Senate Bill 3 and Christian County

---

 What is this ballot measure?

Under a new Missouri law (Senate Bill 3), voters in our county will decide this April whether to

"freeze" or "cap" property taxes for eligible homeowners.

Who is eligible for tax relief?

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.

How does the "freeze" or "cap" work?

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" (which is Christian County): Your tax bill is frozen at its current level or may decline

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.

How does this impact the money my school district receives?

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 the budgets of Christian County schools go to the teachers and staff who work with students. A tax freeze will make it even more difficult for the districts to offer competitive salaries to attract and keep high-quality educators and staff.

Will this affect the voter approved bonds and the bond levy for school buildings?

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.

What happens to schools if the measure passes?

School districts will continue to provide the best possible education for students. However, districts may

have to make difficult choices regarding long-term facility maintenance, programming expansions,

or class sizes as they adjust to a "fixed" local revenue model.

Can public entities use their funds to inform the public on ballot issues?

We 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 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, we are 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 public entities. 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.