Brookside Health representative asks Osage County to waive $10,155 late'fee; commissioners ask attorney to research options

A Brookside Health & Rehab representative asked Osage County commissioners on Feb. 4 to waive a roughly $10,155 late-payment penalty the facility received after a missed escrow transaction during a refinance.

Scott Admiral, a representative for Brookside Health & Rehab, told commissioners the county sent a Dec. 30 letter showing a past-due tax balance and a penalty of $10,155.13. Admiral said the property taxes had been escrowed through the facility's mortgage and that the facility immediately paid the outstanding principal when it learned of the arrearage.

The board heard legal context from Josh Knight, the county attorney, who cited Kansas law on "excusable neglect" and referenced K.S.A. 79-1422 and the role of the State Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) in abatement requests. Knight said BOTA and county appraisers have roles in considering abatement for late-filing or late-payment penalties and that county authority to unilaterally waive such penalties is limited. Knight described the typical process and said past decisions suggest BOTA may be the proper venue for an abatement request.

Commissioners and staff sought more information: whether the mortgage or escrow company had internal records showing funds were available but not remitted, whether the county's notices had failed to reach the taxpayer, and whether existing precedent supported county-level waivers. Commissioners said they were sympathetic to the taxpayer's position that no one realized the payment had gone unpaid for four years and that the penalty accumulation appeared inequitable.

Outcome and next steps: The commissioners did not waive the penalty at the meeting. They directed the county attorney to research whether county staff have the legal authority to abate the penalty or whether Brookside should file a tax grievance with BOTA. Commissioners suggested Brookside seek remedy from the mortgage/escrow company and advised the facility that filing a formal grievance with BOTA (pursuant to the excusable-neglect statute) is a viable next step. The county attorney agreed to review precedent and contact BOTA for guidance and report back to the board.

Context and legal citations: Knight identified K.S.A. 79-1422 as the relevant statute that allows abatement for "excusable neglect" in some circumstances and said prior decisions have sometimes required taxpayers to pursue BOTA rather than the county for equitable relief. Commissioners noted that if the county were to waive penalties administratively, it could raise equity concerns for other taxpayers and for taxing units that rely on collected levies. Knight also noted that county staff would compile relevant transaction records and encouraged the property owner to contact their mortgage/escrow company.

What remains unresolved: whether the county can or will abate the assessed penalty without BOTA involvement; whether the mortgage company can be required to reimburse the penalty; and whether the county should add a process to flag similar escrow/refinance mismatches earlier. The county attorney will investigate and return with guidance.