Senate tax committee hears bills on appraiser access and disclosure of corporate property tax appeals; both tabled

Helena — On Feb. 28, the Montana Senate Tax Committee considered two bills affecting property taxation: Senate Bill 519, introduced by Senator Tony Tzczak, which would require Department of Revenue valuation employees to obtain written permission before entering private land to appraise or audit property; and Senate Bill 512, introduced by Senator Mary Anne Dunwell, which would make settlement outcomes in appeals by centrally assessed (industrial) property owners more readily available to the public.

The proposals prompted debate about landowner privacy, administrative burden and transparency. Senator Tony Tzczak, Senate District 35, told the committee that published notices sent during reappraisal cycles often go unseen and can leave landowners surprised to find appraisers on their property. “This is going to make it so they have to get written permission from the property owner to come onto their property with their knowledge,” Tzczak said, summarizing the sponsor’s intent to require explicit consent.

Bryce Kaatz, bureau chief of the Property Assessment Division at the Montana Department of Revenue, described how the department currently operates and the operational consequences of the change. Kaatz said owners who submit a written request can be contacted and an appointment set before field staff access their land, but absent such a request the department can and does access properties during field reviews. He said the bill would reverse that approach and “absolutely require additional resources on the department staff,” because appraisers often optimize routes and review multiple nearby properties in a single trip. Kaatz estimated the department inspects roughly 15,000–20,000 new-construction properties and a similar number of sale verifications each year and noted that one reappraisal cycle generated more than 20,000 appeals that drove field reviews.

Kaatz and other department witnesses warned the committee the change would increase travel and staff time. He illustrated the inefficiency with an example of six new-construction reviews near West Yellowstone: what is now a single two-hour-drive trip could become multiple trips to accommodate individual appointment windows. A fiscal note was requested to estimate the additional cost to the department.

Senate Bill 512 drew proponents’ calls for transparency and opponents’ warnings about confidential corporate data. Senator Mary Anne Dunwell said publicly available summaries of centrally assessed property appeal outcomes would let counties and residents see reductions in certified values and understand how those changes shift tax burdens. Dunwell cited a handout showing roughly $69.5 million in valuation reductions for centrally assessed property in a recent period and said counties deserve clearer explanations of settlement outcomes.

Opponents, including Bob Story of the Montana Taxpayers Association and Sonny Capice of the Montana Petroleum Association, argued that many valuation determinations for centrally assessed properties rely on information that is already treated as confidential — including income and other proprietary company information — and that forcing broader disclosure could “crack the firewall” and expose protected materials. “Our concern is that this is the crack in the firewall and that someone will come and say ... the legislature requires this information to be gathered,” Story said, urging language that would preserve already-confidential information.

Derek Bell, division administrator for the Department of Revenue’s Business and Income Tax Division, explained that valuation figures themselves are public (property.mt.gov and related cadastral tools), but that statutes and prior legislative decisions have kept certain mediation and company-provided income information confidential. Bell said the legislature has previously directed that income information provided for valuation and mediation records for centrally assessed taxpayers be treated as confidential; he added that while the department can report the certified value it sends to counties, the statutory confidentiality protections explain why the department cannot disclose certain underlying proprietary materials.

Committee members asked how often appraisers surprise property owners, how many properties the department visits annually, and whether electronic notification systems could reduce burdens. Kaatz said the department leaves door hangers and attempts contact; he noted increased household monitoring (for example, video doorbells) has reduced surprises. On electronic notice, Kaatz said collecting reliable contact information for every property owner statewide would be a substantial undertaking.

After testimony and questioning, the committee moved to executive action. A motion to pass Senate Bill 397 (a separate centrally assessed appraisal-process bill heard earlier in the week) failed on a voice vote and was then tabled. For Senate Bill 512, a motion to pass failed on a roll call; the committee subsequently voted to table the bill. Senate Bill 519 likewise drew questions about fiscal implications, had a negative response on the motion to pass, and the committee moved to table the bill.

The committee chair said staff would follow up on operational changes the department could make in notice materials and that fiscal notes would be prepared as needed. No bill advanced out of committee during the Feb. 28 session.