County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm.
296 Neb. 751
Neb.2017Background
- Webster County challenged a Tax Equalization and Review Commission (TERC) order that increased the assessed value of the "Majority Land Use Grass" subclass (agricultural grassland) in Webster County by 6%, raising that subclass to 72% and overall ag land to 69% of market value.
- Nebraska statutes and regulations require the Property Tax Administrator (Administrator) to compile a sales file and produce annual narrative and statistical reports (including level-of-value opinions) for each county; TERC may order adjustments and must give counties a show-cause hearing under § 77-5026.
- The Administrator’s report recommended a 9% increase for Webster County grassland after using a sample of 17 sales, including four sales "borrowed" from neighboring counties (Adams, Clay, Nuckolls, Franklin, and Kearney) because Webster’s in-county sales were inadequate.
- At the show-cause hearing the Webster County assessor disputed three sales: two in-county sales she had disqualified after use-change and one Nuckolls County sale with timber cover; the Administrator’s specialist testified those sales were properly included and that timber-over-grass parcels can still qualify as grassland.
- After receiving supplemental analyses, TERC voted to increase grassland valuations by 6% (below the Administrator’s 9% recommendation). Webster County appealed, arguing the Administrator’s reports were not competent evidence because they omitted raw sales-file details and that some borrowed sales were not comparable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Webster County) | Defendant's Argument (TERC/Administrator) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Administrator’s narrative/statistical reports are competent evidence to support TERC’s adjustment absent inclusion of each underlying sale in the report | The reports lacked required detail (each sale, selling price, assessed value, geographic characteristics) and § 77-5016(4) prohibits reliance on undocumented factual material | § 77-5027(3) does not require listing every sale; reports need only provide statistical/narrative information and county assessors can access sales file/contest at the § 77-5026 hearing | Reports are competent evidence without restating every sale; TERC may rely on them and counties bear the burden at the show-cause hearing to rebut the reports |
| Whether inclusion of out-of-county or partially wooded sales produced a noncomparable sample | Borrowed sales (esp. from Nuckolls County) and a partially wooded parcel were not comparable to Webster County grassland and improperly skewed the level-of-value | Statute/regulation permit use of comparable sales from similar market areas; timber-over-grass parcels are classifiable as grassland and Nuckolls had reported the parcel as 80% grassland; Webster failed to present evidence disproving comparability | Webster failed to carry burden to show noncomparability; TERC permissibly used those sales and did not act arbitrarily |
Key Cases Cited
- JQH La Vista Conf. Ctr. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 120 (statutory review and error-on-the-record standard for TERC decisions)
- Brenner v. Banner Cty. Bd. of Equal., 276 Neb. 275 (agency action arbitrary when disregarding facts)
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659 (agency must follow its substantive rules)
- In re Guardianship & Conservatorship of Kaiser, 295 Neb. 532 (statutory interpretation is question of law)
- In re Interest of Nizigiyimana R., 295 Neb. 324 (plain-meaning rule for statutes)
- In re Interest of Tyrone K., 295 Neb. 193 (in pari materia construction of related statutes)
- Johnson v. Neth, 276 Neb. 886 (presumption that public officers faithfully perform duties)
