Elbert County assessor reports 2025 valuations, board accepts report

Susan Murphy, Elbert County assessor, reported the county's 2025 property valuations and related deadlines to the Board of County Commissioners, convened as the Board of Equalization, on July 15, 2025. After the presentation the board formally accepted the assessor's report.

Murphy told commissioners the 2025 values were prepared “pursuant [to] state statute 39 8 1 0 5” and that changes enacted in recent legislation (cited in the meeting as “House Bill 24 B 1,001”) affect assessment rates for 2025 only. She said, “the residential rate for properties is 6 and a quarter percent,” explaining the local-government residential assessment rate is 6.25% unless statewide actual value growth exceeds 5% between 2024 and 2025, in which case the rate would drop (as described in the statute cited). For school districts Murphy reported a 7.05% residential assessment rate for 2025, which would fall to 6.95% if the statewide growth threshold is met.

Murphy said nonresidential assessment rates moved from 27.9% to 27% for vacant land and other nonresidential properties; agricultural land and outbuildings moved from 26.4% to 27%. She explained the combined effect of the assessment-rate changes and the statutory legislative reductions — which she described as a $55,000 residential reduction and a $30,000 commercial reduction applied in the summary figures — accounts for most of what she characterized as an approximately $81,000,000 reduction in taxable assessed value compared with the prior abstract. Murphy noted a roughly $2,000,000 loss when comparing December 31 values after statutory reductions and said the state-assessed portion of value fell by about $41,000,000.

Murphy reported the assessor's office revalued more than 18,000 properties for 2025, received 343 appeals, adjusted 197 appeals and denied 146; the office received three appeals related to oil and gas. She contrasted this with 2023, when the office received 1,499 appeals. Murphy said personal property values were “pretty flat,” with a small increase of about 8,600 (amount as reported by the assessor). She also said local reappraisal change rates across the county were small — “0 to 1% depending on your location adjustment” — but that some areas (Murphy cited Simla as an example) saw larger increases in specific subdivisions.

Murphy reminded the board of administrative deadlines she said govern the remaining timeline: notices of value were mailed no later than May 1; property owners could appeal through June 9; notice of determination from the assessor's office would be mailed no later than June 30; and the Division/office that notifies counties after abstracts are submitted (referred to in the meeting as DPT) will complete its notice after all 64 counties submit abstracts, due by Aug. 25.

Commissioners thanked Murphy and her staff for their work. The board then voted to accept the assessor's report as the county Board of Equalization and later adjourned the meeting.

Votes at a glance: the meeting recorded three unanimous procedural votes: approval of the meeting agenda (motion passed), formal acceptance of the assessor's report as the Board of Equalization (motion passed), and adjournment (motion passed). Specific tallies were recorded as unanimous (ayes), with no no-votes or abstentions announced.

Questions and clarifications raised during the presentation focused on how assessment-rate changes and certified mill levies affect individual tax bills, geographic variation in reappraisal results (Murphy cited Simla as having a roughly 10–11% increase in some areas), and staffing and process to meet statutory appeal and notice deadlines.

The board's formal acceptance of the report transfers the assessor figures to county finance for incorporation into the 2026 budget calculations, a county finance staffer (named in the meeting as Tiffany) was cited as the contact who will integrate the data into budget work.