Missouri House Bill HB199 Introduced / Fiscal Note

                    COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:0316S.07C Bill No.:SCS for HB 199  Subject:Counties; County Government; Economic Development; Law Enforcement 
Officers and Agencies; Political Subdivisions 
Type:Original  Date:April 30, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to political subdivisions. 
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
General Revenue 
Fund*
($1,211,310) to 
(Could be less 
than 
$10,000,000)
($3,982,643) to 
(Could be less 
than 
$16,140,270)
($4,012,296) to 
(Could be less 
than  
$15,645,101)
($6,012,296) to 
(Could be less 
than  
$17,645,101
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
General 
Revenue
($1,211,310) to 
(Could be less 
than 
$10,000,000)
($3,982,643) to 
(Could be less 
than 
$16,140,270)
($4,012,296) to 
(Could be less 
than  
$15,645,101)
($6,012,296) to 
(Could be less 
than  
$17,645,101
*Part of the fiscal impact to the state is the potential loss of the Department of Revenue’s 2% 
collection fee (§105.145).  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 
$3,013,881 (which represents if DOR would have collected 100% of the $150 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. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 2 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Blind Pension 
Fund
$0Unknown, Up to 
$2,997,911 
Unknown, Up to 
$2,997,911 
Unknown, Up to 
$2,997,911 
Missouri 
Regional Sports 
Authority 
Supplemental 
Tax Fund*$0$0$0$0
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
Other State 
Funds $0
Unknown, Up to 
$2,997,911 
Unknown, Up to 
$2,997,911 
Unknown, Up to 
$2,997,911 
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses.
*Transfers in and out net to 0.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
All Federal 
Funds $0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 3 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND 
AFFECTED
FY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
Total Estimated 
Net Effect on 
FTE 0000
☒ 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 2026FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)Local 
Government
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$5,180,563
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$828,900,923
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$828,900,923
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$828,900,923 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 4 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
§§8.690, 67.5050 & 67.5060 – Design-Build Contracts
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 536), officials from the Office of 
Administration (OA), Kansas City, O’Fallon, Northwest Missouri State University and the 
University of Central Missouri 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 similar legislation for from this year (SCS for SB 10), officials from McDonald 
CountySpringfield 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 organizations. 
Oversight assumes OA and local political subdivisions would not use the Management-At-Risk 
or the Design Build methods of construction unless it would either save money, provide some 
other benefit, or be absorbed within current budget appropriations.  Therefore, Oversight will 
assume the proposal could have a positive fiscal impact to OA and local political subdivisions 
from this proposal and will range the fiscal impact from $0 to an unknown amount of savings.
§§ 50.327, 58.095, & 58.200 - Compensation for County Coroners & Salary Schedules for 3
rd
 
Class Counties
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. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 5 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Oversight also notes in §50.327.4 relates to the following 3
rd
 class counties and their assessed 
valuations as of the 2023 tax year that are greater than the three hundred million dollars:
 
County 
Classification
2023 
Assessed 
Valuation
Adair3$430,848,859Andrew3$339,770,981Audrain3$469,417,268Barry3$647,404,235Benton3$358,900,749Butler3$754,673,711Clinton3$393,171,330Cooper3$323,118,781Crawford3$389,033,489Dunklin3$338,242,680Henry3$503,243,895Howell3$596,934,551Laclede3$541,690,914Lawrence3$619,508,496Marion3$560,698,298McDonald3$330,042,191Miller3$540,605,203Morgan3$616,547,314New Madrid3$500,801,647Nodaway3$433,445,925Perry3$446,985,233Phelps3$739,087,980Pike3$361,352,206Polk3$451,741,017Pulaski3$594,635,413Randolph3$569,115,893Ray3$446,169,890Scott3$592,176,131Ste. 
Genevieve3$979,919,236
Stoddard3$610,422,073Stone3$846,550,738 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 6 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Texas3$312,859,406Vernon3$312,160,164Warren3$778,812,601Washington3$323,351,401Webster3$584,282,278
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:
 
Section 
Base Salary at 
$300,000,000 Assessed 
Valuation
49.082County Commissioners$29,70050.334Recorder of Deeds$45,00051.281County Clerks$45,00051.282County Clerk (Clay)$34,50052.269County Collectors$45,00053.082Assessors$45,00053.083Assessor (Clay)N/A54.261Treasurers$45,000
54.32
Collector/Treasurer 
(Townships)$45,000
55.091Auditor$45,00056.265Prosecuting Attorneys$55,00058.095Coroners$16,000473.742Public Administrators$45,000
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
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  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 7 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
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.
§ 55.160 - County Auditors
In response to a similar proposal from 2024, HCS for HB 2348, officials from the Christian 
County Auditor’s Office and the Clay County Auditor’s Office 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 section.  
§ 57.317 - Sheriff Salaries – Boone County
Oversight notes county commissions were asked to respond to Oversight’s request for fiscal 
impact, but did not provide any information. Oversight notes this proposal pertains to the Boone 
County Sheriff’s salary. Oversight assumes this does not place a limitation on the salary of the 
Boone County Sheriff and, therefore, there could be a potential increase from the salary that 
would be higher than 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. 
§ 64.231 - County Planning Board Hearings
Oversight assumes this proposal modifies the section requiring notices of county planning board 
hearings be posted on the county’s website and repeals the notices to be posted at least 15 days in 
advance of the hearing in at least two places in each township. Oversight assumes this 
modification to the section will have no fiscal impact on this proposal. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 8 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§§ 67.399, 67.452, 82.1025, 82.1026, 82.1027, 82.1031, 140.984– Land Banks in Certain Areas
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HCS for HB 716), officials from the Office of 
State Courts Administrator (OSCA
quantify that currently. Any significant changes will be reflected in future budget requests.
Oversight notes OSCA assumes this proposal may have some impact on their organization 
although it can’t be quantified at this time. As OSCA is unable to provide additional information 
regarding the potential impact, Oversight assumes the proposed legislation will have a $0 to 
(Unknown) cost to the General Revenue Fund. For fiscal note purposes, Oversight also assumes 
the impact will be under $250,000 annually. If this assumption is incorrect, this would alter the 
fiscal impact as presented in this fiscal note. If additional information is received, Oversight will 
review it to determine if an updated fiscal note should be prepared and seek approval to publish a 
new fiscal note.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HCS for HB 716), officials from the
Attorney General (AGO) assumed any potential litigation costs arising from this proposal can 
be absorbed with existing resources. However, the AGO may seek additional appropriations if 
the proposal results in a significant increase in litigation or investigation.
Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight assumes the 
AGO will be able to perform any additional duties required by this proposal with current staff 
and resources and will reflect no fiscal impact to the AGO for fiscal note purposes.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HCS for HB 716),  from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) stated this proposal has no direct impact on 
general or total state revenues. It will not impact the calculation pursuant to Article X, Section 
18(e). 
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HCS for HB 716),  from the Department of 
Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Labor 
and Industrial Relations, the Office of the Secretary of State, the City of Kansas City, the 
City of Osceola, the Missouri Office of Prosecution 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.  
§ 67.453 – Neighborhood Improvement Districts
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 613), officials from the Department of 
Natural Resources, the Department of Revenue, the Missouri Department of Conservation 
and 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.   L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 9 of 
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§ 67.547 - County Local Sales Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this section of statute currently allows a 
County to impose a county sales tax upon a vote of its citizens.  The statutes state that the tax 
could be at a rate of one-eighth of one percent, one-fourth of one percent, three-eighths of one 
percent, or one-half of one percent.  This proposal is adding language in Section 67.547.3 that 
would prohibit a county from submitting to the voters any proposal that results in a combined 
sales tax rate of more than 1.5%.
DOR noted that once a political subdivision adopts a sales tax, they notify the Department.  DOR 
reviews to determine if the political subdivision has statutory authority to have a sales tax and 
calculates the aggregate of any they have.  If approved, DOR has the new tax rate start in the 
second quarter after DOR receives it.  If it is determined that the county did not have statutory 
authority or that they exceed their aggregate rate allowed, the county is notified that their sales 
tax is null and void. 
This proposal makes a one-time exception for sales tax elections that were held on November 8, 
2022 (FY 2022).  This proposal would allow a county that submitted a tax proposal to the 
citizens that violated the aggregate sales tax rate allowed, to be approved by DOR to collect that 
tax, as long as they did not exceed an aggregated 1.5% sales tax rate.  This appears to be making 
a one-time exception to the rule for at least one county.
If a county is allowed to start their sales tax, then DOR would start it in the second quarter after 
the effective date of this proposal.  This will not have a fiscal impact on DOR.
Oversight notes that current law limits the combined amount of sales tax levied by a county to 
1%. This act increases such limit to 1.5%, and provides that any sales tax levy approved during 
the November 8, 2022, general election shall be deemed to be in compliance with state law if the 
combined amount of sales tax levied pursuant to the County Sales Tax Act is not in excess of 
1.5%
Oversight will show the potential fiscal impact to locals as $0 (not approved by voters) to an 
unknown positive impact (increase in tax approved by voters).
Oversight notes if a county approves a sales tax, DOR is allowed to retain 1% of collections 
which is deposited into general revenue. Oversight will show the potential fiscal impact to 
general revenue as $0 (not approved by voters) to an unknown positive impact (increase in tax 
approved by voters).
§ 67.582 - Law Enforcement County Sales Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note starting August 28, 2024, this proposal 
will allow any county to vote on a sales tax up to an aggregate 1% for the funding of law  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 10 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
enforcement services.  Currently, counties aggregate sales tax cannot exceed 0.5%.  To 
implement a tax or to increase a tax they already have, a county must take the issue back to the 
ballot for their citizens to vote on.  The Department has no way of determining which counties 
may seek to increase their sales tax rate in order to fund law enforcement.
The Department notes that if a county approves a sales tax, DOR will collect and distribute it.  
DOR is allowed to retain 1% of the amount collected.  The DOR 1% collection fee is deposited 
into general revenue.
The revenue impact of this proposal is unknown.  DOR will not have any administrative impact 
from this proposal from adding new political subdivisions to the database, but the impact can be 
absorbed with existing resources.
Oversight notes current law authorizes certain counties to levy a sales tax for the purpose of 
providing law enforcement services to such county, with the rate not to exceed 0.5%. This act 
authorizes such levy not to exceed 1%
Oversight will show the impact to locals as $0 (not approved by voters) to an unknown positive 
impact (increase in tax approved by voters).
Oversight notes if a county approves a sales tax, DOR is allowed to retain 1% of collections 
which is deposited into general revenue. Oversight will show the potential fiscal impact to 
general revenue as $0 (not approved by voters) to an unknown positive impact (increase in tax 
approved by voters).
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 547),  from the Office of Administration - 
Budget and Planning (B&P) deferred to the county government for the fiscal impact.
DOR’s retained collection fee will increase TSR because DOR will be able to collect its 1% 
administration fee for handling the collection of the tax. B&P defers to DOR for more specific 
estimates of actual collection costs.
§ 67.597 - Bates County Sales Tax for Operation of Hospital
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) notes the legislation states any county with 
more than fifteen thousand seven hundred but fewer than seventeen thousand six hundred 
inhabitants with a county seat with more than four thousand two hundred and ten but fewer than 
six thousand inhabitants can impose a sales tax for operation of hospital services.  DOR believes 
that Bates County is the one allowed the sales tax. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 11 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
DOR records show that Bates County has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal202026,791,278.7932,257,135.0230,899,825.2530,899,633.61120,847,872.67202128,663,803.2733,572,927.7135,825,842.1434,105,960.73132,168,533.85202229,179,421.5435,282,545.4034,385,716.6934,875,363.80133,723,047.43202331,417,103.9236,928,185.9534,641,411.7436,687,412.74139,674,114.35
The Department notes this proposal allows a one percent sales tax.  Using the taxable sales and a 
2% inflation rate in the future, DOR calculated the amount that Bollinger County would collect, 
and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal Sales
Total 
CollectionsDOR 1% Fee
Final 
Collection
2026$148,223,288$1,482,233$14,822$1,467,4112027$151,187,753$1,511,878$15,119$1,496,7592028$154,211,508$1,542,115$15,421$1,526,694
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so DOR estimates an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Bates County1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$10,079$997,8392028$15,421$1,526,694*Effective Date 
8/28/2025
If passed will require the Department to make changes to Revenue Premier, Rate Manager, 
MyTax portal, Avalara Sales and use tax rate map, and website changes.  These changes are 
estimated at $1,832 per system change ($7,328).
Oversight notes the DOR requests one-time cost for website income-tax changes and updates to 
comply with the proposed language. Oversight will note one total cost to DOR for all sales tax 
updates for the entire proposal in the fiscal note.  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 12 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Oversight will range the fiscal impact from $0 (not approved by voters) up to the estimates 
calculated by the Department of Revenue for the fiscal impact to general revenue and local 
political subdivisions. Oversight notes the tax rate shall not exceed one percent; therefore, 
Oversight will reflect “up to” the 1% sales tax estimates.
§ 67.646 – Sports Complex Authorities
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 713), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assumed this section creates a new "Clay 
County Sports Complex Authority" (CCSCA) in Clay County, MO. The language used to create 
this bill is based on similar language in cross-referenced sections that created the "Jackson 
County Sports Complex Authority" in sections 64.920 to 64.950, RSMo, and falls under the 
authority that created the “Convention and Sports Complex Fund” (CSCF) in sections 67.638 to 
67.645. It allows the General Assembly (GA) to appropriate $3M GR into the CSCF to be 
utilized by the new authority, but only after Clay County has created the CCSCA and the 
authority has entered into a contract or lease with a professional sports team affiliated with the 
NFL, NBA, NHL, or AL or NL of the MLB on or after January 1, 2026. Additionally, no funds 
shall be expended from the CSCF until the county has matched 100% of the GR appropriation to 
the fund. Matching funds from the county may be from any source.
Therefore, the fiscal impact to GR is up to $3M, and the fiscal impact to Clay County may be 
$3M.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 713), officials from the Office of 
Administration (OA) stated per §67.646, RSMo, the general assembly may annually 
appropriate up to $3,000,000 from the state general revenue fund to the convention and sports 
complex fund.  The fiscal impact would be $0-$3,000,000.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by the OA. Oversight notes from §67.646.3(2) that the funds may be 
appropriated annually provided that the county or authority has entered into a contract or lease 
on or after January 1, 2026. Oversight will assume this appropriation may be in the budget 
starting in FY27. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a transfer out of $0 (no appropriations) or up 
to $3 million starting in FY27.
Oversight also notes that in subsection 3(4), the money would not be appropriated by the state 
until the county contributes into their Convention and Sports Complex Fund the sum of $3 
million per calendar year. B&P notes that the appropriation may be up to $3 million from the 
state’s GR and may be $3 million from Clay County. It is possible that the state’s GR 
appropriation could be less than the $3 million and Clay County would still need to contribute $3 
million should the CCSCA go forward. Therefore, for fiscal note purposes, Oversight will reflect 
a $0 or $3 million dollars into County Convention and Sports Complex Fund.  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 13 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume this proposal would allow Clay 
County to create a County Sports Complex Authority.  This proposal would allow the General 
Assembly to appropriate general revenue up to $3 million annually for the Clay County Sports 
Complex Authority.  The $3 million appropriation can continue for up to 40 years.  
This is no impact on DOR as the General Assembly would make the appropriation and the State 
Treasurer would do the transfer of the funds.  
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 713), officials from the Office of the 
Governor
Individually, additional requirements should not fiscally impact the Office of the Governor. 
However, the cumulative impact of additional appointment duties across all enacted legislation 
may require additional resources for the Office of the Governor.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 713), officials from the Department of 
Economic DevelopmentOffice of the State Treasurer, Kansas City, the Office of the 
State Auditor, the Missouri House of RepresentativesJoint Committee on 
Administrative Rules and the Missouri Senate 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.  
§ 67.1157 – Sports Authority – Project Acquisitions 
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1229), officials from the Office of 
Administration – Budget & Planning (B&P) assumed the Section 67.1157 is added that allows 
a convention and sports facility authority by resolution designate a project area for a project for 
the purpose of acquiring, constructing, equipping, operating, maintaining, repairing, extending, 
and improving of a regional sports facility. A regional sports facility owned or operated by an 
authority is intended to provide year-round sports opportunities and draw participants from 
outside of the state.
Project areas designated by the authority shall be eligible to receive fifty percent of the 
incremental increase in state general revenue sales taxes generated by activity located within the 
project area. A project area shall not be eligible for such new state revenues unless the authority 
imposes the maximum transient guest tax rate allowable by current law.
The Director of the Department of Economic Development and the Commissioner of the Office 
of Administration or their designees shall jointly evaluate applications for new state revenues, 
and such revenues shall not be distributed until certain conditions are met, as described in the 
proposed new section.
The total amount of new state revenues that may be appropriated pursuant to the act in any given 
year capped at $10 million, with single projects being capped at $5 million. Therefore, the fiscal 
impact of this program is up to $10M GR beginning in FY 2026. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 14 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume this proposal would allow the 
General Assembly to appropriate up to $10 million to regional sports authorities.  No authority 
can receive more than $5 million annually.  In order to qualify for this funding, the regional 
sports authority must have imposed a transient guest tax at the maximum rate allowed per 
Section 67.1158.  The authority must apply to DED for the funding.  
This proposal says the amount the General Assembly can appropriate is to be based on the 
increased amount of sales tax revenue that can be collected from the authority.  This proposal 
does not change how sales tax is deposited, so this will not fiscally impact DOR. DOR will still 
collect sales tax and deposit it into the required funds.  The General Assembly would be 
responsible for any calculations under this proposal.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1229), officials from the Department of 
Economic Development (DED) assumed §67.1157.6 (3) states that at no time shall the annual 
amount of new state revenues approved for disbursements from the Missouri regional sports 
facility supplemental tax fund for approved projects exceed ten million dollars, therefore 
reducing TSR by up to $10 million annually.
In response to the similar/identical proposal SB 676 -2025, officials from the Office of 
Administration – Budget & Planning (B&P) noted: 
Section 67.1157 is added that allows a convention and sports facility authority by resolution 
designate a project area for a project for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, equipping, 
operating, maintaining, repairing, extending, and improving of a regional sports facility. A 
regional sports facility owned or operated by an authority is intended to provide year-round 
sports opportunities and draw participants from outside of the state.
The proposed new section receives its authority from and is cross-referenced in section 67.1150 
which gives the demographic data of “in any county with a population of as least two-hundred 
thousand inhabitants which adjoins a county with a population of nine-hundred thousand or more 
inhabitants” for the county this program applies. This section went into effect in 1997 and 
applied exclusively to St. Charles County with the caveat that since St. Louis City does function 
as a “county equivalent” in many governmental programs and data reporting and collecting 
systems, it could be argued it applied to St. Louis City as well.
The demographic data referenced in section 67.1150 could now apply to St. Charles and 
Jefferson Counties whose 2020 US Census populations are 405,262 and 226,739 respectively. 
The St. Louis City caveat mentioned above could still apply to them since its 2020 US Census 
population is 301,578.
Oversight notes that §§67.1157 2 denotes that if properly designated as an eligible business 
project by DED and the incremental sales tax increase occur, the general assembly may  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 15 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
appropriate up to 50% of the new revenue funds into the Missouri Regional Sports Facility 
Supplemental Tax Fund. 
Therefore, Oversight will reflect range of zero (the designated sports authority did not meet the 
qualification criteria of the funding and general assembly did not appropriate the funds) to up to 
$10 million maximum cap (the designated sports authority meets the qualification criterion of the 
funding and general assembly appropriated the funds) to be transferred from the general revenue 
fund into the Missouri Regional Sports Facility Supplemental Tax Fund from the general 
revenue fund.
Oversight notes the sales tax collections for St. Charles County for TY 2022 and TY 2023 
below. (Source: Budgets and Reports – 2023 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report, p. 19).  
Tax Type20222023Sales Tax$149,284,684$140,863,806
Oversight notes that this would represent a 6% year to year increase in sales tax collection.  
Oversight notes that §§67.1157 4. denotes that the new “revenues shall not be distributed from 
the Missouri regional sports facility supplemental tax fund to an authority unless the county 
which has established the authority has imposed a tax at the maximum rate provided by 
§67.1158”. 
Oversight notes that any such increase must be submitted and approved by the vote of the 
people as promulgated in §67.1158 2. 
Lastly,  will note that §§67.1157 5. denotes the DED and OA may waive the 
requirement that the authority's application be submitted prior to the project's adoption or 
approved by resolution. Therefore, Oversight, for purpose of this fiscal note, will assume the 
actual approval was given upon passage of the proposal and the disbursement could potentially 
begin as soon as FY 2026. 
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 1229), officials from the Office of 
Administration, the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules, the
State, and the City of Kansas City each 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.  
§ 67.1367 - Perry & Ste. Genevieve County Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows Perry County and Ste. 
Genevieve County to adopt a transient guest tax upon a vote of their citizens.  Transient guest 
taxes are collected by the local political subdivision and not DOR. This will not have a fiscal 
impact on DOR. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 16 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Oversight assumes this proposal authorizes Ste. Genevieve County and Perry County upon voter 
approval, to enact a transient guest tax of not more than 6% per occupied room at hotels, motels, 
bed and breakfast inns or campground cabins per night for tourism purposes. Oversight assumes 
this proposal is permissive in nature and would have no local fiscal impact without action by the 
governing body and approval by the majority of voters. If the majority of voters approve this 
issue on the ballot, then there would be potential tax revenue for Ste. Genevieve County/Perry 
County. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or unknown revenue impact 
for this proposal.
§§ 67.1421, 67.1461 & 67.1505 – Entertainment Districts and Entertainment Tourism
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB1524), officials from Department of 
Economic Development (DED) assumed §67.1505 creates a new program subject to 
appropriation that gives DED authority to expend funds for the purposes of promoting, 
developing, and supporting entertainment tourism within any entertainment district that applies 
through this program and is approved. The expenditures are limited to a portion of tax revenues 
derived directly or indirectly from any such promotion, development, and support of 
entertainment tourism as noted in an agreement with DED that is limited to 27 years in length.
§67.1505.3(2)(b) states the annual amount of state appropriation shall not exceed $2.5M per year 
for any fiscal year ending on or before June 30, 2031, and $4.5M for any fiscal year thereafter.
No appropriation shall be made prior to July 1, 2026.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume §§67.1421 & 67.1461 would allow 
the City of St. Louis to form an entertainment district.  This proposal also grants the 
entertainment district rule-making authority to restrict weapons in their area and to impose 
curfews.  These sections will not impact DOR.
DOR assumes §67.1505 grants all the state Departments, including DOR, the right to expend 
their agency funds to promote entertainment tourism.  DOR notes the duties and powers of the 
Department are enumerated in Section 32.028 and promoting tourism is not listed.  DOR is 
unsure if the department could expend part of our funding for tourism.  
This proposal states the amount that can be expended must be limited to the portion of tax 
revenue derived directly from such promotion. Since the wording of this proposal requires the 
expenditure come from the revenue derived from the tourism activity, DOR is unclear what 
revenue would be eligible for expenditure.  
This proposal further states the funding by the agency cannot exceed 27 years and is limited to 
no more than $2,500,000 before June 30, 2031, and then up to $4,500,000 for each year 
thereafter.  The appropriation of the funds by the agency cannot start until July 1, 2026 (FY 
2027). L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 17 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
DOR notes that DOR’s funding is appropriated by the general assembly from general revenue.  
DOR assumes any expenditure of funding for tourism would require authorization by the general 
assembly in the way of appropriation authority. DOR assumes an unknown impact.  
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB1524), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) assume §§67.1421 and 67.1461 will have no 
impacted for this proposal. B&P assume §67.1505 is created allowing any Missouri state 
department to expend funds for promoting, developing, and supporting entertainment tourism in 
entertainment districts in the City of St. Louis. Applications for such a program shall be made to 
and approved by the Department of Economic Development no later than August 28, 2027. Any 
expenditures and agreements a state department enters into with an entertainment group shall not 
exceed 27 years and be limited to a portion of tax revenues derived directly or indirectly from 
any such promotion. Appropriations for this program are capped at $2.5M per year and can be 
made beginning in FY 2027 and end in FY 2031. Beginning in FY 2032, appropriations for this 
program are capped at $4.5M per year. DED must present an annual fiscal report on behalf of 
state departments within 90 days of the end of a fiscal year to the Governor and GA detailing if 
the program produced a net positive impact for the state.
Therefore, the fiscal impact of the program is $2.5M beginning in FY 27, and $4.5M beginning 
in FY 32.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by the DED, DOR and B&P.
Oversight assumes §67.1421.2(6) defines an entertainment district specifically for St. Louis City 
and §67.1461.3 establishes additional powers that entertainment districts have. Oversight 
assumes no fiscal impact for these sections of the proposal. 
Oversight assumes §67.1505.3(2) places limits of expenditures for state departments under an 
agreement with an entertainment district for entertainment tourism. Appropriations will not begin 
prior to July 1, 2026 and the term of the appropriations under the agreements shall not exceed 27 
years. The appropriations can be appropriated by the general assembly to the state agencies 
starting in FY27 up to $2,500,000 until June 30, 2031. Starting in FY32, the appropriations are 
increased to $4,500,000 and thereafter. Therefore, Oversight will reflect these amounts in the 
table below.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB1524), officials from the Department of 
Commerce and Insurance, the Department of Elementary and Secondary Education, the 
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development, the Department of Mental 
Health, the Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Labor and Industrial 
Relations, the Missouri Department of Agriculture, the Department of Public Safety (Office 
of the Director & Missouri Highway Patrol), the Department of Social Services
Missouri Department of Conservation, the Missouri Department of Transportation
Missouri National Guard the Office of Administration, the Office of the State Auditor and  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 18 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules 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.  
  
§ 67.2500 - Theater, Cultural Arts District
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) these sections modify who can create an 
entertainment district.  This will not fiscally impact DOR.
In response to a similar proposal from 2025, (SCS for SB 104), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) note this provision is intended to allow the 
establishment of an entertainment district in the Lake of the Ozarks. Any county that borders on 
or that contains part of a lake with not less than one thousand miles of shoreline is not a 
demographic description that can be confirmed by B&P.
Oversight will reflect the potential income from a cultural arts district sales tax if approved by 
voters as $0 to Unknown. 
§ 79.235 - Residency Requirements of a City of the Fourth Classification
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 532), officials from the Department of 
Commerce and Insurance, the Missouri Ethics Commission, the Office of the Secretary of 
State and the City of Kansas City each assumde 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 notes this proposal allows the mayor of a 4
th
 class city with less than 3,000 inhabitants 
to appoint a member to a local board or commission if the prospective appointee owns real 
property or a business in the city. Oversight assumes the proposal will not have a direct fiscal 
impact.
Oversight only reflects the responses that we have received from state agencies and political 
subdivisions; however, other cities 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.
§ 94.900 Public Safety Sales Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue note the following:
City of Joplin
The legislation states any city with more than fifty-one thousand but fewer than fifty-eight 
thousand inhabitants and located in more than one county can impose a sales tax for public safety 
services.  DOR believes that the City of Joplin is the one allowed the sales tax. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 19 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
DOR records show that the City of Joplin has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$333,332,340.53$350,430,676.71$379,642,023.94$411,620,125.33$1,475,025,166.512021$397,523,397.19$434,444,664.37$400,127,308.43$427,402,675.08$1,659,498,045.072022$384,224,088.04$430,650,070.85$436,430,186.68$447,415,995.47$1,698,720,341.042023$395,327,695.61$434,284,211.14$425,811,465.94$456,135,462.81$1,711,558,835.50
The Department notes this proposal allows a one-half of one percent sales tax.  Using the taxable 
sales and a 2% inflation rate in the future, DOR calculated the amount that Joplin would collect, 
and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal Sales
Total 
CollectionsDOR 1% Fee
Final 
Collection
2026$1,816,319,929$9,081,600$90,816$8,990,7842027$1,852,646,327$9,263,232$92,632$9,170,5992028$1,889,699,254$9,448,496$94,485$9,354,011
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so DOR estimates an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Joplin1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$61,755$6,113,7332028$94,485$9,354,011
*Effective Date 8/28/2025
Cities of Hannibal & Sikeston
The legislation states any city with more than sixteen thousand but fewer than eighteen thousand 
inhabitants and located in more than one county can impose a sales tax for public safety services.  
DOR believes that the Cities of Hannibal and Sikeston are the ones allowed the sales tax. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 20 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
DOR records show that the City of Hannibal has taxable sales of:
Fiscal 
Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal
2020$69,982,368.93$87,152,350.18$85,155,681.85$87,018,478.50$329,308,879.462021$81,082,721.86$93,364,299.02$92,954,006.96$97,111,124.68$364,512,152.522022$81,170,292.21$100,642,087.33$100,479,879.44$102,098,456.41$384,390,715.392023$93,944,023.14$105,473,477.82$98,614,294.11$102,438,199.94$400,469,995.01
The Department notes this proposal allows a one-half of one percent sales tax.  Using the taxable 
sales and a 2% inflation rate in the future, DOR calculated the amount that Hannibal would 
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal SalesTotal CollectionsDOR 1% FeeFinal Collection2026$424,981,962$2,124,910$21,249$2,103,6612027$433,481,602$2,167,408$21,674$2,145,7342028$442,151,234$2,210,756$22,108$2,188,649
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so DOR estimates an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Hannibal1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$14,449$1,430,4892028$22,108$2,188,649
*Effective Date 8/28/2025
DOR records show that the City of Sikeston has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$77,014,327.29$87,785,994.44$83,655,316.11$84,822,741.37$333,278,379.212021$88,403,514.59$95,942,003.77$93,652,632.85$100,823,372.16$378,821,523.372022$90,545,427.58$98,830,654.31$97,693,783.35$99,809,523.86$386,879,389.102023$98,404,739.52$101,042,378.99$97,451,516.39$101,029,487.09$397,928,121.99 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 21 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
The Department notes this proposal allows a one-half of one percent sales tax.  Using the taxable 
sales and a 2% inflation rate in the future, DOR calculated the amount that Sikeston would 
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal Sales
Total 
CollectionsDOR 1% Fee
Final 
Collection
2026$422,284,506$2,111,423$21,114$2,090,3082027$430,730,197$2,153,651$21,537$2,132,1142028$439,344,801$2,196,724$21,967$2,174,757
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so DOR estimates an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Sikeston1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$14,358$1,421,4102028$21,967$2,174,757
*Effective Date 8/28/2025
City of Moberly
The legislation states any city with more than twelve thousand five hundred but fewer than 
fourteen thousand inhabitants and located in a county seat with more than twenty-two thousand 
but fewer than twenty-five thousand and with a county seat with more than nine hundred but 
fewer than one thousand four hundred inhabitants can impose a sales tax for public safety 
services.  DOR believes that the City of Moberly is the one allowed the sales tax.
DOR records show that the City of Moberly has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$55,859,356.06$66,129,963.24$63,232,963.70$64,320,765.28$249,543,048.282021$64,437,630.42$69,254,646.34$68,914,973.65$73,071,081.41$275,678,331.822022$65,016,796.49$72,708,115.63$73,181,876.80$76,137,546.66$287,044,335.582023$71,062,661.33$76,973,260.28$76,239,424.62$78,417,427.60$302,692,773.83 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 22 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
The Department notes this proposal allows a one-half of one percent sales tax.  Using the taxable 
sales and a 2% inflation rate in the future, DOR calculated the amount that Moberly would 
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal SalesTotal CollectionsDOR 1% FeeFinal Collection2026$321,219,993$1,606,100$16,061$1,590,0392027$327,644,393$1,638,222$16,382$1,621,8402028$334,197,281$1,670,986$16,710$1,654,277
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so DOR estimates an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Moberly1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$10,921$1,081,2262028$16,710$1,654,277
*Effective Date 8/28/2025
Village of Sunrise Beach
This proposal allows a village with more than four hundred thirty but fewer than four hundred 
eighty inhabitants and partially located in a county with more than forty thousand but fewer than 
fifty thousand inhabitants and with a county seat with more than two thousand but fewer than six 
thousand inhabitants to adopt a sales tax for the purpose of funding public safety.  DOR believes 
this is Sunrise Beach.  
DOR records show that Sunrise Beach has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$5,838,331$13,526,486$15,734,969$7,228,722$42,328,5082021$7,048,910$13,555,591$15,540,917$8,049,232$44,194,6512022$7,048,393$14,467,865$16,470,014$7,610,478$45,596,7502023$7,724,185$16,244,642$20,493,780$9,592,952$54,055,558
The Department notes this proposal allows up to a one-half of one percent sales tax.  For the 
fiscal impact we will assume the one-half of one percent sales tax is adopted.  However, for 
informational purposes we are showing how much would be collected if they just chose full one- L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 23 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
half percent sales tax.  Using the taxable sales and a 2% inflation rate in the future, DOR 
calculated the amount the Sunrise Beach would collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so we estimate an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Sunrise Beach1/2 of 1% TaxFiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$1,950$193,0882028$2,984$295,424*Effective Date 
8/28/2025
City of Nevada
The legislation states any city with more than eight thousand but fewer than nine thousand 
inhabitants and that is the county seat of a county with more than nineteen thousand but fewer 
than twenty-two thousand inhabitants can impose a sales tax for public safety services.  DOR 
believes that the City of Nevada is the one allowed the sales tax.
DOR records show that the City of Nevada has taxable sales of:
Fiscal 
Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal
2020$38,208,694.67$44,612,841.38$43,665,437.02$42,989,997.53$169,476,970.602021$43,931,886.61$49,116,769.20$46,410,825.68$48,826,592.05$188,286,073.542022$43,446,517.76$51,704,817.34$51,124,401.71$52,879,021.88$199,154,758.692023$48,624,132.46$53,461,869.83$51,767,031.79$56,676,504.57$210,529,538.65
The Department notes this proposal allows a one-half of one percent sales tax.  Using the taxable 
sales and a 2% inflation rate in the future, DOR calculated the amount that Nevada would 
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal SalesTotal CollectionsDOR 1% FeeFinal Collection2026$57,364,191$286,821$2,868$283,9532027$58,511,475$292,557$2,926$289,6322028$59,681,704$298,409$2,984$295,424 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 24 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Fiscal YearTotal SalesTotal CollectionsDOR 1% FeeFinal Collection2026$223,415,631$1,117,078$11,171$1,105,9072027$227,883,943$1,139,420$11,394$1,128,0262028$232,441,622$1,162,208$11,622$1,150,586
DOR notes that this proposal would become effective on August 28, 2025, and the first election 
this issue could be presented to the voters would be the April 2026 general municipal election.  
This sales tax would become effective on the first day of the second calendar quarter after the 
director of revenue receives notice of the adoption of the sales tax, which is estimated to be 
October 1, 2026 (FY 2027) if adopted by the voters.  Sales tax is remitted one month behind 
collection of the tax, so we estimate an impact for FY 2027 of 8 months.
Nevada1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026 $0 $0 2027 (8 months)$7,596$752,0172028 $11,622$1,150,586
*Effective Date 8/28/2025
If any of these cities pass a sales tax the Department will need to make changes to our Revenue 
Premier system, Rate Manager system, MyTax portal system, Avalara Sales and use tax rate 
map, and website changes.  These changes are estimated at $1,832 per system change ($7,328) 
per city that passes the sales tax.
§ 105.145 - Financial Reports by Political Subdivisions
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. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 25 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
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 provision will be expanded to any political 
subdivisions that does not levy or collect tax will be exempt from the penalty.
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. 
In regard to the $500 per day fine, this proposal would not allow for the assessment of the fine if 
a district does not have gross revenue over $5,000 or has not levied or collected taxes.  
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.
CountySum of Total Fine 
Imposed
Sum of Total Fine CollectedAdair$1,948,500$1,500Andrew$622,500$0Atchison$1,374,000$0Audrain$1,154,500$0Barry$3,522,000$19,993Barton$0$0Bates$1,458,000$35,935Benton$1,045,500$0Bollinger$3,589,000$0Boone$259,000$38,825Buchanan$3,106,500$113,953Butler$3,429,500$53,829Caldwell$168,000$25,254Callaway$1,077,500$4,652Camden$3,761,025$71,588Cape 
Girardeau
$1,532,000$0Carroll$6,309,000$0Carter$4,206,000$330,094Cass$8,278,000$17,261Cedar$755,000$49,500 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 26 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Chariton$1,216,500$41,500Christian$3,890,000$0Clark$1,238,000$37,500Clay$2,505,500$80,000Clinton$1,895,500$27,500Cole$1,166,000$9,153Cooper$2,118,500$17,500Crawford$2,383,000$38,359Dade$332,500$0Dallas$1,816,000$0Daviess$1,464,500$0Dekalb$1,310,000$0Dent$342,000$0Douglas$0$0Dunklin$2,852,000$35,240Franklin$2,284,000$131,846Gasconade$65,500$6,944Gentry$2,072,000$0Greene$1,257,500$23,147Grundy$1,541,500$0Harrison$1,306,500$0Henry$1,741,000$77,967Hickory$1,147,000$0Holt$3,646,000$11,948Howard$1,779,500$147,500Howell$1,145,000$11,000Iron$96,000$54,000Jackson$3,879,500$531,928Jasper$3,101,500$86,711Jefferson$2,317,500$25,945Johnson$1,216,500$12,000Knox$2,221,000$0Laclede$423,000$12,000Lafayette$938,500$42,292Lawrence$4,979,000$0Lewis$3,116,000$0Lincoln$2,197,000$42,500Linn$2,005,000$15,000 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 27 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Livingston$3,275,500$0Macon$504,000$0Madison$2,464,000$271,799Maries$733,500$41,500Marion$347,500$0McDonald$200,000$14,147Mercer$637,000$0Miller$1,094,500$10,331Mississippi$1,663,500$72,633Moniteau$0$0Monroe$47,000$10,000Montgomery$865,500$4,204Morgan$0$0New Madrid$2,906,500$157,690Newton$1,076,500$34,726Nodaway$5,047,500$23,500Oregon$137,500$136,500Osage$1,610,500$19,822Ozark$43,000$43,000Pemiscot$3,752,000$7,059Perry$2,729,500$0Pettis$1,232,000$15,500Phelps$966,000$63,761Pike$202,500$127,500Platte$1,978,500$300,023Polk$867,500$43,621Pulaski$2,914,500$17,431Putnam$52,000$24,500Ralls$255,500$53,598Randolph$2,328,000$13,358Ray$5,074,000$0Reynolds$1,136,500$10,821Ripley$224,500$0Saline$1,889,500$35Schuyler$453,500$18,500Scotland$1,655,000$0Scott$3,469,000$47,957Shannon$287,000$172,986 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 28 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Shelby$15,500$15,500St. Charles$2,917,000$142,395St. Clair$3,601,500$376St. Francois$478,500$36,220St. Louis$6,796,500$1,957,273St. Louis City$9,565,000$251,298Ste. Genevieve$0$0Stoddard$2,402,500$154,500Stone$1,485,500$88,500Sullivan$1,198,000$0Taney$3,484,500$36,500Texas$1,689,500$42,500Vernon$3,236,500$12,000Warren$10,500$10,500Washington$856,500$12,000Wayne$1,454,000$1,661Webster$733,500$0Worth$300,500$0Wright$0$0(blank)$319,000$63,262Grand Total$211,266,525$6,862,850
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.  
This proposal also allows for a one-time reduction of a political subdivisions current outstanding 
balance.  Should a political subdivision file its reports after August 25, 2025, they will be entitled 
to a one-time downward adjustment of their existing fine by 90%.  
The current outstanding balance is $204,403,575 ($211,266,525 owed - $6,862,950 collected).  
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 $183,963,218 ($204,403,575 * .90) no 
longer being owed. 
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. 
This will require DOR to update the department’s computer programs at a cost of $1,832. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 29 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Oversight notes if all political subdivisions file their report and receive the reduction, it would 
be a loss of $180,284,042 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 
$183,963,308($204,403,675 * 90%).
Reducing the future fines would help save the local political subdivisions money, however; due 
to the un-collectability 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. 
DOR states their computer programs would require updating at a cost of $1,832. Oversight 
assumes DOR is provided with core funding to handle a certain amount of computer updating 
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 also notes this proposal is allowing a political subdivision that files its financial 
statement before August 28, 2025 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. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 30 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§ 137.115 - Assessment of Motor Vehicles
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 183), officials from the State Tax 
Commission noted this has an unknown fiscal impact on local taxing jurisdictions such as school 
districts, counties, and cities who rely on property tax assessments as a source of revenue.  The 
bill would require additional FTE for the State Tax Commission to receive the Manufacturer 
Suggested Retail Price (MSRP) from a vendor and then configure that data to fit the multiple 
assessment programs used in the state.  The cost of the data is estimated to be less than $200,000 
as well as the cost of licensing for each county in the state.  
The bill allows for all currently assessed vehicles to use a previously assessed value in the 
depreciation schedule, but the MSRP would have to be obtained for each new vehicle and used 
vehicle purchased from outside of the state by Vehicle Identification Number.  The current 
system uses average trade in value listed in the October issue of the National Automobile 
Dealers Association guide and that value will be less than the starting value of MSRP in most 
cases which could cause an increase in assessments.  
The use of a depreciation schedule would require that the vehicle values decrease each year 
regardless of the true market values which could cause a decrease in the assessments generated.  
The bill also requires all of the software used in the counties to meet minimum standards which 
could require a cost to some counties for upgrades.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 183), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) noted for tax year 2026, this proposal would 
require county assessors to use a national publication other than the currently required NADA 
guide when determining the market value for motor vehicles.  The STC shall determine and 
purchase the publication all assessors will use.  STC may rebid the publication up to every three 
years.
For tax years beginning with 2026, each county assessor must use the MSRP and then depreciate 
the motor vehicle value following the proposed 25-year depreciation schedule.  For used 
vehicles, county assessors are to take the 2024 market value and apply the appropriate 
depreciation rate(s) going forward.
Using sales data published by the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, B&P was able to 
determine the average price for new vehicles from 1990 – 2022.  B&P then used published 
articles to estimate the average sales price for model year 2023 through 2025 vehicles.  Based on 
research, B&P was able to obtain an average depreciation schedule similar to the one historically 
shown in the NADA publications.  In addition, DOR provided data to B&P with the number of 
motor vehicles registered in Missouri by model year.  
Table 1 shows the comparison between the estimated current depreciation schedules used in 
NADA versus the proposed schedule for model years 2004 - 2026.  B&P notes that the amounts 
shown are the percentage of market value remaining after depreciation. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 31 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Table 1: Proxy and Proposed Depreciation Schedule
Model 
Year
Current 
Remaining 
Value
Proposed 
Remaining 
Value
Difference
 
Model 
Year
Current 
Remaining 
Value
Proposed 
Remaining 
Value
Difference
2025 / 
202685.0%85.0%0.0%201426.1%43.2%17.1%
202475.0%80.6%5.6%201323.5%40.1%16.6%202367.5%76.5%9.0%201221.2%37.1%15.9%202261.7%72.2%10.5%201119.1%34.2%15.1%202154.7%68.2%13.5%201017.2%31.4%14.2%202049.2%64.3%15.1%200915.4%28.7%13.3%201944.3%60.5%16.2%200813.9%26.2%12.3%201839.9%56.8%16.9%200712.5%23.8%11.3%201735.9%53.2%17.3%200611.2%21.5%10.3%201632.3%49.7%17.4%200510.0%19.3%9.3%201529.0%46.4%17.4%
*2004 and older estimates calculated, but not shown.
 
B&P then took the original sales data and applied the current depreciation schedule and the 
proposed schedule to determine the difference in market values.  B&P notes that motor vehicles 
are assessed at 33.33% of their market value.  Table 2 shows the estimated average current and 
proposed assessed values for model years 2004 – 2026.
Table 2: Estimated Current and Proposed Average Assessed Value
Model 
Year
Est. 
Current 
Assessment
Est. 
Proposed 
Assessment
Difference
Model 
Year
Est. 
Current 
Assessment
Est. 
Proposed 
Assessment
Difference
2025 / 
2026$14,092 $14,092 $0 2014$3,088 $5,111 $2,023 
2024$12,099 $13,002 $903 2013$2,770 $4,727 $1,957 2023$10,576 $11,986 $1,410 2012$2,462 $4,308 $1,846 2022$9,609 $11,244 $1,635 2011$2,268 $4,062 $1,794  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 32 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
2021$8,288 $10,333 $2,045 2010$2,030 $3,707 $1,677 2020$6,437 $8,412 $1,975 2009$1,347 $2,510 $1,163 2019$5,611 $7,663 $2,052 2008$1,227 $2,312 $1,085 2018$4,976 $7,083 $2,107 2007$1,123 $2,138 $1,015 2017$4,446 $6,589 $2,143 2006$1,003 $1,924 $921 2016$3,971 $6,110 $2,139 2005$827 $1,595 $768 2015$3,520 $5,631 $2,111 
    *2003 and older estimates calculated, but not shown.
Using data published by STC, B&P estimates that the statewide average personal property tax 
rate is 6.7173%.  B&P notes that the Blind Pension Trust Fund levies a statewide property tax of 
$0.03 per $100 value.  Table 3 shows the estimated state and local revenue impact by model 
year.
 
Table 3: Estimated Revenue Impact by Model Year
Model Year
# 
Registere
d MVs
Est. Blind 
Pension 
Impact
Est. Local 
Revenue 
Impact
Model Year
# 
Registered 
MVs
Est. Blind 
Pension 
Impact
Est. Local 
Revenue 
Impact
2025 / 202649,199 $0 $0 2012260,600 $143,330 $32,171,070 2024255,490 $68,982 $15,429,041 2011228,369 $123,319 $27,397,429 2023271,625 $114,083 $25,611,521 2010191,489 $95,745 $21,475,491 2022272,597 $133,573 $29,805,756 2009166,481 $58,268 $12,947,227 2021298,822 $182,281 $40,866,897 2008220,359 $72,718 $15,987,045 2020297,830 $175,720 $39,337,386 2007237,213 $71,164 $16,102,018 2019337,515 $209,259 $46,313,808 2006212,109 $59,391 $13,063,793 2018336,133 $211,764 $47,361,140 2005215,103 $49,474 $11,047,690 2017363,284 $232,502 $52,062,230 2024192,888 $38,578 $8,602,805 2016339,448 $217,247 $48,554,642 2023174,839 $29,723 $6,605,417 
2015343,737 $216,554 $48,525,352 
2002 and 
older1,344,611 $134,461 $29,406,643 
2014307,719 $187,709 $41,628,226 Total Estimated Impact$2,997,911 $668,469,292  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 33 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
2013291,638 $172,066 $38,166,665 
Therefore, B&P estimates that this proposal could increase revenues to the Blind Pension Trust 
Fund by up to $2,997,911 and local revenues by up to $668,469,292.  B&P notes that this 
provision would affect tax year 2026 assessments, which are not collected until FY27.  
However, because this proposal requires assessors to depreciate used vehicles from their 2025 
published market value, and not from their original MSRP, the full estimated revenue loss will 
likely not occur immediately.  Rather, the revenue gain should occur gradually over the next 26 
years – as assessments are transition from current values less depreciation to original MSRP 
value less depreciation.
B&P notes the following about the above estimates:

(sometimes significantly) than the original actual sales price paid.  Therefore, it is 
possible that newer vehicles could be assigned a higher market value (and hence assessed 
value and property tax liability) than they would under current law.  This would result in 
a lower revenue loss than the amount shown above.

2025-estimated market value.  B&P notes that tax year 2025 assessments are not yet 
complete.  Therefore, in order to provide estimates, B&P applied the depreciation 
schedule to each model year’s average original sales price.  B&P notes that 2025 
determined market values could vary significantly from the proxy value that B&P has 
estimated.  This could result in a larger or smaller revenue impacts than the amounts 
shown above.

is unable to determine how quickly motor vehicle depreciation will return to pre-COVID 
levels.  Therefore, actual revenue impacts could be different from the amount shown 
above.


significantly different revenue impacts than the estimates shown above.
In response to a similar proposal this year (HB 816), officials from the Jefferson County 
Assessor note this bill will save county government budgets from having to purchase data from 
J.D. Power and Associates, which have increased their cost significantly since 2022.  Jefferson 
County was quoted by J.D. Power and Associates $60,700 for personal property vehicle 
valuation data.  This is a 13% increase from 2024, and a 25% increase from the cost incurred in 
2023 for the same data. Similar data from Price Digest has been quoted to Jefferson County at 
$13,040 for 2025.  This is a $47,660 decrease from the J.D. Power quote.  For Third-Class 
Counties, the savings from having another vendor provide the data would assist with the hiring 
of staff necessary to meet their statutory obligations. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 34 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Oversight notes this proposal allows assessors to use a nationally recognized automotive trade 
publication such as the NADA, Kelley Blue Book, Edmunds, or other similar publication. 
Oversight assumes if every county experienced a savings from being able to use an alternative 
to automotive trade publication similar to the one referenced by the Jefferson County Assessor, 
the savings is estimated at $5,480,900 ($47,660 x 115). Oversight will reflect an unknown 
savings for county assessors beginning in FY 2026.  
Oversight notes this proposal would impact the assessed value of personal property over time. 
This reduction could also reduce the calculation used to determine the maximum allowed 
revenue.  
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 proposal may result in a lower tax rate 
(as overall personal property assessed values decrease).  
Oversight notes some taxing entities have tax rate ceilings that are at their statutory or voter 
approved maximum, and some 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.
Oversight notes officials from B&P assume the proposal will have a direct fiscal impact on state 
and local revenues. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect B&P’s estimated impact in the fiscal note.
Officials from the Callaway County SB 40 Board assume a fiscal impact of an indeterminate 
amount.
Officials from the City of Kansas City assume the proposed legislation has a negative fiscal 
impact of an indeterminate amount.
Officials from the Mid-Continent Public Library assume there is insufficient data provided to 
calculate the revenue loss to the District.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 183), officials from the Kansas City Police 
Dept., Department of Social Services, Newton County Health Department, Phelps County 
Sheriff, Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement (JCPER), and the St. Louis 
County Police Dept 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.  
Oversight will show the unknown impact to the Blind Pension Fund and the local political 
subdivisions as estimated by Office of Administration - Budget and Planning.  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 35 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§ 137.1050 - Emergency Services Sales Tax 
Oversight notes under current law, if in any tax year after the eligible taxpayer's initial credit 
year the taxpayer's real property tax liability is lower than such liability in the initial credit year, 
such tax year shall be considered the taxpayer's new initial credit year for all subsequent tax 
years. 
This provision clarifies that the taxpayer’s initial credit year for the calculation of the Homestead 
property tax credit shall not change if the taxpayer’s property tax liability is less than his/her tax 
liability in the initial credit year due to a levy adjustment made pursuant to 321.905.
Additionally, Oversight notes that current law authorizes ambulance and fire protection districts 
in certain counties to propose a sales tax at a rate of up to 0.5%. This act allows such districts to 
propose a sales tax of up to 1.0% and repeals a prohibition on certain counties imposing such tax. 
(Section 321.552)
Oversight assumes this proposal adds clarifying language for implementation measures for the 
property tax credit established in SB 190 (2023).  
Oversight notes this credit is optional and a county must submit the proposal to voters or pass a 
county ordinance in order to participate.
§ 144.757- Local Use Taxes
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 382), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) noted the bill defines the terms “county or 
municipality” to include the governing body of any taxing jurisdiction authorized to impose a 
sales tax for emergency services. This proposal: 
• Has no direct impact on B&P. 
• Has no direct impact on general or total state revenues. 
• Will not impact the calculation pursuant to Art. X, Sec. 18(e).
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note currently, in statute, cities, counties and 
several other designated districts are allowed to collect a sale or use tax if adopted by their 
voters.  This proposal intends to allow any jurisdiction authorized to collect a sales tax for 
emergency service districts to also put before the voters the question of whether to collect a use 
tax for those districts. 
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 382), DOR records note there are only 8 
emergency districts in the state allowed to collect sales tax currently.  However, DOR’s 
interpretation of “emergency services” districts includes ambulance districts (69 districts), fire 
protection districts (21 districts), and hospital districts (1 district).   L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 36 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
It is unclear how many of these districts would want to collect a use tax and to get their citizens 
to support a use tax.  Should any of these districts succeed in adopting a use tax then DOR will 
collect that money in its normal course of business.  It should be noted that DOR is allowed to 
retain 1% of all sales or use tax money remitted to reimburse the department’s collection costs.  
This proposal could result in an unknown revenue to districts that adopt the use tax and 
therefore, DOR would also benefit by an unknown amount. 
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 382), from the City of Kansas City assumed 
the proposal will have no fiscal impact on their organization. 
Oversight will show the potential fiscal impact to locals as $0 (not approved by voters) to an 
unknown positive impact (local use tax approved by voters).
Oversight notes if a county approves the proposed use tax, DOR is allowed to retain 1% of 
collections which is deposited into general revenue. Oversight will show the potential fiscal 
impact to general revenue as $0 (not approved by voters) to an unknown positive impact (local 
use tax approved by voters).
§ 182.645 - Board of Trustees of a Consolidated Public Library District
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 396), officials from the Office of the State 
Auditor and the Mid-Continent Public Library 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 similar legislation from 2024, SB 1124, officials from the Daniel Boone Regional 
Library and the Rolling Hills Consolidated Library 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.  
Oversight assumes the proposal would not have a direct fiscal impact to public library districts.  
Oversight notes according to the SOS’s website there are 12 counties (Cooper, Pettis, Benton, 
Johnson, Lafayette, Lawrence, Barry, Jackson, Clay, Platte, Buchanan & Andrew) in the state 
that have consolidated public library districts as listed in the chart below: L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 37 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Sections 221.400, 221.402, 221.405, 221.407, 221.410 - Regional Jail Districts
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note currently counties can join together to 
create a Regional Jail District.  The Regional Jail District is allowed to take to the voters a sales 
tax for the purpose of funding the jail district.  Statutes already allow other counties to join any 
existing jail district.  This proposal adds language clarifying that any additional county wanting 
to join an existing jail district must have the sales tax approved by their voters before joining.  
This portion of the proposal adds that the jail district may use their sales tax to “equip” and 
“maintain” their jail facilities.  This language is just clarifying language and will not have a fiscal 
impact.
Currently the sales tax allowed for a jail district could be either 1/8
th
, 1/4
th
, 3/8
th
 or ½ of one 
percent.  This proposal adds language saying the tax can be “up to 1%”.  This is just clean-up 
(simplifying) language and not expected to have any additional impact.   L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 38 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
The Department notes that the Daviess/DeKalb Regional Jail District is the only one formed 
under Section 221.400.  It currently assesses a 1/2% sales tax.  For FY 24, they collected 
$1,511,075.  DOR is unaware if any of the surrounding counties are wishing to join this district. 
DOR assumes that once a new county would pass the sales tax and adopt the required ordinance, 
they would notify DOR and the department would get the new county set up.  This would require 
DOR update the department’s distribution program estimated to cost $1,832 at the time DOR is 
notified.
Oversight assumes this proposal changes the sales tax percentage to up to 1%. Since the current 
Daviess/DeKalb Regional Jail District collects ½% in sales tax revenue, it is possible that the 
county commission could add the question to increase the sales tax rate to the April 2026 ballot. 
Oversight is also unaware of any surrounding counties who may want to join the current district. 
However, should a surrounding county get voter approval and approve an ordinance to join the 
district, additional revenues could be generated for the Regional Jail District. 
Oversight notes the current expiration date of September 30, 2028 is being removed from this 
proposal. Oversight assumes should the proposal pass, the current collection of sales tax for the 
Regional Jail District will continue into FY29 and beyond. 
Oversight also assumes if an additional sales tax is passed by the voters, it would be effective 
October of 2026, assuming it is on the ballot April of 2026. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 
(no additional increase to sales tax approved by voters) or estimated revenues received (if 
approved by the voters) by the Regional Jail District to be unknown that could exceed the current 
DOR amount, as well as, a 1% administration fee collected by DOR. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 39 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§ 238.060 – Kansas City Area Transportation Authority (KCATA)
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 858), officials from Kansas City 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.  
Oversight assumes this proposal clarifies if there is a commissioner vacancy on the KCATA and 
will have no direct fiscal impact.
§ 311.084 - Entertainment Districts
Oversight notes in §311.084 an applicant granted a lakefront entertainment district special 
license under this section shall pay a license fee of three hundred dollars annually. Oversight 
assumes the fiscal impact of this proposal would ultimately be immaterial; therefore, Oversight 
will not reflect an impact in the fiscal note.
§ 321.552 - Taxes for Emergency Services
|Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this proposal would allow any 
governing body of an ambulance or fire protection district to impose a sales tax in an amount up 
to one percent on all retail sales made in such district.  Previously the cap was at one-half of one 
percent.  This proposal would not allow the districts in Clay, Greene, Jackson, Jefferson, St. 
Charles County, and St. Louis City to increase their rates.  In order to increase their sales tax, the 
district would be required to hold an election and notify the Department of the increase.  The first 
available election would be April 2026, so the tax would not be collected until October 2026 (FY 
2027) and remitted starting November 2026. 
Currently there are districts that have a sales tax that varies from 0.375% to 0.5%.  Using 
information on the amount of sales tax DOR collects from these districts, DOR calculated how 
much additional revenue would be raised by the districts if all
maximum 1% allowed by this proposal.  DOR notes that the department is able to retain 1% of 
all sales tax collected as reimbursement of DOR’s collection costs out of this revenue.  DOR’s 
1% collection fee is deposited into general revenue.
If all eligible political subdivisions increased their fee to the 1% it would result in an additional 
$134,347,107 in sales tax revenue.  Additionally, general revenue would retain an additional 
$1,366,787.
This will not have a fiscal impact on the Department to administer unless a political subdivision 
increases their sales tax rate.  At that time, it would cost $1,832 to update the department’s 
computer system per political subdivision rate change. 
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 895), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) note Section 321.552.1 - B&P defers to the  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 40 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
ambulance and fire protection districts for the fiscal impact. DOR’s retained 1% collection fee 
will increase TSR because these districts can impose a sales tax up to 1% instead of the 0.5% 
cap.
Oversight does not have information to the contrary and therefore, Oversight will reflect the 
estimates as provided by DOR for the potential increase in revenue from the increase in sales tax,  
the 1% administration fee, and the cost for computer updates to DOR’s system for each political 
subdivision. Oversight notes the fiscal impact for FY 2027 is lesser because it is a partial year (8 
months). 
Oversight notes in order for the updates to DOR’s computer system to reach the $250,000 
threshold, 136 ($250,000/$1,832) political subdivisions would need to adopt a new sales tax rate. 
Oversight will assume the unknown cost to GR for DOR’s computer updates will not meet the 
$250,000 threshold.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 895), officials from the Kansas City 
Election Board stated the cost to conduct an election in the Kansas City portion of Jackson 
County is approximately $800,000.  If this election is ran in an even number year, the State 
already pays their pro-rata share and the additional costs would be minimal. Any other time, the 
State would share the cost of the election based on voter registration.
Oversight assumes the timing for an election to adopt a sales tax for emergency services would 
take place during a regular election cycle (April or November) to streamline any election costs 
that would be impacted. Therefore, Oversight will assume no direct fiscal impact from this 
proposal.
In response to a similar proposal from this year (HB 895), officials from the Office of the 
Secretary of State City of Kansas City, City of O'Fallon, Phelps County Sheriff, Kansas 
City Police Dept., Platte County Board of Elections,
St. Louis County Board of ElectionsSt. Louis County Police Dept, 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.   L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 41 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§ 321.905 – Taxes on Emergency Services in St. Louis County, St. Charles County, Clay 
County, Platte County and Greene County
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) assume this proposal would allow the 
following political subdivisions to adopt a property tax and a sales tax for fire and ambulance 
services.  The counties of St. Louis, St. Charles, Clay, Platte, Greene are identified in this 
proposal.  Additionally, all cities within St. Louis County could potentially enact this including: 
AfftonConcordGrantwoodNormandySycamore Hills
AllentonCool ValleyGreen ParkNorthwoods
Town and 
CountryBallwin
Country Club 
HillsGreendaleNorwood CourtTwin OaksBella Villa
Country Life 
AcresGroverOaklandUniversity City
Bellefontaine 
NeighborsCrestwoodHanley HillsOakvilleUplands Park
City of Bellerive 
AcresCreve CoeurHazelwoodOld JamestownValley ParkBel-Nor
Crystal Lake 
ParkHillsdaleOlivetteVelda CityBel-RidgeDellwoodHuntleighOverland
Velda Village 
Hills
BerkeleyDes PeresJenningsPagedaleVinita ParkBeverly HillsEdmundsonKinlochPasadena HillsVinita TerraceBlack JackEllisvilleKirkwoodPasadena ParkWarson WoodsBreckenridge HillsEurekaLaduePine LawnWebster Groves
BrentwoodFentonLakeshire
Richmond 
HeightsWellston
BridgetonFergusonLemayRiverviewWestwoodCalverton ParkFlordell HillsMackenzieRock HillWilbur ParkCastle PointFlorissantManchesterSappingtonWildwoodChampFrontenacMaplewoodShrewsburyWinchester
CharlackGlasgow VillageMarlboroughSpanish Lake
Woodson 
TerraceChesterfieldGlen Echo Park
Maryland 
HeightsSt. Ann 
Clarkson ValleyGlencoeMehlvilleSt. John ClaytonGlendaleMoline AcresSunset Hills 
This proposal allows a political subdivision to create a tax on all real property and then a sales 
tax in order to fund fire protection services.  In order to enact the property tax, the citizens of the  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 42 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
district must adopt the tax at an election.  They are allowed to collect up to $0.25 cents per $100 
assessed valuation.
If the city adopts the property tax, they can then go back to their voters to implement a sales tax 
to be used to fund their fire or ambulance services.  This sales tax can be up to one percent on all 
sales subject to taxation under Chapter 144 for fire protection services or up to half of one 
percent for ambulance services.  This sales tax must also be adopted by the voters at another 
election.  
This proposal states the sales tax is to be used to reduce the property tax collected.  The fire 
protection district is to calculate the amount of sales tax and property tax collected and their 
expenses.  Using the sales tax collected, they are to lower the property tax rate by the amount 
generated under the sales tax.  
This proposal does not require that DOR collect the sales tax on behalf of the political 
subdivision, fire protection district or ambulance district.  If DOR would be required to collect 
the sales tax, DOR would retain 1% of the amount of sales tax collected for reimbursement of 
DOR services. DOR does not collect property tax.  It appears the political subdivisions would be 
responsible for the collection and estimating the impact.
DOR is unable to determine which if any of the designated political subdivisions would want to 
adopt these 2 taxes.  
Oversight notes subsection 6 of the proposal does not clarify if DOR will be responsible for 
collecting the sales tax on behalf of the political subdivision, fire protection district and/or 
ambulance district should the proposal be voted on and approved by the voters. If DOR is 
responsible, then a 1% collection fee based off of the sales tax would be collected. Therefore, 
Oversight will reflect a $0 (no ballot issue/approval) or unknown amount of revenue to General 
Revenue as a direct fiscal impact for this proposal.
Oversight also assumes this proposal is permissive in nature and would have no local fiscal 
impact without the action by the governing body of municipalities within St. Louis County, St. 
Charles County, Clay County, Platte County and Greene County and the approval by the 
majority of voters within those local political subdivisions to levy and collect taxes on real 
property and/or sales tax to provide funding for emergency services. Therefore, Oversight will 
reflect a $0 (no ballot issue/approval) or unknown amount of revenue to the local political 
subdivisions as a direct fiscal impact for this proposal. 
 In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 33), officials from the Office of 
Administration - Budget and Planning (BAP) deferred to the municipalities within the charter 
county for the potential fiscal impact of this proposal. BAP assumes no impact on total state 
revenues or the 18(e) calculation.  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 43 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 33), officials from the Office of the 
Secretary of StateState Tax Commission, the Platte County Board of Elections and the 
St. Louis County Board of Elections
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.  
§ 473.742 – Salaries of Public Administrators
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, 2024, shall be deemed to have elected 
to receive a salary as provided in this section. Oversight assumes this proposal would potentially 
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 from the 2023 tax year 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 $1,790,500.  Adding additional payroll taxes and workers’ compensation would yield 
a potential cost that could exceed $2,005,539 and Oversight will reflect this amount in the fiscal 
note for this proposal. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 44 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
§ 483.083 – Compensation of circuit clerks
In response to a similar proposal from this yare (SB 530), officials from the Office of the State 
Courts Administrator (OSCA) provide the following information:
1) In counties of the first classification each circuit clerk shall annually receive 
compensation in the amount of $94,130;
2) In counties of the second or fourth classification each circuit clerk shall annually receive 
compensation in the amount of $90,573;
3) In counties of the third classification each circuit clerk shall annually receive 
compensation in the amount of $85,565.
The fiscal impact for circuit clerks would be a cost of $1,453,572 annually to the General 
Revenue Fund. 
A
ssessed Valuation
C
ounty Class
N
umber of 
C
ounties*
H
ighest 
S
alary
A
ssessed 
S
alary
D
ifference 
i
n Salary
P
otential 
A
djusted 
S
alary
$
8,000,000 to $40,999,999
3 1 25,000$ 29,000$      4,000$  4,000$       
$
41,000,000 to $53,999,999
0 0 25,000$ 30,000$      5,000$  -$           
$
54,000,000 to $65,999,999
0 0 25,000$ 32,000$      7,000$  -$           
$
66,000,000 to $85,999,999
0 0 25,000$ 34,000$      9,000$  -$           
$
86,000,000 to $99,999,999
3 3 25,000$ 36,000$      11,000$ 33,000$     
$
100,000,000 to $130,999,999
3 8 25,000$ 38,000$      13,000$ 104,000$   
$
131,000,000 to $159,999,999
3 9 25,000$ 40,000$      15,000$ 135,000$   
$
160,000,000 to $189,999,999
3 9 25,000$ 41,000$      16,000$ 144,000$   
$
190,000,000 to $249,999,999
3 13 25,000$ 41,500$      16,500$ 214,500$   
$
250,000,000 to $299,999,999
3 10 25,000$ 43,000$      18,000$ 180,000$   
$
300,000,000 to $449,999,999
3 15 25,000$ 45,000$      20,000$ 300,000$   
$
450,000,000 to $599,999,999
3, 4 14 25,000$ 47,000$      22,000$ 308,000$   
$
600,000,000 to $749,999,999
3 5 25,000$ 49,000$      24,000$ 120,000$   
$
750,000,000 to $899,999,999
3, 4 5 25,000$ 51,000$      26,000$ 130,000$   
$
900,000,000 to $1,049,999,999
2 2 25,000$ 53,000$      28,000$ 56,000$     
$
1,050,000,000 to $1,199,999,999
2 1 25,000$ 55,000$      30,000$ 30,000$     
$
1,200,000,000 to $1,349,999,999
2 1 25,000$ 57,000$      32,000$ 32,000$     
$
1,350,000,000 and over
0 0 25,000$ 59,000$      34,000$	-$           
96	1,790,500$
P
ayroll taxes
7
.65%
136,973$   
W
ork Comp
4
.36%
78,066$     
G
rand Total
2,005,539$ L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 45 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Oversight notes the provisions of §483.083.3 are removed. In this provision, each person who 
was ordered by the judge to make child support payments through the clerk’s office in Marion 
County was to be charged $10 annually on/before February 1
st
 with the fee to be paid to the state. 
Oversight has no way to determine the potential loss of this fee, but assumes it is less than 
$250,000 annually. Therefore, for fiscal note purposes, Oversight will present the costs provided 
by OSCA, adjusted 2% annually and show an (Unknown) loss for the fees that were to be 
collected from persons making child support payments through the clerk’s office.
§ 550.320 – Costs in criminal cases
In response to a similar proposal from this year (SB 143), officials from the Department of 
Correctionsstated the department shall establish, by rule, the process for submission of county 
reimbursement claims.  The requirement to promulgate rules could delay receipt in claims to 
county submissions while the rule promulgation is underway.
§§ 107.170 & 513.455 – Contracts with Public Entities 
In response to a previous version, 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 Department of Higher Education 
and Workforce Development, the Department of Health and Senior Services, the 
Department of Natural Resources, the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, the 
Department of Revenue, the Department of Public Safety (Capitol Police Alcohol & 
Tobacco Control, Fire Safety, Gaming Commission, Missouri Highway Patrol, State 
Emergency Management Agency and Veterans Commission the Missouri National Guard, 
the Department of Social Services, the Office of the Governor Joint Committee on 
Administrative Rules, the Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement, the Missouri 
Lottery Commission, the Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan, the, the Missouri 
Department of Conservation, the Missouri Ethics Commission, the Missouri House of 
Representatives, the Department of Transportation, the Office of Prosecution Services, the 
Office of Administration, Administrative Hearing Commission and Budget and Planning
the Office of the State Courts Administrator, the Office of the State Auditor the Missouri 
Senate, the Office of the Secretary of State the Office of the State Public Defender, the 
Legislative Oversight, the Oversight Division, Office of the State Treasurer, the State Tax 
Commission, Kansas City, theeach assume the proposal will 
have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations for this proposal.
Oversight notes that the above mentioned agencies have stated the proposal would not have a 
direct fiscal impact on their organization. Oversight does not have any information to the 
contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact on the fiscal note.
 In response to a previous version, officials from the Department of Corrections, the Missouri 
Department of AgricultureDepartment of Public Safety – Office of the Director and the  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 46 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Department of Mental Health deferred to the Office of Administration for the potential fiscal 
impact of this proposal. 
FISCAL IMPACT – State 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
GENERAL REVENUE 
FUND
Could 
exceed...
Revenues - §§221.400, 
221.402, 221.405, 221.407 & 
221.410 - DOR - 1% 
administration fee on sales 
tax collection - p. (36-37)$0
$0 or 
Unknown, 
could exceed
$10,074
$0 or 
Unknown, 
could exceed
$15,111
$0 or 
Unknown, 
could exceed
$15,111
Revenue – DOR – 1% 
collection fee on sales tax 
revenue §321.905 p. 34$0
$0 or
 Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§67.597 - Bates County - 
DOR 1% Collection Fee if 
approved by voters p.10-11$0
$0 or up to 
$10,079
$0 or up to 
$15,421
$0 or up to 
$15,421
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§67.547 & §67.582 - DOR 
1% Collection Fee, if 
approved by voters p.9
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or
 Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Joplin - 
DOR 1% Collection Fee, if 
approved by voters – 
p. 18-24$0
$0 or
$61,755
$0 or
$94,485
$0 or
$94,485
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Hannibal - 
DOR 1% Collection Fee, if 
approved by voters - p. 18-
24 $0
$0 or
$14,449
$0 or
$22,108
$0 or
$22,108
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Sikeston - $0
$0 or
$14,358
$0 or
$21,967
$0 or
$21,967 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 47 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
DOR 1% Collection Fee, if 
approved by voters - p. 18-
24
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Moberly - 
DOR 1% Collection Fee, if 
approved by voters - p. 18-
24 $0
$0 or
$10,921
$0 or
$16,710
$0 or
$16,710
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - DOR 1% 
Collection Fee - Sunrise 
Beach, approved by voters 
p. 18-24$0
$0 or up to 
$1,950
$0 or up to 
$2,984
$0 or up to 
$2,984
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - DOR 1% 
Collection Fee - Nevada, if 
approved by voters p. 18-24$0
$0 or up to 
$7,596
$0 or up to 
$11,622
$0 or up to 
$11,622
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§321.552 - DOR - potential 
collection of 1% 
administration fee on the 
adoption of a sales tax for 
emergency services, if 
approved by voters p.38$0
$0 or 
$911,191
$0 or 
$1,366,787
$0 or 
$1,366,787
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§144.757 to §144.761 - DOR 
1% Collection Fee p.34
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or
 Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
Savings – on Construction 
Management practices 
§§8.690, 67.5050 & 67.5060 
p.4
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
Total Revenue & Savings
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to Could 
exceed 
$1,042,373
$0 to Could 
exceed 
$1,567,195
$0 to Could 
exceed 
$1,567,195
Costs – OSCA – potential 
increase in nuisance action  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 48 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
caseloads seeking relief 
(§§67.399, 67.452, 82.1025, 
82.1026, 82.1027 & 
82.1031) p.7
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
$0 to 
(Unknown)
Costs - §67.1505 – to various 
state agencies who enter into 
an agreement with 
entertainment districts to 
promote entertainment 
tourism p.16$0
(Up to 
$2,500,000)
(Up to 
$2,500,000)
(Up to 
$4,500,000)
Cost - §137.115 - STC - 
Software/programming and 
additional FTE costs p.29$0
Unknown, 
less than 
($200,000)
Unknown, 
less than 
($200,000)
Unknown, 
less than 
($200,000)
Costs – OSCA (§483.083) – 
increase in compensation to 
circuit clerks p. 42($1,211,310)($1,482,643)($1,512,296)($1,512,296)
Transfer Out – OA – creates 
a sports complex for Clay 
County §67.646 p.11$0
$0 or (up to 
$3,000,000)
$0 or (up to 
$3,000,000)
$0 or (up to 
$3,000,000)
Transfer Out - §67.1157 2. – 
50% increase in a new sales 
tax revenue funds if 
approved by DED and OA 
p.13
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
Loss – OSCA (§483.083.3) – 
reduction in fees collected by 
clerk p. 42(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown(Unknown
Total Cost/Loss/Transfer Out
($1,211,310) 
to (Could 
exceed 
$10,000,000)
($3,982,643) 
to (Could 
exceed 
$17,182,643)
($4,012,296) 
to (Could 
exceed 
$17,212,296) 
($6,012,296) 
to (Could 
exceed 
$19,212,296)
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT ON GENERAL 
REVENUE
($1,211,310) 
to (Could be 
less than 
$10,000,000)
($3,982,643) 
to (Could be 
less than 
$16,140,270)
($4,012,296) 
to (Could be 
less than  
$15,645,101)
($6,012,296) 
to (Could be 
less than  
$17,645,101 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 49 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
BLIND PENSION FUNDRevenue Increase - 
§137.115.9 – Motor vehicles 
- increase in property taxes 
from change in personal 
property assessed valuation 
method p.29$0
Unknown, Up 
to $2,997,911 
Unknown, Up 
to $2,997,911 
Unknown, Up 
to $2,997,911 
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT ON BLIND 
PENSION FUND$0
Unknown, 
Up to 
$2,997,911 
Unknown, 
Up to 
$2,997,911 
Unknown, 
Up to 
$2,997,911 
MISSOURI REGIONAL 
SPORTS AUTHORITY 
SUPLEMENTAL TAX 
FUND 
Transfer in – §67.1157 2. – 
50% increase in a new sales 
tax revenue funds if 
approved by DED and OA 
p.13
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
Transfer Out – §67.1157 3. 
money into the “segregated 
funds of the Authority” p.13
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
$0 up to 
($10,000,000)
ESTIMATED NET 
EFFECT ON THE 
MISSOURI REGIONAL 
SPORTS AUTHORITY 
SUPLEMENTAL TAX 
FUND $0$0$0$0 L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 50 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local 
Government
FY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Fully 
Implemented 
(FY 2032)
LOCAL POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
Could 
Exceed…
Revenue – potential increase in 
taxes collected on property and 
sales upon voter approval 
§321.905 p. 34$0
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
*Revenue Increase - §137.115 - 
Motor vehicles - increase in 
property taxes from change in 
personal property assessed 
valuation method* p.29$0
Unknown, 
More or less 
than 
$668,469,292 
Unknown, 
More or less 
than 
$668,469,292 
Unknown, 
More or less 
than 
$668,469,292 
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§67.597 - Bates County - Sales 
Tax for Operation of Hospital 
if approved by voters - p. 10$0
$0 or up to 
$997,839
$0 or up to 
$1,526,694
$0 or up to 
$1,526,694
Potential Revenue - §§221.400, 
221.402, 221.405, 221.407 & 
221.410 - Regional Jail 
District(s) - additional sales 
taxes received if approved by 
voters – p. 36-37$0
$0 or 
Unknown, 
could exceed 
$1,007,383
$0 or 
Unknown, 
could exceed 
$1,511,075
$0 or 
Unknown, 
could exceed 
$1,511,075
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§144.757 to §144.761 - Local 
Use Tax p. 34
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or
 Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§67.547 - County Sales Tax 
Rate Limit Increase, if 
approved by voters p.8
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or
 Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§67.582 - Law Enforcement 
County Sales Tax Rate Limit 
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or
 Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown 
$0 or 
Unknown  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 51 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Increase, if approved by voters 
p.9
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Joplin - 
Public Safety Sales Tax if 
approved by voters - p. 18-24$0
$0 or
$6,113,733
$0 or
$9,354,011
$0 or
$9,354,011
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Hannibal - 
Public Safety Sales Tax if 
approved by voters - p. 18-24$0
$0 or
$1,430,489
$0 or
$2,188,649
$0 or
$2,188,649
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Sikeston - 
Public Safety Sales Tax if 
approved by voters - p. 18-24
$0
$0 or
$1,421,410
$0 or
$2,174,757
$0 or
$2,174,757
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - City of Moberly - 
Public Safety Sales Tax if 
approved by voters - p. 18-24
$0
$0 or
$1,081,226
$0 or
$1,654,277
$0 or
$1,654,277
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - DOR 1% Collection 
Fee - Sunrise Beach, if 
approved by voters - p. 18-24
$0
$0 or up to 
$193,088
$0 or up to 
$295,424
$0 or up to 
$295,424
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§94.900 - DOR 1% Collection 
Fee - Nevada, if approved by 
voters - p. 18-24$0
$0 or up to 
$752,017
$0 or up to 
$1,150,586
$0 or up to 
$1,150,586
Potential Revenue - §321.552 - 
Revenue on new sales taxes 
adopted for emergency services 
if approved by voters p. 38$0
$0 or 
$89,564,738
$0 or 
$134,347,107
$0 or 
$134,347,107
Potential Revenue Gain - 
§67.2500 - Camden County - 
Potential income from cultural 
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or
 Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown
$0 or 
Unknown L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 52 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
arts district sales tax if
approved by voters - p.(17) 
Savings – on Construction 
Management practices §§8.690, 
67.5050 & 67.5060 p.4
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
$0 to 
Unknown
*Savings - §137.115 - County 
Assessors - Changes to 
selection process for trade-in 
value publications p.29$0 Unknown Unknown Unknown
Savings – in publication costs 
on financials posted in a 
newspaper of general 
circulation (§§50.815 & 
50.820) p. 3
Could 
exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000
Transfer In - §67.1157 3. 50% 
increase in a new sales tax 
revenue funds deposited into 
the “segregated funds of 
Authority” p.13
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
$0 up to 
$10,000,000
Transfer In – to the County 
Convention and Sports 
Complex Fund - from OA-
General Revenue §67.646 p.11$0
$0 or up to 
$3,000,000
$0 or up to 
$3,000,000
$0 or up to 
$3,000,000
Transfer In – to the County 
Convention and Sports 
Complex Fund - from County 
Funds, matching funds for 
sports complex §67.646 p.11$0
$0 or up to 
$3,000,000
$0 or up to 
$3,000,000
$0 or up to 
$3,000,000
Total - Revenue, Savings & 
Transfer Ins
Could 
exceed 
$100,000 to 
$10,100,000
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$787,131,215
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$834,499,047
Could exceed 
$100,000 to 
$834,499,047
Transfer-Out – From Clay 
County to the County 
Convention and Sports 
Complex Fund§67.646 p.11$0
$0 or 
($3,000,000)
$0 or 
($3,000,000)
$0 or 
($3,000,000) L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 53 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
*Costs -§137.115 - County 
Assessors - to administer the 
changes in assessment from 
this proposal p.29$0(Unknown)(Unknown)(Unknown)
Cost – Counties - Potential 
salary increases for public 
administrators (§473.742) p. 41
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$1,671,283)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$2,005,539)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$2,005,539)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$2,005,539)
Cost – potential salary 
increases for county coroners 
(§§50.327 & 58.095) p.4
$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) p.4
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
Costs – Boone County Sheriff 
– potential increase in salary. 
(§57.317) p.7
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
$0 or 
(Unknown)
Cost – Potential salary 
increases for public 
administrators (§473.742) p.41
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$1,722,154)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$2,066,585)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$2,066,585)
$0 to (Could 
exceed 
$2,066,585)
Total Cost/Loss/Transfer Out - $0 to (Could 
exceed 
$4,919,437)
(Could 
exceed 
$5,598,124)
(Could 
exceed 
$5,598,124)
(Could 
exceed 
$5,598,124)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT 
ON LOCAL POLITICAL 
SUBDIVISIONS
Could 
exceed 
$100,000 to 
$5,180,563
Could 
exceed 
$100,000 to 
$828,900,923
Could 
exceed 
$100,000 to 
$828,900,923
Could 
exceed 
$100,000 to 
$828,900,923
*Given that property taxes are designed to be revenue neutral, this impact could be reduced if 
taxing authorities are able to adjust the tax levy relative to the assessed value to produce roughly 
the same revenue from the prior year.
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
There could be a direct fiscal impact to small businesses who utilize either of these construction 
management practices on projects as a result of this proposal. L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 54 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Small businesses who are in a lawsuit regarding nuisance actions for deteriorated property could 
be impacted by this proposal.
Small businesses in a county that increases the local sales tax rate will be impacted. (Pending 
voter approval).
Small businesses in a taxing jurisdiction that adopts the local use tax will be impacted. (Pending 
voter approval).
If the voters approve the levy and collection of taxes on real property and/or sales tax, small 
businesses could be impacted from this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation appears to have no direct fiscal impact.
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
Department of Commerce and Insurance    
Department of Economic Development 
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education 
Department of Higher Education and Workforce Development
Department of Health and Senior Services 
Department of Mental Health 
Department of Natural Resources 
Department of Corrections 
Department of Labor and Industrial Relations 
Department of Revenue 
Department of Public Safety
Department of Social Services 
Office of the Governor 
Joint Committee on Public Employee Retirement
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules 
Missouri Lottery Commission
Legislative Research 
Oversight Division
Local Government Employees Retirement System
Missouri Consolidated Health Care Plan 
Missouri Department of Agriculture 
Missouri Department of Conservation  L.R. No. 0316S.07C 
Bill No. SCS for HB 199  
Page 55 of 55
April 30, 2025
KC:LR:OD
Missouri House of Representatives 
Office of the Lieutenant Governor 
Missouri Department of Transportation 
Missouri State Employee's Retirement System 
MoDOT & Patrol Employees’ Retirement System 
Missouri Office of Prosecution Services 
Office of Administration
Facilities Management, Design and Construction
Office of the State Courts Administrator 
Office of the State Auditor 
Missouri Senate 
Office of the Secretary of State 
Office of the State Public Defender
Office of the State Treasurer
Public Schools and Education Employee Retirement Systems
State Tax Commission
Kansas City
Hume R-VIII School District
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorApril 30, 2025April 30, 2025