Bannock County Board of Equalization upholds most assessments, cancels part of value for fire-damaged parcel

Bannock County commissioners sitting as the Board of Equalization on an administrative appeals docket on an unspecified July date upheld most assessor valuations presented during the hearing and approved a one-year casualty adjustment for a parcel damaged in a fire.

The board heard multiple residential and commercial appeals. In most cases the assessor presented sales comparables and recommended that the assessed values be upheld; the board agreed. In one case involving fire damage, commissioners canceled a portion of the land value for the remainder of the tax year and set a revised assessed value.

The board opened the session by explaining appellants bear the burden of proof under Idaho law and describing acceptable evidence: recent sales, appraisals, condition documentation and photos. Witnesses were sworn and given three minutes each to present.

Appellants made factual points about condition, needed repairs and comparables. An appellant who identified himself as Gary (address given as 909 East Chubby) said his 2,000-square-foot 1960s-style house requires substantial repairs, including a new roof with an earlier estimate of about $20,000, and lacks a central air conditioner. The assessor said sales comparables from the 1970s put the property in the same value range and requested the board uphold an adjusted assessed value of $386,844. The board voted to accept the assessor’s adjusted value and advised the appellant he may appeal to district court or the state Board of Tax Appeals and may submit additional evidence to the assessor before the stated deadline.

Gary B. Ratliff testified about a parcel partially burned by a June 20 fire and asked for relief under Idaho’s casualty provisions. The assessor explained the office computed a prorated cancellation for the remainder of the tax year by dividing total parcel value by 365, multiplying by the days remaining after the casualty, and removing that portion from the total assessed value. Commissioners discussed possible erosion and runoff concerns on burned slopes but treated the change as a one-year adjustment. The board canceled approximately $125,248.43 of land value for the current tax year and set the parcel’s new assessed value at $110,003.92. The board stated the adjustment applies for one year; subsequent years will be treated through normal assessment processes.

Other parcels and outcomes (Votes at a glance): - Parcel RPRCMLT000100 — Accepted assessor’s adjusted valuation of $386,844 (motion carried). Appellant: resident identified as Gary (909 East Chubby). Evidence: appellant cited condition and fewer close comparables. Assessor relied on 1970s-built comparables. Appeal options explained. - Parcel RPRPCPP096804 — Casualty adjustment approved: cancelled approx. $125,248.43 from land value; new assessed value $110,003.92 (motion carried). Appellant: Gary B. Ratliff. Authority cited: Idaho Code §63-602X (casualty provision). Commissioners framed this as a one-year adjustment. - Parcel RPR4015026900 (Natasha Christiansen) — Assessor’s 2025 value of $363,079 upheld (motion carried). Appellant not present. - Parcels at 111 Randolph (parcel ending in 9700; JV Fifth Avenue LLC) — Assessor recommended separate analyses for two improvements (a small older house and a 2023 triplex); board accepted the assessor’s valuations for both buildings at 111 Randolph (motion carried). - Parcel ending in 1700 — Commercial appraisal representative (Jason, Bannock County Commercial Appraisal) and assessor recommended no adjustment; board upheld assessed value (motion carried). - Parcel ending in 167900 — Property includes both a one‑bedroom studio and a commercial building; assessor recommended upholding value and board did so (motion carried). - Parcel ending in 168000 — Small commercial office; board upheld the assessor’s valuation (motion carried).

Discussion and next steps: Commissioners repeatedly told appellants that the assessor’s office can consider additional evidence (estimates, photos, appraisals) if provided before the stated administrative deadline (referred to in the hearing as “the ninth”); otherwise, appellants retain the right to appeal the board’s decision to district court or to the state Board of Tax Appeals. Where appellants cited needed repairs, the assessor noted inspections had not always been recent and suggested cost‑of‑cure documentation (estimates) could support future adjustments. For the casualty adjustment, the board flagged potential future concerns about erosion on the burned hillside and noted the adjustment was for the single tax year only.

The board’s votes were recorded by motion and voice vote. The clerk will send written notices of the decisions to appellants outlining appeal rights and next steps.