Senate approves amendment to property-tax-appeals bill, then defers final action
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Lawmakers passed amendment D to Senate Bill 208 to expand when attorney's fees may be awarded to taxpayers who prevail in assessment appeals, but subsequent procedural action (rule 5-17) deferred final disposition to the next legislative day after further amendments were proposed.
Senator Hulse, sponsor of Senate Bill 208, explained the bill’s intent: to make taxpayers eligible for attorney’s fees if they prevail in appeals that change property assessment or classification by 20 percent or more, and to allow discretionary fee awards when the change is less than 20 percent. He described the provision as leveling the playing field because counties could already be awarded fees when they prevailed.
During floor debate, concerns focused on a newly added section (in amendment 208D) that would deny attorney’s fees to a taxpayer who prevented county access for assessment (language using the term 'hinder'). Senator Petersen said the wording had been misused in some counties and moved amendment 208F to delete that section. Senator Pyschke raised constitutional concerns, suggesting the amendment might impinge on Fourth Amendment protections for private property. Senator Hulse said the bill did not change existing rules about entry and would not permit warrantless entry to private homes.
The Senate adopted amendment 208D on a roll-call vote (19 yays, 15 nays). Later, Senator Petersen moved amendment 208F (deleting the 'hinder' section) and debate continued; Senator Reid invoked rule 5-17, which, when supported, deferred the bill for the day so it can be taken up again tomorrow. The net outcome was that amendment D is part of the pending text but final passage was deferred to allow further consideration of amendment F and additional negotiation.
Key quantitative clarifications discussed on the floor: the bill ties mandatory fee awards to an assessment change threshold of 20 percent and allows discretionary awards for smaller changes. Senator Hulse and others noted that section 3 (the 'hinder' language) was intended to prevent taxpayer gaming but that its wording could be abused by assessors if left unclear.
Because final passage was deferred, no definitive enactment occurred during this session; sponsors indicated continued negotiations with county representatives and other stakeholders.