Prop. A might not help higher education

Falling casino revenue and the proposal’s language could stop funding from reaching Missouri’s colleges.

By Andrew Denney

Published Jan. 2, 2009

A ballot measure approved by Missouri voters in November that will divert tax revenues from casinos to education funding might not provide as much funding for higher education as its supporters had suggested.

The measure, called Proposition A during the elections, eliminated a $500 loss limit on casino patrons and increased casino taxes. The additional revenue from the tax is diverted into a fund specifically for elementary and secondary education.

Proponents of the measure had said higher education could receive as much as $5 million to $7 million in additional funding.

However, in the midst of a slumping economy, casino revenues are down from last year, and it is unclear if tax revenues from gaming won’t be appropriated to education at the expense of other sources of funding.

According to the Missouri Gaming Commission, revenues for all Missouri casinos were lower in November 2008 than in the same month in the previous year, with the exception of a St. Louis casino that opened in December 2007.

Zora AuBuchon, a legislative liaison for the Missouri Department of Higher Education, said that the measure would direct any funding for higher education to the Access Missouri scholarship fund, which she said has already reached its cap on how much it can receive from gaming revenues.

Missouri Senate Minority Leader Victor Callahan, D-Harrisonville, has pre-filed several bills that would direct funds from casino revenues to specific areas within education, such as basing allocations from casino revenues to individual districts on average daily attendance, as opposed to a funding formula used by the state that would leave certain districts out.

Another one of Callahan’s proposed measures would place tax revenues in the Missouri Higher Education Tuition Reduction Fund, which would be used solely for the purpose of lowering tuition at public colleges and universities in the state.

Other legislators have also offered proposals on how to alter the measure.

Sen. Rob Mayer, R-Dexter, has proposed a bill that would transfer the revenues to teachers salaries, early childhood development and district transportation costs.

Sen.-elect Jane Cunningham, R-Chesterfield, who served as the chairwoman of the House Education Committee before getting elected to the Senate, pre-filed a bill that would provide performance-based stipends for elementary and secondary teachers from casino revenues.

Sen.-elect Kurt Schaefer, R-Columbia, who said he did not support Proposition A in the election, said that redirecting funds from tax revenues to specific areas within education would not be outside of what the measure was intended to do. Schaefer said he supports using the tax revenue for education without reducing other sources of funding.  

“If it gives more money, then other education funding could be reduced by that amount, and it could be a wash,” Schaefer said.

Rep.-elect Mary Still, D-Columbia, who also said she did not support the measure, said tax revenues could be used as a “diversionary tactic” to reduce or redirect funds allocated for education.

“People will feel like they have done what they need to for education,” Still said.