Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Assessment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County assessor explains new income-based appraisal tool, stresses voluntary participation and privacy
Summary
Lincoln County Assessor Julie Stinger told commissioners the assessor’s office purchased an income module for its mass appraisal system to add an income approach to commercial valuations; she said participation is voluntary and staff-only access will protect submitted data, but commissioners asked for a legal opinion on public‑records access.
Julie Stinger, Lincoln County Assessor, told the Board of Equalization the assessor’s office has purchased an income module for its mass appraisal software to allow an income approach to commercial property valuation in addition to the cost and sales approaches.
Stinger said the office mailed voluntary requests for local income and expense data to commercial property owners so the county can build a local rent/expense database and apply a consistent income approach across similar properties. "It is all voluntary," she said, adding the office is not asking for business income and that owner‑occupied properties would typically not supply such data.
Stinger and her two appraisers (Eric Farley and Henry Vote) explained the office will continue to use all three approaches — cost, sales and income — and reconcile them to arrive at a market value required by state statute. "We are still required by state statute to be at market value on these properties," Stinger said, noting values are certified by state deadlines.
Commissioners and the assessor discussed who can view submitted materials. Stinger said the information would be accessible to assessor staff and appraisers but would not be printed on the public property record card or posted to the county GIS site. She added a submitted entry could be viewed on an internal screen by staff but would not be published as part of the parcel record.
Several commissioners and members of the public said the mailing lacked clarity and created concern. Commissioners asked staff to prepare clearer public communications — suggested as a short, press‑friendly bullet list — and to answer specific operational questions by phone and in follow-up materials. "If you have any questions, please contact the assessor's office," Stinger said, acknowledging the office could have worded the letter more clearly.
Board members raised whether submitted income data would be subject to public‑records requests. The assessor indicated the software vendor and internal staff have access to the database and the board said it will seek a legal opinion from the county attorney’s office; the board agreed to revisit the question when the county attorney returns.
Next steps: the assessor’s office will prepare clearer public guidance on the voluntary nature of the request and the county attorney will be asked to advise on Freedom of Information Act (public‑records) implications.
