At a county assessor valuation hearing, several homeowners testified that recent mass-appraisal changes produced large, unfair increases in their property valuations and resulting tax bills. Mavis, who identified herself as living at 1401 Marshall Street in Wood River, told the panel her house “barely” survived a nearby explosion and that the blast and subsequent settling have left interior and exterior damage; she said the assessor’s valuation change would raise her tax bill by $7,096 and called that “ridiculous.”

The residents said mass appraisal comparables had not reflected local conditions such as lack of sewer, absence of curbs and sidewalks, proximity to large numbers of animals, and longstanding physical deterioration. One resident described neighbors keeping “about 15 horses” near a patio and hot tub, and said the odor, flies and noise affect marketability. Several speakers called for their 2024 or earlier valuations to be reinstated or for additional physical inspections.

The matter drew technical responses from assessor staff. An assessor appraiser said online estimates are not a substitute for an interior or exterior inspection, telling one speaker, “Zillow doesn't know, and Zillow wasn't there just like your appraisers were.” Another staff comment cited a depreciation schedule in county code stating residential improvements are fully depreciated after 27.5 years; a speaker used that figure to argue for a large age-based deduction on replacement-cost calculations.

Speakers pointed to large percentage swings in assessed values: one homeowner said an assessment previously rose about 62% before being reduced at an earlier appeal; another said a requested assessment this year would amount to a 20% increase; another reported a requested 42% jump compared with the last mailed valuation. Multiple residents said they had already reported and documented structural or foundation cracking since a prior inspection.

Hearing staff and appraisers repeatedly described mass appraisal as an automated process that uses sales and model inputs. Residents challenged neighborhood grouping and comparable selection, saying that many of the automated comparables did not reflect local infrastructure or property condition. Where the transcript records residents citing exact dollar or percentage figures, those figures are reported here as statements they made at the hearing. The transcript does not record a formal vote or change in assessment at the hearing; these were protest hearings in which residents presented evidence and asked for corrections or reassessments.

The hearing continued with additional individual protests and clarifying exchanges; no formal motions or board decisions on the contested valuations are recorded in the provided transcript excerpt.