The La Paz County Board of Supervisors voted Oct. 6 to continue consideration of a petition challenging the 2026 valuation for assessor parcel number 311-38-011L to a special meeting set for Oct. 14 at 9 a.m. The board debated how limited property value (LPV) is established and heard a public complaint that assessor parcel maps were made harder for residents and real-estate professionals to access after being moved into the county GIS system.

The continuation gives county staff additional time to gather information and answer questions raised during the meeting, including whether the appeal falls under the October 15 deadline or the third Friday in November statutory deadline for this type of appeal.

During the public comment period, a semi-retired real estate broker said long-standing assessor parcel maps and earlier disc-based access had been user-friendly and that moving parcel maps into the GIS portal left many seniors and other residents unable to obtain maps without visiting the assessor's office in person. "The only remedy that's been offered so far is that people could just call her office and ask for it to be emailed. Well, that's unacceptable," the speaker said.

County staff acknowledged the access concerns and said the assessor's office had suggested email or in-office copies as options; the commenter and members of the board said those options are burdensome for people who lack printers, reliable email, or who live in other parts of the county.

Board members then moved into a substantive discussion of a specific valuation appeal that had been referred to the board of equalization. County staff and assessor's-office representatives described how LPV is set and adjusted. Chair (La Paz County Board of Supervisors) summarized the complexity of Arizona's property tax valuation system and asked for clarification on how a new property's LPV was initially established.

Nicole, identified in the meeting as the chief appraiser in the Assessor's Office, described the statutory mechanics that affect LPV: a property's LPV increases by 5% annually if nothing changes, but certain changes (what staff called a "Rule B") reappraise LPV in comparison with full cash value. Nicole also said the county applies a newly established Rule B ratio each year and that this year's ratio was low (she referenced a figure she described as about 0.67%), which is multiplied by the full cash value to derive the LPV. Staff said appeals are limited by statute to the full cash value; LPV is not directly appealable in the same proceeding.

Assessor staff said the parcel at issue had improvements added in 2021, were entered on the tax roll at partial percent-complete in 2024, then at 100% complete in 2025; each of those steps triggered Rule B adjustments that affected the LPV calculation. The property owner, staff said, had met with appraisers in the assessor's office and remained dissatisfied with the method used to establish LPV.

County attorney staff and the clerk clarified statutory deadlines for board action depending on the subsection under which the appeal was made. After counsel reviewed the record, the board voted to continue the item to a special meeting on Tuesday, Oct. 14 at 9:00 a.m. so staff could gather more information. The motion to continue was made by Chair (La Paz County Board of Supervisors) and seconded by Supervisor (unnamed); the motion carried with no recorded opposition.

Board members and staff reiterated that taxpayers who disagree with the board's decision may appeal to tax court. The board asked staff to provide the additional valuation and process details requested prior to the Oct. 14 meeting.

The discussion mixed two separate but related issues: (1) public access to assessor parcel maps after a transition to the county GIS system and (2) how LPV was initially set and subsequently adjusted for a recently developed property. The board took formal action only on the timing of the hearing; no change to valuation was made at the Oct. 6 meeting.

The board scheduled the special meeting on Oct. 14 at 9 a.m. to address the petition for review and asked staff to provide the additional documentation and calculations requested by supervisors and the petitioner.