Nancy Blackwell v MDOR

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL,
Appellant,
V.
STATE OF MONTANA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
Respondent.
CASE :PT-2026-12
FINDINGS OF FACT,
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, ORDER,
AND OPPORTUNITY FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
AUG 07 2025
Montana Tax Appeal Board
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
This is an appeal of a final decision by the Lincoln County Tax Appeal Board
(CTAB) denying Nancy Blackwell (Taxpayer) a reduction in value on the subject
property located at 670 Riverdale Drive, Libby, Montana (Subject Property). The
Taxpayer appealed that outcome to the Montana Tax Appeal Board (MTAB) on
February 20, 2026. The Board affirms the CTAB's determination.
ISSUE TO BE DECIDED
Whether the CTAB erred in denying the Taxpayer's request for a valuation
reduction to the Subject Property.
EXHIBIT LIST
The following evidence was submitted at the hearing:
Taxpayer Exhibits:
1. Montana Code Annotated §15-15-103;
2. Letter from Mr. Blattman to MTAB, Dated Febmary 1 ,2026;
3. Emails Exchanged Between CTAB Secretary and Mr. Blattman;
4. CTAB Final Determination Letter;
5. CTAB Decision Letter and USPS Missed Delivery Receipt;
6. Picture of Subject Property's Riverbank;
7. Picture of Subject Property's Riverbank;
8. Picture of Subject Property's Riverbank;
1

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
9. Google Map Image;
10. Google Map Image;
11. Google Map Image;
12. Google Map Image of 3092 MT-37, Libby MT;
13. Montana Code Annotated §15-8-111;
14. Google Map Directions from 401 Cedar Meadow Road, Libby, MT, to
the Subject Property;
15. Google Map Directions from 127 Margaret Drive, Libby, MT, to the
Subject Property;
16. Department Land Sale Examples;
17. Department Land Model Data Form, DOR Neighborhood 256.100K;
18. Department Land Model Data Form, DOR Neighborhood 256.400.0;
19. Subject Property Record Card, Dated October 20, 2025;
20. Aerial Photographs of 286 Edgewood Drive;
21. Property Record Card for 286 Edgewood Drive Libby, MT, Dated
Febmary 2, 2026;
22. Nancy Blackwell 2025 Attachment to Property Tax Appeal;
23. Subject Property Record Card, Dated October 26, 2023;
24. Subject Property Record Card, Dated December 5, 2023;
25. Subject Property Record Card, Dated July 10, 2024, With Annotations
to the Cost Summary Section;
26. Exterior Photograph of Newer SFR;
27. Taxpayer's Percent Complete Table;
28. Subject Property Record Card, Dated January 21, 2025;
29. Transcribed Excerpts from the CTAB Hearing;
30. CTAB Decision, Dated January 15,2026;
31. Subject Property Record Card, Dated October 20, 2025;
32. Transcribed Excerpts from the CTAB Hearing;
33. Exterior Photograph of Newer SFR's Carport;
34. Exterior Photograph of Newer SFR's Deck;
35. Transcribed Excerpts from the CTAB Hearing;
2

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
36. Open Porch Cost Calculations;
37. Email Excerpts Between Mr. Blattman, Lincon County Commissioner,
and Legal Staff; and
38. CTAB Transcript Created by Taxpayer.
Department Exhibits:
A. Subject Property Record Card, Dated January 5, 2026;
B. 2025 Subject Property Inspection Photographs;
C. Department's Kootenai River 2024 Land Valuation Model;
D. Maps of Department's Neighborhood 256.100.K and Sales in the
256.100.K Neighborhood; and
E. Reality Transfer Certificate and Sales Verification for Subject Property.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
The Department of Revenue (Department) valued the Subject Property at
$653,770 for the 2025-2026 appraisal cycle, with the land valued at $362,090 and the
improvements valued at $291,680. MTAB Dkt. 3. The Taxpayer appealed the
Department's valuation to the CTAB on November 25, 2025, requesting a land value
of $288,611 and an improvements value of $196,099. Id. The CTAB hearing was held
on January 15, 2026, and the CTAB's decision denying the Taxpayer's application for
reduction was sent to the parties on January 26, 2026. Id. The Taxpayer appealed to
MTAB on Febmary 20, 2026, per Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301, requesting that the
land value be lowered to $288,611, the improvements' percent complete be lowered to
45%, the deck value be reduced to $25,099, and the Subject Property be placed in
Department's neighborhood 256.400. MTAB Dkt. 1. The MTAB hearing was
conducted in Helena on June 3, 2026, at which the following were present:
a. Terry Blattman, Taxpayer's Representative (via Zoom); and
b. Dave Burleigh, Department Counsel; Andrew Pritchard, Area Manager;
Jason Stevens, Modeler; and Kandy Fleurisma, Paralegal.
The record includes all materials submitted to CTAB, a recording of the CTAB
hearing, all materials submitted to MTAB with the appeal, additional exhibits
3

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
submitted by the parties prior to and at the MTAB hearing, and a transcript of the
MTAB hearing.
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. To whatever extent the following findings of fact may be construed as
conclusions of law, they are incorporated accordingly.
2. The Subject Property is a residential home owned by Nancy Blackwell and
located at 670 Riverdale Drive, in Libby, Montana. MTAB Dkt. 3. The Subject
Property is also identified by its assigned geocode 56-4175-02-1-01-08-0000.
Id. On the lien date, the Subject Property consisted of 7.1 total acres, improved
with an unfinished single-family residence (Newer SFR) and an older
uninhabited single-family residence (Older SFR). Id.
3. The Department initially appraised the Subject Property's land value at
$362,090 and improvements value at $291,680 for a total value of $653,770.
Ex. A. At the January 15, 2026, CTAB hearing, the Taxpayer requested a total
market value of $484,710. MTAB Dkt. 3. The CTAB denied the Taxpayer's
request and upheld the Department's value. Id. The Taxpayer timely appealed
to MTAB on February 20, 2026. MTAB Dkt. 1. Taxpayer is requesting the land
value be reduced to $288,611, the percent complete for the Newer SFR be
reduced to 45%, the deck value of the Newer SFR be lowered to $25,099, and
the Subject Property be placed in the land model for 256.400. MTAB Dkt. 1;
MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 2:5-18. The Department requests that the Board uphold the
appraised value of $653,770 for the Subject Property. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 1:24-2:4.
4. At the hearing, Teny Blattman (Taxpayer's Representative), stated that he did
not wish to present his case orally and informed the Board that his arguments
and concerns were set forth in his submitted exhibits both at CTAB and
MTAB, including a letter to the Board admitted as Exhibit 2. Ex. 2; MTAB
Hr'gTr. 4:14-5:3.
4

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
5. On cross-examination, Mr. Blattman testified that the Older SFR was removed
in December of 2025. MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 7:16-17. Mr. Blattman further testified
that the decking of the deck attached to the Newer SFR was installed during the
summer of 2025 and was not present as of the January 1, 2025, lien date.
MTABHr'gTr. 7:18-8:4.
6. Mr. Blattman testified that if he was buying a property, the presence of utility
easements would affect his purchasing decision and that he had declined to
purchase other similar properties due to the presence of utility easements.
MTABHr'gTr.8:5-17.
7. Mr. Blattman testified that the Subject Property's river access consists of a
steep, near-vertical embankment with no usable shoreline. MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
8:18-9:16. Mr. Blattman further testified that accessing the river from the
Subject Property would be hazardous and, in his opinion, could not be safely
accomplished. Id.
8. Mr. Blattman estimated that the Newer SFR was 45% complete based on his
personal experience with construction and remodeling projects. Ex. 27; MTAB
Hr'gTr. 9:17-10:3.
9. Department Area Manager, Andrew Pritchard, testified that he conducted an
on-site inspection of the Subject Property on October 8, 2025. Ex. A; MTAB
Hr'g Tr. 12:9-16. Mr. Pritchard stated that he was permitted to inspect the
interior of the Older SFR but was not allowed to inspect the interior of the
Newer SFR. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 12:23-13:12. Mr. Pritchard further testified that
the Taxpayer indicated interior photographs of the Newer SFR would be
provided to the Department, but the Department never received them. Id. Based
on the work observed at the Subject Property during the inspection, the
Department increased the percentage complete for the Newer SFR from 55% to
60%. Id.
5

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
10. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Department valued the Subject Property using
the cost approach because the Newer SFR was incomplete, making the cost
approach the most reliable method of determining its value. Ex. A, B; MTAB
Hr'gTr. 15:7-19.
11. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Newer SFR had a replacement cost new of
$353,021, representing the cost to construct the improvements as new based on
the property's characteristics and the Marshall & Swift cost manuals. Ex. A;
MTAB Hr'g Tr. 16:6-18:8, 34:7-16. Mr. Pritchard further testified that the
Department applied several adjustments to the replacement cost new value,
including a percent good factor to account for depreciation, a county index to
reflect local construction costs, an economic condition factor to account for
market demand, and a percentage complete factor to account for the unfinished
condition of the Newer SFR. Ex. A; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 16:6-18:8. For the Newer
SFR, the Department applied a percent good factor of 0.97, a county index of
1.01, an economic condition factor of 1.26, and a percentage complete of 60%.
Ex. A; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 16:6-18:8. Including all improvements the Department
detennined a replacement cost new less depreciation (RCNLD) value of
$261,471 for the Subject Property. Ex. A; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 16:6-18:8.
12. Mr. Pritchard testified that the percentage complete for the Newer SFR was
calculated using Marshall & Swift cost tables, which provide estimated
completion percentages based on general construction practices. MTAB Hr'g
Tr. 26:18-37:13. Mr. Pritchard further testified that based on the Marshall &
Swift cost tables, photographs of the Newer SFR's interior, and statements
made by Mr. Blattman, the Department determined that the Newer SFR was
60% complete. Ex. A, B; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 36:18-37:13.
13. The Older SFR's RCNLD for tax year 2025 is $27,260. Ex. A; MTAB Hr'g Tr.
17:21-18:14. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Older SFR was assigned a 14%
good factor, a reduced construction quality rating, no effective year, and was
6

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
classified as unsound to account for depreciation and to reduce its contributory
value to the Subject Property as much as possible. Ex. A, B; MTAB Hr'g Tr.
17:21-18:14. In 2026, Mr. Blattman provided the Department with a
photograph showing that the Older SFR had been demolished and removed
from the Subject Property, and as a result, the Department removed the value
associated with the Older SFR from the property record. Ex. A; MTAB Hr'g Tr.
19:1-8. Following the removal of the Older SFR, the Department added the
value of a newly remodeled shop observed during the 2025 on-site inspection,
which increased the Subject Property's value by $4,000. Ex. A, B; MTAB Hr'g
Tr. 19:8-20:1. Mr. Pritchard noted that the $4,000 adjustment would apply to
the 2027/2028 tax cycle. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 19:8-20:1.
14. Mr. Pritchard testified that the lO-by-12-foot frame building located on the
Subject Property was assigned a value of zero. Ex. A; MTAB Hr 'g Tr. 18:15-
20. The Subject Property's 40-by-50-foot pole garage was valued as a low-
grade structure in poor condition with an assigned value of $2,950. Ex. A;
MTABHr'gTr. 18:15-20.
15. Mr. Pritchard testified that the land was valued using the Kootenai River 2024
land model, which contains raw land sales with Kootenai River frontage
properties. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 23:4-5, 25:1-18. Mr. Pritchard testified that
all sales included in the land model were derived from a 35-to-40-mile section
of the Kootenai River. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 31:1-32:5. Mr. Pritchard testified
that the Subject Property's land value was calculated using a flrst-acre base rate
of $228,500 and an incremental rate of $21,900 for the remaining 6.1 acres,
resulting in a total land value of $362,090. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 25:24-26:5.
To account for the Subject Property's river access limitations, the property was
assigned the primary pricing rate. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 25:24-26:5, 28:9-18.
Mr. Pritchard further testified that a Department appraiser was able to access
the river from the Subject Property without injury and photograph the
7

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
riverbank, including the trail leading down to the river. Ex. B; MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
21:16-22:2.
16. Mr. Pritchard testified that all sales included in the land model were verified
and that raw land values were determined by subtracting the improvement
value to find the Subject Property's land value. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 25:1-18,
36:1-3. Mr. Pritchard further testified that the Department observed statistical
differences in market behavior based on which side of the river properties are
situated and the topography of the properties. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 25:1-18,
27:1-6, 43:7-44:17. As a result, the model includes superior pricing, also called
Category 5 pricing, that has a first-acre base rate of $336,243. Ex. C; MTAB
Hr'g Tr. 25:1-18, 27:1-6, 43:7-44:17. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Subject
Property's 2022 purchase price of $450,000 was included in the land model
because the property was sold in 2022. Ex. C, E; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 26:9-27:15.
At the time of sale, the Department's valuation assigned $53,620 to the
improvements and $396,380 to the land. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 26:9-27:15.
17. Department Modeler, Jason Stevens, testified that he developed the multiple
regression land model used to value the Subject Property and that the model
uses statistical measurements to evaluate its accuracy. Ex. C; MTAB Hr 'g Tr.
36:18-37:13, 42:14-24. Mr. Stevens testified that he used the coefficient of
dispersion (COD), price-related differential (PRD), R-squared value, and
coefficient of variation (CO V) to assess the reliability of the land model. MTAB
Hr 'g Tr. 39:20-41:24. Mr. Stevens testified that a reliable model should have a
COD below 15%, a PRD between 0.98 and 1.01, and an R-squared value above
0.70. Id. Mr. Stevens further testified that the land model had a COD of 6.33, a
PRD of 1.01, and an R-squared value of 0.95, indicating that the land model is
reliable. Ex. C; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 39:20-41:24.
18. Mr. Pritchard testified that moving the Subject Property to Neighborhood
256.400 would not be appropriate because none of the sales in that
8

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
neighborhood involve riverfront properties or include considerations similar to
those affecting the Subject Property. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 31:22-32:5. Mr. Pritchard
further testified that the Subject Property's physical, economic, governmental,
and societal characteristics align with the properties included in the 256.100K
neighborhood or the Kootenai River. Id. Additionally, Mr. Pritchard testified
that the Subject Property is located in the same Department neighborhood as its
surrounding properties and that moving the property to a different
neighborhood would result in a value significantly below the Subject
Property's 2022 purchase price. MTAB Hr'g Tr. 36:4-16.
19. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Sales Verification Form submitted by the
Taxpayer to the Department indicated that the Taxpayer considered the Subject
Property to be vacant land when completing the form in Febmary of 2023. Ex.
E; MTAB Hr'g Tr. 32:20-33:14.
JURISDICTION AND STANDARD OF REVIEW
20. The Montana Tax Appeal Board is an independent agency not affiliated with
the M.ontana Department of Revenue. Mont. Const., Art. VIII § 7; Mont. Code
Ann. § 15-2-101. The Taxpayer filed a timely appeal of the DOR'S decision to
the MTAB. Therefore, this Board maintains jurisdiction to hear and decide this
matter. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301.
21. When reviewing a county tax appeal board decision under Mont. Code Ann. §
15-2-301, MTAB acts as a quasi-appellate body with authority to supplement
the record and is limited to issues properly preserved for appellate review.
O'Brien v. Mont. Dep't of Revenue, 2026 MT 132, ^ 72.
22. The Board's order is final and binding upon all parties unless changed by
judicial review. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(6).
9

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
23. To whatever extent the following conclusions of law may be construed as
findings of fact, they are incorporated accordingly.
24. "All taxable property must be appraised at 100% of its market value...." Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-8-111.
25. "[1]n connection with any appeal under [Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301], the
Montana board is not bound by common law and statutory rules of evidence or
rules of discovery and may affirm, reverse, or modify any decision. To the
extent that this section is in conflict with the Montana Administrative
Procedure Act, this section supersedes that act." Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-
301(5).
26. DOR is entitled to a "presumption of correctness if its decisions are pursuant to
an administrative rule or regulation, and the rule or regulation is not arbitrary,
capricious or otherwise unlawful." Burlington N., 169 Mont. at 214, 545 P.2d
at 1090. However, DOR cannot rely entirely on the presumption in its favor
and must present a modicum of evidence showing the propriety of their action.
Western Air Lines v. Michunovich, 149 Mont. 347, 353, 428 P.2d 3, 7 (1967).
27. The Taxpayer bears the burden of proving the error of DOR'S decision.
Farmers Union Cent. Exch v. Dep't of Revenue, 272 Mont. 471, 476, 901 P.2d
561, 564 (1995); Western Air Lines, 149 Mont. at 353, 428 P.2d at 7.
28. '"Assessment formulations' by [the Montana Tax Appeal Board] should be
upheld unless there is a clear showing of an abuse of discretion." Peretti v.
Dep't of Revenue, 2016 MT 105, ^ 15, 383 Mont. 340, 344, 372 P.3d 447, 450
(citing <9We;7/ v. Dep't of Revenue, 2002 MT 130, ^ 23, 310 Mont. 148, 155,
49 P.3d 43, 47); see Northwest Land & Dev. v. State Tax Appeal Bd., 203
Mont. 313, 317, 661 P.2d44, 47(1983).
10

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
29. When construing a statute, it is the Board's role to "determine what in terms or
substance is contained in it, and not to insert what has been omitted or to omit
what has been inserted." State v. Minett, 2014 MT 225, ^ 12, 376 Mont. 260,
263, 332 P.3d 235, 238; Mont. Code Ann. § 1-2-101.
30. In the constmction of a statute, the intention of the legislature is to be pursued
if possible. When a general and particular provision are inconsistent, the latter
is paramount to the former, so a particular intent will control a general one that
is inconsistent with it. Mont. Code Ann. § 1-2-102.
31. The Board "may not amend or repeal any administrative rule of the
department," but may enjoin its application if the Board concludes the rule is
"arbitrary, capricious, or otherwise unlawful." Mont. Code Ann. § 15-2-301(5).(.<.,
32. The term "improvements" includes all buildings, structures, fences, and
improvements situated upon, erected upon, or affixed to land. Mont. Code Ann.
§ 15-l-101(l)(i).
33. The Legislature intended the Department to utilize a number of different
approaches or combination of approaches, including the income approach,
sales comparison approach, and cost less depreciation approach, depending on
the market where the appraisals take place, when it assesses property and
estimates market value. Albright v. State, 281 Mont. 196, 208-09, 933 P.2d
815, 823 (1997).
34. The department shall determine the correct appraisal and classification of the
land or improvements and notify the taxpayer of its determination by mail or
electronically. The department may not determine an appraised value that is
higher than the value that was the subject of the objection unless the reason for
an increase was the result of a physical change in the property. Mont. Code
Ann. § 15-7-102(3)(f).
11

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
35. Whether a review as provided in subsection 15-7-102(3) is held or not, the
department may not adjust an appraisal or classification upon the taxpayer's
objection unless:
(a) the taxpayer has submitted an objection on written or electronic forms
provided by the department or by checking a box on the notice; and
(b) the department has provided to the objector by mail or electronically its
stated reason in writing for making the adjustment. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-7-
102(4).
36. The county tax appeal board shall continue in session from July 1 of the current
tax year until December 3 1 of the current tax year to hear protests concerning
assessments made by the department until the business of hearing protests is
disposed of and may meet after December 31 to hear an appeal at the discretion
of the county tax appeal board. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-101.
DISCUSSION
37. The Taxpayer presented several arguments relating to the CTAB hearing, land
values, and the percent complete of the improvements on the Subject Property.
Each argument will be addressed separately.
I. Claims Made Against Lincoln County Tax Appeal Board
38. In the absence of oral testimony from the Taxpayer's Representative, as
instructed by the Taxpayer's representative, the Board will consider the
Taxpayer's submitted exhibits, particularly Exhibit 2, prepared by Mr.
Blattman, to address the Taxpayer's arguments. Before addressing the
arguments related to the Subject Property, the Board first considers Mr.
Blattman's procedural claims regarding the CTAB hearing. Mr. Blattman
asserts that the CTAB did not have a complete copy of the Taxpayer's appeal
and, therefore, failed to properly hear the matter in violation of Mont. Code
Ann. § 15-15-103(2)(a). Mr. Blattman further asserts that CTAB members
refused to discuss land value, also in violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-
12

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
103(2)(a). Finally, Mr. Blattman alleges that a CTAB member was biased due
to being employed by the county. The Board notes that Mr. Blattman raised
these claims for the first time during the January 15, 2026, CTAB hearing and
the CTAB hearing record indicates that these allegations relate to a prior CTAB
appeal from a subsequent tax cycle.
39. For a matter to be automatically granted under Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-103,
the CTAB must refuse or fail to hear an appeal. An appeal is considered
granted only if it is not heard before the board's final meeting of that year.
Although the CTAB did not hear the Taxpayer's appeal in 2025, the CTAB
notified the Taxpayer on December 12, 2025, and December 29, 2025, that the
hearing would occur on January 15, 2026. These notices clearly indicate that
the CTAB extended its hearings into 2026, via Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-101,
and had not yet conducted its final meeting for 2025.
40. The Board finds that whether the CTAB had a complete copy of the appeal
record does not, by itself, establish that the CTAB failed to hear the Taxpayer's
appeal. Additionally, the CTAB record indicates that the issue with copies
resulted from an insufficient number of copies being provided. As a result, two
CTAB members shared one complete copy, while the remaining complete
copies were provided to the Department so that all parties could review the
Taxpayer's exhibits. The Board finds that the CTAB acted appropriately in
ensuring a fair hearing by taking steps to ensure that all parties had access to
the available evidence. The Board further finds that the Taxpayer was not
prejudiced by the CTAB members sharing exhibits and that the CTAB did not
refuse or fail to hear the Taxpayer's appeal under Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-
103.
41. Next, Mr. Blattman asserts that the CTAB refused to discuss land value in
violation of Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-103(2)(a). Again, Mr. Blattman cites a
statutory provision concerning the failure to hear an appeal before the board's
13

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
final meeting of the year, which this Board addressed above. The Board notes
that the CTAB attempted to engage Mr. Blattman during the hearing, however,
as at the MTAB hearing, Mr. Blattman requested that the CTAB rely on his
written testimony rather than provide additional oral testimony. The Board
.finds that the CTAB did not violate Mont. Code Ann. §15-15-103.
Additionally, Mr. Blattman answered questions from the CTAB, responded to
cross-examination from the Department, and the CTAB was able to examine
the Taxpayer's Representative under oath regarding the application for
reduction in conformity with Mont. Code Ann. § 15-15-103.
42. Lastly, the Board finds no legal authority prohibiting a county employee from
serving as a member of a CTAB. The Board agrees that if a CTAB member
demonstrates bias, the member should recuse themself from the matter. The
only restriction concerning CTAB membership identified by the Board relates
to county commissioners appointing themselves as CTAB members. 35 Op.
Att'y Gen. 16 (1973). Additionally, if a taxpayer is aggrieved by the actions of
a CTAB, including bias, the taxpayer may appeal the matter to MTAB. The
Taxpayer exercised this right by appealing the CTAB's decision to this Board.
After reviewing the CTAB record, the Board finds no evidence of bias or
improper conduct.
II. Land Value
43. The Board will now address the arguments related to the Subject Property. The
Taxpayer first argues that the land value should be reduced because, when the
value attributed to the Older SFR was removed, that value was simply added to
the land value. Additionally, Mr. Blattman's exhibits appear to argue that the
Department's comparable properties are located too far from the Subject
Property to be comparable. The Taxpayer also requested that the Subject
Property be moved to a different Department neighborhood for valuation
purposes. The Department presented its land model used to value the Subject
Property and testified that the model utilizes sales of similar riverfront
14

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
properties, with each sale extracted to represent raw land values. Mr. Pritchard
testified regarding the Department's methodology for valuing the land, stating
that the base rate was applied to the first acre and an incremental rate to the
remaining 6.1 acres. Additionally, the Department assigned the Subject
Property primary pricing to account for its steep river access limitations, as
compared to Category 5 pricing applied to properties with more level river
access. The Board finds the Department's land model credible and concludes
that the Subject Property's land value of $362,090 is supported by the
evidence. The Board notes that the comparable properties are all located within
approximately a 35-minute drive of the Subject Property, are situated
throughout the greater Libby area, and contain all Kootenai River frontage
properties. The Board finds that the comparable properties are sufficiently
similar to provide reliable evidence of the Subject Property's land value.
44. The Board finds that the Subject Property was placed in the correct Department
neighborhood for valuation purposes. Mr. Pritchard presented uncontested
testimony that properties within the 256.100.K neighborhood or Kootenai
River Land Model share similar physical, economic, governmental, and
societal characteristics under the PEGS standard. Additionally, the evidence
establishes that all properties within Department Neighborhood 256.100.K
have river frontage or river access. The Board recognizes that there may be
multiple reasons for an increase in land value. However, the Board finds no
evidence in the record that the Department removed the value associated with
the Older SFR and improperly added that amount to the land value. Mr.
Pritchard testified that additional construction was identified on the Subject
Property, which resulted in an increase in the property's total value.
45. When the Taxpayer submitted its Residential Sales Verification Form, the
Taxpayer indicated that the Subject Property was considered vacant land with
an abandoned house. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Subject Property sold for
$450,000 in 2022. Because in the sales verification form the Taxpayer stated
15

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
they considered the Subject Property to be vacant land at the time of purchase,
the Board finds that the Department's vacant land valuation is supported by the
fact that the land value is less than the price paid by the Taxpayer for the
property. Accordingly, the Board affirms the Department's land value of
$362,090.
III. Department Cost Analysis
46. Mr. Pritchard testified regarding the Department's use of the cost approach to
value the Subject Property's improvements, stating that the cost data used in
the valuation is contained within the Property Record Card. Mr. Pritchard
provided uncontested testimony regarding the replacement cost new, the
economic condition factor, and the county index applied to the improvements.
Mr. Blattman contested the percentage complete assigned to the Newer SFR,
which will be addressed later in this opinion. As to the remaining components
of the Department's cost calculation for the Subject Property's improvements,
the Board find Mr. Pritchard's testimony and the Department's valuation
methodology credible. The Board finds the use of the cost approach appropriate
because the Newer SFR remains under construction. Due to the unfinished
condition of the residence, it would be difficult for the Department to identify
comparable sales of properties in a similar state of construction. Additionally,
the Board finds the addition of the new pole barn observed during the site
inspection to be appropriate; however, we understand that this adjustment will
not be included in the Subject Property's assessed value until the 2027/2028 tax
cycle.
IV. Newer SFR Value
47. Mr. Blattman's written testimony asserts that the Newer SFR was initially
valued as if it were 100% complete and that the Department later reduced the
percentage complete to 50%. Mr. Blattman contends that the Newer SFR
should be valued at 45% complete. The Department assigned the Newer SFR a
percentage complete based on the Marshall & Swift cost tables, photographs,
and statements made by Mr. Blattman regarding the status of construction. The
16

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Department did not conduct an interior inspection of the Newer SFR, the
Taxpayer did not provide any interior photographs, and did not allowed the
Department to inspect the interior of the Newer SFR.
48. Mr. Blattman based his 45% completion estimate on his personal experience
with construction projects and his belief that a majority of constmction costs
occur during the finishing phase of construction. The Board finds that the
record does not contain sufficient evidence to conclusively determine the exact
stage of construction of the Newer SFR. Although Mr. Blattman's written
testimony states that photographs were submitted, the only photographs in the
record are of the Newer SFR's deck or were taken by the Department and
depict the exterior of the Newer SFR.
49. After reviewing the evidence in the record, the Board find that the Taxpayer
did not meet the burden of proving that the Department made an error in its
valuation. The Department used the information available to it, including the
available photographs and statements from Mr. Blattman, and applied that
information to the Marshall & Swift cost tables to determine the appropriate
percentage complete. The photograph presented to the Board shows a
substantially complete residence without siding. Additionally, Mr. Blattman's
written testimony indicates that the roofing, windows, and electrical work were
approximately 75% complete; plumbing was approximately 35% complete;
insulation was approximately 50% complete; and drywall and painting were
approximately 90% complete. Averaging these percentages results in an overall
completion estimate of approximately 62.5%. Without additional evidence
demonstrating specific deficiencies in the Department's determination, the
Board cannot conclude that the Department's assigned percentage complete
was incorrect. Accordingly, the Board affirm the Department's percentage
complete determination for the Newer SFR.
17

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
V. Older SFR Value
50. Mr. Blattman argues that a more accurate percentage complete for the Older
SFR is 0%. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Older SFR remained standing and
was listed on the tax rolls as of the January 1, 2025, lien date. Mr. Blattman
later provided photographic evidence to the Department showing that the Older
SFR had been removed from the Subject Property. Upon receiving this
information, the Department removed the Older SFR from the tax rolls, and it
was not included in the Subject Property's 2026 valuation.
51. Mr. Pritchard testified that the Older SFR was considered unsound and was
assigned a depreciation of 86%, or a factor of 14% good, resulting in a
significantly reduced market value to account for its condition. While the
Board acknowledge Mr. Blattman's concerns regarding the condition and
habitability of the structure, the Board notes that even a severely deteriorated
structure has contributory value because there would be costs to construct a
similar improvement and it may retain some salvage value. Based on the
evidence presented, the Board find that the Older SFR was properly valued
using the cost approach for tax year 2025 and was properly removed from the
tax rolls for tax year 2026.
VI. Newer SFR Deck
52. Mr. Blattman argues that the decking on the deck surrounding the Newer SFR
was not complete as of the January 1, 2025, lien date. Mr. Blattman estimated
that, after the lien date, he spent approximately $5,911 on supplies to complete
the decking and that the decking value should therefore not be considered in
the Subject Property's value. Mr. Blattman presented the cost and timing of the
improvements made to the deck in Exhibits 2 and 29. The Department has a
duty to determine the market value of property and, in doing so, must maintain
accurate property records. When a taxpayer objects to a Department valuation,
the objection is addressed through the informal review process under Mont.
Code Ann. § 15-7-102(3). That statute provides, in relevant part, that "the
18

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELLv. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
department shall determine the correct appraisal and classification of the land
or improvements and notify the taxpayer of its determination by mail or
electronically." The statute further provides that during an informal review, the
Department may not increase the appraised value that was the subject of the
objection unless the increase results from a physical change in the property.
53. Mont. Code Ann. § 15-7-102 allows the Department, during an infomial
review, to adjust a property's valuation when a physical change to the property
has occurred. The addition of decking of the deck surrounding the Newer SFR
constitutes a physical change to the property and pennits the Department to
adjust the Subject Property's valuation. Additionally, Mont. Code Ann. § 15-7-
102(4) allows the Department to adjust an appraisal when a taxpayer files an
objection. The record establishes that the decking was identified during an AB-
26 review, allowed the Department to account for the physical change to the
Subject Property. The Board further notes that the value associated with the
incomplete decking is typically already accounted for within the percentage
complete determination for the Newer SFR. Accordingly, the Board finds that
the Department's treatment of the decking was appropriate.
VII. Conclusion
54. The Taxpayer did not meet the burden of proving that the Department made an
error in its valuation of the Subject Property. The Department used the cost
approach to value the improvements and the comparable sales approach to
value the land, both of which are recognized appraisal methods. The
Department presented credible testimony supporting its valuation methodology
and the resulting appraised value. For the reasons stated above, the Board
affirms the CTAB determination and upholds the Department's valuation of the
Subject Property.
19

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
ORDER
55. The Board denies the Taxpayer's appeal and affirms the determination of the
Lincoln County Tax Appeal Board.
Dated this 7th day of August 2026.
?PEA4 6	^ 	0
A 	-y.
^	A;
0
SEAL% a-
^
^ 	T
^	y
?3^r^
^^^-
Travis Brown, Chairman
^ fAAk.J^-
AdamMillinoff, Member
CBHstopher Mu4>hy, i^qfoiber
Notice: You are entitled to judicial review of this Order by filing a petition in district
court within 60 days of the service of this Order. The Department of Revenue shall
promptly notify this Board of any judicial review to facilitate the timely transmission
of the record to the reviewing court. Mont. Code Ann. §15-2-303(2).
20

BEFORE THE MONTANA TAX APPEAL BOARD
NANCY BLACKWELL v. STATE OF MONTANA, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE
Certificate of Service
I certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing Findings of Fact,
Conclusions of Law, Order, and Opportunity for Judicial Review to be sent by email
and United States Mail via Print & Mail Services Bureau of the State of Montana on
August 7, 2026, to:
Terry Blattman
Nancy Blackwell
311 Mineral Avenue # 189
Libby, Montana 59923
theron865(%gmail.com
Dave Burleigh, Senior Tax Counsel
State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Legal Services Office
P.O. Box 7701
Helena, MT 59604-7701
david.burleigh(%mt.gov
Corrina Brown
Lincoln County Tax Appeal Board
Libby, MT 59923
Paula Gilbert
State of Montana, Department of Revenue
Property Assessment Division
P.O. Box 8018
Helena, Montana 59604-8108
Madison AmVros^ Hall, ^-y
Legal Administrative Assistant
21