How does Kansas decide whether a county appraiser's office is doing its job properly, and what happens to a county that fails?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 2024. Ezel answers yours, under current Kansas tax law, with citations.
Plain-English summary
Kansas does not just trust each county to appraise property correctly -- it grades them. This directive sets out the scoring system the Division of Property Valuation (PVD) uses each year to decide whether a county is in "substantial compliance" with its statutory duty to uniformly appraise real and personal property at fair market value.
The grade comes off a 100-point Compliance Scorecard, built from three kinds of review:
- Statistical performance (50 points). PVD runs a sales ratio study under K.S.A. 79-1485 et seq., comparing appraised values to actual sale prices. Half the points ride on appraisal level (the median ratio must fall between 90 and 110 percent) and half on appraisal uniformity (the coefficient of dispersion, or COD, must be 20.0 or less). Residential and commercial/industrial are scored separately, then weighted by each subclass's share of appraised value.
- Procedural compliance (42 points), agricultural use valuation (6 points), and cadastral mapping (2 points). A procedural audit checks that the county actually did the mass-appraisal work: scope-of-work plan, sales file, reinspections, land and depreciation analysis, income approach, final review, and so on.
- Statutory compliance (deductions only). Six statutory duties carry no points, but five points are deducted for non-compliance of each.
A county must achieve a minimum score of 75 to attain substantial compliance. Score below that and the county "shall be found in noncompliance and may be required to submit a detailed plan to correct areas of noncompliance."
An important wrinkle: the scoring uses confidence intervals, not just point estimates. A county whose median ratio is technically outside 90–110 can still pass if its confidence interval reaches or overlaps that range. The directive works through five worked examples of exactly this.
What this means for you
Kansas property owners
This directive is not about your individual parcel, but it tells you something useful: your county's appraisal quality is measured and published. Under K.S.A. 79-1445, PVD "will publish a list of the substantial compliance results for each county annually." If your county scores poorly on appraisal uniformity (a high COD means similar properties are being valued inconsistently), that is a matter of public record.
Several of the statutory items scored here are deadlines that directly affect you -- the trend study published before change-of-value notices go out (K.S.A. 79-1460a), informal hearings held within the statutory timeframe (K.S.A. 79-1448), and values certified to the county clerk on time (K.S.A. 79-1466, 79-1467).
County appraisers and county officials
The consequences escalate. Refusal to cooperate in the ratio study "may result in a noncompliance order," as may refusal to perform any procedural step or to comply with any statutory requirement. If a county is found in noncompliance, "the director may pursue all legal options, including, but not limited to, proceedings before the Board of Tax Appeals and/or the removal of the county or district appraiser from office." PVD may also require a corrective plan and may audit all property tax functions if the plan is not implemented or proves ineffective.
Note two deadlines in the scope-of-work item: the preliminary SOW appraisal maintenance plan, with the supporting budget, is due to PVD electronically by April 30 each year, and the final SOW document with signed certification by July 1. Two of those four points are for the SOW and two for the quarterly reports required by K.S.A. 79-1479.
The directive also carries forward the private-firm rule: a private mass appraisal firm must be selected from the director's approved list "in accordance with Directive #19-045 (or succeeding version)."
Appraisers and tax professionals
The sample-size rules matter when reading a small county's score. If fewer than six valid sales are collected for a subclass, valid sales from the four previous study periods may be added. If fewer than three valid sales are available, the statistical measures are not used at all -- those points are subtracted from the total possible, establishing a new base, which shifts weight onto the procedural and statutory review. The same happens if more than half the sample came from a prior year's ratio study. The directive's Example #2 shows this: possible points drop from 100 to 87.8, and a raw 68.9 becomes a passing 78.5.
Confidence-interval width also scales with sample size: 95% for samples above five, 90% at five, 85% at four, and 70% at three.
Common questions
Q: What score does a Kansas county need to pass?
A: 75 out of 100. "A county must achieve a minimum score of 75 to attain substantial compliance. Any county achieving a score less than 75 shall be found in noncompliance."
Q: What are the two statistical measures?
A: Appraisal level, measured by the median ratio, which must suggest overall appraised value "falls between 90 and 110 percent"; and appraisal uniformity, measured by the coefficient of dispersion, which "must suggest a deviation of 20.0 or less." Each is worth 25 points per subclass before weighting.
Q: Can a county pass even if its median ratio is outside 90–110?
A: Yes. Compliance is determined by the confidence interval, not the point estimate. The directive's own example: a median ratio of 85.0 with a 95% confidence interval of 80.0 to 90.0 "would be considered in statistical compliance because it reaches the lower end of the acceptable standard." But a median of 85.2 with an interval of 80.0 to 89.9 would not, because it never reaches 90.0.
Q: What happens to a county that fails?
A: It may be required to submit a detailed corrective plan, and the director may pursue proceedings before the Board of Tax Appeals and/or removal of the county or district appraiser from office. PVD may audit all of the county's property tax functions if the plan fails.
Q: Can I use my county's compliance score to challenge my own assessment?
A: This directive does not say so, and it does not create any taxpayer remedy. It governs how the Division evaluates a county's overall performance, not how any one parcel is valued. Your appeal rights come from the appeal statutes, not from this document.
Citations and references
Kansas statutes:
- K.S.A. 79-505 (director's directive authority)
- K.S.A. 79-503a (fair market value)
- K.S.A. 79-1485 et seq. (ratio study performance measures)
- K.S.A. 79-1445 (annual publication of compliance results)
- K.S.A. 79-1479 (quarterly appraisal progress reports)
- K.S.A. 79-1460a, 79-1460 (trend study publication; change of value notices)
- K.S.A. 79-1404 Seventeenth (deadline extensions)
- K.S.A. 79-1448 (informal hearings)
- K.S.A. 79-1466, 79-1467 (certification of values)
- K.S.A. 79-306, 79-1422, 79-332a (personal property listing and penalties)
- K.S.A. 45-403 (preservation of property tax records)
- K.S.A. 79-1456 (adherence to PVD valuation guides)
Standards and related guidance referenced: Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP); PVD Appraisal Maintenance Specifications; PVD manuals, guidelines and directives; PVD sales validation guidelines.
Related directives: This directive supersedes Directive #20-046. It requires private mass appraisal firms to be selected from the director's approved list in accordance with Directive #19-045 (or succeeding version).
Source
- Landing page: Kansas Property Tax Directives
- Original PDF: PVD Directive 24-046
Original ruling text
Division of Property Valuation
300 SW 29th Street Phone: 785-296-2365
PO Box 3506 Fax: 785-296-2320
Topeka KS 66601-3506 www.ksrevenue.gov
Mark Burghart, Secretary Laura Kelly, Governor
DIRECTIVE #24-046
TO: County Appraisers
SUBJECT: Scope of Work and Substantial Compliance
This Directive Supersedes Directive #20-046
This directive is adopted pursuant to the provisions of K.S.A. 79-505 and shall take effect and be in full
force from and after its publication in the Kansas Register.
The following criteria and standards shall be used for appraisals developed in the 2024 valuation cycle (in
preparation for January 1, 2024 valuation date) and subsequent years to determine whether a county is in
substantial compliance with the statutory requirement to uniformly appraise real and personal property at
its fair market value, as defined by K.S.A. 79-503a, and amendments thereto. To establish compliance or
lack of compliance in each county, the Division of Property Valuation (PVD) shall conduct a ratio study to
develop statistical performance measures as required by K.S.A. 79-1485 et. seq. PVD shall also conduct a
procedural audit in each county covering items deemed essential to establishing fair market value. PVD
shall determine whether specific Kansas statutes pertaining to property taxation have been followed. In
accordance with K.S.A. 79-1445, PVD will publish a list of the substantial compliance results for each
county annually.
Criteria and Standards
The annual substantial compliance process uses an objective scoring system that PVD has developed to
evaluate completion of key mass appraisal steps, accomplishment of assessment administration functions,
and achievement of accuracy standards in each county. Points are awarded when a county meets minimum
statistical performance measures, documentation is verified to confirm that mass appraisal procedures have
been followed, and statutory requirements have been met. A maximum score of 100 is possible. A county
must achieve a minimum score of 75 to attain substantial compliance. Any county achieving a score less
than 75 shall be found in noncompliance and may be required to submit a detailed plan to correct areas of
noncompliance.
Substantial compliance is based upon ratio study performance measures, an audit of procedural steps
required to develop a credible mass appraisal, and verification that important statutory mandates have been
met. The ratio study conducted by PVD is used to verify that overall value conclusions meet minimum
standards of reasonableness, consistency, and accuracy. Refusal by county officials to cooperate in the ratio
study may result in a noncompliance order. The procedural phases are tied to Kansas statutes, Rules and
Regulations, Appraisal Maintenance Specifications, PVD Directives, and the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). Refusal by a county or district appraiser to perform any
procedural step may result in a noncompliance order. Kansas statutes require critical functions to be
Page 2
performed and annual processing deadlines to be met by the county or district appraiser. Refusal to comply
with any statutory requirement may result in a noncompliance order.
If a county is determined to be in noncompliance, the director may pursue all legal options, including, but
not limited to, proceedings before the Board of Tax Appeals and/or the removal of the county or district
appraiser from office. PVD may require the county to submit a detailed plan to correct areas of non-
compliance. A PVD audit of all property tax functions and responsibilities may be initiated if the county
does not implement its approved plan or the plan is ineffective in bringing the county back into compliance.
The director may include an administrative note on the final report if a county fails to achieve industry
standard ratio study performance measures. Counties receiving an administrative note may be required to
submit a plan to correct the area or areas not meeting the basic statistical standards.
The Compliance Scorecard along with the points possible follows:
SAMPLE County XXXX Compliance Scorecard
SUBCLASS WEIGHTING:
SUBCLASS APPRAISED VALUE % OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL
COMM./IND.
TOTAL
RATIO CONFIDENCE POINTS SUBCLASS POINTS POINTS
MEASURES STUDY RANGE ALLOCATED WEIGHT POSSIBLE RECEIVED
(IN/OUT)
- STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE
a. RESIDENTIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 25
UNIFORMITY: COD 25
b. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 25
UNIFORMITY: COD 25
STATISTICAL TOTAL
- MASS APPRAISAL PROCESS
A. SCOPE of WORK
a1. Scope of work appraisal plan 2
a2. Quarterly appraisal progress reporting 2
B. SALES FILE 4
C. PARCEL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND QC
c1. Data collection re-inspection 3
c2. Quality control 1
D. LAND VALUATION
d1. Land valuation calibration and analysis 2
d2. Market ag. land valuation 1
d3. Land trend analysis 1
d4. Documentation for land override (site value/unit price) 1
Page 2
Page 3
SAMPLE County XXXX Compliance Scorecard - Continued
E. CONSTRUCTION COST MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS
e1. Residential cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusions 1
e2. Com./ind. cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusions 1
F. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS
f1. Residential depreciation analysis 2
f2. Residential depreciation trend analysis 1
f3. Manufactured home depreciation analysis 2
f4. Manufactured home depreciation trend analysis 1
f5. Commercial depreciation analysis 2
f6. Commercial depreciation trend analysis 1
f7. Economic factor analysis 1
f8. Building override documentation 1
f9. Non-building occupancy depreciation review 162/163 1
G. INCOME APPROACH
g1. Income model analysis 2
g2. Capitalization rate analysis 1
g3. Effective tax rate study 1
g4. I/E multiplier override documentation 1
H. COMPARABLE SALES ANALYSIS 2
I. FINAL REVIEW PROCESS
i1. Final review +/- 10% 1
i2. Miscellaneous improvement /site value documentation 1
i3. Residential index study 1
i4. Commercial index study 1
APPRAISAL PROCEDURE SUBTOTAL 42
-
AGRICULTURAL USE VALUATION
Ag1. Adverse influence guidelines followed 1
Ag2. 100% verification of current use verification every 2 years 1
Ag3. Current ag use tables updated 1
Ag4. Web soil survey matches Orion soils 2
Ag5. Review of Division of Water Resources report 1 -
CADASTRAL MAPPING 2
PROCEDURAL POINT TOTAL 50
STATISTICAL POINT TOTAL 50 - STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
a. TREND STUDY PUBLICATION & CVN MAILING -5
b. INFORMAL HEARINGS -5
c. APPRAISED VALUE CERTIFICATION -5
d. PERSONAL PROPERTY -5
e. PRESERVATION/PROTECTION OF PROPERTY TAX RECORDS -5
f. USE OF PRESCRIBED PVD VALUATION GUIDES -5
STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE DEDUCTION
I. TOTAL POSSIBLE 100.0
II. TOTAL RECEIVED
OVERALL SCORE (II/I)*100
Page 3
Page 4
- STATISTICAL MEASURES COMPLIANCE REVIEW (50 points)
Statistical compliance for the residential and commercial/industrial subclasses shall be determined
separately. A maximum of 50 ratio study compliance points are possible for a county that achieves the
median ratio (25 points) and COD (25 points) performance goals through statistical point estimates in
both subclasses. Subclass points shall be weighted by the percentage of appraised value within the
combined subclasses, as derived from the most recent statistical abstract. The percentage of appraised
value, divided between the residential and commercial/industrial subclass will be shown at the top of
the form. These percentages will be used to develop the point weighting for each statistical measure in
the two subclasses. Subclass weights are expected to vary from county to county and from year to year.
The following is an example of the weighting procedure:
Appraised Percent of Total
Subclass Value Appraised Value
Residential $250,000,000 84.7
Commercial/Industrial $45,000,000 15.3
Total Appraised Value $295,000,000 100.0
Percent of
Subclass Appraised Compliance
Value Points Weighted Points
(weighted) Possible Points Received
1. Statistical Measures
Residential
Appraisal Level 84.7 25 21.2
Appraisal Uniformity 84.7 25 21.2
Commercial/Industrial
Appraisal Level 15.3 25 3.8
Appraisal Uniformity 15.3 25 3.8
Statistical
Compliance Points 50.0
1. Sum the residential and commercial/industrial appraised value
($250,000,000 + $45,000,000 = $295,000,000)
2. Divide each subclass appraised value by the total appraised value.
$250,000,000/$295,000,000 = 84.7 percent (Residential)
$45,000,000/$295,000,000 = 15.3 percent (Commercial-Industrial)
3. Multiply the percent of appraised value (weighted) by the compliance points possible in each
subclass for both the median ratio and COD.
.847 times 25 = 21.2
.847 times 25 = 21.2
.153 times 25 = 3.8
.153 times 25 = 3.8
In addition to the statistical point estimates for the median ratio and COD, the confidence intervals will
be examined. A 95% confidence interval will be used for sample sizes greater than five (5), 90%
confidence intervals for a sample size of five (5), 85% confidence intervals for a sample size of four
(4) and 70% confidence intervals for a sample size of three (3). Although point estimates are calculated
as part of the statistical compliance performance process, the confidence interval is used to determine
Page 4
Page 5
statistical compliance. If the confidence interval reaches or overlaps the statistical performance goal,
the compliance points allocated to the subclass and statistical measure in question are awarded. If the
confidence interval fails to reach or overlap the minimum performance goal, the points allocated to the
statistical measures for that subclass are not awarded. If the sample size for the subclass is less than 3,
the points allocated to the statistical measures for that subclass shall be subtracted from the total
compliance points, thereby establishing a new base for total possible points. The total points assigned
to a county shall be divided by the total possible and multiplied by 100 to arrive at the total score used
to determine substantial compliance. This will shift emphasis to the procedural review and statutory
components of the review.
The following sales ratio study review shall be used to establish whether the county's appraisal
performance measures are in statistical compliance, pursuant to minimum standards established by
PVD (see Compliance Scoring Example).
a. Appraisal Level
The median ratio measure of central tendency must suggest the overall level of appraised value for the
residential and commercial/industrial subclass falls between 90 and 110 percent.
If, at the 95% level of confidence, the subclass reaches or overlaps a portion of the prescribed range,
the appraisal level shall be found to be in statistical compliance. If the confidence interval range is not
met, the measure will be found to be out of compliance.
For example, a ratio study subclass with a sample size of 30:
Median ratio: 85.0 is not within the acceptable range. 95% Confidence interval: 80.0 to 90.0
This example would be considered in statistical compliance because it reaches the lower end of the
acceptable standard of 90.0 to 110.0 percent.
Median ratio: 85.2 is not within the acceptable range. 95% Confidence interval: 80.0 to 89.9
This example would not be considered in statistical compliance because it does not reach the lower end
of the acceptable standard of 90.0 to 110.0 percent.
Median ratio: 97.7 is within the acceptable range. 95% Confidence interval: 80.0 to 115.0
This example would be considered in statistical compliance because the confidence interval overlaps
the entire acceptable range of 90.0 to 110.0 percent.
Median ratio: 114.9 is not within the acceptable range. 95% Confidence interval: 110.0 to 120.0
This example would be considered in statistical compliance because the lower end reaches the
acceptable range of 90.0 to 110.0 percent.
Median ratio: 115.2 is not within the acceptable range. 95% Confidence interval: 110.1 to 120.0
This example would not be considered in statistical compliance because the lower end (110.1) does not
reach the acceptable range of 90.0 to 110.0 percent.
b. Appraisal Uniformity
The average deviation of ratios about the median appraisal level shall be measured by the coefficient
of dispersion (COD). The COD measure must suggest a deviation of 20.0 or less for both the residential
subclass and commercial/industrial subclasses to achieve statistical compliance. If the range estimate
Page 5
Page 6
for the subclass includes a COD of 20.0 or less at the 95% level of confidence, appraisal uniformity
shall be found to be in statistical compliance. If the confidence interval range is not met, the measure
will be found to be out of compliance.
For example:
COD: 18.0 is below the statistical measure. 95% Confidence interval: 13.0 to 22.0
This example is considered in compliance because the lower end of the COD confidence interval range
is below the acceptable measure of 20 (the maximum limit for compliance).
COD: 30.0 is above the statistical measure. 95% Confidence interval: 22.0 to 38.0
This example is considered out of compliance because the lower end of the COD confidence interval
range is not below the acceptable measure of 20.0 (the maximum limit for compliance).
COD: 22.0 is above the statistical measure. 95% Confidence interval: 17.0 to 26.0
This example is considered in compliance because the lower end of the COD confidence interval range
is below the acceptable measure of 20. (the maximum limit for compliance).
c. Sample Size
If less than six valid sales are collected for a subclass during the study period, valid sales within the
same subclass from the four previous study periods may be included to develop a larger and more
reliable sample for analysis.
If less than three valid sales are available in a subclass sample, ratio study performance measures will
not be used to determine statistical compliance. The points allocated to the statistical measures for that
subclass shall be subtracted from the total compliance points, thereby establishing a new base of total
possible points.
If prior year supplemental sales are used as referenced above, and more than half the sales in a subclass
sample have been validated from a previous appraisal year ratio study, performance measures will not
be used to determine statistical compliance. The points allocated to the statistical measures for that
subclass shall be subtracted from the total compliance points, thereby establishing a new base of total
possible points.
- PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW (42 points)
The following procedural review is designed to establish whether the county's appraisal performance
meets the substantial compliance standards. The county or district appraiser must be competent to
perform the required appraisal functions required by Kansas statutes, the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice, PVD manuals, PVD guidelines and PVD directives. Selection of a
private firm whose services are necessary to perform mass appraisal assignments, develop components
of a mass appraisal, provide technical appraisal services, or complete project maintenance phases must
be made from a list of approved firms supplied by the director of property valuation in accordance with
Directive #19-045 (or succeeding version). Reference the Procedural Compliance Scoring Example for
point allocations.
a. Scope of Work Appraisal Plan (4 points)
The county or district appraiser shall prepare an annual Scope of Work (SOW) appraisal maintenance
plan. A copy of the preliminary plan shall be submitted electronically to PVD by April 30 of each year,
detailing the maintenance plan for the current calendar year and in accordance with the Appraisal
Page 6
Page 7
Maintenance Specifications. The preliminary plan must include a copy of the budget that supports the
project.
The SOW is an ongoing process in a mass appraisal assignment. Significant changes during the
assignment should be noted in the working SOW document. A copy of the final SOW document,
including the signed SOW certification shall be submitted electronically to PVD by July 1st. Four points
are allocated, two points for timely submission of the SOW document and two points for timely
submission of the Quarterly Reports required by K.S.A. 79-1479.
b. Sales File (4 points)
PVD shall verify the county has a sales file that documents the validity of sales, field inspection of data
and sales price adjustments in accordance with the Appraisal Maintenance Specifications and PVD
sales validation guidelines. Both physical and/or electronic files must be continually maintained and
updated on a regular basis.
c. Parcel Maintenance Inspection (4 points)
PVD shall verify the county has performed the required data collection reinspection in accordance with
the Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. Field review documentation must be detailed on the field
review document or electronic device showing the data collection changes, quality assignment, and
depreciation assignment application. Quality control activities must also be documented and entered
into the CAMA system. All reinspection activity must be documented and have an inspection history
record entered into the CAMA system showing the reviewer name, inspection date, and process code
to adequately indicate the purpose of the review. Four points are allocated for two independent phases,
reinspection (3) and quality control (1).
d. Land Valuation Model Calibration (5 points)
PVD shall verify that the county has developed and calibrated land valuation models in accordance
with the Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. Neighborhood analysis forms, analysis documentation,
and data summary must be complete to be considered in compliance. PVD shall also confirm land
pricing tables have been updated. A market analysis for agricultural land must also be documented. All
overrides to land valuation models must be documented. Deviations from model assignments must be
documented. Five points are allocated over four independent phases.
e. Construction Cost Multiplier Analysis (2 points)
If the county deviates from the current cost valuation system, PVD shall verify the county has a current
residential and/or commercial/agricultural construction cost multiplier analysis in accordance with the
Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. If the county recognizes a deviation from the current cost
valuation system, cost tables must be updated to reflect the study. Deviation from the current cost
valuation system without documentation will result in the loss of two points for the applicable property
type. Sales of newly constructed properties may be used in the analysis for actual construction cost
when appropriate. Two points are allocated for this phase. One point for residential and one point for
commercial.
f. Depreciation Analysis (12 points)
PVD shall verify the county has developed a depreciation analysis in accordance with the Appraisal
Maintenance Specifications and PVD sales validation guidelines that utilizes all available valid sales.
The county must include appropriate statistics, graphics reports and statistical analyses to test percent
Page 7
Page 8
good calibration assignments. All forms of depreciation must be documented. The county must update
percent good tables, if appropriate, with the results of the yearly analysis. Deviations from model
assignments must be documented. This phase is inclusive of all structure types requiring depreciation.
Twelve points are allocated over nine independent phases.
g. Income Approach (5 points)
PVD shall verify the county has made an attempt to collect current I&E data to develop or attempt to
develop income models to value appropriate properties in accordance with the Appraisal Maintenance
Specifications. The appraiser must document all I&E, cap rate, and effective tax rate analysis and
conclusions must match Orion tables. Deviations from model assignments and all overrides must be
documented. Five points are allocated over four independent phases.
h. Comparable Sales Approach (2 points)
PVD shall verify the county has developed a sales comparison valuation model by analyzing the
relationship between the sales prices and the real property characteristics. The county must document
all sales approach analysis, model specification, model calibration and conclusions in accordance with
the Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. Deviations from model assignments must be documented.
i. Final Review Process (4 points)
PVD shall verify that the county has performed the final review of values in accordance with the
Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. The county must document the date and person performing the
final review. All deviations beyond the PVD specified threshold must be documented. Four points are
allocated over four independent phases.
- AGRICULTURAL USE VALUATION (6 points)
PVD shall verify that the county has met the review/inspection requirements for current agricultural
use and influence factors in accordance with the Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. The county
must identify current use of agricultural land, which includes cropland, grassland, irrigated land,
waterways, non-productive land, and farm home sites. Agricultural use values issued annually by PVD
must be updated in the CAMA system. Use of published Division of Water Resource Report (or
comparable water report) will be verified. Six points are allocated over five independent phases.Page 8
Page 9
-
CADASTRAL MAPPING (2 points)
PVD shall verify accurate property ownership maps are being maintained in accordance with the
Appraisal Maintenance Specifications. Updated field maps (showing new plats, splits, and
combinations), an updated assessment administration file and adherence to the parcel definition must
be maintained. -
STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
The following review areas are to verify the county is adhering to Kansas statutes not previously
covered. No points are allocated to the line-item entries in this section. However, five points will be
deducted for non-compliance of each statutory requirement.
a. A real estate value trend study is published in the official county newspaper and on the official
county website, if the county maintains a county website, at least ten business days prior to the
mailing of the CVN's (K.S.A. 79-1460a). Change of value notices are mailed on or before the
statutory deadline, provided an extension has not been granted pursuant to K.S.A. 79-1404,
Seventeenth, or an alternate form of notification approved pursuant to K.S.A. 79-1460 (K.S.A. 79-
1460).
b. Informal hearings are held within statutory timeframe, provided an extension has not been granted
pursuant to K.S.A. 79-1404, Seventeenth (K.S.A. 79-1448).
c. Values are certified to county clerk by statutory deadline, provided an extension has not been
granted pursuant to K.S.A. 79-1404, Seventeenth (K.S.A. 79-1466 and 79-1467).
d. Personal property is listed as required and penalties applied where applicable (K.S.A. 79-306 and
79-1422; K.S.A. 79-332a).
e. The preservation and protection of all property tax records (K.S.A. 45-403).
f. Valuation Guides prescribed by the Director of Property Valuation are adhered to (K.S.A. 79-1456)
Page 9
Page 10
COMPLIANCE SCORING EXAMPLE #1
The following scorecard demonstrates the scoring process based on the following information.
• A total of 50 points are possible for procedures, agricultural use valuation, cadastral mapping and
statutory compliance.
• A total of 50 points is possible for statistical compliance.
• The residential subclass median point estimate meets the required level of appraisal statistical standard.
The 95% confidential interval range also overlaps the acceptable range of 90.0 to 110.0. The 20.0 points
possible are awarded.
• The residential subclass COD point estimate meets the uniformity requirement because the lower end
of the 95% COD confidence interval range is below the acceptable measure of 20.0. The 20.0 points
possible are awarded.
• The commercial subclass median point estimate does not meet the required level of appraisal statistical
standard. The 95% confidential interval range does overlap the acceptable range of 90.0 to 110.0. The
5.0 points possible are awarded.
• The commercial subclass COD point estimate does not meet the uniformity requirement because the
lower end of the 95% COD confidence interval range is not below the acceptable measure of 20.0. The
5.0 points possible are not awarded.
• The total points received for the statistical compliance total is 45 of a possible 50 (50 - 5 = 45).
• The procedural compliance requirement for Sales File compliance is not met. Therefore, the 4 possible
points are deducted for not meeting the requirements.
• The total points received for procedural totals 46 out of a possible 50 (50 possible – 4 = 46).
• The total compliance points possible is 100.0 and the total received is 91.0. The 91.0 points received
divided by the 100.0 points possible equals a final substantial compliance score of 91.0.
• Substantial compliance is achieved in this example because the total score of 91.0 exceeds the required
score of 75.0 points.
Page 10
Page 11
SAMPLE County XXXX Compliance Scorecard
SUBCLASS WEIGHTING:
SUBCLASS APPRAISED VALUE % OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL $991,567,348 80.2
COMM./IND. $245,331,224 19.8
TOTAL $1,236,898,572 100.0
RATIO CONFIDENCE POINTS SUBCLASS POINTS POINTS
MEASURES STUDY RANGE ALLOCATED WEIGHT POSSIBLE RECEIVED
(IN/OUT)
- STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE
a. RESIDENTIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 90.9 IN ( 87.2, 97.9) 25 0.802 20.0 20.0
UNIFORMITY: COD 19.2 IN ( 17.2, 22.0) 25 0.802 20.0 20.0
b. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 71.2 IN (49.8, 90.7) 25 0.198 5.0 5.0
UNIFORMITY: COD 39.2 OUT (27.5, 67.8) 25 0.198 5.0 0.0
STATISTICAL TOTAL 50.0 45.0
- MASS APPRAISAL PROCESS
A. SCOPE of WORK
a1. Scope of work appraisal plan 2 2.0 2.0
a2. Quarterly appraisal progress reporting 2 2.0 2.0
B. SALES FILE 4 4.0 0.0
C. PARCEL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND QC
c1. Data collection re-inspection 3 3.0 3.0
c2. Quality control 1 1.0 1.0
D. LAND VALUATION
d1. Land valuation calibration and analysis 2 2.0 2.0
d2. Market ag. land valuation 1 1.0 1.0
d3. Land trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
d4. Documentation for land override (site value/unit price) 1 1.0 1.0
E. CONSTRUCTION COST MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS
e1. Residential cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusions 1 1.0 1.0
e2. Com./ind. cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusions 1 1.0 1.0
F. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS
f1. Residential depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0
f2. Residential depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f3. Manufactured home depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0
f4. Manufactured home depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f5. Commercial depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0
f6. Commercial depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f7. Economic factor analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f8. Building override documentation 1 1.0 1.0
f9. Non-building occupancy depreciation review 162/163 1 1.0 1.0
Page 11
Page 12
SAMPLE County XXXX Compliance Scorecard - Continued
G. INCOME APPROACH
g1. Income model analysis 2 2.0 2.0
g2. Capitalization rate analysis 1 1.0 1.0
g3. Effective tax rate study 1 1.0 1.0
g4. I/E multiplier override documentation 1 1.0 1.0
H. COMPARABLE SALES ANALYSIS 2 2.0 2.0
I. FINAL REVIEW PROCESS
i1. Final review +/- 10% 1 1.0 1.0
i2. Miscellaneous improvement /site value documentation 1 1.0 1.0
i3. Residential index study 1 1.0 1.0
i4. Commercial index study 1 1.0 1.0
APPRAISAL PROCEDURE SUBTOTAL 42 42.0 38.0
-
AGRICULTURAL USE VALUATION
Ag1. Adverse influence guidelines followed 1 1.0 1.0
Ag2. 100% verification of current use verification every 2 years 1 1.0 1.0
Ag3. Current ag use tables updated 1 1.0 1.0
Ag4. Web soil survey matches Orion soils 2 2.0 2.0
Ag5. Review of Division of Water Resources report 1 1.0 1.0 -
CADASTRAL MAPPING 2 2.0 2.0
PROCEDURAL POINT TOTAL 50.0 46.0
STATISTICAL POINT TOTAL 50.0 45.0 - STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
a. TREND STUDY PUBLICATION & CVN MAILING 0.0
b. INFORMAL HEARINGS 0.0
c. APPRAISED VALUE CERTIFICATION 0.0
d. PERSONAL PROPERTY 0.0
e. PRESERVATION/PROTECTION OF PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 0.0
f. USE OF PRESCRIBED PVD VALUATION GUIDES 0.0
STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE DEDUCTION 0.0
I. TOTAL POSSIBLE 100.0
II. TOTAL RECEIVED 91.0
OVERALL SCORE (II/I)*100 91.0
Page 12
Page 13
COMPLIANCE SCORING EXAMPLE #2 (Insufficient Data)
The following scorecard demonstrates the scoring process based on the following information.
• A total of 50 points are possible for procedures, agricultural use valuation, cadastral mapping and
statutory compliance.
• A total of 50 points is possible for statistical compliance if sufficient data is available. However, there
was insufficient data to calculate meaningful statistics in the commercial subclass in this example.
Therefore, the point allocation has been modified to 0 for the commercial subclass, leaving 37.8
statistical total points possible.
• The residential subclass median point estimate does not meet the required level of appraisal statistical
standard. The 95% confidential interval range overlaps the acceptable range of 90.0 to 110.0. The 18.9
points possible are awarded.
• The residential subclass COD point estimate does not meet the uniformity requirement because the
lower end of the 95% COD confidence interval range is not below the acceptable measure of 20.0. The
18.8 points possible are not awarded.
• As stated above, the commercial subclass did not have adequate data to calculate meaningful statistics.
median point estimate does not meet the required level of appraisal statistical standard. Therefore, no
points are allocated to commercial subclass.
• The total points received for the statistical compliance total is 18.9 of a possible 37.8 (37.8-18.9 = 18.9).
• The procedural compliance requirements were met for all categories, so a total of 50 points are awarded.
• The total compliance points possible is 87.8 and the total received is 68.9. The 68.9 points received
divided by the 87.8 points possible equals a final substantial compliance score of 78.5.
• Substantial compliance is achieved in this example because the total score of 78.5 exceeds the required
score of 75.0 points.
Page 13
Page 14
SAMPLE County XXXX Compliance Scorecard
SUBCLASS WEIGHTING:
SUBCLASS APPRAISED VALUE % OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL $47,514,870 75.5
COMM./IND. $15,389,000 24.5
TOTAL $62,903,870 100.0
RATIO CONFIDENCE POINTS SUBCLASS POINTS POINTS
MEASURES STUDY RANGE ALLOCATED WEIGHT POSSIBLE RECEIVED
(IN/OUT)
-
STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE
a. RESIDENTIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 77.5 IN ( 59.4, 98.0) 25 0.755 18.9 18.9
UNIFORMITY: COD 32.2 OUT ( 22.7, 52.4) 25 0.755 18.9 0.0
b. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO Insufficient data 0 0.000 0.0 0.0
UNIFORMITY: COD Insufficient data 0 0.000 0.0 0.0
STATISTICAL TOTAL 37.8 18.9 -
MASS APPRAISAL PROCESS
A. SCOPE of WORK
a1. Scope of work appraisal plan 2 2.0 2.0
a2. Quarterly appraisal progress reporting 2 2.0 2.0
B. SALES FILE 4 4.0 4.0
C. PARCEL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND QC
c 1. Data collection re-inspection 3 3.0 3.0
c 2. Quality control 1 1.0 1.0
D. LAND VALUATION
d1. Land valuation calibration and analysis 2 2.0 2.0
d2. Market ag. land valuation 1 1.0 1.0
d3. Land trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
d4. Documentation for land override (site value/unit price) 1 1.0 1.0
E. CONSTRUCTION COST MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS
e1. Residential cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusions 1 1.0 1.0
e2. Com./ind. cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusions 1 1.0 1.0
F. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS
f1. Residential depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0
f2. Residential depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f3. Manufactured home depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0
f4. Manufactured home depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f5. Commercial depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0
f6. Commercial depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f7. Economic factor analysis 1 1.0 1.0
f8. Building override documentation 1 1.0 1.0
f9. Non-building occupancy depreciation review 162/163 1 1.0 1.0
Page 14
Page 15
SAMPLE County XXXX Compliance Scorecard - Continued
G. INCOME APPROACH
g1. Income model analysis 2 2.0 2.0
g2. Capitalization rate analysis 1 1.0 1.0
g3. Effective tax rate study 1 1.0 1.0
g4. I/E multiplier override documentation 1 1.0 1.0
H. COMPARABLE SALES ANALYSIS 2 2.0 2.0
I. FINAL REVIEW PROCESS
i1. Final review +/- 10% 1 1.0 1.0
i2. Miscellaneous improvement /site value documentation 1 1.0 1.0
i3. Residential index study 1 1.0 1.0
i4. Commercial index study 1 1.0 1.0
APPRAISAL PROCEDURE SUBTOTAL 42 42.0 42.0
-
AGRICULTURAL USE VALUATION
Ag1. Adverse influence guidelines followed 1 1.0 1.0
Ag2. 100% verification of current use verification every 2 years 1 1.0 1.0
Ag3. Current ag use tables updated 1 1.0 1.0
Ag4. Web soil survey matches Orion soils 2 2.0 2.0
Ag5. Review of Division of Water Resources report 1 1.0 1.0 -
CADASTRAL MAPPING 2 2.0 2.0
PROCEDURAL POINT TOTAL 50.0 50.0
STATISTICAL POINT TOTAL 37.8 18.9 - STATUTORY COMPLIANCE
a. TREND STUDY PUBLICATION & CVN MAILING 0.0
b. INFORMAL HEARINGS 0.0
c. APPRAISED VALUE CERTIFICATION 0.0
d. PERSONAL PROPERTY 0.0
e. PRESERVATION/PROTECTION OF PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 0.0
f. USE OF PRESCRIBED PVD VALUATION GUIDES 0.0
STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE DEDUCTION 0.0
I. TOTAL POSSIBLE 87.8
II. TOTAL RECEIVED 68.9
OVERALL SCORE (II/I)*100 78.5
Approved: April 26, 2024 ______
David N. Harper
Director of Property Valuation
Page 15
Get today's answer for your situation
You just read a 2024 ruling on this question. Ezel checks current Kansas tax law and answers your specific situation, with citations.
Opens in Ezel Pro. Every answer cites the authority it relies on.