On Nov. 2, Raytown voters will be asked to go to the polls and vote “yes” or “no” on a local use tax. This single ballot question will be a game changer. If passed it will generate an estimated $200,000 to $400,000 annually for our general fund. It would generate funds to help pay for such city services like street repairs, street maintenance, and additional police officers.
How will this be funded? Simply by doing what Raytown citizens are already doing, shopping online with certain out-of-state vendors. We all know the shift to online shopping reached an all-time high during COVID-19. In fact, nationally, consumers spent $861 billion online with U.S. merchants in 2020, according to Digital Commerce 360 estimates. That is a 44 % increase from the previous year. Consumers are using internet sales as their primary shopping method, and currently the City of Raytown does not receive sales tax on those purchases. That’s 2.5 % on each transaction that the city is not collecting. This small percentage adds up over time and across purchases.
Therefore, it is so important for our citizens to carefully consider this ballot question and what it will mean for our city.
I say this all the time. Raytown is a great town. Our city is rich in community spirit. We are proud of what our city offers. If we are to maintain our quality of life, we must level the field between local brick and mortar stores and online retailers.
Right now, the city is using its reserves to keep up with maintaining basic city services. City property taxes have remained the same since 1978. Most other taxes the city collects are dedicated for specific purposes and cannot be used in the General Fund. So, let’s just think about this. Are you making the same wage from 1978? Of course not. Why should the city be expected to try and meet current day expenses with a 1978 paycheck?
Many untruths and misperceptions are being circulated about the use tax. Here are the facts:
It’s Not a tax increase. The local use tax will not increase or change our local sales tax. It will only be applied to some out-of-state online purchases.
It is Not a double tax. A local use tax would only be applied to goods purchased, delivered and used in Raytown from certain online and out-of-state vendors, instead of a sales tax. You will never pay both taxes on a single transaction.
It is Not a new tax. Local retailers are already collecting a local sales tax. A use tax would allow the city to collect a use tax (sales tax) from out-of-state retailers or online vendors.
In simple terms, an online sales tax, better known as a use tax, simply requires online merchants to charge sales tax, which is then issued to the municipality in which the purchase was made. In Raytown, brick and mortar stores charge a 2.5% local sales tax, which is the exact same amount consumers would pay for online purchases if the use tax passes.
You see, it is the responsibility of your local government to offer services that citizens expect, like roads and public safety. In Raytown, those items, among many others, are paid for by sales tax dollars. The longer Raytown goes without a use tax, the harder it will be for the city to support economic development projects. If a city cannot provide support to economic development, then it will be more difficult to attract new businesses and new residents, as well as keeping the longtime residents here.
Let me say this. I am not a tax and spend kind of guy, but this city has done all it can with the resources we are given. Expenses keep going up, while the citizens keep expecting more and better services. These services take money to maintain and improve. We all want better roads, police and infrastructure. It takes money. We are losing or leaking tax dollars to internet sales at a rapid rate. It is time to make things fair for the brick-and-mortar stores that have a footprint in this city and must collect taxes on their sales. Please be educated on what this measure truly means for us now and on into the future. It is time to replenish the supply of tax dollars lost to internet shopping so that we may continue to support city services and keep this wonderful city moving forward, not falling behind.
This city is a wonderful place to live, work and play. Give your city government the tools to maintain services and move forward with projects to enhance our lives here. I am asking as your Mayor and longtime fellow citizen to please vote yes on this measure on November 2nd, 2021.
Thank you for your time and thank you for your vote for our town’s future. God Bless.
The proposed “Use Tax” is a tax on items you order shipped to you. I found it hard to find any information about the specifics, so I did a little research and found a copy in the Board of Aldermen packet for Aug. 17th and will include it in this post.
The city does need more income. This may help. I would suggest that more effort also be placed in getting real valuations for many business properties, especially on the 350 highway.
I assume that this will mirror Missouri in not taxing prescription medicine, but will tax food. Missouri being one of the few states that does not exclude food from sales tax, but does exempt drugs if they are prescription.
CITY OF RAYTOWN Request for Board Action
Date: August 12, 2021 Bill No.: 6579-21 To: Mayor and Board of Aldermen Section No.: III-A-9 From: Damon Hodges, City Administrator
Department Head Approval:
Finance Director Approval: ________________________ (only id funding is requested)
City Administrator Approval:
Action Requested: Request approval of ordinance to authorize a question regarding a use tax to be placed on the November 2, 2021 ballot.
Recommendation: Approve the Ordinance.
Analysis: Pursuant to the authority granted by the provision of Sections 144.060 through
144.761 RSMo., the City of Raytown is authorized to ask voters to approve a use tax.
A use tax applies to purchases from out-of-state retailers. Currently, someone making local purchases pays the City’s sales tax rate of 2.50% on every purchase (1% General Fund, .50% Transportation Fund, .375% Capital Fund, .50% Public Safety Fund .125% Park Fund). The City currently does not have a voter approved use tax; therefore, any items purchased from a business located outside of Missouri does not require the business to collect and remit the local sales tax.
Adoption of a use tax would require that the same tax rate is charged on items purchased locally or online.
The City of Raytown took similar steps in August 2016, when voters were asked to consider an initiative dealing with out-of-state motor vehicle sales, trailers, boats, outboard motors and RV’s. Voters approved the continuation of the tax by 72%.
The Missouri Municipal League in conjunction with the Missouri Department of Revenue, has completed an extensive analysis regarding the potential revenue being lost across the State in those cities that do not have a use tax. A use tax would generate an estimated $400,000.00 annually, dependent on the City’s gross receipts.
Alternatives: Failure to adopt this ordinance would leave the City without the funds.
Budgetary Impact:
Not Applicable
\\EDGE\administration\Board of Aldermen Meetings\AGENDAS-BOARD OF ALDERMEN\Agendas 2021\08-17-2021\Ord Use Tax 2021 RBA.doc
BILL NO. 6579-21 ORDINANCE NO. _______ SECTION NO. III-A-9
AN ORDINANCE IMPOSING A USE TAX AT THE RATE OF TWO AND ONE-HALF PERCENT (2.5%) FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF STORING, USING, OR CONSUMING WITHIN THE CITY ANY ARTICLE OF TANGIBLE PERSONAL PROPERTY PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY GRANTED BY AND SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF SECTIONS 144.600 THROUGH
144.761 RSMO; PROVIDING FOR THE USE TAX TO BE REPEALED, REDUCED OR RAISED IN THE SAME AMOUNT AS ANY CITY SALES TAX IS REPEALED, REDUCED, OR RAISED; AND PROVIDING FOR SUBMISSION OF THE PROPOSAL TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY FOR THEIR APPROVAL AT THE GENERAL ELECTION CALLED AND TO BE HELD IN THE CITY ON NOVEMBER 2, 2021, AND PROPOSING THE FORM OF THE BALLOTS TO BE EMPLOYED AT SAID ELECTION AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO DO ALL THINGS CALLED FOR BY LAW IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOLDING OF SAID ELECTION
WHEREAS, the City has imposed local sales taxes, as defined in Section 32.085 RSMo., at the rate of 2.50%; and,
WHEREAS, the City is authorized, under Section 144.757 RSMo., to impose a local use tax at a rate equal to the rate of the local sales taxes in effect in the City; and,
WHEREAS, the proposed City use tax cannot become effective until approved by the voters at a municipal, county or state general, primary, or special election; and,
WHEREAS, the Board of Aldermen of the City of Raytown, Missouri, has determined it would be in the best interests of the City of Raytown, Missouri to impose a use tax;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF ALDERMEN OF THE CITY OF RAYTOWN, MISSOURI, AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1 – SUBMISSION TO THE VOTERS. Pursuant to the authority granted by, and subject to, the provisions of Sections 144.600 through 144.761 RSMo., a use tax is imposed for the privilege of storing, using or consuming within the City any article of tangible personal property. This tax does not apply with respect to the storage, use or consumption of any article of tangible personal property purchased, produced or manufactured outside this State until the transportation of the article has finally come to rest within this City or until the article has become commingled with the general mass of property of this City.
SECTION 2 – RATE IMPOSED. The rate of the tax shall be two and one-half percent (2.50%). If any City sale tax is repealed or the rate thereof is reduced or raised by voter approval, the City use tax rate also shall be deemed to be repealed, reduced or raised by the same action repealing, reducing, or raising the city sales tax.
SECTION 3 – BALLOT FORM. This tax shall be submitted to the qualified voters of Raytown, Missouri, for their approval, as required by the provisions of Section 144.757 RSMo., at the General Election hereby called and to be held on the 2nd of November, 2021. The ballot of submission shall contain substantially the following language:
BILL NO. 6579-21 ORDINANCE NO. _______ SECTION NO. III-A-9
FOR GENERAL ELECTION IN THE CITY OF RAYTOWN, MISSOURI ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2021
“Shall the City of Raytown impose a local use tax at the same rate as the total
local sales tax rate, provided that if the local sales tax rate is reduced or raised by
voter approval, the local use tax rate shall also be reduced or raised by the same
action?”
¨ YES ¨ NO
INSTRUCTIONS TO VOTERS
If you are in favor of the question, place an “X” in the box opposite “Yes”. If you are
opposed to the question, place an “X” in the box opposite “No”.
SECTION 4 – ADMINISTRATION. That any sales tax imposed pursuant to this ordinance shall be computed, imposed, reported, administered, collected, enforced and shall operate in all respects in accordance with the provisions of the Revised Statutes of the State of Missouri and upon such forms and under such administrative rules and regulations as may be prescribed by the Director of Revenue, any provision of this ordinance notwithstanding.
SECTION 5 – NOTIFICATION OF DIRECTOR OF REVENUE. Within ten (10) days after the approval of this ordinance by the qualified voters of Raytown, Missouri, the City Clerk shall forward to the Director of Revenue of the State of Missouri by United States Registered Mail or Certified Mail, a certified copy of this ordinance together with certifications of the election returns and accompanied by a map of the City clearly showing the boundaries thereof.
SECTION 6 – EFFECTIVE DATE OF TAX. That any sales tax imposed pursuant to this ordinance shall be effective on the first day of the applicable calendar quarter after the director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax.
SECTION 7 – REPEAL OF ORDINANCES IN CONFLICT. All ordinances or part of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed.
SECTION 8 – SEVERABILITY CLAUSE. The provisions of this ordinance are severable and if any provision hereof is declared invalid, unconstitutional or unenforceable, such determination shall not affect the validity of the remainder of this ordinance.
SECTION 9 – EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall be in full force and effect from and after the date of its passage and approval.
BILL NO. 6579-21 ORDINANCE NO. _______ SECTION NO. III-A-9
BE IT REMEMBERED that the above was read two times by heading only, PASSED AND ADOPTED by a majority of the Board of Aldermen and APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Raytown, Jackson County, Missouri, 17th day of August, 2021.
Amendment 3 seeks to repeal the Clean Missouri redistricting reforms Missouri voters overwhelmingly ratified in 2018 that give the job of drawing new state legislative districts to a non-partisan state demographer and establish constitutional criteria that require districts to be drawn in a way that maximizes partisan fairness and competitiveness while minimizing the number of “safe” districts dominated by one political party.
Under Amendment 3, redistricting commissions consisting of members handpicked by the state Democratic and Republican parties would draw new districts. Creating districts that are competitive and fair would no longer be a top priority.
In addition, Amendment 3 would exclude children and other residents who aren’t eligible to vote from being counted for redistricting purposes, deviating from the practice of counting all residents that Missouri and every other state has followed since the nation’s founding. The change could result in some lawmakers representing substantially more actual residents than others, thus granting some communities disproportionate representation.
Republicans strongly opposed Clean Missouri and immediately after its ratification pledged to make repealing it a top priority. The Republican-controlled General Assembly placed Amendment 3 on the Nov. 3 statewide ballot with the passage of Senate Joint Resolution 38. The Senate approved it on Feb. 10 by a vote of 22-9 with a lone Republican joining unanimous Democrats in opposition. The House of Representatives voted 98-56 to grant SJR 38 final passage on May 13. Fourteen House Republicans opposed the measure while just one Democrat supported it.
Amendment 3 includes other provisions unrelated to redistricting that are included as enticements to win voter support. One would replace an existing $5 cap on the value of lobbyist gifts to lawmakers with a flat ban in most instances. The other would lower the limit on campaign contributions to Senate candidates from $2,500 per election to $2,400, while leaving contributions to House candidates unchanged at $2,000.
The coalition that championed ratification of the Clean Missouri amendment two years ago has mobilized to oppose Amendment 3, which opponents dub Dirty Missouri. As of Sept. 28, there had been no visible campaign in support of Amendment 3. While the Missouri Farm Bureau on Sept. 23 established a campaign committee to advocate for the measure’s passage, given the late stage of the election cycle, it’s unclear how aggressively Farm Bureau will engage and how much of an impact its efforts will have.
BALLOT LANGUAGE BATTLE
Although the Secretary of State’s Office usually prepares the ballot language for measures placed before voters, the General Assembly exercised its statutory prerogative to write its own ballot question as part of SJR 38. However, the Clean Missouri group immediately sued, alleging the legislature’s language was deceptive and intentionally designed to mislead voters.
The final ballot language prepared by the Western District panel, followed by the official fiscal estimate prepared by the State Auditor’s Office, which was neither challenged nor judicially altered, says:
Shall the Missouri Constitution be amended to:
• Ban gifts from paid lobbyists to legislators and their employees;
• Change the redistricting process voters approved in 2018 by: (i) transferring responsibility for drawing state legislative districts from the Nonpartisan State Demographer to Governor-appointed bipartisan commissions; (ii) modifying and reordering the redistricting criteria.
State governmental entities expect no cost or savings. Individual local governmental entities expect significant decreased revenues of a total unknown amount.
Because Attorney General Eric Schmitt, a Republican, declined to appeal to the Missouri Supreme Court on behalf of the state, the Western District’s rewrite is final and is what voters will see on the Nov. 3 ballot.
CLEAN MISSOURI REVIEWED
From 1966 until 2018, partisan commissions consisting of equal numbers of Democrats and Republicans got first crack at drawing new state legislative districts following each decennial U.S. Census. There were two separate commissions, one charged with drawing the 34 Senate districts with the other dedicated to creating the 163 House districts.
Although the governor appointed the commissions, he was required to pick members from lists of party loyalists submitted by the state Democratic and Republican parties, so his role in shaping the commissions’ membership was limited. If the partisan commissions failed to agree, which happened more often than not, the task passed to a special commission of six Missouri Court of Appeals judges chosen for the job by the state Supreme Court.
Clean Missouri, which voters ratified with 63 percent support in November 2018, created a new position of non-partisan state demographer and put that person in charge of legislative redistricting. The demographer is chosen by the top Democratic and Republican Senate leaders from among the applicants for the post. If the two leaders fail to agree, they can each eliminate one-third of the applicants from consideration, and the demographer is chosen by random lottery from among the remaining applicants.
While the partisan commissions still exist under Clean Missouri, their role is limited to reviewing the maps produced by the demographer. A commission can amend the demographer’s plan, but only if at least 70 percent of its members agree. If no changes are approved, then the redistricting maps are finalized as presented.
Under Clean Missouri, the top criteria for drawing districts is “partisan fairness,” which is meant to ensure that the number of legislative seats a given party holds is roughly equal to that party’s statewide popular vote total. The secondary goal is to enhance competitiveness to maximize the number of districts that are winnable by either party and minimize the number of districts where one party is dominant.
As has always been the case with previous redistricting systems, Clean Missouri requires districts to be roughly equal in population and consist of contiguous territory. While compact districts are preferred, compactness is subservient to other criteria.
If not replaced by Amendment 3, the Clean Missouri system is scheduled to be used for the first time next year when the process for creating new districts based on the results of the 2020 U.S. Census gets underway. The revised legislative districts will be used starting with the 2022 elections and ending with the 2030 elections.
PROPOSED AMENDMENT 3 CHANGES
Amendment 3 would eliminate the position of state demographer and restore the authority of the partisan House and Senate redistricting commissions. As with the pre-Clean Missouri system, if one or both of those commissions fail to agree on new district maps, then the redistricting task would be kicked to a six-member judicial commission chosen by the Supreme Court.
While the partisan fairness and competitiveness criteria would remain under Amendment 3, they would be the least important considerations when drawing new maps, with the focus instead on compactness and trying to keep districts entirely within municipal and county boundaries. Amendment 3 would allow for a deviation of up to 15 percent from the ideal when determining partisan fairness, which critics say could substantially exacerbate partisan gerrymandering.
Amendment 3 would delete an existing constitutional requirement that legislative districts be based of the total population of the state as determined by the last U.S. Census and replace it with amorphous language saying “districts shall be drawn on the basis of one person, one vote.” During legislative debate over SJR 38, the measure’s supporters said this change is intended to ensure that only eligible voters are counted when crafting new legislative districts, even though those excluded would still be entitled to representation. Such a limitation would prevent children, non-citizens and other Missouri residents who for whatever reason aren’t eligible to vote from being counted, thus arbitrarily skewing the populations of legislative districts.
In the event either the partisan or judicial redistricting commissions produced maps that violated constitutional requirements, Amendment 3 would erect new barriers to filing legal challenges by limiting who can bring such a challenge and severely restricting the ability of courts to declare redistricting plans unconstitutional. To have legal standing to challenge a redistricting plan, a voter would have to prove they would be individually harmed by it – a high legal bar – instead of merely showing a plan violated constitutional requirements.
During the last redistricting cycle in 2012, the state Supreme Court ruled a Senate map crafted by the appellate commission repeatedly violated a constitutional prohibition against splitting counties unless a county has enough population for more than one district. After tossing out the Senate map, the high court ordered the redistricting process to start over. Such a lawsuit might not be successful under Amendment 3’s restrictions on litigation.
ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF AMENDEMNT 3
Missouri voters didn’t understand what they were voting on in 2018 and deserve a chance to reconsider before the next redistricting cycle in 2021.
The 2018 redistricting system will result in sprawling districts that connect areas with little in common. Amendment 3 will prevent that from happening.
Legislative districts should be drawn to represent specific local communities and the people who live in them, not carve up communities to achieve idealistic goals.
Clean Missouri was designed to ensure that more Democrats are elected to the legislature, giving them through the redistricting process what they have been unable to achieve at the ballot box.
There are no safeguards to ensure the so-called “non-partisan” state demographer doesn’t draw new districts that favor one party over the other.
Redistricting is too important a task to entrust to the judgment of a single, unelected person.
For more than five decades, Missouri legislative districts were drawn either by bipartisan commissions or appellate judges, and the system worked well. Amendment 3 would restore that system.
Requiring districts to be drawn based on “one-person, one vote” will provide better representation by focusing them on the number of eligible voters instead of total population.
ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO AMENDMENT 3
Missouri voters decisively said just two years ago that they wanted to reform the state’s legislative redistricting process to eliminate partisan gerrymandering. Their decision should be respected.
For Republicans to attempt to repeal the new redistricting system before it has even had a chance to be implemented is unconscionable and shows they fear that fair and competitive legislative districts will threaten their hold on power.
Clean Missouri constitutionally requires a non-partisan state demographer to draw districts that are competitive and fair without regard to partisan interests. Amendment 3 will return to a system that is controlled by the two major political parties for the benefit of the parties.
Republicans are willing to resort to deception in an attempt to trick voters into ratifying Amendment 3 by writing ballot language that completely failed to mention its primary purpose of repealing the Clean Missouri redistricting reforms.
Two separate courts declared the Republican legislature’s ballot language to be false and misleading and ordered it to be rewritten.
Provisions highlighted in the ballot language that reduce the value lobbyist gift to lawmakers from $5 to $0 and slightly reduce the maximum campaign contribution to Senate candidates are included in Amendment 3 solely to distract voters from its changes to the redistricting process.
Amendment 3 will exclude children and others who aren’t eligible to vote from being counted for redistricting purposes, denying fair representation to all Missourians who reside in undercounted districts.
Instead of requiring legislative districts to be fair and competitive, Amendment 3 would allow for partisan germanders that are even worse than what Missouri had under its old redistricting system.
MISSOURI STATE REPRESENTATIVE – 28th DISTRICT Jerome Barnes
Jerome Barnes is a proven leader who has given our community decades of service as a coach, athletic director, and school board member.
JACKSON COUNTY EXECUTIVE Frank White Jr
Frank White is our best hope to make changes in problem areas. His political opponents have had decades to correct problems like the county jail and now seem to blame these problems on Frank White. I am not certain of the outcome, but I like the odds better than trusting the political factions that have overseen the situation for over 20 years.
JACKSON COUNTY LEGISLATOR – DISTRICT 1 AT LARGE Jalen Anderson
Jalen is young, smart, honest and hard-working. We need more good people like him to get into politics.
JACKSON COUNTY LEGISLATOR – DISTRICT 2 AT LARGE Crystal Williams
Energetic, smart, and ok sometimes a little abrasive, but she does the right thing when it come down to the issues and the interests of everyone, rather than the interests of a few.
JACKSON COUNTY LEGISLATOR – DISTRICT 2 Arimeta DuPree
Arimeta is a personal friend who has the rare habit of thinking deeply before she speaks. I trust her character and her intellect. She will be a breath of fresh air to the county legislature.
JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF Darryl Forte
While a court has tossed this back to the party committees to select. I still urge you to vote for Darrell Forte. What one court decides, a bigger court sometimes overturns. Of all the candidates, Forte is the only one with the skills and inclination to clean up the mess in the sheriff’s department.
You may have noticed that I have not made recommendations for those readers who will ask for a Republican ballot this coming Tuesday. The reason is that I do not know enough about the candidates to make an informed recommendation.
Jessica Podhola is probably the best prepared 1st time politician running for office. She has lived in the district for many years, unlike her opponent who moved into the district when it became apparent that there would be an open seat in this district. Jessica has worked for progressive Democratic values for decades and has worked with Raytown Democrats.
I am not going to mince words, the choice is between a smart and hard-working person of character who is running a campaign dependent on a lot of shoe leather and a machine politician who was moved into the district to serve the interests of his patron political machine.
For more on this race click HERE for an excellent article in the PITCH.
Bonnaye Mims may have only 2 precincts in Raytown, but she lives in one of them and is a frequent speaker at the Raytown Democratic Association. Her reports on Jefferson City are second only to Tom McDonald’s in frequency. She is not beholding to any political machine, she is beholding to the people in her district. Mims is hard-working and extremely well versed on educational issues.
Jerome Barnes stands out as the only candidate who has a history of both working for our community and working for the Democratic Party. He is the only candidate that is not a stranger to working for Democratic issues and Democratic candidates.
He is a regular at the Raytown Democratic Association monthly meetings, where he keeps the membership updated on issues and events concerning the Raytown School District in keeping with his role as a member of our School Board.
Mr. Barnes has a long history of dealing with rules and regulations as a member of the US Army, the Postal Service, and the Raytown School Board. He is known for doing his homework and this experience and attention to detail will serve us well in Jefferson City.
Mr. Barnes chose Raytown to raise his family in 30 years ago and has a 30 year record of community service that has entailed working with people from all walks of life.
What is the core issue in a lot of these recent letters/press releases is that the Fire District is asserting that they are not getting their fair share of tax revenue. Get being loosely defined and both not getting money and being charged too much in some cases. This is about the TIF tax abatement for what can be called the Wal-Mart development. The details are complex, and since I am personally not a lawyer, tax accountant, or knowledgeable in TIFs and the details of the Wal-Mart TIF, I am very hesitant to judge the merits of either sides arguments.
Even the flow of money is complex, in that in some cases instead of not getting money, the Fire District is paying from the taxes it gets back to the city to pay for its share of the TIF. Is the amount correct, should they be liable for all phases of the project, did they agree to some aspects, is their explicate agreement requires? These are all questions that may take a judge to decide in the end.
Somewhere there is a quote about sitting on the fence getting you shot by both sides, but I cannot seem to find it.
Teacher educators support higher standards for admission into teacher education programs, and value rigorous and valid assessment of education students. However, much controversy has arisen surrounding interpretation of the initial results of the new tests for future teachers.
Faulty conclusions are based on low pass rates by prospective teacher candidates on a series of new standardized licensure tests called Missouri Content Assessments.
When a test produces a very high fail rate, a good educator doesn’t say, “My students are all stupid,” but rather, “I did not adequately help my students understand this content” or “This instrument is not a valid measure of the content/skills I intended to measure.”
The first groups administered the Missouri Content Assessments took a test that is not a valid measure of what they learned in their education programs because the curriculum in those programs was aligned to Praxis, the testing series formerly used for licensure.
This is like teaching your teen to drive an automatic, and then expecting him to drive a stick shift during his driver’s test. Your teen understands how to drive and may actually be skillful, but he won’t be able to show off those skills using unfamiliar equipment.
Blaming the test takers for a high fail rate is as incorrect as assuming that the high pass rate on the previous licensure test indicated the test was “too easy”. Does a high pass rate automatically mean a test is too easy? Consider:
University of Missouri reports that in their Physical Therapy program, the licensure examination [ultimate] pass rate is 100 percent according to Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy (2010, 2011, 2012).
Washington University in St. Louis boasts a 96 percent pass rate for Internal Medicine Board Exams 2012-2014.
In Missouri, 88.34 percent of candidates with a bachelor’s degree in nursing passed the NCLEX Exam.
For 2014, the first-time pass rate for the Missouri Bar Exam was 87.5 percent.
Using the logic of some state education leaders, it’s very easy to become a physical therapist, a doctor, a nurse or a lawyer in Missouri.
An alternate explanation for a high pass rate is that students must meet entrance criteria for any professional program in Missouri, including teacher education. Upon successful completion, they are well educated and thus well prepared for the exam.
Finally, there is no evidence yet to demonstrate these tests are technically sound in any way. The State Board also acknowledges biases against minority students, who represent the highest fail rates.
For these reasons, critics should step down. Teacher education is working hard to meet unreasonable timelines for implementing a system that is fraught with problems. We all want the same thing: quality education for all the children of Missouri.
Nicole Nickens lives in Lee’s Summit. She is a professor of Educational Psychology and department chair of Elementary & Early Childhood Education at University of Central Missouri and an executive board member of Missouri Association of Colleges for Teacher Education.
This op-ed piece was written by one of my colleagues at UCM and also appears in the Kansas City Star today:
I am sorry to say I have neglected RaytownOnline.com for a couple of weeks. The effort to deal with the election, and the advent of yard and garden work left me exhausted and needing a break. I have fined myself a months salary for my neglect ($0.00) and have a lot of news to post to catch up.
In the recent city election, a few of the candidates relied on the age-old political tactic of “promising a free lunch” when discussing the need for street repairs in Raytown. Most reasonable people would agree that we need safe streets that are free from potholes, and curbs and sidewalks in many of our neighborhoods. To be fair, the candidates didn’t say anything actually would be free, they just failed to mention the potential financial cost of their promises. Then again, they didn’t actually promise anything specifically, they just complained about the status quo for the most part. The target of their complaint is the use of light-weight aggregate instead of mill and overlay in street repair.
Not very exciting, but please stick with me and keep reading to get the facts. Yes, mill and overlay makes a nicer surface and last 50% longer, but that process costs more than 3 times as much as aggregate. This is a simple allocation-of-resources problem. If you have $15 and 5 kids, you can buy one of them a steak and four of them go without dinner, or you can feed all five a hamburger.
In the past 5 years, the city has fixed 110 lane miles of streets using a combination of the two methods. If only mill and overlay was used, that number would have been 63 lane miles. To have completed the entire 110 miles with the more expensive method, taxes would have to be raised, or other programs would have to be cut. There is no free lunch.
The city spends about $830,000 a year on streets. To do all mill & overlay would cost almost a million dollars more. So the next time politicians promise steak instead of hamburger, they need to also tell us where the money will come from.
At the request of RaytownOnline, the City of Raytown supplied the cost data on paving, some of which appears below.
Street Maintenance Program Costs
The City of Raytown maintains 331 lane miles. We use the transportation sales tax and some City revenue to pay to upkeep our streets. Over the last five (5) years the City has spent $833,600 per year for this service. These costs also include sidewalk and curb repair, striping as well as handicap ramps which is a federal law requirement under the American with Disabilities Act (ADA). We have to be in compliance with this law.
To understand the numbers you need to know how the Public Works Department determines costs. A lane mile is a unit of measurement used by Public Works Departments for determining progress of maintenance programs. One lane mile is the width of one lane (12 feet) by one mile (5,280 feet). If you have a two lane street then that would be two lane miles. A turn lane also counts as a lane mile.
The two tools the City of Raytown uses are Light Weight Aggregate Seal and Mill and Overlay. The cost per lane mile and life cycle of each tool is:
Cost per Lane MileLife/Treatment
Light Weight Aggregate $21,542/Lane Mile 7 to 10 years
Mill and Overlay $66,176/Lane Mile 10 to 15 years
In the last five years, we have been able to complete Light Weight Aggregate on 70 lane miles and Mill and Overlay on 40 miles, in total 110 lane miles have been treated, or 33% of all the roads in Raytown using both tools. It is prudent to use the most appropriate tool at the proper time. Using the Light Weight Aggregate treatment stretches the life of the street and allows us to keep our roads in a manageable condition.
This is the worst of the last three charters presented to the voters of Raytown. The previous charter was flawed with conflict and inconsistencies within it. The Charter before that attempted too many changes and was probably rejected by voters unwilling to make that great a leap into the unknown.
The proposed Charter would take us from a weak Mayor to a ceremonial Mayor. The Mayors power would be to Chair the Board meeting and cut ribbons.
It would transfer power from the Parks Board into the hands of the Alderman and it would set the qualification requirements for Police Chief to vague standards that very well could result in litigation between candidates over whether those standards are met. All decisions could be reviewed by the Board of Aldermen if just 3 Aldermen agree. Hiring and salary of the Parks Director us a decision made by the Aldermen
The Parks and Recreation Director may be removed from office by a majority vote of the Board of Aldermen and shall serve at their pleasure.
We would have a Parks Director with two masters, but one that can fire him. Part of the reasoning for having an independant Parks Board with money we voted to have them use for the Parks alone, was to separate it from politics. If the Aldermen can hire, fire and set the salary of the Parks Director, then there is no separation from politics.
Here is a small sample of from the section on Chief of Police that runs from page 12 to page 16.
Candidates for the Chief of Police shall also possess:
1) considerable knowledge of the principles of modern police administration and police methods;
2) considerable knowledge of the principles and accepted good practices and procedures as applied to patrol, traffic control, criminal investigation, and crime prevention;
What constitutes considerable knowledge and who determines if a candidate possesses that knowledge? Do they get to take a test? Does a Police Chief actually have to be able to wear every hat in the department, to oversee the department? Is there someone in the Police Department that meets these qualifications and are these qualifications tailored to insure he runs unopposed?
While the City Administrator must live in the City, the Municipal Judge is not required to live in Raytown and can actually serve as a Judge for other communities.
c) Qualifications for Office; Outside Employment. The Municipal Judge shall possess and maintain the following qualifications before and after taking office:
i. Must be a licensed attorney, qualified to practice law within the State of Missouri, and shall have been engaged in active practice of law in the State of Missouri for at least three (3) years immediately preceding election.
ii. Need not reside within the City.
iii. Must be a resident of the State of Missouri and have resided in the State for one (1) year immediately preceding election.
iv. May serve as Municipal Judge for any other municipality.
Click Below to download a complete copy of the Proposed City Charter
RaytownOnline has suffered from neglect recently. The main editor, janitor, and bottle washer (myself) was given an early Christmas present of a head cold, which soon became a head and chest cold. The only activities within our limited skill set AC (after cold) were tea making and sitcom watching. I am now going to try more challenging tasks and articles will resume.
Amendment #3 would take control away from locally elected school district and apply a flawed formula for teacher evaluation and retention. Any formula that relies solely on student test scores and does not take into account what the students abilities were when they started the class is unfair. Teachers working with students who are far behind in grade level performance would suffer. Districts with an influx of below average students from neighboring districts would suffer.
Individual progress is a better indicator of teaching skill, rather than group test results.
No on #2 : Allows evidence from instances where the individual was found innocent to be introduced
No on #6: Does not actually increase voter access and leaves early voting subject to the legislatures willingness to fund it.
No on #10: It is a power grab by the legislature away from the Governor.
In the past RaytownOnline.com has limited political attention to candidates for the City of Raytown and the Raytown School District. Recent events concerning the Jackson County Legislature granting property tax-free status and renewal of property free status at the expense of the income of the Raytown School District in the past, prompted broader political scrutiny for the sake of our community.
Jackson County Legislature, 1st District at Large (Democrat) Sherwood Smith
Mr. Smith can point to a long history of involvement working for Democratic values and has the skills and knowledge that the job requires. His opponent has name recognition and a commendable history working with children, but needs more political experience before tackling a job in the often rough arena of the Jackson County Legislature.
Jackson County Legislature, 2nd District (Democrat) Sterling Brown
Mr. Brown lives in Raytown with his wife and children and has a history of supporting issues that help working class families. The former 2nd District Legislator totally ignored the Raytown portion of his district and the odds are good that his hand-picked successor with do the same.
Jackson County Legislature, 6th District (Republican) Theresa Galvin
Ms. Galvin seems knowledgeable and articulate. It is hoped that Raytown will receive better attention from her than it has from the incumbent Bob Spence. To Mr. Spence’s credit, he has attended a couple of Raytown Chamber of Commerce functions recently, but after many years in office, it is too little and too late.
RaytownOnline.com position on two of the Constitutional Amendments that will be on the ballot next Tuesday.
Constitutional Amendment #1: The Right to Farm – NO
The very name of this amendment is deceptive. This amendment is not about the right to farm in any traditional sense. It is about the right to put HUGE hog production facilities in Missouri, without local government having any control. The amendment also loosens restrictions on foreign ownership of Missouri farmland and loosens restrictions on puppy mills. In the past county and city governments have been able to prevent damage to the local air quality and threats to the local water table by the use of zoning and health codes that control where large hog factories can be placed. This amendment would prevent local government from deciding where they want to allow hog factories to be placed. This bill is totally for the benefit of LARGE hog factories, foreign farm investors, and puppy mills. It does nothing for family farms and takes power away from local government ability to protect their citizens.
Constitutional Amendment #7 Sales Tax Increase for Transportation – NO
We agree there is a need to repair and upgrade Missouri highways and bridges, BUT this is the WRONG way to pay for it. The logical source of revenue would be an increase on the gasoline and diesel fuel tax, a tax that has not been raised for over 20 years. The fuel tax has not even been adjusted for inflation and is one of the lowest in the Midwest. The amendment goes further, it prevents any raising of fuel taxes for 10 years. Those that use and put the most wear and tear on our highways are the trucking industry, and they are a major force behind this legislation. NO free ride for trucking companies at the expense of everyone else, including people that do not or cannot even drive.
Local elections have more real effect on our lives than any other level of elections. The quality of our streets, lights, safety, health, and education are dependent of good local government. Our votes have more effect on local government than any other level of government. The majority in many city elections for positions like alderman can be as low as a few hundred and the winning margin has been under 10 votes in a significant number of elections in Raytown in the last couple decades.
Please take a few minutes to vote today. The lines are never long in Raytown. Take a step further and remind a friend or neighbor that today is a local election day and if you use facebook, twitter, myspace, or any other form of social media, use it to get the message out that it is time to vote now. This message can be shared with almost no effort by clicking on the social media buttons at the bottom of the article.
Thank You Michael N. Downing Editor of RaytownOnline.com
The charter candidate information has been organized in a table with links to the candidates’ submissions to RaytownOnline.com and their answers to the questionnaire RaytownOnline.com emailed them. Not all candidates have responded; consequently, the table has many blank areas that hopefully will be filled in by election day. Due to time constraints and the amount of effort this article has taken and will take, and the fact that some of the candidates will never respond, it will be published now and updated if and when RaytownOnline receives more responses.
Raytown voters and Raytown School District voters will have choices to make on Tuesday, April 8th.
Editorial Content
Feel free to share this in electronic or printed form
For Raytown voters, these are the choices:
1. Does Raytown renew the 1/2 cent sales tax that is earmarked for transportation purposes for a period of ten years?
Yes: This one is the easiest choice to make. I have seen major improvement since this was passed. I can remember a street that was in total failure just two blocks from my home when I first moved to Raytown. I truly might have had second thoughts about buying my home if I had noticed this and other Raytown street conditions. Further, Raytown lags far behind our neighboring cities in providing sidewalks; many of our children wait for the school bus or walk to school in the street.
2. Does Raytown renew the 3/8 cent sales tax that is earmarked for capital improvements purposes for a period of ten years?
Yes: This tax pays for the equipment needed to provide services such as police, ambulance, and snow removal.
Unlike many taxes, both these sales taxes are monitored by a citizen oversight committee that insures the tax money is spent in the manner that the voters approved. Without these revenues, the Raytown would have to dip into general funds and the money is not there.
3. Do we create a commission to frame (write) a charter (like a constitution for a city)?
Yes: A charter would be good for the city, if it is a good charter. There is risk, however. We could get a commission that wastes time and taxpayer money to draft a charter that will not pass, or a charter that should not pass. Another risk would be a charter that sets the threshold for recall/initiative/referendum so low that Raytown might be drained of our tax money paying for elections for issues that have no real popular support.
4. Which 13 candidates out of a field of 22 shall frame this charter?
RaytownOnline endorsements will be indicated by Y, N, or ?. Many of the candidates are not well known in the community, or did not respond to the request for information, so it is not possible for me to have an opinion on how well they will serve based on previous service in elected or volunteer positions. The key word in that last sentence is OPINION, as an endorsement from RaytownOnline.com is actually only my personal opinion, based on years of paying attention to the events that concern Raytown.
You do not have to vote for all 13 positions. Voting for a candidate you know nothing about reduces the chance of candidates you want elected actually winning.
Candidate
Endorsed
Comments
Joe Burton
Janet Emerson
Lisa Emerson
N
Jason Greene
Mark Moore
Chris Rathbone
Y
Robbie Tubbs
N
Susan Thorsen
Jim Aziere
Y
Former US Constitution teacher
Richard Koop
Steve Guenther
Greg Walters
N
Charlotte Melson
Y
Susan Dolan
N
Sandra Wood-Hartwell
Y
Ted Bowman
Y
Michael McDonough
Y
Excellent people and organizational skills
Mary Jane Van Buskirk
Y
David McCauley
Y
Witty Wittman
Y
Matthew Cushman
Y
Jerome Barnes
Y
Strong history of both community service and working with diverse people towards a common goal
For Raytown School District voters this is the choice:
Shall the Raytown School District be allowed to borrow $22 million dollars for the purpose of constructing, renovating, improving, furnishing and equipping school facilities of the District, including safety and security enhancements, roof replacements, lighting improvements, restrooms, plumbing, electrical and technology upgrades, and renovation and expansion of the existing Raytown South High School athletic facility and issue bonds for the payment thereof?
Yes: About 85% of this bond issue is targeted at needed repairs and upgrade. Failure to make the repairs would results in greater costs in the future. Failure to upgrade school security could result in a disaster. The expenditure to on a football field at Raytown South is not a high priority item and I would prefer that money was spent building a swimming facility to replace the loss of the YMCA pool. The bond issue addresses a multitude of needs and it is surprising that most of them deserve to be funded. 85% is a remarkably high percentage.
Click HERE to see the Election Board ballot for the Raytown City election.
Click HERE to see the Election Board ballot for the Raytown School District election.
Feel free to share this in electronic or printed form
RaytownOnline.com has added a high-definition video drone to capture aerial photos and video of events in Raytown. Unfortunately more work is needed for pilot training. I thought I was up to the task of flying among a stand of trees. Hopefully the replacement parts to fix the damage that occurred in this flight will arrive soon.
It has come to my attention that this video was not viewable on some systems. It was an attempt to directly host the video, rather than use YouTube. Until the problem is resolved, I am reverting to YouTube.
Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year from RaytownOnline.com. This is the start of the 5th year of existence in the community. The video below is a collection of a few of the images of the community that were published on the website in 2013. I hope you enjoy the show. As always, this video is best enjoyed in 720p mode and full screen.
On Tuesday, November 5th, please go to the polls and vote NO on the proposed sales tax increase of 1/2 cent. This tax increase is wrong on many levels.
1. County sales tax is not the level to fund medical research.
2. Lack of over-site by elected of appointed representatives of the taxpayers. The taxpayers get one appointment, the hospitals and pharmaceuticals get 4 on the only board controlling the money that is not advisory.
3. Lack of expert over-site on a scientific level. This type of endeavor needs over-site for the taxpayers that has a knowledge base able to evaluate the requests and proposal that is more suited for a government agency like the National Institute of Health, not a local politician.
4. The taxpayer is expected to fund 100% of the overhead, yet big business will keep 80% of the profits if anything is discovered that is marketable. The proposed return on investment to the taxpayer is only 20% of the profits.
5. Food and medicine are not exempt from this sales tax.
The Kansas City Star, League of Women Voters, NAACP, Kansas City Business Journal, the Diocese of Kansas City ~ St. Joseph and Freedom Inc. have all come out in opposition to this tax. Every Jackson County Mayor that has been ask to support this tax has refused.
RaytownOnline.com seldom takes an editorial position, but this proposed tax is so wrong on so many levels that it required taking a stand in opposition. The good result of this proposal is that it has united liberals and conservatives in opposition to it.
RaytownOnline.com has changed from a 3 column format to a 2 column format. This will allow larger size photos and videos to be displayed on the page without the reader needing to click on the photo or on the full screen mode for the video to see a larger display. The new format will be at least 640 by 480 and sometimes a little larger than that. Clicking on a photo will still expand it to the native 1024 by 768 size and most videos can be viewed in High Definition at 1280 by 720 if the viewer goes to full screen and selects that resolution one the YouTube control bar.
This will reduce the amount of ads for charity space available, but at present time RaytownOnline.com is not close to filling up the available space.
Nothing is set in stone and the look of RaytownOnline.com will probably change in the future. The present format is efficient at presenting information, but the style is at least 5 or 10 years out of date. The hard choice is that stylish standards now seem to be bandwidth intensive and slow to load for readers without high speed access. A faster page load time is preferable to a slick looking page.
I am open to feedback on this.
Michael N. Downing Owner, editor, photographer, programmer, and janitor for RaytownOnline.com
RaytownOnline.com took an unscheduled vacation for about a week. My wife was home from work more and my garden kept demanding I pay attention to it as well. With my God Daughters help I put in some golden raspberries and boysenberries yesterday and weeded & mulched the asparagus.
There are some stories being worked up and they are important stories. They are also the type stories that I will actually have to do some real journalism, not just cutting and pasting press releases, or video recording, editing and posting. Hopefully I will get the facts straight. Now if those darned tomatoes would just turn red for me !
The YMCA of Greater Kansas City is closing the Raytown branch today. The stated reason is that this branch is losing money. The residents and government of Raytown have donated land and money to the building and operation of this facility. The stated goal of this non-profit organization is “The YMCA of Greater Kansas City, founded on Christian principles, is a charitable organization with an inclusive environment committed to enriching the quality of family, spiritual, social, mental and physical well-being“, not turning a profit. RaytownOnline.com feels a duty to examine this situation in detail.
It is interesting to note that the YMCA of Greater Kansas City reports about $8 Million in stocks and bonds on their federal forms.
It is also interesting to note that the YMCA is the 2nd highest beneficiary of funding from United Way of Greater Kansas City, receiving about $1 Million a year for various programs.
The YMCA of Greater Kansas City budget is below. Note that, while they got over a million dollars last year from the United Way, they only credited $2,500–less than 1 percent– of that Million to the Raytown Branch.
The YMCA also receives income for providing services to policy holders of multiple health insurance companies and organizations. It is not known if the income credited to the Raytown YMCA reflects the members and policy holders that use the YMCA. Does the YMCA organization plan to keep this income with the rationale that the remaining Raytown members will now go to 70th and Troost?
It is also interesting that the loss projected for 2013 appears to be equal to items tacked on the bottom that are at best arbitrary and debatable. These questionable items are things an organization doing well would like to put in the budget like building capital reserve, or items that probably will not go away like associated overhead. (Read Raytown’s share of the CEO’s salary and other expenses that will not be reduced by the closing).
The YMCA’s own budget shows an operation that is almost breaking even if management did not charge off building reserve funds, finance costs in lieu of sale (whatever that means, but the lending company is going to love the probable short sale), home office operations and reserve (which will continue after the closing), travel and conferences (did local Y personal get to go or is this just our “share” of the CEO’s expenses?) and other line items that require a more detailed explanation. If one were to add into the income a reasonable share of the funds the YMCA receives from other sources like the United Way and other organizations and businesses, this YMCA would be in the black.
The major portion of the projected deferred maintenance risk comes from bad decisions on the construction of the roof and HVAC (heat and air) made by the highly paid top management of the organization. This is not something anyone in Raytown had control over and should be born by the organization as a whole and not charged off against this particular facility. This number is reported by the YMCA to come from their facility management partner, Copaken Brooks. If they are using a management partner, what does David Byrd do to earn his much higher than average $277,000 a year compensation package?
One thing is clear, if Raytown is only getting $2,500 credited from local contributions to the United Way, we need to make sure none of our contributions in the future end up in the hands of the YMCA and monitor the numbers in the future to make sure that there is a proportional drop in what the YMCA receives from the United Way. Independence residents should be advised to take the same course of action along with all of the Kansas City resident that used Raytown or the Independence facilities.
City and School District officials have met with the YMCA and the results were not productive. First reports indicate that the YMCA has raised the price they demand the government pay to keep the YMCA in Raytown open for a few months longer and they have raised the asking price for the building. A building sitting on land given to them by a Raytown resident and a building built with the help of Raytown donors and Raytown tax money. Expect a more detailed report on this matter when press releases are received on this from our local government agencies involved.
RaytownOnline supports saving the local YMCA and the petition drive. We can no longer support the “save my y” website based on the questions they ask to allow registration and other factors.
You must be logged in to post a comment.