Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee hears HJR 4 to cap annual residential assessment increases at 2%
Summary
Representative Jeff Coleman presented HJR 4 to the House Ways and Means Committee, proposing to cap annual increases in assessed value for owner‑occupied residences at 2% per year (4% per two‑year reassessment cycle), except for new construction.
Representative Jeff Coleman, sponsor of HJR 4, presented the resolution to the Missouri House Ways and Means Committee, saying the measure would cap annual increases in assessed value for owner‑occupied residential property at 2% per year (4% per two‑year reassessment cycle) or inflation, whichever is less, while allowing reassessment above that level only for new construction.
Coleman said he first began work on the proposal as a freshman legislator and framed the plan as a response to repeated public testimony in interim hearings: "some of them that are so upset, they're crying because they don't know what they're gonna do because they're afraid they're gonna lose their home," he said, arguing the cap would give constituents more predictability.
Supporters in the hearing, including Dennis Ganahl of Tax Relief Now, described widespread taxpayer pressure for relief and urged a low limit. Ganahl said county ballot initiatives to freeze or cap senior property tax increases have drawn strong voter support and called for even stricter limits in his view.
Opponents and witnesses raised implementation and equity concerns. Representative Taylor asked how the cap would affect growing communities that see rising market values and whether municipalities and school districts would be deprived of funding. "If their community is growing, the values are growing, shouldn't their assessed values be growing and collecting more revenues?" he asked. Coleman replied that entities could go to voters for levy increases if they needed more revenue and framed HJR 4 as restoring voter representation over assessment‑driven increases.
Boone County Assessor Kenny Moore testified for informational purposes that the resolution as drafted would apply only to primary residences and warned the cap could create uniformity problems and conflict with the State Tax Commission's statutory duty to value property at true market value. "By capping, we would never get there," Moore said, noting recent median home‑price increases in Boone County and the potential for the commission to require assessors to raise valuations in ratio studies.
MOST Policy Initiative researcher Dr. Isabelle Warner presented peer‑reviewed evidence from other states (including California's Proposition 13) showing that similar assessment caps can shift tax burdens to younger homeowners, reduce mobility among older homeowners and depress education funding relative to inflation; she also described alternatives such as levy or rate caps, phase‑ins, and more frequent reassessments.
Committee members discussed related programs and exceptions: witnesses and members referenced Missouri's senior property tax freeze (Senate Bill 190 and followup legislation), the existing appeals process, and the role of the State Tax Commission. Coleman confirmed the bill would not change senior freeze mechanics but would limit the yearly assessed‑value growth prior to eventual reassessment at sale or transfer. He also said the measure currently applies only to owner‑occupied residential property but said he would consider amendments to broaden or narrow its scope.
No committee vote was recorded during the hearing; members asked the sponsor and staff to consider technical changes and interactions with existing law.
