Bannock County Board of Equalization upholds three property assessments, remands one for reinspection

Bannock County’s Board of Equalization on Friday heard several property assessment appeals and voted to uphold three assessor valuations while sending one case back to the assessor for reinspection and follow-up.

The Board — meeting as the county’s Board of Equalization — upheld the assessor’s recommended values for multiple parcels after presentations from property owners and staff. The board remanded a separate appeal for further review after the appellant and county staff identified a substantial discrepancy in the property’s reported square footage.

“The purpose of the Board of Equalization is to hear property assessment appeals and to ensure that all assessments are fair, equitable, and in accordance with Idaho State law,” a county official told appellants at the start of the hearing, citing “Idaho section 63 dash 5 0 2.” The official added, “We are not here to discuss taxes.”

In one appeal, Michael Cady testified that his assessment rose sharply. “I recently built a home about 2 years ago, and ... when I got my assessment this year, it went up a $130,000,” he told the board. The assessor’s office responded with comparables and recommended a final assessed value of $1,034,064 for the parcel identified in the record as RPRRGJA000400. After discussion, a board member moved to adopt the assessor’s worksheet adjustment and the motion passed.

In another appeal, Dwayne Sedweeks challenged a 2025 assessment increase he described as 24 percent. Sedweeks said his 9.3-acre parcel, which he bought in 1996, was subject to steep topography and backing BLM land; he said restrictive covenants and the land’s slope limit its usefulness. Sedweeks also provided sales analyses he said were not accepted as comparables because some used Pocatello city-limit sales. Sedweeks told the Board, “After seeing my 2025 assessment increased by 24%, I scheduled an appointment with the appraiser's office and met with Celeste on June 19.”

County appraisers responded that parts of Sedweeks’s parcel are assessed as additional acreage at a much lower per-acre rate and that the assessor’s office was willing to reinspect. During the hearing the assessor’s staff and Sedweeks identified a large discrepancy in the reported finished square footage and basement status. The board remanded Sedweeks’s appeal to the assessor for reinspection and asked staff to return with a recommendation after verifying the plans and square-foot calculations.

Lanita Benson, identified as a certified residential appraiser with the assessor’s office, presented the valuation for a separate parcel (listed in meeting materials as RPRPPR4900/2900 Michelle Street) and asked that the board “hold uphold that value” at $732,001.63. The board sustained the assessor’s valuation on that parcel.

For Parcel RPR4225011000 (9447 South Topaz), the assessor recommended a value of $172,004.79 and asked the board to uphold the assessment. The board voted to accept the assessor’s recommended value.

The Board followed its standard process for appeals: appellants were sworn in, each was given three minutes to present factual evidence, the assessor’s office responded, and commissioners asked questions. The board noted that appellants retain the burden of proof and that appeal options after the Board’s decision include district court or the Idaho State Board of Tax Appeals. “You still have the opportunity to appeal,” an official told appellants; “you'll get a letter telling you what you can do, but you can appeal either in the district court or the state board of appeals.”

Summary of formal actions at the session: the board adopted the assessor’s worksheet adjustment for parcel RPRRGJA000400 (assessed at $1,034,064); remanded Dwayne Sedweeks’s appeal for reinspection and verification of square footage and basement reporting; sustained the assessor’s value for the parcel listed as RPRPPR4900/2900 Michelle Street ($732,001.63); and sustained the assessor’s value for parcel RPR4225011000 ($172,004.79).

Following the remand in Sedweeks’s case, staff and the appellant were directed to meet for a reinspection and to return to the Board with any adjustments or a joint recommendation. The Board did not adopt any adjustments in open session for the remanded parcel.

The hearing record shows appellants raising evidence such as sales comparables, professional appraisals, photographs of site topography and restrictive covenants. Assessor’s staff said they used time-adjusted comparable sales and monthly sales analysis when moving older appraisals forward in time. Commissioners asked staff to document time-adjustment methodology when it was referenced.

The Board’s decisions were delivered at the end of each appeal; appellants will receive written notices outlining the Board’s findings and next steps for any further appeals.