Hall County residents and business owners contest steep 2025 assessment increases at Board of Equalization hearing

At a lengthy hearing before the Hall County Board of Equalization, property owners from Grand Island and surrounding areas pressed the board to reduce sharply increased 2025 assessments, arguing the assessor’s office relied on poor comparables and did not sufficiently account for age or condition.

Chris Reid, who said he lives at 2415 Riverview Drive, told the board his home’s assessed value jumped markedly and argued neighborhood sales did not support the change. “I think a lot of properties are over assessed,” Reid said, noting his parcel’s assessed value rose by roughly $87,000, about 21.5 percent. He submitted a packet comparing about 40 nearby sales and urged the board to consider retaining last year’s equalized level plus a simple market percentage rather than the assessor’s proposed figure.

John Albright, who lives on West 12th Street, asked the board to treat his more-than-100-year-old, one-bedroom house differently from newer nearby houses. Albright described knob-and-tube wiring, no wall insulation and a small garage and said he could not understand a roughly $9,000 single-year increase on a property of that age and condition. Board members said condition is a legitimate consideration and agreed a site visit or photos could support an adjustment.

Owners of newly finished medical-condo units told the board their units’ assessments jumped far beyond purchase price and documented finish costs. One presenter said a unit previously assessed at about $573,454 now shows at roughly $1,115,126 — an increase of about $600,000 — and that recent nearby sales (the Hansen Medical building was cited at $950,000) did not make the assessor’s per-square-foot calculations seem equitable for condo units that share walls and common areas.

Board staff and commissioners described the technical basis for values in several cases and, in at least one instance, cited an equalization and market study that supported the assessor’s numbers. “We did an equalization study and a market study,” a board member said during discussion. Still, several members and staff told protestors they would perform targeted follow-ups: run neighborhood-level percentage scenarios, re-check comps, obtain and review documents protestors provided, and arrange site visits when condition or structural issues were cited.

On land-classification questions, staff walked a caller through the county’s approach to valuing acreage — explaining the commonly applied tiered schedule (the board described the county’s approach as treating the first acre at a higher per-acre value, then lower per-acre values for additional acreage) — and offered to email a written breakdown to clarify the calculation.

No binding changes were announced at the hearing. Board members repeatedly invited owners to submit appraisal reports, sales documentation and condition photos; staff said they will compile the materials, revisit each contested parcel’s comparables and return a recommendation at the next meeting or by phone call next week. Protestors were told to call in next Tuesday or Wednesday for updates or to provide additional evidence.

The proceedings illustrated recurring themes in 2025 appeals: owners in lower-price ranges said they bore larger percentage increases than other neighborhoods, older homes raised condition-based questions about comparability, and newly completed commercial units (including condo units with shared common areas) sought clearer per-square-foot treatment. The board closed the session after agreeing to further review and follow up with each protestor.