COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:1324H.02I Bill No.:HB 532 Subject:Taxation and Revenue - General; Cities, Towns, and Villages; Hospitals; Motels
and Hotels; Food; Emergencies; Political Subdivisions; Counties; County
Officials; County Government
Type:Original Date:March 25, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to certain local taxes.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028
General Revenue*
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
($4,314,874)
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
($435,589)
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
($383,479)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
($4,314,874)
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
($435,589)
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
($383,479)
*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.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds $0$0$0
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 2 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FEDERAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on All Federal
Funds $0$0$0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON FULL TIME EQUIVALENT (FTE)FUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Total Estimated Net
Effect on FTE 000
☒ Estimated Net Effect (expenditures or reduced revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any
of the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
☐ Estimated Net Effect (savings or increased revenues) expected to exceed $250,000 in any of
the three fiscal years after implementation of the act or at full implementation of the act.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON LOCAL FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Local Government$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
$2,808,266
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
$13,180,880
$0 or unknown,
greater or less than
$20,609,035 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 3 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Sections 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.
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$619,508,496 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 4 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Marion3$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$846,550,738Texas3$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 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 5 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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.
Sections 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
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.
Section 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. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 6 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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.
Section 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.
Section 67.597 - Bates County Sales Tax for Operation of Hospital
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note 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.
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 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 7 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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.
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.
Sections 67.782, 67.783, & 67.785 - Recreation Tax - Recreational Districts
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note the legislation states any county with
more than nine thousand nine hundred but fewer than eleven thousand inhabitants with a county
seat with more than one thousand but fewer than one thousand five hundred inhabitants and any
county with more than eighty thousand but fewer than one hundred thousand inhabitants and
with a county seat with more than thirteen thousand but fewer than seventeen thousand
inhabitants can impose a sales tax for public recreational purposes. DOR believes that Bollinger
County and Cape Girardeau County are the ones allowed the sales tax.
Both Bollinger County and Cape Girardeau County are allowed to adopt this tax by a vote of
their people. This is a 1% sales tax. DOR notes that the department is allowed to retain 1% of
all sales tax collected for reimbursement of the department’s expenses. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 8 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
BOLLINGER COUNTY
DOR records show that Bollinger County has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$12,560,145.46$13,495,032.67$13,446,426.78$13,405,148.98$52,906,753.892021$13,166,999.41$12,967,346.48$13,099,439.32$22,843,062.50$62,076,847.712022$13,657,520.51$14,342,136.19$14,986,689.07$22,478,730.17$65,465,075.942023$14,741,559.22$14,972,713.91$15,584,765.18$16,035,178.52$61,334,216.83
Sales Tax only
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$65,088,362$650,884$6,509$644,3752027$66,390,129$663,901$6,639$657,2622028$67,717,931$677,179$6,772$670,408
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.
Bollinger County1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$4,426$438,1752028$6,772$670,408*Effective Date 8/28/2025 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 9 of
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY
DOR records indicate that Cape Girardeau County had taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020318,049,760.59346,574,051.34359,218,108.71378,945,057.541,402,786,978.182021366,220,766.84395,229,866.54397,370,935.93438,791,884.201,597,613,453.512022379,093,258.62422,916,960.53450,150,408.76457,241,987.231,709,402,615.142023407,410,420.78432,302,741.27435,778,172.23456,595,183.411,732,086,517.69
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 Cape Girardeau County would
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal Sales
Total
CollectionsDOR 1% Fee
Final
Collection
2026$1,838,104,069$18,381,041$183,810$18,197,2302027$1,874,866,151$18,748,662$187,487$18,561,1752028$1,912,363,474$19,123,635$191,236$18,932,398
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.
Cape Girardeau1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$124,991$12,374,1172028$191,236$18,932,398*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) if just one county passes it.
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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 10 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Oversight notes this proposal states that Bollinger and Cape Girardeau counties do not have to
act jointly to impose a recreational sales tax. If enacted, this bill will initially only apply to
Bollinger and Cape Girardeau counties. If approved by voters, an additional 1% tax could
generate roughly $670,000 in Bollinger County and $18.9 million in Cape Girardeau County.
Section 67.1003 - Cottleville & Weldon Springs Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this this allows the Cities of Weldon
Spring and Cottleville 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.
Oversight assumes this proposal authorizes the Cities of Cottleville and the City of Weldon
Spring, upon voter approval, to enact a transient guest tax of not more than 5% per occupied
room 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 the City of Cottleville and/or the City of Weldon Spring. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or unknown revenue impact to the City of
Cottleville and the City of Weldon Spring for this provision.
Section 67.1009 - Knob Noster Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows the City of Knob Noster 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.
Oversight notes this section permits certain cities the ability to vote in a transient guest tax for
promotion of the city. Oversight assumes the proposal permits the City of Knob Noster
(Subdivision 3) to impose a transient guest tax, upon voter approval, of not more than 6% per
occupied room, per night. The transient guest tax on the City of Knob Noster would be used for
the promotion of tourism, economic development and the retention and growth of Whiteman Air
Force Base. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or unknown amount of
revenue (ballot proposal passed by the voters) to Knob Noster for this proposal. Oversight does
not have enough information regarding sleeping rooms in Knob Noster to provide an estimate.
Section 67.1013 - City of Harrisonville & City of Jackson Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows the Cities of Harrisonville
and Jackson 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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 11 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Oversight notes this provision permits certain cities the ability to vote in a transient guest tax for
promotion of the city.
Oversight assumes the proposal permits the city of Harrisonville and the City of Jackson to
impose a transient guest tax, upon voter approval, of not more than 6% per occupied room, per
night. The transient guest tax would be used for the promotion of tourism.
Oversight does not have information regarding the number of sleeping rooms, occupancy rates
and charges. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or unknown amount of
revenue (ballot proposal passed by the voters) to each the City of Harrisonville and the City of
Jackson for this proposal.
Section 67.1018 - New Madrid County Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows New Madrid 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.
Oversight assumes this proposal permits New Madrid County (Subdivision 2) the ability to vote
on a transient guest tax (of not more than 5% per occupied room, per night) for the purposes of
law enforcement and tourism. Oversight notes New Madrid County is not currently on-boarded
with Oversight to receive legislation for response. The transient guest tax for New Madrid
County would be used by the county with 50% of the proceeds to fund law enforcement and the
remaining 50% of the proceeds to fund the promotion of tourism. Oversight does not have
enough information regarding sleeping rooms in New Madrid County to provide an estimate of
the additional revenue (if approved). Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or
unknown amount of revenue (ballot proposal passed by the voters) to New Madrid County for
this proposal.
Section 67.1360 - City of Richmond Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows the City of Richmond 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.
Oversight notes this section (Subdivision 38) permits the City of Richmond the ability to vote in
a transient guest tax (of not less than 2% and not more than 5% per occupied room, per night) for
funding the promotion of tourism. The transient guest tax may be charged on hotels, motels, bed
and breakfast inns, and campgrounds and any docking facility that rents slips to recreational
boats. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or unknown amount of revenue
(ballot proposal passed by the voters) to the City of Richmond for this proposal. Oversight does
not have enough information regarding sleeping rooms in the City of Richmond to provide an
estimate. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 12 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Section 67.1366 - Transient Guest Tax for Community Center
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this proposal allows the City of
Springfield to use their transient guest tax for funding a community center. DOR notes the
Springfield will continue with their existing tax and therefore this will not have a fiscal impact.
Officials from the Department of Revenue assume the provision 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.
Section 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.
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.
Section 67.2500 - Theater, Cultural Arts District
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this adds Camden County to the list of
counties that can establish a Theater, Cultural Arts and Entertainment District. This allows the
County to have an election to see if their residents will support an additional one-half of one
percent sales tax for funding a theater or cultural arts center. Should the citizens reject this
additional tax, it will not have a fiscal impact.
Should the citizens approve of the tax, it should be noted that DOR is not involved in the
collection of this sales tax. This is a local tax, and the local political subdivision is responsible
for the collection and administration of this tax. Therefore, this will not fiscally impact DOR.
DOR defers to Camden County for an estimate of the amount of tax they may collect.
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 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 13 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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.
Section 79.235 - Residency Requirements of a City of the Fourth Classification
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 assume the
proposal will have no fiscal impact on their respective organizations. Oversight does not have
any information to the contrary. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note
for these agencies.
Oversight 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.
Section 94.838 Village of Lamar Heights
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this proposal allows the Village of
Lamar Heights to change their 2% local sales tax from being allowed for construction,
maintenance and operation of capital improvements to being allowed to also use it for emergency
services and public safety. DOR notes the Village of Lamar Heights will continue with their 2%
sales tax and therefore this will not have a fiscal impact.
Officials from the Department of Revenue assume the provision will have no fiscal impact on
their organization.
Oversight notes this proposal allows the City of Lamar Heights to use their local tax collections
for emergency services and public safety. Oversight notes Lamar Heights already has the
authority for the tax. Oversight assumes this proposal simply updates the description of Lamar
Heights and expands what the city may use the proceeds for to include emergency services and
public safety. Therefore, Oversight assumes no fiscal impact from the proposal. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 14 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Section 94.900 - Public Safety Sales Tax(es)
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) 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.
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 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 15 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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.
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 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 16 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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
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. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 17 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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
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
City of Richmond
The legislation states any city with more than five thousand six hundred but fewer than six
thousand three hundred inhabitants that is a county seat with more than twenty-two thousand but
fewer than twenty-five thousand inhabitants can impose a sales tax for public safety services.
DOR believes that the City of Richmond is the one allowed the sales tax. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 18 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
DOR records show that the City of Richmond has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$24,964,469.25$28,091,507.09$27,102,776.03$27,978,039.19$108,136,791.562021$28,893,422.35$29,753,520.24$29,480,584.74$31,288,951.76$119,416,479.092022$29,693,490.31$31,698,332.36$32,037,452.89$34,606,387.89$128,035,663.452023$32,951,834.52$33,190,461.03$31,715,577.35$33,881,323.38$131,739,196.28
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 Richmond would
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal Sales
Total
CollectionsDOR 1% Fee
Final
Collection
2026$139,802,689$699,013$6,990$692,0232027$142,598,743$712,994$7,130$705,8642028$145,450,718$727,254$7,273$719,981
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.
Richmond1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$4,753$470,5762028$7,273$719,981*Effective Date 8/28/2025
City of Warrensburg
The legislation states any city with more than eighteen thousand but fewer than twenty thousand
inhabitants that is a county seat with more than fifty thousand but fewer than sixty thousand
inhabitants can impose a sales tax for public safety services. DOR believes that the City of
Warrensburg is the one allowed the sales tax. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 19 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
DOR records show that the City of Warrensburg has taxable sales of:
Fiscal Year Jul-SeptOct-DecJan-MarApril- JuneTotal2020$80,103,027.90$86,221,680.94$87,312,766.30$85,078,383.10$338,715,858.242021$87,555,011.38$94,341,177.97$97,669,163.11$98,618,688.24$378,184,040.702022$91,030,341.09$101,028,137.15$105,495,883.35$107,249,462.02$404,803,823.612023$102,087,078.95$106,324,491.79$105,760,533.25$107,724,067.42$421,896,171.41
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 Warrensburg would
collect, and the fee retained by DOR as:
Fiscal YearTotal Sales
Total
CollectionsDOR 1% Fee
Final
Collection
2026$447,719,592$2,238,598$22,386$2,216,2122027$456,673,984$2,283,370$22,834$2,260,5362028$465,807,464$2,329,037$23,290$2,305,747
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.
Warrensburg1/2 of 1% Tax Fiscal YearDOR 1%Local Collection2026$0 $0 2027 (8 months)$15,222$1,507,0242028$23,290$2,305,747*Effective Date 8/28/2025
If any of these cities pass a sales tax the Department will need to make changes to the
department’s 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.
Oversight notes DOR anticipates administrative costs of ($7,328) per city that passes the sales
tax. Therefore, Oversight will show a range of potential costs to DOR of $0 (not approved by
voters) up to ($43,968) ($7,328 x 6 cities). L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 20 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Section 94.961 - Wentzville Transient Guest Tax
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows the City of Wentzville 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.
Oversight assumes this proposal authorizes the City of Wentzville, upon voter approval, to enact
a transient guest tax of at least 2% but not more than 5% per occupied room per night for general
revenue 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 the City of Wentzville. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval) or
unknown revenue impact for this proposal.
Section 94.1016 Arrow Rock Transient Guest Tax.
Officials from the Department of Revenue (DOR) note this allows the Village of Arrow Rock
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.
Oversight assumes this proposal authorizes the Village of Arrow Rock, upon voter approval, to
enact a transient guest tax. 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 the Village of Arrow Rock. Therefore, Oversight will reflect a $0 (no voter approval)
or unknown revenue impact for this proposal.
Section 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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 21 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP: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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 22 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP: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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 23 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP: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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 24 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP: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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 25 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP: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. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 26 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Sections 140.170 & 140.190 - Auctions for Land with Delinquent Property Taxes
Oversight notes this bill allows a county collector to hold an auction of lands with delinquent
property taxes through electronic media at the same time as said auction is held in-person.
Oversight assumes this provision will have no fiscal impact state or local revenues. Therefore,
Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies.
Section 205.971 - County Developmental Disability Resource Board Tax Levies
Officials from the Department of Mental Health (DMH) note this proposal modifies provisions
governing the use of county developmental disability resource board tax levies. Section 205.971
is regarding the use of county developmental disability resource board tax levies. All funds
collected for the purpose of establishing and maintaining the county or city sheltered workshop,
residence, facility or related services shall be deposited in a special fund. Deposits in the fund
shall be expended only upon approval of the board as follows: 1) board-approved expenditures
shall include funds for the operations and maintenance of sheltered workshops that are compliant
with board funding request requirements 2) no board of directors shall require additional
certifications or requirements for a compliant and credentialed applicant that are contrary to, or
not currently required by, rules and standards developed and adopted by DESE for the operation
of a sheltered workshop and 3) this section shall not be construed to prohibit board expenditures
from being used for the purposes of residence, facility or related services in addition to using
board expenditures for the establishment or maintenance of the county or city sheltered
workshop.
In general, county boards use their tax levy dollars to support a variety of services for people
with developmental disabilities in their local communities. County boards are the primary payer
of tax-supported services that are not Medicaid eligible. Additionally, some county boards also
support state share of match for Medicaid services. FY25 projections show SB 40 boards paying
in approximately $1.4M in Medicaid match payments for targeted case management and
Partnership for Hope waiver. Any re-direction of tax levy dollars may reduce Medicaid services
or limit a county board from keeping up with inflationary growth. If county SB 40 boards and
mill tax boards can no longer support their Medicaid obligations, DMH will need additional
funding to continue supporting individuals accessing services as these dollars will no longer be
available for state match.
Behavioral Health (DBH) has local match funding that supports services in designated counties.
This could impact adult mental health and substance use disorder populations in the counties that
have county tax match programs. Loss of county tax match funds for DBH services is estimated
to be $1,858,547 annually.
The Department of Mental Health estimates the fiscal impact to be approximately $3,258,547 for
FY26, FY27, and FY28 to cover Medicaid match payments which is based on FY25 projections. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 27 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
It is assumed this amount would increase due to inflationary growth; therefore, the fiscal impact
may increase but hard to determine at this time.
Oversight is uncertain if county boards would no longer be able to use funds for Medicaid
obligations as noted by DMH. For purposes of this note, Oversight will assume this is
speculative and will not reflect the impact in the fiscal note. If this assumption is incorrect, this
would alter the fiscal impact as presented in this fiscal note.
In response to a similar proposal from 2024, (HCS for HB 1564), officials from the Department
of Elementary and Secondary Education 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.
In response to a similar proposal from 2024, (HCS for HB 1564), officials from the Callaway
County SB 40 Board assume a fiscal impact of an indeterminate amount.
Sections 221.400, 221.402, 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.
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. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 28 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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.
Section 251.034 - Regional Planning Commissions
Oversight notes the Regional Planning Commissions receive funds from the Office of
Administration and are required to be matched with local funds. This proposal doubles those
limits and also provides for adjustments with the consumer price index beginning January 1,
2025. Oversight will reflect amounts “Up to” the proposed new amounts as these are caps, not
actual appropriations. Oversight will use an inflation rate of 2% to calculate the amounts for FY
2026 and beyond. Oversight notes the appropriation in the current budget cycle (Perfected HB 5
– Section 5.305) is $560,000, so there may not be additional fiscal impact in FY 2025.
Regional Planning CommissionCurrent Cap on
Funding
Proposed Cap on
Funding
East-West$65,000$130,000Mid-American Regional Council$65,000$130,000South Central Ozark$25,000$50,000Ozark Foothills$25,000$50,000Green Hills$25,000$50,000Bootheel$25,000$50,000Mark Twain$25,000$50,000Southeast Missouri$25,000$50,000Boonslick$25,000$50,000Northwest Missouri$25,000$50,000Mid-Missouri$25,000$50,000Kaysinger Basin$25,000$50,000Lake of the Ozark$25,000$50,000Meramec$25,000$50,000Northeast Missouri$25,000$50,000Harry S. Truman $25,000$50,000MO-Kan $25,000$50,000 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 29 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Pioneer Trails $25,000$50,000Southwest Missouri $25,000$50,000Total$555,000$1,110,000
Oversight notes the actual state expenditures for the Regional Planning Commissions have been:
FY 2021 $291,000
FY 2022 $388,000
FY 2023 $543,200
Section 311.094 - Entertainment Districts
Oversight notes this provision grants a lakefront entertainment district special license that allows
the sale of intoxicating liquor by the drink for retail consumption dispensed from one or more
portable bars within the common areas of the entertainment district.
Oversight assumes this provision would impact qualifying businesses in an entertainment
district within the City of Lake Ozark.
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.
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Officials from the Office of Attorney General (AGO)
arising from this proposal can be absorbed with existing resources. The AGO may seek
additional appropriations if the proposal results in a significant increase in litigation or
investigation costs.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) defers to the local
and county governments for the fiscal impact of the various sales taxes imposed by this request
and any procedural changes to county operations. 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.
Officials from the Department of Corrections, Department of Public Safety, City of Kansas
City, Jackson County Election Board, Platte County Board of Elections, St. Louis City
Board of Elections, St. Louis County Board of Elections, Clay County Auditor, City of
Osceola, and the Phelps County Sheriff each assume the proposal will have no fiscal impact on
their respective organizations. Oversight does not have any information to the contrary.
Therefore, Oversight will reflect a zero impact in the fiscal note for these agencies. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 30 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Rule Promulgation
Officials from the Joint Committee on Administrative Rules assume this proposal is not
anticipated to cause a fiscal impact beyond its current appropriation.
Officials from the Office of the Secretary of State (SOS) note many bills considered by the
General Assembly include provisions allowing or requiring agencies to submit rules and
regulations to implement the act. The SOS is provided with core funding to handle a certain
amount of normal activity resulting from each year's legislative session. The fiscal impact for
this fiscal note to the SOS for Administrative Rules is less than $5,000. The SOS recognizes that
this is a small amount and does not expect that additional funding would be required to meet
these costs. However, the SOS also recognizes that many such bills may be passed by the
General Assembly in a given year and that collectively the costs may be in excess of what the
office can sustain with its core budget. Therefore, the SOS reserves the right to request funding
for the cost of supporting administrative rules requirements should the need arise based on a
review of the finally approved bills signed by the governor.
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUEPotential Revenue Gain - §67.597 -
Bates County - DOR 1% Collection Fee
if approved by voters - p. (7)$0
$0 or up to
$10,079
$0 or up to
$15,421
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
DOR 1% Collection Fee - Joplin, if
approved by voters - p. (14)$0
$0 or up to
$61,755
$0 or up to
$94,485
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Hannibal - DOR 1% Collection
Fee if approved by voters - p. (15)$0
$0 or up to
$14,449
$0 or up to
$22,108
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Sikeston - DOR 1% Collection
Fee if approved by voters - p. (15)$0
$0 or up to
$14,358
$0 or up to
$21,967
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Moberly - DOR 1% Collection
Fee if approved by voters - p. (16)$0
$0 or up to
$10,921
$0 or up to
$16,710 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 31 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Richmond - DOR 1%
Collection Fee if approved by voters -
p. (17)$0
$0 or up to
$4,753
$0 or up to
$7,273
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Warrensburg - DOR 1%
Collection Fee if approved by voters -
p. (18)$0
$0 or up to
$15,222
$0 or up to
$23,290
Potential Revenue Loss - §105.145 -
DOR - 2% of collection fee on future
potential fines no longer assessed
because LPS no longer required to file
due to changes in the bill - p.(24)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Potential Revenue Loss - §105.145 -
DOR – 2% collection fee that may have
been collected if not for the one-time
decrease of 90% of the outstanding
balance from the local political
subdivision if they submit a timely
financial statement by 1/01/23 - p. (24)
$0 or up to
($3,679,266)$0$0
Revenues - §§221.400, 221.402,
221.405, 221.407 & 221.410 - DOR -
1% administration fee on sales tax
collection - p. (26)$0
$0 or
Unknown,
could exceed
$10,074
$0 or
Unknown,
could exceed
$15,111
Transfer Out – §251.034 - to Regional
Planning Commissions - p. (27)
$0 or up to
($555,000)
$0 or up to
($577,200)
$0 or up to
($599,844)
Costs - DOR - Sales tax updates to
implement the proposal($80,608)$0 $0
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE
$0 or
unknown,
greater or less
than
($4,314,874)
$0 or
unknown,
greater or less
than
($435,589)
$0 or
unknown,
greater or less
than
($383,479) L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 32 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Cost - §§50.327 & 58.095 - Counties -
potential salary increases for county
coroners - p. (4)
$0 or up to
($1,526,000)
$0 or up to
($1,526,000)
$0 or up to
($1,526,000)
Cost - §50.327.4 - Counties -
adjustment on base schedules for
county officials - p. (5)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Savings - §50.815 - in publication costs
on financials posted in a newspaper of
general circulation - p. (5)
Could exceed
$100,000
Could exceed
$100,000
Could exceed
$100,000
Cost - §57.317 - Boone County Sheriff
- potential increase in salary - p. (6)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
$0 or
(Unknown)
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.597 -
Bates County - Sales Tax for Operation
of Hospital if approved by voters - p.
(7) $0
$0 or up to
$997,839
$0 or up to
$1,526,694
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1003 -
City of Cottleville - Potential income
from transient guest tax if
voters - p. (10)
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1003 -
City of Weldon Spring - Potential
income from transient guest tax if
approved by voters - p. (10)
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1009 -
City of Knob Noster - Potential income
from transient guest tax if
voters - p. (10)$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 33 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1013 -
City of Harrisonville - Potential income
from transient guest tax if
voters - p. (10)$0$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1013 -
City of Jackson - Potential income from
transient guest tax if approved by voters
- p. (10)$0$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1018 -
New Madrid County - Potential income
from transient guest tax if
voters - p.(11)$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1360 -
City of Richmond - Potential income
from transient guest tax if
voters - p.(11)$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1367 -
Ste Genevieve County - Potential
income from transient guest tax if
approved by voters - p.(12)
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.1367 -
Perry County - Potential income from
transient guest tax if approved by voters
- p.(12)
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §67.2500 -
Camden County - Potential income
from cultural arts district sales tax if
approved by voters - p.(12)
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
$0 or
Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Joplin - Potential income from
Public Safety Sales Tax if approved by
voters - p. (14)$0
$0 or up to
$6,113,733
$0 or up to
$9,354,011 L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 34 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Hannibal - Potential income
from Public Safety Sales Tax if
approved by voters - p. (15)$0
$0 or up to
$1,430,489
$0 or up to
$2,188,649
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Sikeston - Potential income
from Public Safety Sales Tax if
approved by voters - p. (15)$0
$0 or up to
$1,421,410
$0 or up to
$2,174,757
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Moberly - Potential income
from Public Safety Sales Tax if
approved by voters - p. (16)$0
$0 or up to
$1,081,226
$0 or up to
$1,654,277
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Richmond - Potential income
from Public Safety Sales Tax if
approved by voters - p. (17)$0
$0 or up to
$470,576
$0 or up to
$719,981
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.900 -
City of Warrensburg - Potential income
from Public Safety Sales Tax if
approved by voters - p. (18)$0
$0 or up to
$1,507,024
$0 or up to
$2,305,747
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.961 -
City of Wentzville - Potential income
from transient guest tax if
voters - p. (19)$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Potential Revenue Gain - §94.961 -
Village of Arrow Rock - Potential
income from transient guest tax if
approved by voters - p. (19)$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown$0 or Unknown
Potential Savings - §105.145 - on
potential fines for certain LPS - p. (24)$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown$0 to Unknown L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 35 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028Potential Loss - §105.145 - School
districts receiving less fine revenue
(from savings above) - p. (24)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
Potential Savings - §105.145 - on fine
revenue that is reduced with a one-time
reduction of 90% on the outstanding
balance due if they submit a timely
financial statement by 8/28/25 - p. (24)
$0 or up to
$183,963,308$0$0
Potential Loss - §105.145 - School
Districts - reduction in fine revenue
from one-time adjustment of fine
revenue - p. (24)
$0 or up to
($180,284,042)$0$0
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. (26)$0
$0 or
Unknown,
could exceed
$1,007,383
$0 or
Unknown,
could exceed
$1,511,075
Transfer In - §251.034 - Regional
Planning Commissions - from General
Revenue - p. (27)
$0 or up to
$555,000
$0 or up to
$577,200
$0 or up to
$599,844
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
$0 or
unknown,
greater or less
than
$2,808,266
$0 or
unknown,
greater or less
than
$13,180,880
$0 or
unknown,
greater or less
than
$20,609,035
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
Certain small businesses may need to collect additional tax(es) as a result of this proposal.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
The proposed legislation modifies provisions relating to political subdivisions. L.R. No. 1324H.02I
Bill No. HB 532
Page 36 of 36
March 25, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
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 Revenue (DOR)
Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P)
Department of Commerce and Insurance
Missouri Ethics Commission
Department of Mental Health (DMH)
Department of Corrections
Department of Public Safety
Department of Elementary and Secondary Education
Office of the Secretary of State
Joint Committee on Administrative Rules
Office of Attorney General (AGO)
City of Kansas City
Callaway County SB 40 Board
Christian County Auditor’s Office
Henry County
Lincoln County
Livingston County
Jackson County Election Board
Platte County Board of Elections
St. Louis City Board of Elections
St. Louis County Board of Elections
Clay County Auditor
Phelps County Sheriff
City of Osceola
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorMarch 25, 2025March 25, 2025