COMMITTEE ON LEGISLATIVE RESEARCH
OVERSIGHT DIVISION
FISCAL NOTE
L.R. No.:2152S.01I Bill No.:SB 599 Subject:Taxation and Revenue - Property Type:Original Date:April 4, 2025Bill Summary:This proposal modifies provisions relating to property taxes.
FISCAL SUMMARY
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON GENERAL REVENUE FUNDFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028General Revenue*$0UnknownUnknownTotal Estimated Net
Effect on General
Revenue $0UnknownUnknown
*Oversight assumes the fiscal impact could exceed the $250,000 threshold.
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON OTHER STATE FUNDSFUND AFFECTEDFY 2026FY 2027FY 2028Blind Pension Fund
(0621)* $0(Unknown)(Unknown)
Total Estimated Net
Effect on Other State
Funds $0(Unknown)(Unknown)
*Oversight assumes the fiscal impact could exceed the $250,000 threshold.
Numbers within parentheses: () indicate costs or losses. L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 2 of
April 4, 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(Unknown)(Unknown) L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 3 of
April 4, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL ANALYSIS
ASSUMPTION
Responses regarding the proposed legislation as a whole
Officials from the State Tax Commission assume this has a possible negative fiscal impact on
local taxing jurisdictions such as school districts, counties, cities who rely on property tax
assessments as a source of revenue. Under the criteria of SB 599, all properties with an
assessment percentage above the counties ratio study percentage could appeal their assessment to
the Board of Equalization who would be required to lower the value to equal the ratio study
percentage. Approximately half of the properties could qualify for the reduction so this could
lead to a significant reduction on revenue for the local taxing jurisdictions.
Officials from the Office of Administration - Budget and Planning (B&P) note Section
137.132 would allow a property owner to appeal their property tax assessment for real property
in subclasses (1) and (3) if the ratio of assessed value to true value is greater than the average
ratio determined during an assessment ration study.
This provision would apply to all real property excluding agriculture and horticulture, which are
in subclass (2). B&P notes that based on data published by STC, residential real property
accounted for 54.52% and commercial real property accounted for 20.16% of all property taxes
paid in 2023.
B&P further notes that an average ratio is determined by averaging all the assessments to market
value across an area. Therefore, half of all property owners would qualify for an assessment
reduction under this proposal.
The Blind Pension Trust Fund levies a statewide property tax of $0.03 per $100 valuation. B&P
estimates that this proposal could significantly reduce revenues to the Blind Pension Trust Fund
as well as local property tax funds.
In response to a somewhat similar proposal this year, (SB 87), officials from the Department of
Revenue (DOR) noted the Department of Revenue administers the Senior Property tax credit
(PTC) that gives seniors a tax credit for the amount of residential property tax paid or the amount
of property tax paid as part of their rent.
Here is the amount claimed each of the last three years.
Tax Year Number of Filers Amount Claimed
2021 131,235 $79,049,535
2022 127,132 $73,974,469
2023 104,723 $60,042,965 L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 4 of
April 4, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
If the assessment rate on the property goes down, then the amount of property tax paid goes
down and the amount of the Senior Property Tax Credit that can be claimed would go down.
Since the renter’s credit is based on the total amount of rent paid, and this proposal does not
require rents to decrease, DOR assumes this will not impact the renters claiming the credit.
This proposal is assumed to mostly impact the homeowners. When the homeowner’s residential
property tax is reduced as outlined by this proposal, this would result in a reduction of the
amount of credits being issued. DOR notes the PTC credit is not only based on the amount of
property tax paid but also the income of the taxpayer. Due to how the credit is awarded, DOR is
not able to determine exactly how much this will reduce what can be claimed due to the income
limits on the tax credits. In FY 2023, 46,135 homeowners claimed $26,910,694 in credits.
Oversight assumes this proposal would potentially limit the assessed value of individual
properties to the overall level of assessment.
Oversight notes the Blind Pension Fund (0621) is calculated as an annual tax of three cents on
each one hundred dollars valuation of taxable property ((Total Assessed Value/100)*.03).
Because this proposal limits the assessed value portion of this equation, the Blind Pension Fund
will experience a decrease in revenue relative to what it would have received under current law.
Per the STC’s website, total assessed value for residential property was $82,783,490,689 in
2024. If this proposal reduced the total assessed value by 1.5%, the loss to the blind pension fund
is estimated at ($372,526).
Total Assessed Value (Current)$82,783,490,689Total Assessed Value if reduced by 1.5% (example)$81,541,738,329Difference($1,241,752,360)Divided by 100($12,417,524)Multiplied by 0.03 (Estimated Changed)($372,526)
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 higher tax rate
relative to current law thus distributing more of the tax burden to other property owners.
Some taxing entities have tax rate ceilings that are at their statutory or voter approved maximum.
For these taxing entities, any decrease in the assessed values would not be offset by a higher tax
rate rather it would result in a loss of revenue.
Oversight assumes there could be costs for implementation and computer programming.
Oversight will show an unknown cost to county assessors to implement this proposal beginning
in FY 2027. L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 5 of
April 4, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
Oversight assumes there could be a saving to General Revenue from a reduction the amount of
Senior Citizen Property Tax Credits claimed. Oversight will show a range of impact of $0 (no
reduction) to an unknown savings. Oversight estimates a 1% reduction in the 2023 FY credit
amount would equal about $269,107, therefore Oversight assumes this fiscal impact could
exceed the $250,000 threshold.
Oversight a will show a negative unknown reduction in revenue to the Blind Pension Fund and
local political subdivisions beginning in FY 2027.
Oversight assumes there could be an unknown negative fiscal impact on 1
st
class charter
counties and St. Louis City for increased reimbursements to taxpayers for property tax appeals.
Oversight a will show a range of impact of $0 (no additional cost) to an unknown cost beginning
in FY 2027.
Officials from the Department of Social Services assume the proposal will have no fiscal
impact on their organization.
Officials from the City of Kansas City assume the proposed legislation has a negative fiscal
impact of an indeterminate amount.
Oversight only reflects the responses received from state agencies and political subdivisions;
however, other local political subdivisions were requested to respond to this proposed legislation
but did not. A listing of political subdivisions included in the Missouri Legislative Information
System (MOLIS) database is available upon request. L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 6 of
April 4, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – State GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028GENERAL REVENUECost Avoidance - §137.132 - Reduction
in property tax credit redemptions if
taxpayers pay less in property taxes $0UnknownUnknown
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
GENERAL REVENUE$0UnknownUnknown
BLIND PENSION FUNDRevenue Loss - §137.132 - from a
change in assessed value $0(Unknown)(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
THE BLIND PENSION FUND$0(Unknown)(Unknown)
FISCAL IMPACT – Local GovernmentFY 2026
(10 Mo.)
FY 2027FY 2028LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS
Revenue Loss - §137.132 - from a
change in assessed value $0(Unknown)(Unknown)
Costs - County Assessors - computer
programing, administrative costs, and
implementation of proposal$0(Unknown)(Unknown)
Costs - 1
st
class charter counties/St.
Louis City - §138.434 - increase in
reimbursement limits $0
$0 to
(Unknown)
$0 to
(Unknown)
ESTIMATED NET EFFECT ON
LOCAL POLITICAL
SUBDIVISIONS$0(Unknown)(Unknown) L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 7 of
April 4, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
FISCAL IMPACT – Small Business
There could be a fiscal impact to small businesses if tax rates are adjusted relative to changes in
assessed value.
FISCAL DESCRIPTION
This act modifies provisions relating to property taxes.
PROPERTY TAX ASSESSMENTS
This act provides that if the common level of assessment, as defined in the act, in a subclass is
lower than the individual level of assessment, as defined in the act, of any parcel in such
subclass, then the individual level of assessment for such parcel shall be reduced to the common
level of assessment. Such reduction shall be made upon an appeal by the taxpayer. (Section
137.132)
PROPERTY TAX APPEALS
Current law provides that, in any appeal in which an assessor fails to provide evidence of a
physical inspection required by law, the taxpayer shall prevail as a matter of law. This act also
provides that the assessor's increased assessed valuation shall be void in its entirety and the
previous assessed valuation shall be applied. (Section 138.060)
Current law authorizes any first class charter county or city not within a county to require, by
ordinance or charter, the reimbursement of just and reasonable appraisal costs, attorney fees, and
court costs resulting from hearings before the State Tax Commission for taxpayer appeals of
property assessments. This act requires such reimbursements. This act also increases the
maximum amount of fees to be reimbursed from $1,000 to $5,000 for residential property
appeals, and from $4,000 to $5,000 for utility, industrial railroad, or other subclass three property
appeals. (Section 138.434)
PROTESTED PROPERTY TAXES
Current law requires a taxpayer to file a written protest of property taxes with the collector at the
same time such taxpayer makes full payment of such taxes. This act repeals such requirement.
This act also provides that the interest due to a taxpayer whose protested taxes were distributed
to a taxing authority shall be calculated from the date that the protested taxes were distributed to
the taxing authority through the date of the refund
.
Any taxpayer determined by a circuit court or the State Tax Commission to be entitled to a
refund of property taxes shall receive such refund from the collector within thirty days of the
final determination of the refund amount by the circuit court or State Tax Commission. If such L.R. No. 2152S.01I
Bill No. SB 599
Page 8 of
April 4, 2025
KLP:LR:OD
refund is not issued within thirty days, the taxpayer shall be entitled to interest on the refund as
calculated under current law. (Section 139.031)
This legislation is not federally mandated, would not duplicate any other program and would not
require additional capital improvements or rental space.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Office of Administration - Budget and Planning
State Tax Commission
Department of Social Services
City of Kansas City
Julie MorffJessica HarrisDirectorAssistant DirectorApril 4, 2025April 4, 2025