HOUSE APPROVES MISSOURI CROWN ACT
Without opposition, the Missouri House of Representatives approved legislation to prohibit hairstyle-based discrimination by educational institutions that receive state funding.
The bill advanced to the Senate by a final tally of 144-0, with one member voting present.
Dubbed the Creating a Respectful and Open World for Natural Hair Act, or CROWN Act, House Bill 1900 is aimed at preventing discrimination based on hairstyles common to certain races, cultures or ethnicities.
It is sponsored by state Rep. Raychel Proudie, D-Ferguson.
PROPERTY TAX CREDIT FIX ADVANCES
Some recently enacted county ordinances providing a property tax credit to eligible senior citizens could be invalidated under legislation the Missouri House of Representatives approved March 28 that would modify a law enacted last year authorizing such ordinances.
The House sent the measure to the Senate on a vote of 141-2 with six members voting present.
Last year’s legislation, Senate Bill 190, authorizes each county to determine whether to grant senior citizens who own and occupy their homes an annual tax credit that essentially would freeze their property taxes.
However, the bill excluded some older homeowners from eligibility. In addition, some county ordinances limited the benefit to less wealthy homeowners or excluded property taxes owed to other local governments - such as school and fire districts - from the credit.
House Bill 2432 clarifies that all homeowners age 62 or older are entitled to the credit. It also bars counties from imposing a means tests on eligibility or protecting schools and other local governments from losing revenue. Because existing ordinances that do so would conflict with HB 2432 if it becomes law, a court could strike them down if challenged.
A county whose ordinance was invalidated could enact another one that complies with the changes. However, since providing the credit is optional on the part of counties, they wouldn’t be required to do so. In some counties, the restrictions were intended to overcome opposition, and the ordinances might not have passed otherwise.
Under both the existing law and proposed changes, voters can seek to put the issue on a countywide ballot through a petition process.
COMMITTEE PASSES $50 BILLION BUDGET
With limited discussion on the contents, the House Budget Committee on March 25 approved its version of a roughly $50 billion state operating budget for the 2025 fiscal year beginning July 1 – a plan that slashes about $1.9 billion in spending authority from the proposed budget Gov. Mike Parson presented lawmakers in January.
Historically, the process of vetting budget bills in committee usually took several days, although in recent years pushing the bills through in a single 10 to 12-hour stretch has become more common.
This year, however, House Budget Committee Chairman Cody Smith, R-Carthage, allowed only about three hours of discussion. As a result, lawmakers had little time to ask questions about the numerous changes Smith made to the governor’s proposal or to offer amendments. Some Democrats on the committee said allowing so little time to examine the plan’s details represented poor oversight of taxpayers’ money.
Among Smith’s changes were to cut appropriations for the state’s Medicaid program by about $575 million and to allow a much smaller increase for public colleges and universities than what was recommended by the governor. Smith did add $727.5 million not requested by the governor for rebuilding Interstate 44, along with funding for other projects pushed by certain lawmakers.
Once the budget bills clear the House, the process will move to the Senate, which is expected to undo many of Smith’s spending cuts. Lawmakers face a May 10 constitutional deadline for sending a completed budget to the governor.
HOUSE OKAYS ST. LOUIS CITY BILLS
The Missouri House of Representatives has approved two bills targeting St. Louis City – one to strip the city of control over its police department and another to prohibit it from imposing its local earnings tax on people who work remotely from outside the city for city-based companies.
House Bill 1481 seeks to undo a 2012 statewide vote in which 63.9% of Missouri voters approved ending state control of the St. Louis police department which was put in place in 1861 as part of the pro-secession state government’s attempt to suppress the strongly Union city and its black population.
The bill would put the department back under the control of a five-person board consisting of four members appointed by the governor plus the city’s mayor. The House passed it on March 28 by a vote of 109-36-3.
House Bill 1516 would prevent the city from levying its 1% local earnings tax on remote workers for city-based companies who live outside the city, a practice that is currently being litigated. It cleared the House on a 100-47 vote.
Both bills, which now advance to the Senate, are sponsored by Republican lawmakers who don’t live in the city.
HOUSE VOTES TO DROP CORPORATE TAX
The House of Representatives voted 100-50 on March 27 to eliminate Missouri’s corporate income tax as of 2028, a move that would cost the state an estimated $884.39 million a year in lost revenue and make it substantially harder to fund basic government operations.
Lawmakers have already slashed the corporate income tax rate by more than one-third in recent years, reducing it from a high of 6.5% to its current 4%.
House Bill 2274 calls for cutting the tax by one percentage point annually starting on Jan. 1, 2025, until the tax is zeroed out as of Jan. 1, 2028. The bill now advances to the Senate.
CHANGE WOULD CAP ASSESSMENT HIKES
The assessed value of owner-occupied residential property could generally increase by no more than 2% during a reassessment cycle under a proposed constitutional amendment the Missouri House of Representatives approved March 28 on a vote of 104-19 with 23 lawmakers voting present.
If the Senate also approves it, the measure automatically would go on the Nov. 5 statewide ballot for voter approval.
House Joint Resolution 78 is intended to limit sharp increases in property taxes caused by rising property values. The 2% cap could be exceeded to account for new construction or improvements to a particular property.
