Missouri committee hears HJR 94 to push six-year voter review of conservation sales tax; department and advocates urge caution

Representative Harbison, sponsor of House Joint Resolution 94, told the House Committee on Government Efficiency on May 1 that HJR 94 would reduce the dedicated sales tax that funds the Missouri Department of Conservation and submit the levy to periodic voter reauthorization to increase “government efficiency” and accountability.

Harbison said the measure would not eliminate the department but would “bridal them to the table to be more efficient,” and argued that some counties receive little direct benefit from conservation land holdings. “We pay the electric bill before we buy the bass boat,” Harbison said, describing the proposal as a way to let voters periodically review funding.

The hearing drew a mix of public testimony. Several witnesses from conservation and environmental organizations urged the committee to reject HJR 94 or to proceed cautiously, arguing the sales tax underpins conservation programs, land management and rural economies that depend on outdoor recreation.

Aaron Jeffries, deputy director of the Missouri Department of Conservation, told the committee the agency receives no general revenue and that the sales tax funds a wide range of services and infrastructure. “Our operating budget of that is right at 240,000,000. Our current fund balance is a hundred and 45,000,000,” Jeffries said, adding the department projects the fund balance will decline to about $55,000,000 by the end of FY26 or FY27. Jeffries said a full roll-back of the sales tax would remove roughly $90,000,000 from the agency’s revenue stream and would likely force closures or reductions of hatcheries, nature centers, shooting ranges and landowner programs.

Environmental services professional Zack Morris said Missouri’s services are widely regarded as a national model. “Missouri is the best at conservation,” Morris said, urging the committee not to “ask the voters to tear down the best part of our state.” Tyler Schwartz, executive director of the Conservation Federation of Missouri, and Elizabeth Smith of The Nature Conservancy in Missouri also testified in opposition, citing the department’s statewide economic and recreational role.

Other witnesses and committee members raised concerns about local impacts in counties that host large amounts of conservation land, including Shannon, Dent and Texas counties. Some members said the department should improve communication and local partnerships, and Harbison and several committee members agreed more detailed fiscal data was necessary before any legislative action.

Committee members asked the department for additional documentation. Representative Mayhew and other members requested a year-by-year comparison of revenues, operating budgets, fund balance and receipts from timber and other land-use revenues. Jeffries agreed to provide additional budget detail to the committee.

Votes at a glance: Earlier in the same meeting, the committee took final roll-call votes on multiple House bills during the executive session portion before the HJR 94 hearing. Those outcomes were announced on the record by the chair:

- House Bill 374 — voted “do pass” (14 ayes, 0 noes). - House Bill 631 — voted “do pass” (12 ayes, 4 noes). - House Bill 1309 — voted “do pass” (12 ayes, 5 noes). - House Bill 1104 — House Committee substitute (ending in .04c) adopted by voice vote; House Committee substitute then voted “do pass” (12 ayes, 5 noes). - House Bill 1281 — House Committee substitute (ending in .02c) adopted by voice vote; House Committee substitute then voted “do pass” (12 ayes, 5 noes).

No vote was taken on HJR 94 at the hearing. The committee concluded the public hearing after testimony and directed staff to collect fiscal detail and follow up with the Department of Conservation. The committee did not set a date for further action on the resolution.

Background: HJR 94 would alter the current statutory framework that dedicates a one-eighth-cent sales tax to the Missouri Department of Conservation and would place a reauthorization mechanism before voters on a periodic schedule (Harbison proposed every six years). Witnesses discussed several fiscal figures during testimony: fiscal-year budget and revenue projections varied among presenters and the department, but the committee identified the need for a single, reconciled spreadsheet to guide further deliberation.

What’s next: The committee asked the Department of Conservation to provide detailed, year-by-year revenue and fund-balance information and to clarify receipts from timber and other land-use activities. Lawmakers said they would review those materials before deciding whether to advance HJR 94 or to consider amendments.