K.S.A. » Chapter 79
Kansas Statutes Annotated

K.S.A. § 79-5a05 (2026)

Same; statement of appraised valuation; objection by utility, notice and informal conference; correction of valuation

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KS-LEGkslegislature.org JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

79-5a05. Same; statement of appraised valuation; objection by utility, notice and informal conference; correction of valuation. Before the assessed valuation of public utility property is finally determined, the director of property valuation shall cause to be sent to each public utility a statement of the appraised valuation of the utility's property. The determination contained in such statement shall not require an adjudicative proceeding under the Kansas administrative procedure act. The statement shall inform the public utility of the right to an informal conference as provided in this section. The failure to request an informal conference shall not preclude any appeal under K.S.A. 74-2438 and amendments thereto. If a public utility has any objection to the statement as issued, the public utility shall, within 15 days of the date of mailing of such statement, notify the director in writing of such objection. Within 30 days of the date of receipt by the director of such written objection, the director shall hold an informal conference with the public utility and shall issue a written finding, ruling, order, decision or other final action thereon, which finding, ruling, order, decision or other final action shall become effective for purposes of the appeal as provided by K.S.A. 74-2438 and amendments thereto, three days following the mailing of a copy thereof to the public utility. Informal conferences held pursuant to this section may be conducted by the director or the director's designee. The rules of evidence shall not apply to an informal conference and no record shall be made except at the request and expense of the director or the public utility.

At any time before certification of the assessed valuation to the counties, the director may correct any valuation that will make it more just and equal.

History: L. 1969, ch. 434, § 5; L. 1988, ch. 356, § 314; July 1, 1989.

CASE ANNOTATIONS

1. Cited in discussion of counties standing to challenge state's assessment of property under K.S.A. 74-2438. Board of Meade County Comm'rs v. State Director of Property Valuation, 18 Kan. App. 2d 719, 725, 861 P.2d 1348 (1993).

2. Statutory procedures regarding public utilities right to appeal assessment and valuation of property examined. Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 18 Kan. App. 2d 814, 815, 819, 860 P.2d 56 (1993).


Previous | Next

www.ksrevisor.gov 2026
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 1982–2001 · leading case: Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 860 P.2d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 860 P.2d 56 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “79-5a05 provides in pertinent part: “Before the assessed valuation of public utility property is finally determined, the director of property valuation shall cause to be sent to each public utility a statement of the appraised valuation of the utility’s property.”
Colorado Interstate Gas Co. v. Beshears, 24 P.3d 113 (Kan. 2001). · cites it 2× “74-2438 and K.S.A. 79-5a05. This holding is also correct, and the Pipelines do not specifically dispute it.”
Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners v. Dir. of Prop. Valuation, 861 P.2d 1348 (Kan. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 4× “” K.S.A. 79-5a05. The statute further provides public utilities the right to request an informal conference with the Division.”
Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. Co. v. Lennen, 552 F. Supp. 1031 (D. Kan. 1982). “K.S.A. 79-5a05. The value that is finally arrived at is then distributed among the counties where rail transportation property is located.”
In Re Application of Kinnet, 984 P.2d 725 (Kan. Ct. App. 1999). · cites it 3× “Since Topeka SMSA had not yet been filed when the 1994 and 1995 taxes were assessed, BOTA stated the proper procedure for the Taxpayers would have been to appeal the decision of the PVD pursuant to K.S.A. 79-5a05 and 74-2438. BOTA found Topeka SMSA had prospective application…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.