Megan Moore, Department of Revenue, began a training for the House Taxation Committee on property‑tax fundamentals and told members the State Constitution (Article 8, Section 3) designates the State to appraise and equalize valuations.

Moore outlined the three standard valuation approaches used by the Department of Revenue: sales‑comparison (used primarily for residential and many commercial properties), cost approach (used where sales data are sparse) and income approach (used for commercial/industrial and modified for agricultural and forest property). Moore clarified the income approach measures lease or property income (for example, building lease income), not the operating income of a business located on the site.

She reviewed statutory tax rates by class (for example residential rate and higher rate tiers for very high‑value residences) and discussed the so‑called "95 mills" for state school equalization (three statutes totalling the customary 95 mills as administered), the 6‑mill university levy approved by referendum and the 1.5‑mill vocational technical education levy in counties that assess it.

Moore explained the Department certifies taxable values to taxing jurisdictions (required by statute by the first Monday in August) and described how mill levies work. She walked through the calculation in 15‑10‑420 (the statute the committee often cites) that limits most city and county general levies to a 1996 base adjusted for a half‑CPI inflation factor, while excluding newly taxable property and certain other values when computing the allowable mills; jurisdictions may also carry forward unused levy capacity.

Curt Swimley of the Legislative Fiscal Division demonstrated interactive dashboards the Legislature and staff use to analyze property‑tax collections, taxable and assessed values by class, taxes paid by taxing unit, taxes per capita and modeling scenarios (for example, effects of changing the residential tax rate). Swimley highlighted that reappraisals in 2024 produced a notable statewide jump in assessed values and that distribution of taxable value varies greatly by county (some counties are dominated by residential value; others by centrally assessed property such as utilities or pipelines).

Moore and Swimley answered technical questions from members about valuation comparables, highest‑and‑best‑use considerations, mill‑levy calculations, carryforward mills and special assessments. The presenters also reviewed property‑tax assistance programs (Property Tax Assistance Program; Disabled Veteran exemption; intangible land‑value exemption; elderly homeowner/renter income‑tax credit) and described program eligibility and how exemptions shift taxes to other taxpayers in the same jurisdiction.

Ending: Committee members asked follow‑up questions and Moore and Swimley offered staff contacts for more detail; the training concluded and the committee moved on to other business.