Board rejects developer’s request to revalue Midland Estates lots; upholds assessor recommendations for flats, garden and walkout lots

The Lincoln County Board of Equalization voted to use the assessor’s recommendations for multiple lot appeals in the Midland Estates subdivision in Harrisburg, sustaining the assessor’s valuations for flat lots (agenda items 2–10), garden lots (11–29) and walkout lots (30–43).

Developer representative Mike VanBuskirk argued the requested valuations should reflect a different treatment used in some other nearby developments—platted tracts that are later subdivided—rather than the assessor’s treatment of each parcel as an individual lot. VanBuskirk said developers sometimes market lots as part of larger tracts and then plat them individually when sold, and he asked the board to consider equity with comparable practices in Canton, Sioux Falls, Lennox and other nearby areas.

Assessor’s office staff (Carla) explained the county’s tiered pricing and assessment methodology. For the flat lots (items 2–10) the assessor reported values ranging roughly $4.56 to $6.61 per square foot and noted market sales between $4.45 and $7.14 per square foot. For garden lots (items 11–29) the assessor reported assessed ranges roughly $4.18 to $7.25 per square foot and said sales evidence placed market prices between $4.40 and $7.95 per square foot; she cited a recent sale advertised at $84,000 that the county assessed at about $72,006. For walkout lots (items 30–43) assessed values ranged about $5.50 to $8.08 per square foot against market sales roughly $6.27 to $8.86 per square foot.

Carla also cited appraisal standards and law, telling the board that deviating from a model‑based, mass-appraisal approach could violate USPAP Standard 5 and South Dakota appraisal rules; she said assessors must value lots according to statutory and professional requirements rather than individual developer practices.

Commissioners pressed the developer about whether a replat had been filed; VanBuskirk said a preliminary plat had been submitted but not filed and that some individual lots had already sold. Commissioners noted the assessor must value properties as they existed on the valuation date (referenced as Nov. 1, 2024) and that the county could not retroactively treat individual parcels as a different legal configuration.

The board moved to adopt the assessor recommendations in three separate motions: one for the flat lots (items 2–10), one for the garden lots (items 11–29) and one for the walkout lots (items 30–43). Each motion carried on roll call. The recorded votes were unanimous for the flat and walkout lot motions; the garden-lot motion passed with one commissioner recorded as giving a “reluctant yes.”

VanBuskirk said he would discuss next steps with the developer after the hearing, including whether to pursue replatting or other changes going forward. County staff said changes to platting or to property configuration would be considered in future valuation cycles if and when the legal status of parcels changed.