Senator from the 11th says SB1410/SB853 fall short of property tax relief

The Senate session on the journal turned into an extended floor critique of the session’s property-tax package when the senator from the 11th addressed colleagues, arguing the bill will not materially reduce property taxes for homeowners.

The senator from the 11th said the package — a combination of Senate Bill 1410 and Senate Bill 853 — contains provisions he supports in principle but said key protections he offered were rejected. "We're being taxed on monies we have not even received," the senator said, noting that many constituents in his district are struggling under sharply increased assessments.

Why it matters: Senate sponsors combined two bills and added a range of amendments. The senator said the result is a bill that changes ballot labeling and levy calculations but does not address what he called the central drivers of skyrocketing local assessments and mounting delinquencies.

On the floor he pointed to several concrete provisions that were added: a requirement that ballot language state the effect "in dollars owed per $100,000 of property's market value," coordination of ballot numbering across jurisdictions, and a schedule to silo levies by property subclass beginning January 1, 2027. He praised some elements — including clearer ballot language — but said that none of those measures will "help people save their homes" who face immediate tax pressure.

The senator described amendments he filed that failed to pass: tightening the range used in ratio studies by the State Tax Commission, a statutory cap on increases in assessments, a requirement that taxpayers be given copies of third‑party documents used to assess their properties, and more transparent notice and method disclosures from assessors. He said those measures would have provided meaningful homeowner protections and that their rejection was a lost opportunity.

He framed the debate as one of priorities, saying property-tax reform had been his caucus's top issue going into the session but that income‑tax changes ultimately took priority. "We had a great opportunity to do so," he said, adding that instead the chamber "basically traded away property tax ... for an income tax bill."

Next steps: The senator closed by urging colleagues to remember constituent hardship and said he would make his district aware of what passed. No formal vote on the property‑tax measures occurred on the floor during this segment; committee and conference processes were referenced as the next mechanisms for change.