Court Opinion

ID: 9545127
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 17:06:38.713072+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:14:07.565096
License: Public Domain

*369Schroeder, J.,
concurring: I agree fully with the foregoing opinion except for the consideration given by the court to the real estate assessment ratio study and the evidence pertaining thereto. On this point I concur only in the result — that is, that the trial court did not err in affirming the order of the State Board of Tax Appeals as to the valuation and assessment of Northern’s property on a statewide basis.
Inferentially, the court’s recognition of the ratio study evidence and consideration of the question recognizes the validity of such issue where property is assessed on a state-wide basis by the Director of Property Valuation and on appeal by the State Board of Tax Appeals. With this proposition I cannot agree.
First, both the Director and the Board in the valuation and assessment of property on a state-wide basis were required by statute to assess Northern’s properties at 30% of justifiable value. Recognition of the ratio study issue where an attempt is made to show a disparity in the assessment level of the various twenty-six counties involved could, upon a showing by satisfactory evidence, force a departure from the statute and recognize authority in the Board to assess at a lower percentage of justifiable value than the 30% required by statute. (K. S. A. 79-1439 [L. 1963, ch. 460, § 1].)
Second, it could require the state to assess the portion of state assessed property attributable to a given county at a different percentage rate for each of the various twenty-six counties within the state in which Northern had property.
Third, none of the local county officers or assessing officials is a party to this action, and therefore, would not have an opportunity to defend the assessment levels in the various counties as being in compliance with the mandate to assess at 30% of justifiable value. Thus, the Board would not have jurisdiction over indispensable or necessary parties to issue an order of this nature.
Fourth, recognition of the issue is inconsistent with Northern Natural Gas Co. v. Bender, 208 Kan. 135, 490 P. 2d 399. The point here under consideration should be a corollary to the rule in Bender; that is, where the Kansas property of an interstate public utility is assessed by the State Director of Property Valuation on a state-wide basis, as authorized by K. S. A. 79-1404, Fifteenth, the Director of Property Valuation lacks jurisdiction to determine the assessment level of property in the various local counties involved, but is required to assess the property in accordance with the statu*370tory mandate at 30% of justifiable value for the portion of the property which is attributable to each of the various counties. If discrimination exists at the local county level in the assessment of property, it should be resolved in a protest action under K. S. A. 79-2005 (now L. 1971, ch. 303, §1).