Section 14 Defining ?New? or ?Increased? Activity

• Library: Tax Law 2009

The majority of cases involving the state mandate provision have arisen in the context of a state requirement of a new or increased local activity. Missouri courts use a two-part test to determine whether a state-mandated change in local activity violates Missouri Constitution article X, § 21, of Hancock: The state must require a new or increased activity of a political subdivision, and the political subdivision must experience increased costs as a result of the state-mandated new or increased activity or service. See:

• Miller v. Dir. of Revenue, 719 S.W.2d 787, 788–89 (Mo. banc 1986) (new state law requiring forwarding of appellant’s arrest report and breath analysis test to state department is not an increased activity or service)
• State ex rel. City of Springfield v. Pub. Serv. Comm’n of State of Mo., 812 S.W.2d 827, 830–31 (Mo. App. W.D. 1991) (imposition by Public Service Commission (PSC) of new safety rules on municipal utility does not violate Hancock because “increased costs do not affect the municipality’s tax structure by increasing the cost of operating government and impose no additional burden upon the taxpayers”), overruled by Mo. Mun. League v. State, 932 S.W.2d 400 (Mo. banc 1996) (state requirement mandating testing of public drinking water was subject to Hancock Amendment)

• City of Jefferson v. Mo. Dep’t of Natural Res., 863 S.W.2d 844, 847 (Mo. banc 1993) (state law mandating filing of a new solid waste management plan found to require municipalities to incur additional costs in violation of Hancock)

Many of the cases addressing the state-mandate provision involve the payment of statutorily imposed wage increases. In Boone County Court v. State, 631 S.W.2d 321 (Mo. banc 1982), the Supreme Court of Missouri, in a 4-3 decision, concluded that a statutorily required salary increase for second class county collectors constituted an increased activity prohibited by the Hancock Amendment. The majority’s decision was based on its interpretation of the word “activity” as the “general functioning and operation of county government in performing services.” Id. at 325. The majority found that such a definition included increased governmental operations resulting from salary increases.

In Citizens for Rural Preservation, Inc. v. Robinett, 648 S.W.2d 117, 131 (Mo. App. W.D. 1982), a Missouri appellate court concluded that the state mandate provision was not violated when a county retained the power to choose whether to take certain actions...