Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sponsor proposes pie charts and QR codes on municipal tax bills to boost transparency
Summary
Rep. Brian Leer introduced House Bill 1516 to let municipalities offer voters a local-option ballot question requiring tax bills to include visual aids (pie charts, graphs) and a QR code linking to municipal budget detail; assessors urged state-level options and raised cost and space concerns.
Representative Brian Leer introduced House Bill 1516, telling the Senate Election Law and Municipal Affairs Committee it would “put transparency in the palm of taxpayers’ hands” by allowing municipalities to present voters with a local-option question to require charts and a QR code on tax bills.
The bill’s sponsor said the measure is voluntary for towns and not an unfunded mandate, and that by requiring a majority vote at the annual meeting ‘‘transparency measures will take effect only if local voters adopt them.’’ Leer said the QR code would link taxpayers directly to municipal budget pages that are otherwise ‘‘buried in a 10-page budget’’ and that the feature would make it easier to compare year‑over‑year usage like a utility bill.
Chief assessor Jim Eishaw of Hudson testified he had no official position on the bill but noted the data needed to produce charts already exists and could be centralized by the Department of Revenue Administration (DRA). “If you want it done for the whole state, you could have the DRA do this,” Eishaw said, arguing that a state-managed approach could reduce duplication and shared costs.
Senators raised practical concerns about the physical space on tax bills, administration and who would absorb any extra local costs. A committee member observed that some tax bills vary in size and that embedding prior-year assessed values or graphics could require additional formatting and cost at the local level. The sponsor and assessors suggested many municipalities already post assessed-value histories on town websites.
The committee closed public hearing on HB 1516 after reading sign-in tallies and proceeded with other business; members discussed the proposal’s goals and whether a centralized, state-led approach might better achieve consistent statewide transparency without shifting burdens to smaller towns.
The committee did not adopt a final committee recommendation on HB 1516 during the session recorded.
The committee’s next steps will include further review of implementation mechanics and whether to pursue a state‑led option or preserve local choice.
