Bismarck Board of Equalization Meeting Summary – April 7, 2026
Bismarck Board of Equalization Meeting Summary – April 7, 2026
The Bismarck Board of Equalization met on April 7, 2026, to hear property valuation appeals and approve the 2026 assessment roll. City Assessor Alison presented an overview of the assessing process, statistics on the city's 27,814 parcels, and a 4.52% increase in total market value to $12.077 billion. A public hearing was held where numerous property owners contested their valuations, citing discrepancies between assessed values and market conditions or property condition. The board approved three motions regarding valuation changes and the annual report, with a commitment to report back on follow-up actions.
Public Comments & Testimony
- Steve McNichols (South Bismarck) argued his home's $40,000 increase was unjustified as no improvements were made; he invited reassessment.
- Unnamed small business owner (North Hard store) presented data showing his building taxed at $2.87/sq ft versus competitors near $1.50/sq ft, calling for fairness and questioning why large chains pay less.
- Mike Boyd (622 Calgary Ave.) stated his home purchased for $465,000 in 2024 was assessed at $514,000 for 2025 and now $539,100, with no improvements; he requested a review.
- Tim Tucson (Pebble Creek) noted a $35,800 increase (total $78,300 over three years) and argued his home's value is inflated compared to dissimilar nearby sales; he expressed frustration over traffic on 19th Street and tax burden on seniors.
- Marie Zon analyzed 18 comparable sales and found wide disparities in the ratio of market value to assessed value, questioning fairness and equity.
- Leslie Vence (Heritage Park) reported a $104,000 increase (over 15%) despite no improvements; her realtor's estimate was $235,500 lower than the assessed value.
- Ray and Catherine Eden Home (Marsh Hawk Drive) noted a $40,000 increase on a four-year-old home with no changes.
- Kim Losis (Kites Lane) asked how land values are determined, noting her lot increased $24,000 to $122,000 while similar lots in Eagle Crest sell for $79,000–$104,900.
- Matthew Weigel (21-year homeowner) said his property was valued at $295,000 while recent sales in his development were under $210,000; he claimed assessors never visited his home in 21 years and cited communication issues with office hours.
- Richard Peck (retiree, four-plex) noted a $20,300 increase, questioned how grandchildren can afford homes, and raised concerns about special assessments for road work.
- Patty Jensen (condo, Tyoga) said her 1977-built condo (original orange carpet) was overvalued based on dissimilar sales; she requested an in-person review.
- Deb Hayden (twin home, Boulder Ridge) noted an identical unit nearby has been for sale for over a year at $395,000 while her assessed value is $444,000.
- Ben Chambers (Grant Drive) reported a $33,000 increase in one year (20% over two years) with no improvements and pointed out that online listings incorrectly show his home as 5-bedroom when it is 3-bedroom.
- Sandy Bates (North First Street) saw a $15,000 increase while neighbors with larger properties saw only $3,000–$6,000; she questioned how a single inflated sale can skew values.
- Art Kunans (86 years old, home since 1968) said his valuation rose from $267,000 to $294,500 with no interior inspection in 16 years; he expressed frustration and called for better spending by the city.
- Jennifer Cruth (representing Network Bismarck LLC for Grand Pacific Center, 400 East Broadway) argued the 95,000 sq ft office building should be valued using income approach, not sales comparison; she identified a potential error of over 43,000 sq ft in the assessor's data and requested the board give primary weight to her income analysis.
Discussion Items
- Assessor's Presentation: Alison explained the assessing process, mass appraisal techniques, and the legal requirement to value property at market value. She provided statistics: 27,814 parcels, 4.52% market value increase to $12.077 billion, residential ratio 94.11%, commercial 93.67%, and a 3.27% increase for existing properties. She noted the new state-mandated notice form and the schedule for county and state board meetings.
- Commissioner Questions: Commissioner Zinker asked about the new assessment notice law (HB 1176) and the range of valuation changes. Commissioners discussed the need for improved communication and the potential for adjusting the state form. Mayor Schmidt requested a summary of follow-up actions at a future commission meeting.
- Response to Public: Assessor Alison addressed concerns about the notice form (state-issued), stated that assessors do not enter homes without permission, clarified that the 90–100% tolerance level applies to total city valuations (not individual), and explained that valuations are based on market data, not tax considerations. She committed to working with property owners who have scheduling constraints (e.g., Matthew Weigel). She also noted that for commercial properties like the Grand Pacific Center, the income approach is not used due to lack of market data, but she will review the square footage error.
- Commissioner Zenker expressed concern about properties increasing $140,000 in 4–5 years and emphasized the need for fairness, especially after the state's 3% budget cap. Commissioner Rish noted that large assessment increases do not mean proportional tax increases due to the cap, but acknowledged the need for clarity.
Key Outcomes
- Motion 1 (Unanimous): Approved the list of property owners who had agreed with valuation changes after prior consultation. (Commissioners: all yes)
- Motion 2 (Unanimous): Approved the list of property owners who disagreed with their valuation but for whom no change was recommended at this time, with the understanding that the assessor will follow up and may recommend adjustments at the June 1 County Board of Equalization meeting. (Commissioners: all yes)
- Motion 3 (Unanimous): Approved the annual report from the Assessing Division for 2026, incorporating the changes from the first motion. (Commissioners: all yes)
- Next Steps: The assessor's office will contact all property owners who spoke or signed in to schedule property reviews. Any adjustments will be presented at the Burleigh County Board of Equalization meeting on June 1, 2026, at 3:30 PM in the same room. Mayor Schmidt requested a summary report on the outcomes of these follow-ups at a future city commission meeting. Commissioners Zenker and Rish called for a reassessment of valuation methodology in light of state budget caps and fairness concerns, especially for commercial properties.
Meeting Transcript
I'm gonna respect everybody's time. It's April 7th. This is the It's not this meeting, technically. It's a Board of Equalization meeting. We're in the uh Tom Baker room of the city county building or county build city building. And we'll call the meeting order first. So I think Jason, you've got role. Yes, sir. Commissioner Zinker. Here. Commissioner Cleary. Here. Mayor Schmidt. Here. All right. We're in we're in session. Go ahead, Alison, and deliver your report, and then we'll get to the public hearing portion. Great. Well, Mayor and Commissioners, I would like to start the meeting off with a short video about what our office does. So I don't know what is that like. So there's a lot of misunderstanding about the role of assessors and how they affect the property tax that homeowners pay. When someone hears the term assessor, they seem to think of a scary figure reaching for their wallet. Not so. Assessors don't set tax rates. Assessors don't chase tax dollars. An assessor is interested in fairly determining property values, and they take great pride in it. Property tax is determined by a simple formula. Assessors only affect one of these variables, the value. And they do so with incredible accuracy. Assessors aren't tax collectors or even tax setters. They're just fellow taxpayers, and their primary goal is to make everything fair and equitable. Imagine that you're in a restaurant with two friends. One orders a hot dog, one orders a plate of caviar, and you order a steak. The waiter comes to the table with a total bill of 100 dollars, but he doesn't know how much each of you should pay. If everyone paid the same amount, the guy who ordered the caviar might be happy. But what about the guy who ordered the hot dog? Enter assessors. The food is your property. Just like these meals, some people's property is worth more than others. And it's the assessor's job to determine how much each property is worth. That's it. So in the same way the value of these menu items would need to be determined. An assessor places value on properties to ensure fairness and equity. After the assessor determines the value of each property, local governing bodies will set their budgets for the coming year. They set the tax rate in order to produce the dollars needed for their budgets. The value of a property does not affect the amount of property tax needed. The sum total of all those budgets is a set number that has to be divided up among all the property owners. So even if everyone's value was cut in half by the assessors, the tax rate will be raised in order to generate the same amount of tax revenue. The assessors don't determine the taxes you pay, they just determine the values of properties to keep everything as fair and equitable as possible. When you notice a change in your property's assessed value, that change is the result of a never-ending quest for fairness and accuracy.
openpublica.com