Bill to lower personal property assessment rate to 30% draws fire over local revenue shift
Loading...
Summary
House Bill 1759 proposes lowering the assessed valuation rate for many personal-property categories from 33 1/3% to 30%, which sponsors say will return part of a multi-year surplus to taxpayers while assessors warn it will shift revenue to homeowners and strain rural districts; witnesses gave conflicting fiscal estimates and raised concerns about school and special-district funding.
Lawmakers in a special House committee discussed House Bill 1759 on Jan. 22, which would change the statewide assessment rate for many classes of personal property from 33 1/3% to 30% of true market value.
Sponsor's case: The sponsor framed the bill as partial relief to return revenue collected during an apparent multi-year valuation "windfall," saying vehicles alone generated roughly $350 million annually and that rolling the assessment rate back to 30% would produce a meaningful reduction in taxable value; he cited a fiscal-note estimate implying an initial-year revenue effect around $200 million.
Who would benefit and who would lose: Committee members pressed whether the change would mainly help individual taxpayers or provide relief to corporate fleets and utilities. Kenny Moore, Boone County Assessor (testifying informationally for the Missouri State Assessors Association), warned the proposal would shift tax burden onto homeowners and businesses in many taxing jurisdictions because local levies would be set on higher combined assessed bases unless taxing districts voluntarily adjust rates. He noted that in large counties personal property often represents a small share of revenue but in small rural counties it can be up to 40% of property-tax revenue.
Other testimony: Business groups and a state public advocate expressed support; Arnie c, a state public advocate, urged abolishing personal-property tax entirely or moving it to a sales or real-estate base while warning the Blind Pension Fund must remain funded. Opponents and some members argued the proposal could leave volunteer fire, ambulance and other small districts short of necessary funds.
Procedural and fiscal questions: Members asked whether the change would apply to special classes of personal property (livestock, farm machinery, manufactured homes) and whether the blind pension fund and other constitutionally or statutorily backed funds would be protected; the sponsor said the bill as written would not change special-class treatment but that the fiscal note addresses blind pension estimates.
Status: The committee received testimony from assessors, business groups and other stakeholders; no committee vote was recorded.