Kansas Attorney General Opinion 1992-013

ROBERT T. STEPHAN
ATTORNEY GENERAL
January 29, 1992
ATTORNEY GENERAL OPINION NO. 92-13
The Honorable Clyde D. Graeber
State Representative, Forty-First District
State Capitol, Room 502-S
Topeka, Kansas 66612
Re: Taxation--Property Valuation, Equalizing
Assessments, Appraisers and Assessment of
Property--Notification of Taxpayer of Change in
Appraised Valuation of Property; Effect of
Appraiser's Failure to Conduct Final Review
Synopsis: The final field review required by reappraisal
maintenance specifications issued by the division
of property valuation are mandatory in the sense
that the director of the division, prosecutors and
the board of tax appeals may pursue actions to
penalize an appraiser for failure to conduct such a
review. Moreover, upon finding that any county has
not performed a final review, the director of
property valuation must file a complaint with the
board of tax appeals seeking reappraisal of that
county. Finally, L. 1990, ch. 90, § 5 and K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 79-1460 require a specific review,
including a physical inspection, of property the
value of which is to be increased in tax years 1990
or 1992 and subsequent years. If this review is
not performed, the value of the property (excluding
agricultural land) may not be increased. Cited
herein: K.S.A. 79-401; 79-411; K.S.A. 1991 Supp.
79-1413a; 79-1460; 79-1479; L. 1990, ch. 90, § 5.

Dear Representative Graeber:
You request our opinion regarding the effect of a county or
district appraiser's failure to perform a final field review.
Specifically, your questions are as follows:
"1. Is the final review process mandatory, as stated and
directed by the property valuation division and required for
each individual county, as part of the state wide program to
insure uniform and equal taxation across the 105 counties?
"2. If a county appraiser has failed or refused to perform
the mandatory final review process as set forth in the
reappraisal maintenance specifications and final review
checklist, are the purported change of value notices sent to
property owners, invalid as a matter of law?
"3. What penalties and sanctions are available to insure
enforcement of the reappraisal maintenance specifications and
final review checklist, and who is charged with the
responsibility of enforcing the state wide reappraisal
maintenance specifications?"
L. 1990, ch. 90, § 5 and K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 79-1460 require a
specific review, including a physical inspection, of property
the value of which is to be increased in tax years 1990 or
1992 and subsequent years. See Attorney General Opinion No.
91-148. If this review is not performed, the value of the
property (excluding land devoted to agricultural use) may not
be increased.
The "final field review" procedures which you reference are
administratively required, although there are also statutory
requirements for actual physical inspections of taxable real
property. See K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 79-1460 (discussed above),
K.S.A. 79-401 and 79-411. Further, the final field review is
a part of the reappraisal maintenance specifications issued by
the division of property valuation, and as such is required to
be followed by county and district appraisers pursuant to
K.S.A. 79-1456. Paragraph 16 of the 1992 specifications
provides as follows:
"16. FINAL FIELD REVIEW:
"16.1 Prior to finalization of the appraisal estimates
and printing of change of value notices, a field
inspection and critical examination of the
preliminary indicators of value shall be made for

each parcel of property in the county. The
following phase work shall be completed before
final review documents are printed:
"a) All changes resulting from the twenty-five
percent (25%) reinspection, and sales
verification data entry shall be complete in
the map being reviewed and free of input
errors.
"b) All quality control reinspections shall be
completed in the maps selected for
reinspection. The documentation used to
determine that minimum quality specifications
have been met shall be available for
inspection.
"c) All residential market modeling and
comparable sales selection criteria shall be
complete, tested and evaluated. A copy of
the KSCAMA 430 Residual Error Report shall
be carefully reviewed for the purpose of
identifying outliers which will require a
comprehensive investigation.
"d) All commercial/industrial income and expense
data collection and analysis shall be
complete. Neighborhood models constructed in
the KSCAMA system shall be completed,
pretested on benchmark parcels; and ready for
printing of valuation reports.
"e) All local construction index and cost model
component adjustments, depreciation tables
and schedule changes shall be complete,
verified and updated in the KSCAMA system.
Full file residential, commercial, and sales
history cost runs shall be executed.
"16.2 The final field review shall be conducted by a
qualified member of the appraisal staff to
develop a final opinion of market value for each
parcel of property by correlating the estimates
derived through the KSCAMA models and
considerations of all other relevant data. The
review process shall be used to:

"a) Determine that the value estimates assigned
to improvements and land appears to truly
reflect the actual market value of the
property.
"b) Identify and correct any data entry or
transcription errors, or changes to physical
characteristics which may influence market
value.
"c) Ensure that schedules for computing land
value estimates reflect current market value
and individual properties have been adjusted
to reflect changes in influence factors.
"d) Verify consistent and accurate construction
quality grading of buildings and improvements.
"e) Check and adjust for locational obsolescence
factors to better reflect market trends
within neighborhoods.
"f) Correlate the indicated value from the
approaches used to estimate value.
"g) Ensure that each property has been valued
equitably in relation to other like
properties.
"16.3 The appraisers assigned to conduct this phase of
the project shall have KSCAMA valuation
expertise and knowledge of the valuation
techniques employed in the County as well as
complete familiarity with the neighborhoods in
the County. Appraisers assigned to this phase
shall have a minimum of 30 days of appraisal
related work experience in the county prior to
the start of final review.
"16.4 The review appraiser shall sign approval of all
the parcel estimates of value. If the review
appraiser does not accept a value estimate, the
necessary adjustments shall be made to the parcel
data or valuation models to bring the property
value in line with market indicators. The review
appraiser shall select the sales comparison, cost
or income approach, whichever is most
representative of the true property value.

"16.5 Field 463 of the appraisal process section shall
be updated on the CAMA data base to indicate
the inspection date, time, appraiser ID, and
process code of 9 for each parcel which received
a final value review.
"16.6 The review appraiser shall have the ability to
exercise informed judgment in arriving at a final
estimate of market value. When an override of a
model based value is required in the appraiser's
judgment, documentation shall be provided in the
form of a proper override code which shall be
supplemented with a more detailed explanation in
the note section of the data review document.
Overrides shall not be made for parcels which are
found to have data errors. Parcels with data
errors shall be corrected and remodeled before
any override is considered to an estimate of
value.
"16.7 A report of all parcels on which a value override
has been made along with the appropriate reason
code and supporting documentation shall be
prepared and submitted to the Division of
Property Valuation for inspection." Reappraisal
Maintenance Specifications for the Reappraisal of
Real Property at 22-24 (1992). (The pertinent
language is located in paragraph 17, pp. 28-30
of the specifications for contracted
appraisals.) See also Course 3-100-4, Year
End Processing and Reappraisal Hearings at 123
(1/91).
These specifications require a final field review for all
property before printing change of value notices. The
specifications are directed at the goal of achieving fair
market value and uniform valuations. The director of property
valuation has stressed the importance of the final field
review in recent communications with the chairman of the
governor's task force on classification. In discussing lack
of uniformity in values for residential and commercial
property, the director states:
"The non-uniformity is due in large part
to the counties' failure to do a final
value review. In a final value review,
the county appraiser physically views the
property to determine if the initial

computer generated value estimate is
reasonable. If the appraiser is simply
reviewing computer print-outs to make
these final value judgments, it is not
possible to pick up obvious mistakes and
verify that the subject property is
uniformly valued with other similar
properties in the area. In those counties
where final value reviews have been done,
the appraiser is experiencing fewer
appeals and in all likelihood, a closer
approximation to market value."
Memorandum to Lionel Alford, Chairman,
Task Force on Classification, from David
C. Cunningham, Director, Division of
Property Valuation, October 8, 1991.
As discussed in Attorney General Opinion No. 91-136, these
specifications "are mandatory in the sense that the director,
prosecutors and the board of tax appeals may take actions . .
. to penalize an appraiser for failure or refusal to comply
with or follow such [directions]." The penalties and
sanctions available to insure compliance with the requirement
to perform a final review are also discussed in Attorney
General Opinion No. 91-136.
We do not believe, however, that failure to conduct a final
review (other than that required by L.1990, ch. 90, § 5 and
K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 79-1460) automatically invalidates the
change of value notices sent to taxpayers. In our opinion,
the conduct of the final review set forth in the
specifications is not necessarily "essential to the
preservation of the rights of parties affected and to the
validity of the proceedings." See City of Hutchinson v.
Ryan, 154 Kan. 751, Syl. 1 1 (1942); Griffin v.
Rogers, 232 Kan. 168 (1988). However, failure to conduct a
final review necessarily results in the county being in
substantial non-compliance with the law and director
guidelines. If such a determination is made, the director
must file a complaint with the board of tax appeals seeking
reappraisal of that county. K.S.A. 1991 Supp. 79-1479. If
the director does not make that determination, the board of
tax appeals may still order reappraisal pursuant to K.S.A.
1991 Supp. 79-1413a and individual taxpayers may argue in the
appeals process that fair market value for their property on a

uniform and equal basis was not achieved as a result of the
appraiser's failure to conduct a final review.
Very truly yours,
ROBERT T. STEPHAN
AttorneyGeneralofKansas
JuleneL.Miller
Deputy Attorney General
RTS:JLM:jm