Extends the sunset date on various fees collected by the secretary of state
Summary
HB 770 extends the authority of the Missouri Secretary of State to collect additional fees on a range of filings and services under several chapters of state law, including business entity filings, corporate registration reports, and other secretary-of-state-administered fees. The bill keeps in place a $5 surcharge on most covered fees and a $10 surcharge on corporate registration report filings under section 351.122, with the money deposited into the Secretary of State’s technology trust fund account.
The bill does not create a new fee structure so much as continue an existing one by moving the sunset date from December 31, 2026 to December 31, 2030. In practical terms, it preserves a funding stream for technology-related expenses in the Secretary of State’s office and affects entities and individuals who pay filing fees under the listed chapters.
Impact
HB 770 amends multiple Missouri statutes by repealing and reenacting fee provisions in chapters 347, 351, 355, 356, 359, 400, and 417 to extend the sunset on the Secretary of State’s additional fee authority from 2026 to 2030. The bill preserves the deposit of all collected surcharges into the state treasury for credit to the Secretary of State’s technology trust fund account, thereby continuing the funding mechanism for office technology needs and affecting filers subject to those statutory fees.
Sentiment
The available voting history suggests strong support for the bill, with the House passing third reading on a 147-6 vote. No committee transcript is available, but the broad margin indicates the measure was generally viewed favorably as a routine extension of an existing fee authority rather than a controversial policy change.
Contention
The main point of potential contention is the continued imposition of additional fees on filings and reports, which directly affects businesses and other filers subject to the covered chapters. Opponents may object to extending a surcharge that increases the cost of compliance, while supporters likely view the fees as a necessary and limited source of funding for the Secretary of State’s technology infrastructure. The narrow set of no votes suggests any opposition was limited and likely centered on fee burden rather than the underlying administrative purpose.