YUMA — The Yuma County Board of Equalization on Sept. 15 accepted an assessor‑initiated reduction to the full cash value for Hall Family Ranch LLC but declined to change the parcel’s limited property value during the hearing.

The petitioner, represented by William Katz, asked the board to reduce both the full cash value and the limited property value (LPV), arguing the board has statutory authority to modify LPV on a petition for real property valuation and citing an Arizona Attorney General opinion. Assessor staff and county counsel countered that LPV adjustments must follow specific statutory triggers and that the assessor had already reduced full cash value based on market data.

What the board decided: After review and discussion the board voted to accept the assessor’s recommended adjusted full cash value of approximately $853,416. The board did not order a change to the property’s LPV.

Why it mattered: The hearing focused on statutory limits governing LPV changes and the relationship between full cash value (FCV) and LPV. Petitioner argued errors in prior assessments produced an inflated LPV; assessor staff said LPV can only be recalculated in statutorily defined circumstances (for example, when FCV falls below LPV or when property modifications trigger recalculation) and that this case did not meet those statutory triggers.

Key points raised: Katz urged the board to rely on A.G. guidance and the statutory language that allows the county board to “change any valuation or legal classification” determined by the assessor. The assessor’s representative provided examples and a summary of county ratio and LPV calculations and noted the assessor had already reduced FCV after a review.

Board action: Following argument and procedural objections (including the petitioner’s objection about shared representation by county counsel), the board voted to accept the assessor’s reduced FCV and made no LPV change. The board noted the petitioner may pursue further remedies under Arizona tax appeal procedures.

Ending: The exchange highlighted procedural issues that arose repeatedly in the hearing — including arguments about counsel roles, public records for valuation modeling and the limits of LPV adjustments under Arizona law — and underscored the specialized statutory framework that governs tax valuation appeals.