77-5023.
Commission; power to change value; acceptable range.
(1) Pursuant to section 77-5022, the commission shall have the power to increase or decrease the value of a class or subclass of real property in any county or taxing authority or of real property valued by the state so that all classes or subclasses of real property in all counties fall within an acceptable range.
(2) An acceptable range is the percentage of variation from a standard for valuation as measured by an established indicator of central tendency of assessment. Acceptable ranges are: (a) For agricultural land and horticultural land as defined in section 77-1359, sixty-nine to seventy-five percent of actual value, except that for school district taxes levied to pay the principal and interest on bonds that are approved by a vote of the people on or after January 1, 2022, the acceptable range is forty-four to fifty percent of actual value; (b) for lands receiving special valuation, sixty-nine to seventy-five percent of special valuation as defined in section 77-1343, except that for school district taxes levied to pay the principal and interest on bonds that are approved by a vote of the people on or after January 1, 2022, the acceptable range is forty-four to fifty percent of special valuation as defined in section 77-1343; and (c) for all other real property, ninety-two to one hundred percent of actual value.
(3) Any increase or decrease shall cause the level of value determined by the commission to be at the midpoint of the applicable acceptable range.
(4) Any decrease or increase to a subclass of property shall also cause the level of value determined by the commission for the class from which the subclass is drawn to be within the applicable acceptable range.
(5) Whether or not the level of value determined by the commission falls within an acceptable range or at the midpoint of an acceptable range may be determined to a reasonable degree of certainty relying upon generally accepted mass appraisal techniques.
Source:Laws 1903, c. 73, § 130, p. 434; R.S.1913, § 6447; Laws 1921, c. 133, art. XI, § 4, p. 591; C.S.1922, § 5901; C.S.1929, § 77-1004; Laws 1933, c. 129, § 1, p. 505; C.S.Supp.,1941, § 77-1004; R.S.1943, § 77-506; Laws 1955, c. 289, § 4, p. 918; Laws 1957, c. 323, § 1, p. 1145; Laws 1957, c. 320, § 3, p. 1139; Laws 1979, LB 187, § 193; Laws 1985, LB 268, § 2; Laws 1987, LB 508, § 19; Laws 1992, LB 1063, § 58; Laws 1992, Second Spec. Sess., LB 1, § 56; Laws 1995, LB 137, § 1; R.S.1943, (1996), § 77-506; Laws 1997, LB 397, § 41; Laws 2000, LB 968, § 77; Laws 2001, LB 170, § 23; Laws 2003, LB 291, § 13; Laws 2004, LB 973, § 64; Laws 2006, LB 808, § 44; Laws 2006, LB 968, § 15; Laws 2007, LB167, § 9; Laws 2009, LB166, § 20; Laws 2021, LB2, § 2.
Annotations
1. Powers and duties
2. Modification of valuation
3. Miscellaneous
1. Powers and duties
It is the primary duty of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment to establish uniformity between the various counties. Hanna v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 181 Neb. 725, 150 N.W.2d 878 (1967).
Basic powers and duties of State Board of Equalization and Assessment are set out in this section. Carpenter v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 178 Neb. 611, 134 N.W.2d 272 (1965).
State board has duty to equalize assessments on farm lands between counties. Laflin v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 156 Neb. 427, 56 N.W.2d 469 (1953).
State Board of Equalization is not a board of review with power to correct errors of the county boards of equalization or assessors. Scotts Bluff County v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 143 Neb. 837, 11 N.W.2d 453 (1943).
2. Modification of valuation
Although the State Board of Equalization and Assessment has the power to increase or decrease the actual valuation of a class or subclass of real or personal property of any county or tax district pursuant to this section, it may do so only to change the value of the taxable property of a county in the aggregate so that there will be equalization between counties and centrally assessed property considered in the aggregate. AT&T Information Sys. v. State Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 591, 467 N.W.2d 55 (1991).
Increase or decrease should be by percentage. Fromkin v. State, 158 Neb. 377, 63 N.W.2d 332 (1954).
Pursuant to subsection (1) of this section, the Tax Equalization and Review Commission lacked the authority to create a new market area in a county for the purpose of increasing the overall valuation of the agricultural range in that county so that it fell within the acceptable statutory range. Dodge County Bd. v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 10 Neb. App. 927, 639 N.W.2d 683 (2002).
Pursuant to subsection (2) of this section, the decision of the Tax Equalization and Review Commission to increase the value of all unimproved agricultural property in a county by 5 percent was proper, since the increase resulted in a median level valuation countywide of 77 percent, which is the midpoint of the acceptable range required by statute. Dodge County Bd. v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 10 Neb. App. 927, 639 N.W.2d 683 (2002).
3. Miscellaneous
The procedures for a hearing to show cause why an adjustment should not be made to a county's valuation of a class or subclass of real property are not governed by section 77-5016(4). Instead, the show cause hearing is part of equalization procedures under this section and sections 77-5022 and 77-5026. County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 296 Neb. 751, 896 N.W.2d 887 (2017).
Under this section, locally assessed taxpayers do not have the right to request that the State Board of Equalization and Assessment equalize their individual property, as part of a class or subclass, with a class or subclass or centrally assessed property in other counties. John Day Co. v. Douglas Cty. Bd. of Equal., 243 Neb. 24, 497 N.W.2d 65 (1993); AT&T Information Sys. v. State Bd. of Equal., 237 Neb. 591, 467 N.W.2d 55 (1991).
State board is not required to have before it all of the abstracts of assessment of all counties before commencement of its meetings. County of Howard v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 158 Neb. 339, 63 N.W.2d 441 (1954); County of Grant v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 158 Neb. 310, 63 N.W.2d 459 (1954).
Pursuant to subsection (2) of section 77-5019, except for orders issued by the Nebraska Tax Equalization and Review Commission pursuant to section 77-1504.01 or this section, the commission is not a proper party to a proceeding for judicial review of an order of the commission. Widtfeldt v. Holt Cty. Bd. of Equal., 12 Neb. App. 499, 677 N.W.2d 521 (2004).