SB 85 revises Missouri law governing how assessors determine and notify property owners about assessed values. The bill requires assessors to consider current market conditions, including foreclosures and bank sales, and directs them to use an income-based valuation method for certain restricted housing properties, such as low-income housing tax credit properties, HOME-funded housing, USDA Rural Development properties, and other subsidized housing. It also limits the use of computer programs, mass appraisal systems, and artificial intelligence in final valuation decisions when a property’s value has increased by more than four percent since the last assessment, requiring an in-person evaluation by knowledgeable county personnel in those cases.
The bill expands and standardizes notice requirements when property values increase. Depending on county type and implementation timing, assessors and counties must notify owners of increased assessed value, projected tax liability, appeal rights, and, in some cases, detailed information about tax rates, taxing subdivisions, tax rate ceilings, and contact information for each taxing authority. In larger charter counties, the bill also requires online disclosure of assessment methods, valuation computations, and supporting third-party documents, while providing contact information for taxpayers who do not have internet access.
The bill’s impact is primarily on property tax administration, assessor practices, and taxpayer notice rights. It would amend sections 137.076, 137.180, and 137.355 of the Missouri Revised Statutes, changing how real and personal property are valued and how assessment increases are communicated to owners. It would particularly affect county assessors, county boards of equalization, property owners, and owners of subsidized or restricted-use housing, while also creating new procedural obligations for counties to estimate and disclose projected tax liability.
Overall sentiment appears generally favorable toward greater transparency and taxpayer protections, based on the bill’s structure and emphasis on clearer notice, more detailed tax information, and limits on automated valuation increases. The bill also reflects concern about assessment accuracy and the use of technology in mass appraisal. No committee transcript or recorded vote history was provided, so there is no direct evidence of opposition or support from debate or roll call votes.
Notable points of contention likely center on the restriction of automated valuation tools, the requirement for in-person review when values rise more than four percent, and the administrative burden of producing detailed projected tax notices. Another possible issue is the mandated income-based valuation approach for subsidized housing, which may be viewed as necessary to reflect actual income restrictions but could also be criticized by assessors or taxing authorities as limiting market-based valuation. The bill also creates implementation timing tied to software from the state tax commission, suggesting practical concerns about readiness and cost.
SB 85 would amend Missouri’s property assessment statutes by changing valuation methods, notice requirements, and disclosure obligations for assessors and counties. It would require income-based valuation for certain restricted or subsidized housing, restrict final use of computer-assisted or AI-based valuations when property values rise more than four percent, and expand the information that must be provided to property owners after an assessment increase. The bill would directly affect county assessors, county boards of equalization, taxing subdivisions, and property owners, especially owners of low-income or subsidized housing and taxpayers in counties subject to the enhanced notice provisions.
The bill’s overall tone is pro-taxpayer and pro-transparency, with a clear emphasis on improving notice, appeal rights, and disclosure of how property values are calculated. Its provisions suggest concern about opaque assessment practices and overreliance on automated valuation systems. Because no committee discussion or vote record was provided, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to report beyond the bill’s apparent policy direction.
The main likely points of contention are the limits on computer programs and artificial intelligence in property valuation, the requirement for in-person review when a valuation increase exceeds four percent, and the added administrative workload for counties to calculate and disclose projected tax liabilities. Stakeholders in assessor offices may object to the operational burden and reduced flexibility, while property owners and taxpayer advocates would likely support the added safeguards. The income-based valuation mandate for subsidized housing may also draw debate between housing advocates, who may see it as necessary for fairness, and taxing authorities, who may view it as constraining assessed value.