Dr. Gregg Klinginsmith, Warren County R-III superintendent, met with the Warren County Commissioners on Aug. 1 to discuss what he saw as disparities in property valuations, particularly between farmland and residential properties. 

He claimed that residential properties are not being assessed accurately and must be brought closer to market value in the 2025 reassessment year to lower what he said was a disproportionate tax burden on those owning agricultural land. He argued that due to the Hancock Amendment, the increase in valuations would trigger the lowering of tax rates and would actually lead to lower increases in taxes for some, and even a reduction in the tax bill of others. 

The Hancock Amendment, passed in 1980 in Missouri, prohibits municipalities from raising property value assessments at a higher rate than the Consumer Price Index without a commensurate decrease in the tax rate levied by those municipalities. 

The state requires that county assessors reexamine property valuations every odd numbered year, often resulting in increases that can put both taxpayers and tax collectors in a difficult situation. 

Under those assessments, different types of property are taxed on a predetermined percentage of that value; 19 percent for residential property, 12 percent for agricultural property and 32 percent for commercial property. 

Klinginsmith argued that as it sits currently, farmers are bearing the brunt of the tax burden in Warren County while homeowners are shouldering less of that load than they should be by law. 

Missouri law requires that properties must be assessed at their “true value,” interpreted as the fair market value of that property. Klinginsmith pointed out that in many cases in Warren County, while farmland is assessed at or near its fair market value, many homes in the community have been, or could be sold for well above their assessed value. 

In other words, tax dollars are not being drawn from residential properties at a proportionate rate compared to those from farmland. 

He provided an example of a home in Warren County with an assessed value of $150,000 that was posted on the home-buying site Zillow for $290,000. 

“So we know we’re way off on our residential properties, and that’s just the nature of the beast,” said Klinginsmith. 

Klinginsmith’s solution was to rectify the disparity between valuations by bringing residential assessments within the 90% threshold of real market value required by law completely, or near completely, during the upcoming reassessment. He claimed, due to the Hancock Amendment, the resulting decrease in tax rates would mean taxpayers would actually save money in the long run. 

According to Klinginsmith, an increase in residential values is inevitable, and if done slowly, over a 15- or even 30-year period, homeowners would actually spend more covering their tax bills as tax rates would be allowed to increase alongside valuations. 

In documents presented to the county commissioners he claimed a 50% correction in valuations would actually decrease tax burdens on farmland and personal property, while only increasing the tax burden on residential properties by just under 8%. 

Staff members from the county collector and assessor’s offices were in attendance and along with the commissioners, they had questions. 

Under Missouri law, if property values increase that quickly, taxpayers have the right to schedule a meeting for an inspection to dispute the increase, and county officials claim they simply do not have the staff to handle the additional work. 

That was another pillar of Klinginsmith’s presentation, asking the commissioners to appropriate funds to hire outside help to handle the volume of calls that may result from these potential changes. 

“What I’m asking the commission for is to work with the assessor’s office to determine how many more people that would take to do a one-time increase with temporary staff to help to get things where they need to be,” Klinginsmith said. 

He did concede that while the commissioners were the ones who could allocate the funds to hire additional staff, they could not do so without a request from the assessor’s office. 

While county officials agreed that some kind of adjustment to valuations needed to happen, they were unsure of how they could explain the issue to the taxpayer. 

“I’m not arguing about trying to make everything more equitable, … Everybody doesn’t understand that,” said Presiding Commissioner Joe Gildehaus. 

All parties agreed that messaging would be a problem and that it would be difficult to reach enough ears to reach a consensus that while valuations were increasing, it would mean a smaller increase to taxes for some, and even a decrease for others. 

“We’re all in this boat. What’s the best way to fix it?” asked Klinginsmith. “And really, the best way to fix it is to do a one time, big fix. That will make us lower our tax rates and then the actual dollars out of individuals’ hands would be the least.”

Another issue, raised by commissioner Matt Flake, was how can this be justified to a homeowner that does not have significant funds tied up in farmland or personal property? Those taxpayers would undoubtedly see a tax increase even as others may receive a decrease. 

“I asked that question and I did not receive an answer,” Flake said. 

Klinginsmith said that while homeowners would see an increase on their tax bills, it would be significantly lower than the increase they would see from the alternative; raising assessment slowly over 15 or even 30 years. 

“What we’re trying to do is be compliant with the law to balance the tax burden between the citizens as prescribed by law,” Klinginsmith said. 

Gildehaus made sure to cool tensions and point out that the discussion on Aug. 1 was purely speculative, and one of many potential solutions that would not be decided for some time. 

“Our assessor, she is doing her job trying to update it to wherever it needs to be at, … I think there’s a bigger picture that you really have to do, and people have to be educated on how things really do work.”