Publications: SAC Legislative Bulletin

SAC Legislative Bulletin

February 10, 2006

SAC Legislative Bulletin

The official legislative newsletter for the School Administrators Coalition (SAC) which includes

MASA, MAESP, MASSP, MO-CASE, MUSIC, MO K-8, MARE, MSHSAA, & MAPT

For a complete listing of bill summaries that impact education go to
http://www.mcsa.org/reference

If you can not access this link, simply copy and paste the above address in your browser.

MANDATORY LAP/SHOULDER SEATBELTS

ON SCHOOL BUSES

HB 1674, sponsored by Reps. Flook and Page, was filed on Monday, February 6, 2006. The bill would require that all new school buses purchased and/or manufactured after January 1, 2007 be equipped with lap/shoulder safety belts or other restraint systems approved by the federal government. The bill would require that each passenger be in a designated seating position and wearing a safety belt that is properly adjusted and fastened at all times. The bill would provide limited immunity in personal injury lawsuits where the claims are based solely on the passengers use or nonuse of a safety belt.

Advocates for the legislation have estimated the cost of implementation to be in the $8 $10 million per year range. The leaders of the Missouri Association of Pupil Transportation (MAPT) have spent a great deal of time researching the cost impact and have estimated an annual cost for implementation in excess of $80 million per year. The bill would provide for a $15 surcharge on all motor vehicle moving violations to assist with implementation of the seatbelt mandate. The monies generated by the surcharge would be placed into a fund and made available to school districts "with insufficient funds to equip every school bus with seatbelts". The bill would not provide funds to implement the mandate in school districts deemed to have "sufficient funds" on hand. School administrators are encouraged to express their concerns about this bill to their General Assembly representatives. In addition, school administrators should discuss with the larger educational community and community leaders and patrons the consequences of this legislative proposal.

SUMMER SCHOOL PENALTY

HB 1273, sponsored by Rep. Baker, and HB 1136, sponsored by Rep. Ervin, were heard jointly by the Special Committee on Student Achievement and Finance chaired by Rep. Baker. The bills are identical and would eliminate the summer school penalty enacted last session. Both bills included repeal of the gifted penalty and were amended at hearing to require school districts to identify gifted students in accordance with current MSIP requirements and to add permissive language stating that school districts may establish gifted programs. Numerous education organizations including the Gifted Association of Missouri testified in support of the bill with this amendment. However, numerous students, parents and teachers testified in opposition to the bill because they felt the language for gifted education programs needed to be stronger. Following testimony, House Committee Amendment Two was offered which would maintain a penalty for reductions in gifted enrollment greater than forty percent. After the hearing, the committee adopted a House Committee Substitute bill which included the above amendments (HCS for HBs 1273 and 1136) and voted the bill out of committee. The bill will now go to the floor of the House for debate.

SB 644, sponsored by Sen. Shields, would phase out the summer school penalty as reliance upon the new formula is phased in. The Senate Education Committee voted the bill do pass on February 7, 2006. The bill will now go the Senate floor for debate. The School Administrators Coalition supports elimination of the summer school and gifted penalties and encourages administrators to contact their representatives to express support as well. The School Administrators Coalition is strongly in support of gifted education programs but does not want school districts to be penalized when gifted student populations fluctuate through no fault of the school district.

TAX INCREMENT FINANCING

The Senate Economic Development, Tourism and Local Government Committee met in executive session on February 8, 2006, and considered SCS for SB 832, sponsored by Sen. Greisheimer. SB 832 would modify tax increment financing laws by eliminating the term "blighted area" and replace it with the term "distressed area" while retaining the current definition for blight. The bill would prohibit the use of tax increment financing for the development of vacant or undeveloped land when the development would result in a predominantly residential development and would also prohibit the use of tax increment financing for the development in "greenfield areas" which are vacant, unimproved or agricultural property located outside the incorporated limits of a city, town or village, or which are surrounded by adjacent properties that are zoned for agricultural uses. Residential tax increment financing projects would continue to be allowed for redevelopment of central business districts. SCS SB 832 would authorize voters to bring referendum petitions to challenge approval of tax increment financing projects. In addition, the bill would prohibit tax increases approved by voters subsequent to the tax approval of tax increment financing project from being captured as economic activity taxes, unless the tax is levied specifically to fund or retire the redevelopment debt. With six amendments added by the Committee, the substitute bill was voted do pass by a vote of 7-0. The sponsor indicated that a floor substitute will be offered, further modifying the bill.

The House Committee on Local Government met in executive session on February 9, 2006, and considered HB 1070, sponsored by Rep. Johnson. HCS HB 1070 was adopted by the Committee and voted do pass with the inclusion of one amendment offered by Rep. Wallace. The bill would redefine the term "blighted area" by setting forth criteria that must be met to establish blight; restrict the use of tax increment financing for vacant land; redefine conservation area to require that at least fifty percent of the structures in the area be thirty-five years or older; and provide for a voter referendum. Rep. Wallace offered an amendment to allow property taxes attributable to residential developments to pass through to the taxing entities unless school districts authorize otherwise. This residential restriction would not apply to redevelopment in central business districts. The Committee voted HCS HB 1070, as amended, do pass.

SENATE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

The Senate Education Committee, chaired by Sen. Nodler, met on February 7, 2006 and heard the following bills: SB 806, sponsored by Sen. Gross, which would establish the "Founding Documents Protection Act" to ensure that teachers, administrators and school board members are not prohibited from reading or posting specific documents related to American and Missouri history; SB 831, sponsored by Sen. Kennedy, which would alter the method by which the summer school penalty is calculated; SB 833, sponsored by Sen. Nodler, which would repeal the prohibition on including certain information on diplomas; and SJR 31, sponsored by Sen. Ridgeway, which would allow the people to vote on a constitutional amendment allowing taxing entities to raise the bonded indebtedness limit to 20 percent of assessed valuation.

The School Administrators Coalition and numerous other education organizations testified in opposition to SB 831. SB 831 would adjust the summer school penalty in future years to reflect overall changes in student enrollment. While this could result in a lesser penalty for school districts with declining enrollment, it could also result in an increasing penalty in school districts with increasing enrollments. In addition, the penalty would not be phased out as the old formula is phased out. The School Administrators Coalition supports elimination of the summer school penalty, and SB 831 is counter to the coalitions position.

The School Administrators Coalition testified in support of SB 833 which would give the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education the flexibility to consider use of a differentiated diploma.

The Senate Education Committee hearing focused primarily on SJR 31 which would allow for a constitutional amendment to be placed on the ballot to increase the bonded indebtedness limit from fifteen percent to twenty percent. The School Administrators Coalition, Cooperating School Districts of Greater Kansas City, Cooperating School Districts of St. Louis, MSTA, MNEA, MSBA, A. G. Edwards, George K. Baum and several school administrators testified in support of the bill. Witnesses stressed that increased building costs, rapidly growing districts, and districts with high maintenance needs and low assessed valuations need greater bonding capacity to meet increasing needs. No witnesses testified in opposition to the bill.

At the conclusion of the hearings, the committee went into executive session and voted the following bills do pass:

1. SB 644, sponsored by Sen. Shields, which would phase out the summer school penalty for reductions in summer school enrollment. The penalty would decrease as reliance upon the new formula is phased in;

2. SCS for SB 580, sponsored by Sen. Shields, which would require collaboration between the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the Coordinating Board for Higher Education, and the Department of Economic Development to achieve a more efficient and effective education system;

3. SCS for SB 650, sponsored by Sen. Champion, which would resolve technical problems with the Missouri State University name change bill passed last session;

4. SB 857, sponsored by Sen. Nodler, relating to higher education;

5. SB 708, sponsored by Sen. Wilson, relating to higher education scholarships; and

6. SB 679, sponsored by Sen. Gross, relating to the termination date for the University of Missouri to request appropriations for certain capital improvements.

TABOR TAXPAYERS BILL OF RIGHTS

Rep. Bearden has filed HJR 48 which would create a Missouri version of Colorados Taxpayers Bill of Rights (TABOR) which was suspended by Colorado voters in November 2005 after the spending limitation significantly and negatively impacted public education and services in that state. HJR 48 would prohibit appropriations in any fiscal year from exceeding the total general revenue appropriations from the previous year by more than the rate of inflation plus the rate of Missouris population growth. Essentially, HJR 48 would create a cap on state spending, and the cap could only be exceeded if the governor declared an emergency, requested an appropriation to meet the emergency, and the general assembly approved the appropriation for the emergency by a two-thirds vote. Thus, even if Missouri had sufficient revenue to fully fund education and other programs, the spending limit could prohibit such appropriations.

HOUSE EDUCATION COMMITTEE

The House Elementary and Secondary Education Committee did not meet this week.