77-5026. Commission; change of value; hearing; procedure.

Pursuant to section 77-5023, if the commission finds that the level of value of a class or subclass of real property fails to satisfy the requirements of section 77-5023, the commission shall issue a notice to the counties which it deems either undervalued or overvalued and shall set a date for hearing at least five days following the mailing of the notice unless notice is waived. The notice unless waived shall be mailed to the county clerk, county assessor, and chairperson of the county board. At the hearing the county assessor or other legal representatives of the county may appear and show cause why the value of a class or subclass of real property of the county should not be adjusted. A county assessor or other legal representative of the county may waive notice of the hearing or consent to entry of an order adjusting the value of a class or subclass of real property without further notice. At the hearing, the commission may receive testimony from any interested person.

Source

Annotations

1. Notice

2. Miscellaneous

1. Notice

Because of the statutory time limits placed upon the State Board of Equalization by sections 77-505, 77-509, and 77-1514, R.R.S.1943, the five-day notice provision of section 77-508, R.R.S.1943, is reasonable. Where a notice of hearing was sent out and amended the next day without changing the hearing date, the date of the first notice is used to determine if the notice requirement of this section was met. Box Butte County v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 206 Neb. 696, 295 N.W.2d 670 (1980).

A notice issued by the State Board of Equalization and Assessment should specify the percentage of increase or decrease which the board intends to make in the county. County of Brown v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 180 Neb. 487, 143 N.W.2d 896 (1966); County of Kimball v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 180 Neb. 482, 143 N.W.2d 893 (1966); County of Blaine v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 180 Neb. 471, 143 N.W.2d 880 (1966).

Notice sent to counties was sufficient. County of Buffalo v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 158 Neb. 353, 63 N.W.2d 468 (1954); County of Howard v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 158 Neb. 339, 63 N.W.2d 441 (1954); County of Douglas v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 158 Neb. 325, 63 N.W.2d 449 (1954); County of Grant v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 158 Neb. 310, 63 N.W.2d 459 (1954).

Notice to county is a condition precedent to a valid order. Laflin v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 156 Neb. 427, 56 N.W.2d 469 (1953).

Without giving of statutory notice, State Board of Equalization and Assessment has no jurisdiction to order decrease of assessed valuation of a class or classes of property in all counties of the state. Antelope County v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 146 Neb. 661, 21 N.W.2d 416 (1946).

2. Miscellaneous

The procedures for a hearing to show cause why an adjustment should not be made to a county's valuation of a class or subclass of real property are not governed by section 77-5016(4). Instead, the show cause hearing is part of equalization procedures under this section and sections 77-5022 and 77-5023. County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 296 Neb. 751, 896 N.W.2d 887 (2017).

The Property Tax Administrator's required reports under section 77-1327(3) are competent evidence to support an equalization order under this section without including the sales file information for each real property transaction. Accordingly, in a show cause hearing under this section, a county has the burden to demonstrate that the Tax Equalization and Review Commission should not rely on the reports. County of Webster v. Nebraska Tax Equal. & Rev. Comm., 296 Neb. 751, 896 N.W.2d 887 (2017).

Pursuant to this section, if the Tax Equalization and Review Commission determines that equitable assessment of property in the state cannot be made without adjusting the value of a class or subclass of property in a county which it deems overvalued or undervalued, the commission may hold a hearing during which legal representatives of the county may show cause as to why the adjustment should not be made. Bartlett v. Dawes Cty. Bd. of Equal., 259 Neb. 954, 613 N.W.2d 810 (2000).

This section does not require a formal and explicit finding by the board, prior to any hearing, that equalization could not be made without increasing or decreasing property values. Box Butte County v. State Board of Equalization & Assessment, 206 Neb. 696, 295 N.W.2d 670 (1980).

Reference is made to valuation of property in proceedings of state board. Fromkin v. State, 158 Neb. 377, 63 N.W.2d 332 (1954).

Increase in assessment valuation without notice or sufficient opportunity for hearing is violative of this section and amounts to confiscation of property without due process of law. American Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 119 Neb. 142, 227 N.W. 455 (1929); Northwestern Bell Tel. Co. v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 119 Neb. 138, 227 N.W. 452 (1929); Lincoln Tel. & Tel. Co. v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 119 Neb. 137, 227 N.W. 454 (1929); Stanton County v. State Board of Equalization and Assessment, 119 Neb. 136, 227 N.W. 454 (1929).