#26196-rev & rem-LSW
2013 S.D. 33
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
****
JOHN APLAND, ET AL., Plaintiff and Appellee,
v.
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION FOR
BUTTE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, Defendant and Appellant.
****
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
BUTTE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
****
THE HONORABLE JOHN W. BASTIAN
Judge
****
KENNETH E. BARKER of
Barker Wilson Law Firm, LLP
Belle Fourche, South Dakota Attorneys for plaintiff
and appellee.
ROBERT L. MORRIS of
Day Morris Law Firm, LLP
Belle Fourche, South Dakota Attorneys for defendant
and appellant.
****
CONSIDERED ON BRIEFS
ON JANUARY 8, 2013
OPINION FILED 04/10/13
#26196
WILBUR, Justice
[¶1.] This is the second property tax appeal to this Court concerning the
Butte County Director of Equalization’s (Director) methodology for assessing the
value of the rangeland property owned by Apland and other appellees (Apland). We
must decide whether Director’s recalculation on remand conformed to our decision
in Apland I. The trial court held that Director did not comply with the directives in
Apland I. We reverse and remand.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
[¶2.] Apland and Director have been involved in a dispute over the method
Director used to calculate the value of Apland’s property for tax purposes in 2002
and 2003. In Apland I,
Apland assert[ed] that the methodology used by Director to
determine the assessment value of Apland’s rangeland violated
the Constitutional requirements of equality and uniformity.
Specifically, Apland assert[ed] that it was error for Director to
use sales of land with “appurtenant water rights” without any
adjustment for the market value of those water rights. Apland
assert[ed] that this error led to his rangeland, which does not
have appurtenant and nontransferable water rights, being
assessed at a substantially higher value than other rangeland of
similar kind and quality.
Apland v. Butte Cnty. (Apland I), 2006 S.D. 53, ¶ 17, 716 N.W.2d 787, 792.
“Apland’s expert, Jerry Kjerstad, stated that ‘sales . . . with water rights should not
be paired with sales without water rights unless an adjustment for the water rights
could be quantified.’” Id. ¶ 18 (alteration in original). Thus, the question before
this Court in Apland I was “whether it was clearly erroneous for Director to use
sales of land with access to [the Belle Fourche Irrigation District (BFID)] in his
formula when determining that under SDCL 10-6-33.6, the median market value
-1-
#26196
per acre in the Southern Neighborhood deviates by more than ten percent from the
county median market value per acre, thus allowing Director to establish a separate
market value per acre for the land within the Southern Neighborhood.” Id.
(internal footnote omitted).1
[¶3.] This Court held that Director “failed to comply with the Constitutional
requirements of equality and uniformity.” Id. ¶ 20. See S.D. Const. art. VIII, § 15;
S.D. Const. art. XI, § 2. In order to comply with these Constitutional requirements,
we held that, before Director determines the median market value, Director must
adjust for sales of land containing appurtenant and nontransferable rights
downward to reflect the value of those rights. Apland I, 2006 S.D. 53, ¶¶ 19-20, 716
N.W.2d at 793. Accordingly, we remanded this case for proceedings consistent with
our opinion with direction to Director to re-determine the property values after
giving “appropriate consideration and value to appurtenant and nontransferable
water rights, specifically BFID water rights.” Id. ¶ 26.
1. SDCL 10-6-33.6 provided:
If the median market value per acre in an identifiable region
within a county deviates by more than ten percent from the
county median market value per acre, the county director of
equalization may establish a separate market value per acre for
the land defined by the director of equalization within that
identifiable region.
SDCL 10-6-33.6 allowed Director to form regions or “neighborhoods,” as we
referred to them in Apland I, within a county when assessing tax values if
certain conditions were met. Though the Legislature repealed this statute in
2008, it governed the assessment years that are the subject of this appeal.
See 2008 S.D. Sess. Laws 155, ch. 44, § 23.
-2-
#26196
[¶4.] On remand, the trial court held a hearing and considered post-trial
briefs from the parties. In its first memorandum decision on April 15, 2008, the
trial court determined that Director had not complied with the holding of this Court
in Apland I and required that Director “make adjustments for sales containing
appurtenant water rights and adjust those sales prices ‘downward[ ]’ before
calculating the median market values.” The trial court determined that an accurate
median market value per acre can only be determined after the value of those water
rights is established and considered. Further, the trial court held that the
methodology utilized by Director to determine the assessment value of Apland’s
rangeland continued to be in violation of the Constitutional requirements of
equality and uniformity. The trial court instructed Director to: (1) determine the
value of land with appurtenant and nontransferable water rights either by adopting
Apland’s paired sales analysis or performing its own analysis; and (2) after
determining the value of the land with appurtenant and nontransferable water
rights and the median market value per acre, determine whether the recalculation
would affect the 10 percent deviation analysis under SDCL 10-6-33.6.
[¶5.] In response to the trial court’s first post-remand memorandum
decision, Director submitted an affidavit detailing his methodology in reassessing
the land. In his affidavit, Director stated:
29. That although your Affiant has concluded that there is no
value that you can specifically and solely attribute to the value
of water rights or access to water for irrigated sales and
therefore there is no need to make a “downward adjustment” of
the irrigated sales prior to performing the deviation analysis,
your Affiant follows the directive of the Supreme Court and
Circuit Court and will do the same as [Apland’s] expert by
-3-
#26196
determining value using a small data set which consists only of
those sales that are less than 150% of assessed value.
30. That your Affiant undertook a parings analysis for the 2002
and 2003 assessment years using only “good sales”[2] which are
non-rejected sales that are not sales over 150% of assessed
value.
31. Each non-irrigated sale was paired against each irrigated
sale.
32. An adjustment for soil quality is made to account for any
productivity difference in each pairing and the resulting dollar
difference is assumed to be solely attributable to water rights or
access to water.
33. A percentage difference in adjusted sale price per acre is
calculated for each pairing.
34. The median of these percentage differences is calculated for
all of the pairings involving each non-irrigated sale, and for all
of the pairings for all the sales.
35. A negative percentage difference is an indication that
irrigation had a negative influence on value. A positive
difference is an indication that irrigation influenced the sale
price positively.
36. In the 2002 assessment year, there were two non-irrigated
sales that were paired against thirty irrigated sales. Both of
these sales indicated a positive median difference due to
irrigation. One sale indicated a percentage difference of forty-
five (45) percent and the other fifty-five (55) percent. Only eight
(8) of the sixty (60) individual pairings indicated a negative
difference for irrigation.
2. A “good” sale is an agricultural sale that is more than 70 acres, a sale for less
than 150 percent of the assessed value, and an arms-length transaction. See
SDCL 10-6-1.4 (defining arms-length transactions); SDCL 10-6-33.20
(repealed 2008) (stating that “[a]ny agricultural land . . . sold in an increment
of seventy acres or less[ ] may not be used for the purpose of valuing
agricultural land”); SDCL 10-6-74 (stating that “[a]ny real property which
sells for more than one hundred fifty percent of its assessed value, may not be
used for the purpose of valuing other real property”).
-4-
#26196
37. Thus, if one used only the small data set of “good sales” for
the 2002 assessment year, the value of water rights or access to
water (irrigation), if one assumed it was solely [due] to water
rights or access to water (irrigation), is forty-eight (48) percent
of the sale price of each irrigated sale.
38. That for the 2002 assessment year, a downward adjustment
of 48% of the sale price of each irrigated sale is then made.
39. That for the 2002 assessment year, after adjusting the sale
price of each irrigated sale, the neighborhood analysis is
performed and is as follows:
a. Median Market Value per Acre (Entire County Sales) is
$155.00 per acre.
b. Median Market Value per Acre (Northern Sales) is
$104.00 per acre.
c. Median Market Value per Acre (Southern Sales) is
$219.00 per acre.
40. That for the 2002 assessment year, after adjusting the sale
price of each irrigated sale, there is a greater than 10%
deviation pursuant to SDCL 10-6-33.6.
...
44. That for the 2003 assessment year[,] there were no “good
sales” of non-irrigated land in which to pair with irrigated land
to determine the percentage of sale price attributable to water
rights. Nonetheless, forty-eight (48) percent value was assigned
as the percentage attributable to each sale and a downward
adjustment of 48% of the sale price of each irrigated sale is then
made.
45. That for the 2003 assessment year, after adjusting the sale
price of each irrigated sale, the neighborhood analysis is
performed and is as follows:
a. Median Market Value per Acre (Entire County Sales) is
$133.00 per acre.
b. Median Market Value per Acre (Northern Sales) is
$116.00 per acre.
c. Median Market Value per Acre (Southern Sales) is
$179.00 per acre.
46. That for the 2003 assessment year, after adjusting the sale
price of each irrigated sale, there is a greater than 10%
deviation pursuant to SDCL 10-6-33.6.
...
-5-
#26196
By stipulation, the parties’ briefs and exhibits, including both Director’s affidavit
and an affidavit and report from Apland’s expert, Ronald Ensz,3 were submitted to
the trial court for its consideration.
[¶6.] In its March 25, 2011 memorandum decision, the trial court concluded
that Director failed to value the appurtenant water rights and make a downward
adjustment prior to calculating the median market value. The trial court also held
that, until an adjustment is made for appurtenant water rights, a median value
comparison for the purpose of “neighborhooding” is meaningless. Accordingly, the
trial court determined that Director’s methodology was incorrect. The trial court
entered a judgment in favor of Apland and instructed Director to make the
adjustments as determined by Apland’s expert for all appeals perfected for the years
2002 to 2009. The Board of Equalization, on behalf of Director, appealed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[¶7.] “An appeal asserting a violation of a constitutional provision is a
question of law reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Stehly v. Davison
Cnty., 2011 S.D. 49, ¶ 7, 802 N.W.2d 897, 899. “Statutory construction is also [a
question] of law to be reviewed under the de novo standard of review.” Cable v.
Union Cnty. Bd. of Cnty. Comm’rs, 2009 S.D. 59, ¶ 19, 769 N.W.2d 817, 825. “This
Court [ ] reviews affidavit evidence de novo.” Id. “Under the de novo standard of
review, we give no deference to the trial court’s conclusions of law.” Stehly, 2011
3. Ensz, who worked with Jerry Kjerstad at Kjerstad Realty Group, became
Apland’s expert after the death of Kjerstad, Apland’s expert in Apland I.
-6-
#26196
S.D. 49, ¶ 7, 802 N.W.2d at 899 (quoting In re Guardianship of S.M.N., T.D.N., and
T.L.N., 2010 S.D. 31, ¶ 10, 781 N.W.2d 213, 218).
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[¶8.] Director argues that he correctly performed the methodology as
directed by this Court in Apland I. In doing so, he contends that he adjusted sales
prices downward to reflect the value of appurtenant water rights. Further, he
asserts that, after that adjustment, there still existed a more than 10 percent
deviation in the median market value per acre in an identifiable region as compared
to the county median market value. Thus, Director argues that he was justified in
applying SDCL 10-6-33.6 and establishing a separate market value per acre within
each identifiable region.
[¶9.] “All real property in South Dakota is to be assessed for tax purposes at
its true and full value.” Apland I, 2006 S.D. 53, ¶ 16, 716 N.W.2d at 792.
The following “underlying constitutional provisions must . . . be
complied with:
(1) the burden of taxation of all property is to be equitable, S.D.
Const. art. XI, § 2,
(2) agricultural and nonagricultural property may be separated
into distinct classes for tax purposes, S.D. Const. art. VIII, § 15,
(3) valuation of property is not to exceed its actual value, S.D.
Const. art. XI, § 2, and
(4) taxation is to be uniform on all property in the same class.
S.D. Const. art. VIII, § 15; S.D. Const. art. XI, § 2.”
Id. (quoting Butte Cnty. v.Vallery, 1999 S.D. 142, ¶ 12, 602 N.W.2d 284, 287).
“There is a presumption that tax officials act in accordance with the law and not
arbitrarily or unfairly when assessing property, and the taxpayer bears the burden
to overcome this presumption.” Id. (quoting Burke v. Butte Cnty., 2002 S.D. 17, ¶
18, 640 N.W.2d 473, 479). “To overcome this presumption, ‘the taxpayer must
-7-
#26196
produce sufficient evidence to show the assessed valuation was in excess of true and
full value, lacked uniformity in the same class, or was discriminatory.’” Id. (quoting
Vallery, 1999 S.D. 142, ¶ 11, 602 N.W.2d at 287).
[¶10.] In Apland I, we stated that “the methodology undertaken by Director
was correct but for his failure to give appropriate consideration and value to
appurtenant and nontransferable water rights, specifically BFID water rights.” Id.
¶ 26. Pursuant to our directives in Apland I, Director was instructed to: (1) make
adjustments downward for sales containing appurtenant water rights; and (2) only
after making those adjustments, determine whether the median market value per
acre in an identifiable region deviates by more than 10 percent from the county
median market value per acre under SDCL 10-6-33.6. Thus, at its core, this appeal
centers on whether Director properly executed the directives of Apland I. The trial
court held that Director had not.
[¶11.] On remand, Director submitted an affidavit in which he performed the
methodology required in Apland I to satisfy the requirements of SDCL 10-6-33.6.
In the 2002 assessment year, Director, using only “good sales,” paired non-irrigated
sales against irrigated sales. He made an adjustment for soil quality to account for
any productivity difference in each pairing and expressed that difference as a
percentage. Director determined that sales without water rights sold for 48 percent
less than sales with water rights and made a downward adjustment to irrigated
sales using that percentage.
[¶12.] Director also followed our directives from Apland I in assessment year
2003. Because there were no “good sales” of non-irrigated land in which to pair
-8-
#26196
with irrigated land in 2003, Director again used 48 percent as the percentage
attributable to water rights and made a downward adjustment of 48 percent to each
irrigated sale.
[¶13.] After making adjustments for irrigated sales in 2002 and 2003,
Director calculated the median market value per acre in each identifiable region.
Notably, both Ensz and Director had nearly identical calculations for the “adjusted”
median sales prices for the same years – 2002 and 2003. For example, in
assessment year 2002, Ensz concluded that the adjusted median sales prices were:
$156 per acre for all sales within the county; $221 per acre for southern sales; and
$104 per acre for northern sales. As noted above, Director concluded that the
adjusted median sales prices for assessment year 2002 were: $155 per acre for all
sales within the county; $219 per acre for southern sales; and $104 per acre for
northern sales. Additionally, in assessment year 2003, Director and Ensz reached
identical conclusions for the median sales prices for the entire county ($133 per
acre), southern sales ($179 per acre), and northern sales ($116 per acre).
[¶14.] It was only after these adjustments and determinations that Director
determined the median market value per acre in the identifiable region deviated by
more than 10 percent from the county median market value per acre for assessment
years 2002 and 2003. Thus, under SDCL 10-6-33.6, Director was permitted to
establish a separate market value per acre for the land defined by Director within
the identifiable region.
[¶15.] After Director completed the procedure for “neighborhooding,” he
concluded that the assessed valuations for Apland’s property were valid and not in
-9-
#26196
excess of full and true value.4 However, Apland’s argument is that, even after
Director created neighborhoods properly incorporating the value of BFID water
rights, Director’s valuations were not equal and uniform within the respective
neighborhoods as required by our Constitution. From this record, we are not able to
determine if Director’s method of valuation of Apland’s property resulted in an
equal and uniform assessment within each of the newly created neighborhoods.
Although Ensz submitted evidence suggesting his view of that question, the trial
court did not consider this last remaining specific question. As a result of including
the impact of appurtenant and nontransferable water rights, this determination
may require a recalculation of the assessed values of parcels within each
neighborhood.
CONCLUSION
[¶16.] The trial court concluded that Director’s methodology on remand was
incorrect. We disagree, in part, because Director did the correct analysis to
ascertain whether neighborhoods were justified. We remand for a determination of
whether Director’s assessments complied with the Constitutional requirements of
equality and uniformity within the neighborhoods.
[¶17.] Reverse and remand.
[¶18.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP, ZINTER, and
SEVERSON, Justices, concur.
4. In his affidavit, Director concluded that “it is your Affiant’s opinion that the
assessed values for . . . [Apland] for the 2002 and 2003 assessment years are
valid assessments under the applicable law and are not in excess of full and
true value.
-10-