Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Property Tax Appeals topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Morgan County Board of Equalization upholds assessor valuations in three property appeals

Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Morgan County Board of Equalization · August 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Aug. 4, 2025 special meeting the Morgan County Board of Equalization denied a request to extend a senior residential tax exemption and unanimously upheld assessor valuations in three separate property appeals, each by 3-0 votes.

The Morgan County Board of Equalization on Aug. 4, 2025 denied a request to extend a senior residential property tax exemption and upheld assessor valuations in three separate appeals, each by unanimous 3-0 votes.

The decisions came during a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners sitting as the Board of Equalization. Chairman Jon J. Becker, Commissioner Timothy A. Malone and Commissioner Kelvin S. Bernhardt were present.

Assessor Tim Amen explained the criteria for the Qualified Senior Primary Residential Classification, saying the owner "must be 65 years old as of January 1st, owned the property for 10 years and lived in the property as their primary residence for 10 years." In the first appeal, for Schedule No. R0015597 (Patti J. Lewis), Amen reported assessor records showed no prior senior exemption on the owner’s previous residence and that the property had been sold in 2021, which the assessor said made the owner ineligible for the exemption until 2022. Commissioner Kelvin S. Bernhardt moved to deny an extension of the senior exemption; Commissioner Malone seconded. The motion passed 3-0.

In the second appeal, Retlaw Irrevocable Trust (Schedule No. R008697), John Zimmerman of Value West, representing the assessor’s office, presented sales-comparable data and asked the board to uphold an assessment of $130,820. Zimmerman told the Board that "the owner was not interested in discussing the value with himself or the assessor’s office, however she was not happy with the value and wanted that to be known." Chairman Becker noted a recent sale of the property that supported the assessment. Commissioner Malone moved to uphold the assessor’s value, Commissioner Bernhardt seconded, and the motion passed 3-0.

The third appeal, for Edward and Tiffany Schmidt (Schedule No. R020364), centered on valuation after the assessor’s office reported it was denied access to inspect the property. Ron MacDonald, Appraiser II, said assessors "did a roadside inspection to the best of their ability," used an 11-mile search radius for comparable sales (finding nine comparables, three in Orchard) and recommended upholding a $535,100 assessed value. Commissioner Bernhardt moved to uphold the value; Commissioner Malone seconded. The motion passed 3-0.

Votes at a glance

• Schedule No. R0015597 (Patti J. Lewis): motion to deny extension of senior exemption — mover: Commissioner Kelvin S. Bernhardt; second: Commissioner Timothy A. Malone; outcome: passed 3-0 (Becker, Malone, Bernhardt voted yes). • Schedule No. R008697 (Retlaw Irrevocable Trust): motion to uphold assessor value $130,820 — mover: Commissioner Timothy A. Malone; second: Commissioner Kelvin S. Bernhardt; outcome: passed 3-0 (Becker, Malone, Bernhardt voted yes). • Schedule No. R020364 (Edward & Tiffany Schmidt): motion to uphold assessor value $535,100 — mover: Commissioner Kelvin S. Bernhardt; second: Commissioner Timothy A. Malone; outcome: passed 3-0 (Becker, Malone, Bernhardt voted yes).

The meeting record shows the property owners or their trustees for the three matters were not present at the hearing; the assessor’s office provided the supporting documentation and testimony. The Board adjourned at 9:38 a.m.; the minutes were submitted by Deputy Clerk Randee Aleman and are noted as ratified August 19, 2025.

What this means: The Board’s rulings leave the assessor’s certified values and the single senior-exemption question unchanged; any further challenge would require follow-up with the assessor or an appeal under the statutory process described during the hearing.