Property-tax overhaul fails in House after heated debate over caps and school funding

Senate File 110, a multi‑part proposal on residential property taxation, drew one of the longest debates on the floor. Lawmakers debated whether the bill represents meaningful reform or shifts costs between school districts, counties and the state.

Key amendments and points:

• Representative Storer (amendment #3) argued the bill could constitutionally enact Amendment A and repeal the 4% cap that has produced large exemptions (citing examples of multimillion‑dollar properties receiving large tax relief). He proposed phased exemptions to soften impacts for counties and schools.

• Representative Byron’s Amendment #4 increased the suggested owner‑occupied exemption from $1 million to $3 million to cover working homeowners in some districts; members divided on fairness and geographic distribution of benefits. Amendment #4 was adopted (voice/division reported on the floor).

• Opponents warned of long‑term fiscal cliffs for the School Foundation Program and LISRA (Legislative Stabilization Reserve Account). Representative Provenza and others warned that cumulative property tax cuts could require future cuts to health and social services or require the general fund to backfill school funding. Supporters argued tax relief was a voter priority and necessary relief for homeowners.

After multiple amendments and extended debate, the House called the roll on SF110. The closing tally was 30 ayes, 31 noes, and 1 excused; the Speaker announced that SF110 failed to pass the House.

Floor remarks included repeated references to county and school mill impacts, examples of property values and exemptions (including Teton County examples), and concerns about whether the changes would be constitutional under the equal and uniform taxation clause. Members on both sides urged consideration of long‑run fiscal planning before adopting broad tax shifts.