York County commissioners, sitting as Board of Equalization, deny several property tax protests and weigh valuation options

The York County Board of Commissioners, meeting as the Board of Equalization, reviewed a string of property tax protests and approved motions to deny at least two large appeals while staff said the county is seeking legal guidance before taking broader valuation action.

Board members heard staff outline two possible approaches for addressing widespread assessment shifts: revert all values to a 2008 baseline, which staff cautioned would likely trigger a large corrective adjustment next year, or adopt a market-analysis adjustment based on 2020 data that Sarah, the property tax administrator, recommended to bring 2008 and 2020 values into a comparable range. Staff said either path would leave some owners able to file protests; the board was told protest hearings would continue regardless of which option is chosen.

The board took up protest number 77 — Cameron Meadows Inc., listed in county records as a Dairy Queen property — where staff reviewed sale and valuation history and noted last year’s total value and the petitioner’s requested reduction. After discussion a motion to deny the protest passed on roll call. The roll call record includes Commissioner Bowman and Commissioner Sykes voting “yes”; the board announced the motion carried.

The board then considered protest number 112 involving Green Plains, described in the agenda as an ethanol plant. Members reviewed 2022 and 2023 assessed totals and the petitioner’s request for a substantial reduction (the petitioner asked to reduce valuation by roughly $10 million). County staff noted recent capital improvements and a new research facility at the site. The board moved to deny the protest; the motion passed on roll call with commissioners (including Coleman, Gross, Sykes and Hot) recorded voting in favor.

Members also discussed several one-off appeals — for example, disputed farm acres where FSA maps, GIS and assessor records differ — and noted wetlands or use limitations as arguments affecting value. The board flagged additional protests (numbers 78, 79 and 70 among others) for follow-up and indicated some items will require further input from Kurt, who is consulting with the Department of Revenue on the legality and administrative implications of any countywide reversion to 2008 values.

The board’s discussion clarified timing for protests: staff reminded members that filing deadlines had passed in late June (some dates fell around June 30–July 1) and that the county has received recent owner protests triggered by online valuation notices.

What happens next: County staff will report back with the Department of Revenue’s guidance and the remaining protests will be scheduled for further review. The board moved and recorded votes on the two denials during the session, and several other appeals remain pending.