Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessor Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Woods County excise board questions assessor’s post-decision adjustments and presses for timely valuations
Summary
Board members challenged the county assessor's handling of last year’s protested property valuations, saying adjustments were made after decisions without apparent authority and warning they may formally protest assessments if valuation information is not provided by set deadlines.
A multi-step exchange at a Woods County Excise Board meeting focused on the county assessor’s process for valuing protested properties and whether staff made post-decision adjustments without authority.
Board members raised concerns that the assessor’s office recorded a lower valuation after the board had previously made decisions on protested cases. One board member said the action appeared to lack legal authority and told the assessor, "You didn't have the authority to do that after the board made a decision," adding that the board's review must be supported by the full record before decisions are finalized.
The assessor responded that additional information had been obtained after the board's earlier action and that staff completed work as the new information arrived: "When we finally got the information we needed," the assessor said. The assessor also said staff were working to get notices out and expected to provide materials electronically to the board for review.
Board members pressed for timeliness and warned of possible formal protests. They said they expect assessment materials to be ready by April 1 so the equalization board can review them before the June 1 deadline. One board member noted last year’s large write-downs — referenced in discussion as about $5.4 million — and criticized legal counsel's handling of litigation and advice, saying county attorneys should have prepared to take cases to court rather than allowing off-record adjustments.
The board discussed confidentiality and said it could review sensitive evidence in an executive session if required. Members repeatedly said they would "set the record straight" and that the board may file protests as the governing equalization body if assessments appear incorrect.
During the meeting the board also approved (by voice vote) an extension of the excise board session through June or as long as needed to complete required work.
No formal change to assessments was recorded at the meeting; the exchange was a demand for documentation and a warning that the board may use its protest authority if assessment materials are not timely or appear to have been altered without appropriate procedure.
