Input_and_Output_Examples.pdf
PDF 472 KB Posted
- Attached to
- Tax Appraisal Ratio Study Software System
- Solicitation number
- EVT0009555
- Issued by
- Shawnee County, Topeka City, Kansas
About this file
The provided document is a Government File related to a state and local contract opportunity for a Property Tax Appraisal Ratio Study Software solution. The opportunity is being sought by the Property Valuation Division of the Kansas Department of Revenue, targeting jurisdictions including Shawnee County and Topeka City. The new program would replicate and improve the existing VB6-based system and Excel macro-driven functionalities that format and compile preliminary data to upload/integrate into a single ratio study program. The proposed contract is for one (1) year with the option for four (4) one-year renewals.
The contract opportunity provides details on the required inputs, outputs, and analysis capabilities for the software system, including graphic examples, data file formats, and compliance scorecard templates. The successful contractor should have experience in appraisal-related ratio study data and techniques. The document also includes a Procedural Compliance Review Checklist and a Procedural Compliance Summary Scores table for various counties, indicating the system's comprehensiveness and the state's requirements for substantial compliance.
View the file
Other files
| File | Type | Posted |
|---|---|---|
| Cost_Sheet.pdf | ||
| Tax_Appraisal_Ratio_Study_Software_System.pdf | ||
| Sample_Report_Prelim-005.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Amendment_1_-_Q_A_Bid_Extension.pdf | ||
| Sample_Report_Final-003.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Sample_Report_Prelim-006.pdf | ||
| Sample_Report_Mid-Year-001.pdf | ||
| Sample_Report_Final-001.pdf | ||
| RFP_Tax_Ratio_Study_System.pdf | ||
| Sample_Report_Prelim-002.xls | XLS spreadsheet | |
| Sample_Report_Prelim-004.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Sample_Report_Prelim-003.pdf | ||
| Sample_Report_Prelim-001.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| PVD_Ratio_Study_Project_Requirements.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet | |
| Sample_Report_Final-002.xlsx | XLSX spreadsheet |
Show all 15
On GovTribe
Work with this file
- Download the original file
- Contacts named in this file
- Similar government files
- Ask GovTribe AI about this file
Text version
Input and Output Graphic Examples
Ra o Excel “PVD2” input file from database (Residen al subclass). This is the basis for many of the reports.
Ra o study program analysis output file developed from input data above.
County abstract input data used in overall substan al (combined procedural and sta s cal) compliance process.
Excel macro driven ra o study output from program file forma ed into spreadsheet.
PARCELID CLS LBCS COV# Mo Yr Ty SalePrice Src Vl Appraised Ratio
1 R 1101 000001 1 2022 2 87,690 3 0 82,340 93.9
2 R 1101 000002 1 2022 2 147,800 3 0 146,080 98.8
3 R 1101 000003 1 2022 2 87,690 3 0 89,290 101.8
4 R 1101 000004 1 2022 2 78,830 3 0 85,000 107.8
5 R 1101 000005 1 2022 2 17,740 3 0 16,970 95.7
Co. # County Res Land Res Impr Residential
Total Com/Indu
Land Com/Indu Impr Comm/Indu
Total 001 Allen 2,207,142 44,510,699 406,242,096 1,544,112 19,723,450 85,070,248 002 Anderson 3,124,212 38,560,746 362,477,896 1,589,593 12,342,472 55,728,260 003 Atchison 6,690,844 70,326,987 669,720,270 5,236,513 33,488,291 154,899,216 004 Barber 1,210,722 16,321,642 152,455,339 1,412,745 5,754,199 28,667,776 005 Barton 12,774,525 101,255,720 991,567,348 11,249,840 50,082,966 245,331,224
Total Trim Median COD PRD
County Sales Out n Median Confidence Interval COD Confidence Interval PRD Confidence Interval
001 : ALLEN 13 0 13 87.8 53.4 to 94.9 27.3 13.9 to 52.7 0.99 0.86 to 1.16
002 : ANDERSON 13 0 13 82.2 53.6 to 108.2 44 29.7 to 91.4 1.31 1.09 to 1.71
003 : ATCHISON 12 2 10 95.2 82.6 to 102.6 11.9 6.1 to 23.6 1.03 0.96 to 1.14
004 : BARBER 5 0 5 86 19.2 to 195.6 50.4 7.9 to 190.7 1.67 1.07 to 2.47
005 : BARTON 22 1 21 71.2 49.8 to 90.7 39.2 27.5 to 67.6 1.49 1.05 to 2.14
Excel macro driven script to create Substan al Compliance excel Scorecard. Addi onal Excel script to create 105 PDF versions and PDF versions.
SUBCLASS WEIGHTING:
SUBCLASS APPRAISED VALUE % OF TOTAL
RESIDENTIAL $406,242,096 82.7
COMM./IND. $85,070,248 17.3
TOTAL $491,312,344 100.0
RATIO CONFIDENCE POINTS SUBCLASS POINTS POINTS
MEASURES STUDY RANGE ALLOCATED WEIGHT POSSIBLE RECEIVED
(IN/OUT)
1. STATISTICAL PERFORMANCE
a. RESIDENTIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 92.8 IN ( 87.1, 97.3) 25 0.827 20.7 20.7
UNIFORMITY: COD 18.9 IN ( 16.0, 22.3) 25 0.827 20.7 20.7
b. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LEVEL: MEDIAN RATIO 87.8 IN (53.4, 94.9) 25 0.173 4.3 4.3
UNIFORMITY: COD 27.3 IN (14.0, 52.7) 25 0.173 4.3 4.3
STATISTICAL TOTAL 50.0 50.0
2. MASS APPRAISAL PROCESS
A. SCOPE of WORK a1. Scope of work appraisal plan 2 2.0 2.0 a2. Quarterly appraisal progress reporting 2 2.0 2.0
B. SALES FILE 4 4.0 4.0
C. PARCEL MAINTENANCE INSPECTION AND QC
c1. Data collection re-inspection 3 3.0 3.0 c2. Quality control 1 1.0 1.0
D. LAND VALUATION
d1. Land valuation calibration and analysis 2 2.0 2.0 d2. Market ag. land valuation 1 1.0 1.0 d3. Land trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0 d4. Documentation for land override (site value/unit price) 1 1.0 1.0
E. CONSTRUCTION COST MULTIPLIER ANALYSIS
e1. Residential cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclus 1 1.0 1.0 e2. Com./ind. cost analysis, trend, statistical testing, conclusio 1 1.0 1.0
F. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS
f1. Residential depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0 f2. Residential depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0 f3. Manufactured home depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0 f4. Manufactured home depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0 f5. Commercial depreciation analysis 2 2.0 2.0 f6. Commercial depreciation trend analysis 1 1.0 1.0 f7. Economic factor analysis 1 1.0 1.0 f8. Building override documentation 1 1.0 1.0 f9. Non-building occupancy depreciation review 162/163 1 1.0 0.0
G. INCOME APPROACH
g1. Income model analysis 2 2.0 2.0 g2. Capitalization rate analysis 1 1.0 1.0 g3. Effective tax rate study 1 1.0 1.0 g4. I/E multiplier override documentation 1 1.0 1.0
H. COMPARABLE SALES ANALYSIS 2 2.0 2.0
I. FINAL REVIEW PROCESS
i1. Final review +/- 10% 1 1.0 1.0 i2. Miscellaneous improvement /site value documentation 1 1.0 0.0 i3. Residential index study 1 1.0 1.0 i4. Commercial index study 1 1.0 1.0
APPRAISAL PROCEDURE SUBTOTAL 42 42.0 40.0
3. AGRICULTURAL USE VALUATION
Ag1. Adverse influence guidelines followed 1 1.0 1.0 Ag2. 100% verification of current use verification every 2 years 1 1.0 1.0 Ag3. Current ag use tables updated 1 1.0 1.0 Ag4. Web soil survey matches Orion soils 2 2.0 2.0 Ag5. Review of Division of Water Resources report 1 1.0 1.0
4. CADASTRAL MAPPING 2 2.0 2.0
PROCEDURAL POINT TOTAL 50.0 48.0
STATISTICAL POINT TOTAL 50.0 50.0
5. STATUTORY COMPLIANCE (NO)
a. TREND STUDY PUBLICATION & CVN MAILING 0.0
b. INFORMAL HEARINGS 0.0
c. APPRAISED VALUE CERTIFICATION 0.0
d. PERSONAL PROPERTY 0.0
e. PRESERVATION/PROTECTION OF PROPERTY TAX RECORDS 0.0
f. USE OF PRESCRIBED PVD VALUATION GUIDES 0.0
STATUTORY NON-COMPLIANCE DEDUCTION 0.0
I. TOTAL POSSIBLE 100.0
II. TOTAL RECEIVED 98.0
OVERALL SCORE (II/I)*100 98.0
Ra o Excel Procedural Compliance par al input file for Substan al Compliance Scorecard.
Outlier Summary Report
Excel Macro driven script to create a Master statewide (105 coun es) substan al compliance summary. This macro reads data on 105 individual County Summary Scoresheets and creates an Excel summary lis ng results for all coun es.
2023 PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW CHECKLIST
FOR COUNTY
F. DEPRECIATION ANALYSIS:
PVD confirms the county has a current residential, manufactured home and commercial depreciation analysis.
Residential depreciation analysis
1. Residential depreciation analysis Y
2. Residential depreciation trend analysis Y
Manufactured Home depreciation analysis
3. Manufactured home depreciation analysis Y
4. Manufactured home depreciation trend analysis Y
Commercial depreciation analysis
5. Commercial depreciation analysis Y
6. Commercial depreciation trend analysis Y
7. Economic factor analysis Y
8. Building override documentation Y
9. Non-Building Occupancy Depreciation Review 162/163 N
Comments on procedures by reviewer:
There are 20 component codes (occupancies 162/163) that have more than one Marshall and Swift Contruction class. The use of more than one class for a component may result in valuation differences.
ALLEN
Outlier Summary ‐ Final Ratio Study 2022
Trimmed Sale Listing (for COD & PRD)
000 : XXXXX COUNTY
Class PARCEL_ID Mo Yr Sale$ Appraised$ COV# Ratio
R 1 4 2022 144,270 9,920 014213 6.9
R 2 5 2022 26,260 42,040 014268 160.1
R 3 7 2022 21,460 40,490 014285 188.7
R 4 8 2022 17,630 35,060 014320 198.9
R 5 8 2022 36,050 69,690 014345 193.3
R 6 10 2022 185,020 312,600 014383 169.0
R 7 11 2022 43,990 81,050 014410 184.3
R 8 11 2022 42,160 71,730 014422 170.1
R 9 12 2022 17,720 31,300 014426 176.6
R 10 12 2022 6,410 20,250 014433 315.9
TOTAL RATIO A1 A2 B C1 C2 D1 D2 D3 D4 3 Ag1 3 Ag2 3 Ag3 3 Ag4 3 Ag5 4 5a 5b 5c 5d 5e 5F TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL FINAL PHASE
COUNTY RATIO POINTS SCOPE QTR SALES DATA DATA LAND LAND LAND LAND Adv !00% Use Soil Water Cadstral CVN INF VALUE PERS TAX USE PROC POINTS POINTS % FINAL FAIL
NO NAME POINTS Possible PLAN RPT FILE Coll QC cal/anl MKAg Trnd Ovrride Influ C Use Tables Survey Report MAP TRND HEAR CERT PROP REC GUIDE SCORE POSSIBLE EARNED SCORE RESULTS 0 pts
001 ALLEN 50.0 50.0 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 48 100 98 98.0 YES 2 002 ANDERSON 46.7 50.0 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 97 96.7 YES 003 ATCHISON 50.0 50.0 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 100 100.0 YES 004 BARBER 50.0 50.0 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 100 100.0 YES 005 BARTON 45.0 50.0 2 2 0 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 46 100 91 91.0 YES 1 006 BOURBON 8.4 50.0 2 2 0 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 -5 44 100 47 52.4 NO 3 007 BROWN 50.0 50.0 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 100 100.0 YES 008 BUTLER 50.0 50.0 2 2 4 3 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 50 100 100 100.0 YES
2023 PROCEDURAL COMPLIANCE SUMMARY SCORES
Time trend example. Documenta on will be provided.
File details come from the government source that posted it. Updated .