decision to the district court. The district judge affirmed, finding BOTA’s decision that the property constituted fixtures, i.e., part of the realty, was supported by substantial evidence and was not unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious. The court also concluded it was proper for BOTA to offset any positive salvage value of the fixtures by any negative value of the land itself, including the environmental liability associated with the land and the cost of remediation. See K.S.A. 1999 Supp. 79-412 (“It shall be the duty of the county or district appraiser to value the land and improvements; but the value of the land and improvements shall be entered on the assessment roll in a single aggregate.”); see also In re Tax Appeal of Andrews, 18 Kan. App. 2d 311, 323, 851 P.2d 1027 (1993) (<HOLDING>). This appeal by the County focuses only on the
holding determination of property value in case to decide if assessed value was excessive is not a liquidated demand where only evidence of property value was the conclusory allegation of value in plaintiffs unsworn petition holding that in determining the value of a partys nonmarital contribution to hybrid property under code  201073a3 the important factor is the value that improvements add to the property not their cost holding the measure of damages is the difference between the value of the automobile prior to the upset and its value when prepared and presented to the plaintiff for acceptance holding the aggregate value of the land and its improvements is the controlling value holding that if respondents suit is one for permanent damages to the land the measure of damages is the decreased value of the land