Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessor and board uphold most of value on disputed Pinetop Country Club property after appeal
Summary
A property owner who added living area appealed a 2026 notice of value; the assessor—s appraiser recommended a $20,009 reduction to improvement value after sales-comparison analysis, the owner disputed the computations and asked for leniency, and the board moved to follow staff recommendation.
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
A property owner who appealed the full cash value assigned to a Pinetop Country Club residence questioned the county—s valuation after a 2023 addition increased the home—s living area by about 33%.
Mike Montanden, identified in the transcript as the county assessor, introduced the petition and turned the presentation to Chief Appraiser Lori Bell. Bell presented the property—s description, construction timeline and a sales-comparison analysis that yielded a proposed reduction of $20,009 to the improvement value; the resulting full cash value and limited property value figures were shown in staff materials. The owner, Tim Mulligan, presented MLS and online site comparables (Zillow/Redfin/Trulia) showing lower per-square-foot figures and said his estimated values were substantially below the county—s notice of value. Mulligan asked for leniency after expanding his home and said he would have expected taxable value to rise roughly in line with the roughly 33% increase in living area.
Staff and the board explained that Arizona—s two-tier property valuation system (full cash value and statutorily prescribed limited property value) limits assessor discretion on limited value adjustments when improvements exceed statutory thresholds; staff said the limited value adjustment was triggered by the owner—s addition and that limited value calculations are prescribed by law.
Board members noted a numeric typo in the staff presentation (a $449,240 vs. $499,240 figure) and staff confirmed the system values were correct; after discussion a supervisor moved to follow the assessor—s recommendation to revise the improvement value by the staff-proposed amount and the board approved the recommendation by voice vote.
