Pennington County equalization office reviews assessments and new state property-tax limits under Senate Bill 216

Director of Equalization Shannon Rittberger briefed the Pennington County Board of Commissioners on April 1 about the March assessment notices, how local property taxation is calculated, and the impacts of recently passed state legislation — notably the governor-backed Senate Bill 216.

Rittberger explained assessment notices are sent by March 1 and indicate market value as of the previous Nov. 1; they are not tax bills. Mill levies and tax bills are calculated later in the summer after all taxing entities set revenue requests. “Property tax levies are not set by the director; taxing entities set the revenue they want to collect and the county auditor calculates mill levies from the tax base,” Rittberger said.

Rittberger reported countywide assessed value: approximately 57,000 parcels, total assessed value near $23 billion and about $20 billion taxable; median assessed level is about 96% of market value — consistent with prior years. She said the county mailed notices and is working through appeals.

Commissioners discussed Senate Bill 216 (the governor’s property-tax bill). Rittberger and Garth Wadsworth, who later briefed the board on the legislative session, summarized key provisions: a temporary (five-year) 3% cap on the annual increase in the county’s total owner-occupied valuation due to reappraisal; a 3% cap (or CPI, whichever is less) on the property-tax revenue portion of taxing-entity budgets attributable to new growth; a change that defines “new growth” as changes of 40% or more in property value; and an expansion of the elderly/disabled assessment freeze income and home-value eligibility (income threshold increased to $65,000 and maximum home assessment to $500,000, both indexed to inflation).

Rittberger warned that the owner-occupied cap does not revert individual properties to lower values: it limits the aggregate growth allowed for owner-occupied valuation in a county, which can shift tax burden to other classes (commercial, agricultural) if market appreciation exceeds the cap. Commissioners raised concerns about ‘tax shifts’ and said state-level decisions and school and education funding formulas still drive much of local property-tax burden.

Commissioners asked for supplemental materials: Rittberger agreed to provide a breakdown of parcel counts and assessed values by property class (owner-occupied, non-owner, agricultural) and maps showing where assessment changes were concentrated. The board directed staff to return with that analysis after appeal-processing is complete.