The Jackson County Finance and Audit Committee on Wednesday agreed to hold Ordinance 59‑96, a proposed change to the county code intended to create optional payment programs and appeal‑based payment extensions for property taxes.

Committee members said they want more legal clarity before the measure moves forward after the county counselor's office advised key provisions likely conflict with state law. Whitney Miller of the counselor's office said in committee that “the statute is just fairly cut and dry that you, you know, you shall collect these taxes,” and later summarized the office's view: “we believe this violates the statute.”

The ordinance text on the table would add language to Jackson County Code to establish optional payment programs and to provide protections “during appeals,” and — by amendment discussed in committee — explicitly include residential, commercial and agricultural properties. Chairman Sean Smith said the sponsor’s intent included relieving taxpayers who lack timely appeals decisions when assessments increase; Smith noted the board of equalization deadline and ongoing appeals backlog and said the proposal sought to “mitigate the damage” caused by delayed appeals.

Committee discussion focused on a conflict between sections of state law that set tax collection and penalty timelines and the ordinance's proposed relief. Miller pointed to a state statutory requirement that the county collect taxes by Dec. 31 and collect interest and penalties when taxes are unpaid; she said the county counsel flagged portions of the draft that “pretty clearly violate sections 141.” Committee members asked whether advancing the ordinance despite the conflict could expose the county to litigation or to liability to other taxing jurisdictions; Miller said it could.

Members also noted a recent, small drafting change: the committee had added the word “agricultural” in two places to mirror the sponsor’s intent. Committee members asked when the adopted amendment would be reflected in public materials; counsel said a hard copy had been distributed in the meeting and committed to confirm email or clerk‑office posting by the end of the day or the next business day.

After debate, a casual motion to hold the ordinance was made and seconded. The committee approved the hold by voice vote.

Next steps: the committee paused further consideration until counsel can provide a clearer legal analysis of the sections flagged as conflicting with state statutes and until staff confirm the updated ordinance text is posted to the public record.