Missouri Senate Bill SB1646

Missouri 2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/9/26
• Refer: 2/12/26

Caption

SB 1646

Summary

SB 1646 revises Missouri law governing the use of certain municipal tourism tax revenues under sections 94.800 to 94.825, RSMo. The bill repeals and reenacts section 94.815 to clarify how tourism tax receipts must be deposited and spent, keeping the existing structure that all collections go into a special Tourism Tax Trust Fund that is not commingled with other municipal funds. Under the bill, 75% of collected tourism taxes would continue to go to an Infrastructure Account for tourism-related infrastructure and improvements, including streets, sidewalks, roads, parks, water and wastewater systems, solid waste facilities, trails, and other tourism-supporting facilities. The remaining 25% would go to a Tourism Promotion Account for marketing and promotional purposes. The bill also preserves the ability to divert part of the infrastructure share to a Debt Retirement Account when there are outstanding bonds or indebtedness tied to qualifying infrastructure projects, and it continues to require voter approval before a municipality may impose the tax or use it to retire bonds or debt. The bill’s practical effect is to reinforce and more clearly define the permissible uses of tourism tax revenues, especially for infrastructure tied to tourism and multipurpose sports and entertainment venues with seating capacity under 25,000. It would continue to authorize municipalities to use these revenues for construction, maintenance, operation, and debt service related to those facilities, while keeping the tax in addition to other taxes already allowed by law. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate history to indicate strong support or opposition. Based on the bill text and caption, the measure appears largely administrative and clarifying in nature, with its main policy emphasis on preserving local authority to fund tourism infrastructure and promotion through voter-approved taxes. The main point of potential contention is the scope of what qualifies as "tourism infrastructure facilities" and the use of tourism tax revenue for sports and entertainment venues and related debt service. Supporters would likely view the bill as a way to maintain and finance local tourism assets and economic development, while critics could question whether tourism taxes should be used for broader infrastructure or venue-related projects rather than direct tourism promotion.

Impact

SB 1646 would amend section 94.815, RSMo, governing municipal tourism taxes by reaffirming the Tourism Tax Trust Fund structure and specifying how revenues are allocated between infrastructure, debt retirement, and tourism promotion. It would continue to direct 75% of collections to infrastructure-related uses and 25% to marketing and promotional uses, while preserving voter approval requirements and the ability to apply revenues to bonded indebtedness tied to qualifying projects. The bill primarily affects municipalities that levy tourism taxes under sections 94.800 to 94.825 and the public bodies that own or operate eligible tourism-related facilities.

Sentiment

No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative debate or partisan division. From the bill text and caption, the measure appears to be a technical and policy-clarifying update that likely would be viewed favorably by municipalities and tourism interests because it preserves and clarifies a revenue source for infrastructure and promotion. At the same time, the absence of recorded testimony means any opposition or concerns are not documented in the provided materials.

Contention

The likely areas of contention are the breadth of allowable spending and the definition of tourism infrastructure. The bill expressly includes multipurpose sports and entertainment venues under 25,000 seats and related facilities, which could draw scrutiny from those who believe tourism taxes should be limited to more traditional tourism promotion or narrowly defined visitor-serving projects. Another possible point of debate is the use of tourism tax revenues for debt retirement and bond repayment, especially where taxpayers may be asked to support long-term obligations for facilities that also serve local or private interests.