MO Opinion No. 333-2025 December 29, 2025

What fiscal impact did Missouri approve for Andrew Prewitt's initiative petition 2026-145?

Short answer: The approved summary reported $2.5 million in one-time costs, $2.5 million in annual costs, $271,000 in initial fee revenue, $14.5 million in annual state revenue, and $2.6 million in annual local revenue. Proponents estimated $29.2 million in annual state revenue and $6.7 million in annual local revenue.

Apply this to your situation

This page answers the general question as of 2025. Ezel answers yours: what it means for your facts, under current Missouri law, with citations.

Disclaimer: This is an official Missouri Attorney General opinion. AG opinions are persuasive authority but not binding precedent. This summary is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Consult a licensed Missouri attorney for advice on your specific situation.
About this page: The plain-English summary, reader guidance, and Q&A below were written by Ezel based on the official AG opinion. The original opinion (linked on this page as a PDF) is the authoritative source for any reliance.
View original AG opinion (PDF)

Plain-English summary

Missouri Attorney General Catherine L. Hanaway approved the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary for Andrew Prewitt's initiative petition 2026-145, version 1.

State entities estimated one-time costs of $2.5 million, annual ongoing costs of $2.5 million, initial fee revenue of $271,000, annual increased state revenue of $14.5 million, and annual increased local revenue of $2.6 million. The proponents estimated annual increased state revenue of $29.2 million and annual increased local revenue of $6.7 million.

The review under § 116.175.4, RSMo did not assess the fairness or sufficiency of those estimates and did not endorse the petition.

What this means for you

State and local finance officials

Opinion 333-2025 preserved the state entities' cost and revenue estimates separately from the proponents' higher revenue estimates.

Initiative petition proponents

The fiscal note summary passed legal-content and form review. The opinion did not validate the fairness or sufficiency of the submitted estimates.

Budget analysts

The approved summary included both implementation costs and recurring costs, initial fee revenue, and competing annual revenue estimates.

Common questions

Q: What costs did state entities estimate?
A: $2.5 million one time and $2.5 million annually.

Q: What annual revenue did state entities estimate?
A: $14.5 million for the state and $2.6 million for local governments.

Q: What annual revenue did proponents estimate?
A: $29.2 million for the state and $6.7 million for local governments.

Background and statutory framework

The State Auditor submitted the fiscal note and summary on December 12, 2025 for Andrew Prewitt's version 1 petition 2026-145.

The Attorney General issued Opinion 333-2025 on December 29, 2025 and approved the summary's legal content and form under § 116.175.4, RSMo.

Citations and references

Statutes: § 116.175, RSMo; § 116.175.4, RSMo.

Source

Original opinion text

ATTORNEY GENERAL OF MISSOURI
CATHERINE L. HANAWAY

December 29, 2025

OPINION LETTER NO. 333-2025

The Honorable Scott Fitzpatrick
Missouri State Auditor
Truman State Office Building, Room 880
Jefferson City, MO 65101

Dear Auditor Fitzpatrick:

This office received your letter of December 12, 2025, submitting a fiscal note and fiscal note summary prepared under § 116.175, RSMo, for an initiative petition submitted by Andrew Prewitt (2026-145), version 1. The fiscal note summary that you submitted is as follows:

State entities estimate one-time costs of $2.5 million, annual ongoing costs of $2.5 million, initial fee revenue of $271,000, annual increased state revenue of $14.5 million, and annual increased local revenue of $2.6 million. Proponents estimate annual increased state revenue of $29.2 million and annual increased local revenue of $6.7 million.

Under § 116.175.4, RSMo, we approve the legal content and form of the fiscal note summary. Because our review of the fiscal note summary is mandated by statute, no action that we take with respect to such review should be construed as an endorsement of the initiative petition or as the expression of any view regarding the objectives of its proponents. Furthermore, our review under § 116.175.4 does not examine the fairness or sufficiency of the estimated fiscal impact.

Very truly yours,

CATHERINE L. HANAWAY
Attorney General

OP-2025-368

Supreme Court Building, 207 W. High Street, P.O. Box 899, Jefferson City, MO 65102 | Phone: (573) 751-3321 | www.ago.mo.gov

Get today's answer for your situation

You just read a 2025 opinion on this question. Ezel checks the current Missouri statutes and case law and answers your specific situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the law it relies on.