Cochise supervisors amend SBOE finding, deny Stronghold Farmsagricultural tax claim for 202224

Cochise County supervisors voted 3-0 on Feb. 20 to amend a State Board of Equalization (SBOE) hearing officerdecision and deny a notice-of-claim filed by Stronghold Farms LLC, owned by Aaron Letowski, seeking agricultural classification for tax years 2022, 2023 and 2024.

The action reverses a Jan. 8 SBOE hearing officer award to the petitioner and adopts the Cochise County assessoroffice recommendation to deny the claim. The boardmotion urged that the claim did not meet the narrow statutory definition of a tax-roll error and therefore could not be remedied through the tax-roll correction process.

County Assessor Phil Leyendecker told supervisors the claim was filed under the countytax-roll correction statute rather than the annual valuation-appeal process and that the correction statute applies only to verifiable errors, not valuation or classification disputes. "I must recommend to this board that you amend the decision of the state equalization hearing officer and deny," Leyendecker said during the Feb. 20 hearing.

Leyendeckerand assessor staff described the subject property as about 58 acres of vacant land purchased in December 2021 for $850,000. The assessor issued notices for tax years 2023, 2024 and 2025 reporting a full cash value (limited value) of $367,779; no administrative or judicial appeals had been filed for those years, the assessor said.

Leyendecker said Arizona law (as cited during the hearing) requires a new owner who wants continued agricultural classification to file an agricultural land-use application with the assessor within 60 days of purchase. Because the application was not filed within that window, Leyendecker said the assessor was prohibited by statute from valuing the parcel as agricultural property for the years in question.

Petitioner Aaron Letowski told the board he purchased the parcel and immediately leased it back to the prior ranch operator so cattle could continue grazing. Letowski said he submitted an agricultural application in 2022, and then again in 2023 and 2024 after staff said the earlier paperwork was missing; he said he has certified-mail receipts for the second and third submissions. "My taxes increased by a factor of a 88 times from $36 total for this parcel to $7,500 per year," Letowski said, arguing that assessor errors and lost records caused the financial harm.

Letowski also argued the parcel was used continuously for grazing since 2018 and that the tenant relationship with neighboring operators should satisfy the statutory test for agricultural use. Assessor staff and the board disagreed that those facts could undo the missed 60-day filing requirement for the years at issue.

Assessor staff noted they received an agricultural application on Nov. 20, 2023, and that the 2023/2024 application was denied because the named tenant was not documented as a qualifying "owner-operator" and could not be verified as meeting the livestock (animal-unit) thresholds the office uses to confirm eligibility. The assessoroffice reiterated it inspects applications and requires verifiable documentation because agricultural valuations are typically well below market values.

The hearing record shows the SBOE hearing officer treated the matter in part as an annual valuation/classification appeal after seeking guidance from the county attorneyoffice; the assessor said that approach was improper under the tax-roll correction statute. After discussion, the board made and approved a motion amending the SBOE hearing officerdecision to adopt the assessorrecommendation and deny the notice-of-claim filed by Stronghold Farms LLC. The motion was seconded and passed, with the clerk announcing "motion carries 3, nothing." The board did not record any written conditions or follow-up tasks as part of the motion on the record.

The meeting record includes competing factual claims about whether assessor staff misplaced an initial application and about whether the named lessee qualified as an "owner-operator." Supervisors and assessor staff emphasized the county's statutory limitations and the 60-day filing requirement, while the petitioner emphasized certified-mail receipts for later filings and continuous grazing use.

No subsequent appeals or judicial filings were recorded during the Feb. 20 meeting. The board adjourned after announcing a Feb. 20 work session later the same day.