Modifies provisions governing the use of county developmental disability resource board tax levies
Summary
HB237 repeals and reenacts Missouri’s statute governing county developmental disability resource board tax levies. The bill authorizes certain cities and counties, subject to voter approval, to levy a property tax dedicated to establishing and maintaining sheltered workshops, residences, facilities, and related services for people with developmental disabilities. It preserves the existing higher tax cap for most jurisdictions at four mills per dollar of assessed valuation, while maintaining a lower two-mill cap for specified large first-class charter counties and cities.
The bill also directs that all revenue collected under the levy be deposited into a special fund and used only for the authorized disability-related purposes. It clarifies how those funds may be spent, including operations and maintenance of sheltered workshops that meet board funding requirements, and states that local boards may not impose extra certification or eligibility requirements on compliant applicants beyond those already required by Department of Elementary and Secondary Education rules and standards. At the same time, it preserves the ability of county boards to require financial, progress, and outcome reports from funding recipients.
Impact
HB237 would amend section 205.971, RSMo, and change how local developmental disability resource board tax levies are structured and administered. It affects county and city governing bodies, local tax levies on taxable property, and the boards that oversee funding for sheltered workshops and related disability services. The bill also limits local board discretion by preventing additional certification requirements inconsistent with state standards, while allowing reporting requirements for grant recipients.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available context, the measure appears to be framed as a technical and administrative update to support disability services funding rather than a controversial policy shift. The caption and language suggest a generally supportive intent toward maintaining and clarifying funding for sheltered workshops and related services. No committee transcript or vote record is available here, so there is no documented opposition or recorded debate to indicate broader sentiment beyond the bill’s apparent service-oriented purpose.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the balance between local control and state standardization. The bill restricts county boards from imposing extra certification or credentialing requirements on applicants that go beyond Department of Elementary and Secondary Education rules, which could be viewed as limiting local discretion. Another possible issue is the continued use of property tax levies for sheltered workshops and related facilities, including the differing mill-rate caps for certain large jurisdictions, though no specific opposition is documented in the available materials.