Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sedgwick County appraiser defends new valuation choices as commissioners press for faster appeals
Summary
Appraiser Deanna Aspedon briefed the commission on valuation methods, said the office relied more on 95% market/cost overrides this year and cited data gaps and prior-year freezes as drivers of large single-year increases; commissioners pressed for quicker appeal options, hearing officers and access to MLS data.
Deanna Aspedon, Sedgwick County appraiser, told the commission the office uses multiple valuation methods—sales-comparable market estimates, cost (replacement) estimates, multiple regression analysis (MRA), weighted and index estimates—and that this year many residential records show a 95% market or cost override when the database could not display a full automated estimate.
"We actually went 95% of market or 95% of cost," Aspedon said, explaining the office reduced some automated estimates by 5 percent to account for how sellers typically prepare homes for market. She said the appraisal models rely on an 18-month sales window and that, when neighborhoods lack sufficient sales, the office expands to a school-district-based model area.
Why it matters: Commissioners and staff said the combination of a methodology change (moving some properties toward a 95% target), prior years of frozen "prior year" values and market movement produced single-year spikes in some neighborhoods—cases that prompted high volumes of public appeals and political heat for the commission.
Key technical points: Aspedon walked through how comparable selection and comparability points feed automated comp sheets, described the office's preference for median values in mass appraisal, and showed a worked example where the median and the comp average were close in value. She noted industry guidance that five sales is a minimum to establish a market (15 is better; 50 is excellent); when model areas lack adequate sales, the office uses cost approaches (Marshall & Swift) or indexes instead.
Appeals and remedies: Commissioners asked whether the county can "smooth" spikes; Aspedon said staff can correct data pockets, index neighborhoods once data are reliable, and incorporate MLS data to improve characteristic detail and concessions information. She advised property owners to bring alternate comparable sales, photos or documentation of structural issues for appeals; the office will perform field checks when needed.
Process proposals: Commissioners proposed creating a local hearing officer panel or a taxpayer advocate to give residents a faster, local review option rather than a lengthy Board of Tax Appeals route. Staff said prior analysis flagged cost and clerk-office workload implications; legal staff offered to re-circulate memos describing design and options.
What's next: Staff agreed to pursue better access to MLS data, recirculate the analysis on a hearing officer option and consider ways to accelerate out-of-cycle reviews when a fee-appraisal statute or substantial differences warrant it. No formal policy change or vote occurred during the briefing.
Representative quote from the hearing: "I think those four things together ... are the reason why so many people are upset," Aspedon said, summarizing how methodology change, prior undervaluation, appeals and market movement combined this year.
