Case Name: In re Valuation and Equalization of Real Estate in the State of Nebraska for 1969. County of Sarpy, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; County of Wheeler, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; County of Boone, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; County of Nance, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; County of Loup, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; Larry Schaffer et al., County of Holt, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; James H. Cullinane, County of Cass, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee; James H. Cullinane, County of Polk, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee
Court: Nebraska Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Nebraska
Decision Date: 1970-07-17
Citations: 185 Neb. 760
Docket Number: Nos. 37400, 37408, 37409, 37410, 37418, 37423, 37427, 37428
Parties: In re Valuation and Equalization of Real Estate in the State of Nebraska for 1969. County of Sarpy, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Wheeler, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Boone, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Nance, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Loup, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. Larry Schaffer et al., County of Holt, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. James H. Cullinane, County of Cass, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. James H. Cullinane, County of Polk, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee.
Judges: Heard before Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ., and Colwell and Tesar, District Judges.
Reporter: Nebraska Reports
Volume: 185
Pages: 760–771

Head Matter:
In re Valuation and Equalization of Real Estate in the State of Nebraska for 1969. County of Sarpy, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Wheeler, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Boone, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Nance, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. County of Loup, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. Larry Schaffer et al., County of Holt, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. James H. Cullinane, County of Cass, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee. James H. Cullinane, County of Polk, Nebraska, appellant, v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, appellee.
178 N. W. 2d 765
Filed July 17, 1970.
Nos. 37400, 37408, 37409, 37410, 37418, 37423, 37427, 37428.
Dixon G. Adams, James J. McNally, Raymond P. Medlin, Jr., Donald R. Treadway, A. F. Adler, August Ross, and McGrath, North, Nelson, Shkolnick & Dwyer, for appellants.
Clarence A. H. Meyer, Attorney General, and Ralph H. Gillan, for appellee.
Mason, Knudsen, Berkheimer & Endacott, for amicus curiae.
Heard before Spencer, Boslaugh, Smith, McCown, and Newton, JJ., and Colwell and Tesar, District Judges.

Opinion:
Spencer, J.
This is an appeal from the action of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment, hereinafter referred to as state board, ordering increases of assessed valuations. The counties involved herein, and the percentage increases, are as follows:
COUNTY RURAL URBAN-SUBURBAN
Boone 60 20
Cass 75 9
Holt 35 0
Loup 70 0
Nance 60 0
Polk 40 21
Sarpy 15 0
Wheeler 25 0
For all of the counties herein except Wheeler, the orders of the state board indicate the rural increases were predicated upon a 3-year sales assessment ratio, agricultural statistics, and the testimony of the county officials. In addition, Holt and Wheeler Counties! had appraisal studies by Justin H. Haynes & Company, and Loup County had an appraisal study by R. C. Walters Company, Inc. The order as to Wheeler County, in addition to the Haynes appraisal study, specified that it was predicated on a 2-year sales assessment ratio and agricultural statistics.
Many of the questions raised herein are discussed in County of Sioux v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, ante p. 741, 178 N. W. 2d 754. Reference is hereby made to that opinion for questions raised concerning the regional hearings. Also, because of the result we reach herein, we do not discuss the constitutionality of the legislative acts more specifically referred to in that opinion. Reference is also made to that opinion for the discussion as to the use of state agricultural statistics, which were considered as to agricultural land for all of the counties involved herein. As there found, the consideration of agricultural statistics was a clear violation of the Nebraska Administrative Procedures Act, section 84-914 (3), R. R. S. 1943, set out therein. Reference is also made to that opinion for the discussion concerning the fact that the sales assessment ratio covered both the land and the improvements thereon. The rural increases made herein are for the land only and not the improvements. This creates a disparity between agricultural lands with improvements and those with no improvements, and puts an undue share of the tax burden on the latter.
Reference is made in each of the orders to the testimony of county officials. There is nothing in the testimony of the county officials of the counties involved herein which would even remotely support any of the increases made. Actually, the testimony of the county officials would in most instances definitely negative any increase for the particular county involved.
As noted in County of Gage v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, ante p. 749, 178 N. W. 2d 759, scientific reappraisals approved by the State Tax Commissioner, completed and placed in effect within 2 or 3 years prior to 1969, were accepted and approved without change by the state board. Of the counties involved herein, Wheeler had such a reappraisal which was used for the first time in 1967. Yet, that reappraisal was ignored and Wheeler was given a 25 percent increase for its rural lands. An adjoining county, Antelope, also had an appraisal used for the first time in 1967, but no increase was made for that county. The 3-year sales assessment ratio for Wheeler was 22.75 percent. For Antelope it was 23.47 percent. Harlan County, with a 3-year sales assessment ratio of 23.06 and a 1967 reappraisal, was given no increase, nor was Keith County with a 23.49 3-year sales assessment ratio and a 1968 reappraisal. For some reason not apparent from the record, there is a purported appraisal study made for Wheeler which suggests an indicated ratio of 28 percent. There is no showing in this record as to why the reappraisal should be used for approximately 30 other counties where made within the last 2 or 3 years, and ignored for Wheeler.
The record indicates that a reappraisal for Sarpy County was accepted in 1966, and has been continually updated. The undisputed testimony is that the assessor adjusts after every sale, not only on the sale property but also on adjacent property. To apply an increase to this county, based on a sales assessment ratio for sales where the valuations have already been corrected on the county's records, would double the increase as to these properties.
A comparison is made between comparable farm land along the border between Douglas and Sarpy Counties. The highest value for Douglas County was $374 per acre and the lowest was $167 per acre. The comparable land across the road in Sarpy County is assessed at considerably higher figures, so that any increase for Sarpy County would increase the value disparity between Sarpy and Douglas Counties. Because of overlapping school districts between the two counties, this would result in Sarpy County rural taxpayers bearing an undue portion of school taxes compared with the Douglas County taxpayers in those same school districts.
Cass County has overlapping school districts with Lancaster and Otoe Counties. The proposed increase for Cass County is 75 percent; for Lancaster, 29 percent; and for Otoe, 40 percent. For reasons set out in County of Lancaster v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, ante p. 757, 178 N. W. 2d 772, the increase has been voided as to Lancaster County. There is a difference of only .46 percent in the 3-year sales assessment ratio between Lancaster and Cass Counties. Despite the fact that the state board order recites consideration of a 3-year sales assessment ratio based upon its conclusion as to the indicated ratio, only the year 1968 was considered.
In 1968, 49 rural sales were submitted for Loup County, but only 2 of the 49 submitted were used to arrive at a sales assessment ratio of 15 percent. Two sales are too few for sales assessment ratio purposes. What has been said as to agricultural statistics is pertinent here, because with the appraisal study it was a factor in the assessment of the increase.
Nance County had a reappraisal in 1966. The 3-year sales assessment ratio percentages are as follows:
1966 29
1967 25
1968 21
The conclusion reached by the state board as to the indicated ratio for Nance County is 21, so it is obvious that although the order suggests consideration of a 3-year sales assessment ratio, of agricultural statistics, and of the testimony of the county officials, the indicated ratio is exactly the same as the 1968 sales assessment ratio.
In Boone County the 3-year sales assessment ratio percentages are as follows:
1966 28
1967 27
1968 21
Here again, although the order refers to a 3-year sales assessment ratio, agricultural statistics, and the testimony of county officials, the indicated ratio is the same as the 1968 sales assessment ratio.
Only three of the counties, Boone, Cass, and Polk, are given urban and suburban increases. In all three, the orders state that the increase is predicated upon a 3-year sales assessment ratio and the testimony of the county officials. In Boone and Cass Counties, the testimony indicates that the town property is already overvalued, and that the increase would further overvalue it. The conclusion of the state board as to their indicated ratio is 26 for Boone and 29 for Cass and Polk Counties. In addition to Boone County, Thayer and Wheeler also had an indicated ratio of 26. Thayer was given a 15 percent increase and Wheeler none. Loup County, with an indicated ratio of 22, was given no increase. Grant County, with an indicated ratio of 24, was given no increase. Grant County had a reappraisal in 1966 and Loup had one in 1967. Sioux, Boyd, and Dawes Counties, all with an indicated urban ratio of 25, were given no increases. It is impossible to reconcile these discrepancies from the record.
Cass County, with an indicated ratio of 29, was given a 9 percent increase. Polk and Merrick Counties, with an indicated ratio of 29, were given a 21 percent increase. Cedar and Dixon Counties, which had had recent reappraisals but also had an indicated ratio of 29, were given no increases. Holt and Lancaster Counties, with an indicated urban ratio of 29, were given no increases.
Upon consideration of the record herein, we cannot escape the conclusion that the state board used completely different and uncorrelated methods to support its ultimate conclusions, and that no reasonable approach was made to achieve uniformity among the counties. As we said in County of Sioux v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, ante p. 741, 178 N. W. 2d 754, it is the primary duty of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment to equalize or establish uniformity among the various counties, and, while absolute uniformity of approach may not be possible, there must be a reasonable attempt at uniformity.
Where the record of the proceedings before the State Board of Equalization and Assessment contains no evidence to justify an order, the action must be held to be unreasonable and arbitrary.
For the reasons given, we reverse the order of the State Board of Equalization and Assessment increasing the assessments herein.
Reversed.
White., C. J., and Carter, J., took no part in the consideration of or decision in these cases.