The Revenue Committee advanced Senate File 67, a measure revising the long-term homeowner property tax exemption, on a roll-call vote that passed 3–2 and will move to the full Senate.

Committee members and invited witnesses debated whether the bill should retain its current sunset (repealer) language, its potential fiscal effect and how to define eligible owners and associated land. Testimony at the hearing flagged a projected fiscal impact far larger than earlier estimates, and several senators said constitutional questions about equal treatment of property owners remain unresolved.

The committee recorded three aye votes and two no votes on the motion to move the bill to the floor. Senator French and Chairman McKeown were among those recorded voting in favor; Senator Case and Senator Pappas recorded no votes. A committee member also reported an absentee aye on the roll call.

Why it matters: witnesses and members said the bill would affect local government revenues and homeowners on fixed incomes. Jeremiah Grama, speaking for the Wyoming County Commissioners Association, told the committee, “This bill alone for fiscal year 27 and beyond, indicates a fiscal impact of $31,500,000,” and noted the Department earlier estimated last year’s related bill at about $10,700,000 and that applications could increase costs further.

Committee discussion focused on three practical questions. First, whether a person who lives in a dwelling owned by a corporation, partnership or LLC but who is a shareholder or partner qualifies as an owner for the exemption; witnesses asked for clearer statutory language so counties can administer applications consistently. Second, committee members and witnesses sought clarification about “associated residential land,” which the bill references as up to 35 acres: they asked whether that language was intended to permit exemption of multiple adjoining lots without dwellings. Third, several speakers urged adopting an administrative process comparable to the veterans’ exemption so long-term homeowners would not need to refile full applications annually; witnesses noted some counties process thousands of exemption filings.

Senators debated policy and constitutionality. Senator Case argued the exemption scheme raises equal-protection and state constitutional concerns, citing Article 15 and saying exemptions should be constrained by the constitution’s language. Senator French cautioned against creating an eligibility test based on subjective determinations, stating, “I don't think we want to go down the road of, well, you deserve this, but you don't.” Chair Powell framed the bill as intended to help homeowners on fixed incomes, recounting encounters with elderly constituents who said rising taxes were forcing them to consider leaving their communities.

Witnesses also urged caution on the bill’s proposed repeal date. Jeremiah Grama and others asked the committee not to remove the sunset without firmer cost data; Grama said jurisdictions that already face tight budgets could be disproportionately affected and suggested any permanent change be considered after more complete fiscal reporting. Several committee members said they would support bringing the bill to the floor while pursuing amendments there, including possible adjustments to the sunset, an income or hardship test, or clearer definitions of “owner” and “associated land.”

Formal action: a committee member moved the bill and it was seconded; the motion passed on the roll call and the chair announced the bill will go to the Senate floor.

The committee closed testimony and the chair adjourned the session; members indicated they would continue discussing amendments before the floor debate.