Modifies provisions of the urban farm tax credit to include certain specialty crop farms located in a food desert and establishes a tax credit for grocery stores in a food desert
Summary
HB589 revises Missouri’s tax-credit laws to expand incentives for improving food access in underserved areas. The bill repeals the existing urban farm tax credit section and replaces it with two new tax-credit programs: one for establishing or improving urban farms and small-scale specialty crop farms in food deserts, and another for building or opening full-service grocery stores in food deserts. For the urban farm credit, taxpayers may claim 50% of eligible expenses, subject to per-farm and annual program caps, with carryforward allowed for unused credits. For the grocery store credit, taxpayers may claim 50% of eligible expenses above a threshold amount, with larger credits available for projects in certain counties and cities, and with annual reporting and compliance requirements.
Impact
The bill would amend Chapter 135 by replacing section 135.1610 and adding new section 135.1620, thereby creating new state income tax credits tied to food-access development. It would broaden eligibility beyond urban farms to include small-scale specialty crop farms in food deserts and would add a separate credit for full-service grocery stores in food deserts. The legislation also establishes program caps, recapture provisions, transferability rules, sunset dates, and administrative authority for the Missouri Agricultural and Small Business Development Authority and the Department of Economic Development. In practical terms, the bill would affect taxpayers, farm operators, grocery developers, and charitable organizations undertaking qualifying projects in low-access areas.
Sentiment
The bill’s stated purpose and structure suggest generally favorable sentiment toward encouraging food access, local agriculture, and grocery development in underserved communities. The bill caption frames it as a food-access measure, and the text provides substantial tax incentives and administrative mechanisms to support participation. No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded debate or roll-call evidence here to indicate opposition or support levels beyond the bill’s design.
Contention
The main points of potential contention are fiscal cost, eligibility boundaries, and program design. The bill raises the annual cap for the urban farm credit to $3 million and authorizes up to $22 million annually for the grocery-store credit, which could draw scrutiny over revenue impact and whether the incentives are targeted efficiently. There may also be debate over which projects qualify as food deserts, the distinction between urban and rural areas, the requirement that urban farms be predominantly for sale or donation rather than personal use, and the recapture rules if grocery stores fail to open or remain operational for the required period. Transferability of the grocery-store credit, but not the urban-farm credit, may also be a point of concern or interest among stakeholders.