Resident criticizes CAMA appraisal system; Joint Revenue Committee agrees to study appeals, fair‑market valuation and data collection

An 82‑year‑old resident identified in the record as Mister Johnston criticized the automated mass appraisal (CAMA/Grama) system and the property tax appeal process during public comment to the Joint Revenue Committee.

Johnston said the system produced valuations that did not match recent sales of nearby homes and described the appeals process as “not a good process for anybody that's a citizen.” He told the committee he had pursued an appeal and that a county assessor later reduced an earlier assessment after he filed, but that the overall appeals experience left him pursuing district court. “The assessor assessed it at 720 some thousand dollars. I went in, talked to the assessor as required. He would not make the change, so I filed an appeal,” Johnston said. He criticized the use of CAMA comparables and replacement‑cost inputs, saying, “Real property is unique. … It is not a fair market value that our statute 39‑11‑101(a)(6) says.”

Committee members responded by repeatedly placing the appeals process and the CAMA data collection on the interim work list. Cochairman Locke said the appeal process “is going to be one of the bigger topics we take up in the interim.” Representative Lott and others described related items they had submitted — property tax appeal enhancements, statement‑of‑consideration and data‑collection improvements, and fair‑market value implementation — as connected items the committee should study together.

Department of Revenue Director Brenda Henson urged the committee to understand the appeals structure and the tradeoffs counties face: county commissioners act as county boards of equalization for limited times, and statewide consistency across 23 county assessors is an administrative goal. “Some counties have zero appeals for multiple years,” Henson said; she recommended briefing the committee and potentially exploring alternatives such as regional county boards of equalization or other models used in other states.

Senator Reid said the State Board of Equalization “effectively rubber stamps whatever comes out of the county” in his experience and asked whether the two layers were necessary. Representative Storer pushed back on the “rubber stamp” characterization but supported education for the committee on how county and state appeals work. Several members said they wanted real‑world appeal examples presented to the committee. The group agreed to allocate interim time to review appeals, the CAMA/comparable data processes, and fair‑market value calculations.

No formal vote on a legislative bill occurred during public comment; instead the committee approved an interim work program that includes appeal‑process enhancements, data collection improvements and fair‑market value implementation as study items.