Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident tells Carroll County court Holiday Island lots are overtaxed, urges transparency
Summary
A Holiday Island resident told the Carroll County quorum court that land values in Holiday Island have been overvalued and overtaxed for years, saying one report shows land assessed at roughly 49% of market value and some lots at 80%; the speaker asked the county to produce its sales-ratio study and called for corrective action.
A Holiday Island resident during the public-comment period on the Carroll County quorum court agenda on an evening meeting said the community has been overtaxed for the past decade and urged the court to provide documentation to justify property valuations.
“I’m here to tell you that some are being harmed by overtaxation,” the resident said, adding that an email with documents had been sent to the court. The speaker said a ratio report showed “land values are being taxed about 49% of the market value” and that “our lot is being taxed to 80% of the market value.” The speaker also said, “Arkansas law states it has to be 28%,” and asserted the county had not produced a required sales-ratio study to defend its evaluations.
Dan Voorhees, a Holiday Island resident who also spoke, framed the issue as one of property rights, saying that unreasonable taxation threatens citizens’ possession of property. “Unless the people can enjoy the reasonable security in the possession of their property … freedom is at an end,” Voorhees said.
The resident who raised the valuation concerns did not allege misconduct but said inconsistent, nonuniform valuations had created what the speaker estimated to be “millions of dollars” in overtaxation on land values across Holiday Island parcels and said long‑standing Board of Equalization members had received favorable reductions that raise due-process concerns.
The court did not produce additional documentation or an immediate response to the tax-evaluation claims during the meeting. The chair invited residents with specific evidence to schedule an appointment with the chair’s office for follow-up, and the court did not take formal action on the matter at this meeting.
Next steps: the resident asked the court to review the submitted materials and for staff to provide the sales-ratio study the speaker said is required; no timeline for that follow-up was provided at the meeting.
