(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: See Page 5
IMPR.: See Page 5
TOTAL: See Page 5
Subject only to the State multiplier as applicable.
1 of 7
PROPERTY TAX APPEAL BOARD'S DECISION
APPELLANT: Thomas R. Jokerst
DOCKET NO.: 06-02521.001-F-1 through 06-02521.005-F-1
PARCEL NO.: See Page 5
The parties of record before the Property Tax Appeal Board are Thomas R. Jokerst, the appellant; and the Randolph County Board of Review.
The subject property consists of five parcels of farmland located in Randolph County. Parcel 20-020-009-00 (hereinafter "009") contains 8.00 acres; parcel 20-021-008-00 (hereinafter "008") contains 118.97 acres; parcel 12-020-004-00 (hereinafter "004") contains 125.34 acres; parcel 12-014-007-00 (hereinafter "007") contains 42.37 acres; and parcel 20-021-012-00 (hereinafter "012") contains 11 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 appellant submitted copies of aerial maps, 2005 assessment data, 2006 assessment data and a map depicting Kaskaskia Island. The 2005 assessment data indicated that the cropland on for parcels 009, 008 and 012 received a 50% flood factor adjustment. In 2006 none of the parcels under appeal received any adjustment for cropland flooding.
At the hearing the appellant, Thomas Jokerst, testified that he had no evidence to challenge the productivity indexes assigned to each of the soil types on the respective parcels. The primary argument he had was with the inability of the soil to be productive when it is underwater. He testified that at one point in time some of the subject parcels had flood adjustments but those adjustments were removed. The appellant 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