Transcript Highlights:

• Levi, I need you to make sure that I'm understanding this 100% correct.
• Levi. Mr.

Bills: SB2019, HB1369

Keywords: career education, funding, appropriation, technical training, workforce development, state aid, school funding, public improvement, construction loans, school district levies, boarding care costs, 908, all

Summary: The committee met to finalize and advance the Career and Technical Education budget in Engrossed Senate Bill 2019. Representative Richter walked through Amendment 2004, which included increases for salaries and wages, inflationary operating expenses, a $2.5 million federal grant increase, $12.7 million for secondary grant programs and related work-based learning support, a $100,000 increase for Marketplace for Kids, and removal of the STEM initiative and adult farm management from the CTE budget because that program funding was moved to the Department of Agriculture. The amendment also included $750,000 for workforce training branch office positions and set the total general fund appropriation at $64 million. Members also discussed a $1 million virtual reality career exploration item, which remained in the bill but was shifted to SIF one-time funding. A new $150,000 one-time general fund appropriation was added for CTE moving expenses because the agency must relocate after Legislative Council expands into its current space. Committee members noted that amount may need to be revisited in conference committee once more accurate relocation and rent costs are known. Levi from legislative staff explained that the exemption language in the bill applies to remaining coronavirus capital projects fund dollars for CTE center construction, allowing those federal funds to be spent before they expire. The committee adopted Amendment 2004 on a 5-0 roll call and then passed Engrossed Senate Bill 2019 as amended on a 5-0 roll call. Representative Richter was named the carrier, and the committee adjourned after noting that higher education and congressional budgets were the remaining items to resolve.

Transcript Highlights:

• As background, an emergency medical service, or EMS, levy is a regular voter-approved property tax levy
• the levy within any portion of its boundaries.
• may impose its own levy for any portion of its district not subject to that other district's levy.
• That levy.
• that fire district is overlaid with an EMS levy.

Bills: HB2334, HB2140, HB2326, HB2100

Keywords: cash transactions, pennies, currency adjustment, economic impact, consumer protection, tax exemption, governmental transfer, agriculture, land use, property tax, emergency medical services, levies, healthcare funding, local government, taxation, excise tax, large companies, payroll expenses, minimum wage, Well Washington fund

Summary: The committee first heard House Bill 2140, which would exempt land sold or transferred to a governmental entity from the additional tax owed when land is removed from an open space current-use classification in certain circumstances. Staff explained the bill’s current-use tax rules and noted the fiscal impact is expected to be minimal but indeterminate. Representative Lowe said the bill is meant to fix a narrow problem where a county takes a small frontage strip for public purposes and the owner is still charged back taxes; FutureWise testified in support of the intent but asked for language tweaks to ensure the transferred land does not later become incompatible with agricultural or open-space use. The hearing on HB 2140 was then closed. The committee then heard House Bill 2326, which would allow a fire protection district to impose an EMS levy on the portion of its district not already covered by another taxing district’s EMS levy, with voters in the affected area approving it. Fire district and fire chief representatives testified in support, describing situations where a small overlap prevents most residents in a district from voting on or funding EMS service. Opponents argued the bill would add to property tax burdens. Testimony concluded and the hearing was closed. Next, House Bill 2334 was heard, responding to the federal decision to stop minting new pennies by setting rules for rounding cash transactions to the nearest five cents. Staff said rounding would apply only to cash payments and would occur after taxes and fees are included; the fiscal note was described as indeterminate but minimal at the state level, with some implementation costs. Retail and grocery groups generally supported the bill but requested clarifying amendments and protections related to tax obligations, consumer lawsuits, SNAP equal-treatment rules, and local ordinances; other testimony supported the measure as a practical response to the penny’s disappearance. The hearing was then closed. Finally, the committee heard House Bill 2100, a proposed payroll expense tax on large operating companies to fund the new Well Washington Fund for higher education, health care, cash assistance, energy, and housing, with an oversight board and a credit for eligible city payroll taxes. Staff described a substitute narrowing the bill to employers with 250 or more employees and at least $7 million in payroll, with several public-sector and health-related exemptions; the fiscal note projected substantial revenue. Supporters, including labor, poverty, housing, health, and faith advocates, said the bill would help offset federal cuts and protect vulnerable residents. Business, retail, hospitality, construction, and chamber representatives opposed it, warning about job losses, higher costs, and harm to competitiveness. The prime sponsor said the bill is intended as a near-term response to federal funding cuts, and testimony continued with many additional witnesses before the transcript ended.

Transcript Highlights:

• It's a technical corrections aid and levy adjustment that will be placed on the General Register.
• House File 921 is a technical corrections aid and levy adjustment that will be placed on the General

Bills: HF984, HF921, HF922

Keywords: education funding, nonpublic schools, counseling services, guidance services, transportation for students, HF921, tax increment financing, TIF, excess tax increment, school district aid, levy adjustment, property tax levy, education finance, Minnesota education aid, decertification, local government finance, school funding formula, state aid reduction, referendum equalization aid, debt service equalization

Bills: HF29, HF921, HF922, HF1048, HF1049

Keywords: railroad, infrastructure, transportation funding, environmental remediation, capital investment, HF921, tax increment financing, TIF, excess tax increment, school district aid, levy adjustment, property tax levy, education finance, Minnesota education aid, decertification, local government finance, school funding formula, state aid reduction, referendum equalization aid, debt service equalization

Transcript Highlights:

• There are the general fund levies starting on page one, the community service fund levies starting on
• There are the general fund levies starting on page one, the community service fund levies starting on
• There are the general fund levies starting on page one, the community service fund levies starting on
• Called the technology levy or the capital projects levy, which is on line 29 of Ms.
• Did you say no levy authority? Yeah, or they can't pass their levies, you know?

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• “Not just that mill levy.
• to levy excess mills for those levies for up to a 10-year period.
• So we would be able to tell who's levying a building fund levy, a safety fund levy, those things.
• , a building fund levy, a safety fund levy, those things.
• This was the report on the 2024 levies: 38 townships levying less than one mill, 417 townships levying

Keywords: 908, all

Summary: The committee met to continue its tax reform and relief study agenda, approved the December 3, 2025 minutes, and announced a new subcommittee to examine property tax statement issues with counties, auditors, and the tax office. Representative Headland was named chair, Senator Rummel vice chair, and Representatives Dressler and Dr. Dr. and Senator Patton were also assigned. The chair noted the group may need an additional meeting and thanked staff and attendees. A major portion of the meeting focused on economic development incentives. The Department of Commerce presented on the Renaissance Zone program and TIF districts, describing Renaissance Zones as locally tailored tools that combine local property tax relief with state income tax incentives. Commerce said the program has supported thousands of projects since 1999 and cited examples from Beach and Mandan showing increases in property and taxable value, business retention, housing, and downtown revitalization. Committee members raised concerns that smaller rural communities often lack the staff and expertise to apply, and Commerce said it provides outreach through conferences, office hours, and one-on-one assistance. League of Cities and local officials from Bismarck and Ellendale echoed the capacity issue, discussed how the programs have worked in their communities, and suggested possible reforms or more targeted support for small towns. Ellendale’s mayor also described two TIF districts, one for industrial infrastructure in Oaks and one for housing infrastructure tied to a data center project in Ellendale. The committee then turned to stripper oil taxation. The Tax Department gave a comparison of oil and gas tax structures in selected states, noting that most have some form of stripper or marginal well provision, while Alaska does not appear to have a specific stripper-well exemption. Members asked for more detail on definitions and North Dakota’s annual adjusted rate. The Department of Mineral Resources followed with a detailed presentation on North Dakota stripper wells, explaining the statutory thresholds, the 12-consecutive-month production test, and the fact that once a well qualifies it remains on stripper status even if production later rises. DMR said about 11,332 stripper wells are active, representing roughly 54% of wells and about 16% of state production, and emphasized that stripper status can extend well life, preserve tax revenue, and reduce orphaned wells. Committee members and industry witnesses discussed refracs, the economics of keeping marginal wells active, and the competitive disadvantage created by North Dakota’s oil price discount. No votes were taken on these informational items.

Transcript Highlights:

• That drops our levy down to 2.244.
• We won't be using the 11G levy.
• If we get that voter-approved levy first, we know we are clear, we're good, that's our levy rate.
• If we get that voter approved levy first, we know we are clear, we're good, that's our levy rate.
• And then when we go to them with the operating levy, we can just address the operating levy.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Summary: The committee met in executive session on several property tax bills and amendments. On House Bill 2709, members debated a substitute combining HB 2709 and HB 2671, and an amendment by Representative Steinhoff to separate the Hancock-by-subclass language from a personal property tax provision failed on a voice vote. The substitute was adopted, and the House Committee Substitute for HB 2709 and HB 2671 was voted do pass by a roll call of 14 yes and 5 no. HB 1759 was then voted do pass after Representative Dolan noted expected floor tweaks; the roll call was 12 yes and 7 no. On HB 2925, Representative Fowler offered Amendment 04H to remove the requirement that property tax elections be held in November and replace it with an affirmative-consent standard requiring at least 25% of registered voters to approve. Members debated turnout, election timing, and whether the change should be handled separately; the amendment failed 5 yes to 14 no, but the bill itself passed 11 yes to 8 no. The committee then moved into public testimony on House Bill 2415, which would require assessors to use the cost approach rather than the market approach for valuing buildings, while still valuing land by market approach. Representative Van Schoiack said the bill would help address over-assessment in larger counties and under-assessment in rural counties, and that assessors already have cost-approach software. Supporters argued it would create more objective and consistent valuations and help taxpayers facing rising assessments and tax sales. Opponents and assessors testified that assessors already use multiple approaches depending on the property, that cost approach works best for new construction and rural areas but can be highly subjective for older buildings because of depreciation, and that mandating one method could reduce accuracy and flexibility. Several witnesses urged leaving assessors discretion to choose the appropriate method and raised concerns about transition effects and possible unintended consequences. The committee also heard House Joint Resolutions 148 and 111, sponsored by Representatives Coleman and Taylor, to bring Kansas City Public Schools and related charter schools under Hancock-style property tax rules. The sponsors said KCPS is the only district still exempt from Hancock due to old court orders, and that the change would put it on the same footing as other districts while preserving current revenue levels. KCPS Superintendent Jennifer Collier and legal counsel opposed the resolutions as written, saying the district agrees it should eventually come under Hancock but wants to first place a voter-approved operating levy on the ballot in April 2027. They warned that immediate removal of the exemption could cut operating revenue sharply and harm KCPS and charter schools, and argued the timing and wording would force the district to return to the legislature rather than resolve the issue locally. The hearing ended with testimony from both supporters and opponents, and no final action was taken on the resolutions in the portion provided.

Transcript Highlights:

• vote yes on their operating levies.
• </c> required for voter approved levies required for voter approved levies Minnesota<00:01:36.159><c>
• </c> 0 of voter approved operating Levy 0 of voter approved operating Levy Authority<00:02:05.159><c>
• > the</c> boards additional Levy Authority as the boards additional Levy Authority as the voters<00:03
• </c> program by giving School boards Levy program by giving School boards Levy authority<00:31:17.720

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• That drops our levy down to 2.244.
• We won't be using the 11G levy.
• Voter-approved levy, and I believe anyway, that once we have a voter-approved levy, we should be fully
• If we get that voter-approved levy first, we know we are clear, we're good, that's our levy rate.
• And then when we go to them with the operating levy, we can just address the operating levy.

Summary: The committee met in executive session and first took up House Bill 2709, including a substitute that combined language from HB 2709 and HB 2671. Members debated an amendment that would have separated the Hancock-by-subclass portion from a personal property tax provision; supporters said it would make the bill cleaner and preserve a separate property tax issue already addressed elsewhere, while opponents argued it would create inconsistency. The amendment failed, the substitute was adopted, and the House Committee Substitute for HB 2709 and HB 2671 was voted do pass by a roll call of 14 yes and 5 no. The committee then passed HB 1759 do pass by a vote of 12 yes and 7 no, with one member noting that additional tweaks were expected on the floor. Next, the committee considered HB 2925, where Representative Fowler offered Amendment 04H to remove the requirement that property tax elections be held in November and replace it with an affirmative-consent standard requiring both a majority of votes cast and at least 25% of registered voters voting yes. Supporters said the change would avoid forcing local tax elections into a narrow election window and would require broader voter buy-in for long-term tax obligations; opponents argued it would be a major change that should receive more public review and could distort local election participation. The amendment failed 5 yes to 14 no, and HB 2925 was then voted do pass 11 yes to 8 no. In public testimony, Representative Van Schoiack presented HB 2415, which would require assessors to use a cost approach rather than a market approach for valuing buildings, while still valuing land through the market approach. He said the bill was intended to address over-assessment in larger counties and under-assessment in rural counties, and to make valuations more objective. Testimony was mixed: a public advocate supported the idea as a way to address rising taxes and tax sales, while county assessors and other witnesses said assessors already use multiple approaches, that cost approach works best for new or rural properties but can be subjective for older buildings, and that forcing one method statewide could create inaccuracies and large valuation swings. No action was taken on HB 2415 during the hearing. The committee also heard HJR 148 and HJR 111, presented by Representatives Coleman and Taylor, to bring Kansas City Public Schools under Hancock limits like other districts. Sponsors said KCPS is the only district still operating under a special court-imposed arrangement from desegregation-era orders and that the proposal would keep the district at its current levy while requiring voter approval for future increases. KCPS Superintendent Jennifer Collier opposed the measure as written, saying the district does want to come under Hancock but needs to do so on its own timeline and with a planned April 2027 levy proposal that would maintain the current rate; she said the district is now fiscally stronger and has community support, including passage of an 85% bond issue. Committee members questioned the legal basis, the effect on KCPS and charter schools, and whether the proposal would interfere with the district’s planned ballot strategy.

Transcript Highlights:

• So Save Beckle is here to explain the levy interaction that you will see on the property tax levy sheet
• Basically we pay for the levy sheet.
• </c> you turn to the uh property tax levy you turn to the uh property tax levy tracking<00:18:53.400>
• /c><00:20:13.520><c> levy.
• That is an equalized levy. Um, revenue. That is an equalized levy.

Bills: HF1049

Keywords: school library aid, education finance, school districts, charter schools, funding eligibility, 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• county levies, the remaining school district levies, cities, township levies, and special taxing district
• levies.
• levies levies special taxing district levies all<00:10:05.160><c> rely</c><00:10:05.440><c> on</c><00
• We often talk about the state general levy as being one levy, but it is actually two separate levies:
• </c><00:14:35.480><c> but</c> state general Levy as being one Levy but state general Levy as being one

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• </c> levies ultimately become the final Levy levies ultimately become the final Levy uh<00:08:19.879>
• state general levy.
• The CI levy is about $717 million, and the seasonal rec levy is about $42 million.
• The CI levy is about $717 million, and the seasonal rec levy is about $42 million.
• district levy.

Keywords: 1187, senate, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The tax levy report contains the details of each levy calculated by a county.
• of the levy limitation.
• to levy that 60 mills.
• to levy that 60 mils.
• They'd only been levied.

Keywords: 908, all

Transcript Highlights:

• levied historically.
• There are five millages that the schools can levy.
• levy a special assessment.
• So both of those, whether they levy millage or whether they levy an assessment, which is a charge for
• If you want to levy your maximum millage rate, which is a calculation that looks at what you levied last

Summary: The Senate Committee on Finance and Tax met for its first meeting of the session, with a quorum present and several members excused. Chair Avila opened by framing the committee’s main focus as property tax relief and housing affordability, noting the complexity of any changes to Florida’s long-standing property tax structure and emphasizing the need to preserve funding for schools and local public safety. He also introduced new committee staff member Tamisha Black and thanked staff for summer work supporting analysis of potential proposals, including constitutional amendment concepts and other property tax relief ideas. Staff director Azar Khan then presented an update on the General Revenue forecast, explaining that collections remained above estimate but at a slower pace than the prior year, with recent economic indicators slightly weaker than earlier forecasts. He said the new forecast mostly reflected modest adjustments, with a notable share of the increase coming from earnings on investment rather than the usual drivers such as sales tax or corporate income tax. Khan also gave a detailed presentation on ad valorem millages, explaining the different millage types used by school districts, counties, municipalities, special districts, and water management districts; the rollback rate; TRIM notice and hearing timelines; voting thresholds for adopting higher millages; and long-term trends showing millage rates declining over time even as total taxes levied have increased. Members used the presentations to discuss property tax relief options and the relationship between local property taxes and state revenue. President Passidomo praised staff and Senator Bernard’s summer work on proposals. President Gaetz asked about converting homestead property tax revenue to sales tax and was told the rough equivalent could be around a 2.8-cent sales tax increase, though with important behavioral and distributional caveats. Senator Rouson asked about the decline in corporate income tax estimates, and Khan said it likely reflected changes in national corporate profit expectations and collection patterns, promising a follow-up. The Department of Revenue’s Lizette Kelly confirmed that TRIM data, including adopted millages, rollback rates, and maximum millage calculations, are collected by jurisdiction and can be provided to the committee. No bills were taken up and no votes occurred beyond adjournment, which was adopted by motion.

Transcript Highlights:

• The tax levy report contains the details of each levy calculated by a county.
• of the levy limitation.
• Levy limitation requirements.
• to levy that 60 mills.
• They'd only been levied...

Summary: The Tax Reform and Relief Advisory Committee met with a quorum, approved the March 17, 2026 minutes, and heard a lengthy update from Tax Commissioner Brian Croshys on property tax relief programs. He reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting increased relief after House Bill 1158 and House Bill 1176, but also discussing how some households “income adjust out” of eligibility over time. Members asked about indexing income thresholds, expanding eligibility by age alone, simplifying administration, county-level notices, and whether the county and state systems could be streamlined. Croshys said the programs are heavily used, largely administered at the county level, and that the department is still refining compliance and reporting; he also said there were no material findings or overarching concerns in the latest review. The committee agreed more detailed PRC information would likely come back in a September meeting, and the chair announced an afternoon recess for lunch before later reconvening. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase report, the zero-growth report, and a statistical report on property values and tax levies by class. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and identified counties and cities with the largest percentage changes in growth or decline. She also summarized recent trends: agricultural values remain relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed values have risen over the last five years; in 2025, residential property accounted for the largest share of statewide property tax levies, followed by commercial, agriculture, and centrally assessed property. Committee members asked about unusual zero-growth figures, the effect of annexation and land-use changes, and whether the 3% levy cap was forcing political subdivisions to use reserves or defer spending. Myers said many counties complied by using reserves, delaying capital projects, or limiting increases, and that some counties had not used their full cap. The committee then moved to the stripper oil extraction tax exemption. Commissioner Croshys reviewed the state’s oil tax structure and estimated the revenue impact of keeping stripper wells exempt from extraction tax while still paying production tax. He said the exemption saves operators hundreds of millions of dollars over a biennium, while the state still collects production tax on those wells. He also discussed projected impacts if the exemption were changed for future wells and noted that future outcomes depend on oil prices, production declines, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly explained the historical difference between the 35-barrel and 30-barrel thresholds for certain wells, citing differences in completion costs and lateral lengths. The committee then heard from EERC CEO Charles Gorecki, who presented an analysis of oil well life cycles and said most oil is produced before wells reach stripper status, but that refracturing or other reinvestment can significantly extend production and keep wells above the threshold for years.

Transcript Highlights:

• One was an operating levy and one was a capital levy.
• So in had a levy that was falling off.
• And each of and one was a capital levy.
• > a</c><00:07:25.520><c> guarantee</c> existing levy, is not even a guarantee existing levy, is not even
• </c> wouldn't increase the school uh levy wouldn't increase the school uh levy funds<00:08:35.519><c>

Keywords: 1183, house

Transcript Highlights:

• nor an enrichment levy in a given calendar year if that district had a qualifying levy in either of
• , and for priority two, which are enrichment levies.
• And then when we set the levy rates, we have that amount added in, so it lowers the levy rate that the
• And then when we set the levy rates, we have that amount added in, so it lowers the levy rate that the
• And then when we set the levy rates, we have that amount added in, so it lowers the levy rate that the

Summary: House Finance held public hearings on two Senate bills. On Senate Bill 5252, staff explained that the bill would remove the one-acre limit on a property tax exemption for nonprofit public assembly halls, beginning with property taxes due in 2027. Staff said the fiscal impact would be minimal, with no loss to the state levy and only a small local property tax shift, though the Department of Revenue anticipates a one-time administrative cost. Senator Shoemaker and a grange representative testified in support, saying the change would help rural granges that serve as community gathering places and are facing rising costs and property tax burdens. The committee then heard Senate Bill 5994, which would change how timber tax revenues are distributed to school districts. Staff said the bill would extend distributions to districts that had qualifying levies in either of the prior two years, even if they do not have such a levy in the current year, and that it would take effect immediately with no state revenue impact but an indeterminate effect on school district funding. A county assessor testified that he supported the policy but was concerned the immediate effective date would disrupt current levy distribution calculations and suggested a January 1, 2027 effective date instead. No votes were taken, and both hearings were closed before the committee adjourned.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe the levies, I believe the levies, which, you know, every political subdivision can look in
• , and they've approved their levies.
• Does the levy fluctuate? Does the levy fluctuate? Well, currently, just like all assessments...
• Does the levy fluctuate, is the question.
• If the valuations are moving, the levy is moving.

Keywords: 959, house, all

Transcript Highlights:

• The tax levy report contains the details of each levy calculated by a county.
• of the levy limitation.
• to levy that 60 mills.
• to levy that 60 mils.
• They'd only been levied.

Summary: The committee met to receive updates from the Tax Commissioner’s office on property tax relief programs and related compliance work. Commissioner Brian Croshys reviewed the Homestead Property Tax Credit, Disabled Veteran Credit, and Primary Residence Credit, noting that the Homestead program expanded significantly after HB 1158, that some households are “adjusting out” of eligibility as incomes rise, and that the committee may want to consider indexing income thresholds. Members asked for additional data on bracket breakdowns, possible costs of eliminating income limits for seniors, and how many households are zeroed out by the combined programs. Croshys also discussed the simpler administration of the disabled veteran credit, the growth in participation, and the heavy workload and auditing safeguards built into the new primary residence credit system. He said the department found no material compliance findings and that the program is designed to be digital-first, with county auditors and the Tax Commissioner’s office both involved in review and notification. The committee recessed for lunch and later reconvened, with the chair noting that more detailed PRC information would likely be available at a September meeting. Shelly Myers then presented the statewide property tax increase, or “zero growth,” report and the 2025 statistical report. She explained how county auditors report levy and valuation data, how increases and decreases are counted, and which jurisdictions showed the largest percentage changes in countywide, citywide, school district, and park district levies. In the statistical report, she summarized recent trends in assessed values: agricultural values remained relatively flat, while residential, commercial, and centrally assessed property values increased over the past five years. She also reviewed statewide tax levies by property class and clarified that centrally assessed growth figures were annual averages. Members discussed how shifts in land use and annexation can make it appear that tax burdens are moving from ag to residential/commercial property. Myers then summarized the interim study on the 3% levy limitation under HB 1176, saying most counties complied without budget changes, while some used hiring freezes, deferred purchases, or reserve funds; 23% of counties had to reduce levies, and the affected funds were mainly general, road and bridge, and weed control. She said 12 counties reported zero new growth in the data and that 35 counties reported not using all of their cap. The committee also received an oil tax presentation from Croshys on the stripper well extraction tax exemption. He outlined the number of active stripper wells, the production and revenue implications of the exemption, and projections for future biennia under different tax scenarios. He said the exemption represents substantial savings to operators but also corresponds to production tax revenue that would otherwise be collected, and he emphasized that future outcomes depend on oil prices, well counts, and technology such as CO2 enhanced oil recovery. Nathan Anderson of the Department of Mineral Resources briefly answered a question about why Red River wells have a different production threshold than Bakken wells, explaining it was tied to completion costs and lateral length. The committee then heard from Charlie Gorecki of the EERC, who presented an analysis of typical Bakken well decline curves and argued that most oil is produced before a well reaches stripper status, but that keeping wells open and investing in refracturing or other interventions can recover additional production. No votes were taken during this portion of the meeting; the main actions were receiving reports, asking for follow-up data, and scheduling further discussion for a later meeting.

Transcript Highlights:

• I believe the levies, I believe the levies, which, you know, every political subdivision can look in
• It’s no tax levy passed prior to 1975. Correct.
• and they've approved their levies.
• Does the levy fluctuate is the question? Yeah.
• If the valuations are moving, the levy is moving.

Summary: The Special Committee on Property Tax Reform met to hear public testimony on House Bill 3342 and House Bill 3354. HB 3342, sponsored by Rep. Matteson, would prevent tax levies adopted before January 1, 1975 from being applied to personal property tax, with the sponsor arguing that personal property taxation on motor vehicles and similar property was not part of earlier voter-approved levies. Members questioned how the bill would work in practice, whether it should instead remove vehicles from assessment entirely, and what property classes would be affected. The sponsor said he was focused on class four personal property, especially motor vehicles, but was open to refining the language. No one testified in support, opposition, or for information, and no vote was taken. The committee then heard HB 3354, sponsored by Chair Taylor, which would reduce the Blind Pension Fund levy from 3 cents to 0.0275. Taylor said the fund’s participant numbers are declining while reserves have grown, that the department agreed the lower rate would still be sufficient, and that he wanted to keep the fund lean while preserving a cushion. Members asked about how the levy is calculated, whether it fluctuates with assessments, and whether excess funds could be transferred to public education as contemplated by the constitution. There was also discussion about the bill’s decimal wording and a possible drafting amendment to clarify the rate. No witnesses testified in favor, opposition, or informationally, and the hearing on HB 3354 was concluded without a committee vote.