Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Reform topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lawmakers debate capping property tax growth at CPI and lengthening reassessment cycle; author voluntarily defers bill
Summary
Representative DeWitt presented a constitutional amendment (HB412) that would tie annual property‑tax growth to the Consumer Price Index and change the reassessment cycle from four to five years. The committee adopted a technical amendment to strike a 30‑year exemption and, after lengthy technical questions and assessor testimony about appeals and phase‑in protections, the sponsor voluntarily deferred the bill for further work.
Representative DeWitt told the House Ways and Means Committee that HB412 would give homeowners predictability by tying annual taxable‑value increases to the Consumer Price Index and shifting the reassessment cycle from four to five years.
"This means tax increase follows inflation, not unpredictable real estate markets," DeWitt said, arguing the proposal would reduce "sticker shock" for homeowners facing large reassessments. He said the change was not intended to cut local budgets but to smooth revenue volatility.
The committee first adopted an in‑concept amendment to strike a separate provision that would have created a 30‑year homestead exemption; the amendment narrowed the constitutional measure to two components: a CPI‑based cap and the five‑year reassessment cycle.
Members interrogated the mechanics at length. Representative Hebert and others pressed whether the bill uses a single year’s CPI prior to reassessment or averages CPI across the cycle, and whether taxpayers would effectively be taxed on a lower "practical taxable value" for the entire cycle if market values rose sharply. DeWitt acknowledged those tradeoffs and said he was open to averaging language to address spikes.
Assessors and Tax Commission staff explained existing safeguards: parish assessors noted the reassessment notice and appeal process, and Tax Commission leadership and assessors described existing "circuit breaker" protections (age‑based freezes, veterans’ exemptions and phased‑in billing for increases above certain thresholds) that limit sudden bill increases. Still, committee members and local officials raised concerns that a CPI cap could cause long‑term divergence between taxable and market values and shift burdens among taxpayers and taxing bodies.
After technical questions and offers from assessors to provide drafting input, DeWitt asked to voluntarily defer HB412 so staff and stakeholders could resolve drafting details; the committee granted the deferment by unanimous consent.
