Property Tax Appeal Board Decision 2006-02490-F-1 Jokerst

              (Continued on Next Page)
Based on the facts and exhibits presented, the Property Tax
Appeal Board hereby finds no change in the assessment of the
property as established by the Randolph County Board of Review is
warranted. The correct assessed valuation of the property is:
LAND: $ 5,080
IMPR.: $ 0
TOTAL: $ 5,080
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
PTAB/smw/06-02490/5-09
1 of 6
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Carl & Rosalie Jokerst
DOCKET NO.: 06-02490.001-F-1
PARCEL NO.: 20-018-008-00
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Carl and Rosalie Jokerst, the appellants; and the Randolph County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of a parcel of farmland located in Randolph County. The parcel contains 66.65 acres.
Docket numbers 06-02521.001 through .005-F-1, 06-02488.001-F-1, 06-02491.001-F-1, 06-02489.001-F-1, and 06-02490.001-F-1 were consolidated for hearing purposes.
Thomas R. Jokerst and Carl Jokerst appeared before the Property Tax Appeal Board contending the assessment of the farmland was excessive and should be debased for flooding. In support of this argument the appellants submitted photographs of the subject, copies of aerial photographs, 2005 assessment data, 2006 assessment data, a map depicting soil types and a map depicting Kaskaskia Island. The 2005 assessment data indicated that the cropland on for the parcel received a 50% flood factor adjustment. In 2006 the parcel under appeal received no adjustment for cropland flooding.
At the hearing the appellants presented testimony that they had no evidence to challenge the productivity indexes assigned to each of the soil types on the respective parcels. The primary argument was with the inability of the soil to be productive when it is underwater. Thomas Jokerst testified that at one point in time some of the parcels under appeal had flood adjustments but those adjustments were removed. Thomas Jokerst testified that he had inquired as to why the flooding adjustments were removed and further stated he was informed that all flooding adjustments had been removed as a matter of course. He also indicated that he was informed that he would have to reapply to receive adjustments for flooding. He explained the subject parcels associated with the appeals are located on Kaskaskia Island, which is within a flood plain. The appellants requested that the flood adjustment made in the previous year be applied.