Lake County assessor outlines alternate appeal schedule, logistics for county board of equalization hearings

Mark Wadsworth, Lake County assessor, gave a training for commissioners on the county board of equalization process during a June 10 work session, explaining deadlines, scheduling options and procedural details tied to this year’s alternate appeal period.

Wadsworth told commissioners that the county board of commissioners serves as the county board of equalization and summarized the board’s role: “The duties of the county board of equalization is that they shall review the valuations for the assessment of all taxable property … and whenever in its judgment, justice and rights so required, it shall raise, lower, or adjust any valuation for assessment appearing in the assessment role to the end that all valuations for assessed property are just and equalized within the county,” he said.

The briefing underscored why timing matters: unlike a normal year, Lake County is on an alternate appeal schedule this cycle. Property owners had to submit protests to the assessor’s office by June 8; because of the alternate schedule the assessor may issue notices of determination as late as Aug. 15. That shifts the deadline for appeals to the CBOE: people who receive a notice of determination on Aug. 15 would have until Sept. 15 to file for a hearing before the board, Wadsworth said. He described the scheduling window for hearings as beginning Sept. 2 and running through Nov. 3, while commissioners and staff discussed a preferred concentrated scheduling window from Sept. 15 through Oct. 15 to help staffing and continuity.

Commissioners and staff focused on logistics after Wadsworth described how hearings typically proceed. He said hearings often allow five minutes for a petitioner and five minutes for the assessor’s presentation, followed by questions. The board may take notes during hearings and then deliberate later; the clerk’s office must notify property owners of any valuation changes ordered by the board, and those notices feed back to the assessor for final rolls and certification.

To avoid the scheduling and communications problems experienced in 2023, Wadsworth and commissioners agreed on several operational steps: create a dedicated mailbox or inbox for hearing requests and determinations; use a shared scheduler (bookings or an equivalent) tied to commissioners’ calendars rather than allowing petitioners to self-schedule on a public website; assign a staff member (Sandra Pettus was discussed for this role) to manage incoming hearing requests and maintain a shared spreadsheet of petitioner name, property description, hearing time and the board’s disposition.

Wadsworth encouraged the assessor’s office to remain removed from scheduling to avoid any appearance of favoritism; he also described a common practice of reaching stipulations with taxpayers before hearings, which can reduce the number of contested cases. “A lot of times we’ll look at that property, maybe we evaluate the sales that we use, the comps … and we can do a stipulation with them prior to the hearing, and then we’ll just cancel,” Wadsworth said.

On case volume and timing, Wadsworth provided estimates and planning guidance. He said the assessor’s office processed roughly 600 appeals in a prior cycle but suggested Lake County might see far fewer hearings this year (he gave a working estimate of about 100 hearings), noting that scheduling could be spread from early September through early November. He urged early sharing of appeals with the assessor’s office so staff can attempt stipulations and reduce in-person hearings.

Wadsworth also reviewed technical appraisal points that often arise in appeals: the office uses a 24-month sales period for residential valuations (longer than the 18-month minimum referenced in statute), an appraisal date of June 30 and an assessment date of Jan. 1. He described time-adjustment methods (paired-sales, resales, multiple regression) and said the office applies a time trend to bring older sales to the June 30 appraisal date when appropriate. He noted that sales under contract on the appraisal date may be usable as comps in limited circumstances.

On abatement and post-billing remedies, Wadsworth said a taxpayer who does not pursue the appeal process in the valuation year may still later file for an abatement or refund, which complicates administration. He said the county uses a $10,000 threshold (local resolution) at which abatements require BOCC and state review; commissioners retained authority to change that threshold by resolution.

Wadsworth flagged several contentious valuation topics commissioners may see in hearings, including large undeveloped parcels near county gravel pits and contested rail‑yard land values tied to development and TIF increment calculations. He said he prefers resolving valuation errors before final certification to avoid post-billing abatements.

He also told the board he is evaluating new appraisal software (a Tyler product called Enterprise was mentioned) and planned demonstrations for staff and commissioners; he invited IT staff to participate in those demos.

The meeting closed with agreement to set up a dedicated inbox and booking/scheduler, to prepare a shared scheduling spreadsheet for commissioners and staff, and to return to the board with a finalized hearing calendar and software-demo details.

Votes at a glance: no formal motions or votes took place during this training session.