The Great Divergence

The Great Divergence: A Comparative Analysis of "Two-Tier" Property Tax Reforms in Montana and Colorado (2024-2025)

Executive Summary

The fiscal landscape of the American Mountain West has undergone a seismic shift in the post-pandemic era, driven by an unprecedented decoupling of local wages from residential property values. This phenomenon, accelerated by the "Zoom Town" migration patterns of 2020-2023, precipitated a property tax crisis in states like Montana and Colorado, where ad valorem tax systems threatened to displace long-term residents through valuation-driven tax bill increases. In response, legislatures in both states engaged in aggressive attempts to engineer "two-tier" property tax systems designed to sever the tax treatment of primary residents ("locals") from that of non-resident owners, second-home owners, and short-term rental investors ("outsiders").

This report provides an exhaustive, expert-level comparative analysis of these legislative efforts, specifically contrasting the successful passage and implementation of Montana’s 2025 Homestead Act (HB 231 / SB 542) against the high-profile failure of Colorado’s 2024 Lodging Property Tax Bill (SB24-033). The analysis reveals that while both states sought to achieve similar ends—protecting the domiciled workforce from the inflationary pressures of the amenity real estate market—their divergent outcomes were dictated by the specific mechanisms of classification, the magnitude of the proposed tax incidence shifts, and the path dependency of their respective constitutional tax limitations.

Montana successfully implemented a "Homestead" model that creates a tax rate differential within the residential class—lowering rates for domiciled residents while raising them for non-qualified properties. This was achieved by leveraging a "floating mill" mechanism (SB 117) that mathematically transfers the burden to non-voters. Conversely, Colorado’s attempt to reclassify high-frequency short-term rentals (STRs) as "commercial lodging" properties failed due to the extreme assessment rate differential (6.7% vs. 27.9%) inherent in the state’s legacy Gallagher Amendment framework. This "fiscal cliff" galvanized a sophisticated opposition coalition under the banner of preventing a "job killer," forcing Colorado policymakers to retreat to a compromise measure (SB24-233) and eventually pivot toward a Montana-style homestead exemption for the 2026 tax year.

As the region moves toward the 2026 tax cycle, the "Montana Model" of residency-based taxation appears to be establishing a new paradigm in state and local finance, marking a departure from strict ad valorem principles toward a system where tax liability is increasingly determined by the identity and occupancy status of the owner rather than the market value of the asset.

Section 1: The Macro-Economic and Fiscal Context

To fully comprehend the legislative maneuvers of 2024 and 2025, one must first deconstruct the fiscal substrates of Montana and Colorado. Both states rely heavily on property taxes to fund local jurisdictions, yet they operate under fundamentally different constitutional and statutory constraints that shaped their respective reform efforts.

1.1 The Post-Pandemic Valuation Shock: A Structural Decoupling

Between 2020 and 2024, the Mountain West experienced what economists have termed a "structural revaluation" of rural and resort real estate. This was not merely a cyclical boom but a fundamental shift in the utility function of housing in the region, transitioning from shelter for local workers to a luxury consumption good for a globalized capital class.

In Montana, the Department of Revenue (DOR) conducts reappraisals on a two-year cycle. The cycle ending in 2023 captured the peak of the pandemic buying frenzy. According to DOR data, the statewide median residential value increased significantly, with resort counties experiencing hyper-appreciation. For instance, Gallatin County (home to Bozeman and Big Sky) saw residential taxable values rise by over 58%, while Flathead County (home to Kalispell and Whitefish) saw increases of 45%. Between 2022 and 2024 alone, real property assessments grew by 18% in inflation-adjusted terms statewide.

Colorado faced a similar trajectory. Residential property assessment values increased by over 27% statewide in 2023, with mountain resort communities seeing increases far exceeding the median. This surge was driven not by local economic fundamentals—wages in these areas did not rise by 40%—but by external demand. The resulting "tax windfall" for local governments threatened to create a liquidity crisis for fixed-income homeowners, whose unrealized capital gains were being taxed as if they were realized income.

1.2 Montana’s Tax Architecture: The Uniformity Clause and The "Great Tax Shift"

Montana’s property tax system is characterized by a detailed classification system (17 classes of property) and a lack of a general statewide sales tax, making property tax the primary instrument of local finance. The primary tension resides in Class 4 Property, which encompasses residential land and improvements, commercial land and improvements, and industrial property.

Historically, the Montana legislature has adjusted tax rates to mitigate valuation shifts, but recent decades have seen a divergence. As residential values skyrocketed faster than commercial values, the tax burden shifted organically onto homeowners. In 1992, residential property owners paid approximately 42% of the total property tax levy. By 2023, that share had risen to nearly 76%. This phenomenon, labeled "The Great Tax Shift" by the Montana Budget & Policy Center, created the political imperative for the 2025 reforms. The electorate demanded a correction to this imbalance, viewing the rising share of residential taxes as a failure of the state to capture revenue from the burgeoning commercial and investment sectors.

1.3 Colorado’s Tax Architecture: The Shadow of Gallagher and TABOR

Colorado’s property tax landscape is defined by the interaction of two major constitutional mechanisms: the Taxpayer’s Bill of Rights (TABOR) and the now-repealed Gallagher Amendment.

For nearly forty years, the Gallagher Amendment mandated a 45/55 split between residential and non-residential property tax collections statewide. As residential values grew, the Gallagher formula forced the Residential Assessment Rate (RAR) downward to maintain the ratio, eventually hitting 7.15% (and later temporarily 6.7%), while the commercial assessment rate remained constitutionally fixed at 29%.This created a massive structural incentive to classify property as residential (taxed on ~7% of value) rather than commercial (taxed on 29% of value).

Following the repeal of Gallagher in 2020 (Amendment B), the automatic ratchet protecting homeowners was removed, exposing them to full market value appreciation. However, the extreme disparity in assessment rates remained. A property classified as "commercial lodging" pays approximately four times the property tax of an identical property classified as "residential," even if both are used for short-term accommodation. This "Gallagher Gap" became the central obstacle to reform in 2024. While Montana dealt with a spread between 1.35% (residential) and 1.89% (commercial), Colorado navigated a chasm between 6.7% and 27.9%. This structural divergence explains why Montana could achieve a "soft landing" through rate differentiation, while Colorado’s attempt at reclassification resulted in a political crash.

Section 2: Montana’s Successful Reform – The 2025 Homestead Act (HB 231 / SB 542)

In the 2025 Legislative Session, Montana lawmakers, led by Governor Greg Gianforte and key Republicans like Rep. Llew Jones and Sen. Wylie Galt, successfully passed a package of bills that fundamentally altered the state’s property tax calculus. The reform did not merely lower rates; it introduced a bifurcation of Class 4 property based on occupancy status, effectively creating a residency-based tax system.

2.1 Legislative Mechanics: The Two-Bill Architecture

The reform was achieved through two primary vehicles: House Bill 231 (HB 231) and Senate Bill 542 (SB 542). These bills work in tandem to overhaul Title 15 of the Montana Code Annotated (MCA).

2.1.1 The Transition Year (Tax Year 2025)

Recognizing that the administrative apparatus for verifying residency could not be stood up overnight, the legislature implemented a transitional structure for the 2025 tax year. This phase introduced a graduated rate structure applied to all residential property, regardless of occupancy status, to mitigate the immediate shock of the 2025 reappraisal cycle.

Tier 1: 0.76% tax rate on the first $400,000 of market value.
Tier 2: 1.10% tax rate on value between $400,000 and $1.5 million.
Tier 3: 2.20% tax rate on value exceeding $1.5 million.

This structure introduced progressivity into the property tax code for the first time, ensuring that lower-value homes (and the first tranche of value for all homes) were taxed at a rate significantly lower than the historical 1.35%. Simultaneously, it captured more revenue from high-value estates, which are disproportionately owned by non-residents in resort communities like Big Sky and Whitefish.

2.1.2 The Permanent Regime (Tax Year 2026)

Starting in 2026, the divergence becomes permanent and explicit based on "Homestead" status. The legislation bifurcates Class 4 residential property into two distinct sub-classes:

The Homestead Class (Locals & Long-Term Rentals): To qualify, a property must be owned by an individual (or qualifying entity) and occupied as a principal residence for at least 7 months of the year. Crucially, "long-term rentals" (occupied by tenants for 30+ days) are also eligible, protecting the workforce housing stock from tax hikes.
- Rate Structure:
  - Value < Statewide Median ($378k): 0.76%
  - Median to 2x Median: 0.90%
  - 2x to 4x Median: 1.10%
  - Over 4x Median: 1.90%.
The Non-Qualified Class (Outsiders & STRs): Any residential property that does not meet the 7-month occupancy or long-term rental criteria—primarily second homes, vacation properties, and short-term rentals—is classified as "Non-Qualified."
- Rate Structure: A flat 1.9% tax rate applied to the full market value, starting from the first dollar.

2.2 The Mathematical Impact: Quantifying the Shift

The shift from a uniform 1.35% rate to this two-tier system represents a massive transfer of tax liability.

Consider a $500,000 home:

Under Previous Law (1.35%): Taxable Value = $6,750.
As a Homestead (2026):
- First $378k @ 0.76% = $2,872.
- Remaining $122k @ 0.90% = $1,098.
- Total Taxable Value = $3,970.
- Reduction: 41% decrease in taxable value compared to the old law.
As a Non-Qualified Property (2026):
- $500,000 @ 1.9% = $9,500.
- Increase: 40.7% increase in taxable value compared to the old law.

The spread between the Homestead ($3,970) and the Non-Qualified property ($9,500) creates a scenario where the non-resident pays 2.4 times the taxable value of the resident for an identical asset. Governor Gianforte announced that "80 percent of Montana residential property owners got a property tax cut" due to these reforms, explicitly framing the policy as a successful transfer of burden.

2.3 The "Floating Mill" Mechanism (SB 117)

A critical, often overlooked component of the reform is Senate Bill 117, which revised the calculation of maximum mill levies (15-10-420, MCA). Because HB 231 dramatically reduces the taxable value of the majority of homes (the Homesteads), the total tax base of a county shrinks.

In Montana’s revenue-neutral system, if the tax base (denominator) shrinks, the mill levy (multiplier) must rise to generate the same budgeted revenue. SB 117 allows local governments to "float" their mills upward to compensate for the loss of taxable value from Homesteads.

The Multiplier Effect: The Non-Qualified property owner is hit twice. First, they are assessed at the higher 1.9% rate. Second, this higher taxable value is multiplied by a higher mill levy, which was raised to offset the cuts given to their neighbors. This mechanism mathematically guarantees that the tax relief for locals is funded directly by the increased tax bills of non-residents.

2.4 Administrative Implementation: The Rebate as a Trojan Horse

Implementing a residency-based tax system requires a robust database of domicile, which Montana lacked. The legislature solved this through a clever administrative maneuver: the Property Tax Rebate. For tax years 2023 and 2024, the state offered rebates of up to $675 and $400, respectively, to homeowners who could prove primary residency. The application process for these rebates effectively built the registry for the Homestead Act. The legislation included an "auto-enroll" provision: homeowners who successfully claimed the 2024 rebate are automatically enrolled in the 2026 Homestead rate. This minimized friction for locals while placing the burden of proof on new applicants to demonstrate 7-month occupancy via utility bills, voting records, and driver’s licenses.

Section 3: Colorado’s Failed Experiment – The Lodging Property Tax Bill (SB24-033)

While Montana focused on a broad "residency" distinction, Colorado’s 2024 legislative session saw a more targeted, albeit failed, attempt to address the housing crisis by reclassifying Short-Term Rentals (STRs). Senate Bill 24-033 sought to evict high-frequency STRs from the residential tax class entirely, moving them into the commercial "lodging" class.

3.1 The Proposal: Reclassification as Commercial Lodging

SB24-033, sponsored by Senator Chris Hansen, proposed a radical redefinition of residential property. Under the bill, any residential unit leased for short-term stays (less than 30 days) for more than 90 days per year would be classified as "Lodging Property" rather than "Residential Real Property".

This change in classification would have triggered a catastrophic increase in assessment rates due to the legacy of the Gallagher Amendment:

Residential Assessment Rate (RAR): ~6.7% (2024 rate).
Commercial/Lodging Assessment Rate: 27.9% (2024 rate).

The Quantitative Shock: Consider a condo in Breckenridge valued at $1,000,000:

As Residential: $1,000,000 × 6.7% = $67,000 Assessed Value.
- @ 80 mills (approx. rate for Breckenridge): $5,360 tax bill.
As Lodging (SB24-033): $1,000,000 × 27.9% = $279,000 Assessed Value.
- @ 80 mills: $22,320 tax bill.

This represented a 416% tax increase overnight. Proponents argued that a home rented like a hotel should be taxed like a hotel to ensure "tax parity" and generate revenue for affordable housing. However, the sheer magnitude of the increase proved to be the bill's undoing.

3.2 The Coalition of Opposition: The "Job Killer" Narrative

The extreme assessment gap mobilized a broad and well-funded opposition coalition that branded the bill a "Job Killer". This coalition included:

Corporate Interests: Colorado Ski Country USA and Vail Resorts, which rely on STR inventory to house the millions of skiers who visit the state annually.
Business Associations: The Colorado Chamber of Commerce and the Colorado Hotel and Lodging Association opposed the bill, arguing it would devastate the mountain economy.
Grassroots Organizations: Groups like the "Colorado Lodging and Resort Alliance" and "Rent Responsibly" organized hundreds of property owners to testify. They presented data suggesting that 54% of owners would reduce rentals to 89 days to avoid the tax, leading to a projected $78 million loss in tourism revenue and a $5.5 million loss in sales/lodging tax collections.

The opposition successfully framed the "90-day" threshold as arbitrary and punitive to middle-class families ("mom and pop" investors) who relied on rental income to afford their properties. Testimony highlighted that unlike Montana’s "7-month" residency rule, Colorado’s "90-day" rental rule created a loophole for the truly wealthy: a billionaire who let their Aspen mansion sit empty for 50 weeks a year would pay the low residential rate, while a middle-class family renting their cabin for 100 days would pay the quadrupled commercial rate.

3.3 The Failure: A Bipartisan Rejection

The bill ultimately died in the Senate Finance Committee on April 16, 2024, by a vote of 6-1. Even the sponsor’s Democratic colleagues voted to postpone it indefinitely, citing the potential for economic dislocation and the lack of a nuanced approach to different types of STR owners. The failure of SB24-033 demonstrated that while the concept of taxing STRs higher was popular, the mechanism of commercial reclassification was politically radioactive due to the unbridgeable gap between residential and commercial assessment rates in Colorado.

Section 4: The Colorado Compromise and the Pivot to the Montana Model

With the "stick" of commercial reclassification broken, Colorado lawmakers were forced to pivot. The pressure to provide property tax relief remained acute, driven by the threat of ballot initiatives (Initiatives 50 and 108) that would have capped revenue growth constitutionally.

4.1 SB24-233: The Bipartisan Stabilization

Passed in the final days of the 2024 session, SB24-233 represented a complex "peace treaty" designed to stave off the ballot initiatives. Unlike the failed SB24-033, this bill focused on rate reduction and bifurcation within the residential class, moving closer to the Montana approach.

Bifurcation of Levies: SB24-233 introduced a split in assessment rates based on the taxing entity, a novel approach in Colorado law:
- School Districts: Maintained a higher assessment rate (7.15%) to protect K-12 funding and prevent a drain on the State Education Fund.
- Local Governments: Lowered the assessment rate to 6.95% (permanently by 2026), with a temporary reduction to 6.4% for 2025.
Commercial Relief: The bill permanently lowered the commercial assessment rate from 29% to 25% by 2026, narrowing the "Gallagher Gap" slightly but not enough to make reclassification viable.
The "Soft TABOR" Cap: It imposed a 5.5% annual limit on property tax revenue growth for local governments (excluding schools). If revenue exceeds this cap due to valuation increases, the local government must lower its mill levy or issue refunds.

4.2 The Turn Toward Montana: 2025 and Beyond

Following the failure of the "commercial" approach, Colorado policymakers have explicitly turned their attention to the Montana model of "Homestead Exemptions" and residency differentiation.

HB25-1111: Introduced in the 2025 session, this bill proposes a significant expansion of the homestead exemption. Instead of the historical flat $55,000 reduction, it proposes exempting 50% of the state median home value for qualifying seniors and veterans. This mirrors the Montana "Tier 1" concept, shielding the core value of a primary residence from taxation.
Commission on Property Tax: The state established a "Commission on Property Tax," active through July 2025, which is currently evaluating the Montana tiered-rate model. The commission is exploring ways to provide targeted relief to primary residents without triggering the "commercial" label that doomed SB24-033.
HB24-1299 (The STR Monitor): While the tax hike failed, the legislature passed a bill to require data collection on STRs. This effectively creates a state-level registry of rental activity, solving the data gap that plagued the enforcement arguments of SB24-033 and laying the groundwork for a future, more nuanced tax regime.

Section 5: Comparative Economic Analysis: The Fiscalization of Residency

The divergence in outcomes between Montana and Colorado offers profound insights into the mechanics of property tax reform in the West. Both states are moving toward a system where tax liability is determined by who you are (resident vs. non-resident) rather than what you own (value). This "Fiscalization of Residency" represents a departure from standard ad valorem principles.

5.1 Case Study Comparison: Big Sky vs. Breckenridge

To understand the real-world impact of these diverging paths, it is instructive to compare two premier resort communities: Big Sky, Montana and Breckenridge, Colorado.

Table 1: Comparative Tax Structures (2024-2025)

Feature	Big Sky, MT (Gallatin/Madison Counties)	Breckenridge, CO (Summit County)
Sales/Resort Tax	4% Resort Tax (Luxury Goods)	8.875% Combined Sales Tax (Town+County+State)
Lodging Tax	8% (4% Lodging Sales + 4% Use Tax)	12.275% (Including Accommodation Tax)
Residential Prop. Rate	1.35% (2024) -> 0.76%-1.1% (2025 Homestead)	6.7% (2024 Assessment Rate)
Non-Res. Prop. Rate	1.9% (2026 Non-Qualified)	6.7% (Current) / 27.9% (Failed SB24-033)
Typical Mill Levy	~327 Mills (Gallatin Consolidated)	~62-80 Mills (Summit Consolidated)
Tax on $1M 2nd Home	~$19,000 (Est. 2026 Non-Qualified)	~$5,360 (Current) -> ~$22,320 (Failed SB24-033)

Analysis:

Montana: The tax burden on a $1M second home in Big Sky is significantly higher than in Breckenridge under current law, primarily because Montana lacks a high sales tax to subsidize local government. The shift to the 1.9% rate in 2026 will exacerbate this, pushing the tax bill toward $19,000.
Colorado: The failure of SB24-033 preserved the status quo in Breckenridge, where property taxes remain relatively low (approx. $5,360 on a $1M home) because the town relies heavily on sales and lodging taxes (over 12%) to fund operations. The failed bill would have aligned Breckenridge’s property tax burden with Big Sky’s, but without the corresponding lack of sales tax, creating a "double taxation" argument that resonated with voters.

5.2 The "Locals" Definition: 7 Months vs. 90 Days

The definition of the "privileged" class was the pivot point for success or failure.

Montana (7 Months): By defining a Homestead as 7-month occupancy, Montana aligned its tax code with the standard definition of domicile used for income tax and voting. This created a clear moral argument: "If you vote here and pay income tax here, you get the Homestead rate." It captures all second homes, whether they are rented or not, avoiding the loophole of the "empty mansion".
Colorado (90 Days): SB24-033 defined the target based on commercial activity (90+ rental days). This created a perverse incentive. An owner could rent for 89 days, avoid the tax hike, and leave the home empty for the rest of the year. This would reduce the housing stock for tourists without returning it to the long-term rental market for locals—a "lose-lose" outcome for the economy.

5.3 Political Economy: "Keep Montana Montana" vs. "Stop the Tax Hike"

Montana: Governor Gianforte utilized the slogan "Keep Montana Montana". This nationalist-style rhetoric successfully framed the tax reform as a protective measure for locals against an invasion of "California equity refugees." The "Non-Qualified" rate was sold not as a tax hike, but as a removal of a subsidy for outsiders.
Colorado: The opposition effectively deployed the "Stop the Tax Hike" slogan. In a TABOR state, the electorate is conditioned to view any rate increase with suspicion. By framing SB24-033 as a tax on the tourism economy rather than just wealthy owners, the opposition successfully argued that the tax would trickle down to harm the waiters, lift operators, and housekeepers whose jobs depend on visitor spending.

Section 6: Implementation and Administrative Burden

The shift to residency-based taxation imposes significant new burdens on county administrators, shifting their role from value assessors to residency investigators.

6.1 The Burden of Proof and Data Collection

Montana: The Department of Revenue is now tasked with verifying that applicants for the Homestead rate actually reside in the home. This requires cross-referencing voting records, driver’s licenses, and income tax returns. The 2024 rebate program served as a massive data-gathering exercise, populating the initial registry. However, the ongoing challenge will be policing "sham" residencies where owners claim occupancy to secure the 0.76% rate.
Colorado: The compromise measure HB24-1299 focused entirely on data collection. It mandates that owners of STRs report the number of days leased to the assessor. This acknowledges that the state lacked the granular data necessary to enforce the failed SB24-033. Colorado is essentially building the "surveillance state" for STRs now, likely to facilitate a more targeted tax reform in 2026 or 2027.

6.2 The "Mill Levy Multiplier" Trap

In Montana, the interaction between the Homestead Act and SB 117 creates a "mill levy multiplier" trap for non-residents.

Mechanism: When the taxable value of thousands of Homesteads is reduced by roughly 40% (from 1.35% rate to ~0.8%), the total taxable value of a jurisdiction plummets.
Response: To maintain revenue neutrality for schools and fire districts, the mill levy must rise.
The Trap: A Non-Qualified property owner sees their rate rise to 1.9%. But they also see the mill levy applied to that value rise significantly.
- Hypothetical: A county mill levy might jump from 500 mills to 600 mills to offset the Homestead cuts.
- The Homestead owner is shielded by their lower assessment rate.
- The Non-Qualified owner pays: (Higher Assessed Value) × (Higher Mill Levy). This compounding effect means the effective tax increase for non-residents will likely exceed the headline 40% rate hike.

Section 7: Conclusion and Future Outlook

The comparative trajectory of Montana and Colorado in 2024-2025 illustrates the definitive end of uniform property taxation in the Mountain West. Both states have concluded that the standard ad valorem model—where a dollar of property value is taxed the same regardless of who owns it—is socially unsustainable in an era of high-velocity amenity migration.

Montana has successfully established the new paradigm. By creating a "Homestead" class protected by lower rates and a "Non-Qualified" class subject to higher rates and floating mills, it has effectively implemented a wealth tax on non-resident equity. This was achieved through a combination of populist political messaging ("Keep Montana Montana"), careful rate calibration (avoiding the "commercial" label), and sophisticated legislative mechanics (SB 117) that hid the true cost to non-residents in the mill levy calculation.

Colorado serves as the control group, demonstrating the limits of reform. Its attempt to reclassify STRs as commercial failed because it ignored the "Gallagher Gap"—the massive disparity between residential and commercial rates that made the jump economically fatal. However, Colorado’s pivot to SB24-233 and the introduction of HB25-1111 indicates that it is rapidly converging on the Montana model. The future of Colorado property tax lies not in reclassifying homes as hotels, but in differentiating within the residential class to privilege the primary homeowner.

7.1 Key Takeaways for Policymakers

Labels Matter: Reclassifying homes as "commercial" is politically fatal. Creating a "Homestead" benefit is politically popular, even if the net result (higher taxes on non-residents) is mathematically identical.
The Spread is Critical: A 40% tax differential (Montana) is absorbable by the market. A 300%+ differential (Colorado) triggers massive resistance and economic dislocation.
Data First: Montana used a rebate program to build a residency database before fully implementing the two-tier rate. Colorado attempted to tax based on rental days without a unified tracking system, a mistake it is now correcting with HB24-1299.
The Mill Levy Multiplier: In a revenue-neutral system, exempting locals inherently penalizes outsiders twice: once via the higher rate, and again via the higher mill levy required to fund the budget.

As 2026 approaches, the "Montana Model" of Homestead differentiation appears to be the winning template for states seeking to balance housing affordability with the reality of high-value amenity migration. The era of uniform property taxation is effectively over; the era of residency-based taxation has begun.

missoulapartnership.com - Montana and Missoula Property Taxes

taxfoundation.org - Montana Property Tax Reform Options, 2025 | Tax Foundation

commonsenseinstituteus.org - Does SB24-233 Provide Taxpayer Relief and Predictability? - Common Sense Institute

revenue.mt.gov - Property Classifications and Class Codes - Montana Department of Revenue

archive.legmt.gov - 15-6-134. Class four property -- description -- taxable percentage, MCA

revenuefiles.mt.gov - Historical Property Tax Trends - Montana Department of Revenue

montanabudget.org - The Great Tax Shift | Montana Budget & Policy Center

bellpolicy.org - SB24-233: Responsible Property Tax Reduction and Reform in Colorado

cpr.org - Bill to tax AirBnbs like hotel rooms dies in state Senate committee - Colorado Public Radio

rentresponsibly.org - Case Study: Defeating Colorado Senate Bill 33 STR Property Tax Bill - Rent Responsibly

archive.legmt.gov - HB 231 & SB 542: Property Tax Changes Summary - Montana State Legislature

parsonsbehle.com - New Montana State Income and Property Taxes for 2025 & 2026 - Parsons Behle & Latimer