#23874, #23875-rev & rem-RWS
2006 SD 53
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE
STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
JOHN APLAND, GEORGE BEAN, MARTIN
BONATO, TOM COOPER, KIM COOPER,
ROBERT CROFFORD, LORITA CROFFORD,
TOM DAVIS, MARLENE DAVIS, ROBERT
FERRELL, JANET FARRELL, HARVEY
GARR, VALERIE GARR, PAUL GARR,
DANIEL KANE, ROSALIE FISHEL,
DOUG JOHNSON, FALSE BOTTOM
LIVESTOCK, GRACE G. KIRKSEY, EILEEN
RANDALL, KIM KLING, CHRIS KLING,
TERRY KUDLOCK, TIM KUDLOCK
SHARON KUDLOCK, K. KUDLOCK FAMILY
TRUST, HERBERT LESMEISTER,
MICHAEL LESMEISTER, WAYNE MASSIE,
MARGARET MASSIE, NEAL MCCOY,
KEVIN PARADIS, JERAL SHEAR,
DIANNE SHEAR, ROBERT SHEAR,
SCOTT STAVE, SUSAN STAVE, GARY
STEELE, KATHY STEELE, TRAVIS STEELE,
DEBRA STEELE, WESLEY THOMPSON,
And CATHALEEN WOOD, Appellants,
v.
BUTTE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA, Appellees.
* * * *
APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
BUTTE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
* * * *
HONORABLE JOHN W. BASTIAN
Judge
* * * *
ARGUED MAY 25, 2006
OPINION FILED 06/14/06
KENNETH E. BARKER of
Barker Reynolds Law Firm
Belle Fourche, South Dakota Attorneys for appellants.
ROBERT L. MORRIS of
Day Morris Law Firm, LLP
Belle Fourche, South Dakota Attorneys for appellees.
#23874, #23875
SABERS, Justice
[¶1.] Apland and the other appellants (Apland) are appealing the circuit
court’s decision that affirmed the Butte County Director of Equalization’s (Director)
2002 and 2003 assessments of rangeland property. Apland asserts that Director’s
methodology in applying SDCL 10-6-33.6 was clearly erroneous, and we agree.
Director did not give appropriate consideration to appurtenant and nontransferable
water rights.
FACTS
[¶2.] In preparation for the assessment review for 2002, Director laid out a
map of Butte County and proceeded to plot the land sales for 2000 and 2001.
Director noted the sequence number and price per acre, not including any building
value, on the map for each sale. Each of these forty-six sales were audited and
approved by the South Dakota Department of Revenue. After plotting the sales,
Director noted that the sales in the southern portion of the county were generally
higher than the sales in the northern portion of the county. Director suspected that
this difference was due to location. To see if his suspicion was correct, Director
performed tests to determine whether the difference in sales price per acre was
influenced by location.
[¶3.] Director performed eight pairings of northern and southern Butte
County sales. He used sales similar in nature, considering factors such as location,
soil quality, time of sale, use of property, and climate conditions. Director did not
take into consideration appurtenant and nontransferable water rights or access to
the Belle Fourche Irrigation District (BFID) in selecting these pairs. After
-1-
#23874, #23875
preparing these pairings, Director made adjustments only for soil rating to isolate
any difference in sales price for location. He did not make an adjustment for the
value of the appurtenant water rights. After preparing the pairings and making the
appropriate soil adjustments, Director determined that property located in southern
Butte County would be approximately 150 percent of the value of the same property
in northern Butte County.
[¶4.] At the conclusion of the testing, Director determined the difference in
sales price was based on location. Director then went through the process of
identifying possible market areas or neighborhoods within Butte County. Director
considered characteristics including: population, towns, road systems, markets,
employment opportunities, vicinity of the Black Hills, vicinity of other
municipalities such as Sturgis and Spearfish, historic precipitation, available
listings of properties in southern Butte County, and the larger competitive base
(more buyers) interested in southern Butte County. As indicated, Director did not
consider appurtenant and nontransferable water rights or access to BFID. Once
these characteristics were established, Director mapped out two neighborhoods, the
Southern Neighborhood and the Northern Neighborhood.
[¶5.] Pursuant to SDCL 10-6-33.6, Director then determined whether the
median market value in each neighborhood deviated by more than ten percent from
the overall county median market value. To determine the county-wide median
market value, Director listed the 2000 and 2001 sales for the entire county with the
actual price paid per acre (market value) and calculated that the median market
value per acre was $284.00 for the county as a whole. Director then listed the
-2-
#23874, #23875
fourteen 2000 and 2001 sales for the Northern Neighborhood. One sale included
BFID water rights, but the acres with these water rights were located in the
Southern Neighborhood. He determined the median market value per acre was
$104.00 per acre, a -63.40 percent deviation from the county median market value
per acre. Director then listed the thirty-two 2000 and 2001 sales for the Southern
Neighborhood, of which thirty had BFID water rights. He determined the median
market value per acre was $385.00 per acre, a +35.60 percent deviation from the
county median market value per acre. Based on these calculations, Director
determined that there existed more than a ten percent deviation from the overall
county median market value per acre in both the Northern and Southern
Neighborhoods.
[¶6.] Based on this ten percent deviation from the overall county median
market value, Director determined that SDCL 10-6-33.6 allowed him to establish a
separate market value per acre for land within the Northern and Southern
Neighborhoods. In order to ascertain this separate market value, Director used a
top dollar value process for assessment. The top dollar value process worked off soil
ratings that represent the productivity capability of a soil, with 1.0 representing the
most productive soil in the county. Director performed a soil survey calculation for
each sale in Butte County in 2000 and 2001 using the soil ratings provided by the
South Dakota Department of Revenue. Director calculated the weighted average
soil rating for each sale and took that times the sale price to determine the top
dollar value for each sale. It was determined that the county-wide median top
dollar value for all sales in 2000 and 2001 was $418.00 per acre.
-3-
#23874, #23875
[¶7.] Director then performed the same analysis on sales in just the
Northern Neighborhood and determined that the median top dollar value was
$241.00 per acre. Therefore, a parcel with a soil rating of 1.0 in the Northern
Neighborhood would be assessed at $241.00 per acre. The same analysis was done
in the Southern Neighborhood, and Director determined that the median top dollar
value was $642.00 per acre. In other words, a parcel with a soil rating of 1.0 would
be assessed at $642.00 per acre. Director determined that the $642.00 top dollar
value of the Southern Neighborhood could mean that some parcels with lower soil
ratings in the Southern Neighborhood could be overvalued, mainly rangeland
properties.
[¶8.] Director then considered five sales, three of which included BFID
water rights, of either rangeland or mostly rangeland, most with soil ratings less
than .6 in the Southern Neighborhood. Director determined that the average top
dollar value for rangeland soils in the Southern Neighborhood was $332.00 per acre.
Using the Butte County Table 1.A soils ratings, Director determined that most of
the rangeland soils in the county fell below a rating of .6. Because Director had
determined that the top dollar value selected for rangeland soils in the Southern
Neighborhood was $332.00 per acre and the top dollar value for the Southern
Neighborhood was $642.00 per acre, he divided $332.00 by $642.00 to arrive at a 52
percent adjustment. This meant soil ratings of .6 or less were valued at 52 percent
of the top dollar value in the Southern Neighborhood. Again, Director did not
consider appurtenant and nontransferable water rights or access to BFID as factors.
-4-
#23874, #23875
[¶9.] To prepare for the assessment review for 2003, Director again laid out
a map of Butte County and noted the sales on a per acre basis. None of the nine
Northern Neighborhood sales had BFID water rights and all of the fourteen
Southern Neighborhood sales had BFID water rights. Again, Director noticed that
the sales price on a per acre basis varied between the Northern and Southern
Neighborhoods. Director again suspected that the difference in price was due to
location. Director performed seven rangeland pairings of Northern and Southern
Neighborhood sales, considering various factors such as: location, soil quality, time
of sale, use of property, and climate conditions. Again, appurtenant and
nontransferable water rights and access to BFID were not considered as factors.
Adjustments were made only for soil rating and time of sale. Based on these
pairings, Director determined that there was anywhere from a 116 percent to 179
percent difference in per acre value as between Northern and Southern
Neighborhood sales, with the higher land value being in the Southern
Neighborhood.
[¶10.] Director next determined, under SDCL 10-6-33.6, that the median
market value in each neighborhood deviated by more than ten percent from the
county median market value. Director evaluated the nine sales in the Northern
Neighborhood and observed that sale prices varied from $75.00 per acre to $140.00
per acre. Director calculated the median market value of the Northern
Neighborhood to be $116.00 per acre. Fourteen sales occurred in the Southern
Neighborhood, ranging from $175.00 per acre to $446.00 per acre. Director
calculated the median market value of the Southern Neighborhood to be $345.00
-5-
#23874, #23875
per acre. Finally, Director calculated the countywide median market value per acre
to be $253.00. Thus, the difference was -54.15 percent in the Northern
Neighborhood and +36.17 percent in the Southern Neighborhood. Based on the
greater than ten percent deviation in each neighborhood, Director determined that
SDCL 10-6-33.6 allowed him to establish a separate market value per acre for the
land in each of the two neighborhoods.
[¶11.] Director calculated the median assessed value to sale price ratio for all
twenty-three sales in the county to be 96.87 percent. The median assessed value to
sale price ratio for the nine sales in the Northern Neighborhood was calculated to be
84.14 percent. The median assessed value to sales price ratio for the fourteen sales
in the Southern Neighborhood was calculated to be 101.99 percent. After making
these calculations, Director made some adjustments. Director adjusted the
assessed values in the Northern Neighborhood up three percent. This adjustment
was made because South Dakota law requires that counties be assessed at least 85
percent of market value. Next, because some of the individual assessments in the
Southern Neighborhood were greater than 100 percent, Director adjusted the
assessed values in the Southern Neighborhood down 30 percent for all parcels with
a soil rating over .68. This adjustment was made to eliminate most of the sales over
100 percent and achieve a better median ratio. After making these adjustments,
Director determined that the median assessed value to sales price ratio for the
entire county was now 89.27 percent, 88.35 percent for the Northern Neighborhood
and 90.14 percent for the Southern Neighborhood.
-6-
#23874, #23875
[¶12.] Director’s methodology, procedure, and assessment figures were
reviewed and approved by the Department of Revenue prior to the assessments
being sent out for both the 2002 and 2003 assessments. Apland appealed these
assessments to the circuit court. When reviewing the 2002 assessments, the circuit
court held that Director complied with SDCL 10-6-33.6 in determining the median
market value per acre in an identifiable region within Butte County deviated from
the county median market value per acre by more than ten percent. The circuit
court further held that Director properly established separate market values per
acre of land within that region and that assessments based on these findings were
valid assessments. Finally, the circuit court held that the evidence did not establish
that the assessments lacked uniformity or were grossly inequitable without regard
to full and true value of the appealed property.
[¶13.] In reviewing the 2003 assessments, the circuit court held that
pursuant to SDCL 10-6-33.3, Director properly verified that the assessment
neighborhoods were still valid and not in excess of market value or full and true
value. The circuit court further held that Apland had not established that the
assessments lacked uniformity or were grossly inequitable without regard to full
and true value of the appealed property. Apland appeals raising two issues that we
have consolidated into the following issue:
Whether the assessment of Apland’s rangeland violated Constitutional
requirements of equality and uniformity.
Standard of Review
[¶14.] “This is an appeal of a tax assessment pursuant to SDCL 10-11-43 and
thus it is procedurally governed by SDCL ch 1-26.” Butte County v. Vallery, 1999
-7-
#23874, #23875
SD 142, ¶8, 602 NW2d 284, 286-87. “This standard of review requires [this Court]
to accord great weight to the findings and inferences made by the hearing examiner
on factual questions.” Id. (citing Clarkson & Co. v. Harding County, 1998 SD 74,
¶5, 581 NW2d 499, 501) (citation omitted). “When the issue is a question of fact, we
ascertain whether the administrative agency was clearly erroneous.” Burke v.
Butte County, 2002 SD 17, ¶8, 640 NW2d 473, 476 (citing Vallery, 1999 SD 142, ¶8,
602 NW2d at 286-87) (additional citations omitted). “Value is a question of fact and
the trial court’s determination will only be overturned if it is clearly erroneous.”
West Two Rivers Ranch v. Pennington Co., 1996 SD 70, ¶6, 549 NW2d 683, 686.
“When, however, the issue is a question of law, we review the decisions of both the
administrative agency and the circuit court de novo.” Burke, 2002 SD 17, ¶8, 640
NW2d at 477 (citing Vallery, 1999 SD 142, ¶8, 602 NW2d at 286-87).
[¶15.] Whether the assessment of Apland’s rangeland violated
Constitutional requirements of equality and uniformity.
[¶16.] All real property in South Dakota is to be assessed for tax purposes at
its true and full value. SDCL 10-6-33. The following “underlying constitutional
provisions must . . . be complied with:
(1) the burden of taxation of all property is to be equitable,
SD Const. art. XI, § 2
(2) agricultural and nonagricultural property may be
separated into distinct classes for tax purposes, SD Const.
art. VIII, § 15,
(3) valuation of property is not to exceed its actual value, SD
Const. art. XI, § 2, and
(4) taxation is to be uniform on all property in the same class.
SD Const. art. VIII, § 15; SD Const. art. XI, § 2.”
Vallery, 1999 SD 142, ¶12, 602 NW2d at 287 (citing West Two Rivers, 1996 SD 70,
¶7, 549 NW2d at 686) (citations omitted). “There is a presumption that tax officials
-8-
#23874, #23875
act in accordance with the law and not arbitrarily or unfairly when assessing
property, and the taxpayer bears the burden to overcome this presumption.” Burke,
2002 SD 17, ¶18, 640 NW2d at 479 (citing Vallery, 1999 SD 142, ¶11, 602 NW2d at
287). “To overcome this presumption, the taxpayer must 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. (citing Vallery, 1999 SD
142, ¶11, 602 NW2d at 287).
[¶17.] In the present case, Apland did not produce evidence that the assessed
value of the property in question was in excess of the true and full value. In fact,
Apland produced no evidence as to the true and full value of the property. Instead,
Apland asserts 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 asserts 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 asserts 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.
[¶18.] It must be noted that while Apland uses the term “appurtenant water
rights,” it is clear from this record that Apland is actually referring to sales of land
with access to water from BFID. Specifically, in discussing sales with BFID water
rights, 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
-9-
#23874, #23875
water rights could be quantified.” He further stated that “the quantity and quality
of these [BFID] water rights should be considered . . . . My 40 years of appraisal
experience suggests that top dollar value based on soil ratings of irrigated land
should not be used or is not comparable to top dollar value of soil rating for
properties with no water rights or irrigation.” Therefore, the actual question before
this Court is whether it was clearly erroneous for Director to use sales of land with
access to BFID in his formula when determining that under SDCL 10-6-33.6,1 the
median market value 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.
[¶19.] Apland asserts that before the director calculated the median market
values, he should have made adjustments for sales containing “appurtenant water
rights” and adjusted those sale prices downwards. Apland asserts that only after
the value of those water rights were considered could an accurate median market
value per acre be determined.
[¶20.] Apland is correct. Butte County failed to comply with the
Constitutional requirements of equality and uniformity. Here, rangeland without
appurtenant and nontransferable water rights within the Southern Neighborhood,
1. SDCL 10-6-33.6 provides:
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.
-10-
#23874, #23875
which includes BFID, was assessed at the same level as rangeland with
appurtenant and nontransferable water rights. This produced a result that was
neither equal nor uniform.
[¶21.] This Court has addressed the issues of irrigated land, irrigability of
land, irrigation systems, and land located within an irrigation project for
assessment purposes in the past. We now clarify the appropriate factors.
[¶22.] In Matter of Butte County, this Court held that “irrigated land should
not be separately classified” and that Butte County could not establish a separate
classification for irrigated land. 385 NW2d 108, 111 (SD 1986). This Court noted
that “[t]here are approximately 68,000 acres of irrigated land in Butte County, . . .
and various methods are used to apply water to the land.” Id. “The farming
practices of the individual landowners are not to be considered when assessing the
land’s value. Farm management decisions cannot change the earth’s value for
taxation purposes.” Id. at 112 (emphasis in original) (citing Mortenson v. Stanley
County, 303 NW2d 107, 111 (SD 1981)). “Likewise, a farm management decision to
implement an irrigation system cannot change the earth’s value for taxation
purposes.” Id. (emphasis in original).
[¶23.] This Court further explained:
This does not mean, however, that the land’s irrigability,
whether actually irrigated or not, is not a relevant consideration
when assessing agricultural land value. The irrigability of land
enhances its value . . . [t]hus, to the extent the land is irrigable,
because of its location, soil, terrain, topography, and
appurtenant and nontransferable water rights, its value may be
-11-
#23874, #23875
assessed appropriately. 2 However, to the extent irrigability is
already considered in the market value analysis, soil survey,
etc., it should not be separately reevaluated, for double taxation
based on this single factor would result. Therefore, we reverse
that part of the circuit court Judgment which determined that
the land’s irrigability is not a criteria for an increase in the
valuation of agricultural land.
Id. (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted).
[¶24.] In Vallery, 1999 SD 142, 602 NW2d 284, the scenario before this Court
was whether Butte County had applied valuation procedures consistently or
uniformly after it made an initial determination of whether a landowner does in fact
irrigate, how many acres are irrigated, the type of irrigation used, and how often
the landowner irrigates in determining the value of the land for assessment
purposes. In conducting its evaluation, this Court recognized that
[t]he South Dakota Department of Revenue . . . assigns a rating to each
soil type every year. The soil rating is based on the production
capability of each soil and takes into account irrigability of soil and
how irrigability affects the ability of the soil to produce. Thus, the
irrigability of Vallery’s agricultural soil has already been taken into
account by the Department.
Id. ¶14.
[¶25.] This Court further recognized its prior holding in Butte County and
that “irrigability of land enhances its value and is a relevant consideration when
assessing agricultural land value.” Id. ¶16 (citing Kindsfater v. Butte County, 458
NW2d 347, 351 (SD 1990)). This Court again affirmed that “it is the ability of the
2. See also Butte County v. Lovinger, 64 SD 200, 266 NW 127 (1936) (noting
that transferable stock in private irrigation companies is personal property
and would not be a relevant consideration in determining the land’s
irrigability).
-12-
#23874, #23875
soil to produce that is to be considered. In the context of irrigation this requires the
proper focus to be on whether the land is irrigable, not whether the farming
practices in use include irrigation or not.” Id. Finally, this Court held that the “sale
of land located within the irrigation project [BFID], where every year the
government guarantees available irrigation water, is not comparable to Vallery’s
land, [whose irrigation system is supported by water procured from the Belle
Fourche River], where the availability of water is often limited.” Id. ¶18.
[¶26.] In the present case, 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.
Director was correct to not consider whether rangeland was actually irrigated, a
farm management decision. And, while Director did consider each parcel’s soil
rating and made adjustments based on those ratings, Director’s methodology was
clearly erroneous because he did not give sufficient consideration to the irrigability
of the land with appurtenant and nontransferable water rights. This basic defect in
the methodology did not produce an equal or uniform result. Therefore, we reverse
and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
[¶27.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and ZINTER and MEIERHENRY,
Justices, and MILLER, Retired Justice, concur.
[¶28.] MILLER, Retired Justice, sitting for KONENKAMP, Justice,
disqualified.
-13-