Committee hears bill to flip burden in property-value appeals; assessors warn of bigger workload
Loading...
Summary
House File 3971 would shift the burden of proof in some property-tax appeals and allow equity-based appeals using comparative data. Proponents say the change democratizes appeals; county assessors warned it would invite meritless appeals, strain county offices and shift costs to local levies. The bill was held over.
Lawmakers and witnesses clashed over a proposal to change Minnesota’s property-tax appeal process and allow equity appeals that use comparable-property data.
Representative Hewitt presented House File 39 71, saying the bill would improve fairness and transparency by shifting certain burdens of proof and allowing appeals that compare similar properties. Sam Rao, chief of staff at OwnWell, said the bill “levels the playing field” by giving homeowners access to data and a technology-enabled evidence packet they could use to file appeals.
County and assessor representatives pushed back. Nathan Jessen of the Minnesota Intercounty Association and Josh Hoagland, Hennepin County Assessor and chair of the association’s legislative committee, warned the committee the bill would likely produce a large surge in appeals and would create an unfunded workload at county offices. Hoagland said: “Eliminating the presumption of validity would almost certainly invite a wave of meritless appeals, forcing assessors to defend every single valuation rather than focus on genuine issues.”
Members asked about data privacy and commercial investment: several members had questions about OwnWell’s investors (a venture arm of Intuit was disclosed), how proprietary or public data would be handled, and whether the business model meant the bill primarily benefits a private company. OwnWell testified that it uses public property records plus homeowner‑provided surveys and that it does not share data with third parties outside the platform.
Legal questions were also raised. Vice Chair Norris and members noted the bill would carve out a narrow exception to existing tax‑court burden‑of‑proof statutes and asked why Minnesota should adopt a departure from existing precedent. County representatives noted that tax-court precedent already makes overcoming prima facie validity relatively low in many cases.
The committee discussed options for follow-up work; members on both sides agreed the bill needs refinement. The author indicated the bill would need more work and the committee laid the bill over for possible inclusion in the omnibus tax bill.
