Despite vows to address the issue, the Missouri General Assembly closed out its legislative session for the year without passing property tax reform. 

A number of bills were introduced that would have put different types of property into separate tax rate silos, protected some short-term rental residential properties from being reclassified as commercial and put stricter guidelines on ballot language for tax levies. 

While some got close to the finish line, none received the final push needed to send it to the governor’s desk.

Property tax reform was one of the top priorities lawmakers said they had going into session this year as Missourians have struggled with skyrocketing property assessments.   

Many of the proposed bills emerged from work conducted by a special committee on property tax reform that was formed last year. Members toured the state to meet with stakeholders and devise solutions.

Lawmakers expressed their frustration and disappointment at the lack of progress. 

“Sadly, after all the work the House did over the summer, and what the Senate did, and what I’ve done, we came away with absolutely no property tax reform whatsoever,” said state Sen. Joe Nicola, a Republican from Grain Valley and a member of the Senate Select Committee on Property Tax.

Meanwhile, homeowners are still dealing with the aftermath from the 2025 reassessment cycle and worry that the same issues will continue into 2027.

The issue at hand

In Jackson County, residential assessment values spiked an average of 30% during the 2023 assessment cycle after a resurgence of demand in the housing market following the COVID-19 pandemic. 

An increase in assessed value does not always result in an equally increased tax bill, as taxing districts like schools, local government bodies, libraries and fire protection districts are not allowed to significantly increase their budget and operating levies in anticipation of increased assessments.

When bills do rise, the Hancock Amendment and other state statutes provide some protections from severe tax increases.

The primary protection is a mandate for taxing entities to “roll back” or reduce operating tax levies to prevent a windfall in new revenue. Revenue can only grow by the rate of inflation or 5%, whichever is lower. Inflation in April was running at an annual increase of 3.8%.

However, due to how property subclasses are grouped, the rollbacks have not been as effective as they should be. 

The three subclasses for real property are residential, agricultural and commercial. Personal property, like cars and boats, is also included in the calculation.

Currently, the rollback trigger applies to the aggregate revenue from all four categories minus any new construction. That means that even if one goes up drastically, it can still be diluted by the other categories.

In practice, it would look like this. If the assessed value for residential properties rose 20%, but agricultural and commercial decreased 5% each and personal property stayed the same, the total revenue would be an overall 10% increase. For this example, we’ll say that equals $25 million in total valuation.

The taxing districts then receive those numbers to set their budgets. They first look at the previous year’s budget and adjust it for inflation (in this case, 3.8%). The adjusted budget is divided by the total valuation in dollars to find the tax levy. 

The rollback dilution was what the siloing provisions in some of the bills sought to address. Rates for each category would be considered separately, allowing the full effect of the rollback to take place in any specific subclass that increased faster than the rate of inflation.

So, if in our example residential property were its own category, total valuation would be based off of the 20% increase and not 10%, pushing the tax levy lower for that specific category.

Other bills would have imposed caps on how much assessment values can be increased.

The Missouri State Tax Commission requires the median assessed values to fall within 90% to 110% of the values it calculates for that county using home sales data. When a home has been underassessed, it can result in a large jump in an effort to bring it into compliance.

Currently, there is no statewide cap on how much assessment values can increase, but many counties have set their own limits. In Jackson County, the State Tax Commission ordered in 2023 that any assessments greater than 15% be rolled back.

In places where assessments increase by 15% or more, assessors are required by state law to do an exterior inspection and homeowners can request an interior inspection as well. 

Boone County Assessor Kenny Mohr said that while the cap could be useful, it would also make it difficult to bring some properties into compliance with the commission’s range. 

“If I’m capping it at about 15% and the market’s moving more than that, I’m not getting anywhere,” Mohr said. “If the markets move 5% annually, and in a two-year cycle that means the markets went up 10%, and I bumped 15%, I’m gaining 5% but I’m still not going to be in compliance.”

Another solution floated was lowering the compliance range to 80% to 100%, but it did not gain traction in any of the bills that came close to passing.

Nicola and other legislators plan to refile the bills next year in the hopes that something will get through. 

If a bill does pass, Nicola cautioned that it likely wouldn’t take effect until the 2028 or 2029 cycles since there wouldn’t be enough time to implement the changes.

Preparing for the next reassessment

As homeowners and county officials alike start to prepare for what the 2027 cycle might bring, those efforts are complicated by the lingering repercussions of the 2025 assessment cycle.

Jackson County is still navigating the tax rollback for properties that increased more than 15%. First District Legislator Manny Abarca said the county needs to collect and understand that information first before making hasty decisions.

“We’re trying to understand what came in this year, how that fluctuated from last year, rectify and change budgets as needed, and then now to look forward and say, ‘OK, what protections do we have in place for the rest of the year, so that when December 31 comes, people can expect x, y, or z on their bills?’” Abarca said.

For homeowners, many are still grappling with the appeals process.

Michael Anthony, a Kansas City resident, is one such homeowner trying to figure out his next steps. His bill increased by nearly $300 during the last assessment, which was an unwelcome surprise as a disabled veteran living on a fixed income, he said.

“The first thing I’m thinking about is, am I gonna be able to keep my house?” Anthony said. “Like, I’m barely doing maintenance on it right now, so you know when that happened, that just takes away from me surviving pretty much.”

He’s hoping that in 2027 the process is much more straightforward and that notices are sent out in time.

Upcoming elections could also play a role in how Jackson County handles the next assessment cycle. 

The position of county executive and all seats in the county legislature will be up for a vote. Voters will also face a question on the November ballot on whether the county assessor should be an elected position. 

Maureen Monaghan, the deputy director of the Jackson County Assessment Department, was tapped to fulfill the assessor’s duties in the meantime.

Regardless of who might fill those seats, Abarca said he hopes the current members can set up the future county legislature for success by instituting accountability metrics and collecting data on which properties are actually delinquent. 

Assessors also have their marching orders for the time being. Mohr, the Boone County assessor, said that his job is to assess value, not to tax people out of their homes. He hopes to see the safeguards in the system work as they should.

“I know probably in my mind what I need to do, but in my heart I’ve got to think of the 180,000 taxpayers here in Boone County,” Mohr said. “In my heart, I have a hard time saying, ‘Yeah, I’m going to do this and it’s going to result in an increase in taxes.’”