Committee backs bill to change access to commercial property data in tax appeals after sharp debate
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Senate File 3804 — a response to litigation over access to nonpublic property data — drew sharply divided testimony; proponents said protective orders and disclosure would improve fairness, while county assessors warned it would undermine statutory data protections. The committee recommended the bill be re‑referred to the Taxes Committee.
The Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee advanced a bill on March 4 that would change how nonpublic commercial property data is handled in property‑tax appeals, a push framed by the sponsor as a response to court rulings and calls for more transparent, merit‑based adjudication.
Supporters, including Lane Thor and Thomas Wilhelmi, said Senate File 3804 restores fairness by ensuring litigants in tax appeals can access relevant information under court protective orders, rather than losing the ability to challenge valuations on procedural grounds. "Property tax cases should be decided based on the merits, not on procedural technicalities," Thor said.
Counties pushed back. Becca Holshue, assistant Hennepin County attorney, told the committee the bill would weaken protections long established in Minn. Stat. §13.51 and could force counties to become de facto clearinghouses for commercial data, impose new administrative costs and discourage taxpayers from appealing. Ramsey County Assessor Patrick Chapman warned that protective orders could limit assessors’ ability to use data internally and could dramatically increase appraisal costs for taxing jurisdictions.
Context and law: Witnesses framed the bill in the context of the Oracle decision. Wilhelmi, who said he led counsel in Oracle, argued that the Supreme Court’s handling of protected assessor data left an unresolved conflict that the Legislature should address. County officials said the existing data‑practices protections are critical to ensure market data collected for valuation remains protected.
Committee action: After testimony from both sides and several members’ questions, the committee voted to recommend Senate File 3804 to pass and re‑refer it to the Taxes Committee for further review.
Next steps: The bill will go to the Taxes Committee, where counties and business groups can continue to present technical revisions. Committee members signaled they expect further drafting to calibrate protective orders and data‑access rules.
Sources: Testimony from Lane Thor and Thomas Wilhelmi (support), Becca Holshue and Patrick Chapman (counties and assessors).