Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization reduces one hangar assessment, denies multi‑parcel curtailment appeals after testimony
Summary
During a long session of the Board of Equalization, commissioners approved multiple agreed‑value reductions (including lowering one hangar assessment from $57,040 to $52,000), denied a large multi‑parcel appeal from a farmer, and denied an appeal from Brad Hall who argued water‑curtailment actions had already destroyed farmland values.
The Jefferson County Board of Equalization spent several hours hearing valuation adjustments and appeals July 8, approving a series of assessor‑recommended reductions and denying appeals where the board found insufficient evidence tied to the statutory valuation date.
In a contested case over an aircraft hangar, the property owner argued the structure is a 38‑by‑38 wood frame building without a standard hangar door and cited a nearby Idaho Falls listing to challenge the county’s assessment. Assessors replied they relied on local sales and construction‑cost comparables and mass‑appraisal methodology. After discussion about whether exterior measurements were taken and a possible $5,000 difference in assessed value tied to square footage and door treatment, the BOE voted to lower the parcel’s assessed value from $57,040 to $52,000 and required remeasurement and interior/door photos as a condition.
The BOE also heard a high‑emotion appeal from farmer Brad Hall, who told the board he believes an Idaho Department of Water Resources curtailment order and related state actions have already damaged land values in southeastern Idaho. Hall said the losses are real and long‑term, arguing that banks will not finance purchases without certainty about water rights; he called recent state actions "reckless" and said values had been "already ruined." Assessors and staff noted state valuation procedures and statutes that require valuations to be based on the market and income data as of the statutory assessment date (January 1) and described limits on making adjustments without evidence of an actual, realized loss. The board moved to deny Hall’s appeal on the record.
Commissioners also denied a 29‑parcel appeal from Kurt Jacobs, concluding no curtailment or measurable loss had occurred for that property in the assessment period. The board recorded its decisions, reminded property owners of a 30‑day appeal window to the state if they wished to contest the county’s ruling, and required follow‑up field measurements when appropriate.
