BOE denies tax-exempt claim for Go LLC parcel and adjusts land values for two annexed parcels

The Bannock County Board of Equalization on record action upheld the assessors denial of tax-exempt status for a parcel owned by Go LLC (identified in the hearing as parcel RP CPP 142109) and accepted assessor-recommended land-value reductions for two other Go LLC parcels that were recently annexed into the city of Pocatello.

On the tax-exempt question, the assessor explained the portion of land that had been exempted in prior years corresponded to a buffer around the Greenway Trail; the assessors office applied a 100-foot buffer on either side of the trail in prior determinations. The assessor stated that “if it was Greenway land owned by the Greenway, then we would exempt it. But it's not. And so per state statute, because it's not Greenway ground and it's theirs, it is taxable.” The board agreed with legal counsel and the assessor and voted to uphold the assessed value and deny tax-exempt status for parcel RP CPP 142109.

Separately, the assessor identified two parcels that were recently annexed into the city of Pocatello and recommended adjustments after conversion to new parcel numbers. For parcel recorded in the hearing as RPRPCPP158700, the assessor recommended lowering the land value to $54,500 because the parcel should be considered contiguous with neighboring land schedules (economies of scale reduce per-square-foot rates). The board moved to accept that recommendation and voted to adjust the assessed land value accordingly.

For parcel recorded as RPRPCPP157100, the assessor recommended lowering the land value to $380,387 after reanalyzing it post-annexation; the assessor said the improvement (building) value remained accurate and in use, noting that the unit was currently rented and thus marketable. The board accepted the assessor's recommendation to reduce the land value while leaving the improvement value unchanged.

In the tax-exempt matter, commissioners discussed the possibility of a lease to the Greenway organization as a potential path to exemption but, following legal counsel and statutory interpretation, concluded the county could not classify privately owned land as tax-exempt Greenway property absent ownership or qualifying statutory status. The assessor noted one of the parcels remained listed for sale and therefore considered marketable, which weighed against exemption.