Brookside Health & Rehab asks commissioners to waive $10,155 tax penalty; legal counsel to seek guidance from state tax board

A representative for Brookside Health & Rehab asked the Osage County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 4, 2025, to waive a $10,155.13 penalty assessed after the county notified the facility on Dec. 30, 2024 that a tax balance from 2020 had not been paid. The facility said the unpaid amount dated to a refinancing and escrow issue and that the principal was paid immediately after the county’s notice.

Why it matters: The request raises legal and equitable questions about whether counties may abate late-payment penalties when taxpayers were not timely notified, and whether the mortgage/escrow company should bear responsibility. Commissioners said they sympathized but noted legal limits on county authority to abate taxes and fees that fund multiple local entities.

Case background and legal pathway Scott Admiral, who identified himself as representing Brookside Health & Rehab, told the commission that escrowed mortgage payments were intended to cover property taxes, but a refinance removed the escrow payment for the second half of 2020 and the county did not notify the facility until late 2024. Brookside said it paid the outstanding principal immediately and requested that the county waive the accrued penalties (approximately $10,155).

County legal counsel reviewed the statute cited in the meeting record and described the formal route available to taxpayers. Counsel identified K.S.A. 79-1422 as the statutory provision that allows abatement or refund of penalties based on excusable neglect and described the Kansas Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA) process as the typical remedy for such appeals. Counsel said BOTA handles requests for abatement of late-filing and related penalties and that, under the current statutory framework, the county’s direct authority to waive taxes or fees that affect multiple taxing jurisdictions is limited.

Commissioners and counsel discussed practical next steps. Counsel said he would contact BOTA to clarify whether the fact pattern (a taxpayer unaware for multiple years because of an escrow/escrow-agent issue) fits the statute’s definition of “excusable neglect,” and whether the county itself can abate fees in the manner requested. Commissioners suggested Brookside also pursue the mortgage/escrow company as the party that contracted to pay taxes. The clerk’s office said it can provide the tax grievance form to the taxpayer to begin an appeal to BOTA.

Board outcome: No abatement was decided at the meeting. Commissioners did not grant or deny the requested waiver. Instead, legal counsel agreed to research BOTA precedent and statutory scope and report back within about a week; staff agreed to give the facility a copy of the tax-grievance form to initiate the BOTA process if the taxpayer wishes. Counsel said an appeal to BOTA is a viable step and that the county’s ability to unilaterally abate penalties is limited without a clear statutory basis.

Ending: Brookside representative said they would pursue additional documentation with their lender and may file a tax grievance with BOTA. Counsel will contact BOTA to request guidance on prior decisions involving similar escrow- or notice-based fact patterns and report back to the commission.