YUMA — The Yuma County Board of Equalization on Sept. 15 adjusted the valuation on a 24‑acre self‑storage facility after a contested petition and a lengthy hearing that touched on appraisal methods, ratio calculations and the assessor’s use of third‑party cost data.

The board set assessor’s parcel 696‑20‑001 (Yuma Mesa Storage LLC) at a full cash value of $15,000,000 and applied the county’s commercial ratio (63%) to determine a limited property value (approximately $9,000,400). The decision followed competing presentations by the county assessor and counsel for the property owner.

Why it mattered: The hearing focused on whether the assessor’s cost‑based valuation and the county’s ratio treatment of self‑storage properties produced an equitable tax burden. The petitioner argued that comparable data from Maricopa County and other analyses supported a much lower valuation; the assessor said independent sources (city permits, Marshall & Swift cost tables and internal ratio studies) justified the current valuation.

What happened at the hearing: Yuma County Assessor Stevie Seal told the board the department used an accepted three‑approach appraisal framework (market, income and cost) and relied on building permits, satellite imagery and Marshall & Swift cost data to set improvement values after the property’s recent construction. Seal said county staff found 7,620 square feet missing from the assessor’s records and planned that correction for the 2027 assessment.

Petitioner William Katz, in‑house counsel for Yuma Mesa Storage, argued the property’s limited property value was disproportionate compared with other commercial parcels in the same tax area and cited a sample of storage facilities in Maricopa County that, he said, show lower LPV‑to‑FCV ratios. Katz urged the board to reduce the parcel’s full cash value to $12,995,000 and the LPV to about $4.16 million.

Board action and reasoning: Supervisors debated facts, examiner procedures and equity across the tax area. After discussion, one supervisor moved to adopt a compromise: set full cash value at $15,000,000 and calculate LPV using the assessor’s ratio (63%). The motion carried on a majority voice vote; one supervisor recorded opposition. The vote was taken by voice rather than roll call; a formal roll‑call tally was not recorded in the minutes.

Process notes: The assessor said staff requested on‑site access and construction cost documentation from the owner but that those requests were declined; instead, the assessor used the city’s approved building permit and third‑party Marshall & Swift cost estimates to develop the improvement value. Counsel for the petitioner said the assessor’s office declined to provide certain underlying vendor algorithms used in valuations and that those proprietary materials would need separate legal action to obtain.

Next steps: The board’s action resolves the county‑level review; either party may pursue administrative review (State Board of Equalization or Tax Court) within statutory timelines if they choose.

Ending: The hearing highlighted common tensions in property tax appeals: proprietary vendor data and models used by assessors, the role of permit and construction records when property owners decline to share cost information, and the board’s responsibility to seek equity across similarly situated parcels.