333 P.3d 899
Kan. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tallgrass appeals 2011 fair market value of its multi-tenant office property in Topeka; building completed 2002 with a surgical suite tenant.
- Property taxed in Shawnee County; 2010 valuation reduced following a prior appeal, affecting 2010 and creating a later 2011 valuation dispute.
- COTA considered three appraisals (Meyer for County, Dillon for Tallgrass, Keller for County rebuttal) and relied on an income approach with Keller's expense rate.
- COTA rejected Tallgrass’s arguments about statutory rollover under K.S.A. 2013 Supp. 79-1460(a)(2) and held the 2011 valuation must be recalculated.
- COTA found the County’s mass appraisal method compliant with USPAP Standard 6 for mass appraisal and used Keller’s expense input with Meyer's income approach to reach a final value of $9,431,560 for 2011.
- The court remanded for recalculation of the 2011 valuation using corrected square footage (74,508 sf, excluding MC Concessions) and the agreed space allocations and rental rates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Interpretation of 79-1460(a)(2) | Tallgrass argues the statute requires a rollover from the prior year’s reduction. | COTA correctly applied the statute; 2011 valuation is a new independent event. | COTA properly applied 79-1460(a)(2). |
| Burden of proof under 79-1609 | County failed to prove validity and correctness of value; burden shifts improperly. | COTA did not shift the burden and evaluated competing evidence. | Burden not improperly shifted; substantial evidence supports COTA’s valuation. |
| USPAP standards and valuation methodology | County used improper summation and relied on outdated or inappropriate inputs. | COTA used a mass appraisal framework with Standard 6 and combined inputs from Meyer's and Keller's analyses. | Valuation complied with USPAP Standard 6 and applicable Kansas law; no error. |
| Support by substantial evidence for findings | Inputs (square footage, rents, expenses) were incorrect or not properly supported. | COTA considered all three appraisals and relied on Keller’s expense inputs with Meyer's income approach. | Remand for recalculation due to mathematical square footage adjustments; findings otherwise supported. |
| Excessive or discriminatory valuation claim | COTA failed to address Tallgrass’s claim of intentional systematic excessive valuations. | Not properly raised or supported in record; no proven pattern of discrimination. | Claim abandoned; constitutional challenge not sustained; decision stands on other grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re LaFarge Midwest, 293 Kan. 1039 (2012) (statutory interpretation; strict in tax matters; no deference to agency views)
- In re Dillon Stores, 42 Kan. App. 2d 881 (2009) (prohibition on valuation by summation; mass appraisal standards)
- Jensen v. Board of County Comm'rs, 32 Kan. App. 2d 730 (2004) (USPAP mass appraisal standards; aggregation issues)
- Cashatt v. Board of Douglas County Comm'rs, 23 Kan. App. 2d 532 (1997) (use-value vs fair market value; highest and best use considerations)
- Allegheny Pittsburgh Coal Co. v. Webster County, 488 U.S. 336 (1989) (systematic discrimination claims; equal protection in valuation challenges)