Grand Island Town Board rejects motion to pause townwide reassessment after lengthy debate over valuation anomalies

The Grand Island Town Board considered and rejected a motion to pause the townwide reassessment project after a two-hour workshop in which council members, the town assessor and the town's assessment contractor debated large valuation shifts and data issues.

Supervisor and Council discussion opened with council members citing examples where sale prices and assessment values did not align. Councilmembers pointed to a commercial parcel on Bedell Road that sold for about $1.2 million but was assessed at roughly $400,000 before the reassessment and then listed at $580,000 in the contractor's roll. Council members also cited a Border Patrol building the board said had been settled in court at $11 million but appeared in the reassessment at $9 million. Those examples were offered as evidence that the reassessment contained “anomalies,” a councilmember said during the meeting.

Why it matters: Board members who favored the pause argued the magnitude and unevenness of some changes—instances of triple-digit percentage shifts on individual parcels and a preliminary tally of $17 million in downward adjustments after informal reviews—warranted setting the tentative roll aside to allow more time for review and corrections. Opponents said the contractor's methods meet state uniformity requirements, most properties fall within expected ranges, and the formal informal/grievance processes exist to address errors.

Assessment process and data sources

Joe Emenger, the town's assessment contractor representative, told the board the contractor relies on assessor records and multiple listing service data to verify sales and to determine condition adjustments. "It comes from the assessor records. Okay. And it comes from MLS records," Emenger said, explaining the firm performs a sales verification and desk review of sales and uses sales-photo evidence when available. Emenger described the common appraisal practice of excluding outlier sales from a five-sale sample: "...I'll throw [the] high sale and the low sale out and I'll look at the three in the middle." He repeated that no reassessment is perfect and that the informal-review process is intended to catch missed interior-condition items and other errors.

Assessor Jill Murphy described the staff process for informal reviews and tentative roll preparation. Murphy said the county supplies sales data weekly or biweekly and that the assessor's office runs about a month behind the most current MLS posting. She told the board she had sent the preliminary roll to the state for verification of uniformity and that the office would continue to review building permits and incoming owner-supplied information before the tentative roll is finalized: "It's a preliminary roll. I'm still looking at building permits. I'm still looking at things that are still coming in." She also confirmed the tentative roll must be posted by May 1 (tentative roll date referenced during the meeting).

Numbers the board discussed

- Informal reviews: the contractor and assessor repeatedly referenced 689 residents who requested informal reviews; differing references in the meeting put resolved reductions at a dollar figure of about $17,000,000. - Distribution: the contractor reported about 74% of residential parcels were within 10% of prior values, leaving roughly 26% outside that band; speakers used those percentages in different ways when discussing how many residents might feel aggrieved. - New construction: one councilmember noted 217 new builds from 2021–2025 representing roughly $103,771,500 in assessed value, which affects the town's overall taxable base and the tax rate.

Board motion and vote

A board member moved to pause the reassessment and the motion was seconded for discussion. The board then held a roll-call vote. The motion to pause the reassessment failed 1–4 on roll call: Thelmer voted yes; Garcia, Tigati, Valida and Marcy voted no.

Discussion vs. decision

Board supporters of the pause argued the examples presented—including multi-hundred-thousand-dollar and multi-million-dollar discrepancies—showed the roll contained flaws large enough to merit postponement so the town could avoid shifting errors into the tax base. Opponents said a majority of parcels were within expected ranges, many issues had been or were being addressed through informals, and abandoning the project would have fiscal and administrative consequences for the town's equalization and the upcoming tax year.

Next steps and practical considerations

Assessor Murphy and contractor Emenger told the board they would continue to process informal reviews, examine building permits and respond to owner-supplied evidence. Several council members asked for expanded outreach to older residents and other parties who might not file informals, and one councilmember suggested in-person assistance at the Golden Age Center before grievance day.

The board did approve a separate item later in the meeting (solar/battery law engagement) and closed the workshop. Council members who opposed pausing the roll said they were open to additional public outreach and adding resources around the grievance process but were not persuaded to halt the project entirely.

Ending

The reassessment remains on the timeline toward the tentative roll; the board did not adopt a pause. Town officials said they would continue informal reviews and that residents who believe their preliminary assessment is incorrect should use the assessor's informal-review process or appear on grievance day to seek adjustments. The board's decision leaves the tentative roll and the statutory timelines in place as staff and the contractor continue to examine the flagged parcels and incoming documentation.