HB 780 revises Missouri’s property tax assessment laws, with a major focus on residential real property. The bill keeps existing assessment rules for most property, but adds a new optional system for owner-occupied primary residences beginning January 1, 2026. Under that option, the assessed value of a qualifying home would generally stay at the most recent assessed value, or at the most recent purchase price after a sale, unless new construction or improvements add at least 50% to the property’s assessed value. Homeowners would have to opt in by notifying the assessor, and assessors would be required to adjust values when notified of qualifying improvements.
The bill also expands and clarifies several assessment and notice requirements. It strengthens rules for when assessors must conduct a physical inspection before raising the assessed value of certain residential property by more than 15%, requires written notice of inspection rights, and specifies that a drive-by inspection alone is not enough. It updates notice provisions so taxpayers receive more detailed information about projected tax liability, tax rates, taxing subdivisions, and assessment methods. The bill also authorizes assessors to mail personal property assessment forms, allows counties and cities to accept credit card and electronic payments with limited fees, and preserves or clarifies existing assessment rules for manufactured homes, motor vehicles, agricultural property, mining reserve property, and certain airport-related possessory interests.
HB 780 would significantly affect state and local tax administration by changing how some residential property is valued for assessment purposes and by adding procedural requirements for assessors and collectors. It would also interact with county and city tax rates, board of equalization review, and state tax commission oversight. In practical terms, the bill could limit assessment growth for participating homeowners, reduce the frequency of reassessments for those properties, and shift some administrative burden onto assessors and counties to track elections, improvements, notices, and projected tax liability disclosures.
The general sentiment reflected in the voting history appears supportive but divided. The bill advanced with substantial House majorities on both perfection and third reading, indicating broad backing for the overall concept of property tax relief or assessment stability. At the same time, the notable number of nays suggests meaningful concern among some members about the bill’s effects on local revenue, assessment equity, and administrative complexity. No committee transcript excerpts were provided, so the available record shows support strong enough to pass the House, but not unanimity.
The main points of contention likely center on the optional primary-residence assessment freeze, which could benefit homeowners who opt in while creating different treatment between similarly situated properties. Another likely issue is the impact on local governments and school districts that rely on property tax revenue, since limiting assessed value growth can constrain future collections. The bill’s detailed notice and inspection requirements may also raise administrative concerns for assessors and counties, especially regarding implementation timing, software, and compliance with the new valuation and disclosure rules.
HB 780 repeals and reenacts sections 137.115, 137.180, and 137.355, RSMo, and would materially change Missouri property tax assessment procedures. It creates an optional valuation regime for owner-occupied primary residences, adds new reassessment limits tied to sale price and major improvements, and expands notice, inspection, and disclosure obligations for assessors and counties. It also affects manufactured homes, personal property assessment forms, payment processing for tax collections, and certain local opt-out and tax-rate provisions.
The House voting record suggests the bill had broad but not unanimous support. It passed perfection 92-46 and third reading 90-56, indicating a clear majority favored the measure, likely because of its property tax relief and assessment-stability features. The size of the opposing vote shows that a substantial minority had reservations, most likely about revenue impacts, fairness among taxpayers, and the administrative burden on local assessment offices.
The most likely contention is over the bill’s optional freeze-like treatment of primary residences, which may be viewed as protecting homeowners but also as creating unequal assessment treatment and reducing local tax base growth. Local governments, school districts, and other taxing entities may be concerned about reduced revenue and the complexity of tracking opt-in elections, sales, and improvement thresholds. Assessors may also object to the added procedural requirements, including physical inspection mandates, expanded notice content, and projected tax liability calculations.