Arkansas lawmakers are examining whether property owners receive enough information to understand how county assessments are calculated and why property values change.
The issue came before the Joint Performance Review Committee on Thursday after Garland County resident Shawn Beebe presented an analysis of assessment records and agreements with contractors. Beebe said he has a property-tax appeal pending in Garland County but was not asking legislators to rule on that case.
“I’m just merely saying that for a taxpayer, if I can’t repeat and reproduce the data that the county is wanting me to believe, then I want the answer,” Beebe told the committee.
Beebe described his work as a taxpayer’s audit based on records he gathered and reviewed. He said it was not an independent government audit and that he spent more than 200 hours examining the material. His presentation focused on whether taxpayers can follow the steps used to determine property values and the reasons behind changes to those values.
Recommendations for assessment records
Beebe proposed several changes to the way assessment information is presented and how counties oversee outside assessment work. His recommendations included:
- Written explanations for changes made to property assessments.
- Clearer information for property owners about how values are determined.
- Stronger performance requirements in contracts with assessment companies.
Beebe also asked for documentation of individual assessment overrides. He said taxpayers should be able to see the basis for changes made during the assessment process.
“Show me the work,” Beebe said. “Show me a written reason for every override in the county.”
Rep. Howard Beaty said assessors sometimes rely on contractors when property owners ask for an explanation of an assessment. Beaty said that creates a problem when the assessor cannot explain the valuation to the taxpayer.
Committee members also questioned whether differences in county size and the complexity of property records could account for variations in contractor costs. Beebe agreed that complexity can affect costs, but said it did not explain all of the differences identified in his analysis.
Beebe said his review found no evidence of collusion among assessment contractors and that he was not accusing anyone of illegal or unethical conduct. His findings and recommendations have not been independently verified. Committee members asked staff to locate an earlier report on assessment practices and bring the subject back for additional discussion.
