Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Appeal Chad topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident challenges county assessment methodology; cites Senate Bill 216 expectations
Summary
An appellant, Chad, questioned assessor square-foot measurements and neighborhood classifications, presented realtor-based market calculations supporting a lower assessed value and said he expected a 3% cap under Senate Bill 216.
Chad, who identified himself during the appeals portion of the meeting, presented market-based calculations and challenged assessor figures, saying the county's documentation and measurements did not reconcile with blueprints and realtor comparisons. He described using average list and average sell prices from local realtors to calculate a proposed assessed value he said would yield a roughly 6.3% increase rather than the higher county figure.
Chad also raised an expectation that state law would limit assessment increases. "I was led to believe that our assessments would be capped at 3% after a bill, senate bill 2 16 was passed last year," he said. Tobias and a committee member responded that the county-wide application of the law meant the cap operates on county averages rather than guaranteeing a 3% cap on every individual property; the county board of equalization retains final authority over appeals.
The board voted on Chad's item by roll call after reviewing his evidence and moved the case forward to the county for final determination. Chad and other appellants were advised that documentation such as the PT17 form is required for county equalization review.
