Residents press board over reassessment as county prepares to advertise FY25 budget

At the April 23 Board of Supervisors meeting in Courtland, a stream of residents raised objections to a recent countywide property reassessment and a proposed FY25 budget that staff said could be advertised with a preliminary real‑estate rate of $0.79 per $100 of assessed value.

“I told them one time … you can get anything you want done in prison. So out here in the public, you can get most anything done you want,” said Hunter Darden, who delivered photos and urged supervisors to inspect local schools before approving additional school funding. Several other residents, including Jamie Lee — who said he served on the assessor board this cycle — described large, sometimes double‑digit percentage increases in assessed values and questioned the reassessment contractor’s reliance on recent sales data and upgraded grading.

Jamie Lee told the board the county average increase was about 68% and that assessors removed depreciation and upgraded classes of houses during the process, a step he said produced unusually large increases: “Smaller tracts of land were also hit especially hard … with no regard to their current use.”

County finance staff told the board they had identified about $1.5 million in potential budget reductions and that the draft package discussed at an April work session would lower the real‑estate rate to $0.79 per $100. Staff also said Davenport advised the board the radio project could require an additional one or two cents if financed. The county asked the board to authorize advertising the proposed budget and to schedule public hearings; staff proposed a public hearing in mid‑May and a notice schedule for a separate real‑estate levy hearing.

Supervisors agreed to schedule a budget work session for the coming Monday at 6 p.m. to continue refining the numbers before advertising; staff said delaying advertisement would push the public‑hearing timeline and the advertising schedule. Several supervisors acknowledged residents’ concerns and said the board would re‑examine the reassessment numbers and consider lowering advertised rates before final adoption.

The meeting record shows no formal vote to change assessments at the April 23 session; multiple residents and former appraisers urged the board to review reassessment methodology, and county staff said the reassessment was done under contract at the request of the commissioner of revenue and follows the state six‑year reassessment requirement.