802 N.W.2d 897
S.D.2011Background
- 2007 Davison County adopted a plan to reassess agricultural structures over three years, reassessing four townships per year.
- Reassessed townships in 2007 were Blendon, Badger, Baker, and Tobin; other eight townships were not reassessed in 2007.
- New reassessment valuations in the four townships were generally higher than valuations in the other eight townships.
- Stehly plaintiffs owned agricultural structures in Badger Township and faced a substantial tax increase after reassessment (example: $819.38 for 2009).
- Stehlys filed August 2008 for declaratory judgment alleging unconstitutional lack of uniform taxation within the county; trial court dismissed for lack of a single-district uniformity showing; Stehlys appeal.
- Court affirms the trial court, holding the reassessment plan did not violate uniform taxation within the applicable taxing districts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the county’s reassessment plan violates uniform taxation within a taxing district. | Stehlys contend plan created temporary lack of uniformity within the county. | County argues counties are taxing districts and the plan preserves near-term uniformity within townships. | No constitutional violation; temporary nonuniformity within a county is permissible if overall uniformity is achieved after reassessment. |
| Whether townships are taxing districts under SD law for purposes of Article XI, § 2. | Stehlys assert townships are not taxing districts; lack of uniformity within county invalid. | County treats townships as taxing districts with local boards of equalization. | Townships are taxing districts; counties operate as both assessment and taxing districts. |
| Whether a temporary lack of uniformity within a county during phased reassessment is permissible. | Temporary disparity within county would violate uniformity requirement. | Temporary inequities are allowed if a good-faith, comprehensive reassessment will produce uniformity overall. | Permissible; Johnson v. Ramsey County supports temporary nonuniformity during phased reassessment. |
| What standard governs review of constitutional challenges to taxation plans. | Not explicitly stated beyond constitutional challenge. | Presumption of constitutionality applies to the reassessment plan. | De novo review for constitutional questions with trial findings reviewed for clear error. |
Key Cases Cited
- W. Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington Cnty., 650 N.W.2d 825 (S.D. 2002) (uniformity within a taxing district required; counties considered taxing districts for Article XI, § 2)
- In re Brookings Assoc., 482 N.W.2d 873 (S.D. 1992) (presumption that assessment is in accordance with law; lack of uniformity must be shown)
- Johnson v. Ramsey Cnty., 187 N.W.2d 675 (Minn. 1971) (temporary nonuniformity within a county permissible to complete reassessment)
- Bethke v. Brown Cnty., 223 N.W.2d 757 (Minn. 1974) (reassessment within a municipality creating temporary lack of uniformity not allowed)
- Aro-mar v. Bon Homme County, 155 N.W.2d 777 (S.D. 1968) (uniformity within school districts vested with equalization powers)
- Sunday Lake Iron Co. v. Wakefield Twp., 247 U.S. 350 (U.S. 1918) (good-faith reassessment within a district may be necessary to complete full assessment)