2024 REPORTS AND OPINIONS OF THE PROPERTY TAX

2024 REPORTS AND OPINIONS

OF THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR

SARPY COUNTY

April 9, 2024

Commissioner Hotz :

The Property Tax Administrator has compiled the 2024 Reports and Opinions of the Property

Tax Administrator for Sarpy County pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5027. This Report and

Opinion will inform the Tax Equalization and Review Commission of the level of value and

quality of assessment for real property in Sarpy County.

The information contained within the County Reports of the Appendices was provided by the

county assessor pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1514.

For the Tax Commissioner

Sincerely,

Sarah Scott

Property Tax Administrator

402-471-5962

cc: Dan Pittman, Sarpy County Assessor

77 Sarpy Page 2

Table of Contents

2024

Reports and Opinions of the Property Tax Administrator:

Certification to the Commission

Introduction

County Overview

Residential Correlation

Commercial Correlation

Agricultural Land Correlation

Property Tax Administrator’s Opinion

Appendices:

Commission Summary

Statistical Reports and Displays:

Residential Statistics

Commercial Statistics

Chart of Net Sales Compared to Commercial Assessed Value

Agricultural Land Statistics

Table-Average Value of Land Capability Groups

Special Valuation Statistics (if applicable)

Market Area Map

Valuation History Charts

County Reports:

County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property Compared to the Prior Year

Certificate of Taxes Levied (CTL)

Assessor Survey

Three-Year Plan of Assessment

Special Value Methodology (if applicable)

Ad Hoc Reports Submitted by County (if applicable)

77 Sarpy Page 3

Introduction

Pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5027 the Property Tax Administrator (PTA) shall annually prepare

and deliver to each county assessor and to the Tax Equalization and Review Commission

(Commission) the Reports and Opinions (R&O). The R&O contains statistical and narrative

reports informing the Commission of the certified opinion of the PTA regarding the level of value

and the quality of assessment of the classes and subclasses of real property in each county. In

addition, the PTA may make nonbinding recommendations for class or subclass adjustments to be

considered by the Commission.

The statistical and narrative reports in the R&O provide an analysis of the assessment process

implemented by each county to reach the levels of value and quality of assessment required by

Nebraska law. The PTA’s opinion of the level of value and quality of assessment in each county,

is a conclusion based upon all the data provided by the county assessor and information gathered

by the Nebraska Department of Revenue, Property Assessment Division (Division) regarding the

assessment activities in the county during the preceding year.

The statistical reports are developed using the statewide sales file that contains all transactions as

required by Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1327. From this state sales file, a statistical analysis comparing

assessments to sale prices for arm’s-length sales (assessment sales ratio) is prepared. After

analyzing all available information to determine that the sales represent the class or subclass of

real property being measured, inferences are drawn regarding the level of assessment and quality

of assessment of that class or subclass of real property. The statistical reports contained in the R&O

are developed based on standards developed by the International Association of Assessing Officers

(IAAO).

The analysis of assessment practices in each county is necessary to give proper context to the

statistical inferences from the assessment sales ratio studies and the overall quality of assessment

in the county. The assessment practices are evaluated in the county to ensure generally accepted

mass appraisal techniques are used and that those methods will generally produce uniform and

proportionate valuations.

The PTA considers the statistical reports and the analysis of assessment practices when forming

conclusions for both the level of value and quality of assessment. The consideration of both the

statistical indicators and assessment processes used to develop valuations is necessary to accurately

determine the level of value and quality of assessment. Assessment practices that produce a biased

sales file will generally produce a biased statistical indicator, which, on its face, would otherwise

appear to be valid. Likewise, statistics produced on small, unrepresentative, or otherwise unreliable

samples, may indicate issues with assessment uniformity and assessment level; however, a detailed

review of the practices and valuation models may suggest otherwise. For these reasons, the detail

of the PTA’s analysis is presented and contained within the Residential, Commercial, and

Agricultural land correlations of the R&O.

77 Sarpy Page 4

Statistical Analysis:

Before relying upon any calculated statistical measures to evaluate the assessment performance of

the county assessor, the Division teammates must evaluate whether the statistical sample is both

representative of the population and statistically reliable.

A statistically sufficient reliable sample of sales is one in which the features of the sample contain

information necessary to compute an estimate of the population. To determine whether the sample

of sales is sufficient in size to evaluate the class of real property, measures of reliability are

considered, such as the coefficient of dispersion (COD) or the width of the confidence interval.

Generally, the broader the qualitative measures, the more sales will be needed to have reliability in

the ratio study.

A representative sample is a group of sales from a larger population of parcels, such that statistical

indicators calculated from the sample can be expected to reflect the characteristics of the sold and

unsold population being studied. The accuracy of statistics as estimators of the population depends

on the degree to which the sample represents the population.

Since multiple factors affect whether a sample is statistically sufficient, reliable, and representative,

single test thresholds cannot be used to make determinations regarding sample reliability or

representativeness.

For the analysis in determining a point estimate of the level of value, the PTA considers three

measures as indicators of the central tendency of assessment: the median ratio, weighted mean

ratio, and mean ratio. The use and reliability of each measure is based on inherent strengths and

weaknesses which are the quantity and quality of the information from which it was calculated and

the defined scope of the analysis.

The median ratio is considered the most appropriate statistical measure to determine a level of

value for direct equalization, which is the process of adjusting the values of classes or subclasses

of property in response to an unacceptable required level of value. Since the median ratio is

considered neutral in relationship to either assessed value or selling price, adjusting the class or

subclass of properties based upon the median measure will not change the relationships between

assessed value and level of value already present in the class of property. Additionally, the median

ratio is less influenced by the presence of extreme ratios, commonly called outliers, which can

skew the outcome in the other measures.

The weighted mean ratio best reflects a comparison of the fully assessable valuation of a

jurisdiction, by measuring the total assessed values against the total of selling prices. The weighted

mean ratio can be heavily influenced by sales of large-dollar property with extreme ratios.

The mean ratio is used as a basis for other statistical calculations, such as the Price Related

Differential (PRD) and Coefficient of Variation (COV). As a simple average of the ratios, the mean

ratio has limited application in the analysis of the level of value because it assumes a normal

77 Sarpy Page 5

distribution of the data set around the mean ratio with each ratio having the same impact on the

calculation regardless of the assessed value or the selling price.

The quality of assessment relies in part on statistical indicators as well. If the weighted mean ratio,

because of its dollar-weighting feature, is significantly different from the mean ratio, it may be an

indication of disproportionate assessments. Assessments are disproportionate when properties

within a class are assessed at noticeably different levels of market value. The coefficient produced

by this calculation is referred to as the PRD and measures the assessment level of lower-priced

properties relative to the assessment level of higher-priced properties. The PRD range stated in

IAAO standards is 98% to 103%. A perfect match in assessment level between the low-dollar

properties and high-dollar properties indicates a PRD of 100%. The reason for the extended range

on the high end is the recognition by IAAO of the inherent bias in assessment. The IAAO Standard

on Ratio Studies notes that the PRD is sensitive to sales with higher prices even if the ratio on

higher priced sales do not appear unusual relative to other sales, and that small samples, samples

with high dispersion, or extreme ratios may not provide an accurate indication of assessment

regressivity or progressivity, appraisal biases that occur when high-value properties are appraised

higher or lower than low-value properties in relation to market values.

The Coefficient of Dispersion (COD) is a measure also used in the evaluation of assessment

quality. The COD measures the average absolute deviation calculated about the median and is

expressed as a percentage of the median. A COD of 15% indicates that half of the assessment

ratios are expected to fall within 15% of the median. The closer the ratios are grouped around the

median the more equitable the property assessments tend to be.

Nebraska law does not provide for a range of acceptability for the COD or PRD; however, the

IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies establishes the following range of acceptability for the COD:

A COD under 5% indicates that the properties in the sample are either unusually homogenous, or

possibly indicative of a non-representative sample due to the selective reappraisal of sold parcels.

The IAAO utilizes varying upper bounds for the COD range to recognize that sample size, property

type, variation of property ages and market conditions directly impact the COD. This chart and the

analyses of factors impacting the COD are considered to determine whether the calculated COD

is within an acceptable range. The reliability of the COD can also be directly affected by extreme

ratios.

77 Sarpy Page 6

The confidence interval is another measure used to evaluate the reliability of the statistical

indicators. The PTA primarily relies upon the median confidence interval, although the mean and

weighted mean confidence intervals are calculated as well. While there are no formal standards

regarding the acceptable width of such measure, the range established is often useful in

determining the range in which the true level of value is expected to exist. Pursuant to Neb. Rev.

Stat. §77-5023, the acceptable range is 69% to 75% of actual value for agricultural land, except

for taxes levied to pay school bonds passed after January 12, 2022 for which the acceptable range

is 44% to 50% of actual value. For all other classes of real property, the acceptable range is 92%

to 100% of actual value.

Analysis of Assessment Practices:

A review of the assessment practices that ultimately affect the valuation of real property in each

county is completed. This review is done to ensure the reliability of the statistical analysis and to

ensure generally accepted mass appraisal techniques are used to establish uniform and

proportionate valuations. The review of assessment practices is based on information provided by

the county assessors in Assessment Surveys and Assessed Value Updates (AVU), along with

observed assessment practices in the county.

To ensure county assessors are submitting all Real Estate Transfer Statements, required for the

development of the state sales file pursuant to Neb. Rev. Stat. §77-1327, a random sample from

the county registers of deeds’ records is audited to confirm that the required sales have been

submitted and reflect accurate information. The timeliness of the submission is also reviewed to

ensure the sales file allows analysis of up-to-date information. The sales verification and

qualification procedures used by the county assessors are reviewed to ensure that sales are properly

considered arm’s-length transactions unless determined to be otherwise through the verification

process. Proper sales verification practices ensure the statistical analysis is based on an unbiased

sample of sales.

Comparison of valuation changes on sold and unsold properties is conducted to ensure that there

is no bias in the assessment of sold parcels and that the sales file adequately represents the

population of parcels in the county.

Valuation groups and market areas are also examined to identify whether the groups and areas

being measured truly represent economic areas within the county. The measurement of economic

areas is the method by which the PTA ensures intra-county equalization exists. The progress of

the county assessor’s six-year inspection and review cycle is documented to ensure compliance

with Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-1311.03 and also to confirm that all property is being uniformly listed

and described for valuation purposes.

Valuation methodologies developed by the county assessor are reviewed for both appraisal logic

and to ensure compliance with generally accepted mass appraisal techniques. Methods and sales

used to develop lot values, agricultural outbuildings, and agricultural site values are also reviewed

to ensure the land component of the valuation process is based on the local market and economic

area.

77 Sarpy Page 7

Compliance with statutory reporting requirements is also a component of the assessment practices

review. Late, incomplete, or excessive errors in statutory reports can be problematic for property

owners, county officials, the Division, the Commission, and others. The late, incomplete, or

excessive errors in statutory reporting highlights potential issues in other areas of the assessment

process. Public trust in the assessment process demands transparency, and assessment practices

are reviewed to ensure taxpayers are served with such transparency.

Comprehensive review of assessment practices in each county is conducted throughout the year.

When practical, if potential issues are identified, they are presented to the county assessor for

clarification and correction, if necessary. The county assessor can then work to implement

corrective measures prior to establishing assessed values. The PTA’s conclusion that assessment

quality either meets or does not meet generally accepted mass appraisal techniques is based on the

totality of the assessment practices in the county.

*Further information may be found in Exhibit 94

77 Sarpy Page 8

County Overview

With a total area of 239 square miles, Sarpy

County has 196,553 residents, per the Census

Bureau Quick Facts for 2024, a 3% population

increase over the 2023 U.S. Census. Reports

indicate that 70% of county residents are

homeowners and 87% of residents occupy the

same residence as in the prior year (Census Quick

Facts). The average home value is $283,419 (2023 Average Residential Value, Neb. Rev. Stat. §

77-3506.02).

The majority of the commercial

properties in Sarpy County are

evenly disbursed around the

county. According to the latest

information available from the

U.S. Census Bureau, there were

3,914 employer establishments

with total employment of

59,064, for a 1% increase in

employment.

While the majority of Sarpy

County’s value comes from

sources other than agriculture,

an agricultural presence is felt

in the county. Dryland makes

up the majority of the land in

the county. Sarpy County is

included in the Papio-Missouri

River Natural Resources

District (NRD).

2013 2023 Change

BELLEVUE 51,159 64,989 27.0%

GRETNA 4,905 9,323 90.1%

LA VISTA 16,638 16,746 0.6%

PAPILLION 19,143 25,407 32.7%

SPRINGFIELD 1,529 1,501 -1.8%

CITY POPULATION CHANGE

NE Dept. of Revenue, Research Division 2023

RESI DENTI AL

72%

COMMERCIAL

27%

OTHER

IRRIGATED

DRYLAND

GRASSLAND

WASTELAND

AGLAND-

OTHER

County Value Breakdown

2023 Certificate of Ta xes Levi ed

77 Sarpy Page 9

2024 Residential Correlation for Sarpy County

Assessment Actions

A little over 12,300 residential parcels were physically reviewed. Models were adjusted to fall

within the acceptable range. The pick-up work was completed in a timely manner.

Assessment Practice Review

As explained in the Introduction of this Report and Opinion, the assessment practices were

reviewed to determine compliance with all assessment requirements and to ensure that all data

submitted to the State sales file was timely and accurate.

The sales usability rate for the residential class is slightly above the state average usability rate. A

review of the sales roster shows an adequate reason for disqualification and that all arm’s-length

transactions were made available for measurement.

There are eight valuation groups in Sarpy County based on geographical location. One-sixth of the

residential parcels are reviewed each year to remain in compliance with the six-year inspection

and review cycle, dates of inspection range from 2018-2023. Costing and depreciation tables are

dated 2021. Land value studies were completed in 2023.

The county assessor does not have a written methodology, but their website has detailed

information on how values are set and the assessment process.

Description of Analysis

There are eight valuation groups in Sarpy County within the residential class.

Valuation Group

Description

Bellevue

Gretna

Millard

Papillion

Springfield

La Vista

Recreational/Lake Area

Rural Sarpy

77 Sarpy Page 10

2024 Residential Correlation for Sarpy County

The statistical sample for the residential class consists of 6,988 qualified sales. All three measures

of central tendency are within the acceptable range. The qualitative statistics are both within the

IAAO acceptable range.

All valuation groups have measures of central tendency and qualitative statistics within the

acceptable range.

Review of the 2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45 Compared with

the 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied Report (CTL) supports that the values were uniformly applied

to the residential class of property.

Equalization and Quality of Assessment

A review of the statistics and the assessment practices suggest that the assessments within the

county are valued within the acceptable range, and therefore are equalized. The quality of the

assessment of the residential property in Sarpy County complies with generally accepted mass

appraisal techniques.

Level of Value

Based on analysis of all available information, the level of value for the residential property in

Sarpy County is 96%.

77 Sarpy Page 11

2024 Commercial Correlation for Sarpy County

Assessment Actions

For the commercial class reviews are completed by occupancy code. The occupancy codes

physically reviewed for the 2024 assessment year were Independent Living, Super Markets,

Theaters and Auto Dealerships costing, depreciation and land tables were also updated. Sales

analysis was completed on the remaining occupancy codes and appraisal models were adjusted

to bring them into acceptable range. The pick-up work was also completed in a timely manner.

Assessment Practice Review

As explained in the Introduction of this Report and Opinion, the assessment practices were

reviewed to determine compliance with all assessment requirements and to ensure that all data

submitted to the State sales file was timely and accurate.

The sales usability for the commercial class was near the state average usability. A review of the

sales roster shows an adequate reason for disqualification and that all arm’s-length transactions

were made available for measurement.

Sarpy County only utilizes one valuation group as they rely more on occupancy codes for

reviews and valuation. The Sarpy County Assessor is behind on the six-year inspection and

review cycle due to time and lack of staffing, with inspection dates ranging from 2013 to 2024.

The county assessor has made some progress towards bringing the inspections into compliance.

The county assessor has devised a plan to correct this, due to low staffing levels an attempt is

being made to bring the inspections into compliance for 2025 however an additional year may be

needed. Costing tables and depreciation tables are updated as the occupancy code is reviewed

with dates ranging from 2013 to 2021. Land values are updated for the occupancy code as it is

reviewed with dates ranging from 2013 to 2024.

Description of Analysis

The statistical sample for the commercial class consists of 178 qualified sales. The median is

within the acceptable range while the mean and weighted mean are low. The qualitative statistics

are both within the IAAO standard range.

All occupancy codes with sufficient sales and all property types have medians within the

acceptable range.

Review of the 2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45 Compared with

the 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied Report (CTL) supports that the values were uniformly

applied to the commercial class of property.

77 Sarpy Page 12

2024 Commercial Correlation for Sarpy County

Equalization and Quality of Assessment

A review of the statistics and the assessment practices suggest that the assessments within the

county are valued within the acceptable range, and therefore are equalized. Although the county

has fallen behind on the inspection and review cycle, properties have been annually adjusted to

the appropriate level of market value, ensuring equalization. The quality of the assessment of the

commercial property in Sarpy County complies with generally accepted mass appraisal

techniques.

Level of Value

Based on analysis of all available information, the level of value for the commercial property in

Sarpy County is 93%.

77 Sarpy Page 13

2024 Agricultural Correlation for Sarpy County

Assessment Actions

A physical review was completed on part of GEO codes 2353 and 2975 and all of neighborhood

FRMF. A sales analysis was completed on the agricultural land which resulted in 4% increase to

irrigated land, 11% increase to dryland, and a 2% increase to grassland.

Assessment Practice Review

As explained in the Introduction of this Report and Opinion, the assessment practices were

reviewed to determine compliance with all assessment requirements and to ensure that all data

submitted to the State sales file was timely and accurate.

All agricultural land in Sarpy County is all subject to residential and commercial influence, so

the Sarpy County sales are neither used to value or measure agricultural land within the county.

There are ten market areas used to identify and establish fully influenced market value.

Uninfluenced values are established using sales from comparable sales in uninfluenced markets

in surrounding counties.

Land use is looked at and changed if needed as the parcels are reviewed within the six-year

inspection and review cycle. Agricultural homes and outbuildings are valued using the same

process as the rural residential, with costing and depreciation tables dated 2021.

There is not enough market data available to conduct a credible study of intensive use.

Government programs have been identified within the county and are entered as information

becomes available.

Description of Analysis

The statistical profile for the agricultural class indicates that 114 qualified sales were available

for the measurement of special values. All sales come from comparable, uninfluenced areas

outside of Sarpy County including Burt, Cass, Dodge, Otoe, and Saunders counties. The median

and mean are within the acceptable range, while the weighted mean is low. The COD is within

the IAAO standard range.

Review of the 80% Majority Land Use (MLU) subclass indicates that only dryland has a

sufficient number of sales and has a median within the acceptable range. Review of the irrigated

land, dryland and grassland in all areas compared to the surrounding counties indicates that

Sarpy County values are comparable with surrounding counties.

Review of the 2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45 Compared with

the 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied Report (CTL) supports that the values were uniformly

applied to the agricultural class of property.

Sarpy County has a school bond subject to a 50% assessment pursuant to LB2. There are no

qualified sales within the school district to use to estimate the level of value of parcels subject to

77 Sarpy Page 14

2024 Agricultural Correlation for Sarpy County

the bond assessment. Review of assessed values in the county does support that valuations were

reduced as required.

Equalization and Quality of Assessment

Agricultural homes and outbuildings have been valued using the same valuation process as rural

residential improvements and are equalized at the statutorily required level. Agricultural land

values are equalized at uniform portions of market value; all values have been determined to be

acceptable and are reasonably comparable to adjoining counties. The quality of the assessment of

the agricultural land in Sarpy County complies with generally accepted mass appraisal

techniques.

Special Value Level of Value

Based on analysis of all available information, the level of value for special valuation of

agricultural land in Sarpy County is 71%.

Level of Value of School Bond Valuation – LB 2 (Operative January 1, 2022)

A review of agricultural land value in Sarpy County in school districts that levy taxes to pay the

principal or interest on bonds approved by a vote of the people, indicates that the assessed values

used were proportionately reduced from all other agricultural land values in the county by a

factor of 33%. Therefore, it is the opinion of the Property Tax Administrator that the level of

value of agricultural land for school bond valuation in Sarpy County is 50%.

77 Sarpy Page 15

2024 Opinions of the Property Tax Administrator

for Sarpy County

My opinions and recommendations are stated as a conclusion based on all of the factors known to me regarding

the assessment practices and statistical analysis for this county. See, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 77-5027 (R.R.S. 2011).

While the median assessment sales ratio from the Qualified Statistical Reports for each class of real property is

considered, my opinion of the level of value for a class of real property may be determined from other evidence

contained within these Reports and Opinions of the Property Tax Administrator. My opinion of quality of

assessment for a class of real property may be influenced by the assessment practices of the county assessor.

Residential Real

Property

Commercial Real

Property

Class Level of Value

Quality of Assessment

Meets generally accepted mass appraisal

techniques.

Meets generally accepted mass appraisal

techniques.

No recommendation.

Non-binding recommendation

No recommendation.

Meets generally accepted mass appraisal

techniques.

No recommendation.

Special Valuation of

Agricultural Land

School Bond Value

Agricultural Land

50 Meets generally accepted mass appraisal

techniques.

No recommendation.

**A level of value displayed as NEI (not enough information) represents a class of property with insufficient

information to determine a level of value.

Dated this 9th day of April, 2024.

Sarah Scott

Property Tax Administrator

77 Sarpy Page 16

Appendices

APPENDICES

77 Sarpy Page 17

2024 Commission Summary

for Sarpy County

Residential Real Property - Current

Number of Sales

Total Sales Price

Total Adj. Sales Price

Total Assessed Value

Avg. Adj. Sales Price Avg. Assessed Value

Median

Wgt. Mean

Mean

95% Median C.I

95% Wgt. Mean C.I

95% Mean C.I

95.49 to 95.85

95.41 to 95.78

95.81 to 96.29

% of Value of the Class of all Real Property Value in the County

% of Records Sold in the Study Period

% of Value Sold in the Study Period

Average Assessed Value of the Base

71.50

10.22

12.73

$278,706

Residential Real Property - History

Year Number of Sales LOV

Confidence Interval - Current

Median

6988

96.05

95.68

95.59

$2,538,534,060

$2,426,675,107

$363,270 $347,263

2023

2020

2021

96 96.01 7,362

96 96.09 7,342

2022

96 7,893 96.15

7,629 96.08 96

77 Sarpy Page 18

2024 Commission Summary

for Sarpy County

Commercial Real Property - Current

Number of Sales

Total Sales Price

Total Adj. Sales Price

Total Assessed Value

Avg. Adj. Sales Price Avg. Assessed Value

Median

Wgt. Mean

Mean

95% Median C.I

95% Wgt. Mean C.I

95% Mean C.I

% of Value of the Class of all Real Property Value in the County

% of Records Sold in the Study Period

% of Value Sold in the Study Period

Average Assessed Value of the Base

Commercial Real Property - History

Year Number of Sales LOV

178

92.04 to 94.36

85.19 to 90.96

88.10 to 93.26

25.70

5.27

5.51

$2,028,659

Confidence Interval - Current

Median

$428,494,083

$377,386,855

$2,407,270 $2,120,151

90.68

93.27

88.07

2023

2020

2021

94 94.47 139

144 93.45 93

2022

167 93.31 93

173 94.36 94

77 Sarpy Page 19

Number of Sales :

Total Sales Price :

Total Adj. Sales Price :

Total Assessed Value :

Avg. Adj. Sales Price :

Avg. Assessed Value :

MEDIAN :

WGT. MEAN :

MEAN :

COD :

PRD :

COV :

STD :

Avg. Abs. Dev :

MAX Sales Ratio :

MIN Sales Ratio :

95% Median C.I. :

95% Wgt. Mean C.I. :

95% Mean C.I. :

6,988

2,538,534,060

2,426,675,107

363,270

347,263

06.36

100.48

10.75

10.33

06.09

643.41

36.41

95.49 to 95.85

95.41 to 95.78

95.81 to 96.29

Printed:4/5/2024 3:35:25PM

Qualified

PAD 2024 R&O Statistics (Using 2024 Values)

Sarpy77

Date Range: 10/1/2021 To 9/30/2023 Posted on: 1/31/2024

RESIDENTIAL

Page 1 of 2

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

DATE OF SALE *

_____Qrtrs_____

01-OCT-21 To 31-DEC-21

1,003 103.44 103.90 103.48 05.92 100.41 84.83 134.14 102.85 to 103.99 318,736 329,815

01-JAN-22 To 31-MAR-22

688 98.20 99.27 99.05 06.26 100.22 76.95 129.33 97.49 to 98.97 349,847 346,535

01-APR-22 To 30-JUN-22

1,114 95.51 95.64 95.41 05.61 100.24 69.23 119.46 95.01 to 95.87 363,605 346,920

01-JUL-22 To 30-SEP-22

1,016 96.08 96.43 95.68 05.66 100.78 67.49 643.41 95.74 to 96.31 360,575 344,992

01-OCT-22 To 31-DEC-22

701 95.73 95.43 94.99 05.25 100.46 51.27 125.56 95.14 to 96.04 365,191 346,884

01-JAN-23 To 31-MAR-23

571 94.29 93.92 93.84 04.92 100.09 68.99 110.62 93.59 to 94.65 379,486 356,112

01-APR-23 To 30-JUN-23

998 91.88 91.46 91.63 05.46 99.81 37.01 124.13 91.38 to 92.17 387,859 355,411

01-JUL-23 To 30-SEP-23

897 91.97 91.85 92.01 05.31 99.83 36.41 127.33 91.51 to 92.41 386,821 355,929

_____Study Yrs_____

01-OCT-21 To 30-SEP-22

3,821 97.63 98.67 98.08 06.46 100.60 67.49 643.41 97.38 to 97.95 348,544 341,848

01-OCT-22 To 30-SEP-23

3,167 93.02 92.89 92.85 05.48 100.04 36.41 127.33 92.79 to 93.27 381,038 353,796

_____Calendar Yrs_____

01-JAN-22 To 31-DEC-22

3,519 96.09 96.54 96.09 05.76 100.47 51.27 643.41 95.95 to 96.26 360,356 346,281

_____ALL_____

6,988 95.68 96.05 95.59 06.36 100.48 36.41 643.41 95.49 to 95.85 363,270 347,263

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

VALUATION GROUP

2,194 95.51 95.71 95.34 06.80 100.39 66.78 134.14 95.15 to 95.77 290,782 277,222

1,312 96.12 96.55 96.07 05.81 100.50 75.78 128.63 95.76 to 96.36 461,990 443,840

982 96.12 97.24 96.96 06.56 100.29 72.76 129.33 95.90 to 96.40 316,673 307,051

1,955 95.16 95.47 95.09 05.78 100.40 67.49 126.18 94.76 to 95.65 410,026 389,889

97 94.84 95.10 94.87 06.34 100.24 74.35 123.64 93.10 to 96.67 358,790 340,380

369 95.55 95.82 95.33 05.89 100.51 76.14 127.58 94.91 to 96.14 286,925 273,539

44 94.51 103.90 93.60 23.80 111.00 36.41 643.41 90.19 to 99.21 412,186 385,813

35 93.32 93.00 93.08 08.14 99.91 68.99 121.41 87.99 to 96.17 658,286 612,730

_____ALL_____

6,988 95.68 96.05 95.59 06.36 100.48 36.41 643.41 95.49 to 95.85 363,270 347,263

77 Sarpy Page 20

Number of Sales :

Total Sales Price :

Total Adj. Sales Price :

Total Assessed Value :

Avg. Adj. Sales Price :

Avg. Assessed Value :

MEDIAN :

WGT. MEAN :

MEAN :

COD :

PRD :

COV :

STD :

Avg. Abs. Dev :

MAX Sales Ratio :

MIN Sales Ratio :

95% Median C.I. :

95% Wgt. Mean C.I. :

95% Mean C.I. :

6,988

2,538,534,060

2,426,675,107

363,270

347,263

06.36

100.48

10.75

10.33

06.09

643.41

36.41

95.49 to 95.85

95.41 to 95.78

95.81 to 96.29

Printed:4/5/2024 3:35:25PM

Qualified

PAD 2024 R&O Statistics (Using 2024 Values)

Sarpy77

Date Range: 10/1/2021 To 9/30/2023 Posted on: 1/31/2024

RESIDENTIAL

Page 2 of 2

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

PROPERTY TYPE *

6,983 95.68 95.98 95.59 06.27 100.41 37.01 134.14 95.49 to 95.85 363,492 347,480

4 97.44 218.68 81.89 159.78 267.04 36.41 643.41 N/A 48,525 39,738

1 84.07 84.07 84.07 00.00 100.00 84.07 84.07 N/A 73,500 61,790

_____ALL_____

6,988 95.68 96.05 95.59 06.36 100.48 36.41 643.41 95.49 to 95.85 363,270 347,263

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

SALE PRICE *

_____Low $ Ranges_____

Less Than 5,000

1 643.41 643.41 643.41 00.00 100.00 643.41 643.41 N/A 4,100 26,380

Less Than 15,000

1 643.41 643.41 643.41 00.00 100.00 643.41 643.41 N/A 4,100 26,380

Less Than 30,000

1 643.41 643.41 643.41 00.00 100.00 643.41 643.41 N/A 4,100 26,380

__Ranges Excl. Low $__

Greater Than 4,999

6,987 95.68 95.97 95.59 06.28 100.40 36.41 134.14 95.49 to 95.85 363,322 347,309

Greater Than 14,999

6,987 95.68 95.97 95.59 06.28 100.40 36.41 134.14 95.49 to 95.85 363,322 347,309

Greater Than 29,999

6,987 95.68 95.97 95.59 06.28 100.40 36.41 134.14 95.49 to 95.85 363,322 347,309

__Incremental Ranges__

0 TO 4,999

1 643.41 643.41 643.41 00.00 100.00 643.41 643.41 N/A 4,100 26,380

5,000 TO 14,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

15,000 TO 29,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

30,000 TO 59,999

3 97.98 99.10 100.67 06.87 98.44 89.57 109.75 N/A 50,999 51,342

60,000 TO 99,999

6 102.99 94.14 94.45 19.83 99.67 36.41 119.95 36.41 to 119.95 85,833 81,066

100,000 TO 149,999

85 99.77 100.48 100.41 09.72 100.07 51.27 126.27 96.81 to 104.66 132,288 132,829

150,000 TO 249,999

1,283 97.21 97.72 97.60 07.61 100.12 37.01 134.14 96.68 to 97.75 211,611 206,524

250,000 TO 499,999

4,645 95.49 95.82 95.88 05.89 99.94 69.23 128.63 95.32 to 95.69 357,220 342,520

500,000 TO 999,999

946 94.02 94.00 93.84 05.55 100.17 75.15 115.89 93.39 to 94.68 604,549 567,284

1,000,000 +

19 92.51 92.77 92.33 04.46 100.48 82.04 105.19 90.46 to 96.35 1,259,435 1,162,774

_____ALL_____

6,988 95.68 96.05 95.59 06.36 100.48 36.41 643.41 95.49 to 95.85 363,270 347,263

77 Sarpy Page 21

Number of Sales :

Total Sales Price :

Total Adj. Sales Price :

Total Assessed Value :

Avg. Adj. Sales Price :

Avg. Assessed Value :

MEDIAN :

WGT. MEAN :

MEAN :

COD :

PRD :

COV :

STD :

Avg. Abs. Dev :

MAX Sales Ratio :

MIN Sales Ratio :

95% Median C.I. :

95% Wgt. Mean C.I. :

95% Mean C.I. :

178

428,494,083

377,386,855

2,407,270

2,120,151

12.61

102.96

19.33

17.53

11.76

175.52

38.56

92.04 to 94.36

85.19 to 90.96

88.10 to 93.26

Printed:4/5/2024 3:35:27PM

Qualified

PAD 2024 R&O Statistics (Using 2024 Values)

Sarpy77

Date Range: 10/1/2020 To 9/30/2023 Posted on: 1/31/2024

COMMERCIAL

Page 1 of 3

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

DATE OF SALE *

_____Qrtrs_____

01-OCT-20 To 31-DEC-20

9 98.15 97.34 97.14 08.87 100.21 77.17 125.65 81.91 to 102.09 1,779,067 1,728,215

01-JAN-21 To 31-MAR-21

12 93.77 97.53 94.81 08.19 102.87 83.79 131.17 89.58 to 100.19 3,149,542 2,986,131

01-APR-21 To 30-JUN-21

23 98.80 99.47 97.12 08.86 102.42 69.28 132.27 95.35 to 101.63 2,025,870 1,967,433

01-JUL-21 To 30-SEP-21

16 94.46 94.57 91.86 10.27 102.95 68.18 139.73 84.89 to 98.94 1,392,688 1,279,314

01-OCT-21 To 31-DEC-21

27 93.27 89.86 88.61 08.91 101.41 51.56 109.82 85.73 to 96.68 3,248,776 2,878,624

01-JAN-22 To 31-MAR-22

16 93.05 97.61 89.81 10.46 108.69 80.88 130.49 86.36 to 105.27 1,579,287 1,418,392

01-APR-22 To 30-JUN-22

21 93.17 93.27 91.93 07.81 101.46 62.85 124.95 88.97 to 96.86 2,300,595 2,114,917

01-JUL-22 To 30-SEP-22

9 77.71 76.60 82.03 19.48 93.38 42.96 96.02 47.07 to 94.13 2,367,855 1,942,441

01-OCT-22 To 31-DEC-22

11 83.70 87.81 84.93 25.97 103.39 48.80 175.52 58.57 to 100.59 2,075,361 1,762,698

01-JAN-23 To 31-MAR-23

11 83.49 83.95 81.01 11.51 103.63 66.09 99.54 73.91 to 98.51 1,548,403 1,254,399

01-APR-23 To 30-JUN-23

10 81.17 79.04 83.46 17.93 94.70 54.48 107.89 58.24 to 95.46 4,383,736 3,658,605

01-JUL-23 To 30-SEP-23

13 76.47 75.24 71.37 19.68 105.42 38.56 97.91 57.10 to 93.90 3,038,653 2,168,684

_____Study Yrs_____

01-OCT-20 To 30-SEP-21

60 96.66 97.46 95.45 09.52 102.11 68.18 139.73 93.78 to 99.36 2,044,735 1,951,792

01-OCT-21 To 30-SEP-22

73 93.09 90.90 88.89 10.16 102.26 42.96 130.49 90.39 to 94.21 2,501,489 2,223,457

01-OCT-22 To 30-SEP-23

45 80.38 81.28 79.52 19.43 102.21 38.56 175.52 73.91 to 91.74 2,737,806 2,177,045

_____Calendar Yrs_____

01-JAN-21 To 31-DEC-21

78 95.35 94.84 92.23 09.47 102.83 51.56 139.73 93.27 to 96.85 2,492,172 2,298,416

01-JAN-22 To 31-DEC-22

57 92.84 90.80 88.33 13.54 102.80 42.96 175.52 88.97 to 94.13 2,065,276 1,824,196

_____ALL_____

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

VALUATION GROUP

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

_____ALL_____

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

PROPERTY TYPE *

30 92.18 92.45 87.41 11.16 105.77 71.40 139.73 84.42 to 95.35 2,924,583 2,556,254

89 93.27 91.67 90.55 12.03 101.24 42.96 131.17 91.85 to 95.09 1,942,303 1,758,835

59 93.75 88.29 85.87 14.19 102.82 38.56 175.52 89.67 to 96.46 2,845,621 2,443,440

_____ALL_____

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

77 Sarpy Page 22

Number of Sales :

Total Sales Price :

Total Adj. Sales Price :

Total Assessed Value :

Avg. Adj. Sales Price :

Avg. Assessed Value :

MEDIAN :

WGT. MEAN :

MEAN :

COD :

PRD :

COV :

STD :

Avg. Abs. Dev :

MAX Sales Ratio :

MIN Sales Ratio :

95% Median C.I. :

95% Wgt. Mean C.I. :

95% Mean C.I. :

178

428,494,083

377,386,855

2,407,270

2,120,151

12.61

102.96

19.33

17.53

11.76

175.52

38.56

92.04 to 94.36

85.19 to 90.96

88.10 to 93.26

Printed:4/5/2024 3:35:27PM

Qualified

PAD 2024 R&O Statistics (Using 2024 Values)

Sarpy77

Date Range: 10/1/2020 To 9/30/2023 Posted on: 1/31/2024

COMMERCIAL

Page 2 of 3

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

SALE PRICE *

_____Low $ Ranges_____

Less Than 5,000

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

Less Than 15,000

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

Less Than 30,000

1 95.46 95.46 95.46 00.00 100.00 95.46 95.46 N/A 23,655 22,580

__Ranges Excl. Low $__

Greater Than 4,999

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

Greater Than 14,999

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

Greater Than 29,999

177 93.26 90.65 88.07 12.67 102.93 38.56 175.52 91.94 to 94.36 2,420,737 2,132,002

__Incremental Ranges__

0 TO 4,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

5,000 TO 14,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

15,000 TO 29,999

1 95.46 95.46 95.46 00.00 100.00 95.46 95.46 N/A 23,655 22,580

30,000 TO 59,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

60,000 TO 99,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

100,000 TO 149,999

0 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 00.00 N/A 0 0

150,000 TO 249,999

10 95.64 100.96 99.98 26.46 100.98 47.07 175.52 51.56 to 132.27 185,200 185,161

250,000 TO 499,999

43 92.48 91.04 90.81 10.86 100.25 48.80 130.12 89.67 to 94.91 352,349 319,951

500,000 TO 999,999

24 94.49 92.48 93.38 11.66 99.04 54.48 130.49 83.70 to 99.36 717,626 670,085

1,000,000 TO 1,999,999

43 92.84 89.41 89.61 13.15 99.78 42.96 139.73 85.41 to 96.46 1,407,672 1,261,346

2,000,000 TO 4,999,999

37 93.78 89.51 87.64 12.41 102.13 38.56 131.17 91.09 to 96.13 3,042,000 2,666,030

5,000,000 TO 9,999,999

13 94.21 87.05 87.76 10.44 99.19 54.78 100.00 77.43 to 96.94 6,824,730 5,989,385

10,000,000 +

7 89.11 87.69 86.78 06.04 101.05 77.71 97.91 77.71 to 97.91 18,919,857 16,418,540

_____ALL_____

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

77 Sarpy Page 23

Number of Sales :

Total Sales Price :

Total Adj. Sales Price :

Total Assessed Value :

Avg. Adj. Sales Price :

Avg. Assessed Value :

MEDIAN :

WGT. MEAN :

MEAN :

COD :

PRD :

COV :

STD :

Avg. Abs. Dev :

MAX Sales Ratio :

MIN Sales Ratio :

95% Median C.I. :

95% Wgt. Mean C.I. :

95% Mean C.I. :

178

428,494,083

377,386,855

2,407,270

2,120,151

12.61

102.96

19.33

17.53

11.76

175.52

38.56

92.04 to 94.36

85.19 to 90.96

88.10 to 93.26

Printed:4/5/2024 3:35:27PM

Qualified

PAD 2024 R&O Statistics (Using 2024 Values)

Sarpy77

Date Range: 10/1/2020 To 9/30/2023 Posted on: 1/31/2024

COMMERCIAL

Page 3 of 3

Avg. Adj.

RANGE

Assd. ValSale Price95%_Median_C.I.MAXMINPRDCODWGT.MEANMEANMEDIANCOUNT

Avg.

OCCUPANCY CODE

297

2 92.95 92.95 92.82 00.91 100.14 92.10 93.79 N/A 473,195 439,200

304

2 100.71 100.71 94.43 24.07 106.65 76.47 124.95 N/A 1,350,000 1,274,748

313

1 54.78 54.78 54.78 00.00 100.00 54.78 54.78 N/A 6,391,494 3,501,220

341

3 78.61 71.14 75.71 20.74 93.96 42.96 91.85 N/A 1,363,233 1,032,164

343

2 96.36 96.36 96.44 03.31 99.92 93.17 99.54 N/A 1,989,500 1,918,769

344

27 92.48 91.21 88.43 12.07 103.14 47.07 130.12 88.57 to 100.00 2,366,444 2,092,663

349

2 81.07 81.07 68.77 17.76 117.89 66.67 95.46 N/A 161,828 111,290

350

1 86.36 86.36 86.36 00.00 100.00 86.36 86.36 N/A 2,100,000 1,813,470

352

31 92.62 92.76 87.48 11.09 106.04 71.40 139.73 84.42 to 95.66 2,845,000 2,488,860

353

5 92.04 87.57 84.25 19.58 103.94 51.56 125.65 N/A 289,000 243,493

384

1 91.57 91.57 91.57 00.00 100.00 91.57 91.57 N/A 300,000 274,699

386

4 94.45 90.54 94.09 08.48 96.23 74.67 98.57 N/A 1,009,033 949,386

387

1 66.09 66.09 66.09 00.00 100.00 66.09 66.09 N/A 4,200,000 2,775,662

406

23 93.75 86.81 79.60 22.84 109.06 38.56 175.52 68.18 to 98.15 1,759,630 1,400,630

407

5 92.15 93.28 92.10 03.00 101.28 89.11 97.91 N/A 13,257,800 12,210,207

410

1 93.09 93.09 93.09 00.00 100.00 93.09 93.09 N/A 3,100,000 2,885,943

412

12 95.28 96.02 93.75 12.50 102.42 68.69 130.49 85.41 to 104.25 2,375,725 2,227,343

419

4 100.37 99.89 99.84 02.98 100.05 93.65 105.18 N/A 1,160,367 1,158,484

426

1 83.70 83.70 83.70 00.00 100.00 83.70 83.70 N/A 500,000 418,512

442

1 101.17 101.17 101.17 00.00 100.00 101.17 101.17 N/A 180,000 182,100

444

2 93.70 93.70 93.90 00.47 99.79 93.26 94.13 N/A 645,000 605,656

446

2 96.41 96.41 96.74 01.26 99.66 95.20 97.61 N/A 5,500,000 5,320,460

451

1 115.19 115.19 115.19 00.00 100.00 115.19 115.19 N/A 2,002,000 2,306,157

453

18 93.22 88.04 85.63 09.19 102.81 57.10 101.63 84.79 to 96.46 2,200,197 1,884,038

455

2 93.22 93.22 93.94 03.90 99.23 89.58 96.86 N/A 1,920,000 1,803,680

470

3 89.67 87.87 89.74 07.34 97.92 77.10 96.85 N/A 467,667 419,666

490

1 94.85 94.85 94.85 00.00 100.00 94.85 94.85 N/A 650,000 616,544

494

5 99.04 94.04 88.63 05.67 106.10 74.88 100.19 N/A 1,441,900 1,277,955

528

9 92.05 85.37 78.59 12.43 108.63 66.05 100.19 67.74 to 98.94 1,321,889 1,038,817

531

1 92.78 92.78 92.78 00.00 100.00 92.78 92.78 N/A 150,000 139,167

594

4 95.12 99.71 95.42 14.60 104.50 77.43 131.17 N/A 5,182,500 4,945,241

851

1 100.43 100.43 100.43 00.00 100.00 100.43 100.43 N/A 2,428,000 2,438,356

_____ALL_____

178 93.27 90.68 88.07 12.61 102.96 38.56 175.52 92.04 to 94.36 2,407,270 2,120,151

77 Sarpy Page 24

Tax Growth % Growth Value Ann.%chg Net Taxable % Chg Net

Year Value Value of Value Exclud. Growth w/o grwth Sales Value Tax. Sales

2012 2,613,727,280$ 35,840,888$ 1.37% 2,577,886,392$ 1,316,902,534$

2013 2,659,770,921$ 44,359,727$ 1.67% 2,615,411,194$ 0.06% 1,440,611,314$ 9.39%

2014 2,681,265,360$ 59,860,679$ 2.23% 2,621,404,681$ -1.44% 1,566,802,225$ 8.76%

2015 2,906,139,280$ 94,168,827$ 3.24% 2,811,970,453$ 4.87% 1,691,615,901$ 7.97%

2016 3,128,766,492$ 127,302,828$ 4.07% 3,001,463,664$ 3.28% 1,743,450,920$ 3.06%

2017 3,440,327,629$ 114,307,546$ 3.32% 3,326,020,083$ 6.30% 1,835,611,916$ 5.29%

2018 3,627,932,524$ 161,063,082$ 4.44% 3,466,869,442$ 0.77% 1,952,317,063$ 6.36%

2019 4,049,744,275$ 167,810,185$ 4.14% 3,881,934,090$ 7.00% 2,181,391,182$ 11.73%

2020 4,441,003,462$ 238,121,785$ 5.36% 4,202,881,677$ 3.78% 2,337,485,593$ 7.16%

2021 4,760,575,930$ 234,187,212$ 4.92% 4,526,388,718$ 1.92% 2,742,306,363$ 17.32%

2022 5,399,078,259$ 409,624,433$ 7.59% 4,989,453,826$ 4.81% 3,042,858,178$ 10.96%

2023 6,502,198,153$ 297,285,753$ 4.57% 6,204,912,400$ 14.93% 3,192,494,698$ 4.92%

Ann %chg

9.35% Average 4.21% 8.28% 8.45%

Tax Cmltv%chg Cmltv%chg Cmltv%chg County Number 77

Year w/o grwth Value Net Sales County Name Sarpy

2012 - - -

2013 0.06% 1.76% 9.39%

2014 0.29% 2.58% 18.98%

2015 7.58% 11.19% 28.45%

2016 14.83% 19.71% 32.39%

2017 27.25% 31.63% 39.39%

2018 32.64% 38.80% 48.25%

2019 48.52% 54.94% 65.65%

2020 60.80% 69.91% 77.50%

2021 73.18% 82.14% 108.24%

2022 90.89% 106.57% 131.06%

2023 137.40% 148.77% 142.42%

Cumulative Change

-40%

-20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

Commercial & Industrial Value Change Vs. Net Taxable Sales Change

Comm.&Ind w/o Growth

Comm.&Ind. Value Chg

Net Tax. Sales Value Change

Linear (Comm.&Ind w/o Growth)

Linear (Net Tax. Sales Value

Change)

Sources:

Value; 2012-2022 CTL Report

Growth Value; 2012-2022 Abstract Rpt

Net Taxable Sales; Dept. of Revenue website.

77 Sarpy Page 25

77 Sarpy Page 26

77 Sarpy Page 27

2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12.00

Mkt

Area

1A1 1A 2A1 2A 3A1 3A 4A1 4A

WEIGHTED

AVG IRR

1 n/a 6,214 6,214 6,063 n/a 5,117 4,784 4,503 6,036

2 n/a 5,545 5,545 5,510 4,880 4,850 4,250 4,215 5,388

1 n/a 6,000 6,000 5,675 n/a 5,050 4,725 4,425 5,897

3 7,484 - 6,887 6,382 - 5,810 4,971 4,385 6,233

1 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

Mkt

Area

1D1 1D 2D1 2D 3D1 3D 4D1 4D

WEIGHTED

AVG DRY

1 6,105 5,911 5,550 5,384 5,195 4,595 3,868 4,040 5,105

2 5,465 5,304 4,829 4,783 4,421 4,474 4,170 3,926 4,767

1 5,700 5,600 5,300 4,801 4,600 4,500 n/a 4,200 4,998

3 5,965 5,783 5,655 - 4,930 4,617 4,157 3,922 5,207

22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Mkt

Area

1G1 1G 2G1 2G 3G1 3G 4G1 4G

WEIGHTED

AVG GRASS

1 2,402 2,377 2,295 2,208 2,111 2,081 1,877 1,811 2,382

2 1,649 1,650 1,650 n/a 1,650 n/a 1,650 1,650 1,649

1 2,144 1,693 1,710 1,648 900 825 809 858 1,943

3 2,365 2,365 2,361 - - 2,100 - 2,100 2,360

Sarpy County 2024 Average Acre Value Comparison

County

Sarpy

Cass

Douglas

Saunders

County

Sarpy

Cass

Douglas

Saunders

County

Sarpy

Saunders

Douglas

Mkt

Area

CRP TIMBER WASTE

1 3,695 1,215 150

2 2,000 1,650 670

1 n/a 150

3 #N/A #N/A 250

Source: 2024 Abstract of Assessment, Form 45, Schedule IX and Grass Detail from Schedule XIII.

CRP and TIMBER values are weighted averages from Schedule XIII, line 104 and 113.

County

Sarpy

Cass

Douglas

Saunders

77 Sarpy Page 28

77 Sarpy Page 29

77 Sarpy Page 30

Omaha

Bellevue

La Vista

Papillion

Chalco

Gretna

Offutt AFB

Plattsmouth

Ralston

Ashland

Boys Town

Louisville

Springfield

Valley

Waterloo

Yutan

Alvo

Cedar Creek

King Lake

Manley

Murdock

Murray

La Platte

Richfield

South Bend

Venice

Wann

Elkhorn

St. Columbans

2665

2663

2661

2659

2657

2675

2677

2679

26812683

2961

2959

2957

2955

2953

2971

2973

2975

29772979

3257

3255

3253

3251

3249

3259

3265

3267

3269

3271

3273

3275

348334813479

Cass

Saunders

Douglas

Sarpy

77_1

13_1

78_3

78_2

28_1

13_2

SARPY COUNTY

Legend

Market_Area

County

Registered_WellsDNR

geocode

Federal Roads

Soils

CLASS

Excesssive drained sandy soils formed in alluvium in valleys and eolian sand on uplands in sandhills

Excessively drained sandy soils formed in eolian sands on uplands in sandhills

Moderately well drained silty soils on uplands and in depressions formed in loess

Well drained silty soils formed in loess on uplands

Well drained silty soils formed in loess and alluvium on stream terraces

Well to somewhat excessively drained loamy soils formed in weathered sandstone and eolian material on uplands

Somewhat poorly drained soils formed in alluvium on bottom lands

Moderately well drained silty soils with clay subsoils on uplands

Lakes

77 Sarpy Page 31

Tax

Residential & Recreational

(1)

Commercial & Industrial

(1)

Year Value Amnt Value Chg Ann.%chg Cmltv%chg

Value Amnt Value Chg Ann.%chg Cmltv%chg Value

Amnt Value Chg Ann.%chg Cmltv%chg

2013 8,078,097,700 - - - 2,659,770,921 -

- - 274,278,197 -

- -

2014 8,397,346,693 319,248,993 3.95% 3.95%

2,681,265,360 21,494,439 0.81% 0.81% 313,572,688 39,294,491

14.33% 14.33%

2015 8,840,328,734 442,982,041 5.28% 9.44%

2,906,139,280 224,873,920 8.39% 9.26% 393,525,850 79,953,162 25.50% 43.48%

2016 9,339,896,340 499,567,606 5.65% 15.62% 3,128,766,492 222,627,212 7.66% 17.63% 413,475,449 19,949,599 5.07% 50.75%

2017 9,967,061,475 627,165,135 6.71% 23.38% 3,440,327,629 311,561,137 9.96% 29.35% 371,318,498 -42,156,951 -10.20% 35.38%

2018 10,717,403,599 750,342,124 7.53% 32.67% 3,627,932,524 187,604,895 5.45% 36.40% 360,553,352 -10,765,146 -2.90% 31.46%

2019 11,545,635,682 828,232,083 7.73% 42.93% 4,049,744,275 421,811,751 11.63% 52.26% 332,368,669 -28,184,683 -7.82% 21.18%

2020 12,356,898,145 811,262,463 7.03% 52.97% 4,441,003,462 391,259,187 9.66% 66.97% 309,575,353 -22,793,316 -6.86% 12.87%

2021 13,319,661,005 962,762,860 7.79% 64.89% 4,760,575,930 319,572,468 7.20% 78.98% 313,015,545 3,440,192 1.11% 14.12%

2022 14,755,280,854 1,435,619,849 10.78% 82.66% 5,375,190,854 614,614,924 12.91% 102.09% 300,917,408 -12,098,137 -3.87% 9.71%

2023 16,938,720,186 2,183,439,332

14.80% 109.69%

6,433,575,150 1,058,384,296

19.69% 141.88%

303,187,913 2,270,505

0.75% 10.54%

Rate Annual %chg: Residential & Recreational 7.69% Commercial & Industrial 9.23% Agricultural Land 1.01%

Cnty# 77

County SARPY CHART 1

(1) Residential & Recreational excludes Agric. dwelling & farm home site land. Commercial & Industrial excludes minerals. Agricultural land includes irrigated, dry, grass, waste, & other agland, excludes farm site land.

Source: 2013 - 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied Reports CTL NE Dept. of Revenue, Property Assessment Division Prepared as of 12/29/2023

Total Agricultural Land

(1)

-60%

-40%

-20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%

240%

260%

280%

300%

320%

340%

360%

380%

400%

420%

440%

460%

480%

500%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CHART 1 - REAL PROPERTY VALUATIONS - Cumulative % Change 2013 - 2023

ResRec

Comm&Indust

Total Agland

77 Sarpy Page 32

Residential & Recreational

(1)

Tax Growth % growth Value Ann.%chg Cmltv%chg Growth % growth Value Ann.%chg Cmltv%chg

Year Value Value of value

Exclud. Growth w/o grwth w/o grwth Value Value of value Exclud. Growth w/o grwth w/o grwth

2013 8,078,097,700 177,382,524 2.20% 7,900,715,176

- -2.20% 2,659,770,921 44,359,727 1.67% 2,615,411,194 - -1.67%

2014 8,397,346,693 229,970,674 2.74% 8,167,376,019

1.11% 1.11% 2,681,265,360 59,860,679 2.23% 2,621,404,681 -1.44% -1.44%

2015 8,840,328,734 239,632,508 2.71% 8,600,696,226 2.42% 6.47% 2,906,139,280 94,168,827 3.24% 2,811,970,453 4.87% 5.72%

2016 9,339,896,340 253,905,995 2.72% 9,085,990,345 2.78% 12.48% 3,128,766,492 127,302,828 4.07% 3,001,463,664 3.28% 12.85%

2017 9,967,061,475 262,988,131 2.64% 9,704,073,344

3.90% 20.13%

3,440,327,629 114,307,546 3.32% 3,326,020,083

6.30% 25.05%

2018 10,717,403,599 300,180,511 2.80% 10,417,223,088

4.52% 28.96% 3,627,932,524 161,063,082 4.44% 3,466,869,442

0.77% 30.34%

2019 11,545,635,682 311,622,494 2.70% 11,234,013,188 4.82% 39.07% 4,049,744,275 167,810,185 4.14% 3,881,934,090 7.00% 45.95%

2020 12,356,898,145 273,218,148 2.21% 12,083,679,997 4.66% 49.59% 4,441,003,462 238,121,785 5.36% 4,202,881,677 3.78% 58.02%

2021 13,319,661,005 319,245,002 2.40% 13,000,416,003 5.21% 60.93% 4,760,575,930 234,187,212 4.92% 4,526,388,718 1.92% 70.18%

2022 14,755,280,854 444,515,320 3.01% 14,310,765,534 7.44% 77.16% 5,375,190,854 409,624,433 7.62% 4,965,566,421 4.31% 86.69%

2023 16,938,720,186 457,423,004 2.70% 16,481,297,182 11.70% 104.02% 6,433,575,150 297,285,753 4.62% 6,136,289,397

14.16% 130.71%

Rate Ann%chg

7.69% Resid & Recreat w/o growth 4.85% 9.23% C & I w/o growth 4.50%

Tax Agric. Dwelling & Ag Outbldg & Ag Imprv&Site Growth % growth Value Ann.%chg Cmltv%chg

Year Homesite Value Farmsite Value Total Value Value of value Exclud. Growth w/o grwth w/o grwth

2013 140,691,543 81,873,581 222,565,124 3,567,282 1.60% 218,997,842

'-- '--

(1) Residential & Recreational excludes AgDwelling

2014 189,117,341 40,011,471 229,128,812 5,173,049 2.26% 223,955,763 0.62% 0.62% & farm home site land; Comm. & Indust. excludes

2015 201,044,072 42,784,033 243,828,105 12,130,612 4.98% 231,697,493 1.12% 4.10% minerals; Agric. land includes irrigated, dry, grass,

2016 194,123,487 51,529,858 245,653,345 7,045,555 2.87% 238,607,790 -2.14% 7.21% waste & other agland, excludes farm site land.

2017 205,619,810 53,916,910 259,536,720 5,680,646 2.19% 253,856,074 3.34% 14.06% Real property growth is value attributable to new

2018 240,700,956 61,408,023 302,108,979 30,450,756 10.08% 271,658,223 4.67% 22.06% construction, additions to existing buildings,

2019 235,680,092 71,208,444 306,888,536 9,806,643 3.20% 297,081,893 -1.66% 33.48% and any improvements to real property which

2020 249,014,179 71,759,162 320,773,341 10,584,634 3.30% 310,188,707 1.08% 39.37% increase the value of such property.

2021 232,422,922 70,271,838 302,694,760 7,127,368 2.35% 295,567,392 -7.86% 32.80% Sources:

2022 258,205,851 82,643,997 340,849,848 5,088,333 1.49% 335,761,515 10.92% 50.86% Value; 2013 - 2023 CTL

2023 317,536,961 91,058,895 408,595,856 5,408,775 1.32% 403,187,081 18.29% 81.15% Growth Value; 2013 - 2023 Abstract of Asmnt Rpt.

Prepared as of 12/29/2023

Rate Ann%chg

8.48% 1.07% 6.26% Ag Imprv+Site w/o growth 2.84%

Cnty# 77 NE Dept. of Revenue, Property Assessment Division

County SARPY CHART 2

Commercial & Industrial

(1)

Ag Improvements & Site Land

(1)

-60%

-40%

-20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%

240%

260%

280%

300%

320%

340%

360%

380%

400%

420%

440%

460%

480%

500%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CHART 2 - REAL PROPERTY & GROWTH VALUATIONS - Cumulative % Change 2013 - 2023

ResRec

Comm&Indust

Ag Imprv+SiteLand

77 Sarpy Page 33

Tax Irrigated Land Dryland

Year Value Value Chg Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Value

Value Chg Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Value Value Chg Ann%chg Cmltv%chg

2013 24,325,303 -

- - 236,744,227 -

- - 12,925,791 - - -

2014 28,289,408 3,964,105 16.30% 16.30% 270,501,966 33,757,739 14.26% 14.26% 14,416,318 1,490,527 11.53% 11.53%

2015 34,879,581 6,590,173 23.30% 43.39% 350,251,289 79,749,323 29.48% 47.95% 16,935,953 2,519,635 17.48% 31.02%

2016 36,717,610 1,838,029 5.27% 50.94% 357,150,905 6,899,616

1.97% 50.86% 19,062,223 2,126,270 12.55% 47.47%

2017 37,403,421 685,811 1.87% 53.76% 309,907,712 -47,243,193

-13.23% 30.90% 23,457,867 4,395,644

23.06% 81.48%

2018 36,634,127 -769,294 -2.06% 50.60% 301,921,118 -7,986,594 -2.58% 27.53%

21,443,959 -2,013,908 -8.59% 65.90%

2019 33,661,997 -2,972,130 -8.11% 38.38%

273,530,072 -28,391,046 -9.40% 15.54% 24,563,201 3,119,242 14.55% 90.03%

2020 28,849,171 -4,812,826 -14.30% 18.60% 250,769,551 -22,760,521 -8.32% 5.92% 29,346,204 4,783,003 19.47% 127.04%

2021 32,786,130 3,936,959 13.65% 34.78% 256,624,118 5,854,567 2.33% 8.40% 23,141,096 -6,205,108 -21.14% 79.03%

2022 32,476,647 -309,483 -0.94% 33.51% 246,794,850 -9,829,268

-3.83% 4.25%

21,276,780 -1,864,316

-8.06% 64.61%

2023 34,514,601 2,037,954 6.28% 41.89% 246,130,911 -663,939 -0.27% 3.96%

22,167,783 891,003

4.19% 71.50%

Rate Ann.%chg: Irrigated 3.56% Dryland 0.39% Grassland 5.54%

Tax

Waste Land

(1)

Other Agland

(1)

Total Agricultural

Year Value Value Chg Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Value Value Chg Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Value Value Chg Ann%chg Cmltv%chg

2013 281,436 - - - 1,440 - - - 274,278,197 - - -

2014 362,254 80,818 28.72% 28.72% 2,742 1,302 90.42% 90.42%

313,572,688 39,294,491 14.33% 14.33%

2015 441,923 79,669 21.99% 57.02% (8,982,896) -8,985,638 -327703.79% -623912.22% 393,525,850 79,953,162 25.50% 43.48%

2016 560,186 118,263 26.76% 99.05% (15,475) 8,967,421 -1174.65% 413,475,449 19,949,599 5.07% 50.75%

2017 547,717 -12,469 -2.23% 94.62% 1,781 17,256

23.68% 371,318,498 -42,156,951 -10.20% 35.38%

2018 570,497 22,780 4.16% 102.71% (16,349) -18,130 -1017.97% -1235.35% 360,553,352 -10,765,146 -2.90% 31.46%

2019 612,227 41,730 7.31% 117.54% 1,172 17,521 -18.61% 332,368,669 -28,184,683 -7.82% 21.18%

2020 608,970 -3,257 -0.53% 116.38% 1,457 285 24.32% 1.18% 309,575,353 -22,793,316 -6.86% 12.87%

2021 462,034 -146,936 -24.13% 64.17% 2,167 710 48.73% 50.49% 313,015,545 3,440,192 1.11% 14.12%

2022 366,964 -95,070 -20.58% 30.39% 2,167 0 0.00% 50.49% 300,917,408 -12,098,137 -3.87% 9.71%

2023 372,451 5,487 1.50% 32.34% 2,167 0 0.00% 50.49% 303,187,913 2,270,505 0.75% 10.54%

Cnty# 77 Rate Ann.%chg: Total Agric Land 1.01%

County SARPY

Source: 2013 - 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied Reports CTL NE Dept. of Revenue, Property Assessment Division Prepared as of 12/29/2023

CHART 3

Grassland

-60%

-40%

-20%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

120%

140%

160%

180%

200%

220%

240%

260%

280%

300%

320%

340%

360%

380%

400%

420%

440%

460%

480%

500%

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023

CHART 3 - AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUATIONS - Cumulative % Change 2013 - 2023

Irrigated

Dryland

Total Agland

Grassland

77 Sarpy Page 34

CHART 4 - AGRICULTURAL LAND - AVERAGE VALUE PER ACRE - Cumulative % Change 2013 - 2023 (from County Abstract Reports)(¹)

IRRIGATED LAND DRYLAND GRASSLAND

Tax Avg Value Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Avg Value Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Avg Value Ann%chg Cmltv%chg

Year Value Acres per Acre AvgVal/acre AvgVal/Acre Value Acres

per Acre AvgVal/acre AvgVal/Acre Value Acres per Acre AvgVal/acre AvgVal/Acre

2013 24,610,506 6,218 3,958 237,499,823 65,864 3,606

9,791,799 7,204 1,359

2014 28,579,366 6,205 4,606 16.36% 16.36%

270,556,847 65,343 4,141 14.83% 14.83% 10,712,421 7,076 1,514

11.38% 11.38%

2015 34,872,071 6,205 5,620 22.02% 41.98%

352,713,171 64,867 5,438 31.32% 50.79% 13,007,275 7,105 1,831 20.93% 34.69%

2016 37,866,157 6,325 5,987 6.53% 51.26% 368,135,968 63,899 5,761 5.95% 59.77% 19,117,920 12,402 1,541 -15.80% 13.41%

2017 37,403,421 6,374 5,868 -1.99% 48.25% 313,351,946 62,299 5,030 -12.70% 39.49% 23,416,944 12,947 1,809 17.34% 33.07%

2018 36,959,456 6,288 5,878 0.16% 48.50% 303,375,929 60,293 5,032 0.04% 39.54% 21,519,386 12,747 1,688

-6.66% 24.21%

2019 37,522,999 6,394 5,869 -0.16% 48.26% 281,434,665 58,891 4,779 -5.02% 32.53% 20,942,577 12,356 1,695

0.40% 24.71%

2020 28,841,701 4,983 5,789 -1.36% 46.24%

251,261,996 54,984 4,570 -4.38% 26.73% 32,687,950 15,786 2,071 22.16% 52.35%

2021 33,583,205 5,932 5,662 -2.19% 43.04%

257,833,896 57,280 4,501 -1.50% 24.83% 23,396,341 11,943 1,959 -5.39% 44.13%

2022 32,475,917 5,717 5,681 0.33% 43.51% 252,210,364 56,017 4,502 0.02% 24.86% 23,214,840 12,033 1,929 -1.52% 41.94%

2023 34,503,882 5,945 5,804 2.17% 46.63%

242,113,229 52,663 4,597 2.11% 27.50% 23,092,221 12,059 1,915

-0.74% 40.89%

Rate Annual %chg Average Value/Acre: 3.90% 2.46% 3.49%

WASTE LAND (2) OTHER AGLAND (2) TOTAL AGRICULTURAL LAND (1)

Tax Avg Value Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Avg Value Ann%chg Cmltv%chg Avg Value Ann%chg Cmltv%chg

Year Value Acres per Acre AvgVal/acre AvgVal/Acre

Value Acres

per Acre AvgVal/acre AvgVal/Acre

Value Acres per Acre AvgVal/acre AvgVal/Acre

2013 281,959 2,777 102

3,098,465 6,725 461 275,282,552 88,788 3,100

2014 353,000 2,906 121 19.63% 19.63% 3,616,350 6,364 568

23.34% 23.34%

313,817,984 87,894 3,570

15.16% 15.16%

2015 443,642 2,926 152 24.81% 49.31% 3,891,598 6,486 600

5.58% 30.23% 404,927,757 87,589 4,623 29.48% 49.11%

2016 439,706 2,887 152 0.47% 50.00% 111,048 1,107 100 -83.28% -78.23%

425,670,799 86,620 4,914

6.30% 58.50%

2017 537,157 3,544 152 -0.50% 49.26% 1,675 384 4

-95.65% -99.05% 374,711,143 85,548 4,380 -10.87% 41.27%

2018 538,277 3,548 152 0.10% 49.40% 1,675 538 3 -28.67% -99.32% 362,394,723 83,415 4,344 -0.81% 40.12%

2019 513,441 3,368 152

0.50% 50.16%

2,638 446 6

90.00% -98.72%

340,416,320 81,454 4,179

-3.80% 34.79%

2020 555,984 3,652 152 -0.14% 49.95% 47,001 778 60

921.80% -86.89% 313,394,632 80,183 3,909 -6.48% 26.06%

2021 422,722 2,764 153 0.46% 50.64% 52,592 804 65

8.36% -85.79% 315,288,756 78,723 4,005

2.47% 29.18%

2022 392,832 2,626 150 -2.20% 47.32% 64,439 882 73

11.62% -84.14% 308,358,392 77,276 3,990

-0.37% 28.70%

2023 352,285 2,356 150 -0.03% 47.27% 67,493 632 107 46.19% -76.82% 300,129,110 73,654 4,075 2.12% 31.43%

77 Rate Annual %chg Average Value/Acre: 2.77%

SARPY

(1) Valuations from County Abstracts vs Certificate of Taxes Levied Reports (CTL) will vary due to different reporting dates. Source: 2013 - 2023 County Abstract Reports

Agland Assessment Level 1998 to 2006 = 80%; 2007 & forward = 75% NE Dept. of Revenue, Property Assessment Division Prepared as of 12/29/2023

CHART 4

77 Sarpy Page 35

CHART 5 - 2023 County and Municipal Valuations by Property Type

Pop.

County: Personal Prop StateAsd PP StateAsdReal Residential Commercial Industrial Recreation Agland Agdwell&HS AgImprv&FS Minerals Total Value

190,604 SARPY 636,007,728 76,689,233 52,723,049 16,911,502,859 3,682,394,034 2,751,181,116 27,217,327 303,187,913 317,536,961 91,058,895 0 24,849,499,115

cnty sectorvalue % of total value: 2.56% 0.31% 0.21% 68.06% 14.82% 11.07% 0.11% 1.22% 1.28% 0.37% 100.00%

Pop.

Municipality: Personal Prop StateAsd PP StateAsd Real Residential Commercial Industrial Recreation Agland Agdwell&HS AgImprv&FS Minerals Total Value

64,989 BELLEVUE 66,315,571 14,499,955 8,077,331 4,310,249,483 1,125,622,180 113,402,672 0 1,984,025 373,972 1,567,668 0 5,642,092,857

34.10% %sector of county sector 10.43% 18.91% 15.32% 25.49% 30.57% 4.12% 0.65% 0.12% 1.72% 22.71%

%sector of municipality 1.18% 0.26% 0.14% 76.39% 19.95% 2.01% 0.04% 0.01% 0.03% 100.00%

9,323 GRETNA 106,584,955 1,951,836 635,963 809,732,072 226,861,492 173,135,311 0 2,405,477 6,335,107 2,305,012 0 1,329,947,225

4.89% %sector of county sector 16.76% 2.55% 1.21% 4.79% 6.16% 6.29% 0.79% 2.00% 2.53% 5.35%

%sector of municipality 8.01% 0.15% 0.05% 60.88% 17.06% 13.02% 0.18% 0.48% 0.17% 100.00%

16,746 LA VISTA 175,759,878 6,917,726 1,077,677 1,020,836,366 640,064,530 452,880,773 0 208,414 0 0 0 2,297,745,364

8.79% %sector of county sector 27.63% 9.02% 2.04% 6.04% 17.38% 16.46% 0.07% 9.25%

%sector of municipality 7.65% 0.30% 0.05% 44.43% 27.86% 19.71% 0.01% 100.00%

25,407 PAPILLION 110,262,480 9,545,939 1,462,508 2,066,751,217 679,571,265 972,952,299 0 56,800 0 479,765 0 3,841,082,273

13.33% %sector of county sector 17.34% 12.45% 2.77% 12.22% 18.45% 35.36% 0.02% 0.53% 15.46%

%sector of municipality 2.87% 0.25% 0.04% 53.81% 17.69% 25.33% 0.00% 0.01% 100.00%

1,501 SPRINGFIELD 5,629,041 222,126 48,732 110,975,191 19,193,318 103,880,848 0 0 0 0 0 239,949,256

0.79% %sector of county sector 0.89% 0.29% 0.09% 0.66% 0.52% 3.78% 0.97%

%sector of municipality 2.35% 0.09% 0.02% 46.25% 8.00% 43.29% 100.00%

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

%sector of county sector

%sector of municipality

117,967 Total Municipalities 464,551,926 33,137,582 11,302,211 8,318,544,332 2,691,312,787 1,816,251,905 0 4,654,716 6,709,079 4,352,445 0 13,350,816,981

61.89% %all municip.sectors of cnty 73.04% 43.21% 21.44% 49.19% 73.09% 66.02% 1.54% 2.11% 4.78% 53.73%

77 SARPY Sources: 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied CTL, 2020 US Census; Dec. 2023 Municipality Population per Research Division NE Dept. of Revenue, Property Assessment Division Prepared as of 12/29/2023 CHART 5

77 Sarpy Page 36

Sarpy

County

77 2024

County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

01. Res UnImp Land

02. Res Improve Land

707 15,238,828 7,239 240,353,818 703 27,803,838 8,649 283,396,484

34,008 1,435,897,845 17,375 1,123,254,577 7,636 503,205,208 59,019 3,062,357,630

34,300 0 17,423 0 7,653 0 59,376 15,690,437,319

68,025 19,036,191,433 375,806,276

166,157,887 652 3,478,308 17 76,901,582 297 85,777,997 338

1,365 526,521,088 194 143,276,430 61 30,643,526 1,620 700,441,044

3,033,575,256 1,640 146,945,785 64 679,123,955 198 0 1,378

2,292 3,900,174,187 124,150,215

03. Res Improvements

04. Res Total

05. Com UnImp Land

06. Com Improve Land

07. Com Improvements

08. Com Total

73,574 26,664,743,379 692,816,095

Total Real Property

Growth

Value :

Records :

Sum Lines 17, 25, & 30 Sum Lines 17, 25, & 41

09. Ind UnImp Land

10. Ind Improve Land

11. Ind Improvements

12. Ind Total

13. Rec UnImp Land

14. Rec Improve Land

15. Rec Improvements

16. Rec Total

17. Taxable Total

108 57,820,099 128 44,333,014 6 89,938 242 102,243,051

516 368,123,974 262 235,440,401 64 16,046,776 842 619,611,151

516 1,507,995,371 263 686,119,702 65 36,667,231 844 2,230,782,304

1,086 2,952,636,506 181,418,677

0 0 5 669,296 87 5,528,615 92 6,197,911

0 0 13 1,495,554 34 3,822,634 47 5,318,188

0 0 13 1,073,956 273 15,534,786 286 16,608,742

378 28,124,841 282,121

71,781 25,917,126,967 681,657,289

Urban

SubUrban

Rural

Total

Growth

Records Value Records Value Records Value Records Value

Schedule I : Non-Agricultural Records

% of Res Total

% of Com Total

% of Ind Total

% of Rec Total

% of Taxable Total

% of Res & Rec Total

Res & Rec Total

% of Com & Ind Total

Com & Ind Total

51.46 7.62 36.25 7.16 12.28 2.79 92.46 71.39

12.35 3.05 97.56 97.20

2,340 2,546,238,529 886 1,865,195,084 152 233,871,564 3,378 6,852,810,693

68,403 19,064,316,274 35,007 1,451,136,673 8,716 555,895,081 24,680 1,366,847,201

7.61 51.18 71.50 92.97 7.17 36.08 2.92 12.74

0.00 0.00 0.11

0.51

11.52 4.76 88.48 95.24

37.16 69.27 25.70 4.59 27.22 26.23 3.41 4.50

6.54 1.79 1.48 11.07

32.71 36.00 65.50 57.46

15.70

74.87 14.63 3.12

23.06 21.60

4.64 3.53

12.47 35.62 15.42 52.03

8,356 531,009,046 24,662 1,363,608,395 35,007 1,451,136,673

81 181,067,619 495 899,301,967 1,716 612,299,085

71 52,803,945 391 965,893,117 624 1,933,939,444

360 24,886,035 18 3,238,806 0 0

37,347 3,997,375,202 25,566 3,232,042,285 8,868 789,766,645

17.92

26.19

0.04

54.24

98.39

44.11

54.28

305,568,892

376,088,397

77 Sarpy Page 37

Sarpy

County

77 2024

County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

18. Residential

Records

Total

Rural

SubUrban

Urban

Schedule II : Tax Increment Financing (TIF)

Value Base Value Excess Value ExcessValue BaseRecords

51 0 345,421 0 4,770,681 0

19. Commercial

20. Industrial

21. Other

22. Total Sch II

32 10,200,773 203,306,240

1 1,300,000 1,392,953

0 0 0 0 0 0

0 0 0

Value ExcessValue BaseRecords

21. Other

20. Industrial

19. Commercial

18. Residential 0 0 0 51 345,421 4,770,681

0 0 0 32 10,200,773 203,306,240

0 0 0 1 1,300,000 1,392,953

0 0 0 0 0 0

84 11,846,194 209,469,874

23. Producing

Growth

ValueRecords

Total

ValueRecords

Rural

ValueRecords

SubUrban

ValueRecords

Urban

Schedule III : Mineral Interest Records

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Mineral Interest

24. Non-Producing

25. Total

Schedule IV : Exempt Records : Non-Agricultural

Schedule V : Agricultural Records

Records Records Records Records

Total

Rural

SubUrban

Urban

26. Exempt 1,240 1,067 599 2,906

29. Ag Improvements

28. Ag-Improved Land

ValueRecords

Total

ValueRecords

Rural

Records Value

SubUrban

ValueRecords

27. Ag-Vacant Land

Urban

51 6,845,203 531 97,731,687 411 93,372,926 993 197,949,816

15 4,130,499 400 122,403,945 376 114,419,505 791 240,953,949

15 7,600,568 402 157,236,155 383 143,875,924 800 308,712,647

77 Sarpy Page 38

Sarpy

County

77 2024

County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

30. Ag Total

1,793 747,616,412

31. HomeSite UnImp Land

Records

Total

Rural

SubUrban

Urban

Schedule VI : Agricultural Records :Non-Agricultural Detail

Acres Value ValueAcresRecords

32. HomeSite Improv Land

33. HomeSite Improvements

34. HomeSite Total

ValueAcresRecords

ValueAcres

34. HomeSite Total

33. HomeSite Improvements

32. HomeSite Improv Land

31. HomeSite UnImp Land

35. FarmSite UnImp Land

36. FarmSite Improv Land

37. FarmSite Improvements

38. FarmSite Total

37. FarmSite Improvements

36. FarmSite Improv Land

35. FarmSite UnImp Land

39. Road & Ditches

38. FarmSite Total

39. Road & Ditches

Records

40. Other- Non Ag Use

41. Total Section VI

1 0.01 445 10 7.61 295,884

8 10.36 564,458

13 10.36 7,280,762 333

8 11.59 370,608

13 88.94 1,406,345

360

8 0.00 319,806

337

0 0.00 0

0 0.00 0 0 24.00 791,010

1.38

16,104,220

0.00

22,613,215 863.77

67.77 935,629

141,131,935 534.91

29,519,608 536.01 314

10 357,360 50.23 21 57.85 653,689

299 502.84

27,636,737 621 1,049.21 57,720,803

314 499.69 124,788,180 660 1,044.96 273,200,877

681 1,107.06 331,575,369

502.67 76 3,632,923

142 582.03 4,939,160

335 1,142.64

16,824,401

708 2,095.35 40,843,961

331 0.00

19,087,744

676 0.00 35,511,770

818 2,677.38 81,294,891

0 0.00 0 0 1.38 0

0 257.09 0 0 281.09 791,010

1,499 4,066.91 413,661,270

Growth

11,158,806

77 Sarpy Page 39

Sarpy

County

77 2024

County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

42. Game & Parks

ValueAcresRecords

SubUrban

ValueAcresRecords

Urban

0 0.00 0 0 0.00 0

42. Game & Parks

ValueAcresRecords

Total

ValueAcresRecords

Rural

Schedule VII : Agricultural Records :Ag Land Detail - Game & Parks

1 0.00 4,896 1 0.00 4,896

Schedule VIII : Agricultural Records : Special Value

43. Special Value

ValueAcresRecords

SubUrban

ValueAcresRecords

Urban

43. Special Value

ValueAcresRecords

Total

ValueAcresRecords

Rural

44. Market Value

65 1,939.12 8,610,186 909 35,305.80 165,092,945

774 37,859.91 159,019,371 1,748 75,104.83 332,722,502

65 1,939.12 61,513,552 909 35,305.80 544,747,357

0 0 0 0 0 0

77 Sarpy Page 40

Market Area

Schedule IX : Agricultural Records : Ag Land Market Area Detail

2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

Sarpy77

County

45. 1A1

Value

Acres

46. 1A

47. 2A1

48. 2A

49. 3A1

50. 3A

51. 4A1

52. 4A

53. Total

54. 1D1

55. 1D

56. 2D1

57. 2D

58. 3D1

59. 3D

60. 4D1

61. 4D

62. Total

63. 1G1

64. 1G

65. 2G1

66. 2G

67. 3G1

68. 3G

69. 4G1

70. 4G

71. Total

Waste

Other

Exempt

Irrigated

Dry

Grass

Market Area Total 333,955,142 75,125.96

0 910.61

77,336 708.39

383,987 2,567.28

23,669,502 12,197.96

47,797 27.34

216,753 129.59

492,802 379.70

76,106

49.71

112,551

62.85

26,747

14.25

98,685

50.56

22,598,061

11,483.96

275,541,779

53,972.42

24,370,013

6,032.18

5.78

22,357

97,895,746

21,304.83

3,012,483

579.88

1,428,969

265.41

56,375,041

10,157.63

90,307,257

15,277.83

2,129,913

348.88

34,282,538

5,679.91

416,843

92.57

2,346,935

490.58

234,615

45.85

0.00

5,999,524

989.53

24,709,848

3,976.48

0.00

574,773

84.90

% of Acres* % of Value*

1.49%

0.00%

28.31%

0.65%

94.15%

0.41%

17.42%

70.01%

0.49%

18.82%

0.52%

0.12%

0.00%

0.81%

39.47%

1.07%

0.41%

3.11%

1.63%

8.64%

0.01%

11.18%

0.22%

1.06%

100.00%

Grass Total

Dry Total

Irrigated Total 5,679.91

53,972.42

12,197.96

34,282,538

275,541,779

23,669,502

7.56%

71.84%

16.24%

3.42%

1.21%

0.94%

100.00%

Average Assessed Value*

0.00%

1.68%

17.50%

72.08%

0.00%

0.68%

6.85%

1.22%

100.00%

0.77%

32.77%

0.42%

95.47%

20.46%

0.52%

0.11%

0.48%

1.09%

35.53%

0.32%

2.08%

0.01%

8.84%

0.92%

0.20%

100.00%

6,770.00

0.00

5,911.00

6,105.00

1,967.79

1,951.84

6,063.00

6,214.00

5,550.02

5,384.01

1,790.79

1,876.98

0.00

5,117.01

5,195.01

4,595.00

1,531.00

1,297.87

4,784.00

4,503.00

3,867.99

4,040.00

1,748.24

1,672.61

6,035.75

5,105.23

1,940.45

0.00% 0.00

0.02% 109.17

100.00% 4,445.27

5,105.23 82.51%

1,940.45 7.09%

6,035.75 10.27%

149.57 0.11%

72.

73.

74.

75.

77 Sarpy Page 41

County 2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

Sarpy77

Schedule X : Agricultural Records :Ag Land Total

76. Irrigated

Total

ValueAcresAcres Value

Rural

Acres Value ValueAcres

SubUrban

Urban

77. Dry Land

78. Grass

79. Waste

80. Other

81. Exempt

82. Total

0.00 0 1,571.30 9,030,505 4,108.61 25,252,033 5,679.91 34,282,538

1,571.35 8,031,810 29,110.35 148,981,984 23,290.72 118,527,985 53,972.42 275,541,779

302.62 592,883 3,755.46 7,835,994 8,139.88 15,240,625 12,197.96 23,669,502

51.70 7,764 822.33 122,020 1,693.25 254,203 2,567.28 383,987

20.12 1,389 247.36 9,783 440.91 66,164 708.39 77,336

0.00 0

1,945.79 8,633,846 35,506.80 165,980,286

710.27 0 200.34 0 910.61 0

37,673.37 159,341,010 75,125.96 333,955,142

Irrigated

Dry Land

Grass

Waste

Other

Exempt

Total

333,955,142 75,125.96

0 910.61

77,336 708.39

383,987 2,567.28

23,669,502 12,197.96

275,541,779 53,972.42

34,282,538 5,679.91

% of Acres*Acres Value % of Value* Average Assessed Value*

5,105.23 71.84% 82.51%

0.00 1.21%

0.00%

1,940.45 16.24% 7.09%

6,035.75 7.56% 10.27%

109.17 0.94% 0.02%

4,445.27 100.00% 100.00%

149.57 3.42% 0.11%

77 Sarpy Page 42

GrowthUnimproved Land Improved Land Improvements Total

2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45County

77 Sarpy

Records Value Records Value Records Value Records Value

Schedule XI : Residential Records - Assessor Location Detail

Assessor Location

Line# L

1,452 37,167,092 21,297 862,070,937 21,572 4,636,535,586 23,024 5,535,773,615 48,251,618

83.1

Bellevue Area

3,097 119,467,087 7,635 550,785,692 7,635 2,719,114,878 10,732 3,389,367,657 165,435,222

83.2

Gretna Area

6 105,720 4,819 202,803,521 4,819 1,133,806,078 4,825 1,336,715,319 1,439,330

83.3

La Vista Area

485 9,459,918 9,160 438,969,954 9,160 2,354,712,290 9,645 2,803,142,162 5,200,219

83.4

Millard Area

3,314 82,280,056 13,784 753,882,340 13,830 4,122,149,937 17,144 4,958,312,333 142,456,840

83.5

Papillion Area

230 14,216,306 768 106,359,297 1,019 214,230,230 1,249 334,805,833 2,206,920

83.6

Rec Lake Area

127 25,674,638 757 108,398,245 759 304,537,406 886 438,610,289 8,352,920

83.7

Rural Area

30 1,223,578 846 44,405,832 868 221,959,656 898 267,589,066 2,745,328

83.8

Springfield Area

8,741 289,594,395 59,066 3,067,675,818 59,662 15,707,046,061 68,403 19,064,316,274 376,088,397

Residential Total

77 Sarpy Page 43

GrowthUnimproved Land Improved Land Improvements Total

2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45County

77 Sarpy

Records Value Records Value Records Value Records Value

Schedule XII : Commercial Records - Assessor Location Detail

Assessor Location

Line# L

177 35,046,200 772 224,250,928 780 1,138,348,481 957 1,397,645,609 17,390,909

85.1

Bellevue Area

216 54,496,440 370 172,542,410 371 426,063,580 587 653,102,430 67,731,136

85.2

Gretna Area

108 40,705,339 346 232,753,522 348 947,941,897 456 1,221,400,758 17,117,309

85.3

La Vista Area

5 963,363 4 3,867,542 4 5,027,320 9 9,858,225 0

85.4

Millard Area

246 75,238,992 568 463,128,898 570 1,872,167,439 816 2,410,535,329 108,551,517

85.5

Papillion Area

6 671,778 5 1,934,295 6 2,064,965 12 4,671,038 371,552

85.6

Rural Area

99 30,373,083 288 153,696,645 296 622,369,241 395 806,438,969 1,442,503

85.7

Sarpy County

37 30,905,743 109 67,877,955 109 250,374,637 146 349,158,335 92,963,966

85.8

Springfield Area

894 268,400,938 2,462 1,320,052,195 2,484 5,264,357,560 3,378 6,852,810,693 305,568,892

Commercial Total

77 Sarpy Page 44

Market Area

Schedule XIII : Agricultural Records : Grass Land Detail By Market Area

2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

Sarpy77

County

87. 1G1

Value

Acres

88. 1G

89. 2G1

90. 2G

91. 3G1

92. 3G

93. 4G1

94. 4G

95. Total

96. 1C1

97. 1C

98. 2C1

99. 2C

100. 3C1

101. 3C

102. 4C1

103. 4C

104. Total

105. 1T1

106. 1T

107. 2T1

108. 2T

109. 3T1

110. 3T

111. 4T1

112. 4T

113. Total

Pure Grass

CRP

Timber

114. Market Area Total 23,669,502 12,197.96

13,537,897 5,683.94

46,001

25.40

184,235

98.16

218,696

105.09

51,468

24.38

71,584 32.42

15,399 6.71

44,401 18.68

12,906,113 5,373.10

% of Acres* % of Value*

94.53%

0.33%

0.57%

0.12%

0.43%

1.85%

0.45%

1.73%

100.00%

Grass Total

CRP Total

Timber Total

5,683.94 13,537,897 46.60%

100.00%

Average Assessed Value*

0.33%

95.33%

0.11%

0.53%

0.38%

1.62%

1.36%

0.34%

100.00%

2,401.99

2,376.93

2,208.02

2,294.93

2,111.07

2,081.04

1,811.06

1,876.88

2,381.78

100.00% 1,940.45

2,381.78

57.20%

5,230.68

880.18

2.88

0.00

10.47

0.00

893.53 3,301,861

30,468

10,325

3,261,068

6,430,880

29.00

43,959

7.54 11,348

30.43

40,967

25.33

24,638

264.14

243,638

31.43

32,518

1.94

1,796

5,620.49

6,829,744

0.32% 3,585.07

0.31%

98.51%

3,705.00

98.76%

0.52%

1,515.83

0.64%

93.06%

1,229.45

94.16%

0.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00% 0.00

0.00%

0.54%

1,346.27

0.60%

0.13%

1,505.04

0.17%

1.17%

2,910.03

0.92%

0.00%

0.00

0.00%

4.70%

922.38

3.57%

0.45%

972.68

0.36%

0.00%

0.00

0.00%

0.00 0.00%

0.03%

925.77 0.03%

0.56%

1,034.62 0.48%

100.00%

100.00% 3,695.30

100.00% 100.00%

7.33%

46.08%

1,215.15

3,695.30

13.95%

28.85% 5,620.49 6,829,744

893.53

3,301,861

77 Sarpy Page 45

2024 County Abstract of Assessment for Real Property, Form 45

77 Sarpy

Compared with the 2023 Certificate of Taxes Levied Report (CTL)

2023 CTL County

Total

2024 Form 45

County Total

Value Difference Percent

Change

2024 Growth

Percent Change

excl. Growth

16,911,502,859

27,217,327

01. Residential

02. Recreational

03. Ag-Homesite Land, Ag-Res Dwelling

04. Total Residential (sum lines 1-3)

05. Commercial

06. Industrial

07. Total Commercial (sum lines 5-6)

08. Ag-Farmsite Land, Outbuildings

09. Minerals

10. Non Ag Use Land

11. Total Non-Agland (sum lines 8-10)

12. Irrigated

13. Dryland

14. Grassland

15. Wasteland

16. Other Agland

18. Total Value of all Real Property

(Locally Assessed)

(2024 form 45 - 2023 CTL) (New Construction Value)

317,536,961

17,256,257,147

3,682,394,034

2,751,181,116

6,433,575,150

80,862,819

10,196,076

91,058,895

34,514,601

246,130,911

22,167,783

372,451

2,167

303,187,913

19,036,191,433

28,124,841

331,575,369

19,395,891,643

3,900,174,187

2,952,636,506

6,852,810,693

81,294,891

791,010

82,085,901

34,282,538

275,541,779

23,669,502

383,987

77,336

333,955,142

2,124,688,574

907,514

14,038,408

2,139,634,496

217,780,153

201,455,390

419,235,543

432,072

-9,405,066

-8,972,994

-232,063

29,410,868

1,501,719

11,536

75,169

30,767,229

12.56%

3.33%

4.42%

12.40%

5.91%

7.32%

6.52%

0.53%

-92.24%

-9.85%

-0.67%

11.95%

6.77%

3.10%

3,468.80%

10.15%

375,806,276

282,121

387,247,203

124,150,215

181,418,677

305,568,892

2.30%

10.34%

0.91%

10.16%

2.54%

0.73%

1.77%

0.53%

11,158,806

17. Total Agricultural Land

24,084,079,105 26,664,743,379

2,580,664,274 10.72% 692,816,095

7.84%

0 -9.85%

77 Sarpy Page 46

2024 Assessment Survey for Sarpy County

A. Staffing and Funding Information

Deputy(ies) on staff:

One

Appraiser(s) on staff:

10 full time

Other full-time employees:

8 administrative, 2 data collectors

Other part-time employees:

No part-time employees

Number of shared employees:

No shared employees

Assessor’s requested budget for current fiscal year:

$2,135,062

Adopted budget, or granted budget if different from above:

Same

Amount of the total assessor’s budget set aside for appraisal work:

Not segregated in our operating budget

If appraisal/reappraisal budget is a separate levied fund, what is that amount:

Not segregated in our operating budget

10.

Part of the assessor’s budget that is dedicated to the computer system:

$161,599 Data Processing Software $12,745 Data Processing Equipment

11.

Amount of the assessor’s budget set aside for education/workshops:

$4,558

12.

Amount of last year’s assessor’s budget not used:

All funds were used

77 Sarpy Page 47

B. Computer, Automation Information and GIS

Administrative software:

E-Ring

CAMA software:

E-Ring

Personal Property software:

E-Ring

Are cadastral maps currently being used?

Digital maps are provided through the GIS system

If so, who maintains the Cadastral Maps?

County Assessor, in coordination with the GIS mapping staff

Does the county have GIS software?

Yes

Is GIS available to the public? If so, what is the web address?

www.sarpy.gov

Who maintains the GIS software and maps?

Information Systems Department of Sarpy County

What type of aerial imagery is used in the cyclical review of properties?

Ortho photography and oblique images.

10.

When was the aerial imagery last updated?

2022

C. Zoning Information

Does the county have zoning?

Yes

If so, is the zoning countywide?

Yes

77 Sarpy Page 48

What municipalities in the county are zoned?

Papillion, La Vista, Bellevue, Gretna, Springfield, and Sarpy County are all zoned.

When was zoning implemented?

Unknown

D. Contracted Services

Appraisal Services:

N/A

GIS Services:

In-house through the Information Systems Department

Other services:

Printing of preliminary valuation notices, personal property notices, valuation change notices,

informational post cards and LB644 postcards.

E. Appraisal /Listing Services

List any outside appraisal or listing services employed by the county for the current

assessment year

N/A

If so, is the appraisal or listing service performed under contract?

N/A

What appraisal certifications or qualifications does the County require?

Mass appraisal expertise and knowledge of CAMA systems.

Have the existing contracts been approved by the PTA?

All contracts are approved by the PTA.

Does the appraisal or listing service providers establish assessed values for the county?

77 Sarpy Page 49

2024 Residential Assessment Survey for Sarpy County

Valuation data collection done by:

Staff Appraisers, Data Collectors

List the valuation group recognized by the County and describe the unique characteristics of

each:

Description of unique characteristicsValuation

Group

Bellevue Area - Community in the eastern portion of the county serving Offutt Air Force

Base.

Gretna Area - Located in the western portion of the county north of Interstate 80.

Millard Area - A Douglas/Sarpy County suburb with shared fire and school districts

Papillion Area – Centrally located and the seat of county government.

Springfield Area - Located in the south central portion of the county.

La Vista Area – A city located to the north of Papillion along the Sarpy/Douglas county

line.

Recreational/Lake Area - Recreational/Lake Area - All around the county’s river

perimeter; IOLL; includes sand pits and flood areas.

Rural Sarpy - Located throughout the county, outside extraterritorial zoning jurisdictions.

Agricultural outbuildings and improvements

List and describe the approach(es) used to estimate the market value of residential properties.

Cost approach to value with market transactions used to adjust depreciation tables and for market

influences.

For the cost approach does the County develop the depreciation study(ies) based on the local

market information or does the county use the tables provided by the CAMA vendor?

Depreciation tables are based on local market information.

Are individual depreciation tables developed for each valuation group? If not, do you adjust

depreciation tables for each valuation group? If so, explain how the depreciation tables are

adjusted.

No, depreciation tables are developed for the entire County as environmental and physical factors

equally affect the entire county. The economic depreciation is developed by neighborhood.

Describe the methodology used to determine the residential lot values?

Sales comparison, allocation, and/or abstraction.

How are rural residential site values developed?

The site values are developed using sales of similar properties and attributes.

77 Sarpy Page 50

Are there form 191 applications on file?

Yes

Describe the methodology used to determine value for vacant lots being held for sale or

resale?

If property owners submit the form 191, the county assessor will then value the lots using the discounted

cash flow methodology. The assessors office has supplied this standard operating procedure to the

department.

10.

Valuation

Group

Date of

Costing

Date of

Lot Value Study

Date of

Last Inspection

Date of

Depreciation Tables

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

2021

2023 2018-2023

Typically, valuation groups are created by looking for similar characteristics like proximity, size, age, and

amenities. Because of its size, this county has the ability to create their valuation groups along city and

ETJ boundaries, or school districts. Neighborhoods within the valuation groups are reviewed at different

times based on the appraisal areas.

77 Sarpy Page 51

2024 Commercial Assessment Survey for Sarpy County

Valuation data collection done by:

2024 tax year data collection done by Staff Appraisers.

List the valuation group recognized in the County and describe the unique characteristics of

each:

Description of unique characteristicsValuation

Group

All commercial property in Sarpy County falls within Valuation Group 10.

List and describe the approach(es) used to estimate the market value of commercial properties.

The income and cost approaches, with more emphasis on the income approach.

3a.

Describe the process used to determine the value of unique commercial properties.

Same as above with the addition of the sales comparison approach, using comparable sales from a broad

area outside of the County.

For the cost approach does the County develop the depreciation study(ies) based on the local

market information or does the county use the tables provided by the CAMA vendor?

Depreciation tables are based on tables in the CAMA system, which comes from Marshall & Swift. A

contract appraisal firm used in years past determined depreciation based on the local market for the

subject occupancy groups.

Are individual depreciation tables developed for each valuation group? If not, do you adjust

depreciation tables for each valuation group? If so, explain how the depreciation tables are

adjusted.

Yes, CAMA Depreciation tables are used as established in the commercial cost table. Depreciation can be

adjusted through market sales analysis in occupancy groups.

Describe the methodology used to determine the commercial lot values.

Sales comparison approach.

Date of

Depreciation Tables

Valuation

Group

Date of

Costing

Date of

Lot Value Study

Date of

Last Inspection

10 2013-2023

2013-2021 2012-2024 2013-2024

Within one valuation group, the county separates parcels as detailed in the Marshall & Swift occupancy

code. Examples include regional shopping center, service garage, and storage warehouses this is typically

how the county reviews the commercial by occupancy. This is why there is a range of years in the chart for

valuation groups. There was a complete land study completed in 2012 but they do adjust values when the

market dictates.

77 Sarpy Page 52

2024 Agricultural Assessment Survey for Sarpy County

Valuation data collection done by:

Staff Appraiser

List each market area, and describe the location and the specific characteristics that make

each unique.

Year Land Use

Completed

Description of unique characteristicsMarket

Area

FRM Agricultural parcels in the AACR market area

2018-2023

FRM2 Agricultural parcels in transition or known to be commercial

Annually

FRMB Agricultural parcels in the BACR market area

2018-2023

FRMD Agricultural parcels in transition to Res/Com

Annually

FRME Agricultural parcels in the GERH market area

2018-2023

FRMF Agricultural parcels in the REC2 market area, with floodway impact

2018-2023

FRMG Agricultural parcels in the GACR market area

2018-2023

FRMI Agricultural parcels in city limits/SID boundaries

Annually

FRML Agricultural parcels in the ALPR market area

2018-2023

FRMO Agricultural parcels in the 012 market area

2018-2023

There are 7 market areas for land valuation purposes. Sarpy County is 100% influenced by

non-agricultural uses and Agricultural Special Valuation applies throughout. As directed by the state, our

land sales come from non-influenced counties and our assessed values are measured against same.

Describe the process used to determine and monitor market areas.

Sales analysis is the primary factor in determining market areas. Areas are monitored by frequent visits

physically review market areas.

Describe the process used to identify rural residential land and recreational land in the county

apart from agricultural land.

Rural residential exists outside of the boundaries of cities and the surrounding suburbs. Almost all our

land that we classify as recreational is along the three rivers that form all but the north boundary of our

county.

Do farm home sites carry the same value as rural residential home sites? If not what

methodology is used to determine market value?

Yearly analysis of relevant market transactions assists us in constructing land valuation models which aid

in equalization. We find no difference in the market value of farm homesites and rural residential

homesites.

What separate market analysis has been conducted where intensive use is identified in the

county?

There is not enough market data available to conduct a credible study.

77 Sarpy Page 53

If applicable, describe the process used to develop assessed values for parcels enrolled in the

Wetland Reserve Program.

Currently, location is the primary driver of our assessed values.

7a.

Are any other agricultural subclasses used? If yes, please explain.

If your county has special value applications, please answer the following

8a.

How many parcels have a special valuation application on file?

1793

8b.

What process was used to determine if non-agricultural influences exist in the county?

It is very evident by the sale price of raw land and the building permits issued after a land purchase. No

farmer-to-farmer land transactions occur in Sarpy County.

If your county recognizes a special value, please answer the following

8c.

Describe the non-agricultural influences recognized within the county.

Housing developments, commercial and industrial development.

8d.

Where is the influenced area located within the county?

The entire county is influenced by these factors.

8e.

Describe in detail how the special values were arrived at in the influenced area(s).

The PAD provides a list of counties with land comparable to that in Sarpy County. Qualified sales from

those counties are provided to Sarpy County for valuation and measurement purposes.

77 Sarpy Page 54

Date: October 31, 2023

From: Dan Pittman, Sarpy County Assessor

To: Nebraska Department of Revenue, Assessment Division

Regarding: Plan of Assessment

77-1311.02. Plan of assessment; preparation. The county assessor shall, on or before June 15 each year,

prepare a plan of assessment which shall describe the assessment actions the county assessor plans to

make for the next assessment year and two years thereafter. The plan shall indicate the classes or subclasses

of real property that the county assessor plans to examine during the years contained in the plan of

assessment. The plan shall describe all the assessment actions necessary to achieve the levels of value and

quality of assessment practices required by law and the resources necessary to complete those actions. The

plan shall be presented to the county board of equalization on or before July 31 each year. The county

assessor may amend the plan, if necessary, after the budget is approved by the county board. A copy of the

plan and any amendments thereto shall be mailed to the Department of Revenue on or before October 31

each year.

The resources necessary for, and available to, the county assessor to complete the proposed assessment

actions are as follows:

• Cadastral Mapping

A county assessor is required to prepare and maintain a cadastral map system accurately showing each

parcel of real property to scale. Regulations permit the use of the Nebraska Geographic Information

Systems to meet this requirement.

• Computer-Assisted Mass Appraisal Software (CAMA)

Computerized record keeping and data management with mass processing. Reliable statistical analysis

and valuation model building requires the assistance of computer software specic to our industry. Sarpy

County uses the E-Ring Capture CAMA System.

• Marshall Valuation Service

Digital construction cost service, along with the associated handbooks, are a necessary supplement to

CAMA software as the Coast Approach is one of the three accepted methods of valuation for ad valorem

purposes.

• Geographic Information System

This system is integral to fulllment of the requirement to maintain cadastral maps. Beyond this

requirement, the assessor uses the orthographic and oblique imagery overlays to view all land and

improvements to land.

• Internet Access

E-government provides easy access and lowers the time and expense of connecting with local

government. Public relationships improve with this form of communication and assessors gain a great

amount of necessary data from both the public domain and subscriptions to industry specic websites.

• Appraisal and Administrative Stafng

Appraisal stafng requires specic technical training and experience in the mass appraisal of real

property. Administrative specialties, while less technical, are very methodical and susceptible to annual

changes in state laws and processing computer software changes.

77 Sarpy Page 55

• Computer Technical Support

Computers and their technical support are provided by the Sarpy County Information Systems

Department.

• Legal Counsel

The county assessor performs state mandated duties as s/he understands them through state statutes,

regulations, and directives. Attorneys, largely provided through the county attorney’s ofce, are necessary

to provide a legal opinion. Further, legal counsel outside of the county attorney’s ofce is available to the

county assessor should s/he need to settle matters of law where the county attorney has a conflict of

interest.

Approaches to value

Actual value is determined by using professionally acceptable mass appraisal methods, including, but not

limited to the (1) sales comparison approach, (2) income approach, and (3) cost approach.

• Commercial and industrial parcels are largely valued by the income approach as all indications are that

this best reflects market value.

• Numerous annual sales transactions in the class of residential property are helpful in successfully applying

the cost approach to value as we can measure and adjust with the sales comparisons.

• The market approach is used to value agricultural land. The market data comes from surrounding

“uninfluenced” counties as all land sales in Sarpy County are influenced by other than agricultural uses.

Assessment actions the county assessor plans to take for assessment year 2024

Classes and subclasses of real property to be examined for assessment actions necessary to achieve the

levels of value and quality of assessment required by the law.

• Commercial assessment actions: Commercial properties are identied by occupancy codes.

Pertinent statistics and the date of the last inspection will largely determine what parcels will be

inspected and operating statements requested.

2024 Occupancy Codes are: Parcels:

Medical Ofce/Dental 75

Ofce 210

Fast food 84

Restaurant 43

Bank 46

Supermarket 14

Theater 5

Auto Dealership 46

• Industrial assessment actions: Industrial properties are identied by occupancy codes. Pertinent

statistics and the date of the last inspection will largely determine what parcels will be inspected

and operating statements requested.

2024 Occupancy Codes are: none for 2024

77 Sarpy Page 56

• Residential assessment actions

Residential parcels are identied by market areas. Statistics are run against each market area and

the dates of the last physical inspection are noted for possible reinspection, with a system for

reinspecting no less than one-sixth of the improved parcels each year. The areas of current

inspection activities are posted on the county website for taxpayer viewing. Appraisers and data

collectors are actively updating real property physical characteristics throughout the year.

• Agricultural land assessment actions

Agricultural land is valued by updating our rural vacant land base model. Adjustments from the

base are made annually when market data and statistical testing indicates the need. All land sales

in Sarpy County are for the purpose of development into other than agricultural uses. So, Sarpy

County gets agricultural land sales information from surrounding counties that do not have the

land development influence. Appraisers and data collectors are actively updating real property

physical characteristics and land uses.

Recent legislative changes (LB727) require the county assessor to identify and remove from

Agricultural Special Valuation parcels with less than 5 acres of agricultural land. Further,

agricultural land located within the corporate boundaries of a city or SID may now apply for

agricultural Special Valuation.

• Recreational assessment actions

Sarpy County is enclosed by rivers on three sides along with their adjacent sandpit lake areas.

Sales analysis of land and improvements in these areas is ongoing, with many improvements

qualifying as improvements on leased land. Inspections are scheduled to meet the six-year cycle

requirements. Appraisers and data collectors are actively updating real property physical

characteristics and land uses.

Assessment Action Plans for 2025 and 2026

Planning Assessment actions beyond 12 months is determined during the run-up to those years. While the

date of the last inspection largely determines priority, statistical analysis may present concerns that can

influence the actions to be taken. If an occupancy code, class, or sub-class should tend to fall out of

statistically acceptable parameters it may require attention to better understand what is happening with that

market or if our assessment procedures are wanting.

• Commercial and Industrial assessment actions

The date of the last inspection and the sales/assessment ratio studies will largely determine the

inspection and re-appraisal activities in these two classes of real property. Occupancy codes will

be identied for review and valuation.

• Residential Assessment actions

The date of the last inspection and the sales/assessment ratio studies will be considered, and a

plan made to complete all necessary inspections for statutory compliance. All market areas are

susceptible to value adjustments as the sales data dictates.

77 Sarpy Page 57

• Agricultural Assessment Actions

Agricultural land sales will be provided to Sarpy County by the PAD for the purpose of valuing

agricultural land. The process of reviewing agricultural land for nonagricultural uses and collecting

statements of land use from new owners will continue.

• Recreational Assessment Actions

The river corridors are getting greater attention from developers of recreational communities and

will be observed for any changes in land use and sales activities. The natural resource districts

are active with new flood control schemes and aggregate mining continues, which often leaves

sandpit lakes.

Noteworthy:

The Sarpy County Assessor’s Ofce updates the Marshall & Swift Residential Cost Information

annually. This is not possible for 2024 due to difculties in incorporating the cost data into the E-

Ring Capture CAMA Software. The assessor will make updates to cost information manually for

2024 with the expectation that the difculties will be resolved for 2025.

Money has been budgeted for hiring a data collection contractor to perform commercial/industrial

parcel inspections for the 2025 assessed values. As of this writing it has not been determined

when this contract will be rewarded.

Money has been budgeted for the hire of an additional commercial appraiser. At present,

attracting suitable applicants has not been successful.

77 Sarpy Page 58

SARPY COUNTY ASSESSOR - Standard Operating Procedure

Date: March 6, 2024

SPECIAL VALUATION METHODOLOGY

OBJECTIVE: To establish the policy and method of valuing improved and unimproved

agricultural and/or horticultural land.

REFERENCE: NEBRASKA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE TITLE 350

CHAPTER 11 (03/15/2009)

CHAPTER 14 (03/15/2009)

POLICY: Sarpy County is influenced by market forces outside of the typical agricultural market.

The influences are residential, commercial, and recreational in nature. Therefore, the total of

Sarpy County is covered under the Agricultural and Horticultural Special Valuation program.

MARKET AREAS: There is one special valuation agricultural market area within Sarpy County.

METHODOLOGY: Each farm parcel is to have a periodic inspection with all site improvements

documented on the property record file. The land portion of the property record file is to be

inventoried based upon its actual use and soil classification as documented in Title 350 Ch. 14 of

the Nebraska Administrative Code. The identified uses need to be classified as an agricultural

purpose or other land uses.

AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUATION: Sarpy County has no sales that are purely for an

agricultural purpose. Therefore, Sarpy County relies on sales information received from the

Property Assessment Division of the Nebraska Department of Revenue (PAD). For 2024, the

PAD selected comparable counties from which to draw land sales that were analyzed to establish

the agricultural special valuation, ensuring equalization with comparable and neighboring

counties.

OTHER LAND USE VALUATION: The uses that are not agricultural or horticultural land are

to be valued at 100% market value. The uses are identified, most typically as residential,

commercial, or recreational. Once identified, the area values will be arrived at by applying the

same policies and practices that are used in valuing their counter parts that are not enrolled in the

Special Valuation Program.

APPROVED

DATED: 3/6/2024

77 Sarpy Page 59