PVD outlines appraisal rules, ratio study and county oversight as Sedgwick commissioners press for clarity

Bob Kent, acting director of the Kansas Division of Property Valuation (PVD), told Sedgwick County commissioners on April 15 that PVD sets statewide appraisal guidance, conducts statistical compliance reviews and can enforce procedural compliance while counties appoint and operate their own appraiser offices.

The briefing was intended to help commissioners explain the connection between valuation results and property taxes to constituents amid broader debate across the state about tax liability and valuation methods.

Kent summarized PVD responsibilities, the legal basis for appraisal standards and the agency’s procedural work. He said county appraisers are appointed by local boards of county commissioners every four years (the next appointment period begins July 1, 2025) and must meet minimum qualifications, including at least three years (6,000 hours) of mass-appraisal experience, successful completion of an eligibility exam administered by PVD and one of two professional designations (a certified general real estate appraiser or the Division’s registered MAS appraisal designation).

Kent said PVD provides appraisal guides and directives (PVD currently maintains 31 active directives), publishes five specialized valuation guides (grain elevator, feedlot, personal property, affordable housing and oil-and-gas), supplies the statewide CAMA (computer-assisted mass appraisal) system and performs two kinds of compliance reviews: a statistical ratio study and a procedural compliance review of methods and timelines.

“The director of property valuation has the authority to … provide and enforce the use of uniform methods and forms for listing assessment, return of property, and collection of taxes,” Kent said during the presentation.

He described the ratio study measures PVD uses: the median ratio (appraisal level), the coefficient of dispersion (COD, appraisal uniformity) and the price-related differential (PRD, vertical equity). For the 2024 preliminary results PVD supplied to the county in March, Sedgwick County’s residential median ratio was about 85.78 with a COD of 10.29; commercial median was about 82 with a COD of 24.63. Kent said the county’s combined procedural and statistical score for the reviewed period was 90.8 out of 100 (substantial compliance requires a score above 75).

Commissioners asked several operational questions. Commissioner Bob asked whether counties use cost approaches more than sales-comparison approaches and whether that could lead to divergence from market value when sales are limited. Kent said parcels receive multiple model outputs (cost approach, sales-comparison where available, and, for commercial parcels, an income approach when data support it) and that county appraisers use professional judgment to reconcile multiple approaches.

Several commissioners pressed Kent about the locus of authority. Commission members repeatedly emphasized that the county appraiser is employed by the county commission and that local commissioners do not direct appraisal methods. Kent described PVD’s oversight role—providing directives, statistical review, compliance reports and, in some cases, on-site assistance—but refused to concede the position that the county appraiser “works for” PVD. “I can’t concede that he works for the Division of Property Evaluation,” Kent said. Commissioners countered that PVD provides the supervisory framework for compliance even though the appraiser’s pay and employment come from the county.

The exchange reflected an ongoing tension: county officials stressed that county commissions supply office resources and supervise employment, while PVD staff said their authority lies in statutory oversight, directives and the compliance process. Commissioner Howell noted that variation in methods across counties can cause perceived inequality for properties that straddle county lines.

On appeals and enforcement, Kent said a county appraiser can be suspended or removed by a county commission for incompetence or failure to perform duties; such a removal may be appealed to PVD and further to the Board of Tax Appeals (BOTA). Kent and PVD staff also explained that PVD may issue orders directing a county commission to suspend or terminate an appraiser; an appraiser then has 15 days to appeal to BOTA. PVD staff present said PVD investigates complaints and has moved to address misconduct or statutory noncompliance, and PVD staff noted that removal or discipline typically follows procedural steps under Kansas administrative law.

Commissioners asked about BOTA’s caseload and timelines for appeals; Kent said BOTA is independent and handles scheduling and decisions on appeals while PVD and counties may supply evidence. PVD staff said they do sometimes consult with BOTA and that BOTA will consider guides and evidence submitted by the county and taxpayers; PVD does not control BOTA’s calendar or rulings.

Other operational details Kent provided: PVD currently lists roughly 43 authorized positions (about 37 filled at the time of the briefing), conducts roughly 75 training classes per year, sets quarterly reporting deadlines for counties (quarterly reports due Oct. 15, Jan. 15, April 15 and July 15), requires counties to reinspect all parcels on a six-year cycle, and has authority under statute to extend certain certification and mailing deadlines when necessary.

Commissioner questions also covered technical choices PVD and counties make about sampling versus full-sale sets for ratio studies. Kent said PVD used all sales in the most recent (preliminary) study and was evaluating whether to return to a sampling method in future years; he added that in PVD’s experience the final outcomes using a sample versus the full set are often similar.

Ending: Commissioners asked PVD to share the presentation slides and follow up on outstanding points. Mark Clark, Sedgwick County appraiser, told the commission he had requested that PVD apply a published time trend to the preliminary numbers; that adjustment moved the county into the confidence interval for the commercial median and into compliance for residential in PVD’s subsequent internal review. Commissioners said they will continue the conversation as legislation and public concern about property taxes develop.

Quotes used in this article are verbatim and come from the meeting transcript. No formal votes or ordinance actions were taken at the April 15 staff meeting.