County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm.
296 Neb. 751
| Neb. | 2017Background
- TERC issued an equalization order increasing Webster County’s "Majority Land Use — Grass" subclass assessed values by 6%, bringing that subclass to 72% of market and overall agricultural land to 69%.
- The Department of Revenue’s Property Tax Administrator (Assessment Division) had recommended a 9% increase after a statistical analysis of sales, including some sales from adjacent counties because Webster County’s own sales sample was inadequate.
- The Webster County assessor disputed inclusion of three sales (two local sales later reclassified by the assessor and one partially wooded sale from Nuckolls County) and argued the Administrator’s report lacked specific sales file details (sale prices, assessed values, geographic info).
- A show-cause hearing was held: assessor testified she could produce a within-range level if certain sales were excluded or adjusted; Assessment Division’s specialist defended use of the sales and the methodology; TERC voted to adopt a 6% increase.
- Webster County appealed, arguing (1) the Administrator’s reports were not competent evidence because they did not include the underlying sales file detail requested under statute, and (2) TERC relied on noncomparable out-of-county sales.
- The Nebraska Supreme Court affirmed: the Administrator’s narrative/statistical reports are competent evidence without repeating each sales-file entry; the county bore the burden at the show-cause hearing to prove the reports were unreliable; Webster failed to show the disputed Nuckolls sale was noncomparable.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether TERC may rely on the Administrator’s annual narrative and statistical reports without including each sales-file transaction | County: §77-5016(4) requires records relied on by TERC be in the record; reports lacked specific sales details so they are inadequate | TERC/Administrator: §77-5027(3) does not require listing every sale; assessors get sales rosters and can protest; reports suffice and counties may challenge at show-cause hearing | Held: Reports under §77-1327 / §77-5027 are competent evidence without repeating each sales-file entry; county must show at hearing why TERC should not rely on them |
| Whether Assessment Division improperly used noncomparable out-of-county sales to calculate level of value | County: Some borrowed sales (notably a Nuckolls parcel with tree cover) were not comparable to Webster grassland, so inclusion distorted the median | TERC/Administrator: Regulations permit using comparable sales from similar market areas/counties when local sample is inadequate; the disputed Nuckolls sale was reported as grassland and within division rules | Held: Court assumed an 80% majority-use standard but accepted Assessment Division’s classification (timbered grazing remains grassland unless unusable); county produced no evidence refuting comparability; inclusion was proper |
Key Cases Cited
- JQH La Vista Conf. Ctr. v. Sarpy Cty. Bd. of Equal., 285 Neb. 120, 825 N.W.2d 447 (appellate review of TERC final decisions is for error on the record)
- Brenner v. Banner Cty. Bd. of Equal., 276 Neb. 275, 753 N.W.2d 802 (administrative decisions arbitrary when made in disregard of facts)
- Blakely v. Lancaster County, 284 Neb. 659, 825 N.W.2d 149 (questions of law in agency actions reviewed de novo)
- Johnson v. Neth, 276 Neb. 886, 758 N.W.2d 395 (presumption that public officers perform duties faithfully)