Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation Compliance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
PVD review finds Bourbon County 'out of substantial compliance,' commissioners told
Summary
State Property Valuation Division told commissioners Bourbon County scored 44.3 of 100 on its 2024 compliance review, leaving the county 'out of substantial compliance' largely because residential ratios and uniformity measures fell outside statutory ranges.
Mike Dahlman of the Kansas Property Valuation Division told the Bourbon County Commission during a phone briefing that the county’s 2024 compliance score was 44.3 out of 100, which the division classifies as out of substantial compliance. Dahlman said the score combines two halves: a statistical ratio study and a procedural review. The statistical portion — driven primarily by residential median ratio and coefficient of dispersion (COD) — was the central problem, he said, and large residential value increases since COVID were a key driver.
Dahlman explained the methodology used to calculate the score, including the median-ratio target range of 90 to 110 and the COD threshold under 20. He said Bourbon County’s residential median and COD confidence ranges fell below and above the statutory thresholds, respectively, and that the county received only 4.3 of 50 possible points on the ratio portion because the county’s residential metrics were outside the acceptable ranges. Procedurally, Dahlman said the county scored well (about 37 of 42 possible procedural points cited) but missed points on documentation items such as land-valuation analyses and depreciation recosting.
The PVD presenter reviewed appeals and adjustment statistics for the county, noting Bourbon County had a lower-than-state-average rate of appeals but a relatively high adjustment rate for residential appeals in the sample discussed. Dahlman cautioned commissioners that statewide comparisons depend on how counties enter appeal data, and he urged the county to submit required analyses (for example, land models in Orion and affordable-housing worksheets) to close procedural gaps.
Commissioners discussed next steps briefly during the meeting. No formal corrective action was recorded in open session; Dahlman said PVD expects counties to address the data and documentation issues and that county-level decisions (such as whether to adjust appraised values aggressively to 'catch up' with market changes) remain the responsibility of local appraisers and the commission. The presentation was informational and included a handout referenced by the presenter. The county will need to address the statistical shortfall to regain 'substantial compliance' status.
