SJR 73 proposes a constitutional amendment to create the “Missouri Homestead Act.” It would allow certain Missouri residents to claim a property tax exemption on their primary residence if the home is not subject to a mortgage lien, the taxpayer is current on taxes, and the taxpayer has paid a calculated “five-year tax liability” amount based on the property’s initial tax bill. Once approved, the exemption would generally remain in place for as long as the owner continues to own and occupy the homestead, subject to loss of eligibility if the property is sold or the owner voluntarily voids the exemption.
The measure also creates a Homestead Preservation Fund in the state treasury to reimburse local taxing jurisdictions for revenue lost from the exemption. To finance that fund, the resolution imposes an additional one-tenth of one percent state sales tax and use tax, with those revenues dedicated to reimbursement. Counties or other taxing jurisdictions could apply annually for reimbursement based on the amount of property tax revenue lost from approved exemptions.
Beyond the tax exemption, the resolution includes a set of homestead rights for owners receiving the exemption, including the right to possess, exclude others, use, convey, and encumber the property, while preserving existing easements, mortgages, law enforcement access, emergency access, and local regulatory authority. Because this is a joint resolution, it would not change state law unless approved by voters as a constitutional amendment.
The general sentiment reflected by the bill text is strongly pro-homeowner and tax-relief oriented, with the proposal framed as a way to protect homesteads from ongoing property tax burdens. No committee transcript or vote history was provided, so there is no recorded legislative debate or vote-based sentiment to assess. Based on the structure of the proposal, likely support would come from taxpayers seeking property tax relief, while likely concerns would come from local governments and taxing districts that depend on property tax revenue.
The main point of contention is the tradeoff between property tax relief and the new statewide sales/use tax used to backfill local revenue losses. Another likely issue is the bill’s eligibility limits, especially the requirement that the homestead not be encumbered by a mortgage lien and that the owner prepay a five-year tax liability, which could make the benefit inaccessible to many homeowners. Local taxing jurisdictions may also be concerned about administrative complexity, reimbursement adequacy, and the long-term fiscal impact on schools, counties, cities, and special districts.
If adopted, the resolution would amend the Missouri Constitution to add a new homestead property tax exemption and create a dedicated reimbursement mechanism for local governments. It would affect Article X, Missouri property tax administration, county collectors, the state treasurer, and taxing jurisdictions that levy property taxes. It would also impose a new statewide sales and use tax dedicated to the Homestead Preservation Fund, changing state tax law and potentially shifting some tax burden from property owners to consumers.
The bill appears to be framed positively toward homeowners and property tax relief, with a clear policy goal of protecting primary residences from ongoing property tax liability. Because no committee discussion or vote record is included, there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from debate or roll calls. On its face, the proposal suggests likely support from property-tax relief advocates and likely skepticism from local government and education finance interests that could lose property tax revenue or face uncertainty about reimbursement.
The biggest likely controversy is fiscal: the bill would eliminate property taxes on qualifying homesteads but replace lost local revenue with a small statewide sales and use tax, raising questions about whether reimbursement would fully cover losses and whether the tax shift is equitable. Another likely point of contention is eligibility, especially the requirement that the homestead be free of a mortgage lien and that the taxpayer prepay five years of property tax liability, which may exclude many middle- and lower-income homeowners. Local governments may also object to the administrative burden of applying for reimbursement and the possibility that the state backfill may not keep pace with actual losses.