Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Legislative conference committee narrows property-tax proposal to 4% cap, debates rolling-average removal
Summary
Conferees pressed for a flat 4% property-tax assessment cap starting in 2027, proposed using 2022 as the assessment baseline, and raised implementation and cost concerns about the House's rolling-average approach after consultation with county treasurers and the Property Valuation Division.
A lawmaker on the legislative conference committee said the group wants the property-tax provisions to begin in 2027 and favored a flat 4% assessment cap rather than the House's 7.5% proposal, while proposing 2022 as the baseline assessment year.
The lawmaker said the change should affect assessment values only and "not impact appraisals at all or evaluations at all," adding that the committee did not intend to alter the current appraisal system. "We would like to start that in 2027," the lawmaker said, summarizing the counteroffer.
On the rolling-average approach offered by the House, the same lawmaker cited technical and cost concerns reported by county treasurers and the Property Valuation Division. The speaker said the treasurers described a "substantial cost" to implement the rolling average, noting that software changes or added flags in the PVD system would likely be required. "It absolutely can be implemented," the lawmaker added, but warned that it would be more complex and potentially costly than a constant-percentage cap.
Committee members also discussed which property classes and subclasses to include in the cap. The conferee said the group would be willing to accept many of the House positions on subclasses but asked that agricultural land be considered for inclusion in the flat cap. The committee reviewed the Constitution's taxonomy of real-property subclasses (residential, agricultural use, vacant lots, not-for-profit organizations, public utilities, commercial/industrial including ag improvements, and "all other"), and noted differences between the House and Senate approaches.
Members characterized the Senate preference as an assessment limit and the House preference as a revenue limit and said negotiators were trying to combine elements of earlier bills (referred to in the session as 1616 and 1603) in ways that could secure majority support in both chambers. The lawmaker said they would take the counteroffer back to other conferees and asked for time to consult before making or accepting a final counter.
The session concluded with a procedural decision to review additional conference bills during a short window before returning to finalize 1603/1616. Conferees tentatively planned to reconvene later that night or the following morning to continue negotiations.
