Hall County Board of Equalization sets 5.5% increase for disputed Grand Island property after hearing

The Hall County Board of Equalization voted to set a 5.5% increase on a contested Grand Island residence after a public hearing during which the owner described construction history, referee corrections and comparable‑sale concerns.

Property owner Jason Netzel told the board his house was largely completed in 2022–2023 and that a modest basement finish in 2024 cost about $30,000. He said a referee’s inspection corrected some construction‑material listings and reduced the assessed value, but he remained concerned the 2025 assessment singled his property out for a 13% jump. "I'm not asking to be treated better or worse. I'm just asking to be treated the same," Netzel said.

The board discussed how to calculate the adjustment — whether to apply a percentage to last year’s valuation or to the referee‑adjusted base — and examined comparable sales, condition and permit records. Staff noted the referee had already made corrections to the property description and valuation. After discussion a board member moved to apply a 5.5% increase using the referee‑adjusted base; the motion carried with six votes in favor and one abstention.

The vote followed questions about specific line items, including the basement finish and whether comparable sales used by staff were appropriate for the neighborhood. Staff said the referee had inspected the property and that the office would accept additional comparables or documentation if the owner wanted to return with new information for final action.

Several other residents used the public protest period to raise separate valuation complaints about duplexes and modest single‑family homes, citing condition problems (old wiring, termite damage, water intrusion) and asking staff to recheck condition ratings and square footage. The board repeatedly explained that its legal responsibility is to equalize assessments using market sales and that mass appraisal systems sometimes produce counterintuitive year‑to‑year changes.

The board placed the documents referenced for the meeting on file at the start of the session and encouraged property owners to supply additional evidence if they believed material facts (square footage, basement finish, condition) remained incorrect. The board noted that owners could return for final action if new evidence appeared.