Dear Ms. Kelly:
This opinion is in response to a series of hypothetical situations you have posed, to-wit:
I. If a third class city 1) in 1980 levied a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $1.00 per $100 assessed valuation, 2) in 1984 levied a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $1.00, 3) in 1985 was required to reduce its property tax rate for its General Revenue Fund to $0.75 because of the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring a reduction in property taxes the year a general reassessment occurs, and 4) has never voted upon any additional property taxes as authorized by Article
X , Section11(c) of the Missouri Constitution,A. What is the city's maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be enacted by the governing body of the city without voter approval?
B. What is the city's maximum property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters?
C. What is the city's maximum property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters?
D. Do the maximum property tax rates referred to in subparagraphs B and C above continue indefinitely?
E. If the governing body of the city desires to enact a property tax for 1986 for parks,
1) What is the maximum rate that can be authorized by the voters?
2) Does such authorization require approval of a simple majority of the voters or approval of two-thirds of the voters?
The City's 1980 non-voter-approved one dollar ($1.00) general operating levy was authorized by Missouri Constitution, Article
Section 11(b). Any tax imposed upon such property by municipalities, . . . for their respective purposes, shall not exceed the following annual rates:
For municipalities — one dollar on the hundred dollars assessed valuation;
* * *
Section
94.060 — 1. All cities of the third class in this state may by ordinance levy and impose annually for municipal purposes upon all subjects and objects of taxation within such cities a tax which shall not exceed the maximum rate of one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation; provided, however, that the rate of tax levy of one dollar on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation for municipal purposes may be increased for such purposes for a period not to exceed four years at any one time when such rate and purpose of increase are submitted to a vote of the voters within such cities and two-thirds of the voters voting thereon shall vote therefor, but such increase so voted shall be limited to a maximum rate of taxation not to exceed thirty cents on the one hundred dollars assessed valuation.
In addition, Missouri Constitution, Article
In all municipalities . . . the rates of taxation as herein limited may be increased for their respective purposes for not to exceed four years, when the rate and purpose of the increase are submitted to a vote and two-thirds of the qualified electors voting thereon shall vote therefor; . . .
The one dollar ($1.00) levy in Section
On November 4, 1980, on the date that the City was still maintaining a one dollar ($1.00) general operating levy, the voters approved the Hancock Amendment, particularly Missouri Constitution, Article
Counties and other political subdivisions are hereby prohibited from levying any tax, license or fees [sic], not authorized by law, charter or self-enforcing provisions of the constitution when this section is adopted or from increasing the current levy of an existing tax, license or fees [sic], above that current levy authorized by law or charter when the section is adopted without the approval of the required majority of the qualified voters of that county or other political subdivision voting thereon. . . . If the assessed valuation of property as finally equalized, excluding the value of new construction and improvements, increases by a larger percentage than the increase in the general price level from the previous year, the maximum authorized current levy applied thereto in each county or other political subdivision shall be reduced to yield the same gross revenue from existing property, adjusted for changes in the general price level, as could have been collected at the existing authorized levy on the prior assessed value.
Another part of the Hancock Amendment, particularly Missouri Constitution, Article
The provisions contained in sections 16 through 23, inclusive, of this article are self-enforcing; provided, however, that the general assembly may enact laws implementing such provisions which are not inconsistent with the purposes of said sections.
On November 7, 1978, the people adopted Missouri Constitution, Article
The general assembly may require by law that political subdivisions reduce the rate of levy of all property taxes the subdivisions impose whether the rate of levy is authorized by this constitution or by law. The general assembly may by law establish the method of increasing reduced rates of levy in subsequent years.
In State ex rel. Cassilly v. Riney,
To offset the effects of the increases in the assessed valuation of property due to the general reassessment, the General Assembly has provided a statutory general reassessment property tax rate rollback in Section
2. Whenever changes in assessed valuation that result from a general reassessment of real property within the county are entered in the assessor's books, the county clerk in all counties and the assessor of St. Louis city shall notify each political subdivision wholly or partially within the county of the change in valuation, and each political subdivision wholly or partially within the county, including municipalities maintaining their own tax books, shall immediately revise the rates of levy for each purpose for which taxes are levied to the extent necessary to produce from all taxable property, including state assessed property, substantially the same amount of tax revenue as was produced in the previous year and, in addition thereto, a percentage of the previous year's revenues, equal to the preceding valuation factor of the political subdivision.
Thus, under the facts hypothesized above, the 1985 general reassessment may have caused either of at least two applicable property tax rate rollbacks: The statutory general reassessment property tax rate rollback in subsection 2 of Section
Subsection 5(2) of Section
Although the Hancock Amendment does not provide a method for increasing a tax rate subsequent to a tax rate reduction, Missouri Constitution, Article
It is further the intent of the general assembly, under the authority of section10(c) of articleX of the Constitution of Missouri, that the provisions of this section be applicable to tax rate reductions or revisions mandated under section22 of articleX of the Constitution of Missouri as to reestablishing tax rates as reduced or revised in subsequent years, enforcement provisions, and other provisions not in conflict with section22 of articleX of the Constitution of Missouri; . . .
The method which the General Assembly has provided for increasing tax rates subsequent to a tax rate reduction for third class cities is contained in subsection 6 of Section
(1) In all political subdivisions except school districts, the tax rate ceiling established pursuant to this section shall not be exceeded in the year of the tax rate reduction or thereafter unless a higher tax rate is approved by a vote of the people. Approval of the higher tax rate shall be by at least a majority of votes cast, except:(a) When a higher tax rate, before reduction, would have required approval by at least two-thirds of the votes cast, any vote to exceed the tax rate ceiling shall require approval by at least two-thirds of the votes cast;
(b) When a higher tax rate, before reduction, could have been approved by a majority of the votes cast, the maximum tax rate increase that can be approved by a majority after reduction shall be computed as follows: The maximum cumulative percent the original tax rate ceiling can be increased by a majority vote in the future shall be the same percent which the tax rate prior to reduction was exceeded by the maximum tax rate that could be voted by a majority; and
(c) When a higher tax rate, before reduction, would have required approval of the governing body without approval of voters, the tax rate ceiling may be increased by action of the governing body in years following reduction, by the same percentage the rate could have been increased without approval of the voters before the tax rate was reduced. For this purpose any political subdivision that before general reassessment had eliminated its tax rate shall be deemed to have been levying one cent per one hundred dollars valuation before general reassessment.
(2) When the voters approve an increase in the tax rate, the increased tax rate becomes the new tax rate ceiling.
(3) The governing body of any political subdivision except a school district may levy a tax rate lower than its tax rate ceiling and may increase that lowered tax rate to a level not exceeding the tax rate ceiling without voter approval.
We believe that subsection 6, quoted above, applies to increases in tax rates subsequent to a tax rate reduction or revision pursuant to either the statutory general reassessment rollback provisions or the Hancock Amendment tax rate rollback provisions. See Section
Subsection 6 of Section
1. As used in this section, the following terms mean:
* * *
(4) "Tax rate ceiling", a tax rate as revised or reduced by the taxing authority to comply with the provisions of this section or when a court has determined the tax rate reduction. This is the maximum tax rate that may be levied in the year of tax rate revision or reduction and in subsequent years, unless a higher tax rate ceiling is approved by voters of the political subdivision as provided in this section;
Part A of your first question asks what is the City's maximum permissible general operating property tax rate for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the City without voter approval. Under the facts hypothesized, we conclude that the City's maximum permissible general operating levy for 1986 which may be imposed without voter approval is seventy-five cents ($.75) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation.
Section
You have hypothesized that the City's rollback rate in 1985 is seventy-five cents ($.75) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation. This is the City's tax rate ceiling under Section
Maximum Tax Rate Which Can Be Authorized By a Simple Majority of the Votes Cast
Part B of your first question asks what is the City's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters. We conclude that the City's maximum general operating levy for 1986 which can be approved by a simple majority of the voters is one dollar ($1.00) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation.
Section
As previously indicated, prior to the tax rate reduction, the Constitution and statutes allowed the City to impose a one dollar ($1.00) operating levy without voter approval and to increase that levy above one dollar ($1.00) under certain circumstances upon the approval of two-thirds of the voters. As the City was at its maximum nonvoter-approved levy prior to reduction, the exception in subparagraph (c) does not apply. As there was no provision for the increase in tax rates by simple majority vote prior to tax rate reduction, subparagraph (b) does not apply. Also, because we view the one dollar ($1.00) levy, which existed prior to the tax rate reduction, as being a separate levy than that authorized by Missouri Constitution, Article
Maximum Tax Rate Which Can be Approved by a Two-Thirds Majority of The Votes Cast
Part C of your first question asks what is the City's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. We conclude that if the City is authorized to impose a levy by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast, it can levy up to thirty cents ($.30) above the one dollar ($1.00) levy discussed in part B of your first question; thus, allowing the City to have a total general operating levy of one dollar and thirty cents ($1.30) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation in 1986.
As we view the City's pre-rollback rate of one dollar ($1.00) as being a separate levy from those authorized in Missouri Constitution, Article
Section
Do the Parts B and C Property Tax Maximums Continue Indefinitely?
Part D of your first question asks if the maximum property tax rates referred to in parts B and C of your first question continue indefinitely. We conclude that the maximum property tax rate discussed in part B continues until a conflicting assessment and equalization maintenance plan tax rate ceiling is established under Section
Discussion of the Simple Majority Tax Rate Ceiling. In part B of your first question, we concluded that the City could increase its tax rate ceiling from seventy-five cents ($.75) to one dollar ($1.00) upon a simple majority vote of the voters. Section
Therefore, we conclude that if the City obtains simple majority approval of the voters to increase its tax rate from seventy-five cents ($.75) to one dollar ($1.00), the new tax rate ceiling is one dollar ($1.00) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation and this tax rate ceiling continues until a conflicting assessment and equalization maintenance plan tax rate ceiling is adopted under Section
Discussion of the "Two-Thirds Majority" Maximum PropertyTax Rate. In part C of your first question, we concluded that the City could impose an additional thirty cent ($.30) levy by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast. This levy is limited by Missouri Constitution, Article
Part E. 1 of your first question asks if the governing body of the City desires to enact a new property tax for parks in 1986, what is the maximum rate which can be authorized by the voters. We conclude that the maximum City park tax that can be imposed by a vote of the people in 1986 is forty cents ($.40) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation.
Missouri Constitution, Article
[A]nd provided further, that any county or other political subdivision, when authorized by law and within the limits fixed by law, may levy a rate of taxation on all property subject to its taxing powers in excess of the rates herein limited, for a library, hospital, public health, recreation grounds and museum purposes.
Section
In addition to the levy aforesaid for general municipal purposes, all cities of the third class are hereby authorized to levy annually not to exceed the following rates of taxation on all property subject to its taxing power for the following special purposes:
* * *
(3) For recreational grounds in the manner and at the rate authorized under the provisions of sections90.500 to90.570 , RSMo.
Section
As no City park tax existed at the time the City's tax rates were reduced, there is no tax rate ceiling under Section
Part E. 2 of your first question asks whether the City park tax must be approved by a simple majority of the votes cast or by a two-thirds majority. We have found that the tax rate reduction statute, Section
II. If an ambulance district 1) was authorized by the voters to levy a property tax rate of $0.15 per $100 assessed valuation at an election prior to 1980, 2) in 1980 levied a property tax of $0.15, 3) in 1984 levied a property tax of $0.15, and 4) in 1985 was required to reduce its property tax rate to $0.08 because of the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring a reduction in property taxes in the year a general reassessment occurs,A. What is the maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the district without voter approval?
B. What is the district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters?
C. What is the district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters?
Part A of your second question asks what is the maximum 1986 general operating levy that the ambulance district in question can impose without voter approval. We conclude that the ambulance district in question may impose a general operating levy of up to eight cents ($.08) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation in 1986 without voter approval.
Under Section
Under the facts you have hypothesized, however, it is clear that the governing body of the ambulance district may not increase its general operating levy without a vote. See
Missouri Constitution, Article
Maximum Tax Rate With Approval By Simple Majority of the Votes Cast
Part B of your second question asks what is the ambulance district in question's maximum general operating levy for 1986 that can be authorized by a simple majority of the votes cast. We conclude that the ambulance district in question can increase its general operating levy from eight cents ($.08) to sixteen cents ($.16) in 1986 with the approval of a simple majority of the votes cast.
Under the facts you have hypothesized, in 1985, the year of the tax rate reduction, the ambulance district was not at its statutory maximum. The district was levying fifteen cents ($.15) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation and the statutory maximum prior to the tax rate reduction was thirty cents ($.30) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation. It is clear that prior to the tax rate reduction the ambulance district would have had to obtain a simple majority vote to raise its tax rate from fifteen cents ($.15) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation to thirty cents ($.30) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation. Missouri Constitution, Article
As we view the situation, subparagraph (b) of subsection 6(1) of Section
Maximum Tax Rate Maximum Which Can Be Tax Rate Imposed After A Prior To Tax Rate Tax Rate = Reduction x After Reduction With Tax Rate Reduction The Approval Prior To Of A Simple Reduction Majority Of The Votes Cast
Applying this formula to the facts hypothesized, we arrive at the following:
Maximum Tax Rate Which Can Be Imposed After $.30 Tax Rate Reduction = ---- x $.08 = $.16 With The Approval Of A $.15 Simple Majority Of The Votes Cast
Thus, we conclude that the maximum tax rate which the ambulance district can impose after tax rate reduction with a simple majority vote is sixteen cents ($.16) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation.
Maximum Tax Rate With a Two-Thirds Majority Vote
Part C of your second question asks what is the ambulance district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by two-thirds majority of the votes cast. We conclude that the ambulance district cannot increase its general operating levy above the sixteen cent ($.16) level discussed in part B of your second question by approval of a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.
Section
This language in Section
III. If a taxing district 1) by statute could have been authorized to levy a property tax of $0.25 per $100 assessed valuation if approved by the voters, 2) at an election prior to 1980 had been authorized by the voters to levy a property tax of $0.10, 3) in 1980 levied a property tax of $0.10, 4) in 1984 levied a property tax of $0.10, and 5) in 1985 was required to reduce its property tax rate to $0.06 because of the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring a reduction in property taxes the year a general reassessment occurs,A. What is the maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the district without voter approval?
B. What is the district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters?
C. What is the district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters?
We assume that the taxing district in question is not a school district, see Section
Part A of your third question asks what is the maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the taxing district without voter approval. We conclude that under Section
Maximum Property Tax Rate With Approval of A Simple Majority of the Votes Cast
Part B of your third question asks what is the taxing district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters. Applying the formula set forth in response to your second question, we arrive at the conclusion that the taxing district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters is fifteen cents ($.15) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation.
Maximum Property Tax Rate With A Two-Thirds Majority Voter Approval
Part C of your third question asks what is the taxing district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters. We conclude that the taxing district may not increase its general operating levy above the fifteen cent ($.15) level by a two-thirds majority of the votes cast.
As discussed with regard to part C of your second question, S.C.S.H.S.H.C.S.H.B. 1022, 1032 and 1169 repealed the authority for tax rate increases by a two-thirds vote under Section
IV. If a taxing district 1) by statute prior to 1985 was authorized to levy a property tax of $0.10 per $100 assessed valuation if approved by the voters, 2) at an election prior to 1980 had been authorized by the voters to levy a property tax of $0.10, 3) in 1980 levied a property tax of $0.10, 4) in 1984 levied a property tax of $0.10, 5) in 1985 was required to reduce its property tax rate to $0.04 because of the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring a reduction in property taxes the year a general reassessment occurs, and 6) by statute taking effect September 28, 1985 (which was after the 1985 property tax rate was set) is authorized to levy a property tax of $0.25 if approved by the voters,A. What is the maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the district without voter approval?
B. What is the district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters?
C. What is the district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters?
We understand that this hypothetical is designed to deal with county health center taxes. Section
Part A of your fourth question asks what is the maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the district without voter approval. We conclude that under Section
Maximum Property Tax for 1986 Which Can Be Approved By a Simple Majority of the Voters
Section
(2) For a political subdivision authorized to submit new or increased tax levies to their voters by legislation adopted in 1985, or in any year in which general reassessment occurs in the county containing the major portion of the political subdivision, the subdivision may levy the full amount authorized by such laws on approval of the vote required by the law and the tax rate ceiling of such political subdivision may be increased to recognize the voted increase.
It has been the general view of this office that county health centers are not "political subdivisions" separate and apart from the county, but, rather, county health centers are an agency of the county. See, e.g., Opinion No. 225, Banta, 1974. Therefore, this language is not applicable to the hypothetical in question.
Because the increase in the statutory maximum for property tax rates from ten cents ($.10) to twenty-five cents ($.25) became effective on September 28, 1985, the taxing district was at its statutory maximum of ten cents ($.10) when the 1985 rates were set. See Section
Maximum Tax Rate With a Two-Thirds Majority Voter Approval
Part C of your fourth question asks what is the taxing district's maximum property tax rate for 1986 which can be authorized by two-thirds majority of the votes cast. We have concluded, in part B of your fourth question, that the taxing district can increase its tax rate up to its statutory maximum by simple majority vote. Voter approval by two-thirds majority of the property tax rate cannot increase the rate above the twenty-five cent ($.25) limitation set forth in Section
V. If a third class city 1) in 1980 levied a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $0.60 per $100 assessed valuation, 2) in 1984 levied a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $0.30, 3) in 1985 was required to reduce its property tax rate for its General Revenue Fund to $0.20 because of the constitutional and statutory provisions requiring a reduction in property taxes the year a general reassessment occurs,A. What is the city's maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be enacted by the governing body of the city without voter approval?
B. What is the city's maximum property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters?
C. What is the city's maximum property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters?
Part A of your fifth question asks what is the maximum permissible general operating levy for 1986 which can be enacted by the governing body of the City without voter approval. We conclude that the City can impose a general operating levy of up to forty cents ($.40) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) of assessed valuation in 1986 without voter approval.1
Immediately prior to the tax rate reduction, the City's general operating levy was thirty cents ($.30). The City's 1980 general operating levy was sixty cents ($.60) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation. Thus, in 1984, immediately preceding the tax rate reduction, the City was below its Hancock Amendment limit. See Missouri Constitution, Article
As we view the situation, subparagraph (c) of paragraph (1) of subsection 6 of Section
Maximum Tax Rate Maximum Tax After Reduction Rate Prior Tax Rate Which Can be = to Reduction x After Imposed Without Tax Rate Prior Reduction Voter Approval to Reduction
Applying the above formula to the facts hypothesized, we calculate the maximum property tax rate which can be imposed without voter approval as follows:
Maximum Tax Rate After Reduction $.60 Which Can be = ---- x $.20 = $.40 Imposed Without $.30 Voter Approval
Maximum Tax Rate With Approval By By a Simple Majority of the Votes Cast
Part B of your fifth question asks what is the City's maximum 1986 general operating levy which can be imposed with the approval of a simple majority of the votes cast. We conclude that the City may increase its 1986 general operating levy from the forty cent ($.40) level discussed in part A of your fifth question up to one dollar ($1.00) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation by simple majority vote.
The forty cent ($.40) levy discussed in part A of your fifth question becomes a new tax rate ceiling. When one applies paragraph (1) of Section
Maximum Tax Rate With Approval By A Two-Thirds Majority of the Votes Cast
Part C of your fifth question asks what is the City's maximum 1986 general operating levy which can be imposed with the approval of two-thirds majority of the votes cast. We conclude that the City may impose an additional thirty cent ($.30) levy over and above the one dollar ($1.00) levy discussed in part B of your fifth question under Missouri Constitution, Article
VI. If a third class city 1) had an assessed valuation in 1985 which was less than its assessed valuation in 1984 as a result of the general reassessment which occurred in 1985, 2) in 1980 levied a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $1.00 per $100 assessed valuation, 3) in 1984 levied a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $1.00, 4) would have had to levy in 1985 a property tax for its General Revenue Fund of $1.50 to bring in from property taxes substantially the same amount of revenue as was brought in from property taxes in 1984 but actually only levied in 1985 a property tax of $1.00 because the city deemed that to be its limit as provided by ArticleX , Section11(b) of the Missouri Constitution,A. What is the city's maximum permissible property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be enacted by the governing body of the city without voter approval?
B. What is the city's maximum property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be authorized by a simple majority of the voters?
C. What is the city's maximum property tax rate for 1986 for its General Revenue Fund which can be authorized by a two-thirds majority of the voters?
Part A of your sixth question asks what is the City's maximum 1986 general operating levy which can be imposed without voter approval. We conclude that the City may impose a levy of up to one dollar ($1.00) per one hundred dollars ($100.00) assessed valuation in 1986 without voter approval.
Subsection 2 of Section
Section
(3) For a political subdivision revising a tax rate in a year of general reassessment which experiences a reduction in the amount of assessed valuation for that year, due to decisions of the state tax commission or a court under sections138.430 to138.433 , RSMo, or due to clerical errors or corrections in the calculations or recordation of any assessed valuation:(a) Such political subdivision may revise the tax rate ceiling for each purpose it levies taxes to compensate for the reduction in assessed value occurring after the political subdivision calculated the tax rate ceiling in the year of general reassessment, for purposes of taxes levied in the year following general reassessment and subsequent years. Such revision by the political subdivision shall be made at the time of the next calculation of the tax rate after the reduction in assessed valuation has been determined;
(b) In addition, only in the year following the reduction in assessed valuation as a result of circumstances defined in subdivision (3) of subsection 4 of this section, such political subdivision may levy a tax rate for each purpose it levies taxes above the tax rate ceiling adjustment provided in paragraph (a) of this subdivision to recoup any revenues it was entitled to receive for the prior year;
(c) Provided, any adjustments in tax rates and tax rate ceilings permitted by this subdivision shall not exceed a rate limit specified in statute or the constitution or levels previously approved by voters.
Under the circumstances hypothesized in your sixth question, subparagraphs (a) and (b) of Section
If the above-quoted statute does not apply, then subsections .1(4), .2 and .6(1) of Section
Maximum Tax Rate With Approval By A Simple Majority of the Votes Cast
Part B of your sixth question asks what is the City's maximum 1986 general operating levy which can be authorized by a simple majority of the votes cast. We conclude that the City cannot increase its 1986 general operating levy above the one dollar ($1.00) levy discussed in part A of your sixth question with approval of a simple majority of the votes cast.
Because the assessed valuation of the City decreased in the year of the general reassessment, there was no tax rate rollback and Section
Maximum Tax Rate With Approval By A Two-Thirds Majority of the Votes Cast
Part C of your sixth question asks what is the City's maximum 1986 general operating levy which can be authorized by two-thirds of the votes cast. We conclude that the City may impose an additional thirty cent ($.30) levy with the approval of two-thirds of the votes cast. See Missouri Constitution, Article
CONCLUSION
It is the opinion of this office that the political subdivisions and taxing authorities in question may impose property tax rates up to the maximums discussed herein.
Very truly yours,
WILLIAM L. WEBSTER Attorney General
NOTES