Brown County outlines 2026 assessment plan as state caps and senior-freeze changes reshape tax picture

Gene Lutzky, Brown County’s director of equalization, told the commission the county’s 2026 assessment plan will be shaped by recent state action that limits owner-occupied assessment growth and changes eligibility for a senior property-tax freeze. "What Senate Bill 216 does is it limits owner occupied assessment to a 3% increase cumulatively county wide," Lutzky said, describing how the cap applies countywide rather than to individual parcels.

Lutzky said the county must maintain two sets of values: a full-and-true market value and an adjusted (capped) assessment. "You have to keep two sets of books," he said, adding that SB 216 is temporary unless amended and carries a five-year sunset currently scheduled to run through 2032 as written in the discussion. He also described a technical process for determining a multiplier to spread any required adjustment across owner-occupied properties so the county meets the statutory cap in aggregate.

Beyond the 3% countywide cap, Lutzky highlighted several class-specific impacts he expects for 2026: agricultural land under productivity adjustments is likely to rise by about 2.5% this year, some owner-occupied neighborhoods could see increases in the 7–12% range, and commercial property values are projected to move roughly 9% overall. He identified Elm Lake as a particularly fast-moving market likely to see larger owner-occupied increases.

Lutzky also said the legislation expanded eligibility for the senior-freeze program. He described higher income and structure-value thresholds designed to preserve eligibility for more low-income seniors, and cited adjustments to the qualifying-structure limit and income thresholds discussed in the meeting materials. "That was probably a bigger deal right now than the 3% cap," he said, referring to the broadened senior-freeze criteria.

Commissioners asked clarifying questions about process and impacts. Lutzky cautioned that a flat-per-parcel 3% cap proposed in other bills would have different distributional consequences: "I know people like to know that, okay, my assessment's gonna go 3%. And my issue that I have with it is my grandchildren ... are going to have tax bills far less than my grandkids who are buying their first house at that time," he said, warning of potential intergenerational inequities under some cap designs.

Lutzky also summarized pending state bills he referenced during the presentation, including bills discussed as SB 96, SB 99 and an earlier SB 58 hearing. He described one proposal to replace some school general levies with a sales-tax increase and another to raise the growth cap from 3% toward 5% in certain proposals. He noted each bill’s details would determine how local levies and effort calculations are adjusted.

The presentation included technical notes on discretionary tax abatements (TAD/TIF) and how the removal of large discretionary assessments from prior years will reallocate the local effort burden across property classes in 2026 and future payable years.

Next steps: staff will finalize assessment notices using the two-value approach required under state guidance, and commissioners were advised to monitor pending state legislation that could alter caps or replacement revenue mechanisms. Lutzky and staff will return with implementation details and notices as required by statute and county procedures.