How should Kansas county appraisers handle 'adverse influences' on agricultural land under the use-value formula so land is not adjusted twice for the same factor?

Plain-English summary

This 1998 memo from Mark S. Beck (Division of Property Valuation) to all Kansas county appraisers addresses how "adverse influences" should be handled when agricultural land is valued at use value for property tax.

Kansas values farm ground on its agricultural use value (productivity), not market value. An "agricultural use valuation committee" spent nearly three years building a valuation structure to meet the objectives of fair, accurate, and uniform valuation "and meets the requirements of the court order we are operating under." The final major piece — incorporating detailed soil types to reflect each parcel's productivity — caused some parcels' values to rise significantly. The memo explains that part of those increases came from previous "adverse influences" adjustments, which had been an attempt to recognize unique factors the old formula did not capture.

The key instruction: because "[t]he present formula more comprehensively takes into account what had been 'adverse influences,'" appraisers "need to be sure that agricultural land values are not now adjusted twice for the same factor." In other words, don't stack an old adverse-influence discount on top of a formula that already reflects the same productivity limitation.

The memo then identifies four adverse influences that may still not be adequately captured, with interim guidelines (more detail promised later):

1. Canopy cover — the appraiser inspects the parcel, maps the impacted area, and applies a set reduction: 0–25% cover = no reduction; 25–50% = 20% reduction; 50–75% = 30% reduction; 75–100% = 50% reduction.
2. Salinity and alkalinity — the appraiser asks the taxpayer for a soil analysis from a crop consulting service, maps the area, reduces value as the report indicates, and notifies the local NRCS office.
3. Water table fluctuation — the appraiser maps the area, contacts the local NRCS office for verification (per a May 2, 1997 agreement memorandum), and contacts the Division of Property Valuation (PVD), which provides a temporary influence amount pending NRCS review.
4. Newly constructed drainage and flood control areas — the appraiser inspects and maps the area and contacts PVD, which coordinates with the responsible agency and provides the adverse-influence amount.

For each, the appraiser establishes an "adverse influence file" for the parcel. The memo invites appraisers to report other productivity factors the formula may miss.

What this means for you

County appraisers

Do not double-count: if the current soil-type-based use-value formula already reflects a parcel's productivity limitation, don't also apply a legacy adverse-influence discount for the same thing. Use the four listed procedures — with the specific canopy-cover percentages — only for factors the formula does not already capture, and document each with a map and an adverse-influence file.

Farm and ranch landowners

If your ag land has a genuine productivity problem (heavy tree canopy, salinity/alkalinity, a fluctuating water table, or new drainage/flood-control construction) that the standard use-value formula doesn't reflect, this memo is the basis on which a county appraiser can make a separate adjustment. For salinity/alkalinity in particular, be prepared to provide a soil analysis from a crop consulting service.

A note on scope

This is administrative valuation guidance to appraisers about a use-value system operating under a court order and refined over time; it describes 1998 interim procedures and CAMA-era practice. Confirm current Division of Property Valuation guidance for any present-day valuation.

Common questions

Q: What problem is this memo solving?
A: When detailed soil types were added to the ag use-value formula, some parcels rose in value partly because the formula now captured factors that had been handled as separate "adverse influence" adjustments. The memo tells appraisers not to adjust twice for the same factor.

Q: What reduction applies for canopy cover?
A: 0–25% cover = no reduction; 25–50% = 20%; 50–75% = 30%; 75–100% = 50%, based on the appraiser's inspection of the mapped area.

Q: How is a salinity or alkalinity problem documented?
A: The county appraiser requests a soil analysis from a crop consulting service, maps the affected area, reduces value as the report indicates, and notifies the local NRCS office.

Q: Who verifies water table and new drainage/flood-control adjustments?
A: The appraiser works with the local NRCS office and the Division of Property Valuation (PVD), which supplies a temporary or coordinated influence amount pending review.

Citations and references

• Agricultural use valuation formula (soil-type based) — the memo's central point is that the refined formula already reflects most former "adverse influences," so parcels must not be adjusted twice for the same factor.
• May 2, 1997 agreement memorandum with NRCS — referenced as the basis for county appraisers to obtain NRCS verification of water-table adverse influences.
• The memo references "the court order we are operating under" but does not cite a specific Kansas statute or case number, so statutes_cited is left empty.

Source

• Landing page: Kansas Department of Revenue Policy Information Library
• Original document: MEMO-AgLandValuations

Original ruling text

Memorandum

Body:

April 27, 1998

To: All County Appraisers

From: Mark S. Beck

Subject: Agricultural Land Valuations

Our mutual assignment is to assure that all agricultural property is valued fairly, accurately and uniformly throughout the state. The agricultural use valuation committee, comprised of agricultural producers, legislators, county appraisers, a Kansas State University representative, and myself have worked for nearly three years in creating a valuation structure that satisfies these overall objectives and meets the requirements of the court order we are operating under.

As we implemented the final major piece of this structure, the incorporation of detailed soil types to reflect individual parcel productivity, it became clear that there were some parcels in counties that would experience significant valuation increases. A contributing factor to some of these increases is the previous adjustments to valuations made on the basis of “adverse influences.” These adjustments were apparently an attempt to properly recognize unique factors affecting a parcel’s value that were not contemplated by the overall formula.

The present formula more comprehensively takes into account what had been “adverse influences.” Accordingly, we need to be sure that agricultural land values are not now adjusted twice for the same factor. At this point in time, we have generally identified four adverse influences that may not be adequately considered within the present agricultural use valuation formula. It is possible that others exist as well. Please advise us if you believe you have discovered factors that impact productivity that are not accounted for in the formula, and we will research the matter further and take appropriate action, where necessary.

Following is a list of adverse influences that our research indicates may not be sufficiently accounted for in the current agricultural use valuation formula, and general guidelines as to how these influences shall be addressed. More specific information will be provided at a later date. As other adverse influences are discovered, they too, will be addressed. At this point, we must allow the process to be dynamic and responsive in order to continue to improve it.

1. Canopy Cover

a. County appraiser views parcel;
b. County appraiser delineates area impacted on map;
c. County appraiser determines appropriate reduction from actual inspection and makes the appropriate reduction:

1. 0-25% cover = No reduction
2. 25-50% cover = 20% reduction
3. 50-75% cover = 30% reduction
4. 75-100% cover = 50% reduction

d. County appraiser establishes adverse influence file for parcel.

2. Salinity and Alkalinity

a. County appraiser requests that taxpayer provide soil analysis from crop consulting service;
b. County appraiser delineates area impacted on map;
c. County appraiser reduces value as indicated by report;
d. County appraiser establishes adverse influence file for parcel;
e. County appraiser notifies local NRCS office of change.

3. Water Table Fluctuation

a. County appraiser delineates area impacted on map;
b. County appraiser contacts local NRCS office, as stated in May 2, 1997, agreement memorandum, and request verification;
c. County appraiser contacts PVD for assistance;
d. PVD provides temporary influence amount until NRCS review is complete;
e. County appraiser establishes adverse influence file for parcel.

4. Newly Constructed Drainage and Flood Control Areas.

a. County appraiser views parcel;
b. County appraiser delineates area impacted on map;
c. County appraiser contacts PVD for assistance;
d. PVD contacts responsible agency and provides adverse influence amount.
e. County appraiser establishes adverse influence file for parcel.

I am confident that by working closely with each other, we can assure that individual concerns are resolved fairly and that agricultural use valuations based upon productivity are applied uniformly across the state, as required by law.

Date Composed: 06/09/1998 Date Modified: 10/09/2001

Table 1

Table 2