COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0998H.02P Bill No.:Perfected HCS for HB 119 Subject:Political Subdivisions; Taxation and Revenue - Property; Elections Type:Original Date:April 9, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to tax levies by political
subdivisions.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028
General Revenue*
(Unknown), could
exceed ($3,755,811)
(Unknown), could
exceed ($87,255)
(Unknown), could
exceed ($88,685)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue
(Unknown), could
exceed ($3,755,811)
(Unknown), could
exceed ($87,255)
(Unknown), could
exceed ($88,685)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds $0$0$0
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 2 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue1 FTE1 FTE1 FTETotal Estimated Net
Effect on FTE1 FTE1 FTE1 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 AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028
Local Government*
Unknown, greater or
less than $3,679,266
Unknown, greater or
less than $100,000(Unknown) to
Unknown
*Oversight is unsure how this proposal will impact property tax revenues, if at all. Therefore,
Oversight will show a potential negative unknown or positive unknown fiscal impact to local
political subdivisions beginning in FY 2028. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 3 of
April 9, 2025
KLP: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 the necessary approval to publish a new fiscal note.
HA 4 A.A. - Sections 50.815 & 50.820 - County Financial Statements
In response to similar legislation from 2024, SB 1362, officials from the Office of
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) stated these provisions modify the requirements
associated with the publishing of political subdivision financial statements. B&P defers to the
county governments for the fiscal impact of these provisions.
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.
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.
HA 2 Section 67.007 - Ballot Proposals by Political Subdivisions
In response to a similar proposal this year, (Perfected HB 660), officials from the Fruitland
Area Fire Protection District state this could impose a fiscal impact in the event a tax increase
was defeated and having to wait to put the measure back on the ballot. In their case, they do not L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 4 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
ask the voters for a tax increase on property tax unless all other means of funding have been
exhausted. With the increasing costs of doing business, they could be put in a bad financial
position if they have to go through two plus years to eventually get a tax increase passed.
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB 536, officials from the Pettis
County Ambulance District assumed this proposal could potentially cause a shortfall in the
budget for multiple years causing reduction in EMS services to the service area.
In response to similar legislation from 2024, Perfected HCS for HB 2058, officials from the
Branson Police Department
the potential to severely limit the ability to pass public safety sales taxes, impacting the ability
for municipalities and counties to supply adequate public safety services.
Oversight assumes this section of the proposal requires a local political subdivision (LPS) to not
resubmit to the voters any ballot measure imposing a new tax or increasing an existing tax if it
was rejected by the voters of the LPS during the election cycle under section 115.205 or two
years. The proposal also allows a LPS to resubmit to the voters a previously rejected tax proposal
sooner than the election cycle if the new proposal states a “substantial change” as outlined in
subsection 2 of the section. Therefore, Oversight assumes the proposal would not have a direct
fiscal impact.
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB 536, officials from the City
of Springfield, the Kansas City Board of Elections, the St. Joseph Police Department and the
Lincoln County Assessor’s Office
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.
HA 2 Sections 67.1421 & 238.225 – Certain Special Taxing Districts
In response to similar legislation from 2023, Perfected HCS for HB 536, officials from the City
of Tipton, the City of Jefferson, Jackson County and the City of Springfield 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.
HA 2 Sections - 67.1521, 238.230 & 238.232 – Transportation Development Districts (TDD)
Oversight assumes TDD revenue for LPS could be impacted from this proposal. Oversight does
not have any further information from agencies on the number of TDDs that are tax exempt in
the State of Missouri in order to determine the fiscal impact. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a
$0 or negative unknown impact to LPS that would be less than the $250,000 threshold for this
proposal. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 5 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
HA 3 Section 71.948 - Requirements for Physical Copies of a Municipal Code
In response to a similar proposal this year, (HB 802), officials from the Office of the Secretary
of State, Kansas City and the City of O’Fallon 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.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other cities were requested to respond to this proposed legislation but did not. A listing
of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information System (MOLIS)
database is available upon request.
HA 4 A.A. Section 105.145 - Fines for Late Filings of Annual Financial Statements
In response to a similar proposal this year, (HB 514), officials from the Department of Revenue
(DOR) note 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 Department sends a notice to the political
subdivision and thirty days later the fee starts to accumulate.
The Department collects the fine by offsetting any sales or use tax distributions due to the
political subdivision. In essence the Department 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 Department assumes much of what is owed is
uncollectable. This is not state money but local political subdivision funds.
The Department notes that per statute DOR is allowed to retain 2% of the amount collected for
administration. Since the program began, DOR has collected $137,336.65 which has been
deposited into General Revenue. All DOR collection fees are deposited into General Revenue
and are not retained by the Department.
This proposal would prohibit a district with less than 500 inhabitants from being assessed a fine
under this proposal and would require that any previous fine be considered null and void.
Current records of the Department show total fines of $211,266,524.72 as of 11/30/2024 and that
$6,862,849.98 has been collected. DOR is unable to estimate the number of political
subdivisions that would qualify for this tax exemption. The Department is showing the
assessment of the fines by the political subdivision type and by the county in which the district
that owes the fine is located. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 6 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
CountySum of Total Fine ImposedSum of Total Fine CollectedAdair$1,948,500.00$1,500.00Andrew$622,500.00$0.00Atchison$1,374,000.00$0.00Audrain$1,154,500.00$0.00Barry$3,522,000.00$19,993.04Barton$0.00$0.00Bates$1,458,000.00$35,934.93Benton$1,045,500.00$0.00Bollinger$3,589,000.00$0.00Boone$259,000.00$38,824.98Buchanan$3,106,500.00$113,953.36Butler$3,429,500.00$53,829.45Caldwell$168,000.00$25,253.92Callaway$1,077,500.00$4,651.86Camden$3,761,024.73$71,587.93Cape
Girardeau
$1,532,000.00$0.00Carroll$6,309,000.00$0.00Carter$4,206,000.00$330,094.40Cass$8,278,000.00$17,260.91Cedar$755,000.00$49,500.00Chariton$1,216,500.00$41,500.00Christian$3,890,000.00$0.00Clark$1,238,000.00$37,500.00Clay$2,505,500.00$80,000.00Clinton$1,895,500.00$27,500.00Cole$1,166,000.00$9,152.52Cooper$2,118,500.00$17,500.00Crawford$2,383,000.00$38,359.07Dade$332,500.00$0.00Dallas$1,816,000.00$0.00Daviess$1,464,500.00$0.00Dekalb$1,310,000.00$0.00Dent$342,000.00$0.00Douglas$0.00$0.00Dunklin$2,852,000.00$35,240.05Franklin$2,284,000.00$131,846.08 L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 7 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Gasconade$65,500.00$6,944.19Gentry$2,072,000.00$0.00Greene$1,257,500.00$23,147.34Grundy$1,541,500.00$0.00Harrison$1,306,500.00$0.00Henry$1,741,000.00$77,966.54Hickory$1,147,000.00$0.00Holt$3,646,000.00$11,947.50Howard$1,779,500.00$147,500.00Howell$1,145,000.00$11,000.00Iron$96,000.00$54,000.00Jackson$3,879,500.00$531,927.79Jasper$3,101,500.00$86,711.38Jefferson$2,317,500.00$25,944.64Johnson$1,216,500.00$12,000.00Knox$2,221,000.00$0.00Laclede$423,000.00$12,000.00Lafayette$938,500.00$42,291.77Lawrence$4,979,000.00$0.00Lewis$3,116,000.00$0.00Lincoln$2,197,000.00$42,500.00Linn$2,005,000.00$15,000.00Livingston$3,275,500.00$0.00Macon$504,000.00$0.00Madison$2,464,000.00$271,799.01Maries$733,500.00$41,500.00Marion$347,500.00$0.00McDonald$200,000.00$14,146.52Mercer$637,000.00$0.00Miller$1,094,500.00$10,331.42Mississippi$1,663,500.00$72,632.90Moniteau$0.00$0.00Monroe$47,000.00$10,000.00Montgomery$865,500.00$4,203.52Morgan$0.00$0.00New Madrid$2,906,500.00$157,689.73Newton$1,076,500.00$34,726.21Nodaway$5,047,500.00$23,500.00 L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 8 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Oregon$137,500.00$136,500.00Osage$1,610,500.00$19,821.73Ozark$43,000.00$43,000.00Pemiscot$3,752,000.00$7,059.08Perry$2,729,500.00$0.00Pettis$1,232,000.00$15,500.00Phelps$966,000.00$63,761.40Pike$202,500.00$127,500.00Platte$1,978,500.00$300,023.34Polk$867,500.00$43,621.11Pulaski$2,914,500.00$17,430.59Putnam$52,000.00$24,500.00Ralls$255,500.00$53,598.01Randolph$2,328,000.00$13,357.76Ray$5,074,000.00$0.00Reynolds$1,136,500.00$10,820.86Ripley$224,500.00$0.00Saline$1,889,500.00$35.36Schuyler$453,500.00$18,500.00Scotland$1,655,000.00$0.00Scott$3,469,000.00$47,956.64Shannon$287,000.00$172,986.12Shelby$15,500.00$15,500.00St. Charles$2,917,000.00$142,395.35St. Clair$3,601,500.00$375.90St. Francois$478,500.00$36,219.72St. Louis$6,796,500.00$1,957,272.88St. Louis City$9,565,000.00$251,298.03Ste.
Genevieve
$0.00$0.00Stoddard$2,402,500.00$154,499.99Stone$1,485,499.99$88,499.99Sullivan$1,198,000.00$0.00Taney$3,484,500.00$36,500.00Texas$1,689,500.00$42,500.00Vernon$3,236,500.00$12,000.00Warren$10,500.00$10,500.00Washington$856,500.00$12,000.00 L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 9 of
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Wayne$1,454,000.00$1,660.75Webster$733,500.00$0.00Worth$300,500.00$0.00Wright$0.00$0.00(blank)$319,000.00$63,262.41Grand Total$211,266,524.72$6,862,849.98
DOR assumes this proposal would result in fewer future fines being assessed. 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 the current large penalties. Reducing the future fines
would help save the local political subdivisions money, however; due to the un-collectability of
most of this money the Department assumes no additional impact to the state. The impact of this
proposal is unknown.
This will require DOR update its computer programs at a cost of $1,832.
Oversight notes the DOR requests one-time cost for website income-tax changes and updates to
comply with the proposed language; however, Oversight notes that DOR receives appropriation
for routine website updates and will not show those costs in the fiscal note.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) note the proposal
excludes the fine for failure to submit annual financial statements for political subdivisions with
fewer than 500 inhabitants, and renders void any fine or fines previously assessed but not paid in
full. Timely filing is mandated for political subdivisions subject to this subdivision. This may
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.
Oversight notes parts of subsection 12, and subsections 13, 14 & 15 of this section were ruled
unconstitutional by the Missouri Supreme Court in December 2023 (TAFP CCS for SS for SCS
for HCS for HB 1606), however, those same subsections are being shown in this proposal as
current language in statute. Oversight will treat these subsections as new language when
reflecting the fiscal impact for this section of the proposal.
Oversight notes subsection 14 of this section allows for a one-time reduction of a political
subdivision’s current outstanding balance. Should a political subdivision file its reports after
January 1, 2023, they will be entitled to a one-time downward adjustment of their existing fine
by 90%.
Oversight notes the current outstanding balance is $204,403,675 ($211,266,525 owed -
$6,862,850 collected). This is money the DOR 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 L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 10 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
money is eligible for the one-time reduction this would result in $183,963,307 ($204,403,675 *
.90) no longer being owed.
Oversight notes if all political subdivisions file their report and receive the reduction, it would
be a loss of $180,284,041 to the local school districts from not receiving the fine money, a loss to
the state of $3,679,266 in collection fees and a gain to the local political subdivisions of
$183,963,307($204,403,675 * 90%).
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,
and use tax in the fiscal year
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,
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 after January 1, 2023 to receive a one-time 90% reduction of their outstanding balance
of their fines owed.
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 from 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 DOR is allowed to retain two percent of the fine revenue
collected (per §105.145.11). Oversight assumes a large majority of the $204,403,675 of
outstanding fines to be uncollectible. Therefore, Oversight will range the fiscal impact from this
proposal from $0 to DOR’s estimates.
Section 137.073 - Tax Levies by Political Subdivisions
In response to a previous version, officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and
Planning (B&P) defer to the local governments for the fiscal impact. This proposal:
L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 11 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
In response to a previous version, officials from the City of Kansas City State Tax
Commission, St. Louis City Board of Elections, 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.
Oversight does not anticipate a fiscal impact from this proposal. However, 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 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 only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;,
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
(MOLIS) database is available upon request.
HA 4 A.A. - Section 137.115 Levies for Each Subclass of Property
Officials from the Office of the State Auditor (SAO) note currently, all but two jurisdictions
have opted to utilize a blended tax rate. Due to the increased review, an additional FTE of one
local government analyst could be required to meet the increased tax certification review
demands from the opt-out provision being removed.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversightwill note the
abovementioned 1 FTE requested by the Office of the State Auditor in the fiscal note.
Oversight notes under current law, localities can opt out of the requirement to calculate a levy
for each subclass of property. This provision removes this opt-out language. Oversight notes the
opt-out provision was established in Truly Agreed to and Finally Passed HCS for SS for SCS for
SB 960 (2004). All jurisdictions except two have elected to opt out of the requirement.
Upon further inquiry, the SAO noted, using the 2024 certification numbers to calculate the
increase, they anticipate an estimated increase of 10,764 rates. In 2024, their office certified
4,856 rates from 2,807 taxing authorities. All of those entities, but for the ones in St. Louis
County and the City of Gladstone, used a blended rate. With the changes proposed in the
amendment, 3,588 blended rates would become 14,352 individual rates (Residential,
Agricultural, Commercial, Personal Property).
Oversight assumes there could be costs to counties to implement this provision. Oversight will
show an unknown cost to local political subdivisions for implementation. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 12 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Oversight is unsure how this provision will impact property tax revenues. Therefore, Oversight
will show a potential negative unknown or positive unknown fiscal impact to local political
subdivisions.
Oversight requested a fiscal impact statement from over 800 local taxing entities
with the Missouri Legislative Information System (MOLIS); however, Oversight only received a
limited number of responses 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.
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Rule Promulgation
Officials from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules assume this proposal is not
anticipated to cause a fiscal impact beyond its current appropriation.
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.
Officials from the City of Kansas City, Platte County Board of Elections, St. Louis County
Board of Elections, Kansas City Police Dept., and the State Tax Commission 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. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 13 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUE FUNDLoss - §105.145 - 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
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Loss - §105.145 - 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
$0 or up to
($3,679,266)$0$0
Costs – §137.115 - SAO Personal service($41,680)($51,016)($52,037) Fringe benefits($29,865)($36,239)($36,648) Equipment and expense($5,000)$0 $0 Total Costs - SAO($76,545) ($87,255) ($88,685) FTE Change - SAO1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE FUND
(Unknown),
could exceed
($3,755,811)
(Unknown),
could exceed
($87,255)
(Unknown),
could exceed
($88,685)
Estimated Net FTE Change on the
General Revenue Fund1 FTE1 FTE1 FTE L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 14 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Savings - §§50.815 & 50.820 -
Counties - in publication costs on
financials posted in a newspaper of
general circulation
Could exceed
$100,000
Could exceed
$100,000
Could exceed
$100,000
Savings - §105.145 - on potential fines
for certain LPS$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown
Loss - §105.145 - School districts
receiving less fine revenue (from
savings above)
$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 fail to submit a timely financial
statement
$0 or up to
$183,963,307$0$0
Loss – §105.145 - School Districts –
reduction in fine revenue from one-
time adjustment of fine revenue
$0 or up to
($180,284,041)$0$0
Costs - §137.115 Counties - to
implement and monitor $0$0
$0 or
(Unknown)
Revenue Change - §137.115 Counties -
Potential change in property tax
revenue*$0$0
$0 or
(Unknown) to
Unknown
ESTIMATED BET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Unknown,
greater or less
than
$3,679,266
Unknown,
greater or less
than $100,000
(Unknown) to
Unknown
*Oversight is unsure how this provision will impact property tax revenues, if at all. Therefore,
Oversight will show a potential negative unknown or positive unknown fiscal impact to local
political subdivisions beginning in FY 2028. L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 15 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
No direct fiscal impact to small businesses would be expected as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation modifies provisions relating to tax levies by 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 Administration - Budget and Planning
Department of Revenue
State Tax Commission
Office of the State Auditor
Office of the Secretary of State
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Branson Police Department
City of Jefferson
City of Kansas City
City of O’Fallon
City of Springfield
City of Tipton
Cole County Assessor
Fruitland Area Fire Protection District
Henry County
Jackson County
Kansas City Board of Elections
Lincoln County
Lincoln County Assessor’s Office
Livingston County
Office of the Secretary of State
Pettis County Ambulance District
St. Joseph Police Department L.R. No. 0998H.02P
Bill No. Perfected HCS for HB 119
Page 16 of 16
April 9, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
St. Louis City Board of Elections
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Kansas City Police Dept
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorApril 9, 2025April 9, 2025