Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Agricultural Assessment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Farmland owner questions large assessment jump; board cites soils and three‑year sales review

Gage County Board of Equalization · July 10, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Beverly J. Plea Hall told the Gage County Board of Equalization that two adjacent irrigated parcels showed markedly different valuation increases this year; staff said soil class differences and a three‑year sales review approved by the state explain the discrepancy and the parcel remained on the no‑change list.

Beverly J. Plea Hall appeared before the Gage County Board of Equalization on July 10 to challenge a large increase on one of two adjacent pivot‑irrigated parcels.

Plea Hall said both parts of her property increased similarly last year but this year one part rose much more, and she cited nearby Saline County valuations that did not show comparable increases. "I don't understand how come last year they were even amounts for both sides of that property and this year there's such a discrepancy," Plea Hall said.

Appraiser Lloyd explained the county’s workup: he examined three center‑pivot sales and computed an assessor‑indicated market value and an assessed‑value figure after applying the county factor. Lloyd reported an assessed figure of $5,004.52 per acre and an indicated market value of $7,006.79 per acre for the subject area, explaining that soil types (e.g., Judson and Nottoway silty loams in one quarter versus different soils in the other) and recent sales drive variation between similar parcels. Staff also noted the county uses a three‑year sales review that is "approved by the state of Nebraska," meaning one year drops off and a new year is added, which can create apparent jumps when the sales sample changes.

After discussion and questions from board members about methodology and whether the values were missed in prior years, the clerk later included Plea Hall’s parcel on the no‑change list that the board approved by vote.

Why it matters: farmland assessment changes can materially affect tax liabilities for farm owners; the board’s explanation centers on widely used mass appraisal rules and documented sales comparisons rather than ad hoc adjustments.

Next steps: the no‑change list was approved as read; Plea Hall may pursue additional administrative remedies if she chooses to appeal further.