Missouri is one of a handful of states that does not provide state aid for capital improvements and maintenance for public elementary and secondary schools. In recent years, the condition of the state's school buildings has been documented by the U.S. Government Accounting Office (1996) and by the state Department of Elementary and Secondary Education (2000). The latter study estimated a need for $4.3 billion to support new construction and renovation. The potential for school equity/adequacy litigation has also begun to receive more attention in the wake of court decisions in other states that make it clear that provision of facilities, as well as operating costs, must be equitable.

When Missouri redesigned its school finance system in 1993, provision was made for a school building revolving fund to provide low interest loans. The fund never received enough moneys to make it work as envisioned. Over the past few years, legislation has been debated that would have changed the fund to a matching grant program, with considerable state support. The sticking point has always been finding a source of funding that was large enough to make the program have real impact.

The charge to the Committee was to investigate funding sources and allocation methods for state support of school building. The Committee found that there is no existing source of funding that, by itself, could provide the magnitude of funding needed. Testimony from around the state suggested several possibilities for new funding sources, most of which would require legislative action, such as a sales tax, additional boarding fees for excursion gambling boats, growth in gaming moneys from repeal of loss limits.

The Committee's findings are based on what it found to be recurrent themes in testimony. Rather than explicit recommendations, the findings set out concerns and suggestions that arose repeatedly in the Committee's 5 meetings around the state and also some items that might be characterized as consensus items. In the absence of a clearly preferable method of funding, witnesses cited the simple majority for school bond issues and a higher bonding cap as means by which districts could help themselves.

Becky DeNeve, Senior Legislative Analyst