Sentinel Media records · public agendas and minutes, text only, refreshed nightly from each body's own site · not a newspaper
minutes meeting date 2026-06-30 · fetched 2026-09-09 · 15523 characters · official file · plain text
June 30, 2026, BOE Minutes Meeting Details Date of Meeting: Tuesday, June 30, 2026 Commissioners present: Ernie Moser and Ken Bullock Clerk of the Board: Nancy Allen for Jason C. Dixon Absent Board Members: Jeff Hough Staff present: Assessor Anita Hymas, Appraiser Jason Speth, Appraiser Alissa Noble, Appraiser Celeste Gunn, and Appraiser Jason Hooker Meeting Notes 1 10:00 AM Moser called the meeting to order. Moser moved to enter the Board of Equalization. The motion passed. Allen administered an oath to those testifying. Moser rreviewed the hearing rules, process, and appeal rights. Murray, Jioji - RPRMFH1000601 10:04 AM Murray apologized for not reading the information as she did not know to submit more information. She has lived at the property for 26 years and has not developed the back part. The value raised 800%. The Assessor’s staff told her husband it was because there is a mobile home on the property, but there is not. They can’t grow anything back there. A small shed about 10X15 was put in last summer adjacent to the house property, but not on the lot in the back. The brush was cleared for fire safety. Murray expressed it would cost a lot of money to develop that lot and they would not be able to put sewer in. There is a slope and it would have to be back filled and flattened. 10:08 AM Appraiser Gunn reported a re-inspect was done and pictures were taken. The parcel is being used as a back yard and valued similar to neighbors. It is not being valued as an individual lot, but as a back yard. Looking at comparable sales, the actual value is much lower as it is not valued as a buildable parcel. It is being used as a back yard with a shed and picnic table. The topography is similar to other parcels in the area. 10:10 AM Murray’s husband reported they are not bringing in top soil so they can’t put grass in. The neighbor has a sprinkler system. This property has boulders and grubbing that the neighbor pushed to the back part of this property. There is a little picnic table and a fire pit to burn. After that it’s downhill, sand, and weeds. 10:11 AM Discussion included the combined parcels, the market, with the two parcels, would be more valuable. It does compare with others surrounding it. Even if it is not being used, it would still sell in the market. Bullock moved to uphold the assessed value for parcel RPRMFH1000601. The motion passed. Hollinger-Forrest, Tamara - RPRPPR2000100 10:13 AM Hollinger-Forrest reviewed her property has an assessed value of $616,000 and the home was built in 2003. The parcel viewer was used to look at similar homes in the neighborhood and the values were $589,000; $567,000; $596,000; $582,000, $588,000; and $575,000. It was difficult to find similar homes that are for sale, but there was one in the Satterfield area with an asking price of $575,000. The assessed value trend has grown 75%. 10:17 AM Appraiser Speth explained the applicant’s packet contains assessed values, pretty close to what the Assessor’s value are. But finished square footage makes a difference and finding similar era homes with similar finished square footage is key on getting the value. Comps were reviewed, with one right across the street. The subject comes in at $140 per square foot and the comp is at $144 per square foot. MINUTES OF THE BANNOCK COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION June 30, 2026, BOE Minutes Other comps come in at $159 per square foot, and $138 per square foot. Previous BOE adjustments can bring a parcel out of equity and when it is brought back up to market value, it can be a shock. It was requested to uphold the assessed value. 10:19 AM Hollinger-Forrest questioned the years and addresses for the comps provided, along with details on the homes. Moser pointed out that mass appraisal does not look at all the bedrooms and baths. Speth gave addresses for the comps at 2505 Michelle with a 2004 home valued at $609,026; 2420 Marissa with a 3114 square foot 2005 home; and 2411 Marissa Place with a 2005 home with 3756 square feet valued at $602,878. 10:21 AM Moser questioned the currency of the parcel viewer data. The values are the current certified values. Current sales cannot be used as 2025 sales have to be used. Hollinger-Forrest questioned the January 1 date as she pulled data two weeks ago on the house across the street with different square footage and value than the numbers given. Moser pointed out there could be a difference in the values from January 1 to the current value. Time adjustments were discussed and the assessed value being set as of January 1. Hollinger-Forrest explained the home across the street was in her packet last year as well and was for sale and sold for $596,000. Discussion ensued on her value being lowered last year in BOE and now with the adjustments is at market value. The different values from the parcel viewer and the values given today was questioned, along with the year built. 10:27 AM Hymas explained the parcel viewer and administrative page values match. What is not seen is the time adjusted value to January 1. 10:28 AM Hollinger-Forrest pointed out as a property owner, she has very limited data available to present and has to rely on the parcel viewer and now it’s being explained the data isn’t reliable for her, but it is for the appraisers. Moser explained the preponderance of evidence and that any appraisal would be time adjusted. 10:30 AM Discussion ensued regarding there being no such thing as a perfect match. Comp 3 has a sale date with time adjusted value of $603,000 with a little less square footage. Bullock moved to reduce to the value to $603,000 for parcel RPRPPR2000100 with the adjustment off the improvements. The motion passed. Appeal rights were reviewed. Ewing, Michael – RPRDDOW011300 10:34 AM Ewing explained he is challenging the value for using the zoning designation. The property is not being used for commercial, but for residential. The building is not in good repair for commercial use, and there is a lot of damage. They are using space heaters and the power bill was $2000 in December. 10:36 AM Appraiser Hooker reviewed with the current status or use of the building, it still meets the criteria of a general commercial building, but not for a hospital. He met with the appellant on June 10 and discussed property. The basement is storage only, the vinyl flooring has been removed and is bare concrete, the main floor is mostly functional, and the use of supplemental heating. Looking at the claims on the current condition of the property, it is appropriately reflected as poor condition. In regards to residential versus commercial, there are multiple individuals residing there. If it were materially changed to an actual apartment setting, it would be reclassified as an apartment and still be handled commercially. Additionally, the functional obsolescence was increased to the building and currently depreciated at 90% so it is only valued at 10% of the cost to build. It was requested to uphold the assessed value. 10:38 AM Discussion ensued on potential use and commercial zoning. It has been depreciated out. Bullock moved to uphold the assessed value for parcel RPRDDOW011300. The motion passed. Appeal rights were reviewed. 11:01 AM Allen administered an oath to those testifying. Moser reviewed the hearing rules, process, and appeal rights. Lovell, Angelette & Matthew - RPRPCP1001700 11:05 AM Matthew Lovell appeared and reviewed they recently purchased the home for $710,000 and had a thorough inspection done. This is a 40-year-old home and several repairs need done. The deck quote submitted was $50,000, but since then, another quote was received for $32,000. It is not safe and the inspection shows that. Updating the electrical system and has not been approached yet for that cost. There are property record discrepancies in that the kitchen in basement is just a sink and a small minifridge and some cabinet work and is not a full kitchen. There is one large bedroom and a small 9x9 room that would not qualify as a bedroom. There is no closet and a small window. The lot size and garage comparison were discussed. There is a small, two-car garage. The property is on .29 acres, which is smaller than others on Satterfield. Comparable property valuations were submitted. It is requested to put the value at $685,000. June 30, 2026, BOE Minutes 11:08 AM Appraiser Speth pointed out there is a $30,000 decrease in value from last year. For this large of home, comparables are harder to find. The details of the subject property were reviewed, along with comparable sales at $199 and $142 per square foot. Regarding the deck, it is only valued at $8,400 and would be considered maintenance. Based on the evidence, and decrease from last year, it was requested to uphold the assessed value. 11:11 AM Discussion ensued on the deck value, the purchase date, and reason for reduction. Speth reported the reduction was from the change in market and they do not have a kitchen listed for the basement. Hymas explained the property was last reviewed with a drive-by in 2024 and has been trended with sales. With the sale data from June of last year, Moser moved for parcel RPRPCP1001700 to reduce the value to $710,000 with the adjustment off the improvement. The motion assed. Bowers, Anthony - RPRPBNV004600 11:16 AM Bowers explained the value is the third highest in value per square foot in the 21 comparables he submitted. Despite being smaller than 14 of those comparables, the assessed value exceeds 16 of them. This is his first home that was closed on December 30, 2025, and has since experienced electrical problems that nearly caused a fire at the meter, roof and water damage, and improperly installed fence that collapsed in a windstorm. There have been thousands of dollars in repairs that were not disclosed on purchase. The value rose 33%. He contacted the Assessor’s office and the property record card shows the improvement value raising sharply over the past several years with major increases lining up with changes in ownership. There is no documentation of any improvements that would justify the sharp increase for 2025. He was informed the area was increased as part of the five-year re-appraisal cycle. However, he then confirmed that his was the only property reappraised in 2025. There were no neighbors that saw anything close to his value increase. He submitted 21 comparable homes sourced from the parcel viewer. The lot value is not disputed. The home is assessed at $169 per square foot against the comparable average of $121 and a median of $109. Compared to a home at 656 W. Lander, about 75% larger, his price per square foot is 54% higher. It was requested to reduce the value to $130,000 and be comparable to 427 Pershing Avenue, a home directly comparable to his on his street. Additionally, it was requested to weigh the property’s condition as additional grounds for relief. 11:19 AM Alissa Noble addressed appellant’s concerns, the electrical issue has been fixed and remedied, and we don’t value fencing. After speaking with him again yesterday, and looking at comps for the home on 454 Pershing, which is appellant’s own sale on December 30, 2025, with the purchase price at $198,450, and current assessed value at $152,223, she was able to lower the value to $149,343 for the cost to cure for the roof that was learned of yesterday. That would reduce the improvement to $88,025, and the land remaining at $55,000. 11:20 AM Discussion ensued on the purchase date and price being more than the assessed value. Moser pointed out that, generally, the value would be adjusted up to the sale price. Moser moved for parcel RPRPBNV004600 to accept the Assessor’s adjusted value of $149,343. The motion passed. Appeal rights were reviewed. Moser moved to exit the BOE. The motion assed. The following appeal applications were considered administratively and appellants were not present: Farm Bureau Insurance Company - RPRPTIE000500 10:40 AM Appraiser Hooker reviewed the appellant requested a reduction based on an appraisal they paid for that was done for the purpose of highest and best use. The County looks at current use. The market rents the appellant cited are a lot lower than what we actually see. An opportunity was found to reclassify the walk out basement which dropped the value to $19,538,333. Bullock moved for parcel RPRPTIE000500 to reduce the assessed value to $19,538,333. The motion passed. McCormick Ranch LLC - RPRPTC4001700; RPRPTC4001600; RPRPTC4001500; RPRPRTC000800; and RPRPRTC000700 10:49 AM Appraiser Noble reviewed the appellant’s claim that these bare lots are unbuildable per the covenants and restrictions. The appellant is a developer in both of these subdivisions. The CC&R’s state that the subject properties are required to submit for building approval building and site grading plans prepared by a professional engineer licenses in the state of Idaho because of the steep natural slopes, possible difficulties with foundations, instability and erosion control. The comps were taken from one of these subdivisions, about the same size lots. Based on the sales, the value is there. 10:51 AM The CC&R’s for Trail Creek Estates Division 4 states that Lots 8-17 have these codes and conditions on them. Several parcels have been developed and are continuing to be developed. This is a June 30, 2026, BOE Minutes relatively newer branch of the subdivision. With those conditions, they are able to be built upon. It was requested the assessed values on these bare land parcels be upheld. Adjustments have been made previously. The subdivision was created in 2021 and there is infrastructure and utilities. Bullock moved to uphold the assessed values. The motion passed. Losee, Justin - RPR4261002786 and RPR4261002788 10:43 AM Appraiser Noble reviewed the parcels on Deer Creek Road. The appellant stated the property is too steep for building and personal use. After speaking with appellant and reviewing their lidar maps that were done when they purchased the parcels, topography adjustments were made for the grade. Parcel ending in 2786 was reduced to $36,643 and parcel ending in 2788 was reduced for topography and to the improvement for a total of $90,754. Bullock moved to adjust the values to the recommended values. The motion passed. Realty Income Corp - RPRCRAK000101 10:54 AM Appraiser Hooker reviewed this is the Dollar Tree in Chubbuck. The third-party tax reps reached out and sent a lot of information with commercial trends. It is actually assessed less per square foot than some of its peers. In using the income approach and their information submitted, it came in just under 3% of the assessed value. It was requested to uphold the assessed value. Bullock moved to uphold the assessed value for parcel RPRCRAK000101. The motion passed. Action Item Summary ACTION/DIRECTION ASSIGNED TO Acting as the Board of Equalization, assessed values were upheld for parcels: RPRMFH1000601; RPRDDOW011300; RPRPTC4001700; RPRPTC4001600; RPRPTC4001500; RPRPRTC000800; RPRPRTC000700; and RPRCRAK000101; and assessed values were adjusted for parcels: RPRPPR2000100; RPRPCP1001700; RPRPBNV004600; RPRPTIE000500; RPR4261002786 and RPR4261002788. Assessor
Text is extracted by machine from the official file linked on each page; the official file is the record. Sentinel Media, LLC.