County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 296 Neb. 751

Webster County filed 2016 assessment abstracts; the Property Tax Administrator (Administrator) reviewed sales data and recommended a 9% upward adjustment to the county’s Majority Land Use = Grass subclass to equalize values.
Administrator’s analysis used a 3-year sales study, including some sales from neighboring counties (Adams, Clay, Nuckolls, Franklin, Kearney) because Webster’s in-county sales were insufficient. Three Webster County grassland sales had been disqualified by the local assessor but were nevertheless included by the Administrator.
TERC issued a show-cause order, held a hearing where the county assessor disputed three sales (two Webster sales she had disqualified and one Nuckolls sale with timber cover), and the Administrator’s agricultural specialist explained inclusion criteria and market trends.
After supplemental analyses, TERC voted to raise grassland values by 6% (below the Administrator’s 9% recommendation), bringing Majority Land Use = Grass to 72% and overall agricultural land to 69% of market value.
Webster County appealed, arguing (1) the Administrator’s reports lacked competent evidence because they did not list every sale used, and (2) the assessment division improperly relied on noncomparable out-of-county sales.

Issue	County's Argument	TERC/Administrator's Argument	Held
Whether the Administrator’s annual narrative/statistical reports (without itemizing each sale) are competent evidence to support TERC’s equalization order	§77-5016(4) requires all relied-upon records be part of the record; omission of individual sales made reports insufficient	§77-5027(3) requires sufficient statistical/narrative reporting; itemizing every sale is not required and sales files are available on request	Administrator’s reports are competent evidence without listing each sale; statute does not require itemization
Whether assessment division improperly included noncomparable out-of-county sales (notably a Nuckolls County sale with tree cover)	Some borrowed sales were not comparable (e.g., Nuckolls sale with ~25% timber, not meeting an alleged 80% grass standard)	Assessment division may use comparable sales from similar market areas; timber-over-grass parcels can still be classified as grassland under division rules and Nuckolls reported it as 80% grass	County failed to show lack of comparability; inclusion was permissible under division rules; burden rested on county at show-cause hearing

JQH La Vista Conf. Ctr. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 120, 825 N.W.2d 447 (statutory standard for appellate review of TERC orders)
Brenner v. Banner Cty. Bd. of Equal., 276 Neb. 275, 753 N.W.2d 802 (agency action arbitrary when made in disregard of facts)
Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (questions of law in TERC review are reviewed de novo)
Johnson v. Neth, 276 Neb. 886, 758 N.W.2d 395 (presumption that public officers faithfully perform duties)