1

The Kansas Official Ratio Study……………………………………..

2

PVD says…

3

In-office staff is temporarily validating sales for the following counties.

• Butler• Crawford

• Douglas• Reno

• Sedgwick

….only because PVD lost three field appraisers through the early retirement incentive.

Gene Edwards

Ray Cook

Joan Pagel

4

5

2010 Final Ratio Study Results

6

Residential Median Ratio - Confidence Interval

In Compliance99.96%

Out of Compliance0.04%

Residential Coefficient of Dispersion - Confidence Interval

Out of Compliance0.10%

In Compliance99.90%

…globally for residential—2010 final

7

…globally for commercial/industrial—2010 finalCommercial Median Ratio - Confidence Interval

Out of Compliance0.61%

In Compliance99.39%

Commercial Coefficient of Dispersion - Confidence Interval

Out of Compliance9.83%

In Compliance90.17%

8

Residential Value Statewidebased on values from November 2010 Abstract

All Other, 7,321,447,378,

51%

Sedgwick, 2,369,668,516,

16%

Johnson, 4,844,578,179,

33%

For 2009, Johnson and Sedgwick’s combined value was 50 percent of the total.

9

Commercial Value Statewidebased on values from November 2010 Abstract

All Other, 3,212,909,278,

48%

Johnson, 2,148,791,297,

32%

Sedgwick, 1,347,474,363,

20%

For 2009, Johnson and Sedgwick’s combined value was 54 percent of the total.

10

2010 Ratio Study - Informal Hearing ComparisonNumber of counties and sales

137

29

156

32

284

41

314

36

312

40

415

48

349

51

289

37

336

33

208

24

155

23

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Number of Sales

Number of Counties

11

3741

59

4245

69

125

44

115111

41

122138

24

150

122

72

221

71

37

192

67

45

177

6543

177

94

7

107

45

11

99

0

50

100

150

200

250

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

No Change Adjusted Invalidated

Ratio Study Informal hearing decisions

12

Commercial, 36.8

Residential, 61.7

Vacant, 0.0Other, 1.9

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of total sales appealed

2010 Informal Appeals by Subclass of Property

13

Through the ratio study informal hearing process four counties that were out of statistical compliance for the

preliminary study were in for the final ratio study

The Court of Tax Appeal is currently charging $2,000 for reappraisal requests, complaints

and appeals by any Board or County Commissioners of the final ratio study for the

county

http://www.kansas.gov/cota/filing_fees/index.html

14

Number of counties not meeting statistical compliance by subclass 2000 - 2010

1 1

75

4

9

5

9

34

3

1412

5

12

17

25

18

23

20

17

20

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year

Nu

mb

er

by

Su

bc

las

s

Res

Com

15

16

Total financial institution sales sampled by residential sampling counties January thru December 2010

(Labette and Sumner County were not sampled for 2010)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Nu

mb

er

of

sa

les

17

Governmental sales sampled by residential sampling countiesJanuary - December 2010

(Labette and Sumner County not sampled for 2010)

0102030405060708090

100110120130140150

Num

ber o

f re-

sale

s

18

Financial and Governmental Sales Excluding Sampling CountiesJanuary thru December 2010 (999 sales)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

County

Num

ber o

f Sal

es

19

20

21

Tracking Valid Commercial SalesPrior to adding supplementals

11451209

1313 1287

1432

1558

1452 1469

1179

883

1033

700

800

900

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Ratio Study Year

Nu

mb

er

of

Sa

les

22

Tracking ComInd Sales (01-2006 to 08-2011)For economic indicators

23

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study

24

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study

Residential Sampling Counties (Drop in number of valid sales)

2009 – 22 counties1. Barton2. Butler3. Cowley4. Crawford5. Douglas6. Finney7. Ford8. Harvey9. Johnson10. Labette11. Leavenworth12. Lyon13. McPherson14. Miami15. Montgomery16. Reno17. Riley18. Saline19. Sedgwick20. Shawnee21. Sumner22. Wyandotte

2010 – 20 Counties

No longer sampling

1. Labette

2. Sumner2011 – 14 Counties

No longer sampling – in addition to the above

1. Barton

2. Cowley

3. Crawford

4. Finney

5. Lyon

6. Miami

25

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study – Global ViewResidential Median Ratio - Confidence Interval

Insufficient Sample Size Kiowa

8,389,1910.06%

Out of Compliance0

In Compliance14,638,985,419

99.94%

Pie graphs are based on 2011 July Abstracts Total appraised residential value = 14,647,374,610

26

Commercial Median Ratio - Confidence Interval

In Compliance6,389,847,622

93.27%

Out of Compliance49,284,261

0.72%

Insufficient Sample Size - Counties (less than 3)

54 Counties411,696,525

6.01%

Pie graphs are based on 2011 July Abstracts Total appraised commercial value = 6,850,828,408

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study – Global View

27

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study – Global View

Residential Coefficient of Dispersion - Confidence Interval

Out of Compliance 512,903,741

3.50%

In Compliance14126081678

96.44%

Insufficiant Sample Size Kiowa

8,389,1910.06%

28

Commercial Coefficient of Dispersion - Confidence Interval

Insufficient Sample Size - 54 Counties (less than 3)

411,696,5256.01%

In Compliance5,636,092,513

82.27%

Out of Compliance 803,039,370

11.72%

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study – Global View

29

2011 Mid-Year Ratio Study – Global ViewResidential Price-Related Differential - Confidence Interval

IInsufficiant Sample Size Kiowa

8,389,1910.06%

In Compliance14,422,371,158

98.46%

Out of Compliance - 216,614,261

01.48%

Commercial Price-Related Differential - Confidence Interval

Out of Complianc98,070,467

01.43%

Insufficient Sample Size - 54 Counties (less than 3)

411,696,5256.01%

In Compliance6.341,061,416

92.56%

30

The ratio study informal hearing process is a quality control phase of

the ratio study program.

Failing to appeal sales that you have documentation to support the sale

should be invalidated (especially in the commercial subclass) could haunt you for the next four years if supplemental sales are needed (appraised values

are used for the year in which the sale occurred).

Ratio Study Informal Appeal

Ratio Study Informal Appeal

31

2011 Ratio Study Informal Hearings

50

7

-5

5

15

25

35

45

55

65

75

2011

Number of Sales

Number of Counties

22

0

28

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

2011

No Change Adjusted Invalidated

Commercial, 20.0

Residential, 80.0

Vacant, 0.0Other, 0.0

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Percentage of total sales appealed

2010 Informal Appeals by Subclass of Property

32

• Informal appeals on sales are accepted by the following methods– Snail mail– Electronically– Fax

• Refer to the memo that accompanies the preliminary study for your final appeal date (waiting until the last minute limits the amount of research that can be given to your appeal)

• The following information should be included– Cover letter– COV number on the SVQ– Parcel identification number– Documentation to support the appeal

…and, one last thing

33

Remember to push the upload to state button as soon as value notices are

completed each year

These are required before the new year ratio study database can be created

(the system sends me an e-mail as they upload the same as when your monthly

sales upload)

34

…again