LEBANON, Mo. — State Representative Jeff Knight of Missouri’s 142nd District sat down with Lebanon Now to explain the ongoing controversy surrounding property tax increases and the role of the Missouri State Tax Commission.
The interview followed a recent public meeting held at the Wallace Building in Lebanon, where 19 state representatives questioned members of the Missouri Tax Commission for over an hour. Representatives from multiple counties attended, including assessors and a fire marshal from as far as Cass County. The meeting was not tied to any proposed legislation but served as a discussion forum on how property taxes are being handled across Missouri.
According to Knight, the issue gained traction after Jackson County saw a significant increase in property assessments roughly two years ago. This triggered scrutiny from Jefferson City and renewed efforts to enforce the state statute requiring property to be assessed between 90% and 110% of market value. Many counties, historically assessing properties in the 50%–60% range, are now facing pressure to increase values.
The Missouri State Tax Commission responded by instructing counties to issue reassessment notices, threatening to withhold state funds—reported to be around $15,000 to $16,000—if counties failed to comply. This led to questions from both state legislators and the governor’s office regarding whether the Commission has the legal authority to withhold those funds.
Complicating the matter is the Hancock Amendment, which limits how much revenue political subdivisions can collect without voter approval. While the amendment caps overall revenue growth at the Consumer Price Index or 5%, it does not prevent individual property tax bills from rising sharply. Levies associated with debt service—common in school districts—are also exempt from rollback, allowing tax burdens to increase even under Hancock.
Knight also pointed to Senate Bill 3, passed during a special session aimed at keeping the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals in Missouri. Language added to that bill in the final hours—without consultation from local officials—has resulted in inconsistent treatment across counties. Depending on how a district was affected, property taxes may now be frozen indefinitely, capped at 5%, or left under local control.
Another concern raised was the lack of standardized software for tax reporting across Missouri’s 114 counties. Some counties still rely on manual data collection and mailing physical documents, making oversight and consistency nearly impossible.
During the interview, Knight discussed the potential benefits of freezing property tax increases for two years while lawmakers review the system. He also suggested reducing the required assessment range and tying allowable increases directly to the cost of living. These ideas, while popular in theory, face significant legislative and procedural hurdles.
Though no specific policy decisions have been made, the Lebanon meeting marked a rare appearance of a Jefferson City committee in the area and gave local residents an opportunity to hear directly from state officials. The turnout, estimated at 160 to 170 people, reflected growing public interest in how property taxes are calculated, enforced, and changed without consistent public input.
The interview followed a recent public meeting held at the Wallace Building in Lebanon, where 19 state representatives questioned members of the Missouri Tax Commission for over an hour. Representatives from multiple counties attended, including assessors and a fire marshal from as far as Cass County. The meeting was not tied to any proposed legislation but served as a discussion forum on how property taxes are being handled across Missouri.
According to Knight, the issue gained traction after Jackson County saw a significant increase in property assessments roughly two years ago. This triggered scrutiny from Jefferson City and renewed efforts to enforce the state statute requiring property to be assessed between 90% and 110% of market value. Many counties, historically assessing properties in the 50%–60% range, are now facing pressure to increase values.
The Missouri State Tax Commission responded by instructing counties to issue reassessment notices, threatening to withhold state funds—reported to be around $15,000 to $16,000—if counties failed to comply. This led to questions from both state legislators and the governor’s office regarding whether the Commission has the legal authority to withhold those funds.
Complicating the matter is the Hancock Amendment, which limits how much revenue political subdivisions can collect without voter approval. While the amendment caps overall revenue growth at the Consumer Price Index or 5%, it does not prevent individual property tax bills from rising sharply. Levies associated with debt service—common in school districts—are also exempt from rollback, allowing tax burdens to increase even under Hancock.
Knight also pointed to Senate Bill 3, passed during a special session aimed at keeping the Kansas City Chiefs and Royals in Missouri. Language added to that bill in the final hours—without consultation from local officials—has resulted in inconsistent treatment across counties. Depending on how a district was affected, property taxes may now be frozen indefinitely, capped at 5%, or left under local control.
Another concern raised was the lack of standardized software for tax reporting across Missouri’s 114 counties. Some counties still rely on manual data collection and mailing physical documents, making oversight and consistency nearly impossible.
During the interview, Knight discussed the potential benefits of freezing property tax increases for two years while lawmakers review the system. He also suggested reducing the required assessment range and tying allowable increases directly to the cost of living. These ideas, while popular in theory, face significant legislative and procedural hurdles.
Though no specific policy decisions have been made, the Lebanon meeting marked a rare appearance of a Jefferson City committee in the area and gave local residents an opportunity to hear directly from state officials. The turnout, estimated at 160 to 170 people, reflected growing public interest in how property taxes are calculated, enforced, and changed without consistent public input.