Legislative Council and Department of Taxation staff briefed the Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee on recent property-tax reforms, the primary-residence creditimplementation and limitations in current tax-statement formats that members say confuse taxpayers.

Megan Gordon presented a Legislative Council background memorandum summarizing statutory duties for the committee's property-tax study and recent legislative changes, including House Bill 11-76 from the 2025 session. Gordon told members that 11-76 expanded the primary-residence credit from $500 to $1,600 and removed the original sunset, created a new property classification for primary residential property (effective tax year 2026), established a cap mechanism on annual levy growth for taxing districts (3 percent plus unused excess from the prior five taxable years, with some exceptions), increased the disabled-veterans credit maximum and raised the homestead renters refund cap.

Shelley Myers, State Supervisor of Assessments, presented tax-department data and explained what is reported to the tax commissioner under current law. She said counties transmit statistical reports (tax abstracts) with taxable value, exemptions, homestead credits and levy detail; the tax department publishes Power BI visualizations and will provide county-filterable charts and worksheets to the committee on request.

Myers reported the primary-residence credit payments for 2024 totaled roughly $65.9 million and that 134,899 applicants received the credit in the first round. She described the mobile-home application window the department ran in summer 2025 to align manufactured-home owners with the primary-residence cycle; county auditors must update development plans and property lists for new classifications and extensions.

Committee members pressed for a simpler, more transparent property-tax statement. Several members said the current printed statement does not make it apparent how much of education and other local services is paid from state appropriations versus what individual taxpayers directly pay. Representative Hedlund said the current line labeled "legislative tax relief" can be misleading because the relief shows as a separate appropriation rather than a subtraction from a clearly stated gross local tax obligation; he recommended the statement show an "apples-to-apples" comparison (what the tax bill would be absent state relief and what the taxpayer actually owes after relief).

Shelley Myers described the technical constraints counties and the tax department faced when redesigning the statement: paper size, county printing capabilities, and software/display limitations. She said the department incorporated two changes required by 11-76 this year: an explicit line item for voter-approved school bonds and a conspicuous disclosure identifying the portion of the primary-residence credit funded from the Legacy Fund. Members suggested additional formatting and explanatory changes (for example, simple charts or a two-line breakdown showing gross tax then relief amounts) and asked staff to identify the specific county or software limitations that prevent those changes.

Members also asked for operational clarifications: the primary-residence credit application window (Myers said Jan. 1April 1), the interaction of the newly defined primary-residence classification with annual certification, and whether applicants must reapply each year. Myers said the department currently operates annual application cycles and that statutory and operational work remains to determine whether a single certification model is feasible. The committee asked the tax department to return with examples and proofs showing alternative statement layouts, and to quantify how many properties would be zeroed out or moved to different classifications by the new credit and caps.

Committee staff and agency officials agreed to bring maps, downloadable data and suggested statement prototypes to upcoming meetings for member review.