Yankton County values rise 11.3% as equalization office outlines appeal timeline and warns of pending state tax bills

Michelle, a member of the Yankton County Equalization Office, told the county commission on March 11 that assessment notices were mailed March 1 and that countywide assessed value rose 11.32% for 2025.

The presentation outlined appeal deadlines: local boards (small towns and organized townships) must receive written appeals by March 13 and meet March 17–20; the county auditor must receive appeals for the city of Yankton and unorganized townships no later than April 1, with the consolidated county board of equalization reviewing cases the week of April 14–17. Michelle said the county typically opens the boards on April 8 and may use a remote call that day because many staff will be attending a spring workshop.

The nut of Michelle’s briefing was how assessments relate to budgets. She said South Dakota property tax is “budget-driven, not rate-based,” and noted state law limits most taxing entities’ annual budget increases to 3 percent plus a growth factor intended to capture new development. The county’s equalization office seeks valuations “at least 85 percent of market value,” she said, and explained methods used to test and set assessed values, including sampling sales (304 usable sales out of 1,054 transfers processed last year) and periodic physical inspections of parcels.

Michelle gave numeric details: Yankton County’s total assessed value for 2025 is $3,289,652,069; the countywide increase was 11.32% year over year, with 1.08% of that from new growth and 10.24% attributable to market changes. She also said agricultural values are set by productivity: crop soils rose about 2.92 percent and grass soils about 1.7 percent. The equalization office reported it processed 1,054 transfers, 107 splits and plats, and handled exemptions including disabled-veteran exemptions (the exempt amount increased from $150,000 to $200,000 of assessed value).

Michelle also reviewed tax increment financing (TIF/TID) activity and impacts on tax rolls. She said the county has three new tax increment districts created in the past year and explained that the county’s regular tax revenue is computed from the base value, while increments (growth above the base) flow to the district until loans or bonds are repaid (typically up to a 20-year term). She noted one TIF had a base of $0 because the city owned the land and is tax-exempt, a circumstance that reduces the county’s current tax collections while still generating administrative costs.

Commissioners asked for clarifications on whether assessed-value increases were arbitrary; Michelle responded that parcel changes ranged from about 5 percent to 25 percent depending on local market conditions and that values are set by statutory and administrative rules, not individual preference. She described internal tools the office uses, including CAMA/cost tables, and said the office physically inspects a portion of parcels each year, targeting a 10-year full inspection cycle.

Michelle also warned the commission about pending state legislation that staff say could change how properties are classified, how growth is calculated, and how owner-occupied properties are assessed. She mentioned Senate Bill 191 (described in her handouts as shifting assessment methods between property classes and flagged by Department of Revenue staff as constitutionally problematic), Senate Bill 216 (which would alter the definition of growth by excluding smaller improvements such as detached garages unless they meet a high threshold), and another measure sometimes referenced as 219 that would cap owner-occupied assessment increases to 3 percent. She said those bills — among roughly 29 bills affecting property tax under consideration in the legislature — could lead to a tax shift from owner-occupied parcels to commercial and agricultural parcels and could reduce local growth factors used to compute budgets.

Commissioners commented that the county’s primary revenue source is property tax and that changes at the state level could require local cuts to services such as roads, deputies, ambulance services and other public safety functions if revenue is reduced. Michelle and commissioners agreed to monitor the bills closely and noted the county’s limited authority to provide alternative revenue sources such as sales tax.

Ending: Commissioners did not take action on the legislative items during the meeting; Michelle asked the commission to review the bills on staff’s desk and said the office will return with any statutory guidance or administrative interpretations needed for the board’s budget decisions.