Terry Call

Imagine several investors taking possession of an old building. One wants to replace the outdated furnace. Another thinks the inefficient windows should come first. Someone else wants to attract more tenants. But the roof leaks, the parking lot is gravel, and the electrical system isn’t adequate for today’s businesses. One investor thinks they should quit repairing the building altogether and start over.

They agree the building needs work. Agreeing on what to fix is harder.

Maybe our property tax system is in a similar predicament.

Ask six neighbors what a fair property tax system looks like and you may get six different answers. One says identical houses should pay identical taxes. Another says taxes should reflect ability to pay. A third says property taxes are immoral or a tax on unrealized gains. Someone else says government should simply spend less. Another wants predictable limits on increases. And the last says nobody who has lived in a house for 30 years should be taxed out because a neighboring property sold for a price they never dreamed it would bring.

Most taxpayers want a fair system. The problem is that “fair” means different things. There’s fairness in uniformity when similar properties receive similar treatment, predictability when families can plan for next year’s bill, and consideration of ability to pay when a retired homeowner and working professional may live in identical houses but have dramatically different incomes.

Simplicity and neutrality matter too. Multiple exemptions, refunds, eligibility requirements and deadlines make a system difficult to navigate. Ideally, taxes also shouldn’t influence decisions simply because one choice receives better treatment than another. Wyoming deliberately treats some property differently, including agricultural land and different property classes. There may be good reasons for those choices, but they affect who pays what.

A good system also needs enough revenue to support the services taxpayers expect and enough public acceptance to endure. A system can be legally and mathematically sound but still fail if enough taxpayers believe the result is fundamentally unfair.

Already our six neighbors have given us a problem. We want uniformity, predictability, ability to pay, simplicity, adequate funding and public acceptance. What happens when those goals conflict?

That brings us to picking a tool. Asking for the best property-tax system is like asking a carpenter for the best tool. A hammer may be perfect for driving a nail and useless for cutting a board. The right tool depends on the job.

There are plenty of ideas: market value, acquisition value, caps, exemptions, circuit breakers, refunds, consumption taxes and probably a few nobody has thought of yet. The important question isn’t which tool sounds best. It is: What are we trying to fix?

Wyoming has traditionally relied on fair market value. One of its strengths is uniformity. If two similar houses would sell for approximately the same amount, they should have approximately the same value for taxation.

That makes sense until the market takes off. Then someone who has lived in the same house for 30 years may reasonably ask why their tax bill should increase dramatically because a neighboring property sold for a price they never imagined. Market value did what it was supposed to do, but the taxpayer still may not consider the result fair.

What if we use acquisition value instead, basing value largely on what someone paid and limiting increases from there? That provides predictability, but two identical houses may now have very different taxable values. One neighbor bought 25 years ago for $150,000; the other bought yesterday for $600,000.

Same houses. Same neighborhood. Very different taxes.

We gained predictability and lost some uniformity. Which is fairer?

What about a cap? Wyoming is already trying that. Limiting annual increases reduces sudden shocks by controlling how quickly taxable value can follow market value.

But capped values can eventually separate considerably from market values. Under Wyoming’s current cap, a property can return to full market value when it sells or when certain changes are made. We may gain predictability for one homeowner while creating unequal taxable values between neighbors. Perhaps the question isn’t whether caps work, but how they should be designed.

Exemptions are another tool. They can provide substantial relief, but they don’t make the cost of government disappear. They reduce revenue or change how the cost is distributed, while adding rules about who qualifies, how much is exempt, what property is included and when taxpayers must apply.

Circuit breakers and income-based refunds address ability to pay more directly, but someone must verify income, administer the program, protect the information and determine eligibility. The pattern keeps appearing: Every tax system solves some problems while creating others.

Greater predictability can reduce uniformity. Targeted relief can mean more paperwork. Broad exemptions may provide relief regardless of financial need. Lower property taxes may mean fewer services or another source of revenue. Greater local control can produce different results around Wyoming, while greater statewide uniformity can reduce local flexibility.

Maybe perfection is the wrong standard.

Reform isn’t necessarily evidence that the existing system has failed. Economies change. Energy markets rise and fall. Populations and housing markets change, and citizens’ expectations change with them. Reform is a normal part of governing.

So what’s on the blueprint? By now, some requirements should be clear: predictability, uniformity, simplicity, transparency, consideration of ability to pay, practicality, sustainability and public acceptance. The difficult part isn’t identifying them. It’s balancing them when they conflict.

A technically brilliant system that taxpayers don’t understand or believe is fair won’t maintain public acceptance. A popular system that cannot adequately fund the services citizens expect won’t work for long either. The goal isn’t perfection; it’s deciding which tradeoffs Wyoming is willing to make.

But even the best blueprint leaves another question taxpayers rightly ask: How big should the bill be in the first place?

Property tax reform really involves two separate questions: What services do we want government to provide, and how should we divide the cost among taxpayers? Changing the tax system may change who pays the bill. It doesn’t necessarily change the size of the bill.

Government has a responsibility in that equation too. If taxpayers are expected to make their dollars stretch, government should do the same. That means continually looking for efficiencies: technology where it actually saves money, contracting when it makes sense, better use of data, less duplication, thoughtful staffing, and questioning whether something we’ve always done the same way still needs to be done that way.

Efficiency isn’t simply spending less. It’s getting the best result for what we spend. Sometimes that means spending less; sometimes it means investing today to avoid a larger expense tomorrow. A better tax system deserves an equally serious conversation about better government.

And we shouldn’t forget tomorrow’s taxpayer.

Suppose we protect today’s taxpayer but gradually shift more of the burden onto someone else — or onto the person who buys that home 20 years from now. Have we solved the fairness problem, or simply moved it?

Every reform creates consequences beyond the next tax bill. A system that seems fair today should have a reasonable chance of being fair tomorrow.

This three-part series began with a simple goal: helping taxpayers understand how the system works so they can reach their own conclusions. That includes understanding the tradeoffs involved in changing it.

After years of working within our property tax system, I have opinions about what works and what doesn’t. But I don’t believe one assessor, legislator, economist or taxpayer has the perfect answer.

The challenge is deciding which problems matter most, which tradeoffs we’re willing to accept, and what kind of system we want to leave for the taxpayers who come after us.

Maybe that’s where real reform begins.

(Terry Call has been the Park County Assessor since February 2025 and has worked in the County Assessor's Office for 14 years.)