State official: Two-year property reval cycle is better

The state’s plan to re-evaluate property values every two years will make it easier for taxpayers and reduce “sticker shock,” according to an official of the Montana Department of Revenue.

Jason Boggess, DOR’s northern Montana regional manager, told Hill County Democrats Tuesday night that many people were upset when they got the recent reappraisal notices from the state because of the sharp increase in their property values.

But the increase is spread over six years, he said.

For instance, the hike in the Great Falls area is about 24 percent, he said. That averages only 4 percent per year, which, he said, sounds more reasonable to most people.

Havre’s rate of increase is similar to Great Falls, he said.

On the other hand, property values in the Flathead region plummeted during the 2008 recession, just after the last revaluation.

They have bounced back to their previous levels, he said, and today most properties are valued at roughly the same as they were six years ago.

That means for most of the past six years, Flathead area taxpayers were assessed at more than their property was really worth, he said.

By having property assessed every two years, when there are sharp decreases in property values, property owners will be paying lower taxes faster.

Several people with questions about their assessments were at the Tuesday meeting, and Boggess said some appeared to have legitimate questions.

He urged them to visit the Department of Revenue office in the Hill County Courthouse. Sometimes by providing the state with more information, matters can be resolved that easily, he said.

Then, people can file an informal objection. The last step is a formal review in which the county tax appeal board would make a final determination.

Sometimes it is necessary for the taxpayer to go to the board, which consists of local residents, but Boggess said he would rather not overburden the board unless necessary.

Boggess said department assessors only infrequently go inside homes they are assessing. Instead, they walk around the house, take a picture and make their decision by the outside appearance.

Sometimes, he said, a house may not appear as good inside as it does outside. People living in such homes could have a strong case to make in asking for a reduction in the assessment, he said.

While he answered many questions from the public, he admitted being stumped by one.

A woman from Browning asked what would happen if she put a teepee and an outhouse on her property.

He said he couldn’t imagine people would want to live in a teepee during Montana winters, but said the land would probably be assessed as vacant land.

“I have no idea how to assess a teepee,” he said.