SJR 113 is a proposed constitutional amendment that would change how residential real property is assessed for property tax purposes in Missouri. It would repeal and replace section 4(b) of article X of the Missouri Constitution and, beginning January 1, 2027, require that the true value of all residential real property be treated as the same as the value determined at the most recent previous assessment.
The measure also limits how much a residential property’s assessed valuation could increase at reassessment. In general, any increase would be capped at the lesser of the change in the Consumer Price Index or 2 percent annually, unless additional value is attributable to new construction or improvements as determined by the county appraisal system. The bill applies to residential real property, including single-family homes and multi-unit residential rentals, and leaves the existing constitutional framework for other property classes largely intact.
Impact
If adopted, the resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution and directly alter the legal rules governing property tax assessments for residential real estate. It would constrain assessors’ ability to raise assessed values on existing residential property, likely affecting homeowners, landlords, local taxing authorities, and county assessment offices. Because the proposal is constitutional in nature, it would supersede conflicting statutory or administrative assessment practices for the covered property class.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no documented legislative debate or voting pattern to gauge formal sentiment. Based on the bill text alone, the proposal appears to reflect a policy preference for limiting property tax growth and providing more predictability for residential taxpayers. The overall tone of the measure is reform-oriented and taxpayer-protective.
Contention
The main point of contention is likely to be the tradeoff between tax relief and local revenue stability. Supporters would likely favor the cap on assessment growth as a way to protect homeowners and renters from sharp increases, while opponents may argue it could reduce revenue for schools, counties, and other local governments that rely on property taxes. Another likely issue is whether the CPI-or-2-percent cap is too restrictive or whether it could create inequities between newer and long-held properties, especially when market values rise faster than the cap.