Committee debates property‑tax lid proposals; 3% cap added but a motion to advance one lid bill fails on a tie; House bill with protest‑petition language moves

The Senate Assessment and Taxation Committee considered a set of proposals and amendments aimed at limiting property‑tax increases. Senate Bill 280 would require that, on and after Jan. 1, 2026, any taxing entity obtain elector approval to increase its total property tax levy by more than the annual rate of inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers (CPI‑U), with specified exclusions for the 20‑mill local and 1.5‑mill state levies.

Committee staff Amelia explained the bill and the CPI‑U reference. Senator Corson offered an amendment to exclude increased property‑tax revenue used to repay bonds, temporary notes, no‑fund warrants, state infrastructure loans, interest payments, payments made to a public building commission, and lease payments — language previously included in an earlier tax‑lid statute. Corson and supporters argued the exclusion was necessary to avoid credit‑rating downgrades and higher borrowing costs for local governments. Opponents, including Senator Owens, said that a broad exemption could be used to sidestep the lid by converting spending to bond issuance.

The Corson amendment was moved and seconded and was debated; the amendment failed on a committee vote. Senator Peck then moved an amendment to cap levy increases at 3 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower; that amendment was moved, seconded and passed.

Later, Senator Peck moved that the committee pass Senate Bill 280 as amended. The motion to report SB280 favorably resulted in a tie and failed; the committee did not advance SB280 at that time. Separately, the committee worked House Bill 2,396 (the House proposal addressing similar tax‑limitation concepts). Senator Owens led a set of changes to the House bill that removed an "Astra Fund," added taxpayer notice for a protest‑petition process, and added a temporary state reimbursement fund for notification costs; the committee approved the committee’s substitute and reported House Bill 2,396 as amended to the next step.

Committee members discussed logistics for implementing voter elections and protest petitions, including prior tax‑lid election language that specified timing options (regular August/November elections, mail ballot, or special elections) and the cost responsibilities for jurisdictions calling elections. Several senators expressed concern about election timing, notification logistics, and the potential for unintended exemptions or bonding workarounds. Some members urged additional study; others sought floor amendments or conference negotiation.

Because committee action produced a mix of successful and unsuccessful motions — a failed debt‑service exemption, an approved 3% cap amendment, a failed motion to advance SB280, and a reported House bill — the property‑tax proposals will move forward through a combination of floor action and conference work.