Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cole County commissioners split over compliance with State Tax Commission order to adjust assessments
Summary
Cole County commissioners discussed and largely agreed to follow a State Tax Commission order requiring reassessments, but at least one commissioner objected, citing concerns about local authority and fairness. The county faces deadline pressures and a potential loss of parcel payment funds tied to compliance.
Cole County commissioners on Aug. 12 discussed complying with an order from the Missouri State Tax Commission to raise assessed property values in parts of the county and to meet an imminent administrative deadline.
The issue centered on whether the county's Board of Equalization (BOE) should follow the state order and raise values for properties reassessed in 2023. The BOE agreed to comply by voting last week, but one commissioner said at Tuesday's meeting that they voted against the decision and remained opposed.
The county's target deadline to meet the state order was reported as Aug. 23; commissioners also noted that political subdivisions must set levies by Sept. 1 and that published notices must meet a seven-day statutory requirement. Staff said they expect DevNet, the vendor that handles assessor and collector software, to produce a revised Form 11A that will replace the existing Form 11 and that IT staff are prepared to "punch the button" once those computations are ready.
Presiding Commissioner (speaker not identified in transcript) said the BOE agreed to comply and that staff and DevNet had been in contact to meet the deadline. A separate commissioner who opposed the BOE vote said, "I voted against it. So I'm gonna stand up for our taxpayers," and questioned whether the BOE had the authority to effect the increases the state was ordering.
Commissioners and others debated how the state determined the gap between assessed values and sale prices, with staff explaining that the State Tax Commission used a sales-ratio sample supplied by the assessor and found assessed values averaged about 67% of sales prices in that sample. Commissioners raised concerns about whether sales used in the analysis reflected true market-only transactions and noted that not all sales are reported to the assessor or appear on MLS.
One practical consequence discussed was the potential loss of a parcel payment tied to compliance: staff said Cole County faces about $117,000 at risk if the assessor's office does not meet the state's requirements, though it was not certain whether the BOE's corrective action would restore that payment.
The commission discussed scheduling: a hearing originally planned for Sept. 19 was likely to be moved to Sept. 26 to satisfy required timelines; staff offered to publish a new notice in the newspaper if necessary.
The meeting record shows the debate was contentious and prolonged, with repeated exchanges about the assessor's past compliance with an MOU and whether the State Tax Commission was justified in its order. Several commissioners and participants referenced the assessor's prior actions, the legal authority of the State Tax Commission and the practical limits of local data collection.
The commissioners recessed at the end of the agenda item and did not take further formal action on the matter during the Aug. 12 session.
Ending: The commission left scheduling and technical implementation with staff and DevNet; commissioners noted the matter would continue to be monitored and that the new assessor (incoming after the current term) would have responsibility going forward.
