Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessor warns Senate File 69 could sharply reduce Fremont County valuation; mineral declines cited
Summary
County staff briefed commissioners on projected drops in county valuation tied to mining activity and proposed state legislation (Senate File 69), saying mineral production down about 31% year over year and warning the bill lacks state backfill for lost revenue.
Fremont County staff told commissioners a proposed state measure, Senate File 69, and recent declines in mineral production could substantially lower the county’s taxable valuation and the revenue that funds local services.
The assessor (presenting county valuation figures) said the county’s projected total valuation for 2025 is lower than recent years and that mineral-production value — a major component of the county tax base — is down about 31% between last year and this year, based on state figures the assessor cited. The assessor also noted that mergers and asset transfers, including the tribes' acquisition of Merit Energy and local shutdowns and plugged wells, have reduced taxable mineral value.
"We're down about 31% on mineral production, just between last year and this year," the assessor said, identifying mineral changes, plant shutdowns and plugged wells as contributors to the decline. The assessor told the commission that some of the county’s high prior valuations reflected mineral activity that has since changed and that the state’s proposed approach of applying a flat 50% residential exemption (Senate File 69) does not include full state backfill for counties.
County staff provided historical valuation context, noting their 2006–2017 average county valuation and the distribution among ag land, residential land and residential improvements. They warned that averaging methods used in the state legislation could misrepresent counties with volatile mineral production. "You can't do that in sales," the assessor said, arguing that averaging across very different counties could be an unfair statewide policy.
Commissioners asked for clarification on how the county’s monthly mineral payment structure and other revenue-management practices interact with valuation swings. Staff said some protections exist for smaller counties and that state budget discussions had proposed targeted hardship backfill, but that Fremont County was unlikely to receive that aid under the proposal as drafted.
No formal action was taken; the assessor asked commissioners to stay engaged with legislators as the bills move through the legislature.
