Committee approves inspection‑notice bill after heated exchanges with county assessors and ag groups

Senate Bill 12‑90 would require the Arizona Department of Revenue and county assessors to provide advance notice of specified property inspections and to deliver inspection reports to property owners. The bill also exempts agricultural property from on‑site re‑inspection for three years following an inspection.

Proponents from the agriculture sector described recurring disputes where property owners prevailed at the State Board of Equalization only to face repeated inspections and appeals the following year. Patrick Bray of the Arizona Farm and Ranch Group said the measure promotes transparency and avoids a "hamster wheel" of repeated appeals, noting inspectors sometimes miss seasonal activity such as grazing or planting that would affect classification.

County assessors and their associations strongly opposed the bill. Jordy Clark (Arizona Association of Counties, representing county assessors) and county assessors including Maricopa County Assessor Eddie Cook, Mohave County Chief Deputy Darren Rasmussen and Graham County Assessor Darlene Monteer told the committee the measure would limit assessors' statutory duty to determine full cash value annually, create inconsistent inspection‑report formats among counties, and impose substantial mailing costs. Cook provided county cost estimates for the proposed mailing and said the bill would not resolve root causes such as non‑standardized processes and occasional communication breakdowns.

Agricultural groups, including the Arizona Farm Bureau and Arizona Cattle Growers, urged support and said standardized notice and reports would reduce unnecessary appeals and clarify inspection findings for owners.

After extended questioning and stakeholder discussion about balancing taxpayer protections and assessors' constitutional duties, committee members voted to return SB 12‑90 with a do‑pass recommendation by a 4–2 margin (one not voting). Senator Epstein explained his 'nay' vote, calling the proposal a potential tax shift and urging stakeholder collaboration on a better solution.

The committee acknowledged the testimony and thanked assessors for traveling to testify; members noted the bill will likely be refined during the legislative process.