Senate committee rejects Massey bill to stop assessors reclassifying single‑family rentals

The Senate State and Local Government Committee on Thursday voted down SB 16‑75, a bill sponsored by Sen. Massey that would have clarified that single‑family homes — whether owner‑occupied or rented — must be assessed as residential property, preventing some county assessors from reclassifying single‑family rental houses as commercial property and taxing them at a higher rate.

Massey told the committee the legislation would “reaffirm longstanding constitutional tax policy” and protect homeowners and renters from what he described as “crippling property tax increases” when some counties began classifying single‑family rentals as income‑producing commercial property. He said the change stemmed from a narrow court ruling about timeshares and did not apply to ordinary single‑family residences.

Will Denami, testifying for the state assessors, opposed the bill. “The assessors of property opposed this bill,” Denami said, arguing the state’s modern property tax system and court decisions require assessors to value property based on its intrinsic, market‑value characteristics. Denami pointed to earlier case law and a fiscal note showing a $21,000,000 revenue impact as reasons to reject a statutory override: “That is a tax break for the owners of these rental properties that would result in a tax increase in order to make up that $21,000,000 loss,” he told the committee.

Walter Blanks Jr., executive director of the Legacy Society and a small landlord, spoke in support of the measure. “When property taxes go up, so does rent,” Blanks said, arguing that reclassification of single‑family homes as commercial investments would raise costs for renters and reduce affordable housing supply.

During debate members raised competing concerns: supporters emphasized predictability for homeowners and renters and preventing a patchwork of county practices; opponents warned of constitutional and statutory constraints, judicial precedent, and the fiscal consequences for local governments if revenue were shifted. Several members said accuracy of valuation is the assessors’ constitutional duty and cautioned against turning assessors into revenue‑seeking officials.

After testimony and discussion the committee took a roll call vote. The clerk recorded the tally and the committee chair announced that SB 16‑75 failed in committee. The committee record notes the fiscal‑note estimate that motivated much of the assessors’ opposition.

The committee’s vote ends consideration of SB 16‑75 in this panel; the chair and sponsor both urged further conversations about uniform application of assessment law, but no motion to reconsider passed during the session.

What happens next: SB 16‑75 fails in committee and will not advance unless the sponsor reintroduces it or files a comparable measure in a later session.