Yuma supervisors vote to share interest on state-ordered tax refunds after debate over solar company cases
Loading...
Summary
The Yuma County Board voted to allocate interest on Arizona Department of Revenue‑ordered property tax refunds proportionally among affected taxing jurisdictions (county share ≈ $41,000), rejecting the prior practice of charging the county general fund the full interest ($195,000); debate included criticism of large solar project tax challenges and concerns from school districts.
The Yuma County Board of Supervisors voted to follow a proportional allocation method for interest on property tax refunds ordered by the Arizona Department of Revenue, limiting the county’s share to roughly $41,000 while apportioned interest for the full case totaled about $195,000.
Humberto Castillo, the county chief financial officer, explained the context: valuation reductions ordered by the Department of Revenue required refunds going back multiple years and that the interest component was substantial. He said the county’s past practice had been to absorb 100% of interest only when the valuation change stemmed from a county error, and recommended a proportional approach in this instance because the adjustments originated with the state.
Several board members objected to the idea that county taxpayers should bear interest costs caused by state adjustments or court rulings. Speakers raised the impact on school districts and other taxing authorities, questioned why the county should pay interest for errors or appeals initiated by utilities or private companies, and urged the county to notify state legislators of repeated situations where large energy projects later reduced assessed value.
Board members moved and seconded to adopt the proportional allocation (option 2); the motion carried with the board directing staff to process allocation entries to the correct funds since the refund had already been paid.
Castillo summarized the two choices presented: option 1 would have the general fund cover the entire interest ($195,000); option 2 would allocate interest proportional to the principal distribution, leaving the county responsible for approximately $41,000 and the balance to other taxing jurisdictions. The board selected option 2.
