Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rancher urges review of livestock valuations after assessed values rise
Summary
Greg Seiler told commissioners his older, nonproducing livestock are assessed at values set for productive animals and cited Section 7-36-21 and Revenue and Taxation guidance; staff agreed to set a follow-up meeting with the assessor to review valuation parameters.
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Greg Seiler, a Luna County resident and rancher, used his public-comment time to raise concerns about how the county is valuing older, nonproducing livestock for property-tax purposes.
Seiler said annual county valuation tables appear to price older animals as if they were young, productive dairy cattle and cited "section 7-36-21" regarding livestock registration and valuation. He told commissioners that an annotation in the materials he reviewed indicates the county assessor performs the actual valuation and said a 1992 court challenge and a 2003 case leave valuation discretion with assessors.
Seiler said he discussed the matter with the county assessor (identified in the transcript as "Michelle"), who he said called a statutory citation a misprint; Seiler said he believes the assessor nevertheless has authority under state guidance to remove animals from valuation if they are no longer useful for market-value purposes. He warned that owners who do not report or whose livestock remain improperly valued could face misdemeanor exposure and a $1,000 fine, as noted in the materials he referenced.
Seiler also cited specific figures from the valuation tables, saying a registered dairy cow for the year was listed at about $2,443 (up from roughly $1,500 the prior year) and that he currently has three aging cows, one of which died last November. He asked for clarity on how older, nonproducing animals should be treated and whether the assessor can and will adjust valuations accordingly.
County representatives did not resolve the matter in the meeting. Staff and a commissioner offered to set a separate meeting with Seiler and the assessor to review the valuation parameters, and staff said they would notify him to arrange that follow-up.
