Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeal topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Franklin County board delays ruling on property tax appeal over porch and shop measurements

Franklin County Board of Equalization · November 21, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a Nov. 13 Board of Equalization hearing, a property owner disputed the assessor's measurements for a home's covered porch and detached shop (petition BE2025-16, Parcel 126-150-335). The board postponed a final decision pending corrections from the assessor's office.

At a Nov. 13 hearing, the Franklin County Board of Equalization postponed a final decision on petition BE2025-16 after a property owner raised questions about how the assessor's office measured a covered porch and a detached shop.

The petitioner told the board the assessor's floor plan and calculation included a covered porch area that is not as represented on the plan and asked that a 16-by-16 area be removed from the assessed dimensions. The petitioner offered photos and said the measurement discrepancy might slightly reduce the assessed value.

An assessor's office representative described the subject property at 12201 Willow Creek Drive in Spencer Estates as roughly a half-acre parcel with a 2,570-square-foot one-story house, a 910-square-foot attached garage and a 436-square-foot detached shop, and defended the assessor's valuation model. The representative said the office uses neighborhood sales ratios and a cost-based approach (Marshall & Swift Valuation Services) as part of its mass appraisal process and noted limitations when only a few comparable sales are available.

Board member questioning focused on how the assessor allocated value for outbuildings and on apparent per-square-foot discrepancies for the detached shop in the packet's comparables. A board member noted that, after removing shop values from comparables, the petitioner's shop appeared to be valued at a substantially higher per-square-foot figure than the comparables used.

During the hearing, the assessor's office representative acknowledged that if the assessor's data incorrectly included a 16-by-16 covered porch, the office could verify the measurement (for example, via Google Earth) and submit a corrected value to the clerk. The board said it reviewed the evidence and was unable to issue a final decision at the hearing because the petitioner produced information that suggested square-footage or detail corrections were needed.

The board said it would announce a written decision next week, pending any corrections from the assessor's office. The written decision will include information on the right of appeal to the State Board of Tax Appeals if either party chooses to appeal.

The clerk opened the record at 11:01 a.m.; the hearing concluded and the board recessed at about 11:56 a.m.