What fiscal impact did Missouri approve for Andrew Prewitt's initiative petition 2026-145?
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.
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
- Landing page: https://ago.mo.gov/other-resources/ag-opinions/
- Original PDF: https://ago.mo.gov/wp-content/uploads/333-2025.pdf
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.