Utah House rejects bill to shift appraisal assessment to state MCAT model

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah House of Representatives voted down third substitute HB 270 on third reading after a floor debate that split members over whether the measure would effectively raise property-related assessments statewide.

Sponsor Representative Jennifer Dailey-Provost told colleagues she intended the bill to create efficiencies among counties through a Multi-County Appraisal Trust (MCAT) and to clarify an already-existing assessment mechanism. "I don't believe this is a tax. I believe this is an assessment," Dailey-Provost said, adding the substitute increases the statutory assessment rate to 0.000024 — "which translates on a million dollar property to $24." She also said the third-substitute rate is lower than an earlier version, and that parts of an earlier fiscal memo reflected the prior, higher rate.

Several members voiced strong objections. Representative Walter said the measure would apply a statewide taxing mechanism to counties that do not participate in MCAT and would shift collection away from local control to a state collections mechanism that "won't be adjusted" and will float with property values. "It imposes a tax on many of our state residents that aren't using the multi county appraisal trust," Walter said, urging a no vote.

Representative Brooks questioned whether the bill raises taxes and whether nonparticipating counties would be required to collect the assessment; Dailey-Provost said she believed an opt-out exists for counties but acknowledged uncertainty about details. Representative Albrecht asked whether county assessors supported the bill; the sponsor said most assessors supported earlier iterations but that the Utah Association of Counties did not have an official position. Representative Lisenby cited a 30-year fiscal analysis showing property tax revenues have outpaced inflation and urged rejection, calling HB 270 "an unnecessary increase in property tax."

Debate was cut short when the previous question was called, and following summation from the sponsor the House opened and closed voting. Third substitute HB 270 failed on third reading with 16 yes votes and 56 no votes; the measure was sent to staff for filing.

The bill drew attention to three practical questions that members pressed on: (1) whether the change is legally classified and administered as an assessment or a tax, (2) whether counties that do not participate in MCAT would be required to collect the assessment or could opt out, and (3) how the fiscal memo should reflect the third-substitute's lower rate compared with earlier versions. The sponsor said the intent was to lower per-assessment consumer cost via MCAT efficiencies (she cited a reduction from about $5 per assessment to about $3 under MCAT), and estimated the difference between second- and third-substitute iterations at roughly $200,000 per year per county.

Voting on the measure concluded the House's consideration of HB 270 on the third-reading calendar; members who asked for more precise implementation and opt-out language pressed staff and sponsors to clarify those points in any future work on the subject.