KC Schools’ taxing power could be lessened by Missouri bill. Will it cut revenue?
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Amendment would remove KCPS’ constitutional carveout from Hancock rules.
- Change would put KCPS under Hancock rules if amendment and votes pass.
- Lawmakers debate effects on KCPS revenue, debt and new-construction rules.
Kansas City Public Schools have been exempt from a Missouri law that limits tax increases for 30 years, but a proposed constitutional amendment could bring the district in line with the rest of the state.
The district has maintained its current property tax structure for 30 years, due to court-ordered desegregation remedies.
Every school district in Missouri besides KCPS must have its mill levy, the rate at which property is taxed, approved by voters if it exceeds a floor of 2.75 per $100 of assessed value. In Kansas City, the school board can change the mill levy as long as it doesn’t exceed a court-ordered mill levy rate of 4.9599 per $100 of assessed value.
KCPS Superintendent Jennifer Collier previously said that it could adversely affect the district’s ability to keep pace with its financial needs.
The school district’s mill levy is enshrined in the Missouri Constitution, which has a provision allowing the school board, not voters, to lower the property tax rate below its current rate or keep it the same.
Rep. Jeff Coleman, a Grain Valley Republican, proposed a constitutional amendment that would do away with that section of the state Constitution. If passed, Missouri voters would decide whether to keep or remove the section in the November elections.
Coleman said the bill brings the school district in line with every other district in the state and provides some financial protections available to other districts during years of shrinking property values that are currently unavailable for KCPS.
“We’re past the time where that needs to be the case anymore,” Coleman told the Star in an interview. “It puts the Kansas City School District in the same light as every other school district in Missouri.”
Rep. Melissa Douglas, a Kansas City Democrat, said in a press release that removing the constitutional protections for the KCPS could threaten the school district.
“KCPS has had a stable operating levy for 25 years, providing essential funding for classrooms, teachers and capital projects,” Douglas said. “This amendment removes protections that have kept our schools financially stable. Removing this protection will result in a 48 percent – approximately $139 million – reduction in revenues, meaning the district would no longer be able to exist.”
Coleman said any language that could be interpreted to reduce the school district’s levy has been eliminated.
“I have done nothing but try to do whatever it’s going to take to make sure this change takes place without hurting the district,” Coleman said.
In a discussion on Wednesday, Douglas said she’s still hearing concerns about the language and whether it could reduce the school’s levy.
Rep. Tim Taylor, a Booneville Republican, who drafted a separate constitutional amendment that was combined with Coleman’s legislation, said he expects there to be some nervousness about the bill but the intent isn’t to reduce funding.
“They obviously don’t want to fall into a loophole that we don’t recognize,” Taylor said.
Why is KCPS different?
In 1977, a group of students and the Kansas City, Missouri School district sued the state in federal court, which found the state liable for segregated schools within the district. Missouri v. Jenkins lingered in the court system for decades, with its last appearance on a court docket in 2008.
The court’s remedy for desegregation was to improve academic success, and the court ordered reductions in class sizes, summer school programs, tutoring, magnet schools and capital improvements.
In 1990, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court’s proposal to force an increase in property taxes to ensure funding for the desegregation plan.
The Missouri Constitution has a carve-out for the district to charge up to what a court order established as the operating levy for the district, which has kept the district’s mill levy constant at 4.9599 per $100 of assessed value for decades.
KCPS seeking mill levy vote next year
KCPS opposed Coleman’s constitutional amendment at a public hearing, but agreed with its overall goal. KCPS plans to place a ballot question asking voters in April 2027 to approve the current mill levy, which would allow it to be governed by the Hancock Amendment without risking the school’s budget cratering.
“We will be asking our community to approve a tax levy rate of 4.9599, which is the same rate that we have had for the last 30 years,” Collier, the KCPS superintendent, told the House Committee on Property Tax Reform on Feb. 3.
Spokespersons for KCPS did not respond for comment.
In April 2025, Kansas City voters overwhelmingly approved a $474 million general obligation bond for KCPS, its first successful bond measure in over 60 years.
“The district has been taking a lot of critical steps to improve their standing in the state and with the community,” said Michael Kelly, a father of two KCPS students and a volunteer with Parents for KC Kids, told the Star.
But the bill’s supporters are eager to get KCPS in line with the Hancock Amendment, and the requirement that constitutional amendments can only be placed on the ballot in even numbered years further complicates the timeline.
“We want to get it done now in this session, but they want to do their thing in April of 27,” said Rep. Tim Taylor, a Booneville Republican. “We don’t do it now, and they do their thing, then we have to wait another year. So it’s going to be two more years before we can get them under the Hancock provision.”
The Hancock Amendment limits how much the state and local governments can raise taxes. For local school districts, if the total assessed valuation increases faster than inflation, then the tax rate is rolled back.
The Amendment prevents property taxes from growing, but Coleman said it also has protections in instances where property values are falling.
“It also protects that if the values go down more than 5%, it caps that downside, so you have some protection on the downside, which the Kansas City school district does not have,” Coleman said.
KC Democrat raises concern
Douglas, the Kansas City Democrat, also raised concerns that separate provisions in the constitutional amendment would change how school levies are calculated.
Coleman’s bill on the removal of the KCPS mill levy from the Missouri Constitution was combined with a bill by Taylor, which modifies operating levy limitations.
If passed, school districts would have to include payments of bonds, indebtedness and contracts. Currently, bonds and debt are exempt from mill levy limitations.
“The understanding by many of us is that Missouri has built a system where we’re encouraging schools to stay in debt forever,” Taylor said.
Taylor said schools can advertise a bond issue as not increasing taxes, but can maneuver bond issues into their operating budgets.
It would also include new construction and improvements in the assessed valuation of school districts. Opponents say the reforms could mean growing districts get less money.
“The way that Hancock works, in regards to new construction improvements, is a way for school districts, specifically the ones that are growing, in order to account for the increases in student populations that occurs in the new building,” Mike Lodewegen, director of legislative advocacy for the Missouri Association of School Administrators, told lawmakers during a Feb. 4 committee hearing.
“It will create a lot of issues, not only at the local level but also here at the state level,” Lodewegen said.
Douglas said the changes to debt service and new construction could penalize districts that are growing quickly, such as Lee’s Summit and Blue Springs.
Taylor said that not all new construction will add students to a school’s taxing district. He pointed to retirement communities and the redevelopment of a single-family home.
“If there’s a house in town and someone tears it down and builds a new house. That’s new construction, but the fire department doesn’t have to respond to any more houses or any more area. So shouldn’t the taxpayers get a part of that to help offset the Hancock formula? So the taxpayers can get a little relief from that?” Taylor said.
Coleman said he would have preferred a standalone bill rather than it being combined with other property tax reforms. Coleman said he believes the pair of constitutional amendments, when added together, will have a tougher time passing in the Senate.
“I think this bill, as it is right now, where they merged my bill into (Taylor’s), I think that bill will pass on the floor, but I think once it gets to the Senate, I don’t think that it’s going to last,” Coleman said.
