The Gallatin County Tax Appeal Board on the record reduced the assessed land value of a Bozeman property by $500,000 after a hearing on an appeal by property owner Neil Ganzer.

The reduction applies to Lot 1, approximately 8.094 acres (geocode 06079909201400000), a parcel the Department of Revenue had combined with buildings and appraised at $3,578,338. The taxpayer had asked the board to set total value at $1,532,030 and had proposed a land value of $598,280 while leaving improvement values unchanged.

Why it matters: The case highlights how mass-appraisal models, neighborhood boundaries and city-imposed setbacks can sharply affect assessed land values and annual property tax bills for longtime residents whose property was annexed into the city.

At the hearing, Jeff Green, standing in for the Gallatin County Tax Appeal Board chair, read the appeal and the property description into the record. Appellant Neil Ganzer told the board the parcel was historically used as subirrigated hay ground and argued the county’s land-model neighborhood designation placed his property with dense, in-city lots it does not resemble. The Ganzer family said city-required 60-foot entry-corridor setbacks and a spring/watercourse together render about 2.65 acres — roughly 33% of the lot — effectively unusable for development.

Ganzer said those constraints and persistent noise from Interstate 90, the nearby railroad and helicopter medevacs depress marketability. "It is ... a confiscatory tax based on an unjust valuation of the property," Ganzer said during his presentation.

Department of Revenue appraisers, represented by Mandy McClure (lead appraiser), Rick Velour (commercial and residential appraiser) and Colton Parker (area manager), explained their approach. McClure told the board the parcel was treated as mixed use for the 2023–24 cycle and therefore valued using the cost approach required under state law for properties with both residential and commercial improvements. The department noted zoning across the site includes light manufacturing (M-1) and residential office (R-0) designations and that vacant-land sales used to calibrate the county's land model produced a large increase between the two revaluation dates used (January 1, 2020 and January 1, 2022), which contributed to a steep rise in assessed land values.

The department also explained that the land model uses a 10,000-square-foot base rate and an incremental curve; limited comparable sales for large vacant parcels inside city limits can cause the regression to produce large increases when few upper-end sales exist. Appraisers told the board that building-value increases were driven by cost-index changes (Marshall & Swift cost estimates and local labor/materials inflation) rather than new construction on the parcel.

During cross-examination the department noted the comparable property the Ganzer family cited carried an agricultural designation and therefore was valued under a different set of rules; the department said that difference makes the cited sale an imperfect comparator for land-value purposes.

Board deliberation acknowledged the property's uniqueness and the limits of mass appraisal for atypical parcels. After discussion the board announced a $500,000 reduction to the land valuation, changing the land value to $2,144,588 (as announced on the record). "We will reduce the value of the land by $500,000," Jeff Green said when announcing the board’s decision.

The hearing record shows no roll-call vote in the transcript; the board said a written decision would follow and reminded parties of appeal rights to the Montana Tax Appeal Board within 30 days.

Votes at a glance: The transcript records a single formal outcome — the board reduced the assessed land value by $500,000 and will issue a written decision; no numbered roll-call tally was recorded in the hearing transcript.

Background and next steps: The board and department noted the appraisal date of value for this appeal cycle was January 1, 2022. The department said the land model and underlying data are available for review on request (land-model documentation was described as large and not part of the hearing packet). The department also said the Ganzer family may pursue an agricultural classification application if they meet statutory requirements; the department said it would consider such a classification if approved.

The board closed the hearing and said parties would receive a written decision explaining the county board's findings and the process for further appeal.