Missouri House Bill HB1606 Introduced / Fiscal Note

                    COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:3703S.07A Bill No.:SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended Subject:Counties; County Government; County Officials; Political Subdivisions; Taxation 
and Revenue - Property; Public Officers; Salaries 
Type:Original  Date:May 1, 2022Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to political subdivisions. 
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully Implemented 
(FY 2026)General Revenue*
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$69,671,994)
 (Unknown, could 
exceed 
$81,428,983)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$81,431,513)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$83,953,941)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
General Revenue
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$69,671,994)
 (Unknown, could 
exceed 
$81,428,983)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$81,431,513)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$83,953,941)
*(SA 4) The fiscal impact to the state is the potential loss of the Department of Revenue’s 2% 
collection fee.  Oversight has ranged the impact from $0 (debt is already considered uncollectible 
and DOR would not have received the 2% fee even without this proposal) to $1,834,605 (which 
represents if DOR would have collected 100% of the $91 million of outstanding debt allowed to 
be reduced by this proposal).  Oversight assumes the actual loss to the state for these provisions 
is on the very low end of this range.
*(SA 12) - The fiscal impact (per match) is ranged from $0 (Kansas City is not selected to host a 
FIFA World Cup Match) OR a range of roughly $105 per ticket (assuming seating capacity will 
remain at 76,416 as currently configured for American football) to $1,100 per ticket. If Kansas 
City were selected to host more than one match, the negative fiscal impact would exceed the 
impact estimated above.
*(SA 19) - Oversight notes the lower range simply represents the cost of the estimated FTE 
needed by the Department of Economic Development (DED) and Department of Mental Health 
(DMH). Additional costs (unknown) would include construction of short-term housing, grants to 
local political subdivisions to construct short-term housing. FY 2023 estimated costs represents 6 
Mo in expenses for DED and DMH organizations as the proposal delays the implementation 
until January 1, 2023. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 2 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
Blind Pension 
Fund
(Unknown, could 
exceed $250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
Parks, Soil, Water 
Fund
(Less than 
$2,257,583)
(Less than 
$2,709,100)
(Less than 
$2,709,100)
(Less than 
$2,793,158)
Conservation 
Commission Fund(Less than 
$2,821,797)
(Less than 
$3,386,375)
(Less than 
$3,386,375)
(Less than 
$3,491,447)
School District 
Trust Fund
(Less than 
$22,575,832)
(Less than 
$27,090,998)
(Less than 
$27,090,998)
(Less than 
$27,931,574)
State Road Fund*
$0 or Unknown$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
Truman State 
University
Unknown to 
(Unknown)$0$0$0
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
Other State 
Funds
(Unknown, could 
exceed $27,905,212)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$33,436,473)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$33,436,473)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$34,466,179)
* (SA 21) Officials from the Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) assume, 
depending upon the condemnation proceedings, the savings, if any, could be up to $1 million per 
year. 
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
Federal Funds$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
All Federal 
Funds
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 3 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
General Revenue
2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
FTE 2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
☒ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any  
     of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
     the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2023FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented (FY 
2026)
Local 
Government*
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$91,785,844)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$112,780,415)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$112,780,415)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$116,668,070)
*(SA 4) Part of the net fiscal impact to the local political subdivision is the potential loss of the 
Department of Revenue’s 2% collection fee.  Oversight has ranged the impact from $0 (debt is 
already considered uncollectible and DOR would not have received the 2% fee even without this 
proposal) to $1,834,605 (which represents if DOR would have collected 100% of the $91 million 
of outstanding debt allowed to be reduced by this proposal). Oversight assumes the actual 
impact is on the very low end of this range. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 4 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Due to time constraints, Oversight was unable to receive some agency responses in a timely 
manner and performed limited analysis. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best 
current information that we have or on information regarding a similar bill(s). Upon the receipt 
of agency responses, Oversight will review to determine if an updated fiscal note should be 
prepared and seek approval to publish a new fiscal note.
§§50.327 & 58.095 – Compensation for County Coroners and Salary Schedules for 3
rd
 Class 
Counties
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 1128, officials from various counties did not 
respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact regarding this proposal. 
Oversight assumes §§50.327 & 58.095 state the county commission is responsible for 
determining the salary for the county coroner in non-charter counties. Section 58.095 contains 
the base schedule of salaries as determined by the assessed valuation of the county. Section 
50.327 adds an additional salary increase of up to $14,000 on top of the base schedule if 
approved by the county commission. Oversight is unclear of how much each county coroner 
receives in salary. However, there are 109 non-charter counties that could be considered for the 
additional funds in section 58.095 (if approved by the appropriate county commission). 
Oversight assumes if all of these counties approved the $14,000 increase, this could be up to 
$1,526,000 in increased salaries for coroners. However, Oversight assumes no increase coroner’s 
salaries would take place without the approval by the county commission. Therefore, Oversight 
will assume a cost of $0 (no salary increases) or up to $1,526,000 (salary increases approved in 
every non-charter county) for coroners for this proposal.
Oversight also notes in similar legislation from this year, SB 704, §50.327.4 relates to the 
following 3
rd
 class counties and their assessed valuations as of the 2020 census that are greater 
than the three hundred million dollars: L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 5 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes the proposal does not specify how the base schedules should be amended for the 
computation of salaries for 3
rd
 class county positions. Currently, the base salary for each of the 
positions in this section are as follows:
C
ounty
2
020
C
lassification
A
ssessed Valuation
A
dair
3 
        415,860,739 
A
ndrew
3 
        309,826,694 
A
udrain
3 
        416,179,373 
B
arry
3 
        578,441,026 
B
enton
3 
        307,087,967 
B
utler
3 
        667,507,793 
C
linton
3 
        353,505,104 
C
rawford
3 
        368,867,929 
D
unklin
3 
        314,994,430 
H
enry
3 
        435,915,841 
H
owell
3 
        534,978,779 
L
aclede
3 
        490,308,053 
L
awrence
3 
        546,241,819 
M
arion
3 
        519,654,554 
M
cDonald
3 
        315,078,544 
M
iller
3 
        492,134,546 
M
organ
3 
        572,600,385 
N
ew Madrid
3 
        455,255,626 
N
odaway
3 
        399,126,552 
P
erry
3 
        404,312,108 
P
helps
3 
        687,863,962 
P
ike
3 
        307,484,509 
P
olk
3 
        397,316,316 
P
ulaski
3 
        553,132,765 
R
andolph
3 
        526,364,813 
R
ay
3 
        393,522,956 
S
cott
3 
        536,493,885 
S
te. Genevieve
3 
        891,214,089 
S
toddard
3 
        522,288,378 
S
tone
3 
        749,458,097 
W
arren
3 
        674,203,668 
W
ebster
3 
        508,888,557  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 6 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
 
Therefore, Oversight will also assume a $0 (no adjustment to salaries) or unknown additional 
costs to 3
rd
 class county salaries for this section of the proposal.    
§§50.815 & 50.820 – County Financial Statements
Officials from the Clay County Auditor’s Office assume the provisions from RSMo 50.815.2.8 
to include salary information in the annual financial statement will cost Clay County 
approximately another $161.00 to publish more information in the newspaper--based on recent 
costs for publication. 
Oversight assumes the Clay County Auditor’s Office is provided with core funding to handle a 
certain amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes the Clay County Auditor’s Office could 
absorb the costs related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing 
and duties at substantial costs, the Auditor’s Office could request funding through the 
appropriation process. 
In response to similar legislation from 2020, HB 1814, officials at Henry County assumed a 
savings of $1,800 annually in publication costs from this proposal.
Oversight inquired with Henry County regarding this proposal. The County currently submits a 
14 page document to the newspaper which lists out every dollar by vendor. Since this proposal 
requires a summary of data to be published in the newspaper, Henry County’s publishing costs 
would be reduced as the number of pages would be reduced that would be submitted to the 
newspaper.
In response to similar legislation from 2020, HB 1814, officials at Lincoln County assumed a 
savings of $2,000 annually in publication costs from this proposal.
B
ase Salary
a
t $300,000,000
S
ection
A
ssessed Valuation
4
9.082
C
ounty Commissioners
2
9,700
$
              
5
0.334
R
ecorder of Deeds
4
5,000
$
              
5
1.281
C
ounty Clerks
4
5,000
$
              
5
1.282
C
ounty Clerk (Clay)
3
4,500
$
              
5
2.269
C
ounty Collectors
4
5,000
$
              
5
3.082
A
ssessors
4
5,000
$
              
5
3.083
A
ssessor (Clay)
N
/A
5
4.261
T
reasurers
4
5,000
$
              
5
4.320
C
ollector/Treasurer (Townships)
4
5,000
$
              
5
5.091
A
uditor
4
5,000
$
              
5
6.265
P
rosecuting Attorneys
5
5,000
$
              
5
8.095
C
oroners
1
6,000
$
              
4
73.742
P
ublic Administrators
4
5,000
$
               L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 7 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from 2020, HB 1814, officials at Livingston County assumed a 
savings of $2,500 annually in publication costs from this proposal.
Oversight assumes using the counties above as an example, if the average savings of the three 
counties publication costs is $2,100 and 96 counties (2
nd
, 3
rd
 and 4
th
 class counties) in Missouri 
published their financials in the newspaper, the potential savings could be up to $201,600 
($2,100 * 96) per year. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a potential savings in publication costs 
for counties to post their financials through a newspaper of general circulation in their county 
that could exceed $100,000 annually from this proposal.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 845, officials from Boone County and 
Greene County each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective 
organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight 
will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.  
§55.160 – Positions of County Auditors
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 889, officials from the Christian County 
Auditor’s Office assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. 
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero 
impact in the fiscal note for this section.  
§304.022 – State Park Rangers
Oversight assumes no fiscal impact from this section of the proposal.
§473.742 – Salaries of Public Administrators
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 1088, officials from Clinton County 
assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. Oversight does not have 
any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note 
for this agency.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2450, officials from the Public 
Administrator’s Office for the City of St. Louis assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact 
on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for this agency.  
Oversight notes each county has a public administrator, including the City of St. Louis.  
Oversight also notes that, currently, an incoming public administrator may elect to receive a 
salary or receive fees as may be allowed by law. Under terms of this proposal every public 
administrator beginning a first term on or after January 1, 2023, shall be deemed to have elected 
to receive a salary as provided in this section. Oversight assumes this proposal would potentially  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 8 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
increase the salaries in 2
nd
, 3
rd
 and 4
th
 class counties based on assessed valuation.  Oversight took 
the highest salary cap at 39 letters opened of $25,000 and calculated the difference in salary that 
would be increased based on the assessed valuation in the chart below. Using the Total Assessed 
Valuation by County in the 76
th
 Annual Report from the State Tax Commission, Oversight also 
organized the 2
nd
, 3
rd
, and 4
th
 class counties into salary classifications based on the assessed 
valuation.  From this chart, Oversight assumes there could be salary increases collectively 
exceeding $1,721,000.  Adding additional payroll taxes and workers’ compensation would yield 
a potential cost that could exceed $1,927,692 and Oversight will reflect this amount in the fiscal 
note for this proposal.
§137.115 Reduction of Assessment Percentage for Personal Property Tax (SA 1)
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note current law requires that personal 
property be assessed at 33.3% of its true value in money.  This act requires the county assessor of 
St. Charles County to annually reduce such percentage such that the amount by which the 
revenue generated by taxes levied on such personal property is reduced is substantially equal to 
one hundred percent of the growth in revenue generated by real property assessment growth, as 
defined in the act. Annual reductions shall be made until December 31, 2073.  Property tax 
assessments are handled by county assessors and the State Tax Commission.  This provision 
A
ssessed Valuation
C
ounty 
C
lass
N
umber of 
C
ounties*
H
ighest 
S
alary
A
ssessed 
S
alary
D
ifference 
i
n Salary
P
otential 
A
djusted Salary
$
8,000,000 to $40,999,999
3 1 2
5,000
$	2
9,000
$
        
4
,000
$
      
4
,000
$
           
$
41,000,000 to $53,999,999
0 0 2
5,000
$	3
0,000
$
        
5
,000
$
      
-$
               
$
54,000,000 to $65,999,999
0 0 2
5,000
$	3
2,000
$
        
7
,000
$
      
-$
               
$
66,000,000 to $85,999,999
3 2 2
5,000
$	3
4,000
$
        
9
,000
$
      
1
8,000
$
          
$
86,000,000 to $99,999,999
3 2 2
5,000
$	3
6,000
$
        
1
1,000
$
    
2
2,000
$
          
$
100,000,000 to $130,999,999
3 1
0
2
5,000
$	3
8,000
$
        
1
3,000
$
    
1
30,000
$
        
$
131,000,000 to $159,999,999
3 1
3
2
5,000
$	4
0,000
$
        
1
5,000
$
    
1
95,000
$
        
$
160,000,000 to $189,999,999
3 8 2
5,000
$	4
1,000
$
        
1
6,000
$
    
1
28,000
$
        
$
190,000,000 to $249,999,999
3 1
2
2
5,000
$	4
1,500
$
        
1
6,500
$
    
1
98,000
$
        
$
250,000,000 to $299,999,999
3 9 2
5,000
$	4
3,000
$
        
1
8,000
$
    
1
62,000
$
        
$
300,000,000 to $449,999,999
3
, 4
1
5
2
5,000
$	4
5,000
$
        
2
0,000
$
    
3
00,000
$
        
$
450,000,000 to $599,999,999
3
, 4
1
4
2
5,000
$	4
7,000
$
        
2
2,000
$
    
3
08,000
$
        
$
600,000,000 to $749,999,999
3
, 4
6 2
5,000
$	4
9,000
$
        
2
4,000
$
    
1
44,000
$
        
$
750,000,000 to $899,999,999
3 1 2
5,000
$	5
1,000
$
        
2
6,000
$
    
2
6,000
$
          
$
900,000,000 to $1,049,999,999
2 2 2
5,000
$	5
3,000
$
        
2
8,000
$
    
5
6,000
$
          
$
1,050,000,000 to $1,199,999,999
2 1 2
5,000
$	5
5,000
$
        
3
0,000
$
    
3
0,000
$
          
$
1,200,000,000 to $1,349,999,999
0 0 2
5,000
$	5
7,000
$
        
3
2,000
$
    
-$
               
$
1,350,000,000 and over
0 0 2
5,000
$	5
9,000
$
        
3
4,000
$
    
-$
               
9
6
1
,721,000
$
     
P
ayroll taxes
7
.65%
1
31,657
$
        
W
ork Comp
4
.36%
7
5,036
$
          
G
rand Total
1
,927,692
$
     
*
Number of Counties were based off of the Total Assessed Valuation by County in the 76th Annual Report from the State Tax 
C
ommission L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 9 of 
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
does not impact the Department and DOR defers to the State Tax Commission for the fiscal 
impact.
In response to a similar proposal (SB 649), officials from the State Tax Commission assume the 
provision has an unknown fiscal impact. Assessment reductions will impact negatively the 
revenue for school districts, counties, cities and other taxing jurisdiction who are supported by 
property taxes.  This bill reduces the amount of personal property tax revenues equal to the 
increase in real property tax revenues so this would eliminate an increase in local revenues until 
the percentage for personal property assessment reaches zero.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assumed this provision would reduce the 
assessment percentage for personal property each year in St. Charles County, starting with tax 
year 2023 and ending tax year 2073.  B&P notes that the assessment percentage for personal 
property is currently 33.3%.  The reduction in the assessment percentage will be by an amount 
that would offset increases in assessed valuation of real property each tax year.  In other words, 
the revenues generated under the personal property tax would be reduced by an amount to offset 
any revenue gains from increased real property values.
B&P notes that the reduction in the assessment percentage must only offset the increase in the 
real property assessed value, up to the consumer price index (inflation) between the two years.  
Therefore, if housing prices increased by 7%, but CPI only increased by 2%, the reduction in 
personal property would offset the 2% inflation limit.  
B&P further notes that Section 137.115.1(4) states that the state assessment under Article III, 
Section 38(b) of the Missouri Constitution shall remain at 33.3%.  Article III, Section 38(b) of 
the Missouri Constitution applies to the Blind Pension Trust Fund and the state property tax levy 
of $0.03 per $100 valuation.  Therefore, this provision will not impact TSR or the Blind Pension 
Trust Fund.
B&P notes that under this provision the St. Charles County assessor would have to maintain two 
sets of calculations for personal property.  One for the reductions on local assessments as 
required under this provision and another for the Blind Pension Trust Fund state assessment.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from the Department of 
Social Services and Office of the State Auditor
impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the 
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for 
this provision.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from the Howell County 
Assessor’s Office state the best estimate is this could reduce local funding by $1.6 billion dollars 
based on the 2020 data available.  Personal property comprises approximately 20% of the total 
assessed value in the state and total revenue generated was approximately $8.5 billion dollars.   L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 10 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
So their local subdivisions will lose funding, their office will have increased operating costs and 
their potential for a lawsuit will be increased.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from the St. Francois County 
Assessor’s Office assume the following loss (or shift of burden) in property taxes based on 
different percentages:
25%($2,240,484)43%($3,854,303)61%($5,467,732)79%($7,081,161)99%($8,873,860)
 
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from the City of St. Louis 
assume the passage of this bill would result in lost revenue to the City of St. Louis, the Collector 
of Revenue, and the Assessor’s Office. In 2022, this loss would total more than $850,000 among 
the three entities. This loss would only increase yearly the next ten years. 
The calculations rest on these assumptions:

value of personal property for many, many years. It does not vary up or down that much 
over the last decade


exceeds the CPI (which has historically been 2% average over the last 5 years) there is no 
instruction on how much of the 2% to be used for growth comes from residential, 
agricultural or commercial property. That determination will make a difference in tax 
amounts as commercial taxes are approximately double residential taxes for the same 
value property.


Note that the assessment rate change for personal property (one of the major components of this 
legislation) goes up in non-reassessment years. This is because personal property is about the 
same value every year, and new construction is about the same every year, so the calculations for 
even numbered, non-reassessment years are going to be very similar in what rate to charge to 
collect the allowable taxes. Since this legislation ends in 2073, then it will have a lower 
assessment rate (as assumed is intended).
If the assessment rate goes down 4%-5% per 10 years, then in 2073 (after approx. 50 years), 
there will still be approximately a 20%-25% decrease in the assessment rate, which would leave 
as assessment rate of approx. 8% to 13% in 2073. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 11 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Due to the number and nature of assumptions, and the very long time frame to 2073, there is a lot 
that could change if there are changes to any of the following:





In response to a previous version (SB 649), officials from the City of St. Louis computed a 
reduction in the personal property assessment from 33.3% currently to 29.4% over a ten year 
period.  In the tenth year, the estimated loss totaled over $2.075 million annually.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from Pattonville R-III School 
District assume the elimination of personal property taxes would eliminate approximately $17 
million in annual revenue to the school district, and $870 million to public schools across the 
state. The revenue loss will vary based on changes in real property valuation. However, the total 
impact to the district will be a reduction of $17 million in revenue.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 743, officials from the Newton County 
Health Department and the St. Louis County Health Department each assume the provision 
will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any 
information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for 
these agencies.  
Local Political Subdivisions
Oversight assumes this provision reduces the percentage at which personal property is assessed 
effectively reducing the assessed value of personal property over time. Oversight notes the 
revenue growth in property tax is determine by the following method:  
Last year’s revenues plus an allowance for growth equal to either:
• Inflation;
• Growth in total assessed value, or; 
• 5%, whichever is lowest  
Oversight assumes if
any reduction in the percentage at which personal property is assessed would reduce the 
maximum allowed revenue growth (relative to current law) which could impact all taxing 
entities. For example: L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 12 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Assessed 
Value Real
Assessed 
Value PP 
Total Assessed 
Value
Revenue 
Growth 
Factor
Maximum 
Allowed 
Revenue
Base Year 
(Assumed) $4,250,000,000$750,000,000$5,000,000,000
-
$6,240,000
Current Law
(Next Year)$4,377,500,000$772,500,000$5,150,000,0003.0%$6,427,200
Next Proposed
(Next Year)$4,377,500,000$702,272,727*$5,079,772,727-1.4%$6,240,000
Oversight applied a 3% growth in real and personal property. To calculate the proposed assessed 
value, Oversight reduced the 33% currently applied to personal property values by the growth in 
real property (33% - 3% = 30%). 
*Using the $750,000,000 assessed value for personal property, Oversight calculated the full 
value of personal property:
Full Value of Personal Property *.33 = $750,000,000
Full Value of Personal Property = $750,000,000/.33
Full Value of Personal Property = $2,272,727,273
Using the full value of personal property, Oversight applied a growth rate of 3% and calculated 
the different assessed values below. 
$2,272,727,273 x 1.03$2,340,909,091Total PP Value w/Growth$2,340,909,091 x .33$772,500,000Assessed Value PP (Current Law)Or$2,340,909,091 x (.33-.03)$702,272,727Assessed Value PP (Proposed Law)
Oversight notes, in the example above, the provision functionally eliminates the allowable 
increase in revenues attributable to growth. Revenues become fixed in time. However, Oversight 
notes the maximum allowed revenue would be lower than what could have been achieved under 
current law.  
Alternatively, if inflation or 5% is the lower option for determining the maximum allowed 
revenue, the calculation of revenue growth may not be limited by the reduction in assessed 
personal property. However, Oversight notes property tax revenues are designed to be revenue 
neutral from year to year. The tax rate is adjusted relative to the assessed value to produce 
roughly the same revenue from the prior year with an allowance for growth. Therefore, this 
provision may result in a higher tax rate relative to current law thus distributing more of the tax 
burden to real property owners (as personal property assessed values decrease).   L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 13 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes some taxing entities have tax rate ceilings that are at their statutory or voter 
approved maximum or are at a fixed rate. For these taxing entities, any decrease in the assessed 
values would not be offset by a higher tax rate (relative to current law), rather it would result in 
an actual loss of revenue.
Based on information provided by the Office of the State Auditor, Oversight notes, in 2020, 
there were over 2,500 tax entities with 4,000 different tax rates. Of those entities, 2,980 tax rate 
ceilings were below the entities’ statutory or voter approved maximum tax rate and 1,098 tax rate 
ceilings were at the entities’ statutory or voter approved maximum rate. (These numbers do not 
include entities which use a multi-rate method and calculate a separate tax rate for each subclass 
of property.)
Oversight will show a range of impact of $0 (the tax burden is shifted to real property owners or 
no growth in real property) to an unknown loss in property tax revenue for local political 
subdivisions.
The next assessment cycle would not occur until calendar year 2023 with impacted revenues 
occurring in FY 2024 (due in December 2023). Oversight
subdivisions beginning in FY 2024. 
Oversight notes section 137.115.1(4) requires assessors to continue to assess personal property 
at 33.3% for purposes of Article III, Section 38(b) of the Missouri Constitution. Therefore, 
Oversight assumes this provision will not impact the Blind Pension Fund. 
Ultimately, Oversight is uncertain how language of the provision would be applied, but assume 
local political subdivisions (counties) would incur some additional costs administering these 
adjustments (i.e. computer programming changes). In addition, Oversight received a limited 
number of responses from local political subdivisions related to the fiscal impact of this 
provision. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best current information available. 
Upon the receipt of additional responses, Oversight will review to determine if an updated fiscal 
note should be prepared and seek approval to publish a new fiscal note.
Oversight notes that this amendment only applies to St. Charles County.
§137.115 Cap on Growth in Assessed Values (SA 2)
Oversight assumes this proposal limits increases in the assessed values of individual residential 
property to 10% per year. Under the proposed legislation, Oversight assumed the assessed value 
would be 19% of the market value or the prior year assessed value plus ten percent growth 
whichever is lower. For fiscal note purposes, Oversight used a two property example to 
demonstrate the potential changes as a result of this proposal. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 14 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Table I: Assessed Values
Prior Year 
Market 
Value
Prior Year 
Assessed 
Value (19%)
Current Year 
Market Value
(Assumed)*
Assessed Value 
Current (19%)
Assessed Value 
Proposed**
Property 1$100,000$19,000$115,000$21,850$20,900Property 2$100,000$19,000$100,000$19,000$19,000Total$200,000$38,000$215,000$40,850$39,900
*For purposes of this example, Oversight assumed a 15% increase in the market value of 
property 1 and no change in the market value of property 2. 
**Oversight assumed the assessed value would be either the market value times 19% or the prior 
year assessed value plus a 10% increase whichever is lower. 
Oversight notes property tax revenues are designed to be revenue neutral from year to year. The 
tax levy is adjusted relative to the assessed value to produce roughly the same revenue from the 
prior year with an allowance for growth. Below is the basic formula for the tax rate-setting 
calculation:
Growth Factor Calculation
Current Year Adjusted Total Current Assessed Value$40,850Less Previous Year Adjusted Total Assessed Value-   $38,000$2,850Divided by Previous Year Adjusted Total Assessed Value/   $38,0000.75Times 100 x  100Actual Percentage Growth in Assessed Value7.5%
*The growth factor used in the tax levy calculation is either actual growth in assessed valuation 
as calculated above (7.5%), inflation based on CPI (1.4%) or 5% whichever is lower. In this 
example actual growth exceeds inflation, therefore the revenue growth factor used in the tax levy 
calculation is capped at inflation (1.4%).  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 15 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Tax Rate Calculation
Revenues Authorized Previous Year$1,900Times the Growth Factor*	x   1.4%Authorized Revenue Growth$27Previous Year Authorized Revenues$1,900Plus Authorized Revenue Growth+   $27Current Year Authorized Revenues$1,927Total Current Assessed Value$40,850Less New Construction (assumed for simplicity)-   $0Adjusted Total Current Assessed Value$40,850Current Year Authorized Revenues$1,927Divided by Adjusted Total Current Assessed Value/   $40,8500.04717x   100    Maximum Authorized Levy$4.717
Using the basic tax rate formula above and the Property Tax Rate Calculator (Single Rate 
Method) provided on the Missouri State Auditor’s website, Oversight estimated the potential 
changes in the tax rate from this proposal in the table below using the two-property example. 
Table II: Tax Rates
Total 
Assessed 
Values
Growth 
Factor*
Maximum 
Allowed Revenue
(Prior Year 
Revenue plus 
Growth Factor)
Tax Rate 
Ceiling
(Maximum 
Revenue/ 
Assessed 
Value)*100
Prior Year (Assumed)$38,000N/A$1,900.005.0000Current Year Current Law $40,8501.9%$1,936.004.7393Current Year Proposed Law $39,9001.9%$1,936.004.8521
*The growth factor used in the tax levy calculation is either actual growth in assessed valuation 
as calculated below (7.5%), inflation based on CPI (1.4%) or 5% whichever is lower. In this 
example actual growth exceeds inflation, therefore the growth factor used in the tax levy 
calculation is capped at inflation (1.9%).  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 16 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Currently, growth in assessed values allows the tax rate to fall over time. In this example under 
the proposed legislation, the tax rate would fall at slower rate than under the current law. 
Oversight notes some taxing entities have tax rate ceilings that are at their statutory or voter 
approved maximum. For these taxing entities, any decrease in the assessed values would not be 
offset by a higher tax rate (relative to current law) rather it would result in a loss of revenue. 
Based on information provided by the Office of the State Auditor, Oversight notes, in 2020, 
there were over 2,500 tax entities with 4,000 different tax rates. Of those entities, 2,980 tax rate 
ceilings were below the entities’ statutory or voter approved maximum tax rate and 1,098 tax rate 
ceilings were at the entities’ statutory or voter approved maximum rate. (These numbers do not 
include entities which use a multi-rate method and calculate a separate tax rate for each subclass 
of property.)
Additionally, in the example above, the growth in total assessed value was greater than inflation 
(as provided by STC). However, Oversight notes if the growth in total assessed values is less 
than inflation this proposal would result in a reduction of the maximum allowed revenue which 
would impact all taxing entities. Inflation as of December of 2021 was 6.8% (all items per BLS).
Because the tax levy would fall at a slower rate in this example as noted in Table II, the 
distribution of tax on individual property owners would change as noted below in Table III. 
Table III: Distribution of Individual Property Tax
Prior Year
Tax 
Burden
Assessed 
Value Current 
(Table I)
Tax Burden 
Current (4.7393)
Assessed Value 
Proposed (Table 
I)
Tax Burden 
Proposed 
(4.8521)
Property 1$950.00$21,850$1,035.53$20,900$1,014.10Property 2 $950.00$19,000$900.47$19,000$921.90Total$1,900.00$40,850$1,936.00$39,900$1,936.00
Based on information from the Federal Housing Finance AgencyOversight notes there 
were 121 census tracts in Missouri with an annual change in the House Price Index (HPI) that 
exceeded 10% combined for the 2019 and 2020 period (based on a two year reassessment cycle). 
Because this proposal limits the assessed value of individual residential properties to a 10% 
increase from the previous assessment, this will result in a decrease to total assessed values 
(relative to current law) as a result of any property that appreciates more than 10% over the two 
reassessment cycle. 
Oversight notes the Blind Pension Fund (0621) is calculated as an annual tax of three cents on 
each one hundred dollars valuation of taxable property ((Total Assessed Value/100)*.03). 
Because this proposal limits the assessed value portion of this equation, the Blind Pension Fund  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 17 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
will experience a decrease in revenue relative to what it would have received under current law. 
Below is an example of how this proposal would impact the Blind Pension Fund using the two 
property example.
Table IV: Blind Pension Trust Fund
Total Assessed 
Value
Blind Pension Trust Fund 
(Assessed Value/100)*0.03
Prior Year$38,000 $11.40Current Year Current Law $40,850 $12.26Current Year Proposed Law$39,900 $11.97
Per the STC’s website, total assessed value for residential property was $64,061,602,665 in 
2020. If this proposal reduced the total assessed value by 1.5%, the loss to the blind pension fund 
is estimated at $288,277.
Total Assessed Value (Current)$64,061,602,665Total Assessed Value if reduced by 1.5% (Assumed)$63,100,678,625Difference -$960,924,040Divided by 100 -$9,609,240Multiplied by 0.03 (Estimated Changed)-$288,277
  
In response to similar legislation from 2020, Oversight notes OA-B&P indicated they did not 
anticipate a reduction in funding relative to what is currently collected because the proposal still 
allows for some growth in assessed values. However, Oversight will show an unknown negative 
fiscal impact that could exceed $250,000 to the Blind Pension Fund relative to what it would 
have received under current law. 
Although the effective date of this proposal, if passed, would be FY 2023 (August 2022), the 
next re-assessment cycle would not occur until calendar year 2023 with impacted revenues 
occurring in FY 2024 (December 2023).
Oversight assumes there could be costs for implementation and computer programming. 
Oversight will show an unknown cost to county assessors to implement this proposal beginning 
in FY 2023 with on-going costs for assessors for additional staff and/or IT costs in FY24 & 
FY25. 
§115.062 – Election authorities accepting funding, gifts or grants (SA 3)
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 668, officials from the Office of the State 
Courts Administrator L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 18 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero 
impact in the fiscal note for this agency for this provision.  
O In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 668, officials from the Jackson County 
Board of Elections assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 668, officials from Platte County Board of 
Elections assumedthe funds received from private sources in 2020 totaled about $40,000 of 
which $19,000 was spent and would have needed to be covered by public funds if not allowed.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 668, officials from the St. Louis City Board 
of Elections assumed the proposal prohibits election authorities from receiving funding from 
extra-governmental sources. While it is unclear what sources could be available in the future for 
such funding, the inability to access such a possibility would have a negative fiscal impact on the 
bi-partisan St. Louis City Election Board to access funds.  Requiring photo ID for voters would 
likely increase the amount of provisional votes cast which would need to be processed by 
election board staff within the certification period. Increased staffing and possible overtime 
would have a negative fiscal impact.  This provision also eliminates the duty of the SOS to 
inform the public of the new ID requirement; lack of information would likely lead to confusion 
on the part of the voter; and lead to casting of more provisional ballots.
Officials from the St. Louis County Board of Elections assume the proposal would prevent 
them from accepting private money for election administration. This could have a potential 
impact from $0-$2 million.
Oversight notes §115.062 prohibits election authorities from accepting funding, gifts, or grants 
from any source other than the governing body of a political subdivision, the state of Missouri, or 
the federal government. This could have a potential negative impact on local elections authorities 
if they are unable to replace private money with an acceptable source according to this provision. 
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a potential loss of $0 to Unknown that could exceed $250,000 
on the fiscal note. 
§105.145  – Financial statements of political subdivisions (SA 4)
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for SS for SCS for SB 724, officials from 
the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) state §105.145 of the proposal 
excludes the fine for failure to submit annual financial statements for political subdivisions with 
gross revenues of less than $5,000, or for political subdivisions that have not levied or collected 
sales or use taxes in the fiscal year. This may result in a revenue loss for both the state and 
schools.
It also provides grace from fines if the failure to timely submit the annual financial statement is 
the result of fraud or other illegal conduct and allows a refund by the Department of Revenue 
(DOR) of any fines already paid under these circumstances. The one-time 90% downward  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 19 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
adjustment DOR is allowed to make on outstanding fine or penalty balances after January 1, 
2023 results in the amount of collections being reduced for both the state and DOR collection 
fees. A similar downward adjustment may be made by DOR if the outstanding fines are deemed 
uncollectable. These downward adjustments will likewise result in a revenue loss for both the 
state and schools.
Based on information from DOR, the department started imposing this fine in August 2017. B&P 
defers to DOR for more specific estimates of fines and actual collection costs.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) state §105.145- Annual Financial Statement 
(Effective August 28, 2022) provides that currently local political subdivisions are required to 
file annual financial statements with the State Auditor’s Office. Failure to file those statements 
results in the political subdivision being assessed a fine of $500 per day per statutes, which is 
deposited into local school district funds. DOR notes that the Department started imposing this 
fine in August 2017. DOR receives notice from the State Auditor’s Office if a political 
subdivision does not file their annual financial statement. At that time, the DOR sends a notice to 
the political subdivision and thirty days later the fee starts to accumulate. 
DOR collects the fine by offsetting any sales or use tax distributions due to the political 
subdivisions. In essence, the DOR only gets to collect the fee if the political subdivision has a 
sales or use tax. Most of these political subdivisions do not have a sales or use tax for the 
Department to collect, so the DOR assumes much of what is owed is uncollectable. This is not 
state money but local political subdivision funds.
Currently, a transportation development district that has gross revenues of less than $5,000 in a 
fiscal year is not subject to this fine. This proposal adds language that any political subdivision 
with less than $5,000 in revenue or has not levied or collected sales or use taxes in the fiscal year 
in which the report is due is not subject to the fine.  This will change how the DOR determines 
the fine. 
This proposal also adds a provision that if failure to file the report is a result of fraud or other 
illegal conduct by an employee of the political subdivision, they will not be subject to the fine. 
The DOR notes that per statute, the Department is allowed to retain 2% of the amount collected 
for administration. Since the program began, DOR has collected $66,621 (rounded) which has 
been deposited into General Revenue. All DOR collection fees are deposited into General 
Revenue and are not retained by the Department. 
Current records of the Department show total fines assessed of $105,253,522 and that 
$3,331,032 (rounded) has been collected. The DOR is showing the assessment of the fines by the 
county in which the district that owes the fine is located. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 20 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
County
Total Fine 
Imposed
Total Fine 
Collected
Adair$751,000.00$1,500.00Andrew$63,500.00$0.00Atchison$855,000.00$0.00Audrain$1,014,500.00$0.00Barry$1,863,500.00$16,202.57Barton$0.00$0.00Bates$944,000.00$30,500.00Benton$236,500.00$0.00Bollinger$1,682,500.00$0.00Boone$259,000.00$24,588.62Buchanan$1,100,000.00$53,342.38Butler$1,624,000.00$35,414.25Caldwell$100,000.00$15,312.17Callaway$493,000.00$2,635.05Camden$1,002,000.00$22,360.55Cape Girardeau$280,000.00$0.00Carroll$3,127,000.00$0.00Carter$1,908,000.00$103,500.00Cass$4,128,500.00$5,184.54Cedar$221,000.00$28,500.00Chariton$659,500.00$39,500.00Christian$2,219,500.00$0.00Clark$652,000.00$37,500.00Clay$1,211,000.00$14,500.00Clinton$982,000.00$16,500.00Cole$633,000.00$5,097.95Cooper$1,220,000.00$17,500.00Crawford$1,335,500.00$15,500.00Dade$211,500.00$0.00Dallas$1,202,500.00$0.00Daviess$623,500.00$0.00DeKalb$643,500.00$0.00Dent$194,500.00$0.00Douglas$0.00$0.00Dunklin$1,790,000.00$14,131.34Franklin$1,357,000.00$1,064.01 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 21 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Gasconade$65,500.00$5,036.88Gentry$1,372,000.00$26.98Greene$705,500.00$0.00Grundy$847,500.00$0.00Harrison$588,000.00$0.00Henry$786,000.00$77,296.43Hickory$614,500.00$0.00Holt$1,701,000.00$10,500.00Howard$888,000.00$147,500.00Howell$642,500.00$11,000.00Iron$29,500.00$12,000.00Jackson$2,060,500.00$297,846.94Jasper$327,500.00$101,100.62Jefferson$1,203,000.00$19,301.01Johnson$589,500.00$1,500.00Knox$1,168,500.00$0.00Laclede$240,000.00$12,000.00Lafayette$283,500.00$34,028.54Lawrence$2,699,500.00$0.00Lewis$1,583,000.00$0.00Lincoln$1,051,500.00$31,000.00Linn$795,500.00$15,000.00Livingston$1,158,000.00$0.00Macon$236,500.00$0.00Madison$1,777,500.00$79,389.02Maries$118,000.00$0.00Marion$55,500.00$0.00McDonald$161,500.00$0.00Mercer$439,000.00$0.00Miller$801,500.00$4,598.44Mississippi$101,000.00$4,977.98Moniteau$0.00$0.00Monroe$42,000.00$10,000.00Montgomery$311,000.00$3,500.00Morgan$0.00$0.00New Madrid$1,631,500.00$122,693.96Newton$440,500.00$25,500.00 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 22 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Nodaway$2,637,000.00$19,500.00Oregon$0.00$0.00Osage$610,500.00$12,104.21Ozark$43,000.00$43,000.00Pemiscot$2,513,000.00$6,500.00Perry$1,613,500.00$0.00Pettis$599,000.00$0.00Phelps$333,500.00$50,000.00Pike$19,500.00$0.00Platte$890,000.00$22,500.00Polk$507,500.00$0.00Pulaski$1,327,500.00$17,000.00Putnam$3,000.00$0.00Ralls$177,500.00$38,326.99Randolph$1,177,000.00$10,500.00Ray$2,211,500.00$0.00Reynolds$595,500.00$1,184.60Ripley$342,500.00$0.00Saline$849,500.00$0.00Schuyler$449,000.00$18,500.00Scotland$757,500.00$0.00Scott$1,853,000.00$620.44Shannon$287,000.00$135,998.71Shelby$6,500.00$6,500.00St. Charles$1,361,500.00$67,084.06St. Clair$2,012,500.00$265.88St. Francois$294,000.00$0.00St. Louis$3,260,500.00$895,058.73St. Louis City$5,548,000.00$149,299.59Ste. Genevieve$0.00$0.00Stoddard$1,346,500.00$136,084.38Stone$886,022.00$88,521.99Sullivan$695,500.00$0.00Taney$1,453,500.00$8,500.00Texas$1,096,500.00$42,500.00Vernon$1,227,000.00$12,000.00Warren$10,500.00$10,500.00 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 23 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Washington$680,500.00$12,000.00Wayne$1,026,000.00$852.29Webster$429,000.00$0.00Worth$19,000.00$0.00Wright$0.00$0.00Grand Total$105,253,522.00$3,331,032.10
This proposal would result in fewer fines being assessed in the future. As stated previously, 
many of these current political subdivisions do not have any sales or use tax collected, so they 
may be able to avoid future penalties.   
This proposal also allows for a one-time reduction of a political subdivisions current outstanding 
balance. Should a political subdivision file its reports by January 1, 2023, they will be entitled to 
a one-time downward adjustment of their existing fine by 90%.  
The current outstanding balance is $101,922,490 ($105,253,522 owed - $3,331,032.10 collected, 
rounded). This is money the Department notes is owed, but most likely uncollectable. Should it 
be collected, it would be forwarded to the local school district funds. If all the fine money is 
eligible for the one-time reduction, this would result in $94,728,170 ($105,253,522 * .90, 
rounded) no longer being owed. 
Oversight notes if all political subdivisions file their report and receive the reduction, it would 
be a loss of $89,895,636 to the local school districts from not receiving the fine money, a loss to 
the state of $1,834,605 in collection fees and a gain to the local political subdivisions of 
$91,730,241($101,922,490 * 90%).
Reducing the future fines would help save the local political subdivisions money; however, due 
to the uncollectability of most of this money, the DOR assumes no additional impact to the state. 
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a 
potential loss of fine revenue stated by DOR to the General Revenue Fund for this proposal. 
Also, Oversight notes that because of the new language for certain local political subdivisions 
who have gross revenues of less than $5,000 or who have not levied or collected a sales and use 
tax in the fiscal year or if the failure to file a financial statement is the result of fraud or illegal 
conduct by an employee or officer of the political subdivision and the political subdivision 
complies with filing the financial statement within thirty days of the discovery of the fraud or 
illegal conduct, then the fine shall not be assessed and could result in a savings to local political 
subdivisions on fine fees.  Therefore, Oversight will also reflect a savings to local political 
subdivisions of $0 to unknown for this proposal. 
Oversight also notes this proposal is allowing a political subdivision that files its financial 
statement before January 1, 2023 to receive a one-time 90% reduction of their outstanding 
balance of their fines owed.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 24 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight also notes that the loss in fine revenue collected by DOR would result in a savings to 
the local political subdivisions who would no longer need to pay the fine revenue.  It would also 
result in a loss of revenue to School Districts on these fines no longer being collected.  
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a savings to local political subdivisions on the fines no longer 
being collected and a loss of 98% of the fine revenue no longer going to the school districts for 
this proposal. Oversight notes that the Department of Revenue is allowed to retain two percent of 
the fine revenue collected (per §105.145.11).  Oversight assumes a large majority of the 
$101,922,490 of outstanding fines to be uncollectible.  Therefore, Oversight will range the fiscal 
impact from this proposal from $0 to DOR’s estimates.
In response to similar legislation from 2021, SB 547, officials from the City of Corder, the City 
of HughesvilleCity of O’Fallon each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact 
on their organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these cities.  
§137.103 – Property Tax Credit for Certain Senior Citizens (SA 5)
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 715, officials from the State Tax 
Commission have determined an unknown fiscal impact on local taxing jurisdictions such as 
school districts, counties, cities who rely on property tax assessments as a source of revenue. The 
legislation allows a taxing district to exempt taxpayers sixty-five years or older from increases in 
the rate of property tax. Such exemption shall either be approved by the governing body of the 
taxing district or approved by the voters in the local taxing district. The agency would not have 
data to determine how many of the 1,061,775 Missourians over sixty five who meet the proposed 
criteria and eligibility or how many of the 2,900 taxing jurisdictions may choose to grant the 
exemption from increases in the rate of property tax.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 715, officials from Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume this proposal would grant a property tax 
credit on the homestead of individual age 65 and older. Qualifying individuals must own their 
home and have income that does not exceed $65,000 if filing single, head of household, or 
married filing separate and $130,000 if married filing combined.
A taxing jurisdiction must receive voter approval before granting the property tax credit. The 
property tax credit would be equal to the difference between the property tax liability in the 
current tax year versus the property tax liability the year in which the qualifying individual 
turned 65. The property tax credit amount must be included on the individual’s property tax bill.
B&P notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2022. Further, it would 
require public votes in all jurisdictions with a property tax levy. B&P assumes that the first 
potential public votes would not occur until April 2023. Therefore, B&P assumes that any 
potential property tax credits would not be granted until tax year 2023 at the earliest. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 25 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
B&P further notes that a county assessor handles property taxes assessments and billings. 
However, within that county may be multiple different property tax levy districts with multiple 
different boundaries. Some districts within a county may approve the property tax credit, while 
other districts do not. In addition, the county assessor would be responsible for calculating two 
assessments per qualifying property each year: one assessment for the current tax year and one 
assessment for the tax year that the qualifying individual turned 65.
B&P also notes that this could be problematic when qualifying individuals move between taxing 
jurisdictions. In these instances, the county assessor would have to determine the market and 
assessed value of the real property when that individual turned age 65 as well as the prevailing 
property tax levy rates at the time in order to determine the property tax liability that all future 
credits would be based on.
Therefore, this proposal could create a significant administrative burden on county assessors.
This proposal requires voter approval and will therefore not impact TSR or the calculation under 
Article X, Section 18(e).
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume this proposal would freeze any 
increase in the assessed valuation rates of any property taxes levied on any property owned by an 
individual who has attained an age of at least sixty-five years and who does not have income in 
excess of $65,000 if single or $130,000 if married filing combined.  This proposal does not 
completely eliminate what is currently owed, but would slow the rate of growth of property taxes 
collected in the future. 
This proposal would require each political subdivision wanting to freeze the property tax of these 
seniors to hold an election.  It is assumed the first available election that local political 
subdivision could put this on the ballot would be the April 2023 municipal election.  The 
Department will assume this would start October 1, 2023, the second quarter after passage of this 
proposal.  This would change the property tax rate during the middle of a tax year.
If no local political subdivisions adopt an ordinance, this proposal will have no fiscal impact.  
Should any local political subdivisions choose to adopt the ordinance then that local political 
subdivision would receive less property tax and the state may be impacted.
The only property tax collected by the State is for the Blind Pension Fund.  The Missouri Blind 
Pension Fund is a fund for payment of pensions for the blind.  The tax, or collection for the fund, 
consists of 3 cents on each $100 valuation of taxable property in the State of Missouri.  Should 
the valuation of property hold the same, then this could result in future lost revenue.  
The state may also have impact to the Senior Property Tax Credit.  Some seniors paying property 
tax are eligible to receive the senior property tax credit.  Claims for the credit are based on the 
actual amount of property tax paid.  Freezing the property tax rates will result in a savings of 
future lost revenue (due to increasing property tax rates).  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 26 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
The Department is unable to determine how much of the total valuation of real property in tax 
year 2020 is attributed to properties owned by individuals who would qualify for this future real 
property tax freeze.  The Department is also not able to predict if any political subdivisions will 
adopt this proposal or when they may adopt it; and therefore the impact of this proposal is 
unknown.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 715, officials from the Department of 
Social Services and the Office of the State Auditor each assume the proposal will have no 
fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the 
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for 
this provision.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 715, officials from the St. Louis County 
Department of Public Health state their budget receives its funding from property taxes. Any 
reduction in property taxes would result in the department having to reduce or eliminate critical 
health services, such as primary health care, that their residents need and rely upon. The amount 
of revenue loss for years 2023, 2024 and 2025 is unknown.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 715, officials from the Newton County 
Health Department, Jackson County Election Board, Platte County Election Board and the 
St. Charles Community College each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their 
respective organizations. 
Oversight assumes this proposal would grant qualifying individuals tax credits for the increases 
in property taxes. 
Oversight notes, per Article III Section 38(b) of the Missouri Constitution, the Blind Pension 
Fund (0621) is calculated as an annual tax of three cents on each one hundred dollars valuation 
of taxable property ((Total Assessed Value/100)*.03). Oversight notes this proposal does not 
appear to alter a property’s assessed value. Therefore, Oversight assumes this proposal would not 
impact the Blind Pension Fund. 
However, Oversight notes the Blind Pension Fund receives increased property taxes from 
increases in assessed value. For example:
Assessed Value Year 1 = $100,000 
Blind Pension Tax Liability = ($100,000 /100) * .03 = $30
Assessed Value Year 2 = $110,000
Blind Pension tax liability = ($110,000 /100) * .03 = $33 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 27 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
For purposes of this fiscal note, Oversight assumes qualifying tax payers would still pay the 
increases due to the Blind Pension Fund. If this assumption is incorrect, this could potentially 
change the fiscal impact as presented in this fiscal note.
Based on Demographic Characteristics for Occupied Housing Units from the United States 
Census Bureau, Oversight notes there are 517,775 owner occupied housing units where the age 
of the householder is 65 years of age or older. Oversight is uncertain how many of these 
homeowners would having qualifying income or how many taxing districts would approve the 
tax credits. Therefore, Oversight will show a range of impact of $0 (not voter approved) to an 
unknown loss in revenue to local political subdivisions.
In addition, Oversight assumes there could be costs to implement and monitor individual credits 
for local taxing entities which approve a property tax credit. Oversight will show a range of 
impact of $0 (no subdivision ordinance or voter approval) to an unknown cost to local political 
subdivisions for implementation. 
The proposal states property tax credits be submitted for a vote in each jurisdiction. Oversight 
assumes the first available election could be April 2023. Oversight assumes there could be 
election costs for local taxing entities occurring in FY 2023. 
Alternatively, a jurisdiction could adopt an ordinance authorizing the credits. Oversight
the earliest tax credits could be granted is calendar year 2022 with impacted revenues occurring 
in FY 2023 (December 2022).
Oversight will show a range of impact of $0 (not ordinance or voter approved) to an unknown 
savings to General Revenue from a reduction in Senior Property Tax Credit due the issuance of 
local property tax credits. Oversight does not anticipate the savings to exceed $250,000. 
Oversight received a limited number of responses from local political subdivisions related to the 
fiscal impact of this proposal. Oversight has presented this fiscal note on the best current 
information available. Upon the receipt of additional responses, Oversight will review to 
determine if an updated fiscal note should be prepared and seek the necessary approval to 
publish a new fiscal note.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions; 
however, other local political subdivisions were requested to respond to this proposed legislation 
but did not. A listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information 
System database is available upon request.
§304.022 – (SA 6) – Emergency Vehicles for Park Rangers
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1637, officials from the Attorney 
General’s Office, the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of 
Economic Development the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 28 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, the Department of Mental 
Health, the Department of Public Safety – (Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control, Fire 
Safety, Office of the Director, Missouri Gaming Commission, State Emergency 
Management Agency, Missouri Veterans Commission), the Missouri Department of 
AgricultureMissouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri Department of Transportation, 
the Missouri Lottery, the Department of Transportation - Patrol Employees’ Retirement 
System, the Office of the State Treasurer, the Office of Administration - Administrative 
Hearing Commission, the Office of the Governor the Missouri House of Representatives, 
the Joint Committee On Education the Oversight Division, the Missouri Senate
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan, the Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority, 
the Missouri State Employees Retirement System, the State Tax Commission, the 
Department of Health and Senior Services, the Department of Natural Resources, the 
Department of Social Services, the Office of the State Auditor, the City of Claycomo, the 
City of HughesvilleCity of Kansas City, the City of Springfield, the City of St. Louis, 
the Kansas City Police Department, the St. Joseph Police DepartmentPhelps County 
Sheriff’s Department, Gordon Parks ElementaryUniversity of Missouri, and the 
Hermann Area Hospital District assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their 
respective organizations.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 29 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight assumes SA 6 will have no fiscal impact on state or local governments.
§§182.020 & 182.050 – (SA 7) – County Library Board of Trustees in Cass County
Oversight assumes SA 7 will have no fiscal impact on state or local governments without further 
action by a county commission.
§§67.457, 67.461, 67.1431, 67.1471, 99.825, 99.830, 99.865, 238.212 & 238.222 – (SA 8) – 
Special Taxing Districts
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume this proposal requires that 
neighborhood improvement districts, community improvement districts, redevelopment districts 
and transportation authority districts send certain specified documents to the DOR. The required 
information includes:
Updated boundary information
Description of the boundaries and the average assessment
Copies of the establishment of the district paperwork
Copies of dissolution paperwork should a district be dissolved
Copies of all meeting notices, hearing and ordinances.
Information received by the DOR is to be posted on the website. DOR notes collecting this 
information is outside the scope of DOR’s work. DOR notes this would require the creation of a 
webpage that citizens could use to view these documents. DOR staff would create and maintain 
the webpage. DOR would establish an email address for the acceptance of the documents. The 
creation of the webpage and setting up of the email will be done with existing DOR resources.
From working with numerous special districts around the state DOR knows that many of these 
required notices will be sent via paper instead of email. Based on the number of documents filed, 
DOR will need 1 FTE Public Relations Specialist FTE to handle these duties. Should additional 
paperwork be sent justifying additional FTE, DOR will seek those FTE through the appropriation 
process.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimated FTE costs s as provided by the DOR.
For informational purposes, Oversight notes the following number of taxing authorities for the 
last 5 years from the State Auditor Property Tax Rate Report. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 30 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for SCS for SB 908, officials from the 
Office of the State Auditor, the City of Springfield, the City of Hughesville and the City of 
O’Fallon each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. 
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero 
impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.  
§57.317 – (SA 9) – Sheriff Salaries – Boone County
Oversight notes in similar legislation to SB 1036 from this year, county commissions were 
asked to respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact, but did not provide any information. 
Oversight notes this amendment pertains to the Boone County Sheriff’s salary. Oversight 
assumes this amendment does not place a limitation on the salary of the Boone County Sheriff 
and, therefore, there could be a potential increase from the in salary that would be higher than 
F
Y21
F
Y20
F
Y19
F
Y18
F
Y17
A
mbulance Districts
1
06
1
06
1
06
1
06
1
05
H
ospitals
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
1
3
N
ursing Home Districts
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
3
0
P
ublic Water Supply Districts
1 1 1 1 1
S
oil & Water Conservation Subdistricts
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
2
7
D
rainage and Levee Districts
2 2 2 2 2
S
pecial Road Districts
2
06
2
07
2
08
2
06
2
08
M
unicipalities
7
57
7
56
7
57
7
54
7
53
T
ax Supported Public Libraries
7
9
7
9
7
9
7
9
7
9
T
ownships
2
83
2
83
2
83
2
83
2
83
F
ire Protection Districts
3
91
3
88
3
84
3
80
3
76
S
ewer Districts
7 7 7 7 7
S
pecial Business Districts
1
7
1
7
1
8
1
8
2
0
R
egional Recreational Districts
1 1 1 1 1
C
ommunity Improvement Districts
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
8
H
ealth Centers
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
9
0
S
pecial Road District Subdistrict
1 1 1 1 1
E
xtension Districts
2 1 1 1 1
T
ransportation Development District
1 1 1 1 1
D
evelopmental Disabilities
0 0 0 0 4
J
unior Colleges
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
M
useum District
1 1 1 1 1
S
chool Districts
4
95
4
95
4
95
4
95
4
95
S
pecial School Districts
2 2 2 2 2
C
ounties
1
14
1
14
1
14
1
14
1
14
T
otal Types of Taxing Authorities
2
647
2
643
2
644
2
635
2
634
S
ource: State Auditor Property Tax Rate Report L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 31 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
what current statute dictates. Because Oversight is unclear on how much of an increase could be 
received by the Boone County Sheriff, Oversight will assume a $0 or unknown cost to the Boone 
County Sheriff’s Office for this amendment. 
§1 – (SA 10) – Property Conveyance for City of Kirksville to Kirksville R-III School District
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction stated they do 
not make public the appraisal values for property that may be sold or conveyed because public 
knowledge of such information may hinder the State’s ability to gain the best value for the 
property.  Additionally, since the terms of conveyances are yet to be determined, the fiscal 
impact, if any, cannot be calculated.  Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
the Governor and the Attorney General’s Office each assumed the proposal would not fiscally 
impact their respective offices.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the 
Department of Public Safety – Missouri National Guard (MONG) assumed the proposal 
would not fiscally impact their organization.
Officials from the City of Kirksville did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact.
As this parcel appears to be material in size (square city block contained by West Scott Street, 
West Fillmore Street, South Main Street and South Elson Street; which currently contains the 
Missouri National Guard Armory building), Oversight will reflect the transaction of the 
conveyance of state property in Adair County to the Kirksville R-III school district as 1) a loss of 
the value of the state property, 2) the proceeds (if any) of the sale/conveyance, and 3) the annual 
savings (if any) to the state no longer maintaining the property.  Oversight will assume a fiscal 
impact of less than $250,000. 
§2 – (SA 10) – Property Conveyance for City of Kirksville to Truman State University
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
Administration, Division of Facilities Management, Design and Construction (FMDC) 
stated they do not make public the appraisal values for property that may be sold or conveyed 
because public knowledge of such information may hinder the State’s ability to gain the best 
value for the property.  Additionally, since the terms of conveyances are yet to be determined, 
the fiscal impact, if any, cannot be calculated.  Therefore, the fiscal impact is $0 to unknown.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 1597, officials from the Office of 
the Governor and the Attorney General’s Office each assumed the proposal would not fiscally 
impact their respective offices. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 32 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Officials from Truman State University did not respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact.
§§3, 4, 5 – (SA 10) – Property Conveyance for City of Rolla to Edgewood Investments, the City 
of St. Louis and St. Louis County
Oversight is unclear how the sections in this amendment will impact state and local 
governments but assumes there will be a similar impact as stated in §1 & §2 above. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a similar fiscal impact to what was stated in §1 & §2 above.
§164.450 – (SA 11) – Bonded Indebtedness of School Districts
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 1034, officials from the Office of the State 
Courts Administrator
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Oversight will reflect a zero impact in 
the fiscal note for this agency.  
Oversight assumes this amendment relates to certain school districts within St. Charles County 
only, and may create a fiscal impact to such districts. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 or 
Unknown cost to these school districts.
§144.051 – (SA 12) – 2026 FIFA World Cup Tickets Sales Tax Exemption
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) note this proposal 
may impact the calculation under Article X, Section 18(e).
B&P states this proposal would exempt all tickets sold to the 2026 FIFA World Cup in Jackson 
County between 6/1/2026 and 7/31/2026 from sales and use taxes.
B&P notes that Kansas City, MO is currently in the host city selection for the 2026 FIFA World 
Cup.  B&P further notes that the final U.S. host cities have not yet been determined.  As of 
12/19/2021, there are currently 17 cities competing to host 11 U.S. FIFA World Cup Games.
B&P further notes that, if selected, Kansas City would host a 2026 FIFA World Cup game at 
Arrowhead Stadium, which has a capacity of 76,416.  Therefore, B&P will assume that 76,416 
tickets would be sold and qualify under this exemption.
In addition, the 2026 game ticket prices are still unknown.  However, tickets for the 2022 FIFA 
World cup ranged from $105 to $210 for regular group matches and $455 to $1,100 for the 
finals.  It is currently unknown which game would be hosted in Kansas City.  Table 1 shows the 
estimated ticket sales under both game hosting scenarios. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 33 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Table 1: Estimated Total Ticket SalesTotal Estimated Ticket 
SalesLowHigh
Group Match$8,023,680 $16,047,360 Finals$34,769,280 $84,057,600 *Site selection is still occurring.  It is unknown if 
Kansas City will be selected or what game may be 
hosted in the city.
B&P notes that while the exemption would cover both FY26 (6/2026) and FY27 (7/2026), ticket 
sales for the 2022 games typically sold out within hours of release.  Therefore, B&P will reflect 
the total potential loss as occurring in FY26 (6/2026).
For the purpose of this fiscal note, B&P will reflect three potential impacts.  First, that Kansas 
City is not selected.  Second, that Kansas City is selected to host a group match.  Third, that 
Kansas City is selected to host the finals.  Table 2 shows the potential revenue impact under all 
three scenarios.
FY 2026
State Funds
Low PriceHigh PriceNot Selected$0 ORGroup Match General Revenue($240,710)($481,421)Education($80,237)($160,474)Conservation($10,030)($20,059)DNR($8,024)($16,047)Total State 
Revenues($339,000)($678,001)
ORFinals Match General Revenue($1,043,078)($2,521,728)Education($347,693)($840,576)Conservation($43,462)($105,072)DNR($34,769)($84,058)Total State 
Revenues($1,469,002)($3,551,434) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 34 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Therefore, B&P estimates that if Kansas City is not selected to host a 2026 FIFA World Cup 
game, there will be no TSR or local sales tax impact.  If Kansas City is selected to host a group 
match, GR could be reduced by ($240,710 to $481,421) and TSR could be reduced by ($339,000 
to $678,001).  If Kansas City is selected to host a final match, GR could be reduced by 
($1,043,078 to $2,521,728) and TSR could be reduced by ($1,469,002 to $3,551,434).  
Table 3: Estimated Local Sales Tax ImpactFY 2026
Local Sales Tax
Low PriceHigh PriceNot Selected$0 $0 ORGroup Match • Jackson County($100,296)($200,592)• Kansas City($260,770)($521,539)• Kansas City Zoological 
District($10,030)($20,059)
Group Match Total($371,095)($742,190)
ORFinals • Jackson County($434,616)($1,050,720)• Kansas City($1,130,002)($2,731,872)• Kansas City Zoological 
District($43,462)($105,072)
Finals Total($1,608,079)($3,887,664)
For the purpose of this fiscal note, B&P assumes that the sales tax rate for the Arrowhead 
Stadium would be applied to all ticket sales (in-person and online).  B&P notes that the sales tax 
rate for the Arrowhead Stadium is 4.625%, with 1.25% for Jackson County, 3.25% for Kansas 
City, and 0.125% for the Kansas City Zoological District.  
Therefore, B&P estimates that local sales tax could be reduced by ($371,095 to $742,190) if 
Kansas City hosts a group match game or by ($1,608,079 to $3,887,664) if Kansas City hosts a 
final match.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) state this proposal grants a state and local 
sales and use tax exemption for admission tickets to the 2026 FIFA World Cup soccer 
tournament. The tournament is scheduled to be played in July 2026. Historically tickets go on 
sale the month before and are sold out within hours. The FIFA association is in the process of 
choosing a site. The City of Kansas City is under consideration as one of the sites. It is unknown 
if they will get chosen and if chosen whether they would host a group match or final match. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 35 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
This sales tax exemption would be limited to June 1, 2026- July 31, 2026 in Kansas City for the 
tickets sales of the event. If Kansas City is not chosen then this proposal will not have a fiscal 
impact. If Kansas City is chosen, they are expected to play at Arrowhead Stadium; which has a 
seating capacity of 76,416. The average ticket prices for the 2022 World Cup show that group 
match tickets are between $105- $210, while final matches sell for $455-$1,100. Using this 
information they calculated:
Total Estimated Ticket SalesLowHighGroup Match$8,023,680 $16,047,360 Finals$34,769,280 $84,057,600 
The state sales and use tax rate is 4.225% broken down:
General Revenue 3%
School District Trust 1%
Conservation Commission .125%
Park, Soil & Water .1%
The impact will be either $0 (not selected as a site) or the amounts projected below:
Estimated Impact by State Fund
Group MatchFY 2026State FundLow PriceHigh PriceGeneral Revenue($240,710.00)($481,421.00)Education($80,237.00)($160,474.00)Conservation($10,030.00)($20,059.00)DNR($8,024.00)($16,047.00)Total State 
Revenues
($339,000.00)($678,001.00)
OR
Estimated Impact by State Fund L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 36 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Finals MatchFY 2026State FundLow PriceHigh PriceGeneral Revenue($1,043,078.00)($2,521,728.00)Education($347,693.00)($840,576.00)Conservation($43,462.00)($105,072.00)DNR($34,769.00)($84,058.00)Total State 
Revenues
($1,469,002.00)($3,551,434.00)
Arrowhead Stadium is in the following taxing jurisdictions. Jackson County has a local sales tax 
rate of 1.25%, Kansas City has a 3.25% rate and the Kansas City Zoological District has a 
.0125% rate for a total of 4.625%. We will use the 4.625% for the fiscal note.
Estimated Local Sales Tax Impact 
FY 2026
Local Sales Tax Group MatchLow PriceHigh PriceJackson County($100,296.00)($200,592.00)Kansas City($260,770.00)($521,539.00)Kansas City Zoological District($10,030.00)($20,059.00)Group Match Total($371,095.00)($742,190.00)
OR
Estimated Local Sales Tax Impact 
FY 2026
Local Sales Tax Final MatchLow PriceHigh PriceJackson County($434,616.00)($1,050,720.00)Kansas City($1,130,002.00)($2,731,872.00)Kansas City Zoological District($43,462.00)($105,072.00)Final Match Total($1,608,079.00)($3,887,664.00)
DOR assumes this proposal will require programming changes estimated to be $3,596.
Oversight notes that DOR assumes this proposal will require programming changes with an 
estimated cost of $3,596. OversightDepartment of Revenue is provided with core 
funding to handle a certain amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes DOR could absorb 
the costs related to this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and 
duties at substantial costs, DOR could request funding through the appropriation process. 
Officials from the DOR assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 37 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes that both B&P andassume the proposal will have a negative fiscal impact 
on state revenue and local funds. Therefore, Oversight will reflect B&P’s and the DOR’s 
estimates and range their high and low impacts per match on the fiscal note as summarized in 
table below.   L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 38 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Estimated Fiscal Impact to General Revenue
FY 2023 FY 2024FY 2025FY 2026Low HighLow HighLow HighLow HighNo Match$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Group Match$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($240,710)($481,421)Final Match$0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0  ($1,043,078) ($2,521,728)
Officials from the City of Kansas City assume the proposal would have a negative fiscal impact 
on Kansas City as a result of lost sales tax revenue.
Oversight notes the above local political subdivision stated this proposal would have negative 
fiscal impact on their respective local subdivision of an indeterminate amount. Therefore, 
Oversight will note B&P and DOR’s estimates for impact to local political subdivisions on the 
fiscal note.
Oversight only reflects the responses that we have received from state agencies and political 
subdivisions. Officials from Jackson County were requested to respond to this proposed 
legislation but did not. A general listing of political subdivisions included in our database is 
available upon request.
Oversight notes Arrowhead stadium is not configured for soccer and assume adjustments will 
need to be made regarding the width of the field to accommodate a FIFA match.  Oversight is 
unsure if this will impact seating capacity.  Oversight will range the fiscal impact per match from 
$0 (Kansas City not selected) OR a range from $105 per ticket to $1,100 per ticket.
§260.295 – (SA 13) – Regulating of Refrigerants
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 2593, officials from the City of 
Springfield and City of St. Louis each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their 
respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary.  Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a zero impact on the fiscal note for this section.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 2593, officials from the 
Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Natural Resources, the 
Department of Public Safety’s Office of the Director, the Department of Health and Senior 
ServicesDepartment of Revenue, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, the 
City of Claycomo, the City of O’Fallon and the Newton County Health Department each 
assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight 
does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in 
the fiscal note for these agencies.  
§144.064 – (SA 14) - Firearm and ammunition sales tax exemption L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 39 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Officials from the City of Kansas City and the City of Springfield
fiscal impact from this proposal.
In response to a similar proposal (HB 1577), officials from the Office of Administration - 
Budget and Planning (BAP) notes this provision would exempt firearms, firearm components, 
ammunition, and the components of making ammunition from sales tax beginning August 28, 
2022.
B&P notes that firearm components include the action, stock, and barrel.  Ammunition 
components include the cartridge case, primer cap, propellant powder, and projectile.  B&P was 
unable to determine how much of any such items are sold within Missouri.  
For the purpose of this fiscal note, B&P assumes that bullet manufactures located within 
Missouri are already receiving a sales tax exemption under Section 144.054 (manufacturing sales 
tax exemption).
Firearms
For the purpose of this fiscal note, B&P will use the number of FBI background checks to 
estimate the number of guns purchases per year.  B&P notes that not every background check 
will result in the purchase of a firearm and some background checks will result in the purchase of 
multiple firearms.  
Based on data published by the FBI, the average number of background checks was 592,972 for 
2019-2021.  Based on research, B&P determined that the average price of a firearm is $650.  
Therefore, B&P estimates that this provision will exempt approximately $385,431,800 (592,972 
x $650) in taxable sales from state and local sales taxes.  
Ammunition
Based on price research, B&P estimates that the average price of ammunition for the following 
types of firearms:




Based on further research, B&P found that the average gun owner also purchases the following 
amounts of ammunition rounds:



 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 40 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Therefore, B&P estimates that the average gun owner spends the following amount on 
ammunition:




B&P notes that based on additional data, 74% of ammunition purchases are made for handguns.
Using the FBI background data (discussed above), B&P estimates that this provision could 
exempt $189,620,586 to $660,452,241 in taxable sales from state and local sales taxes.  B&P 
notes that this estimate only includes ammunitions purchases for new guns and does not include 
additional purchases for firearms that were bought in previous years.  
Summary
Once fully implemented in FY24, B&P estimates that this provision could reduce TSR by 
$24,295,963 to $44,188,599 and GR by $17,251,572 to $31,376,520.  Using the population 
weighted sales tax rate of 4.03% for 2021, B&P estimates that this provision may reduce local 
sales tax collections by $23,174,611 to $42,149,126 once fully implemented in FY24.
Table 1: Impact by Fund FY23FY24State FundsLowHighLowHighGeneral Revenue ($14,376,310)($26,147,100)($17,251,572)($31,376,520)Education 
(SDTF)($4,792,103)($8,715,700)($5,750,524)($10,458,840)
Conservation($599,013)($1,089,463)($718,815)($1,307,355)DNR($479,210)($871,570)($575,052)($1,045,884)Total State Loss($20,246,636)($36,823,833)($24,295,963)($44,188,599)
  Local Funds Local Sales Tax($19,312,176)($35,124,272)($23,174,611)($42,149,126)
In response to a similar proposal (HB 1577), officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) 
stated this proposal would grant a state and local sales tax exemption for firearms sold in this 
state.  The current sales tax rate on firearms and ammunition is 4.225%.  This would remove the 
tax on these purchases starting August 28, 2022, the effective date of this proposal.    L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 41 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
The Department notes the current state sales tax is 4.225%:
General Revenue is           3%
School District Trust Fund is           1%
Conservation Commission is           0.125%
Parks, Soil & Water Funds are                                 0.1%
Total           4.225%
The state uses a 4.03% weighted average for the local sales tax.  
DOR researched the price of various firearms.  DOR found that no single source maintains data 
on the amount of firearms that are sold annually.  DOR found that prices varied on the different 
types of firearms:
Rifles $500-$10,000
Shotguns $400-$2,000
Handguns $250-$2,500
Revolvers $200-$1,500
The FBI background check report for Missouri in 2021 showed 634,191 background checks were 
completed but does not record the price of a firearm.  The Department used a $500 cost for a 
firearm to estimate the impact of this proposal.
DOR determined this would be a loss to the state and locals of approximately $26,176,234.  
DOR notes this proposal becomes effective August 28, 2022.  For the simplicity of the fiscal 
note, DOR will show an impact of 10 months in FY 2023.  The lost revenue would be distributed 
among the funds as follows:
Firearms 
FY 2023 (10 
months)FY 2024FY 2025
General 
Revenue($7,927,388)($9,512,865)($9,512,865)
School District($2,642,463)($3,170,955)($3,170,955)Conservation($330,308)($396,369)($396,369)Park Soil($264,246)($317,096)($317,096)Locals($10,649,124)($12,778,949)($12,778,949)
DOR was unable to find information on the amount of ammunition sold in Missouri.  However, 
the National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates at least 12 billion rounds of ammunition are 
manufactured in the United States annually.  Given that Missouri’s population is 1.8% of the 
total population, DOR assumes that as much as 216,000,000 rounds of ammunition are sold in 
Missouri annually.   L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 42 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
DOR notes just like the firearms that vary in price based on the size of the weapon, so does the 
ammunition.  The current price is anywhere from $15 to $60 per box, with anywhere from 20 
rounds to 50 rounds per box.  Assuming all the ammunition in Missouri were sold as 50 rounds 
per box it would result in 4.32 million boxes of ammunition being sold.  At the minimum price 
of $15 per box this would result in taxable sales of $64,800,000.  At the state sales tax rate of 
4.225% this proposal would result in a loss of $2,737,800 in state sales tax and another 
$2,611,440 in local sales tax being exempt.  Using this information there could be a loss of:
 Ammunitiontax rate
FY 2023 (10 
months)FY 2024+
General 
Revenue0.03($1,620,000)($1,944,000)
School 
District0.01($540,000)($648,000)
Conservation0.00125($67,500)($81,000)Park Soil0.001($54,000)($64,800)Locals0.0403($2,176,200)($2,611,440)
The Bureau of Economic Analysis maintains records on the amount of sporting equipment, 
supplies, guns and ammunition that are sold annually.  However, these items are lumped together 
and not segregated for just firearms or ammunition.  According to their July 1, 2020 report there 
was $79.9 billion in goods sold in this category.  Since Missouri is 1.8% of the population, DOR 
could assume that $1,438,200,000 of that category is sold here.   
 Sporting 
Goods
FY 2023 (10 
months)FY 2024
General 
Revenue($35,955,000)($43,146,000)
School 
District($11,985,000)($14,382,000)
Conservation($1,498,125)($1,797,750)Park Soil($1,198,500)($1,438,200)Locals($48,299,550)($57,959,460)
For the purpose of the fiscal note, DOR will range the impact from the firearms and ammunition 
combined amount (low range) to the sporting goods amount (high range).  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 43 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
 FY 2023 (10 months)FY 2024 LowHighLowHighGeneral 
Revenue($9,547,388)($35,955,000)($11,456,865)($43,146,000)
School 
District($3,182,463)($11,985,000)($3,818,955)($14,382,000)
Conservation($397,808)($1,498,125)($477,369)($1,797,750)Park Soil($318,246)($1,198,500)($381,896)($1,438,200)Locals($12,825,324)($48,299,550)($15,390,389)($57,959,460)
DOR notes this proposal will require updates to the sales tax system of $3,596.  This proposal 
has the potential to increase the number of refund requests.  DOR will need 1 Associate 
Customer Service Representative for every increase of 1,100 refund requests. At this time DOR 
believes it can absorb the impact, however, should DOR get enough refunds claims to justify 
new FTE, it will seek them through the appropriations process.
Oversight assumes the Department of Revenue is provided with core funding to handle a certain 
amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes DOR could absorb the costs related to this 
proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial costs, 
DOR could request funding through the appropriation process. Officials from the DOR assume 
the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. 
§144.030.2(46) – (SA 17) – Exempting Diapers from Sales Tax 
Officials from the DOR note this section removes the state and local sales tax on diapers, 
including both diapers worn by children as well as adults. The current state sales tax rate of is 
4.225%. DOR used a 4.03% weighted average local tax rate. The current state tax rate is 
distributed as:
General Revenue is                              3.000%
School District Trust Fund is              1.000%                 (Section 144.701)
Conservation Commission Fund is     0.125%             (Article IV, Section 43(a))
Parks, Soil & Water Funds                  0.100%                (Article IV, Section 47(a))
Kids Diapers
DOR notes that the average child wears diapers for three years before becoming fully toilet 
trained. DOR found the price of diapers vary from $0.20 per diaper for generics to $0.42 for 
name brand. Prices of diapers also depend on the size of the diaper. Estimates by various 
children’s organizations indicate that an infant in the first year of life goes through 2,500 diapers. 
The next two years as toddlers, they go through 1,500 diapers annually. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 44 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
YearWearing Diaper 
How Many
Low Price per 
Diaper
High Price per 
Diaper
Total Cost 
Low
Total Cost 
High
First 
Year
2,5000.20.27$500 $675 Second 
Year
1,5000.30.41$450 $615 Third 
Year
1,5000.320.42$480 $630 
Based on the Department of Health and Senior Services, the average number of resident births 
from 2017-2019 was 72,800. Given that 3 years’ worth of children are wearing diapers in any 
one year (1 set of infants and 2 sets of toddlers) DOR estimates the following:
Births Annually72,800# of kids in Diapers Annually218,400# of Diapers AnnuallyInfant182,000,000toddler (2yrs)218,400,000total (kids * diapers)400,400,000
DOR notes this proposal would result in a loss to the state and locals of the following.
Diapers Taxable Sales$104,104,000 $139,776,000 FundTax RateFull Year - LowFull Year - HighTSR0.04225$4,398,394 $5,905,536 GR0.03$3,123,120 $4,193,280 Education0.01$1,041,040 $1,397,760 DNR0.001$104,104 $139,776 Conservation0.00125$130,130 $174,720 Locals0.0403$4,195,391 $5,632,973 
DOR assumes this proposal would become effective August 28, 2022. Therefore, there will be 
two months of tax collected in FY 2023 before the products become exempt. DOR will show 10 
months of impact in FY 2023. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 45 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FY 2023 (10 months) 
Low
FY 2023 
High
FY 2024 
Low
FY 2024 
High
General Revenue($2,602,600)($3,494,400)($3,123,120)($4,193,280)Education($867,533)($1,164,800)($1,041,040)($1,397,760)Park, Soil & 
Water
($86,753)($116,480)($104,104)($139,776)Conservation($108,442)($145,600)($130,130)($174,720)Locals($3,496,159)($4,694,144)($4,195,391)($5,632,973)
Adult Diapers
Approximately one third of adults age 65 and older have moderate to severe urinary incontinence 
and 6 percent had moderate to severe bowl incontinence. According the United State Census 
Bureau 2019 population report, 1,057,943 individuals residing in Missouri were 65 or over. The 
DOR notes that it is estimated that people with minor to moderate incontinence wear 
approximately 4 diapers per day while those with those with full urinary or fecal incontinence 
wear 6 diapers per day. The Department estimates that approximately 285,645 individuals aged 
65 and over would utilize the four adult urinary incontinence diapers while 63,477 would wear 6 
adult diapers daily.
The average cost for urinary incontinence diapers is $1.31 per diaper.
Number of 
people
# of 
Diapers
Days per 
year
Total Diapers per 
person
Price per 
diaper
Total Sales285,64543651460$1.31 $546,324,627 63,47763652190$1.31 $182,109,166 $728,433,793
DOR expects this proposal to result in a loss to General Revenue and locals.
Diapers Taxable Sales$728,433,793Tax RateFull YearTSR0.04225$30,776,248 GR0.03$21,852,955 Education0.01$7,284,318 DNR0.001$728,432 Conservation0.00125$910,540 Locals0.0403$29,355,803  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 46 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
DOR assumes this proposal would become effective August 28, 2022. Therefore, there will be 
two months of tax collected in FY 2023 before the products become exempt. DOR will show 10 
months of impact in FY 2023.
FY 2023 (10 months)FY 2024General Revenue($18,210,796)($21,852,955)Education($6,070,265)($7,284,318)Park, Soil & Water($607,027)($728,432)Conservation($758,783)($910,540)Locals($24,463,169)($29,355,803)
DOR does not expect this proposal to have an administrative impact on the Department.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning assume this proposal 
would exempt all sales of diapers from sales tax beginning August 28, 2022.
Diaper (Child) Sales Tax Reduction
Based on research, B&P found that the average amount spent on diapers was $550 to $840 per 
year.  Based on information from the University of Michigan Hospital, the average age until 
children are toilet trained is 2.5 years.  Based on information provided by the United State 
Census 2019 population estimates (the most recent complete year available), there were 
approximately 217,232 children living in Missouri ages 0-2 years old.  
Therefore, B&P estimates total sales of $119,477,600 (217,232 children x $550) up to 
$182,474,880 (217,232 children x $840) may be become exempt from sales tax by this proposal.  
B&P estimates that this provision could reduce TSR by $5,047,929 to $7,709,564 annually.  
Using the population weighted average sales tax rate of 4.03% for 2021, B&P further estimates 
that this provision could reduce local sales tax collections by $4,814,947 to $7,353,738 annually.
Diaper (Adult) Sales Tax Reduction
According to research completed by the CDC, approximately 25% of adults age 65 and up had 
moderate to severe urinary incontinence and 8% had moderate to severe bowel incontinence.  
B&P notes that according the United State Census 2019 population (the most recent complete 
year available) estimates there were approximately 1,062,037 individuals residing in Missouri 
age 65 and over.  
Based on these numbers, B&P estimates that approximately 265,509 individual age 65 and over 
would utilize adult urinary incontinence diapers.  B&P further estimates that approximately 
84,963 individuals residing in Missouri age 65 and over would utilize adult bowel incontinence 
diapers.   L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 47 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Based on information from a budgeting website, the average cost for urinary incontinence 
diapers is $160 to $240 per month, for a yearly cost of $1,920 to $2,880.  Further information 
from the budgeting website lists the average monthly bowel incontinence diapers is $60 to $180 
per month, for a yearly cost of $720 to $2,160.  
B&P estimates that total annual sales for urinary incontinence adult diapers would be 
approximately $509,777,760 (265,509 people x $1,920 annual cost) up to $764,666,640 (265,509 
people x $2,880 annual cost).  
B&P further estimates that the total annual sales for bowel incontinence adult diapers would be 
$61,173,331 (84,963 people x $720 annual cost) up to $183,519,994 (84,963 people x $2,160 
annual cost).  
Therefore, B&P estimates total sales of $570,951,091 ($509,777,760 + $61,173,331) up to 
$948,186,634 ($764,666,640 + $183,519,994) may be become exempt from sales tax by this 
proposal.  B&P estimates that this provision could reduce TSR by $24,122,684 to $40,060,885 
annually.  Using the population weighted average sales tax rate of 4.03% for 2021, B&P further 
estimates that this provision could reduce local sales tax collections by $23,009,329 to 
$38,211,921 annually. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 48 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Summary
B&P estimates that this proposal may reduce TSR by $24,308,844 to $39,808,707 during FY23.  
Once fully implemented in FY24, this proposal may reduce TSR by $29,170,612 to $47,770,449 
annually.  Table 1 shows the estimated impact by provision and fund. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 49 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Table 1: Loss by Provision and FundState FundFY23FY24General 
Revenue   
Diapers - 
Child(2,986,940)(4,561,872)(3,584,328)(5,474,246)
Diapers - 
Adult(14,273,777)(23,704,666)(17,128,533)(28,445,599)
Total GR 
Loss(17,260,717)(28,266,538)(20,712,861)(33,919,845)
    Education   Diapers - 
Child(995,647)(1,520,624)(1,194,776)(1,824,749)
Diapers - 
Adult(4,757,926)(7,901,555)(5,709,511)(9,481,866)
Total 
Education 
Loss(5,753,572)(9,422,179)(6,904,287)(11,306,615)
    Conservation   Diapers - 
Child(124,456)(190,078)(149,347)(228,094)
Diapers - 
Adult(594,741)(987,694)(713,689)(1,185,233)
Total 
Conservation 
Loss(719,197)(1,177,772)(863,036)(1,413,327)
    DNR   Diapers - 
Child(99,565)(152,062)(119,478)(182,475)
Diapers - 
Adult(475,793)(790,156)(570,951)(948,187)
Total DNR 
Loss(575,357)(942,218)(690,429)(1,130,662)
     Total TSR 
Loss(24,308,844)(39,808,707)(29,170,612)(47,770,449)
    Local Funds   Diapers - 
Child(4,012,456)(6,128,115)(4,814,947)(7,353,738) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 50 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Diapers - 
Adult(19,174,441)(31,843,268)(23,009,329)(38,211,921)
Total Local 
Loss(23,186,897)(37,971,382)(27,824,276)(45,565,659)
Oversight notes both DOR & B&P assume this proposal will have a negative fiscal impact to 
both state and local funds. Therefore, Oversight will show B&P’s and DOR’s lowest and highest 
projected fiscal estimates to show the minimum low and maximum impact of this proposal.
Officials from the Missouri Department of Conservation state this proposal will have an 
unknown fiscal impact but greater than $250,000. The Conservation Sales Tax funds are derived 
from one-eighth of one percent sales and use tax pursuant to Article IV Section 43 (a) of the 
Missouri Constitution. Any increase in sales and use tax collected would increase revenue to the 
Conservation Sales Tax funds. However, the initiative is very complex and may require 
adjustments to Missouri sales tax law which could cause some downside risk to the Conservation 
Sales Tax. The Department assumes the Department of Revenue would be better able to estimate 
the anticipated fiscal impact that would result from this proposal.
Oversight notes that the Conservation Sales Tax funds are derived from one-eighth of one 
percent sales and use tax pursuant to Article IV Section 43 (a) of the Missouri Constitution, thus 
MDC=s sales taxes are constitutional mandates. Therefore, Oversight will reflect the B&P’s and 
DOR’s fiscal impact estimates for MDC’s funds.
Officials from the City of Kansas City, the City of Springfield, and the City of Sikeston
assume the proposal could have a negative fiscal impact on their respective cities in an 
indeterminate amount.
Oversight notes the above local political subdivisions stated the proposal would have negative 
fiscal impact on their respective subdivisions of an indeterminate amount. Therefore, Oversight 
will note B&P’s and DOR’s estimate for local political subdivisions on the fiscal note
Officials from the Department of Natural Resources and the Department of Elementary and 
Secondary Education each defer to the Department of Revenue for the potential fiscal impact 
of this proposal. 
Officials from the Department of Social Services assume the proposal will have no fiscal 
impact on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. 
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for this agency.
§144.030.2(47) – (SA 17) – Exempting Feminine Hygiene Products from Sales Tax 
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assumed this proposal may reduce TSR by 
$3,871,045 to $5,925,068 annually once fully implemented. L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 51 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
B&P notes this proposal would exempt all sales of feminine hygiene products from sales tax 
beginning August 28, 2022.
Feminine Hygiene Products
Based on information from multiple sites, B&P estimates that women purchase an average of 6.8 
to 7.2 boxes of tampons and 1.7 to 1.8 boxes of pads and liners per year (using the average cycle 
length of 28 to 30 days), with an average price of $7 to $10 per box.  B&P was also able to 
determine that the average age for menstruation is 12-51, and based on data provided by the 
United State Census 2019 population estimates (the most recent complete year available), there 
are approximately 1,549,453 woman between those ages residing in Missouri.  
Therefore, B&P estimates total sales of $91,622,359 to $140,238,305 may be become exempt 
from sales tax by this proposal.  B&P estimates that this provision could reduce TSR by 
$3,871,045 to $5,925,068 annually.  Using the population weighted average sales tax rate of 
4.03% for 2021, B&P further estimates that this provision could reduce local sales tax collections 
by $3,692,381 to $5,651,604 annually.  Table 1 shows the estimated impact by fund.
Table 1: Estimated Loss by FundState FundFY23FY24General 
Revenue($2,290,559)($3,505,958)($2,748,671)($4,207,149)
Education($763,520)($1,168,653)($916,224)($1,402,383)Conservation($95,440)($146,082)($114,528)($175,298)DNR($76,352)($116,865)($91,622)($140,238)Total TSR 
Loss($3,225,871)($4,937,557)($3,871,045)($5,925,068)
    Local Funds($3,076,984)($4,709,670)($3,692,381)($5,651,604)
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Department of 
Revenue (DOR) stated beginning August 28, 2022, there shall be no state or local sales or use 
tax levied and imposed under Chapter 144 on the retail sales of feminine hygiene products. The 
current state sales tax rate is 4.225% and the current weighted average for local sales tax is 
4.03%. The current sales tax rate is distributed as:
General Revenue 3%
School District Trust Fund 1%
Parks, Soil and Water Funds 0.1%
Conservation Commission Fund 0.125%
Local Sales Tax 4.03% L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 52 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Information from numerous sources indicates that a women menstruates 500 times in her 
lifetime, usually between the ages of 13-51. The average length of a period is 3-7 days. Sources 
indicate that a woman uses the following:
Number per cycleNumber per yearNumber in BoxBoxes per yearTampons20260367.2Pads/Panty 
Liners
565361.8
Note a woman has 13 cycles a year (28 day cycle)/352 days a year.
The price per tampons and pads vary. DOR used a low and high price when determining the 
fiscal impact.
Price 
Low
Price HighTotal Cost LowTotal Cost 
High
Tampons$7.00 $10.00 $50.56 $72.22 Pads/Panty Liners$7.00 $10.00 $12.64 $18.06 Total$63.20 $90.28 
Using information from the US Census Bureau (2019 ACS 1 year estimates), DOR calculated 
the number of women having a period in Missouri (those between 13and 51) as 1,515,420.
This proposal begins August 28, 2022 (FY 2023). The Department will show a lesser loss to 
Fiscal Year 2023 because there are two months in Fiscal Year 2023 in which feminine products 
would remain applicable to have the full amount of state sales tax collected. This would result in 
the following loss:
FundTax Rate Full YearLowHighTSR0.04225$4,046,119 $5,780,170 General Revenue0.03$2,872,984 $4,104,263 School District0.01$957,661 $1,368,088 Park, Soil & Water0.001$95,766 $136,809 Conservation0.00125$119,708 $171,011 Locals0.0403$3,859,375 $5,513,393 
DOR notes this would require one time computer programming and form changes. This is 
estimated to cost $3,596.
Oversight notes DOR assumes this proposal will require form and programming changes at an 
estimated cost of $3,596. OversightDOR is provided with core funding to handle a  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 53 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
certain amount of activity each year. Oversight assumes DOR could absorb the costs related to 
this proposal. If multiple bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial 
costs, DOR could request funding through the appropriation process. 
Oversight notes this proposal would exempt feminine hygiene products, from sales tax 
beginning August 28, 2022 (Fiscal Year 2023). Oversight will use the B&P’s and DOR’s lowest 
and highest projected fiscal estimates to show the maximum low and high impact. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Department of 
Natural Resources deferred to the Department of Revenue for the potential fiscal impact of 
this proposal. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the
Department of Conservation (MDC) assumed the proposal will have an unknown fiscal impact 
but greater than $250,000.  The Conservation Sales Tax funds are derived from one-eighth of 
one percent sales and use tax pursuant to Article IV Section 43 (a) of the Missouri 
Constitution.  Any decrease in sales and use tax collected would decrease revenue to the 
Conservation Sales Tax funds.  However, the initiative is very complex and may require 
adjustments to Missouri sales tax law which could cause some downside risk to the Conservation 
Sales Tax.  MDC assumes the Department of Revenue would be better able to estimate the 
anticipated fiscal impact that would result from this proposal.
Oversight notes that the Conservation and Park, Soil, and Water Sales Tax funds are derived 
from the one-eighth of one percent sales and use tax pursuant to Article IV Section 43 (a) of the 
Missouri Constitution and the one-tenth of one percent sales and use tax pursuant to Article IV 
Section 47 (a) of the Missouri Constitution thus MDC and DNR sales taxes are constitutional 
mandates. Therefore, Oversight will reflect the B&P’s and DOR’s estimates of impact on the 
fiscal note.
In response to similar legislation from this year, SB 897, officials from the Department of 
Elementary and Secondary Education and the Missouri Department of Transportation each 
assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight 
does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in 
the fiscal note for these agencies.  
§1 – (SA 17) – Right to refuse the COVID-19 vaccine and medical treatment
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations assumed the proposal would not have a direct 
fiscal impact on their organization. 
Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) noted:  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 54 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
This proposal prohibits a political subdivision from requiring a public employee to receive a 
COVID-19 vaccination. DMH is not excluded from the definition of "political subdivision" and 
therefore would be subject to this provision.
Section 191.230.3 of this version of the proposal exempts from the prohibition health facilities 
that must have a requirement to participate in federal programs. This presumably includes 
Department of Mental Health (DMH) and its agencies. This version also adds workers 
compensation eligibility for individuals who are injured by required medical treatment. This 
provision does not define how causation from immunization or treatment to injury will be traced. 
Further, the provision does not identify which entity is responsible for determining whether an 
injury was caused by an immunization or medical treatment. Further clarification is needed in the 
proposed language to address these issues.  
The language also will hinder DMH’s ability to protect the population served by DMH in a 
congregate setting. For example, DMH currently requires staff at certain DMH inpatient facilities 
to undergo tuberculosis testing. The patient population served by DMH has higher rates of 
comorbidities and demographic factors that make those patients more vulnerable to infectious 
disease. Given the vulnerable population served by DMH, it is critical for DMH to set required 
working conditions in DMH operated congregate settings for both the safety of staff and patients. 
Due to the vulnerable population served in DMH congregate care inpatient settings, when DMH 
deems it necessary, all employees are required to test for certain infectious diseases regardless of 
vaccination status.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding a federal vaccination mandate, DMH cannot calculate a fiscal 
impact on the Department at this stage; therefore, the fiscal impact to the Department is unknown 
at this time.   
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Attorney General’s Office (AGO) noted that there is a theoretical possibility that this proposal 
could have an impact on the Legal Expense Fund (LEF) for various agencies throughout the 
state. 
Oversight notes most LEF costs are reimbursed from the General Revenue Fund (GR). GR has 
paid for the majority of payments from the LEF since payments on LEF cases for agencies with 
designated reimbursable funds have been relatively small. According to Office of Administration 
- Risk Management (OARM), broader budget authority to transfer from Federal and Other Funds 
beginning in FY 18 allowed for an increase of percentage of payments from Federal and Other 
Funds. 
Oversight notes that the HCS specifically excludes any health care facilities, in Missouri, 
receiving federal funding in order to sustain current or future operations while staying in 
compliance with various federal guidelines. Therefore, for purpose of this fiscal note, Oversight 
will note zero impact to the state agencies, or political subdivisions receiving federal funds who 
provides any such services.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 55 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Northwest Missouri State University assumed they are unable to determine fiscal impact at this 
time. Impact is contingent upon Federal mandates affecting grants and government grant fund 
recipients.
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
University of Central Missouri assume the proposal will have an indeterminate fiscal impact on 
their organization. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Missouri University System stated the proposal will not have a significant impact on the UM 
System. Oversight notes that the HCS specifically exclude any organizations receiving federal 
funding in order to sustain current or future operations while staying in compliance with various 
federal guidelines. Therefore, for purpose of this fiscal note, Oversight will note zero impact for 
colleges and universities.  
Excludes Certain Facilities 
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Department of Social Services (DSS) noted: 
The United States Supreme Court held in Biden v. Missouri
Secretary did not exceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for 
Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the facilities covered by the interim rule must ensure that their 
employees be vaccinated against COVID-19. 
If the definition of “healthcare institutions” as used in 199.170 does not include all healthcare 
providers subject to the requirements of the interim rule (86 FR 61555), which include 
Ambulatory Surgical Centers; Hospices; Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facilities; Programs 
of All-Inclusive Care for the Elderly (PACE); Hospitals; Long Term Care (LTC) Facilities; 
Intermediate Care Facilities for Individuals with Intellectual Disabilities (ICFs-IID); Home 
Health Agencies; Comprehensive Outpatient Rehabilitation Facilities; Critical Access Hospitals; 
Clinics, Rehabilitation Agencies, and Public Health Agencies as Providers of Outpatient Physical 
Therapy and Speech-Language Pathology Services (organizations); Community Mental Health 
Centers (CMHCs); Home Infusion Therapy (HIT) Suppliers; Rural Health Clinics (RHCs) / 
Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs); and End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) Facilities, 
implementing this bill could have an unknown impact of a loss of federal funding.
Oversight notes that DSS assumes that HA 1 to HCS for HB 1686 could have potentially 
unknown impact of a loss of federal funding due to the uncertainty which facilities are excluded 
or not under this specific proposal. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. 
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a range from zero (the statute is sufficient to exclude all  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 56 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
facilities dependent on federal funding) or negative Unknown (statue is not sufficient to exclude 
all long term facility dependent on federal funding) impact in the fiscal note. 
Rule Promulgation
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules assume this proposal is not anticipated to cause a 
fiscal impact beyond its current appropriation. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 1686, officials from the 
Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) assumed that many bills considered by the General 
Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and regulations to 
implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of normal 
activity resulting from each year’s legislative session.  The fiscal impact for this fiscal note to the 
SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that this is a small 
amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet these 
costs.  However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the General 
Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the office can 
sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves the right to request funding for the cost 
of supporting administrative rules requirements should the need arise based on a review of the 
finally approved bills signed by the governor.
Oversight assumed SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of activity 
each year. Oversight assumes SOS could absorb the costs related to this proposal. If multiple 
bills pass which require additional staffing and duties at substantial costs. 
Officials from the City of Kansas City and the City of Springfield
fiscal impact from this proposal.
§§59.310, 92.720, 92.740, 92.750, 92.760, 92.765, 92.770, 92.775, 92.810, 92.815, 92.817, 
92.825, 92.835, 92.840, 92.852, 92.855, & 442.130 – (SA 18) – Certain Property Regulations
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 2218, officials from the 
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the Department of RevenueOffice of 
the State Courts AdministratorSt. Louis County Police Department and the 
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on 
their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. 
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for these 
sections.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HCS for HB 2218, officials from the 
Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Economic Development, the 
Missouri Department of Transportation, the State Tax Commission, the City of Kansas City 
and the  each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 57 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for these sections.  
Officials from the City of St. Louis and the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department did not 
respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal impact for this proposal.
§67.2300 – (SA 19) - Homelessness
Officials from the Department of Economic Development (DED) assume §67.2300 creates a 
short-term housing construction program for the homeless to be funded from state funds. The 
DED is required to provide bonuses of up to ten percent for such programs that meet guidelines 
as established by the DED. Also requires the DED to promulgate rules and regulations. The 
fiscal impact is unknown at this time.
However, DED will require one FTE (Economic Development Specialist at $53,447 annually) to 
administer the program.
Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) assume this amendment authorizes 
use of state funds to particular homelessness programs, but excludes funds that cannot be 
directed to those programs based on state or federal restrictions or regulations. While many 
DMH funds are restricted and would be unaffected by this legislation.  DMH still have funds not 
subject to these restrictions; therefore, this would direct funds away from best practice services 
such as permanent supportive housing and into surveys and performance incentives to 
subdivisions. This would have a detrimental effect for the individuals in need of services and 
reducing DMH's ability to provide effective services. This would negative effect individuals 
experiencing homelessness, mental health disorders, and substance use disorders.
Due to the uncertainty surrounding a federal vaccination mandate, DMH cannot calculate a fiscal 
impact on the DMH at this stage. 
Oversight notes Section 37.2300. 4. notes “The department shall provide up to twenty-five 
percent of the base allocation of such funds as performance payments to political subdivisions or 
not-for-profit organizations providing such services as rewards for meeting predetermined goals 
on reductions of:
(a)  Days unhoused;
(b)  Days in jail or prison; and
(c)  Days hospitalized, with the weights of such days to be determined by the              
department.”
Additionally, 67.2300 1. (1), notes the term "Department", any department authorized to allocate 
funds raised by the state or federal funds received by the state for housing or homelessness.
Oversight notes the DED, Missouri Housing Development Commission, is currently responsible 
for issuing tax credits for Low Income Housing.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 58 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight assumes DED request for additional FTE is probable, providing the Department must 
access and compile all necessary data from various institution within state and outside of the 
agency to ensure compliance within the proposal. Oversight does not have any information to the 
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect DED’s estimated impact in the fiscal note.  
Oversight notes the proposal states that any construction of short-term housing for the homeless 
that is funded using state funds, including parking areas, camping facilities, and shelters, shall 
comply with certain requirements as specified in the proposal. 
Oversight notes that the Missouri Housing Trust Fund, currently maintains a grant program 
helping the homeless, or the near homeless population in the State. Oversight notes the Trust 
Fund provided disbursement as follows:  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 59 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Total Funded by Grant Type  201920202021
Housing Assistance  $     988,313 
 $      
917,767  $   934,302 Emergency Assistance $  1,069,520 
 $   
1,097,248  $1,206,525 Operating Funds $     633,267 
 $      
497,004  $   416,877 
Home Repair/ 
Modification $     410,400 
 $      
430,950  $   325,000 
Construction / 
Rehabilitation $       97,500 
 $      
126,121  $   103,000 Administration $               -   
 $                
-    $   242,781 Total $  3,199,000 
 $   
3,069,087  $3,228,485 Total Funded By Regions 
 201920202021
North $     543,830 
 $      
521,745  $   516,558 Central $     639,800 
 $      
613,817  $   613,412 South $     895,720 
 $      
859,344  $   903,975 Kansas City $     447,860 
 $      
460,364  $   516,558 St. Louis  $     671,790 
 $      
613,817  $   677,982 Total $  3,199,000 
 $   
3,069,087  $3,228,485 
Source: http://mhdc.com/housing_trust_fund/documents/FY2021/2021%20MHTF%20Funding%20Approvals.pdf L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 60 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight notes that the Missouri Housing Trust Fund distributes $3.165M, on average, in grant 
funds annually to combat homelessness. Additionally, there are 40 to 45 non-profit companies 
receiving funds annually to assist the affected population. 
Allocation Area of Grant Money
Distribution 
Percentage
St. Louis Metropolitan Area:  Franklin, Jefferson, Lincoln, St. Charles, St. Louis City, St. 
Louis County, and Warren Counties20%
South  Region: Barry, Barton, Butler, Carter, Cedar, Christian, Dade, Dallas, 
Dent, Douglas, Dunklin, Greene, Hickory, Howell, Jasper, 
Laclede, Lawrence, McDonald, Mississippi, New Madrid, 
Newton, Oregon, Ozark, Pemiscot, Polk, Reynolds, Ripley, 
Scott, Shannon, Stoddard, Stone, Taney, Texas, Vernon, 
Wayne, Webster, and Wright Counties28%
Kansas City Metropolitan Area: 
Caldwell, Cass, Clay, Clinton, Jackson, Lafayette, Platte, and 
Ray Counties15%
Central Region: Audrain, Bates, Benton, Bollinger, Boone, Callaway, Camden, 
Cape Girardeau, Cole, Cooper, Crawford, Gasconade, Henry, 
Howard, Iron, Johnson, Madison, Maries, Miller, Moniteau, 
Montgomery, Morgan, Osage, Perry, Pettis, Phelps, Pulaski, 
Saline, St. Clair, St. Francois, Ste. Genevieve, and Washington 
Counties20%
North Region: Adair, Andrew, Atchison, Buchanan, Carroll, Chariton, Clark, 
Daviess, DeKalb, Gentry, Grundy, Harrison, Holt, Knox, 
Lewis, Linn, Livingston, Macon, Marion, Mercer, Monroe, 
Nodaway, Pike, Putnam, Ralls, Randolph, Schuyler, Scotland, 
Shelby, Sullivan, and Worth Counties17%
Oversight notes the above table provides a regional breakdown of the funds.
Oversight notes that DED currently does not provide any guidance or tax credit affecting the 
overall funding above. The proposal suggest a new program funded by State or Federal moneys 
that are not currently associated with any particular funding of any agency in Missouri.
For informational purposes, Oversight will show the United States Interagency on Homelessness 
(USICH) statistics of the Missouri homeless population in 2016-2019 period as shown below in 
the Table 1:  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 61 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Table 1. Homeless statisticsHomeless Statistics Missouri State 201720182019
3 Year   
Average
Total Homeless Population6,0375,8836,1796,033Total Family Households Experiencing 
Homelessness765706707726
Veterans 538507488511Chronic Homeless Persons1,0871,0431,0621,064Unaccompanied Young Adults (age 18-
24) 548534477520
 Students/FY201720182019AverageTotal # of Homeless Students32,13336,00634,02934,056Total # of Unaccompanied Students3,9444,2544,2414,146
Nighttime Residence - Unsheltered578611643611Nighttime Residence - Sheltered2,8272,7522,3962,658Nighttime Residence - Hotels/motels 2,0212,4091,9212,117Nighttime Residence Doubled up26,70730,23426,06927,670
Source: https://www.usich.gov/homelessness-
statistics/mo/#:~:text=As%20of%20January%202020%2C%20Missouri,and%20Urban%20Development
%20(HUD)
Oversight notes that Table 1 shows there are on average 1064 chronically homeless persons and 
34,056 homeless students at any given time throughout the 2017-2019 period and prior 2020 
Census. The proposal allows for individuals experiencing homelessness access to Missouri 
campgrounds and their respective facilities. 
Oversight notes according to the Department of Natural Resources website, Missouri State 
Parks, there are 39 State Parks throughout Missouri which have running water, showers, 
bathroom, and access to electricity and, therefore, possibly able to support the homeless. The 
proposal also allows for such an individual to use the sites for a maximum of six months at a 
time and excludes the owners, or people who maintain the sites, from various regulations.  
Oversight notes the HCS removes the requirement where DED is not allowed to disburse any 
funds to local political subdivisions or non-profit companies constructing any short-term housing 
that costs more than fifty-five thousand dollars per bed to construct, excluding the price of land, 
or that costs more than twenty thousand dollars a year to maintain at a basic level of habitability. 
Oversight notes there are currently an estimated 1,064 chronic homeless persons, on average, in 
any given year in need of sustainable and habitable housing. By taking the population and 
multiplying it by the allowable maximum level of funding of previous bill ($55,000) to construct  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 62 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
such a housing, DED would need $58.52M to construct temporary housing just for the chronic 
homeless population. However, the HCS removes the $55,000 cap; therefore, the cost could be 
higher just to house the chronically homeless. Consequently, Oversight will note an Unknown 
negative cost to the general revenues, but exceeding the minimum of $250,000. 
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the 
Department of Mental Health (DMH) assumed this proposal creates provisions relating to 
homelessness. Section 67.2300 adds requirements for state funded construction of short-term 
housing for the homeless. It includes guidelines for parking areas, camping facilities, individual 
shelters, and congregate shelters. This bill makes engaging in "unauthorized sleeping" on state-
owned land a class C misdemeanor.  The proposal also adds a requirement for the Department of 
Mental Health (DMH) to maintain a homelessness management information system.  
This proposal requires mental health and substance use evaluation only apply to individuals in 
camping settings, not the other living circumstances.  If the assessments are going to be required, 
DMH recommends the evaluation should apply to the entire population, not just a subset based 
on location. While there is no indication who is responsible for developing or following up on 
the evaluation, DMH assumes the department would be involved in the development of an 
evaluation tool and follow up services through community providers.  
Currently, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) mandates the 
Homeless Management Information System (HMIS) be managed by Continuums of Care (CoCs) 
throughout the state. If DMH is to maintain the HMIS, it may conflict with the federal mandate 
in place. DMH Housing Unit staff have access to HMIS and use it routinely for data entry for all 
of HUD Continuum of Care participants and coordinated entry. Coordinated Entry includes the 
assessment process for all individuals experiencing homelessness who “touch” the system.  
There are numerous agencies which use this coordinated entry assessment around the state 
outside of DMH and their providers.  This assessment process is also governed by the CoCs. 
DMH assumes this language requires the department to maintain a separate homelessness 
management system for the various agencies which may result in creating a homeless 
management system and continued maintenance. Total cost would be unknown as it would be 
based on how many new users would be needed.
DMH anticipates a fiscal impact of $0 to Unknown for the proposed legislation.
Oversight notes the proposal, Section 67.2300 2. (4), requires that the DMH maintain a 
homelessness management information system and Section 67.2300 2. (2) (b), requires that the 
Department potentially provides the homeless population with mental health and substance use 
evaluations.  
Oversight notes the DMH assumes the proposal will have a direct fiscal impact on their 
organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will 
reflect a range from zero to Unknown impact in the fiscal note.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 63 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the 
of Corrections (DOC) 
will not have a fiscal impact on the department.
Oversight notes that any violation of this subsection is a class C misdemeanor; however, for the 
first offense such individual shall be given a warning, and no citation shall be issued unless that 
individual refuses to move to any offered services or shelter. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a 
zero impact in the fiscal note.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the Attorney 
General’s Office, the, the
Services Missouri Office of Prosecution Services, the Office of the State Courts 
Administrator, the Department of Public Safety – Fire Safety, and the Missouri Department 
of Conservation each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organizations. 
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero 
impact in the fiscal note for these agencies. For this section.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2614, officials from the City of 
Kansas City and the City of O’Fallon both assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on 
their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies. 
Oversight notes the HCS for HB 2614 removes the requirement, from previous version of the 
bill, that local police departments and Department of Social Services personal create homeless 
outreach teams to deal with homeless enforcement. Therefore, Oversight will not note reduction 
in local political revenues.
 
 SEQ CHAPTER \h  1 SEQ CHAPTER \h  1§523.061 – (SA 21) – Condemnation 
Proceedings
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2443, officials from the Missouri 
Department of Transportation (MoDOT) stated any condemnator, MoDOT included, has the 
potential to see a cost savings if the property that otherwise would have been subject to heritage 
value no longer qualifies because it falls within one of the listed exceptions in this proposal. 
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 to 
unknown savings for this proposal.
Oversight inquired MoDOT regarding the cost savings to property that no longer qualifies as an 
exception for heritage value. MoDOT states the cost savings could be up to $1 million per year. 
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by the MoDOT.
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2443, officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning, the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the 
Department of Economic DevelopmentDepartment of Natural Resources, the Office of  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 64 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Administration, the State Tax Commission, the City of Claycomo, the
of Conservation and the City of Kansas City each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal 
impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the 
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies for 
this section.  
In response to similar legislation from this year, HCS for HB 2443, officials from the Office of 
the State Courts AdministratorCity of Springfield
have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information 
to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these 
agencies for this section.  
§70.631 – (SA 23) - Public Safety Personnel
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1473, officials from the Joint 
Committee on Public Employee Retirement (JCPER) assume the proposal has no direct fiscal 
impact to the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement. The JCPER’s review of this 
legislation indicates it would not create a “substantial proposed change” in future plan benefits as 
defined in Section 105.660(10).
Current Status of the LAGERS as of February 28, 2021 (most recent actuarial valuation):
Number of participating employers as of February 28, 2021:  801
Active Members:
General:  25,974
Police: 6,591
Fire: 2,715
Public Safety: 100
Total Actives: 35,380
Inactive Members:  16,413
Total membership:  51,793
Funded Ratio
Market Value of Assets: $9,246,453,190  100.7%
Actuarial Value of Assets: $8,777,019,738 95.6%
Liabilities: L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 65 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
In response to similar legislation from this year, Perfected HB 1473, officials from the Local 
Government Employees Retirement System (LAGERS) assume this proposal will have no 
fiscal impact on their organization. 
Oversight notes this proposal removes language that limits the provisions in section 70.631 to 
specific local political subdivisions. 
Oversight notes the minimum retirement age for general employees is 60 years of age. 
Oversight assumes this proposal lowers the minimum retirement age to 55 years of age for 
certain employees defined as public safety personnel. Oversight assumes there could be an 
increase in employer contributions for local political subdivisions for employees they elect to 
cover under the retirement system as public safety personnel who retire at the age of 55 instead 
of 60. 
Oversight notes each individual employer electing to add certain employees as public safety 
personnel would have an actuarial cost statement done to determine if the change would require 
an increase in the employers’ contribution rate. 
Oversight notes the limitation on increases in employer contribution rates does not appear to 
apply to any contribution increase resulting from this proposal. Additionally, Oversight notes the 
board can set different rates of contributions employers having policeman members or having 
fireman members (70.730.4, RSMo). Oversight is uncertain if “public safety personnel” would 
qualify as policeman members or fireman members which would allow for a different 
contribution rate than general employees. 
Oversight will show a range of $0 (no local political subdivisions elect to cover additional 
employees as public safety personnel) to an unknown cost to local political subdivisions if an 
increase in employer contributions were needed. Oversight assumes this proposal is discretionary 
and would have no fiscal impact without action by the governing body.
Bill as a Whole
In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Commerce and Insurance
the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the Office of the State Auditor
Department of Economic DevelopmentDepartment of Social Services and the State Tax 
Commission each assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective 
organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight 
will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.  
In response to a previous version, officials from the Phelps County Sheriff’s Department 
assumed the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 66 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary in §58.200. Should the sheriff’s 
position become vacant and the county coroner becomes acting sheriff until the position is filled, 
the salary of the coroner should be increased by the difference between the sheriff’s salary and 
the coroner’s salary. Oversight assumes this would occur on an infrequent basis and would have 
a minimal fiscal impact on counties.  Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal 
note for this agency.  
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions; 
however, other cities, counties, county recorders, auditors, collectors, treasurers, public 
administrators and sheriffs were requested to respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A 
listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information System database 
is available upon request.
Bill as a Whole As Amended
Officials from the State Tax Commission (STC) assume SA 1 has an unknown fiscal impact. 
Assessment reductions will impact negatively the revenue for school districts, county, cities and 
other taxing jurisdiction who are supported by property taxes in county designated by the 
restriction.  This bill reduces the amount of personal property tax assessment percentage that 
would equal the revenue generated by the increase in real property taxes collected so this would 
eliminate an increase in local revenues until the percentage for personal property assessment 
reaches 0.  It is also unclear how the over 30 taxing districts located in the described county are 
to calculate the increase in taxes collected and then have that applied to the personal property 
decreases since not all levies are at their voted capped amount.  Revenue increases are calculated 
at the end of the year while assessments are made at the beginning of the year so there may be a 
timing issue for the assessors to be able to reduce the percentage on personal property.  
Amendment #2 proposes that no residential property (Class 1) shall be assessed by more than the 
previous year’s assessment, exclusive of new construction or improvements, by a percentage 
increase greater than the consumer price index (7.0% 2021) or ten percent, whichever is greater. 
The amendment has an unknown fiscal impact, however the limitation on assessment growth 
does not reduce the assessment but may limit the increases in revenues for school districts, 
counties, cities, fire districts and other local taxing jurisdictions supported by property tax 
revenues.
Officials from the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Elementary and Secondary 
Education, the Department of Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Natural 
Resources, the Department of Public Safety (Fire Safety, Office of the Director, Missouri 
National Guard, Missouri Highway Patrol, State Emergency Management Agency, 
Missouri Veterans Commission), the Department of Social Services, the Missouri Ethics 
Commission, the Missouri Department of Transportation, the Office of the State Public 
Defender, the University of Missouri SystemsCity of Claycomo, the City of O’Fallon, 
the Kansas City Board of Elections, the Platte County Board of Elections, the Kansas City 
Health Department, the Newton County Health Department, the St. Louis County Health 
Department, the Phelps County Sheriff’s Office, the Kansas City Police Department, the St.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 67 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Joseph Police DepartmentSt. Louis County Police Department, the Cole Camp 
Ambulance District, the Crawford County 911 Board, the Lake West Ambulance District, 
the Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District, the South River Drainage District, the Viburnum 
Water/WastewaterOffice of the Governor, the Joint Committee on Administrative 
Rules, Department of Health and Senior Services and the Missouri Office of Prosecution 
Services
organizations.
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) note many bills considered by the 
General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and 
regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain 
amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative session. The fiscal impact for 
this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that 
this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet 
these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the 
General Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the 
office can sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves the right to request funding 
for the cost of supporting administrative rules requirements should the need arise based on a 
review of the finally approved bills signed by the governor.
Oversight assumes the SOS could absorb the costs of printing and distributing regulations 
related to this proposal.  If multiple bills pass which require the printing and distribution of 
regulations at substantial costs, the SOS could request funding through the appropriation process.  L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 68 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2026)
GENERAL REVENUECosts – DOR (§§67.457, 
67.461,  67.1431, 67.1471, 
99.825, 99.830, 99.865, 
238.212 & 238.222) (SA 8) pg. 
28-29
Could Exceed
   Personal Service($29,008)($35,505)($36,215)($36,215)  Fringe Benefits($22,054)($26,698)($26,936)($26,936)  Equipment and Expense($9,711)($491)($503)($503)Total Costs – DOR($60,773)($62,694)($63,654)($63,654)          FTE Change - DOR1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTELoss – DOR – 2% of 
collection fee on future 
potential fines no longer 
assessed because LPS no 
longer required to file due to 
changes in the bill (§105.145) 
(SA 4) p. 18-23
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
Loss – DOR – 2% collection 
fee that may have been 
collected if not for the one-
time decrease of 90% of the 
outstanding balance from the 
local political subdivision if 
they submit a timely financial 
statement by 1/01/23 
(§105.145) (SA 4) p. 18-23
$0 or up to 
($1,834,605)$0$0$0
Savings - reduction in Senior 
Property Tax Credits due the 
issuance of local property tax 
credits - §137.103 – SA 5 p. 
23-27
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
Sale Proceeds – conveyance 
proceeds of properties (if any) 
§§1,2,3,4,5 (SA 10) p. 30-31
$0 or 
Unknown
$0$0$0 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 69 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Property value – loss of FMV 
of properties §§1,2,3,4,5 (SA 
10) p. 30-31
(Unknown)$0$0$0
Savings – for annual 
maintenance / upkeep of 
properties §§1,2,3,4,5 (SA 10) 
p. 30-31
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission (SA 12) 
pg. 31-36
$0$0$0$0 or 
($240,710) to 
($2,521,728)
Revenue Reduction - §144.064 
Firearms and Ammunition 
Sales Tax Exemption SA 14
($9,547,388 
- 
$35,955,000)
($11,456,865 
- 
$43,146,000)
($11,456,865 
- 
$43,146,000)
($11,456,865 
- 
$43,146,000)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on child diapers (SA 
17)  p. 36-47
($2,602,600 - 
$4,561,872)
($3,123,120 - 
$5,474,246)
($3,123,120 - 
$5,474,246)
($3,123,120 - 
$5,474,246)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on adult diapers (SA 
17)    p. 36-47
($14,273,777 
-
$23,704,666) 
($17,128,533 
-
$28,445,599) 
($17,128,533
 -
$28,445,599) 
($17,128,533
 -
$28,445,599) 
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(47) - Exemption of 
sales tax on feminine hygiene 
products (SA 17) pg. 36-47
($2,290,559) 
to 
($3,505,958)
($2,748,671) 
to 
($4,207,149)
($2,748,671) 
to 
($4,207,149)
($2,748,671) 
to 
($4,207,149)
Cost – DED – Section 67.2300 
Homeless Program 
Implementation (SA 19) pg. 
48-54
   Salary($26,724)($54,516)($55,607)($55,607)  Fringe Benefits($16,356)($33,071)($33,436)($33,436)  Equipment & Expense($6,040)($5,708)($5,822)($5,822)Total Cost - DED($49,120)($93,295)($94.865)($94.865)  FTE change - DED1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 70 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Cost – DMH – Section 
67.2300 – FTE - requires 
mental health and substance 
use evaluations (SA 19) pg. 
48-54
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
Cost – funds for construction 
of housing for homeless 
population (SA 19)  pg. 48-54
(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON GENERAL REVENUE
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$69,671,994)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$81,428,983)
 (Unknown, 
could exceed 
$81,431,513)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$83,953,241)
Estimated Net FTE Change to 
the General Revenue Fund2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE2 FTE
BLIND PENSION FUNDCost – Cap on Growth of 
Assessed Values §137.115 (SA 
1) pg. 8-13, 56-57 
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON THE BLIND PENSION 
FUND
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$250,000) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 71 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
PARK, SOIL, WATER FUNDS 
(0614)
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission (SA 12) 
31-36
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($8,024) to 
($84,058)
Revenue Reduction - §144.064 
Firearms and Ammunition 
Sales Tax Exemption (SA 14)
($318,246 - 
$1,198,500)
($381,896 - 
$1,438,200)
($381,896 - 
$1,438,200)
($381,896 - 
$1,438,200)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on child diapers (SA 17)  
p. 36-47
($86,753 –
$152,062)
($104,104 - 
$182,475)
($104,104 - 
$182,475)
($104,104 - 
$182,475)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on adult diapers (SA 17)  
p. 36-47
($475,793 –
$790,156)
($570,951 -
$948,187)
($570,951 -
$948,187)
($570,951 -
$948,187)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(47) - Exemption of 
sales tax on feminine hygiene 
products (SA 17) p. 36-47
($76,352 - 
$116,865) 
($91,622 -
$140,238)
($91,622 -
$140,238)
($91,622 -
$140,238)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON PARK , SOIL AND 
WATER FUNDS
(Less than  
$2,257,583)
(Less than  
$2,709,100)
(Less than  
$2,709,100)
(Less than  
$2,793,158)
CONSERVATION 
COMMISSION FUNDS (0609)
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for FIFA 
World Cup Admission (SA 12) 
31-36 
$0$0$0$0 or 
($10,030) to 
($105,072)
Revenue Reduction - §144.064 
Firearms and Ammunition 
Sales Tax Exemption (SA 14)
($397,808 - 
$1,498,125)
($477,369 - 
$1,797,750)
($477,369 - 
$1,797,750)
($477,369 - 
$1,797,750) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 72 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on child diapers (SA 17)   
p. 36-47
($108,442 – 
$190,078)
($130,130 - 
$228,094)
($130,130 - 
$228,094)
($130,130 - 
$228,094) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 73 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on adult diapers (SA 
17)   p. 36-47
($594,741 
-$987,694)
($713,689 - 
$1,185,233)
($713,689 - 
$1,185,233)
($713,689 - 
$1,185,233)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(47) - Exemption 
of sales tax on feminine 
hygiene products (SA 17) p. 
36-47
($95,440 -
$146,082)
($114,528 -
$175,298)
($114,528 - 
$175,298)
($114,528 - 
$175,298)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON CONSERVATION 
COMMISSION FUNDS
(Less than 
$2,821,979)
(Less than 
$3,386,375)
(Less than 
$3,386,375)
(Less than 
$3,491,447)
SCHOOL DISTRICT 
TRUST FUND (0688)
Revenue loss - § 144.051 
exemption of sales tax for 
FIFA World Cup Admission 
(SA 12) p. 31-36
$0$0$0
$0 or 
($80,237) to 
($840,576)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.064 Firearms and 
Ammunition Sales Tax 
Exemption (SA 14)
($3,182,463 - 
$11,985,000)
($3,818,955 - 
$14,382,000)
($3,818,955 
- 
$14,382,000
)
($3,818,955 
- 
$14,382,000
)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on child diapers (SA 
17)   p. 36-47
($867,533 – 
$1,520,624)
($1,041,040 - 
$1,824,749)
($1,041,040 
- 
$1,824,749)
($1,041,040 
- 
$1,824,749)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - Exemption of 
sales tax on adult diapers (SA 
17)  p. 36-47
($4,757,926 - 
$7,901,555)
($5,709,511 - 
$9,481,866)
($5,709,511 
- 
$9,481,866)
($5,709,511 
- 
$9,481,866)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(47) - Exemption 
of sales tax on feminine 
hygiene products (SA 17) p. 
36-47
($763,520 - 
$1,168,653)
($916,224 -
$1,402,383)
($916,224 -
$1,402,383)
($916,224 -
$1,402,383) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 74 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON SCHOOL DISTRICT 
TRUST FUND 
(Less than 
$22,575,832)
(Less than 
$27,090,998)
(Less than 
$27,090,998
)
(Less than 
$27,931,574
)
STATE ROAD FUNDSavings – MODOT – 
potential cost savings to 
property that no longer 
qualifies as an exception for 
heritage value (§523.061) 
(SA 21) p. 54
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT ON THE 
STATE ROAD FUND
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
TRUMAN STATE 
UNIVERSITY
Cost -  of acquiring the 
property from the state (§2) 
(SA 10) p. 30-31
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0$0$0Property increase – acquired 
property’s value (§2) (SA 
10) p. 30-31
Unknown$0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT TO TRUMAN 
STATE UNIVERSITY
Unknown to 
(Unknown) 
$0 $0 $0 
FEDERAL FUNDSCost – DSS – Potential loss 
of Federal Funding if $0 or L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 75 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Missouri is deemed to be 
non-compliant §1 (SA 17) 
p. 36-47
 (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT TO FEDERAL 
FUNDS
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 76 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – 
Local Government
FY 2023
(10 Mo.)
FY 2024FY 2025Fully 
Implemented (FY 
2026)
LOCAL 
POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
Savings – in 
publication costs on 
financials posted in a 
newspaper of general 
circulation (§§50.815 
& 50.820) pg. 6-7
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Cost – potential salary 
increases for county 
coroners (§§50.327 & 
58.095) pg. 4-6
$0 or up to 
($1,526,000) 
$0 or up to 
($1,526,000)
$0 or up to 
($1,526,000)
$0 or up to 
($1,526,000)
Costs – adjustment on 
base schedules for 
county officials 
(§50.327.4) pg. 4-6$0 or (Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)$0 or (Unknown)
Savings – on potential 
fines for certain LPS 
(§105.145) (SA 4) p. 
18-23
$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to UnknownLoss – School districts 
receiving less fine 
revenue (from savings 
above) (§105.145) 
(SA 4) p. 18-23
$0 to (Unknown)$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to (Unknown)
Savings – on fine 
revenue that is 
reduced with a one-
time reduction of 90% 
on the outstanding 
balance due if they 
submit a timely 
financial statement by 
$0 or up to 
$91,730,241$0$0$0 L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 77 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
1/1/23 (§105.145) (SA 
4) p. 18-23
Loss – School 
Districts – reduction in 
fine revenue from one-
time adjustment of 
fine revenue 
(§105.145) (SA 4) p. 
18-23
$0 or up to 
($89,895,636)$0$0$0
Costs – Boone County 
Sheriff – potential 
increase in salary. 
§57.317 (SA 9) p. 29-
30
$0 or (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)Loss – §115.062 - 
LEAs
Loss of election 
funding by private 
sources (SA 3) p. 17-
18 
$0 to (Unknown 
Could exceed 
$250,000)
$0 to (Unknown 
Could exceed 
$250,000)
$0 to 
(Unknown 
Could exceed 
$250,000)
$0 to (Unknown 
Could exceed 
$250,000)
Costs – vote on 
implementing property 
tax credits - §137.103 
– SA 5 p. 23-27
$0 or (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)Costs – 
implementation and 
monitoring of property 
credits - §137.103 – 
SA 5 p. 23-27
$0 or (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)Revenue Loss – from 
property tax credit - 
§137.103 – SA 5 p. 
23-27
$0 or (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown) 
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)Costs – Counties –  to 
administer the changes 
in assessment from 
this provision - 
$0(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 78 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
§137.115  (SA 1) pg. 
8-13, 56-57
Revenue Loss - loss of 
property tax from 
reduction in personal 
property assessed 
value - §137.115 (SA 
1) pg. 8-13, 56-57
$0
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)
Cost – County 
Assessors – 
implementation & 
computer 
programming and on-
going staffing costs 
and/or IT costs 
§137.115 (SA 2) Pg. 
13-17, 56-57
(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Cost – Kirksville R-III 
School District -of 
acquiring the property 
from the state (§1) 
(SA 10) p. 30-31
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0$0$0
Property increase – 
Kirksville R-III 
School District - 
acquired property’s 
value (§1)  (SA 10) p. 
30-31
Unknown$0$0$0
Costs – Certain school 
districts in St. Charles 
County (§164.450) 
(SA 11) pg. 31 
$0 or (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)Revenue loss - § 
144.051 exemption of 
sales tax for FIFA World 
$0$0$0$0 or ($371,095) 
to ($3,887,664) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 79 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Cup Admission (SA 12) 
p. 31-36
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.064 Firearms 
and Ammunition Sales 
Tax Exemption (SA 
14)
($12,825,324 - 
$48,299,550) 
($15,390,389 - 
$57,959,460)
($15,390,389 
- 
$57,959,460)
($15,390,389 - 
$57,959,460)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - 
Exemption of sales tax 
on child diapers (SA 17)  
p. 36-47
($3,496,159 - 
$6,128,115)
($4,195,391 - 
$7,353,738)
($4,195,391 - 
$7,353,738)
($4,195,391 - 
$7,353,738)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(46) - 
Exemption of sales tax 
on adult diapers (SA 17)  
p. 36-47
($19,174,441 -
$31,843,268)
($23,009,329 - 
$38,211,921)
($23,009,329 
- 
$38,211,921)
($23,009,329 - 
$38,211,921)
Revenue Reduction - 
§144.030.2(47) - 
Exemption of sales tax 
on feminine hygiene 
products (SA 17) p. 
36-47
($1,771,283 - 
$4,709,670)
($2,125,540 - 
$5,651,604)
($2,125,540 - 
$5,651,604)
($2,125,540 - 
$5,651,604)
Cost – potential 
increase in employer 
contribution rates for 
employers who elect 
to cover certain 
positions as public 
safety personnel - 
§70.631 (SA 23) p. 
55-56
$0 or (Unknown)$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or (Unknown)
Cost – Potential salary 
increases for public 
administrators 
(§473.742) pg.7-8
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$963,846)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$1,927,692)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$1,927,692)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$1,927,692) L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 80 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT ON 
LOCAL 
POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$91,785,844)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$112,780,415)
(Unknown, 
could exceed 
$112,780,415
)
(Unknown, could 
exceed 
$116,668,070)
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Various sections of this proposal could impact small businesses.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This proposal modifies provisions relating to local political subdivisions.
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not 
require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of the State Auditor
Boone County
Greene County
Henry County
Lincoln County
Livingston County
Office of the State Courts Administrator
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Christian County Auditor’s Office
Clinton County
City of St. Louis 
Department of Economic Development
Department of Social Services
State Tax Commission
Phelps County Sheriff’s Department
Department of Revenue
Office of Administration
Budget and Planning
Administrative Hearing Commission
FMDC
Attorney General’s Office
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 81 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Department of Mental Health
Department of Public Safety
Division of Alcohol and Tobacco Control
Fire Safety
Office of the Director
Missouri Gaming Commission
State Emergency Management Agency
Missouri Veterans Commission
Missouri Department of Agriculture
Missouri Ethics Commission
Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri Lottery Commission
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System
Office of the State Treasurer
Office of the Governor
Missouri House of Representatives
Joint Committee on Education
Missouri Senate
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan
Missouri Higher Education Loan Authority
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System
Department of Health and Senior Services
Department of Natural Resources
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Missouri Department of Conservation
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations
Office of the Secretary of State
Department of Corrections
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Local Government Employees Retirement System
Howell County Assessor’s Office
St. Francois County Assessor’s Office
Pattonville R-III School District
Newton County Health Department
St. Louis County Health Department
Jackson County Board of Elections
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis City Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
City of Corder
City of Hughesville
City of O’Fallon L.R. No. 3703S.07A 
Bill No. SS for SCS for HCS for HB 1606, as amended 
Page 82 of 82
May 1, 2022
NM:LR:OD
St. Charles Community College
City of Claycomo
Kansas City
City of Springfield
Kansas City Police Department
St. Joseph Police Department
Gordon Parks Elementary School
University of Missouri System
Hermann Area Hospital District
City of Sikeston
Northwest Missouri State University
University of Central Missouri
St. Louis County Police Department
Metropolitan St. Louis Sewer District
St. Louis County Police Department
Cole Camp Ambulance District
Crawford County 911 Board
Lake West Ambulance District
South River Drainage District
Viburnum Water/Wastewater
Clay County Auditor’s Office
Julie MorffRoss StropeDirectorAssistant DirectorMay 1, 2022May 1, 2022