SB 6 revises Missouri’s property tax assessment law, centered on reducing the percentage used to assess personal property for taxation. Under the bill, beginning January 1, 2026, political subdivisions would gradually lower the assessment rate on personal property so that the revenue generated from personal property taxes tracks the growth in real property assessment revenue, with the reduction process continuing through 2074 and then freezing at that later rate. The bill also preserves the existing 33 1/3 percent assessment for certain constitutional purposes, such as the levy under Article III, Section 38(b), and provides for state reimbursement to political subdivisions that lose revenue because of the reduction, subject to appropriations.
The bill also updates and reorganizes several existing property tax provisions. It keeps the current framework for real property assessment classes, manufactured homes, assessment maintenance plans, physical inspections before large assessment increases, and tax collection methods such as credit card and electronic payments. It also modifies the guidance assessors must use for valuing motor vehicles by allowing nationally recognized automotive publications selected by the State Tax Commission, and it adds a new limitation for motor vehicles with a true value under $50,000 as of January 1, 2025, preventing an increase over the prior year’s assessment if the vehicle was properly assessed previously. The bill further retains special rules for agricultural property, historic vehicles, solar equipment, enterprise-zone equipment, and mining-related property.
In practical terms, SB 6 would change state law by lowering the taxable assessment base for personal property over time, which would likely reduce property tax bills on personal property for taxpayers while shifting pressure onto local governments and the state to absorb or offset lost revenue. Counties, cities, school districts, and other political subdivisions that rely on personal property tax receipts would be directly affected, and the bill creates a state reimbursement mechanism intended to make up shortfalls, though only if funds are appropriated. Assessors would also face new valuation rules for motor vehicles and continued requirements for physical inspections before substantial increases in residential assessments.
The available context shows no recorded committee transcript or vote history, so there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize from the provided materials. Based on the bill’s caption and structure, the measure appears generally taxpayer-friendly, especially for owners of personal property and motor vehicles, but potentially less favorable to local taxing authorities that depend on personal property tax revenue. Because the bill includes state reimbursement language, it also suggests an attempt to balance taxpayer relief with local fiscal concerns.
The main point of contention is likely the revenue impact: supporters would likely emphasize tax relief and a more restrained growth in personal property taxation, while opponents may focus on reduced local revenue, uncertainty around state reimbursement, and the long phase-in period that could complicate budgeting and tax administration. Another possible area of debate is the motor vehicle assessment change, which limits assessor discretion and may be viewed as protecting taxpayers from higher valuations, but could also be criticized by assessors as constraining accurate market-based assessments.
SB 6 would amend section 137.115, RSMo, the core statute governing property tax assessments, by creating a long-term reduction schedule for personal property assessment percentages beginning in 2026 and by revising related valuation rules for motor vehicles, manufactured homes, and certain special property subclasses. It would also preserve and renumber existing provisions on real property assessment, physical inspections, assessment maintenance plans, tax collection methods, and opt-out authority for certain counties and cities. Local political subdivisions, assessors, and taxpayers would all be affected, with the bill likely reducing personal property tax revenue and increasing the importance of state reimbursement and assessment administration.
The provided record contains no committee discussion or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of recorded support or opposition. From the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be framed as tax relief, particularly for owners of personal property, which suggests a generally favorable posture among supporters of lower taxes. At the same time, the bill’s revenue-reduction effects and reimbursement provisions indicate that local governments and taxing districts would likely view it more cautiously or negatively.
The central controversy is fiscal: reducing the personal property assessment percentage would lower tax bills for property owners but could reduce revenue for counties, cities, school districts, and other taxing jurisdictions. Supporters are likely to argue that the bill provides predictable tax relief and reins in assessment growth, while opponents are likely to argue that it shifts costs to local governments and depends on uncertain state reimbursement. A secondary point of contention is the new motor vehicle valuation rule, which limits assessors’ ability to raise values without physical inspection and caps increases for lower-value vehicles, a change that taxpayers may welcome but assessors may see as restrictive.