Jones County Board of Equalization members affirmed several assessor valuations and set new assessed values in multiple appeals during a hearing before the board and Superior Court Judge Pamela Dixon. The board cited county appraisal staff analysis and a countywide revaluation effort driven by state compliance metrics.

The panel’s decisions follow extended presentations from county appraisal staff about a multi-year divergence between assessed values and market sales that reduced the county’s sales ratio and triggered adjustments. County appraiser Billy Wild told the board, “By law, you're taxed on your assessed value, which is 40% of the fair market value,” and explained the county had fallen below the state’s accepted ratio range, forcing broad increases to bring the county’s ratio back toward the required band.

County appraiser’s explanation and context
Billy Wild, speaking for county appraisal staff, described how the county’s sales-ratio measure fell in recent years — “2 years ago, our ratio was 32.9. Last year, it was 31.26” — and said the gap had allowed public utilities to be taxed at a lower effective rate, costing the county revenue. Wild said staff adjusted their valuation tables over multiple steps (from roughly $40 per square foot in earlier cycles through $60 and then $110 per square foot in the current cycle) to move the county’s overall ratio upward so utilities would be taxed at the intended 40% assessed share.

Property owners pressed for adjustments and described local conditions. One homeowner objected to an increase and concerns about rural infrastructure and services; another, identified as Miss Powers, said the stable next door caused persistent odor problems, adding, “the smell ain't going away.” Whitney Palmero, who appealed the county’s valuation of 420 Darren Carson Lane, asked the board to set her 2025 fair-market value at $430,000, saying neighborhood sales supported a lower number and that her house’s unusual orientation had previously been given a 25% functional reduction.

Board rulings and votes at a glance
- 411 Mount Springs Church Road (Prickle appeal): The board affirmed the assessor’s valuation. County staff presented a final assessed value of $321,806 and the board recommended that valuation be assessed on the property. Outcome: assessment affirmed (board recommendation to apply assessor’s value). Provenance: transcript presentation and board statement (see provenance entries below).

- 609 Homer Roberts Road (Spires/Powers matter): After county staff presented comparables and adjustments, the board agreed with the county’s assessment and said the county’s figure would stand; the board recorded the county assessment as $308,902 and stated it would go with that assessment. Outcome: assessment affirmed.

- 420 Darren Carson Lane (Palmero): Owner Whitney Palmero asked the board to set fair market value at $430,000; county staff recommended $495,347. After discussion about comparable sales, the board concluded on an assessed value totaling $463,000 (a compromise between the taxpayer’s request and the county figure). Outcome: board set assessed value $463,000.

- 404 Darren Carson Lane (Palmero rental property): County staff presented a recommended value of roughly $340,379 after addressing prior physical depreciation and condition. The board instead set a total value of $294,000 for that property. Outcome: board set assessed value $294,000.

How the board described its decisions and next steps
Chairman Lenny Elsperman (reading the panel’s decision language) said the board had weighed county presentations and taxpayer evidence and reached the outcomes listed above. Members and staff repeatedly emphasized that the county is undertaking a full, countywide revaluation next year; Wild told the hearing that the outside vendor now working on the revaluation will fine-tune values and that the large jumps now reflect steps to bring the county’s sales ratio into compliance with state auditors’ expectations.

What this means for taxpayers
Appraisal staff said the county’s moves were aimed at raising the sales-ratio measure so utilities pay their full share and to place the county “in compliance.” Staff also noted that changes in assessed value are not the same as changes in tax bills: millage decisions made by taxing authorities affect an individual taxpayer’s bill. The board repeated that taxpayers may appeal again in future cycles, and staff said the full revaluation next year could adjust values again.

Ending
The board closed the morning session after recording the decisions and said it would resume hearings for remaining appellants in a subsequent session. Board members and staff encouraged homeowners to review the property record cards and to use the formal appeal process again if they disagree with next year’s values.