SB 919 is a broad property tax bill that revises Missouri’s property tax classification and assessment rules. It updates definitions for residential, agricultural/horticultural, and commercial/industrial property; adds specific treatment for items such as urban and community gardens, manufactured homes, solar equipment, and certain airport-related property; and changes how assessors classify mixed-use and vacant property. The bill also requires assessors to conduct an in-person consultation, or at least make a documented good-faith effort to contact the owner, before reclassifying real property.
The bill makes several changes to assessment procedures and taxpayer protections. It limits increases in assessed valuation for subclass (1) residential real property to no more than 15 percent since the last assessment, allows property owners to request a physical inspection that may only reduce, not increase, assessed value, and directs assessors to use nationally recognized vehicle valuation guides for motor vehicles. It also preserves and clarifies assessment percentages for different subclasses of real and personal property, including special rules for manufactured homes and certain solar installations.
A major feature of SB 919 is a new property tax credit framework in section 137.1058. Under that section, eligible Missouri residents could receive credits that freeze or limit growth in real property tax liability based on a 2024 initial credit year, with adjustments for annexation, voter-approved levy increases, and new construction. The bill also includes a separate homestead-based version that would require counties to place a credit question on the April 2026 ballot, and if approved by voters, provide a similar credit for primary residences. The bill further requires counties to treat the amount of authorized credits as tax revenue for levy-calculation purposes and to notify political subdivisions of the credit amounts.
The bill would also change state equalization rules by directing the State Tax Commission to use ratio studies to determine whether property is valued below or above true value in money, and it sets statistical thresholds for those determinations. In addition, it repeals existing section 137.1055 and replaces it with new credit provisions, while also amending section 138.390 to update equalization classifications. Overall, the bill would significantly affect assessors, county collectors, taxing districts, homeowners, and other property owners by tightening assessment procedures while creating new tax relief mechanisms.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented legislative debate or vote history to gauge sentiment directly. Based on the bill text alone, the measure appears designed to appeal to taxpayers concerned about rising property taxes and assessment increases, while also imposing new administrative duties on assessors and counties. The main points of potential contention are likely to be the limits on assessment growth, the voter-approval requirement for one of the credit programs, the fiscal impact on local taxing districts, and the complexity of the county-by-county eligibility structure in the homestead credit provisions.
SB 919 would repeal and replace multiple property-tax statutes, primarily sections 137.016, 137.115, 137.1055, and 138.390, and would create a new section 137.1058 establishing property tax credits. It would alter how property is classified and assessed for tax purposes, change assessor procedures, and require counties and taxing districts to account for new credit amounts in levy calculations. The bill would directly affect homeowners, owners of manufactured homes, owners of mixed-use and agricultural property, county assessors, county collectors, and local taxing jurisdictions that rely on property tax revenue.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of support or opposition from the legislative process. From the structure of the bill, the measure appears generally taxpayer-friendly, emphasizing limits on assessment increases and new credits, which suggests likely support from property-tax relief advocates. At the same time, the bill would impose administrative and revenue-related burdens on local governments, which may generate resistance from assessors, counties, school districts, and other taxing entities.
The most likely points of contention are the bill’s limits on assessment growth, the requirement that counties place a property-tax-credit question on the ballot for one version of the program, and the effect of credits on local revenue collections. Counties and taxing districts may object to reduced or constrained property tax growth and the added administrative complexity, while taxpayers and property-tax relief proponents are likely to support the bill’s caps and credits. The detailed county eligibility lists in the homestead-credit section may also be controversial because they create uneven treatment across jurisdictions and make the bill more complex to administer.