Provide two-year reappraisal cycle for all real property
HB 90 changes Montana’s property tax reappraisal schedule for noncentrally assessed real property by requiring class three, class four, and class ten property to be revalued on a two-year cycle. The bill amends the state’s reappraisal statute so that these property classes are reappraised every second year, while centrally assessed property continues to follow the separate timing already set in law. It also directs the Department of Revenue to maintain a reappraisal plan by rule, complete reappraisal by December 31 of every second year, and revalue newly constructed, remodeled, or reclassified property consistently with the applicable class values.
The bill also adds taxpayer notice and reporting requirements. In reappraisal notices, the department must provide information on inflation and personal income growth, as well as estimated annualized changes in property taxes over the prior 10 years by state, county, cities or towns, and local school mills. The department must also publish that information in newspapers of general circulation in each county in even-numbered years. The act takes effect immediately upon passage and approval and applies retroactively to property tax years beginning after December 31, 2024.
HB 90’s main legal impact is on Montana property tax administration and valuation timing. It changes the statutory reappraisal cycle for most locally assessed real property, affecting how often county taxpayers’ property values are updated and how the Department of Revenue conducts inspections, sales reviews, and data verification. Because reappraisal timing can influence taxable values and tax bills, the bill has practical consequences for property owners, local governments, and school funding calculations tied to property tax bases.
The bill appears to have been broadly supported and noncontroversial in the legislative process. It passed the House and Senate with overwhelming margins, including unanimous committee approval in both chambers and only a small number of dissenting votes on final Senate readings. The available record does not show committee testimony or major floor debate, suggesting the measure was viewed as a technical or administrative adjustment rather than a highly contested policy change.
The main point of contention, to the extent one exists, would likely be the effect of a shorter reappraisal cycle on taxpayers and local taxing jurisdictions, since more frequent revaluation can shift tax burdens and create uncertainty about future assessments. However, the voting history indicates little organized opposition, and the bill’s sponsor-by-request status from the Department of Revenue suggests it was presented as an administrative modernization of the reappraisal process rather than a substantive tax increase.
HB 90 amends section 15-7-111, MCA, to require reappraisal of class three, class four, and class ten real property on a two-year cycle and to align the Department of Revenue’s reappraisal plan, inspection practices, and notice requirements with that schedule. It affects property tax administration for noncentrally assessed real property, while centrally assessed property remains governed by separate statutory timing. The bill applies retroactively to property tax years beginning after December 31, 2024, and takes immediate effect upon passage and approval.
The overall sentiment around HB 90 was strongly favorable. It passed committee and both chambers with large margins, including unanimous committee votes and near-unanimous floor votes, indicating broad bipartisan support. The lack of recorded committee discussion suggests the bill was treated as a routine administrative or technical measure rather than a controversial policy proposal.
No major contention is evident in the available record. The only likely area of concern is the practical effect of more frequent property reappraisals on assessed values, tax bills, and local revenue stability for homeowners, businesses, counties, and school districts. Even so, the vote totals show that any such concerns did not translate into significant opposition during the legislative process.