Sarpy County board accepts referees' recommendations after contentious protests over timber vs. wasteland assessments

The Sarpy County Board of Equalization voted July 22 to accept the referees’ recommendations on a batch of property valuation protests after extended public hearings on how the assessor classifies tree-covered acreage and rural home sites.

The decisions follow testimony from property owners who said parts of their land should be classified as “wasteland” and taxed at a much lower rate, and from county staff who said state rules and local data support treating much of that acreage as forest or timberland. After hearing evidence and public comment, the board approved a motion to accept the referees’ recommendations with enumerated exceptions and recorded several amended valuations.

The dispute centered on whether wooded parcels that do not produce a marketable crop should be treated as “wasteland” under Nebraska rules or as timber/forest land with higher per-acre assessed value. Dan Pittman, Sarpy County assessor, explained the statutory framework at the start of the hearing: “Ultimately, it’s the board’s duty to ensure the fair and equitable valuation of all real property within this jurisdiction.” Pittman described the assessors’ use of mass-appraisal methods and statewide equalization procedures, and said staff used historical aerial maps to determine whether tree cover sits on stabilized ground or on alluvial deposits.

Property owners argued the county’s classifications and the assessor’s model produce large, unfair tax swings. Gerald Venduska, who filed protests for three adjoining parcels, told the board the legal precedent known as the Turk decision has favored taxpayers on similar river-bottom classifications and highlighted the dollar impact: “the difference between waste land and timberland is about a thousand dollars difference,” he said, adding that the difference multiplied over 90 acres becomes substantial.

County agricultural appraiser Jameson McShane read the longer regulatory definition to the board and said the assessor uses several subcategories that differentiate wasteland from forest and shelterbelt areas. McShane summarized the regulation during his reading: “Wasteland includes land that cannot be used economically and are not suitable for agricultural or horticultural purposes.” He also explained the assessor’s per-acre ranges for forest land on the county’s valuation schedule — roughly $888 to $1,331 per acre depending on soil classification — and said wasteland is currently valued at $300 per acre.

Several property owners argued site-specific conditions — long-standing gullies, rock close to the surface, or repeated flood damage — make the land unsuitable for agricultural production and should therefore be valued as wasteland. Thomas Wilson described repeated flood damage on property he owns and questioned applying the same per-acre market model as higher, dry ground nearby: “I just I don’t get how it can have the same value,” he said, recounting mobile homes lost in the 2019 flood and ongoing cleanup costs.

Deputy County Administrator Scott Bovec told the board the county had explored cleanup and zoning options with at least one protesting owner and that Sarpy County made “$50,000 maybe of ARPA money available to Mr. Wilson to help try to clean up the property,” while also discussing potential rezoning to allow different uses.

Referees and staff described the appraisal approach the county used to reconcile parcel mixes of productive acres, timber and wasteland. The referee coordinator explained the county’s emphasis on matching the overall value of whole agricultural properties to nearby comparables and on allocating a consistent pro rata value across the mix of usable and nonusable acres, rather than treating isolated tree stands and waste as independent determinative price drivers.

Votes at a glance - Motion: Accept referees’ recommendations with noted exceptions (mover: Commissioner Kelly). Vote: Approved 4–1 (Kelly, Mixon, Kluge, Warren — yes; Burmeister — no). The motion included a list of individual parcel recommendations and several amended totals (see formal record). - Amendment/motion: Separate vote on protest 2025-559 (personal residence matter). Motion to accept referee recommendation carried (motion recorded as passed; one abstention recorded during the separate vote). - Additional outcomes: The board recorded a set of amended valuations for multiple protested parcels (including parcels associated with Gerald Venduska, Thomas Wilson, Ron Patterson and Clayton Reeves) and instructed staff to reflect those final determinations in county records. The clerk’s minutes list the amended land/building/outbuilding totals adopted for each protest; those final numbers are on file with the County Clerk.

Why this matters The board’s rulings determine which acreage is taxed at the lower “wasteland” rate and which is placed in higher-value timber/forest categories or allocated as rural home sites. Those classification decisions can change property tax bills substantially for rural landowners and affect how the county demonstrates uniformity and proportionality during state equalization reviews.

What the transcript shows - The hearing followed statutory deadlines and procedures: assessors issue valuation notices by June 1, and property owners file protests by June 30; the county board hears protests through July 25. The assessor, referees and appellant witnesses all presented intervening evidence and county staff drew on aerial imagery back to the 1950s to test whether wooded areas were on stabilized ground or recent alluvial deposits. - The board repeatedly emphasized it must follow state definitions and precedent; several speakers urged legislative clarity for how “home site” and agricultural subclasses are applied so the disputes do not recur annually.

What comes next The board recessed the equalization session and set follow-up timing in its minutes. Staff will update parcel cards and send final notices reflecting the board’s determinations. Owners whose protests were denied or only partially granted retain the administrative appeal rights and may proceed to the Nebraska Tax Equalization Review Commission if they choose.

Ending Board members thanked referees and staff for the volume of work required to process the year’s protests and acknowledged that the mix of statutory definitions, soil codes and varied parcel conditions makes these appeals technically complex and frequently recurring. The board recessed to reconvene later in the agenda cycle and to allow staff time to assemble the official written orders for each protested parcel.