Committee advances plan to create 12 regional assessment districts; municipalities to jointly hire reappraisal firms

Kirby Keaton, legislative counsel for the committee, presented draft 2.1 on regionalized reappraisals and said the bill would create 12 regional assessment districts, based on counties, and require member municipalities to jointly contract with third‑party firms to conduct full mass reappraisals every six years.

The language preserves a legislative-intent section and directs the Department of Taxes and Property Valuation and Review (PVR) to issue guidance, while moving the central responsibility for organizing reappraisals away from the state and onto member municipalities. Keaton said the bill would leave appeals unchanged: ‘‘There’s no difference in the appeal structure in this. . . . Current law for appeals stays the same here,’’ referring to local grievance and Board of Civil Authority (BCA) processes followed by appeals to PVR or to court.

Committee members immediately debated how much discretion the director of PVR should have and whether PVR should convene or municipalities should self-organize. Representative Wazowski asked whether PVR would be the convening authority; Keaton replied the draft gives PVR discretion to establish and alter schedules for each regional assessment district and to shift timing as needed, but the model places the procurement responsibility with the member municipalities working together. Representative Maslin said he had preferred state-managed assessments but acknowledged the workload and practical reasons municipalities may run the districts. Representative Higley raised funding concerns, noting testimony that reappraisal costs could run ‘‘about $115 a parcel’’ including inspection, reappraisal and defending appeals, and questioned whether the expected per‑parcel funding in current law would be sufficient for a six‑year reappraisal cycle.

The draft includes a transition section and reporting requirements. Keaton described an annual reporting requirement: ‘‘On or before every January 15, taxes are going to come back and report relating to the progress made in preparing to the switch over to the regional assessment districts.’’ The Department of Taxes must also convene a working group and, by January 15, 2026, submit recommendations to the tax committees on implementation details and on ‘‘the advantages and disadvantages of having the state take full responsibility for regionalized appraisals.’’ The draft also directs the working group to suggest legislative language addressing which authorities would contract for reappraisals and which would hear valuation appeals.

Committee members asked about operational details: whether one contractor must perform all work for a district, whether districts could be split or staged, and how per‑parcel fees would be allocated. Representative Feltos requested wording changes to clarify that member municipalities ‘‘shall contract jointly with third parties’’ but that the statute should not be read to require a single contractor for an entire region; Keaton said he would amend the language to emphasize the use of third‑party contractors and to allow practical flexibility.

Keaton said the effective date for the six‑year mass reappraisal cycle would place the first full regional reappraisal on or about January 1, 2030, unless the committee adopts a different schedule. The bill also keeps the grand‑list date change from April 1 to January 1 in place and includes conforming changes for that shift.

The committee took a straw poll on whether to move draft 2.1 into the larger education/foundation bill (H.454) and incorporate suggested clarifications. The chair called the roll; the transcript shows the result reported as 10 in favor, 1 opposed, 0 abstentions on the motion to find draft 2.1 favorable with a minor clarification. Keaton said the language will be moved into the committee amendment ahead of Tuesday’s deadline and that he would post final edits for review.

Why it matters: The draft shifts organizational responsibility for mass reappraisals from a centralized state role toward regional cooperation among municipalities. That change affects who manages vendors, how costs are shared across municipalities, and how frequently parcels are revalued. The working group and reporting deadlines aim to produce additional detail before full statutory implementation.

What’s next: Keaton will incorporate the committee’s clarifications into the committee amendment; the bill language is expected to be included in committee paperwork for a Tuesday filing, with formal votes to follow.