Informed Voting: SB3

*based on SB 3 Revenue Impact Worksheet from MSBA

Click here to view 

Step 1: Baseline Data (Current FY) 

Step 2: Annual Revenue Projections (Pre-SB3) 

Estimated what revenue would be without the SB3 freeze/cap (assuming normal assessment growth) 

1. Estimated AV Growth Rate: 3.5% non-reassessment years; 6% reassessment years

2. Projected Local Revenue: (Total AV/x Growth Rate)/$100 x Levy = $21,879,031.05

Step 3: Revenue Calculation 

Calculated the revenue ceiling under the new law considering the freeze applies only to eligible parcels - not Ozark's entire AV. 

Click here to view in-depth calculations for columns A & B

Total 3-year Projected Loss = ($10,133,168.50) 

If the measure passes, homeowners who meet the following criteria can apply:

• You must be the owner of record of your home.
• The home must be your primary residence (homestead).
• You must be personally liable for the property taxes.

If approved, your property tax bill for your home would essentially be "locked in" or limited in how much it can grow each year.

• In "0% Counties": Your tax bill is frozen at its current level or may decline
• In "5% Counties": Your tax bill cannot increase by more than 5% in a single year.
• The Exception: If you make significant improvements to your home, or sell your home, the value will be reassessed, and a new "base" tax amount will be set.

Property taxes are the largest source of local funding for our schools and in many cases the largest source of total funding. While the measure provides relief to individual homeowners, it will impact the district’s ability to keep up with rising costs.

• Inflationary Pressure: As the costs for electricity, food supplies, bus fuel, and insurance go up, the revenue from property taxes will remain largely the same.
• Staffing: About 80-85% of our budget goes to the teachers and staff who work with our students. A tax freeze will make it even more difficult for the district to offer competitive salaries to attract and keep high-quality educators and staff.

Voters approved specifically to build or renovate schools. If the credit is applied to the debt service levy, the district may have challenges making debt payments in the future.

The district will continue to provide the best possible education for our students. However, we may have to make difficult choices regarding long-term facility maintenance, programming expansions, or class sizes as we adjust to a "fixed" local revenue model.

Thank you for your interest in the school district and the pending election. We appreciate your concern regarding the obligation of public entities to comply with the requirements of Section 115.646 of the Missouri Revised Statutes. We share that concern, and have consulted with legal counsel regarding strict compliance with the prohibition against using public funds to advocate for or oppose a ballot measure.

We have also received counsel regarding what school districts (and other public entities) are permitted to say, in order to ensure that the public has complete and accurate information regarding the effect of their vote – whether for or against. In navigating these waters, the school district is mindful that state and federal courts have observed on numerous occasions that ballot measures are often long and confusing and appropriate information is necessary to ensure that
voters are informed. The courts have also stated that the restriction imposed under Section
115.646 is a “narrow” restriction within the right to expression guaranteed by the First
Amendment.

In Sullivan v. City of University City, the Missouri Court of Appeals found that Missouri public entities are permitted to disseminate informational materials regarding the effects of a ballot measure. The Court, citing an opinion issued by the United States Supreme Court and echoing the words of the Missouri Supreme Court, stated that only “express advocacy” constituted a violation of Section 115.646. Additionally, the United States Supreme Court, the Missouri Supreme Court, and the Sullivan Court stated, that “express words of advocacy” for the approval or defeat of a measure must include words such as “vote for,” “elect,” “support,” “cast your ballot for,” . . . “vote against,” “defeat,” or “reject.”

In two subsequent, companion cases, Harris v. Missouri Ethics Commission, and Harris v.
Missouri Secretary of State, the Missouri Court of Appeals (1) reaffirmed that “express advocacy” was the proper standard for determining whether a violation of Section 115.646 had occurred; (2) determined that no private right of action exists under the Section, which means that an individual may not sue for alleged violation; and (3) Section “115.646 is intended to
prohibit the use of public funds for ‘express advocacy,’ which is a narrow category of conduct
under the First Amendment[.]”

Moreover, in Harris v. the Missouri Secretary of State, the Court emphasized that the materials “merely explain[ed] what the ballot measure would do.” That is the case with the information that has been provided by the school district. The operation of the ballot measure is complex and has effects which patrons may consider to be beneficial or detrimental. However, it is essential for an informed electorate to be provided with information regarding those effects. The mission
of our school district is education, and that is all we are attempting to do – educate voters so they can make their own information decisions.

Response to Patrons Regarding Section 115.646