passed this in ARPA, no Republicans voted for it. There’s a variety of reasons, but a big one is that it exacerbates problems with the Affordable Care Act. People buying health insurance are seeing higher prices, high deductibles, high copays, so people don’t want to buy it. These additional subsidies got more people into the market, but at a very expensive cost. And because people are not cost sensitive, their share is tied to their income, the subsidies scale regardless of what insurance companies charge. That creates unintended effects. There were allegations of fraud. And a larger discussion: if we’re going to spend $350 billion per 10 years, is there not a better way to get healthier people to buy health insurance? Is there a better way to help people?

And the people most impacted are those around 400 percent of the federal poverty limit, not very low income people. Higher income people. And often near retirement folks who aren’t working anymore but aren’t yet on Medicare. They need health insurance, they have health needs, and insurance gets very expensive. That was something the Affordable Care Act tried to deal with. But doubling down on continuously funding this subsidy system is something Republicans didn’t want to do.

Susan Pendergrass (09:10)
Yeah. So we had Brian Blase of Paragon on the podcast, and he absolutely did not want those COVID related subsidies extended. He claimed that the Affordable Care Act caused health related expenses to go up. Do you know how that works?

Elias Tsapelas (09:45)
There are a couple things going on. One big thing Brian talks about is likely enormous fraud from the expanded subsidies. Bloomberg had a good article about what happened in Florida. As soon as the federal government offered zero premium plans for people between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit, background: Florida hasn’t expanded Medicaid, so people enroll on the marketplace. What happened is that it became a business for insurance brokers to get people enrolled. Brokers make money off enrollments, and people don’t care if they aren’t paying premiums.

So you had an enormous increase in people supposedly making between 100 and 150 percent of the federal poverty limit. Census data suggests far fewer people actually make that income. Tons were getting health insurance for free, and many weren’t using it. You’d expect higher usage. There are reasons to think there was widespread fraud.

More broadly, ACA plans must cover many things people don’t need, which drives up costs. And the marketplace risk pool is heavily made up of sick people, fewer healthy people, which makes insurance expensive.

So the bigger discussion is: how do you get healthier people into the market? How do you offer plans people want? Republicans are taking a stand that doubling down on the ACA model, with subsidies disconnected from costs, won’t work long term.

Susan Pendergrass (13:24)
Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but didn’t Senator Thune or somebody suggest just sending people $5,000?

Elias Tsapelas (13:30)
I don’t know if it was exactly that amount, but yes, there have been proposals essentially saying: maybe there will need to be a one year extension of subsidies because new plans start soon and it would be hard to roll out big changes in a month. But some ideas, from Senator Cassidy, Senator Thune, and others, propose approving the same amount of money but sending it directly to people instead of insurance companies. For many people, subsidies are worth over $30,000 a year. If people got $30,000, they might not spend it all on an ACA plan costing that much. They might buy a cheaper plan, use out of pocket spending, or seek non ACA compliant plans. There are ideas: HSAs, short term plans, specialized plans. A key piece is giving the money to people, not insurance companies, so someone has an incentive to reduce costs.

Susan Pendergrass (15:47)
Yeah. Well, the shutdown ended. Nothing really changed, right?

Elias Tsapelas (15:52)
Yeah. Congress will have to work a lot in the last month of the year. I’m a little disappointed. There were almost some very interesting budget related court cases that could have come from the shutdown. One argument was whether the government must fund food stamps, or SNAP, during a shutdown, whether they must give out money not appropriated. Some judges said yes. That raises major questions: can courts tell the executive branch to spend money Congress didn’t appropriate?

Susan Pendergrass (16:54)
I think they were told that they don’t, right, in the end?

Elias Tsapelas (16:59)
The Supreme Court basically said courts needed to wrestle with the issue. It got resolved before a final answer. We don’t know for now. Judges were on different sides. Democrats pushed back noting that in previous budgets, they fought to fund things, but the executive branch simply didn’t spend the money. There’s a lot of interesting stuff: can courts force funding, can the executive disregard congressional appropriations? I’m upset that didn’t get resolved. But the ACA issue is big enough that Congress has its hands full.

Susan Pendergrass (17:53)
Some folks said that because of the SNAP benefit question, we were just getting to the point where Americans were paying attention to the shutdown and then it ended. And what’s interesting is the amount of misinformation and hard to follow information. I saw headlines about someone’s insurance premiums going from $300 to $2,600. I don’t know if any of that was right, but it got a lot of play.

Elias Tsapelas (18:28)
I don’t think it was covered especially well in terms of what was being argued, because the government shut down far before these subsidies expired. There was a lot of muddying of the waters. Some people thought if subsidies weren’t extended, no one would have subsidies, even though the people most impacted would just go from paying 8.5 percent of income to 10 percent. Not nothing, but not catastrophic.

Health care costs are going up broadly. Medicare enrollees are getting renewal notices. Everything is going up. ARPA was designed to be temporary. If it were supposed to be permanent, Congress could have made it permanent. Whether Democrats thought it would be continued forever or just help temporarily is unclear. But if Congress comes up with something that makes health insurance better, I’m all for it. There are tough decisions. Congress has struggled with ACA reform for a decade.

Susan Pendergrass (20:20)
I think we know the answer to that. At the federal level, when they want to do big splashy things, ARPA, the ACA, the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, they make expenses short term to reduce the fiscal note, assuming someone will renew them later. Same thing with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. They assume future lawmakers will extend them. So it’s not unreasonable that ARPA had temporary provisions assuming they’d get extended. I guess not this time.

Elias Tsapelas (21:12)
People’s health care costs going up is a big issue. People won’t be happy regardless. But returning to issues that should have been addressed when the ACA passed is important. The marketplace is dysfunctional and too expensive. Hopefully Congress finds something better. And I don’t want to minimize issues for people close to retirement. That’s a big issue: people between 55 and 65, not on Medicare yet, often have significant health needs. If you tell a 60 year old who isn’t working that coverage is $40,000 a year, that won’t work.

Susan Pendergrass (21:53)
Yeah. That’s right.

Elias Tsapelas (22:23)
More options will be good. That is an important group that needs to be addressed.

Susan Pendergrass (23:07)
Well, thanks for explaining it so clearly and helping our listeners understand what was actually on the table. It’s a complicated topic, but we’ll watch it unfold over the next year, and hopefully you’ll come back and explain what’s happening as it unfolds.

Elias Tsapelas (23:23)
Hopefully something does happen, so there is something to explain. That would be the best case scenario.

Susan Pendergrass (23:25)
That’s right. All right, well, thanks so much, Elias. Really appreciate it.

Elias Tsapelas (23:31)
Thank you.

Produced by Show-Me Opportunity

The post What the Government Shutdown Was Really About with Elias Tsapelas appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

One thing I noticed about all the cities that I listed is that they contain lots of “U’s” and “L’s,” so I guess we know who the patron saint of this blog post is.

A use tax is simply a sales tax imposed on goods you purchase online or via catalogue and have delivered to your home. Municipal use taxes in Missouri actually predate the internet, but not surprisingly, most cities didn’t pass them until online shopping took off over the past fifteen years or so.

I am generally unsympathetic to the idea that these cities need a tax increase. If Creve Coeur needs more tax revenue, why did it just pass an enormous tax abatement in a very prosperous area that absolutely does not need tax subsidies to encourage development? If Festus needs more tax revenue, why did it put the fix in to sell its water system to another public entity without going out for bids as good government principles require? I don’t have any specific criticisms of Ladue, but I highly doubt the city is in financial trouble. This famous doggerel about Boston Brahmins could easily have been written about Ladue:

And this is good old Boston,
The home of the bean and the cod,
Where the Lowells speak only to Cabots,
And the Cabots speak only to God.

My view is that use taxes are a good way to expand the tax base, level the playing field for businesses, and raise local revenues. However, this last point is key. They should not be used simply as a way for cities to get more revenue. Cutting other taxes after the use tax is imposed (should voters pass it)—especially if you have a particularly harmful tax — is a great way to achieve the above benefits without a tax windfall for the city. Cities can lower their property tax rates, reduce their utility tax rates, or adjust other sales taxes (altering sales tax rates is much trickier than other types of taxes).

I don’t know if any of these cities have pledged to reduce other taxes if the use tax passes. Without such a pledge, the use tax would likely be a significant revenue gain for the city. If you think your city, town, or village actually needs that revenue, then so be it. But I’d be hard-pressed to buy that for the cities listed above, especially Ladue, Creve Coeur, and Festus.

The post Use Taxes on the Ballot in Missouri This November appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The primary candidate under consideration now, David Cameron, the current city manager in nearby Republic, is controversial, so I read, because he is a “disrupter.” That’s great if you are leading a start-up in Silicon Valley. Is it great for a midwestern city? You tell me. According to the story in the News-Leader:

David has probably stepped on a few toes along the way, it would be impossible, unrealistic to think that you would be able to make everybody happy in the process of doing your job,” [Springfield Chamber of Commerce Chairman, Bob Helm] said. “His leadership style is bold. He operates with confidence. He’s become a great problem-solver and has also been very responsive to those who approach him along the way.

If his disruptive leadership style is used to push the city employees in Republic, to work harder, then that sounds great to me. If is it used to think “bold” and offer lots of tax incentives, then count me out. Here is a story about how Republic gave a big tax break to Amazon to open a distribution center there and how the city manager got a pay raise because of it. (The story is also noteworthy as it does a good job of looking at all sides of the issue instead of just repeating press releases from the government about how great tax incentives are.)

Too often, “visionary” or “bold” local leadership just leads to local delusions about how great a city can be instead of just trying to provide the necessary services to its residents.

In fairness to Republic, the city, overall, doesn’t appear to offer that many tax incentives, so legitimate criticism of the Amazon deal needs to acknowledge that. In Springfield, they are taking their time to decide on the city manager position, and getting that decision right is worth the wait.

For much more on the evidence about the plusses and minuses of professional city management, check out my first free-market municipality guide, which goes into that debate in detail.

The post Springfield Takes Its Time Hiring a City Manager appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Somebody much smarter than I am is going to have to explain to me how sending this money to a private entity does not violate this section of Missouri’s constitution:

No county, city or other political corporation or subdivision of the state shall be authorized to lend its credit or grant public money or property to any private individual, association or corporation . . .

Stick with me here. This is county tax money being granted to a private business. Unless words no longer have meaning, this move by the council is legally dubious at best.

There has long been a fight about earmarks in the federal government. With earmarks, members of Congress can simply request that funding be added in for projects they wish, outside of the standard merit-based or competitive funds allocation process. This money for farms in north St. Louis County is an earmark, for all intents and purposes. Yes, it went through the legislative process, but it has not been subject to any of the other rules for how local governments spend money, such as competitive bidding.

Turning St. Louis County’s annual budget of more than a billion dollars into a grab bag of pet projects is the last thing we need for local government in Missouri.  I hope the county executive vetoes this bill and I hope his veto is sustained.

The post Earmarks Come to St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

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.

The post Platte County Commission Decision Not to Levy Taxes Upheld in Court appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post County Manager for St. Louis County appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In a city or county manager system, the manager is employed by elected officials to run the day-to-day operations in a (hopefully) non-partisan and less politicized manner. Many municipalities use city managers or city administrators (a very similar system where the professional manager has slightly less power) in Missouri, including Kansas City and Springfield. Clay County is the only county that uses a county-manager system; it just instituted the system in 2021. The system works well, in my opinion, for small to mid-sized cities. I am less sold on this system for larger cities and, especially, counties.

Overall, the academic evidence suggests that adopting professional management would reduce corruption, improve financial reporting, lead to more broadly focused legislation (and fewer narrowly targeted measures), reduce political conflict, and increase innovative policy thinking (in ways both good and bad). These changes would be generally beneficial for the City of St. Louis and St. Louis County, though the idea that politicians would now have more time for “innovative” thinking terrifies me. Usually, that “innovation” means harmful policies involving subsidies and mandates.

On the other hand, there is not enough evidence to state that professional management would significantly affect taxes and spending, government employee pay levels, or the quality of local services, despite what proponents of city manager systems claim.

The last claim regarding the quality of local services is key. Would the adoption of a city or county manager improve the quality of basic governmental services? (For example, would the snow get cleared off the roads faster under a city manager?) The presumption of better service quality with professional management is common, and it may be correct in some cases. But the evidence is not as clear as its supporters would suggest. Professional management might well perform better than management by elected officials. But as one academic stated, “For decades, analysts have presumed this performance gap exists, but they have yet to empirically demonstrate that any differences actually exist.”

Interestingly, the one proven downside of professional management is lower voter turnout for local elections. It seems that when you depoliticize local government (which is not a bad thing), people understandably depoliticize their own involvement with local government.

I remain unconvinced that professional management is the cure for the governmental problems in the City of St. Louis or St. Louis County. Adding another layer of bureaucracy is rarely the right solution.

The post Is Professional, Non-Partisan Management the Solution for St. Louis Government? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Is this legal? Perhaps.

Is this wrong? Absolutely.

The Hancock Amendment clearly states that new taxes and tax increases have to be approved by voters. Here is Section 22(A) of the state constitution (emphasis added throughout):

Section 22. (a) Counties and other political subdivisions are hereby prohibited from levying any tax, license or fees, not authorized by law, charter or self-enforcing provisions of the constitution when this section is adopted or from increasing the current levy of an existing tax, license or fees, above that current levy authorized by law or charter when this section is adopted without the approval of the required majority of the qualified voters of that county or other political subdivision voting thereon.

However, there are a few exceptions. The one the city seems to be relying on here is in RSMO 137.073.5, which states that a city that has previously voluntarily lowered its property tax rate below the legal ceiling may raise it up to that ceiling without a vote of the people.

However, the state auditor’s annual report on property taxes (page 4) explains how this works:

Sections 137.073.5(3) and 137.073.5(4), RSMo, provide that a voluntary reduction taken in a non-reassessment year (even numbered year) results in a reduced tax rate ceiling during the following reassessment year (odd numbered year). These provisions also allow taxing authorities that voluntarily reduce a tax rate in a previous even numbered year to reverse the impact of the voluntary reduction to reinstate a higher tax rate ceiling in the following even numbered year. To increase the tax rate in the following even numbered year, the taxing authority must conduct a public hearing, and adopt an ordinance, a resolution, or a policy statement justifying its action before setting and certifying its tax rate.

That explanation makes clear that the laws above are intended for reductions and increases that occur in subsequent years. The idea that Town and Country could reduce its property tax rate to zero and then increase it 27 years later without a vote of the people is, frankly, absurd. It’s a total violation of the spirit of the Hancock Amendment.

While this may not be a violation of the law, it is appalling. The residents of Town and Country have every right to be angry that they are being denied their right to vote by the city. Furthermore, if it is legal (and I am hoping someone challenges it in court) this loophole needs to be addressed by the state legislature. A city or county should not be able to set a tax rate for 27 years at zero and then just raise it because two generations ago voters approved a higher rate the city just hasn’t used.

This sort of chicanery is an example of local government at its worst.

The post Does the Hancock Amendment Mean Anything to Town and Country? appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

In David Stokes’ latest report, A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities, the first in a series, he outlines how adopting free-market policies can positively transform municipalities across the state. The report discusses specific ways to encourage competition, streamline bureaucracy, and empower residents to choose services that best meet their needs.

This first installment focuses on the structure and organization of municipal governments, with subsequent guides planned to address taxation, transportation, public safety, and more.

Click here to download the full report.

The post A Free-Market Guide for Missouri Municipalities: Part One: Municipal Organization and Structure appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

The post St. Louis County Council Bill 153 appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

First, Ferguson has decided that it is going to pull the business licenses of businesses that are behind on their property taxes. America learned in the late 1700s that it was a bad idea to throw debtors in prison because, well, how can they pay their debts if they can’t work because they are in prison? Robert Morris—one of the underappreciated founding fathers—was the poster child for these changes. If Ferguson policymakers were only considering pulling the licenses of businesses that owned their property, they would at least have an argument. But Ferguson has decided to pull the licenses of businesses that rent their space, meaning they aren’t late on their taxes at all because they don’t owe any property taxes—their landlords do. So, if the landlord doesn’t pay the tax, the rent-paying business will lose their license. That is, to put it bluntly, an atrocious policy.

Nearby in Bellefontaine Neighbors, the city has decided to address a budget deficit by instituting a fee to be a landlord in the city. It is a $300 annual fee per home or apartment being rented charged to every landlord. The fee was enacted in late 2022, but is in the news now because a landlord just sued over it. This fee is on top of the existing—and more understandable—inspection ($75) and occupancy permit ($40) fees that landlords and tenants already pay. Of course, they pay property taxes, too. The city was facing a projected budget deficit of a few hundred thousand dollars when it created the fee. I guess the easiest solution was to just stick it to landlords.

I hope both of these bad policies will lose in court. Ferguson shouldn’t deny a business license to people (the renters) who don’t even owe the property tax in the first place. Bellefontaine Neighbors’ voters did not approve the new tax, and I don’t know how the city can call it a fee when it already charges existing fees to cover the costs imposed by landlords and renters.

The Missouri Constitution says all local taxes have to be authorized under state law. Thank God for that. Cities, as seen in these two examples here, are constantly looking for opportunities to raise revenue improperly even with the state law (as the City of St. Louis successfully did with its payroll tax). I can’t imagine how bad local taxes and fees would be without it. We would probably be an entire state of Macks Creeks.

The post Prime Examples of Bad Government in St. Louis County Cities appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

I don’t mean Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs), or the Distinguished Budget Award that seemingly every city under the sun gets.

I mean an audit. The type of audit that gives people nightmares and, presumably, makes them more careful in their accounting and reporting out of fear.

In recent years, we have seen plenty of examples of failed accounting procedures in local government. There have been outright thefts, failures to competitively bid contracts, plenty of conflicts of interest and cronyism, and much more. I don’t think that politicians and bureaucrats in Missouri are less honest than in other states, but I do think that the huge number of small municipalities and other special taxing districts in our state gives them more opportunities for varying degrees of corruption.

We have seen local auditors who totally failed to do their jobs. Seriously, check out these links to the St. Louis County auditor’s page and be amazed at how few audits the office has actually performed over the past decade.

There is a bill in Jefferson City that expands the ability of the state auditor to preemptively begin audits of local governments when there is evidence of problems. Currently, the auditor needs to be invited by local officials or receive a petition from citizens. The former isn’t always done by local officials—for obvious reasons—and the latter can be time consuming and difficult.

This proposal, which is now on the governor’s desk, is an excellent one. It would benefit the taxpayers of our state.

Would it make local officials and bureaucrats nervous? I certainly hope so.

The post The Type of Audit We Can All Agree On appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

On April 2, the residents are voting on disincorporating the city. This disincorporation proposal is a clear example of the Anna Karenina Principle at work. This is the rare example where the municipality’s zoning codes are less strict than the county’s codes. Some residents of the area want to disincorporate the city because they are opposed to a treatment center being built in the village. Building the center is legal under the village’s rules but would be illegal (from a zoning perspective) under the county rules. This is a twist on a zoning fight that you don’t see every day.

It is also worth noting the strange circumstances under which the village came into existence in 2008:

In 2007, the Missouri Legislature had passed a controversial law, supported by former Speaker of the House Rod Jetton, to help a wealthy donor create his own village. The donor wanted to bypass building and zoning regulations in southwest Missouri. The short-sighted law was repealed a year later, but dozens of landowners across the state had already tried to take advantage of it.

There is a part of this fight where I side with the municipality. According to some village leaders, the village is allowing the building of some treatment centers after the county has prevented their construction elsewhere. I am not in a position to verify that claim, but I personally think it should be easier for charities to build treatment and charitable shelters in Missouri.

But in the bigger picture, would Missouri benefit from having fewer small municipalities like Peaceful Village? Probably, but not necessarily in each instance. The worst abuses at the local government level in Missouri are found in the special taxing districts like TDDs and CIDs. Yes, we are awash in bad municipal policies in Missouri, but those policies are  found in large, medium, and small municipalities.

In recent years, we have had municipalities in Missouri disincorporate because of corruption, flooding, and, perhaps most commonly, just a general malaise about the community. I don’t know where Peaceful Village fits in on that list. To paraphrase Tolstoy, every unhappy village is unhappy in its own way.

I am glad the people of the village are voting on disincorporation. If the village isn’t meeting the needs of its residents in a manner that justifies the taxes it charges (which I think are comparatively low), then it deserves to go away. That will be up to the residents and voters, as it should be.

The post In Peaceful Village, the Voters Vote Next Month appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

There is probably no better opportunity for counties and municipalities to share services and save tax money than in emergency 911 dispatching services. As vital as the service is, if the technology is effective and the operator is properly trained, it makes no difference if the emergency call is answered down the block in New Madrid, Missouri, or across the ocean in old Madrid, Spain.

In southeastern Missouri, Perry County and the City of Perryville reviewed numerous options for upgrading their 911 system. In late 2023, they determined that the best option from a service and cost perspective was to contract with neighboring St. Francois County, which has already implemented the improved technology a modern 911 system requires. Perplexingly, some residents of Perry County have objected to this.

According to news reports, the main objection is the loss of a few 911 system jobs, as if the main role of local government is to keep as many people on the payroll as possible. That’s how political machines function, not quality local government. The objectors have succeeded in putting the consolidation question on the upcoming April election ballot. Hopefully, the voters will value tax savings and improved public safety over government job protections.

Many counties and cities around Missouri share emergency operations dispatching. County sheriff’s departments can do more than simply share service with other county sheriffs; they can operate together with city police departments, fire districts, university police departments, ambulance districts, and more. The economies of scale here allow for implementation of better technology in larger 911 systems, saving taxpayer money. The city of Flint, Michigan, saved over a million dollars a year and was able to eliminate 23 positions by joining the Genesee County 911 system.

To give a Missouri example of savings for taxpayers, Lake Ozark recently contracted with Miller County to handle its 911 system. Lake Ozark will save around $200,000 per year in direct costs while avoiding spending even more to upgrade its own soon-to-be obsolete 911 system.

Closer to Perry County, the Cape Girardeau County sheriff’s 911 dispatch system handles calls not only for the sheriff but also for eight other fire and ambulance districts and police, fire, and ambulance calls for Jackson. Does anyone seriously think the public would be better served with 10 different 911 systems in the county, each one struggling to hire and train employees and regularly upgrade expensive technology?

For one final example, in 2016 the City of New Madrid and New Madrid County partnered to consolidate their 911 systems and upgrade their technology. I hope the citizens of Perry County realize how common and beneficial these types of partnership are in Southeast Missouri.

Saving money by sharing the costs of technological improvements is more important than ever since salaries for 911 dispatchers are increasing substantially in an effort to recruit more people to the job. Currently, staffing shortages are the major problem facing dispatching systems all over the country, and have been partially responsible for recent 911 system problems in Kansas City and St. Louis. Maintaining multiple systems requiring more employees using lesser technology isn’t going to help the people of Perry County.

These are just a few good examples of 911 consolidation around Missouri. While there are many success stories in both urban and rural parts of our state, numerous opportunities for change still exist. Wherever you are in Missouri, enhanced public safety technology and more efficient use of tax dollars through 911 consolidation are two things we can all support. Hopefully, the voters of Perry County will recognize these benefits in April.

The post 911 Systems Are a Great Opportunity for Local Government Cooperation appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

Earlier in the year, Rudi Keller wrote in the Missouri Independent:

Missouri will enter the new fiscal year Saturday in its best financial shape ever. But there are unmistakable signs that the massive surplus, now approaching $8 billion, has likely peaked.

Really? Is Missouri actually running a huge surplus? Are we taking in more than we owe?

No, no we are not.

In Truth in Accounting’s  (TIA) “Financial State of the States 2023,” Missouri ranked 25th. TIA gave Missouri a “C” grade and concluded: “Missouri would need $700 from each of its taxpayers to pay all of its outstanding bills.” Of particular concern to TIA was Missouri’s highest-ever unfunded debt to the Missouri State Employees’ Plan.

The reason for the disparity is due to how states account for debt. In cash-basis accounting, states merely account for the money they have on hand without considering their debts. If you and I were to budget like this, we’d count loans as income, ignore debt, and put off expenses until next year in order to claim a huge surplus now.

If you think that sounds criminal, you’re not alone. The IRS does not permit businesses with gross receipts exceeding $29 million for three years to use cash-basis accounting—but city and state governments may do so. As a result, according to the International Monetary Fund, “Governments have been tempted to exploit this weakness by deferring cash disbursements or bringing forward cash receipts as a means of artificially inflating their financial balance.” This is exactly what is happening in Missouri.

Governor Parson isn’t alone, sadly. Mayors and governors of both parties and all ideological stripes do the same thing. And journalists on deadline often repeat the claim without checking it. If such claims seem too good to be true, they probably are.

The post No, Missouri Is Not Running a Budget Surplus appeared first on Show-Me Institute.

All this makes for a great opportunity to bring up the most important annexation-related change we need in Missouri, which is to get rid of the special rules regarding annexations and fire districts in St. Louis County. I am generally not in favor of annexations. We have too many small cities as it is, and municipal annexations should be more difficult (again, outside of St. Louis). I generally support the special rules for new incorporations and annexations within St. Louis County, except for the one involving fire districts.

Statewide, if a city with a fire department annexes an area within a fire district, the city has to pay the lost property taxes to the fire district on a declining basis for five years. That is fair. The district may have issued bonds based on the larger populations, and the five-year phaseout is a reasonable way to address that. But in St. Louis County, RSMO §72.418 allows fire districts to essentially force cities to pay their taxes forever, as long as the original fire district still provides fire protection for the newly annexed part of the city—even if the residents of the newly annexed part want services to be provided by the city’s fire department, not the old fire district.

Hazelwood and Crestwood have found this out the hard way, as both cities – particularly Hazelwood – have been raked over the coals (pun intended) by the Robertson and Affton fire districts respectively. The Robertson case was so egregious it finally spurred a recall of the fire board, which for the previous two decades had been raising taxes to a confiscatory level. How could they do this? Because a tiny number of voters in April elections could elect a board that then raised the tax rates Hazelwood was required to pay under its “agreement” with the district, knowing that the entire city of Hazelwood had to pay the tax, not just the residents within the crossover parts. How much was spending out of control? According to The Robertson Report:

While searching for an explanation for this high cost per call, Valley Park Fire Protection District (VPFPD) was identified as the most proportional fire district to Robertson FPD. Between 2016 and 2020, both maintained two firehouses, two ambulances, one pumper/rescue and one ladder truck, responded to almost equal number of emergency calls (VPFPD 2246 vs RFPD 2455 annually) and took roughly the same percent of commercials calls with an average 8.8% difference. A comparison of financial audits during these years revealed Valley Park FPD had spent $18.8M in total expenses (an average of $3.7M annually) to operate while Robertson FPD had spent $45.6M (average of $9.1M annually) for the exact same EMS and fire service. This is a total spending difference of $26.8M within 5 operating years. [emphasis added]

Special laws like RSMO §72.418 shield fire protection districts from municipal competition for local tax dollars and harm taxpayers. This law needs to be removed. The law is highly beneficial for the fireman’s union, and bad for everyone else, especially taxpayers. If residents and voters want to have municipal annexations or incorporations that include fire protection by municipal fire departments, then that’s what they should get.

The post The Worst Law in Missouri appeared first on Show-Me Institute.