Board of County Com'rs of Wyandotte County v. Kansas Ave. Properties
Decision Date | 14 February 1990 |
Docket Number | No. 63,471,63,471 |
Citation | 786 P.2d 1141,246 Kan. 161 |
Parties | BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF WYANDOTTE COUNTY, Kansas, Appellant, v. KANSAS AVENUE PROPERTIES, Appellee. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Rules to be considered in cases involving questions of claimed exemption from ad valorem taxation are stated and applied.
2. In ascertaining the meaning of a constitutional provision, the primary duty of the courts is to look to the intention of the makers and adopters of that provision.
3. In interpreting and construing a constitutional amendment, the court must
examine the language used and consider it in connection with the general surrounding facts and circumstances that cause the amendment to be submitted.
4. The phrase "used exclusively" in the constitution and statutes relating to exemption from taxation means that the use made of the property sought to be exempted from taxation must be only, solely, and purely for the purposes stated, and without participation in any other use.
5. Article 11, § 13 of the Kansas Constitution does not grant ad valorem tax exemption to property rented or leased for profit even though the property is being used by the renter or lessee solely for one or more of the economic development purposes contained in § 13.
John M. Duma, Asst. County Counselor, argued the cause and was on the brief, for appellant.
William M. Modrcin, of Morris & Larson, P.C., Overland Park, argued the cause, and Thomas E. Carew, Kansas City, Mo., was with him on the brief, for appellee.
Thomas R. Powell, City Atty., and Joe Allen Lang, Sr. Asst. City Atty., Wichita, were on the amicus curiae brief for City of Wichita.
Henry E. Couchman, Jr., Asst. City Atty., Kansas City, was on the amicus curiae brief, for City of Kansas City.
Joseph W. Jeter and Charlene Brubaker, of Jeter and Moran, Hays, were on the amicus curiae brief for Ellis County Economic Development Corp.
The Board of County Commissioners of Wyandotte County appeals from a decision of the Shawnee County District Court which reversed the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) denial of an ad valorem tax exemption sought under Art. 11, § 13 of the Kansas Constitution. Amicus curiae briefs supporting the position of the landowner have been filed by the City of Kansas City, the City of Wichita, and the Ellis County Economic Development Corporation. We reverse.
The facts of this case are not disputed. Kansas Avenue Properties (KAP), a Kansas limited partnership, owns approximately 4.3 acres of land in Kansas City, Wyandotte County, Kansas. In 1987, KAP constructed a 56,000 square foot "multi-tenant" building on this land. Stephen Dunn, the developer and a general partner of KAP, testified before the BOTA that KAP intended to lease space in the building only to tenants who qualified for ad valorem tax exemption under Art. 11, § 13 of the Kansas Constitution.
Before constructing the building, KAP applied for ad valorem tax-exempt status from the City Council of the City of Kansas City. The City Council found that KAP's proposed business project met the economic development purposes of Art. 11, § 13 and granted KAP a 10-year exemption "for all buildings, land, and tangible personal property." KAP then filed its application for tax exemption with the BOTA pursuant to K.S.A. 79-213.
In an order issued April 29, 1987, the BOTA denied the application for tax exemption. Following a rehearing, the BOTA on June 1, 1988, again denied the application of KAP for ad valorem tax exemption. In doing so, the BOTA relied upon In re Board of Johnson County Comm'rs, 225 Kan. 517, 592 P.2d 875 (1979), and held:
The BOTA, in its order on rehearing, stated:
KAP appealed the final order of the BOTA to the Shawnee County District Court. The sole issue before the district court was whether rental property qualifies for tax exemption under Art. 11, § 13. It is undisputed that the proposed use of the property by the business tenants would qualify for exemption if the businesses were being conducted by the owner of the property. Stated in another way, the issue is whether rental property used by a business for economic development purposes qualifies for exemption from ad valorem taxation pursuant to Art. 11, § 13.
In a memorandum decision, the Shawnee County District Court reversed the BOTA, adopting as its conclusions of law the arguments in KAP's memorandum which was submitted to the BOTA and to the district court. As would be expected, the memorandum filed by KAP contains arguments, opinions, and legal authorities supporting its position. Numerous arguments are propounded in the KAP memorandum and it would have been helpful if the district court had prepared an opinion which specified the arguments and authorities upon which it based its decision. The district court apparently determined that the leased property qualified for exemption because the language of Art. 11, § 13 modifies the exclusive use test to apply only to the business physically using the property when it is used for one of the three enumerated purposes in the amendment; because the language indicates legislative intent to give cities and counties broad authority to grant or deny exemptions; because the legislative history and the explanatory statement provided to the voters reveal no distinction between rental or owned property; and because the purpose of the amendment is to increase Kansas' ability to compete with other states. The Board of County Commissioners of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Stephan v. Finney
...Co. v. Board of Morton County Comm'rs, 247 Kan. 654, 660, 802 P.2d 584 (1990), as follows: "In Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Kansas Ave. Properties, 246 Kan. 161, 786 P.2d 1141 (1990), we 'In ascertaining the meaning of a constitutional provision, the primary duty of the courts is to......
-
Woman's Club of Topeka v. Shawnee County
...in any other use. Seventh Day Adventist v. Board of County Commissioners, 211 Kan. 683 .' " Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Kansas Ave. Properties, 246 Kan. 161, 166, 786 P.2d 1141 (1990) (quoting T-Bone Feeders, Inc. v. Martin, 236 Kan. 641, 645-46, 693 P.2d 1187 [1985]. The Club prev......
-
University of Kansas School of Medicine-Wichita Medical Practice Ass'n from a Decision of Dist. Court of Shawnee County, Kansas, In re
...of exclusive use for exempt purposes. "Renting property is a nonexempt use of the property." See Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Kansas Ave. Properties, 246 Kan. 161, 786 P.2d 1141 (1990); in rE board OF johnsoN countY comm'rs, 225 kan. 517, 592 P.2d 875 (1979). the district court, in ......
-
State ex rel. Stephan v. Parrish
...Co. v. Board of Morton County Comm'rs, 247 Kan. 654, 660, 802 P.2d 584 (1990), as follows: "In Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Kansas Ave. Properties, 246 Kan. 161, 786 P.2d 1141 (1990), we 'In ascertaining the meaning of a constitutional provision, the primary duty of the courts is to......
-
The Kansas Bill of Rights: Glittering Generalities or Legal Authority
...961 P.2d 667 (1998). 18. Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 64, 72 (1964). 19. Board of Wyandotte County Comm'rs v. Kansas Ave. Properties, 246 Kan. 161, Syl. ¶ 2, 786 P.2d 1141 (1990). 20. Higgins v. Cardinal Manufacturing Co., 188 Kan. 11, 18, 360 P.2d 456 (1961). 21. Hunt v. Eddy, 150 Kan. ......