Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County appraiser urges stricter evidence deadlines after years-long commercial appeals
Summary
The county appraiser reported on staffing, sales and a recurring problem: commercial appeals with fee appraisals submitted years after valuation dates that cause increased interest costs for taxpayers; the office urged a one-year rule for retrospective appraisals.
The county appraiser’s office presented its monthly staff report and called attention to valuation appeals that have been prolonged by late-submitted fee appraisals and hearing reschedules.
The office said changes to personal property processing related to new legislation will apply to property acquired after Sept. 1, and staff are coordinating with the treasurer and updating systems for the 2026 tax roll. On residential sales the office reported 572 sales to date for 2025, a median sale price of about $260,000 and an average sale price of $286,061. The office reported a current (unvalidated) sales ratio of 94%.
On appeals, staff told the commission the total value in question in current appeals has declined from roughly $298.5 million (2022) to $118.2 million in more recent filings, reflecting progress in resolving cases. The presenter described a pattern in which tax representatives submit retrospective fee appraisals years after the valuation date — sometimes five years later — creating interest liabilities for taxpayers and delays in resolution.
The appraiser’s office recommended a clearer, enforceable timetable for evidence, proposing that fee appraisals be completed and submitted no later than one year from the valuation date (for example, a 2024 valuation would require appraisal submission by Jan. 1, 2025). The office said the current rule — that evidence be exchanged at least 30 days before a hearing — allows appraisal evidence created after the valuation date to be presented and can prolong disputes.
The presentation singled out cases involving Manhattan Marketplace and Target as examples where retrospective appraisals were submitted years after initial filings, increasing interest costs. Staff suggested county-level and KAC (Kansas Association of Counties) coordination to seek legislative changes to limit late evidence and reduce accrual of interest.
