Homeowner Property Tax Exemption
In one sentence
Plain language
Official record
Bill Summary - 25LSO-0171 Bill No.: SF0069 Effective: Immediately LSO No.: 25LSO-0171 Enrolled Act No.: SEA No. 0060 Chapter No.: 106 Prime Sponsor: Joint Revenue Interim Committee Catch Title: Homeowner property tax exemption. Has Report: No Subject: Homeowner property tax exemption. Summary/Major Elements: This bill establishes a property tax exemption for a portion of a single family residential structure and the associated improved land as a homeowner tax exemption. The bill establishes the amount of the exemption as twenty ‑ five percent (25%) of the fair market value of the single family residential structure and the associated improved land, provided that the exemption only applies to the first one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) of the fair market value of the property. The bill specifies that the exemption is not available to a person who has applied for and received the long-term homeowner property tax exemption for the same property in the same tax year. The bill establishes a definition of "single family residential structure" and specifies that, beginning with tax year 2026, the definition means a single family residential structure where the person claiming the exemption actually resides for not less than eight (8) months of the year unless service in the armed forces is the reason that the person claiming the exemption cannot meet the eight (8) month requirement. The bill makes the property tax exemption applicable to the tax year beginning January 1, 2025. The above summary is not an official publication of the Wyoming Legislature and is not an official statement of legislative intent. While the Legislative Service Office endeavored to provide accurate information in this summary, it should not be relied upon as a comprehensive abstract of the bill.
Public statements
Last checked Aug 5, 8:07 AM
R · S25
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because he believes it provides meaningful tax relief to many residents across the state, even though it offers little benefit in his own county.
R · S01
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill as a reasonable compromise, arguing that accepting something is better than sending it back and returning to constituents with nothing.
R · S29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it improves upon last year's version by removing the sunset provision, which was a primary reason for its previous failure.
R · S28
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because he appreciates that the committee successfully negotiated a compromise to bring something tangible back to constituents.
D · S09
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes the significant tax cut will drain revenue needed for schools, cities, and special districts in the long run.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because he and others worked hard for months on a coalition to achieve this specific tax break for constituents.
D · S17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because he believes it is something the Senate desperately needed and wanted, achieved through hard negotiation.
R · S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because he views it as property tax reduction for constituents, arguing that perfection should not prevent passing a good measure.
R · S12
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because he believes it will hurt special districts in his district, which has not experienced significant property tax increases.
R · H30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it provides an immediate and ongoing tax exemption, acknowledging that while some may want a larger percentage, this compromise is still a win.
R · H41
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker votes in favor of the bill as a good compromise, despite disliking that it shortchanges local governments and falls short of a 50% exemption rate.
D · H16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because expanding the exemption from structures only to include land increases revenue loss for local districts, particularly special districts with little financial flexibility.
R · H22
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker encourages an affirmative vote, arguing that while special districts may lose revenue initially, the people win and adjustments can be made in future budgets.
R · H49
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports concurrence on the bill, acknowledging it is not perfect but appreciating that efforts were made to overcome hurdles and move forward.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill as an elegant solution that provides a tax break to most homeowners without raising taxes on industry, noting that trust funds can help cover costs.
R · H18
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill as the result of years of work and compromise, emphasizing that constituents have asked for help and this resolution materially affects their lives.
R · H20
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the bill because constituents in his county view it as a temporary band-aid rather than a long-term solution, preferring a 50% across-the-board exemption or waiting for a ballot initiative.
R · H60
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker agrees to the concurrence for now but states they will continue fighting for a 50% exemption in the future.
R · H35
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges an affirmative vote, acknowledging a missed component regarding no backfill but believing the bill still puts something in constituents' pockets.
R · S24
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a no vote because amendments removed land from the exemption, reduced the percentage limit, and added a backfill provision that he wants to reconsider.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker urges a no vote because he believes reducing the exemption from 50% to 25% is a significant negative change that should be used as leverage in negotiations.
R · S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker states he will vote no on concurrence because it is a major bill and believes they can achieve better results.
R · S23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker agrees that non-concurrence is appropriate for this bill.
R · H04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to concerns about constitutionality and because it does not fully offer the relief requested.
R · H35
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe there is a better route and this does not align with what constituents sent them here to do.
R · H51
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they find the data used in the handout inaccurate for their specific situation and not statistically significant.
R · H40
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker questions the amendment because they believe constituents were not asked to trade off services for a specific tax cut percentage.
D · H23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because it puts money on kitchen tables, noting that property taxes are only a small component of county revenue.
R · H56
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it addresses both immediate property tax relief and long-term reform by establishing constitutional guard rails.
R · H18
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes combining this amendment with the current bill, arguing that it complicates the process and slows down legislation when a separate strong alternative already exists.
R · H32
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe taking money from future generations is wrong, preferring instead to distribute funds across the state.
R · H38
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment to ensure funding remains available for firefighters, police officers, and community colleges.
R · H19
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe in balancing tax cuts with helping local governments sustain themselves.
R · H29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe money should remain with local communities closest to the people rather than being managed at the state level.
R · H17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports backfill generally but opposes this specific amendment due to perceived inconsistency and political maneuvering by the body.
R · H11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe spending has already been reduced significantly and backfill is not needed at this time.
R · H42
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe backfill is necessary to soften the blow for local services and give communities time to adjust.
D · H45
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe spending savings accounts is not a real solution and will leave communities without funding in the future.
R · H62
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because separating land from structures has led counties to increase land valuations, resulting in higher overall taxes for homeowners despite lower structure values.
R · H06
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because it discards a previously agreed-upon solution that was based on actual tax increases rather than an abstract percentage.
R · H39
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment, stating it will cause more harm than good and that a better equitable solution was found in previous discussions.
R · H26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because constituents prefer a long-term equitable tax reform solution discussed previously, which this amendment would discard.
R · H30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment reluctantly, arguing it strengthens their negotiating position with the other chamber while assuming counties can absorb a reduced tax cut after two years.
R · H24
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it aligns with constituents' desire for relief from property taxes.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment due to concerns that it will deplete state reserves, lower bond ratings, and create ongoing unfunded costs.
R · H61
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment as an ideologically consistent long-term solution to address constituents' concerns about being overtaxed.
R · H60
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment and bill because they believe in the concept of providing relief, stating that a larger reduction is better.
R · H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the measure as a way to reduce property taxes while maintaining services, viewing it as an easy path forward that could eventually eliminate property tax reliance.
R · H08
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment, characterizing the proposal as a deceptive measure.
R · H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because they lack confidence in the existing backfill plan and believe additional funding measures are necessary to ensure local governments receive full compensation.
R · H31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe it is unnecessary, as the current bill already includes a revenue reduction backfill for local governments and additional funding exists in the budget.
D · H16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because they believe the bill has been changed too frequently without clear input from constituents, and that the final decision was made before genuine public conversations could occur.
R · H43
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker states they will vote no because they believe local officials that the bill would force service cuts and harm their community.
R · H22
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because reducing the cap would hurt homeowners in his district where property values exceed one million dollars, arguing that market forces caused these valuations rather than fault of the residents.
R · H54
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because a $500,000 cap provides disproportionately less relief to homeowners in his county where property values have risen significantly above that threshold.
R · H37
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it covers a vast majority of Wyoming homeowners while significantly reducing the overall cost of the bill.
D · H16
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes it is not good to provide tax exemptions to people who do not live in Wyoming.
R · H49
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because he believes tax benefits should be reserved for residents who actually live in the state rather than those who are only there part-time.
R · H30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it provides tax relief based on the percentage of property value increase rather than a flat rate, ensuring counties with large increases get help while those without do not lose revenue.
R · H17
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it addresses the core problem of major tax increases in some counties while treating people fairly on a case-by-case basis.
R · H29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it accounts for the disparate impact on different counties, ensuring those more affected by tax increases receive greater benefits.
R · H02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because, despite needing further refinement, it represents a step in the right direction for addressing property tax issues.
R · H38
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it targets the source of property tax difficulties more effectively, though they disagree with removing backfill for hardship counties.
R · H35
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because delaying implementation until a later year prevents providing immediate tax relief to people who need money now.
R · H18
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker explains that the amendment protects active military members from being disqualified for the exemption if their deployment prevents them from meeting the eight-month occupancy requirement.
D · H23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports delaying the bill to allow time for members to understand the complex calculations involved in the legislation.
R · H39
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports delaying the bill to provide additional time for an engrossed version to be prepared and distributed to the public.
R · H07
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports delaying the bill because there are numerous pending amendments that would require extensive work hours if not postponed.
R · S29
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because he believes it undermines the original intent of providing tax relief by attempting to mask the negative impact on communities.
D · S09
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the amendment because using state savings to backfill tax cuts is unsustainable and prevents realistic long-term planning for economic downturns.
R · S02
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker indicates potential support for a partial backfill approach if it represents a middle ground that splits the burden between tax relief and community funding.
R · S24
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the tax cut despite concerns about local budgets, believing it is what constituents asked for and that communities can manage with reduced property tax revenue.
R · S20
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes further cuts without backfill because his counties rely heavily on property taxes for essential services like fire districts and would be devastated by the loss.
R · S13
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the backfill amendment because many communities, particularly those dependent on oil and gas revenue, have already made cuts and cannot absorb further losses from property tax reductions.
R · S04
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports her amendment because it restores the bill's original intent of a 50% tax reduction without backfill, which she considers the right policy for Wyoming.
R · S23
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes the final bill because he believes the legislature overstepped its jurisdiction by imposing a one-size-fits-all solution that usurps local control over mill levies.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill because he believes Wyoming can afford the tax cut if spending is restrained, and his constituents have expressed a strong need for relief from inflation-driven property values.
R · S26
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because it fulfills a long-standing promise to provide historic property tax relief to his constituents.
R · S10
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes celebrating the bill as a win for his constituents because he believes it hurts special districts like fire departments and that local governments have already cut services responsibly.
R · S11
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker opposes removing the sunset date because there are too many competing property tax measures already in place, requiring time to evaluate their combined impact before making this permanent.
R · S13
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports keeping the sunset date because it provides local counties time to adjust their own mill levies and offer relief, thereby preserving local control.
R · S30
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker states that keeping the sunset date would send a false message to voters, whereas removing it clearly signals an intent to provide long-term relief.
R · S03
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker explains that Amendment Three is necessary to provide balance and financial relief specifically for smaller, poorer counties that would otherwise suffer severe budget cuts.
R · S12
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker states they cannot support Amendment Three because they do not understand enough about its mechanics and find the cutoff points too stark.
R · S27
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker says they are not prepared to vote for Amendment Three because they do not understand the ramifications of holding some counties harmless while others bear the brunt of budget cuts.
R · S24
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the bill as a vehicle for tax relief, arguing that any meaningful tax cut must be accompanied by spending cuts to avoid simply moving money around.
R · S31
Why they voted this way
The lawmaker supports the amendment because they believe it provides property tax relief while avoiding severe financial damage to local governments, striking a balance between competing needs.
If a lawmaker is not listed, we couldn't find a published reason.
Wyoming roll calls
28 roll calls
Official activity
Changes
50 stored
The amendment removes references to 'improved land' in the homeowner property tax exemption bill.
The amendment changes the maximum property value eligible for a homeowner tax exemption from one million dollars to five hundred thousand dollars.
The amendment adds a requirement that homeowners must occupy their property for at least eight months each year to qualify for a new homeowner property tax exemption starting in the 2026 tax year.
The amendment adds a new section to ensure that government entities, including school districts, are compensated for any loss in revenue due to the homeowner property tax exemption through an appropriation of $100 million from the general fund.
The amendment adds a new section to allocate $100 million from the general fund to reimburse government entities for revenue losses due to a homeowner property tax exemption, with specific conditions on how this money can be used and when it expires.
The amendment adds a new section to the bill that requires county treasurers to track how much money is lost due to property tax exemptions for homeowners, report this information to the state department of revenue, and ensures that government entities are compensated for these losses from special funds if needed.
The amendment removes previous changes and updates language related to property tax exemptions, reporting requirements, and effective dates.
The amendment adds a provision that allows active-duty members of the armed forces, who are deployed outside the state, to claim a homeowner property tax exemption without having to live in their single-family home for at least eight months.
The amendment changes the percentage of property tax exemption for homeowners from fifty percent to twenty-five percent.
The amendment changes how much property tax exemption homeowners can get and adds rules about reporting and calculating the increase in home value.
The amendment modifies the bill to establish a homeowner property tax exemption and includes provisions for funding and record-keeping.
The amendment changes the requirement for how long a homeowner must occupy their property to qualify for a tax exemption, replacing an eight-month period with a specific time frame defined by Wyoming state law.
The amendment changes how property tax exemptions are calculated by replacing 'assessed valuation' with 'market value' and adds a limit on the increase in market value.
The amendment modifies the homeowner property tax exemption by specifying that for tax year 2025, the exemption amount will be based on a percentage increase in market value and applies to properties up to $2 million.
The amendment changes how much property tax exemption homeowners can get in 2025 and beyond, based on a percentage increase in market value rather than assessed valuation.
The amendment changes how much property tax exemption homeowners can get in 2025 and beyond, based on a percentage increase in market value.
The amendment modifies the bill to specify new tax assessment rates for residential real property in Wyoming, with a lower rate for owner-occupied primary residences starting from January 1, 2027.
The amendment changes the percentage of property tax exemption for homeowners from fifty percent to twenty-five percent.
The amendment proposes to remove an existing part of the bill that was previously added during a previous stage of review.
The amendment changes the percentage of homeowner property tax exemption based on the average property tax increase in the county from 2020 to 2024.
The amendment removes references to 'associated improved land' in the bill text.
The amendment requires county treasurers to report tax revenue reductions due to the homeowner property tax exemption, mandates the state department of revenue to compensate government entities for these losses from a specific fund, and appropriates $125 million for this purpose.
The amendment removes previous amendments and modifies the bill to establish specific conditions for a homeowner property tax exemption, including a contingent sunset date and a new percentage-based exemption amount starting in 2027.
The amendment modifies the homeowner property tax exemption bill by adding reporting requirements and funding provisions for compensating affected entities.
The amendment removes several previous amendments and adds provisions for funding local governments through a sales tax, creating a new reserve fund, adjusting appropriations, and reporting requirements related to property tax exemptions.
The amendment removes previous amendments and adds new provisions related to funding local governments through a sales tax and creating a reserve fund from mineral trust earnings.
The amendment modifies the homeowner property tax exemption bill by adding requirements for reporting and transferring funds, as well as setting limits on future appropriations from a specific reserve account.
The amendment modifies a bill to establish a new sales and use tax to fund local governments affected by property tax exemptions.
The amendment changes the percentage of homeowner property tax exemption based on the average property tax increase in the county over a specific period.
The amendment changes the homeowner property tax exemption to be 100% instead of 50%, adds a $250 million appropriation for government entities affected by this change, and adjusts section numbering.
The amendment removes previous amendments and adds new provisions for a grant program funded by $72 million to help counties with reduced residential property tax assessments.
The amendment removes the first line of text from page 1 of the bill, which is about establishing a homeowner property tax exemption.
The amendment adds a new section that requires the state to compensate local government entities for half of any lost tax revenue due to a homeowner property tax exemption, using funds from a reserve account if necessary.
The amendment removes a previous committee's changes, adds provisions for sales and use taxes to fund local governments due to decreased property tax revenue, and sets up an inflation-adjusted homeowner property tax exemption starting in 2027.
The amendment removes certain provisions from the bill, including a sunset date and specific dollar amounts, and adds new sections to create sales and use taxes to fund local governments due to decreased property tax revenue.
The amendment removes previous amendments, modifies the property tax exemption amount, adds a sales and use tax to fund local governments, and creates mechanisms for distributing funds from these taxes.
The amendment removes language about a sunset date and specific details from an existing bill that aims to establish a homeowner property tax exemption.
The amendment adds a condition that people cannot get both the new homeowner property tax exemption and another specific existing tax exemption for the same property in the same tax year.
This amendment modifies the original bill by adding eligibility requirements for counties and entities based on assessed valuation limits, and adjusting financial figures within the bill.
The amendment removes a previous committee's proposed changes to SF0069.
The amendment changes the amount of tax revenue that is reimbursed to counties for property tax exemptions from fully covering the loss to only covering twelve and one-half percent (12.5%) of the reduction in tax revenues, and adjusts certain dollar amounts.
The amendment changes the percentage of property tax exemption for homeowners from twenty-five percent to fifty percent.
The amendment adds a provision to allow homeowners to voluntarily pay their full property tax amount, even if they are eligible for an exemption.
The amendment removes specific sections of the bill text related to funding details, certain legal references, and other parts of the proposed homeowner property tax exemption act.
The amendment removes language about a sunset date and certain provisions from an act related to establishing a homeowner property tax exemption.
The amendment changes the amount of property value eligible for a homeowner tax exemption from two million dollars to one million dollars.
The amendment changes the percentage of a homeowner property tax exemption from twenty-five percent to fifty percent.
The amendment adds a rule that stops homeowners from getting more than one property tax exemption for the same house and land.
The amendment removes certain provisions from the bill and changes the percentage of property tax exemption for homeowners while adding new requirements starting in 2026.
The amendment removes certain sections of the bill that deal with sunset dates, appropriations, and specific details about property tax exemptions.