House panel adopts bill to standardize order of property tax exemptions

The House Revenue Committee on Monday approved House Bill 279, which directs assessors to apply multiple property tax exemptions in a single, specified order so that taxpayers receive consistent calculations across Wyoming counties.

The measure requires that when more than one percentage-based exemption applies to a single residential property, assessors apply exemptions from lowest percentage to highest and then apply non-percentage exemptions (for example, a fixed-dollar veterans exemption) after percentage-based reductions. The committee passed the bill by roll call, 8 ayes, 1 excused.

Why it matters: County assessors and the Department of Revenue told the committee that recent, stacked property tax relief measures — including a 4% cap on residential assessed-value growth and a 50% long-term homeowner exemption — produced different results depending on the order in which exemptions were applied. The department and several legislators said those sequencing differences could cause taxpayer confusion when assessment notices arrive this spring.

Brenda Henson, director of the Wyoming Department of Revenue, told the committee that the department and county assessors had interpreted the statutes differently because individual bills referenced assessed value rather than specifying calculation sequence. "For any property where more than one exemption applies to the same property, this is the manner in which you should apply," Henson said, reading from the proposed statutory language and explaining the purpose of centralizing the math in one place in the code.

Henson outlined the practical effect: assessors would first calculate the 4% cap on structure and associated residential land where applicable, then apply any percentage-based exemptions such as long-term homeowner relief to the net after the cap, and finally apply fixed-dollar exemptions such as the veterans $6,000 assessed‑dollar exemption to the remaining value.

Committee members sought and received clarifications. Representative Campbell asked whether the bill merely clarified existing intent and whether the state's CAMA mass-appraisal system can implement the sequencing; Henson said the bill clarifies legislative intent but noted the current CAMA (computer-assisted mass appraisal) functionality is limited for multiple successive percentage calculations in 2025. The department is migrating its CAMA database from Oracle to SQL in a cloud environment and expects the additional net-value functionality after that migration, currently targeted for completion in November.

Representative Ward asked whether the bill would change an amendment placed earlier in session (House Bill 169) that prevented simultaneous application of certain 50% exemptions; Henson said the bill does not alter an amendment that makes a specific exemption unavailable — the new sequencing language applies only when multiple exemptions actually apply to the same property.

Public comment included a handful of county residents who supported the clarification as a step toward greater predictability. Bill Winnie of Sublette County told the committee he had heard many residents "squeaking" about tax increases and said the bill was "a good thing".

Action: Representative Steibar moved HB 279; Representative Campbell seconded. Roll-call votes recorded: Representative Brown — Aye; Representative Campbell — Aye; Representative Lean — Aye; Representative Lucas — Aye; Representative Riggins — Excused; Representative Storer — Aye; Representative Steibar — Aye; Representative Wharfe — absentee Aye; Chairman Locke — Aye. The committee clerk announced 8 ayes and 1 excused; the bill passed the committee.

What the bill does not do: HB 279 sets a calculation order; it does not change the dollar amounts or eligibility for any exemption. Henson said it would not repeal any exemption and would only be used when multiple exemptions apply to one residential structure. The department also told the committee that if future reforms (for example, an acquisition-value system) are adopted, lawmakers would need to reconcile or amend sequencing language as part of that broader change.

The committee advanced HB 279 to the next step in the legislative process.