Conference committee reviews Senate File 153, debates assessment rate changes and interaction with recent property tax measures

A joint conference committee meeting on Senate File 153 on Wednesday examined competing amendments to how Wyoming will classify and assess residential real property and reviewed fiscal interactions with other 2025 property tax measures, including the 25% homeowner exemption enacted as 2025 Wyoming Session Laws, Chapter 106.

Committee co-chairs and staff opened the session by outlining the bill’s purpose and the changes made in each chamber. The bill returned from the House with several amendments, including rate adjustments and an insertion to “give a consideration for deployed military,” and an alteration of assessment rates discussed as either 9.5% or 8.3% depending on amendment versions. Dean Tempe, budget/fiscal staff at the Legislative Service Office (LSO), said the engrossed Senate version removed mobile homes from the definition of residential real property and struck a 35-acre reference from the introduced language.

The chief fiscal issue for members was how Senate File 153 (level of assessment) would interact with other measures passed this session. Dalton Kilty of LSO walked the committee through three fact sheets: (1) the enacted 2025 homeowner exemption (chapter 106, formerly Senate File 69), (2) Senate File 153 as considered, and (3) a combined-impact table that modeled the effect of both laws together. Kilty summarized the combination: “Because of the way these work, essentially what 153 does is lower the assessment value and then Senate File 69 … goes and reduces that by 25%. So they are not truly additive.”

Brenda Henson, Director of the Department of Revenue, told the committee the constitutional amendment that voters approved requires the legislature to create a residential real property class in statute, but that the amendment does not permit mixing real property and personal property in the same class. “Real property is a legal term. Land and structures,” Henson said. She explained mobile homes are titled personal property and therefore would not be captured by the assessment change in Senate File 153 but remain eligible for the exemption created in chapter 106.

Committee members pressed staff and the revenue department for fiscal estimates and process questions. LSO and Revenue staff gave several figures and caveats: the enacted 25% exemption (chapter 106) applies to residential structures and improved land up to $1 million fair market value and produces the largest revenue decrease in its first year because it initially applied to all residential structures, then narrows to owner-occupied units in later years. The long-term homeowner exemption (House Bill 3) is a separate 50% exemption on structures (up to four units) and associated land up to 35 acres; as of the meeting, county assessors had accepted roughly 23,524 applications with an estimated total fiscal effect in the $30 million to $35 million range depending on final applications.

Officials also reviewed other enacted or amended bills that affect property tax revenues, including a 4% cap on single-family residential structures (estimated roughly $19 million for 2024), a 4% cap on associated residential land (estimated about $9.5 million for 2025), expansions to the property tax refund program (initial appropriation $20 million and a supplemental request of $10.5 million), and a doubling of the veterans exemption that increased state backfill costs.

On a technical point the committee debated earlier in the meeting, members noted some inconsistency in amendment language and sequencing in the House amendments: the package at various points produced outcomes described as (a) first year 9.5% then 8.3% for owner-occupied, (b) an intermediate 9.5/8.3 split, and (c) a final amendment that set assessment at 8.3% for all residential property. LSO staff confirmed the last amendment under consideration “did take all residential property to 8.3.”

Members asked whether the absence of a statutory fourth class (if Senate File 153 were to die) would halt property tax administration. Henson said legal counsel advised that if the bill failed, the state would continue to administer existing levels of assessment (9.5% for most classes, 100% for minerals, 11.5% for industrial) and that, while property owners could mount challenges, the Department of Revenue would proceed under existing law. “If this bill dies today or if this bill passes, we can continue with the same level of assessment at 9 and a half in both spots,” Henson said.

Several senators expressed concern about compounding multiple property tax relief measures this session and the strain that creates for both fiscal staff and local taxing authorities. One senator said he would prefer a “clean” bill to establish the fourth class without embedding tax relief, while another argued that the committee’s role is to negotiate between chambers rather than to unilaterally kill the legislation. The committee recessed with plans to reconvene later in the day.

No formal motions or votes were recorded during the meeting.

Ending: The committee requested additional information and modeling from LSO and Department of Revenue, and planned to meet again; no final agreement was reached on Senate File 153 during the session.