mcre Media

Wednesday, February 25, 2026

Watch "👉 7 Vegetables That Clean Your Arteries Naturally (The 7th Will Shock You)" on YouTube

https://youtube.com/shorts/1pZXHHkXcBA?si=wSpUvPmWvNViN-Ez

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Watch "The WWII Trick That Broke Japan's Pacific Strategy Forever" on YouTube

https://youtube.com/shorts/NhxSyLT7reE?si=Y8SgXo_WCAt4XW2v

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

Tuesday, February 24, 2026

Rainbow 🌈 trout

Based on Dr. Steven Gundry's dietary principles, rainbow trout is generally considered a good, lectin-free source of protein and essential omega-3 fatty acids. While he often emphasizes wild-caught fish, trout is a healthy option, particularly when compared to high-mercury or farm-raised fish containing inflammatory, high-lectin feed.

• Omega-3 Source: Rainbow trout is highly regarded for its heart-healthy omega-3 fatty acids.

• Safe Choice: It serves as a good alternative to salmon or tuna for those seeking a mild white fish.

• Nutrient-Dense: It provides essential vitamins and minerals like calcium, potassium, and magnesium. [1, 2]

As with all animal proteins, Dr. Gundry advises focusing on the source of the fish and avoiding those that are farm-raised in conditions that do not align with his dietary philosophy. [1, 6]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://www.verywellhealth.com/healthiest-fish-11743445

[2] https://www.denverhealthmedicalplan.org/blog/top-fish-omega-3-fatty-acids

[3] https://www.americansportandfitness.com/blogs/fitness-blog/rainbow-trout-nutrition-facts-pros-cons

[4] https://lohi.earth/can-rainbow-trout-help-lower-cholesterol-levels/

[5] https://drgundry.com/liana-werner-gray-transcript/

[6] https://www.youtube.com/shorts/ddP7h1eNCMQ

Henry McClure

785.383.9994

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

Cod

Dr. Gundry advocates for wild-caught seafood, including cod, as a high-quality, lectin-free source of protein and essential nutrients. As part of the Gundry Food Strategy (https://gundrymd.com/food-pyramid/), wild-caught fish is highly recommended over farm-raised options to ensure low toxicity and high nutritional value. [1, 2, 3, 4]

Key Takeaways on Cod & Similar Fish:

• Approved Protein: Cod is considered a "Yes" food, particularly for those following the Plant Paradox program.

• Health Benefits: It is praised as a lean protein source, rich in nutrients that support gut and immune health.

• Wild-Caught Requirement: Dr. Gundry emphasizes choosing wild-caught to avoid the antibiotics, pesticides, and poor-quality diet associated with farmed fish.

• Other Options: He often groups cod with other healthy, sustainable, and low-mercury options like halibut and wild salmon. [1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7]

AI responses may include mistakes.

[1] https://thestrongmovement.com/fishy-businesswhy-you-should-be-eating-wild-caught-fish/

[2] https://gundrymd.com/food-pyramid/

[3] https://www.northcoastseafoods.com/blogs/in-the-kitchen/is-cod-healthy

[4] https://wildalaskancompany.com/blog/5-of-the-healthiest-fish-to-eat

[5] https://www.positivelygroundfish.org/blog-gut-health

[6] https://wildplanetfoods.com/blogs/blog/healthiest-fish-choices

[7] https://oehha.ca.gov/sites/default/files/media/downloads/fish/fact-sheet/hgfactsnontechnical.pdf

Henry McClure

785.383.9994

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

Monday, February 23, 2026

Fw: Newsletter

From: Protecting KS Children From Sexual Predators <protectkschildrenfrompredators@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 10:43 PM
To: Protecting KS Children From Sexual Predators <protectkschildrenfrompredators@gmail.com>
Subject: Newsletter

Thank you for being part of our Survivor and Supporter Network. Your continued support, advocacy, and compassion mean so much as we work together to protect children and empower survivors across Kansas.

We would like to give you and update on our legislative work and how you can help:

Erin's Law SB 385/HB 2576: requiring that all K–12 students receive age-appropriate body safety and child sexual abuse prevention education. The law will also require teachers to do a yearly training specific to child sexual abuse in spotting warning signs and reporting abuse.

The bill had a hearing in the House Education Committee but the House decided not to work the bill this session. We would like to thank all of the survivors and supporters who testified in support of this bill.
Unfortunately, the Children's Advocacy Centers of Kansas and one of the CACs changed their testimony before the hearing and testified neutral rather than as a proponent. A concern was brought up that they felt only CACs should be presenting body safety education to children using an accredited curriculum (very few curriculums are able to make it through an accreditation process due to time and financial constraints, but there are numerous "evidence based" or "researched informed" curricula available. We were not prepared for this and were not able to change our testimony in time to counter these arguments or be able to work previously discussed amendments to strengthen the bill.
We continued to meet with legislators and various community agencies to come up with solutions and have drafted a new version of Erin's Law with amendments that we hope will satisfy concerns that were mentioned. Please let us know if you would like a copy. We are so thankful to community agencies who have spoken up and shared the work that their programs do and how there are agencies that are willing and able to train presenters who would present body safety training to students in communities that do not have access to a CAC or other established program.
SB 385 is alive in the Senate thanks to Senate President Ty Masterson who "blessed" the bill and gave it more time to have a hearing. We were told today that it is likely that there will be a hearing in the Senate. The bill is currently in the Ways and Means Committee but may be transferred back to Senate Education.
Please start writing proponent testimony for SB 385 now. We are often given very little notice when a hearing will be and it is important to be prepared.

Survivor's Rights Bill SB 236: allowing survivors of substantiated abuse to access their own DCF (Department for Children and Families) records. This bill was introduced last year in the Senate Public Health and Welfare Committee. We are told that it will not get a hearing this session, but that it is likely we can get one next year if we submit the bill ourselves.

Your voice and involvement make a difference! Here's how you can help:

Continue sharing our social media posts advocating for these bills.
Join us at public outreach events to spread awareness.
Contact your state legislators, leadership, important committee members, and leadership and ask them to support Erin's Law (SB 385). (See below how and who to contact)

We are calling on child welfare professionals, educators, school leaders, counselors, medical providers, mental health professionals, and law enforcement across Kansas to show their support of Erin's Law. We are looking for these professionals to write testimony in support of Erin's Law. Please share with anyone you know that may be able to help.

We are also looking to gain information about how/if body safety is currently being taught in Kansas schools. Please contact us if you know how your local school district handles this and/or if you would be willing to contact your local school district to help obtain this information. Example: My children currently attend school in the DeSoto School District in Johnson County and they are given a presentation by Sunflower House Child Advocacy Center twice in elementary school in an assembly type presentation.

Be sure to keep an eye out on our Facebook and Instagram pages. That is the best way to get the most up to date information on our status for Erin's Law.

We will keep you updated about future events and opportunities to get involved. If you know of a group or event where we can speak or host a table to share information about these bills, please let us know!

Together, we're building a safer future for children and ensuring survivors' voices are heard. Thank you for standing with us and continuing to be part of this movement.

Thank you,

Kim Bergman, LMSW

Survivor & Co-Director

Protecting KS Children From Sexual Predators

https://www.facebook.com/protectingchildreninkansas

How to contact your personal State Legislators:

1. Enter your address at https://pluralpolicy.com/find-your-legislator/ to learn who your state legislators are and ask for their support and for a hearing for Erin's Law (SB 385).

2. Send a brief email letting them know you are a constituent and ask for their support.

3. Contact members of leadership and the Senate Education and Ways and Means Committee (see below) and ask them to support Erin's Law and grant a hearing for the bill.

Sample Email for your personal legislators:

"Hello my name is _________ and I am one of your constituents in __city___ Kansas. I would like to ask for your support for Erin's Law, SB 385, which requires students K-12 to be taught about body safety and child sexual abuse prevention once a year. The law would also require teachers to receive training specific to spotting warning signs of child sexual abuse and how to report.

This bill is important to me because _______________________.

Please support Erin's Law so that we can protect children and support survivors."

Sample Email to Leadership and Committee Members:

"Hello my name is _________ and I am a Kansas resident. I would like to ask for your support for Erin's Law, SB 385, which requires students K-12 to be taught about body safety and child sexual abuse prevention once a year. The law would also require teachers to receive training specific to spotting warning signs of child sexual abuse and how to report.

This bill is important to me because _______________________.

Please support Erin's Law so that we can protect children and support survivors."

Senate Education Committee:

Senate Ways and Means Committee:

Senate Leadership:

House Education Committee:

House Leadership:

https://www.facebook.com/share/r/1FEwZciEQu/?mibextid=wwXIfr

Henry McClure

785.383.9994

Sent from my T-Mobile 5G Device
Get Outlook for Android

Fw: financial statements "KORA"

From: Keya Downing <kdowning@Topeka.org>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 2:45 PM
To: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>; City Clerk <cclerk@Topeka.org>
Subject: RE: financial statements "KORA"

Request received. Thank you

From: Henry McClure <mcre13@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, February 23, 2026 2:12 PM
To: City Clerk <cclerk@topeka.org>
Subject: financial statements "KORA"

Notice: -----This message was sent by an external sender-----

KORA

Can I get a copy of the City of Topeka financial statements

Thanks

financial statements "KORA"

KORA

Can I get a copy of the City of Topeka financial statements

Thanks

Sunday, February 22, 2026

### Overview of the Kansas Chiefs Deal

The user's query points to an article questioning why taxpayers should fund billionaires, likely in reference to the ongoing controversy over the Kansas City Chiefs' relocation to Kansas. Based on the article's title and the broader context, this ties directly into Kansas' use of Sales Tax and Revenue (STAR) bonds to finance a new stadium and related facilities for the Chiefs. The article appears to be a general opinion piece on public subsidies for sports stadiums, but it lacks Kansas-specific details. To do a deep dive, I'll draw from recent developments: After Jackson County, Missouri, voters rejected a sales tax extension in April 2024 to renovate Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas lawmakers passed legislation in June 2024 allowing STAR bonds to cover up to 70% of stadium costs for professional sports teams. By December 2025, the Chiefs announced a move to Kansas, with a $4.4 billion project including a domed stadium in Wyandotte County (near Kansas Speedway), an entertainment district, and a training facility/headquarters in Johnson County. The state signed a preliminary agreement, with final details expected by late 2026.

The core question is whether this "hoses" Kansas taxpayers—meaning, do they bear undue financial risk for billionaire owners like Clark Hunt (net worth ~$2 billion)? The answer is nuanced: Proponents argue it's a no-new-taxes deal that boosts the economy, but critics (including economists and bipartisan lawmakers) highlight risks of revenue shortfalls, hidden diversions of existing taxes, and overstated benefits. Let's break it down.

### How STAR Bonds Work in This Deal

STAR bonds are a Kansas-specific tool where the state issues bonds to finance developments, repaid primarily by "incremental" (new) sales tax revenue generated within a designated district. No direct tax hike is involved; instead, future taxes from the project pay off the debt. For the Chiefs:

- **Financing Breakdown**: Kansas commits ~$2.8 billion in STAR bonds—$1.8 billion for the stadium (60% of its ~$3 billion cost) and $975 million for the practice facility. The Chiefs cover the remaining 40% privately. Total project cost: ~$4.4 billion, including interest over 30 years pushing taxpayer exposure to $3-4 billion.

- **Repayment Sources**:

- 6.5% state sales tax on purchases in the district (e.g., tickets, concessions, retail).

- State alcohol taxes from the district.

- A portion of Kansas lottery revenue.

- Potential local sales taxes if counties opt in.

- **District Size**: Preliminary maps suggest a massive area—nearly all of Wyandotte County and much of Johnson County—to capture enough revenue. This is larger than typical STAR projects, raising flags that the stadium alone won't suffice.

- **Timeline**: 30-year repayment (longer than standard 20-year STAR terms). Bonds are sold to private investors, who get repaid from the tax streams.

Proponents (e.g., Kansas Dept. of Commerce) claim this creates $1 billion in annual economic impact, $7 million in Chiefs rent, and jobs without touching general funds. The state owns the stadium, exempting the Chiefs from property taxes—a perk worth millions annually.

### Do Kansas Taxpayers Get Hosed?

Potentially yes, depending on revenue performance. Here's a balanced view:

#### Pros and Claimed Benefits

- **No Immediate Tax Increase**: Unlike Missouri's rejected sales tax, STAR bonds use only "new" revenue from the development. If it succeeds, it's self-funding.

- **Economic Boost**: Officials project $4.4 billion in total impact, including tourism, jobs (construction and ongoing), and spillover spending. Similar to past STAR successes like Kansas Speedway, which repaid bonds ahead of schedule.

- **Regional Win**: Keeps the Chiefs in the metro area, preventing a full relocation (e.g., to Dallas). Bipartisan support in Kansas legislature highlights this.

#### Cons and Risks to Taxpayers

- **Revenue Shortfall Risk**: If sales tax doesn't hit projections (e.g., due to economic downturns or low attendance), bonds could default. Of 23 past STAR projects, 18 succeeded, but 2 lagged, and one (Prairiefire in Overland Park) defaulted in 2024 despite promises. Economists like Geoffrey Propheter argue stadiums rarely generate enough net new revenue—spending just shifts from elsewhere.

- **Diversion of Existing Funds**: Even without a bailout, large districts could redirect taxes currently funding schools, roads, or services. A 2021 audit found many STAR projects failed tourism metrics and harmed taxpayers indirectly.

- **Overstated Economics**: Independent studies show stadium subsidies yield poor returns (e.g., $0.38 economic benefit per $100 spent in some cases). Critics say Kansas' deal ignores this, with $3-4B cost potentially draining state budgets.

- **Bipartisan Backlash**: Democrats and Republicans criticize it as "tax giveaways for billionaires." Locals in affected areas report opposition due to added burdens. X discussions echo this, with users noting taxpayers could be "on the hook" despite assurances.

|--------|---------------|-------------|---------------------------|

### Where Are the Loopholes?

Several structural issues could shift more burden to taxpayers:

- **Baseline Year Flexibility**: The agreement lets the Commerce Secretary pick a pre-2025 baseline for "new" revenue, potentially including existing taxes (e.g., from 2015) to meet targets. This contradicts "no existing taxes" promises.

- **District Expansion**: Oversized districts (e.g., capturing unrelated sales) act as a loophole to inflate revenue, but risk cannibalizing other areas' growth.

- **No Full Guarantee**: Bonds aren't general obligation; if revenue fails, investors might push for state backstops. Past defaults show this risk.

- **Eminent Domain**: STAR law allows seizing private property for "public purpose," potentially displacing residents/businesses without fair compensation.

- **Opaque Negotiations**: Preliminary deal lacks details on exact costs, districts, or contingencies. Final docs (due ~Oct 2026) could reveal more.

### What Are We Missing?

- **Independent Audits**: Most economic impact studies are team-funded and optimistic; neutral ones (e.g., from universities) often show negative ROI.

- **Royals' Status**: The bill targeted both teams, but only Chiefs moved forward. Royals might still pursue, doubling risks.

- **Missouri Response**: Missouri could counter-offer, turning this into a bidding war that inflates subsidies.

- **Long-Term Lock-In**: Chiefs commit for 30 years, but if they underperform or relocate post-bond payoff, Kansas is stuck with debt/maintenance.

- **Public Input**: Limited community meetings; some residents (e.g., near Speedway) recall unfulfilled promises from past projects.

In summary, while the deal avoids overt tax hikes, the risks of shortfalls and diversions could indeed "hose" taxpayers, especially if projections flop. It's a high-stakes bet on stadium economics, which history shows rarely pays off. If you're in Topeka, this affects statewide funds—contact your reps for more transparency as details emerge.

Watch "8 US Ice Cream Brands You Must Avoid" on YouTube

https://youtu.be/jYHBmBvs5UY?si=gs1LauZ_BYP6hNvF

Henry McClure
785.383.9994
sent from mobile 📱
time kills deals

I'll represent you.

Kansas offers a refreshing alternative to the high-pressure, high-cost lifestyles of coastal states like New York and California. With its wide-open spaces, strong sense of community, and remarkably low cost of living, the Sunflower State provides a high quality of life without breaking the bank. For many, moving to Kansas means gaining more home, more land, and more financial breathing room—benefits vividly illustrated by properties like the stunning custom ranch at **3501 SW Welton Grove Circle** in Topeka.

This exceptional 5-bedroom, 3.5-bath home spans nearly 3,949 square feet of finished space on a private 6.77-acre wooded lot. Built in 2013, it features high-end details such as hardwood flooring, granite countertops, a spacious open-concept kitchen with custom cabinetry and a secondary prep area, a luxurious primary suite with vaulted ceilings and spa-like bath, a finished lower level, a composite deck overlooking the woods, and even a detached outbuilding/shop. It backs onto Welton Grove Park—a 47-acre natural area with trails, creeks, and green space—for ultimate privacy and outdoor access. Listed at **$729,900**, it's in the desirable Washburn Rural School District and offers cul-de-sac tranquility in the Ardmore Walk subdivision.

What makes this property stand out even more is how it stacks up against comparable homes elsewhere. In Topeka, the median home price hovers around $175,000–$205,000 (with averages near $184,000), making this premium, acreage-backed custom build a standout value in its local market. Yet when compared nationally:

- New York state's median home prices sit around $500,000–$600,000, with New York City listings often exceeding $649,000 for median properties—and many desirable areas pushing well into seven figures.

- In California, the statewide median is roughly $780,000–$900,000, with hotspots like Los Angeles averaging over $900,000–$1 million and San Francisco nearing $1.2–$1.3 million.

For the price of this expansive Kansas retreat—with its multiple living areas, high-end finishes, massive lot, and park-like setting—you might only afford a modest condo, small townhome, or fixer-upper in major coastal markets. The savings extend far beyond the purchase price: Kansas boasts one of the lowest costs of living in the U.S., often 10–15% below the national average (and in Topeka specifically, about 14% lower). Housing, groceries, utilities, and transportation all cost significantly less, freeing up income for travel, savings, or enjoying life.

Beyond affordability, Kansas delivers a relaxed, family-oriented lifestyle. Residents enjoy short commutes (often under 20 minutes), friendly neighborhoods, excellent schools in areas like Washburn Rural, and endless outdoor opportunities—from hiking local trails to exploring the state's prairies and parks. The four distinct seasons bring variety without extremes, and the strong community spirit fosters real connections.

In an era when many feel squeezed by skyrocketing coastal costs, Kansas stands out as a place where you can truly live large on a reasonable budget. A home like 3501 SW Welton Grove Circle isn't just a property—it's proof that great value, privacy, luxury, and peace of mind are still very much attainable in the heartland. If you're seeking more space, lower stress, and better financial freedom, Kansas might just be the upgrade you've been looking for.

# The Disconnect in Kansas Property Appraisals: Why Assessed Values Stray from True Market Reality #mcre1

Kansas county appraisers, across the state, establish a so-called "fair market value" for properties that often rests on a false foundation disconnected from true market dynamics. In reality, the only legitimate way to determine market value is through actual arm's-length transactions—what a willing buyer is prepared to pay and a willing seller is prepared to accept under open-market conditions, free of compulsion. All other methods, including mass appraisal models, cost approaches, or adjustments to comparable sales, amount to little more than sophistry when they diverge from this fundamental principle of real buyer-seller agreement.

This principle is particularly relevant in Kansas, where recent data from the Kansas Department of Revenue reveals stark discrepancies in how property values are appraised versus how the actual housing market has performed. Between 2021 and 2025, the state's county appraisers reported changes in existing residential property values that averaged a 37% increase statewide. This figure, derived from official statistics, masks significant variability: the median change was also 37%, but individual counties saw hikes ranging from a low of 13% in Greeley County to a staggering 91% in Linn County. Fourteen counties experienced increases exceeding 50%, while twelve saw changes below 20%. Such wide swings suggest an inconsistent application of valuation methods, potentially burdening homeowners unevenly and raising questions about the accuracy of these assessments.

To put these appraised changes into perspective, consider the actual market performance of Kansas homes over the same period. Data from real estate tracking sources indicate that median home sale prices in the state rose from approximately $205,000 in 2021 to $264,100 in 2025, representing a cumulative increase of about 29%. In the Kansas City area, which encompasses a significant portion of the state's population, house price indices show a similar trajectory, with annual appreciations compounding to roughly 31% from 2021 to 2025. Statewide trends align with this, as Redfin reports ongoing but moderated growth, with January 2026 prices up 6.4% year-over-year from 2025 levels, building on prior years' gains. These market-driven figures are notably lower than the 37% average appraisal increase, indicating that county assessments may be outpacing real-world transactions.

Nationally, the U.S. housing market saw a comparable but slightly higher cumulative price growth of around 37% from early 2021 to early 2025, according to the Federal Housing Finance Agency's House Price Index. However, Kansas-specific data consistently points to more restrained actual appreciation, underscoring a potential overvaluation in appraisals. This gap isn't just numerical—it's rooted in methodology. Kansas county appraisers often rely on a mix of approaches, including the cost method (estimating rebuild expenses) and mass appraisals, which can inflate values during periods of rising construction costs or when comparable sales data is sparse. Critics argue this deviates from pure market evidence, leading to flawed outcomes. For instance, public sentiment in online forums and legislative hearings highlights frustrations with the "regressive" nature of property taxes, flawed appeal processes, and suspicions of value manipulation. Even official actions, like the state's 2025 order for independent reappraisals in Sedgwick County due to non-compliance with market standards, reveal systemic issues in achieving accurate valuations.

The implications for Kansas homeowners are profound. In counties like Brown (71% increase) or Cheyenne (83%), residents may face tax bills inflated beyond what the market justifies, straining budgets in rural areas where income growth hasn't kept pace. Conversely, lower changes in places like Morton (15%) or Sheridan (16%) might under-assess properties, shifting the tax load elsewhere. Shawnee County, home to the state capital of Topeka, saw a 38% rise—close to the statewide average but still above documented market gains. Overall, this suggests Kansas appraisals are off by an average of about 8 percentage points compared to actual sales data, with extremes amplifying the disconnect.

To bridge this gap, reforms could emphasize stricter adherence to arm's-length transaction data, perhaps mandating more frequent market validations or caps on annual valuation swings, as supported by 75% of Kansans in recent polls. Until then, the current system risks perpetuating inequities, reminding us that true market value isn't decreed by appraisers—it's forged in the marketplace. Homeowners should scrutinize their notices, appeal when discrepancies arise, and advocate for transparency to ensure assessments reflect reality, not sophistry.

Recent data from the Kansas Department of Revenue highlights how far these appraised values have strayed from actual market reality. Between 2021 and 2025, appraisers reported dramatic increases in existing residential property values across Kansas counties, with a statewide average change of approximately 37%. This figure, based on official assessments excluding new construction, shows wide variation: some counties saw modest rises around 13-18%, while others experienced extreme hikes exceeding 80-90%. These appraised changes significantly outpace the actual appreciation in home sale prices observed in the market.

For context, statewide median home sale prices rose from roughly $205,000 in 2021 to about $264,100 by 2025, reflecting a cumulative increase of around 29%. In key areas like the Kansas City region (including parts of Kansas), appreciation compounded to roughly 30-35% over the period, with more recent 2025 data showing moderated annual gains of 5-9%. Even broader house price indices for Kansas indicate restrained growth compared to the assessed valuation spikes, suggesting that county appraisers' models—often blending cost estimates, limited comparables, and other non-transactional factors—have inflated values beyond what willing buyers and sellers have actually agreed upon in the open market.

The table below lists the percentage changes in existing residential property values from 2021 to 2025, as reported by the Kansas Department of Revenue:

|-----------------|--------|-----------------|--------|-----------------|--------|

| Allen | 42% | Greeley | 13% | Osborne | 60% |

| Anderson | 63% | Greenwood | 27% | Ottawa | 46% |

| Atchison | 54% | Hamilton | 37% | Pawnee | 45% |

| Barber | 17% | Harper | 50% | Phillips | 40% |

| Barton | 50% | Harvey | 37% | Pottawatomie | 29% |

| Bourbon | 27% | Haskell | 31% | Pratt | 31% |

| Brown | 71% | Hodgeman | 37% | Rawlins | 28% |

| Butler | 42% | Jackson | 34% | Reno | 36% |

| Chase | 27% | Jefferson | 52% | Republic | 34% |

| Chautauqua | 18% | Jewell | 48% | Rice | 42% |

| Cherokee | 49% | Johnson | 40% | Riley | 29% |

| Cheyenne | 83% | Kearny | 36% | Rooks | 46% |

| Clark | 27% | Kingman | 38% | Rush | 43% |

| Clay | 33% | Kiowa | 15% | Russell | 54% |

| Cloud | 51% | Labette | 17% | Saline | 27% |

| Coffey | 48% | Lane | 47% | Scott | 50% |

| Comanche | 18% | Leavenworth | 38% | Sedgwick | 38% |

| Cowley | 51% | Lincoln | 57% | Seward | 22% |

| Crawford | 32% | Linn | 91% | Shawnee | 38% |

| Decatur | 45% | Logan | 29% | Sheridan | 16% |

| Dickinson | 28% | Lyon | 37% | Sherman | 37% |

| Doniphan | 16% | Marion | 41% | Smith | 54% |

| Douglas | 41% | Marshall | 35% | Stafford | 31% |

| Edwards | 17% | McPherson | 19% | Stanton | 23% |

| Elk | 29% | Meade | 28% | Stevens | 22% |

| Ellis | 33% | Miami | 48% | Sumner | 42% |

| Ellsworth | 32% | Mitchell | 37% | Thomas | 33% |

| Finney | 39% | Montgomery | 39% | Trego | 28% |

| Ford | 28% | Morris | 26% | Wabaunsee | 37% |

| Franklin | 48% | Morton | 15% | Wallace | 54% |

| Geary | 36% | Nemaha | 44% | Washington | 45% |

| Gove | 31% | Neosho | 21% | Wichita | 26% |

| Graham | 23% | Ness | 40% | Wilson | 26% |

| Grant | 25% | Norton | 17% | Woodson | 33% |

| Gray | 35% | Osage | 39% | Wyandotte | 66% |

This widespread over-appraisal—often by 8-10 percentage points or more on average, and far greater in high-change counties—creates unfair tax burdens, especially in rural areas where population and income growth lag behind. Counties like Linn (91%), Cheyenne (83%), and Brown (71%) illustrate extreme cases where assessed values have nearly doubled, far exceeding documented market sales trends.

The gap underscores a systemic issue: when appraisals rely on formulas detached from real transactions, they risk becoming arbitrary and burdensome. True market value emerges only from voluntary buyer-seller agreements in the open market—not from bureaucratic models. Kansas homeowners deserve assessments grounded in this reality, and reforms emphasizing transaction-based data, appeal transparency, and limits on valuation swings could help align the system with actual economic conditions. Until then, the disconnect persists, reminding us that market value isn't something appraisers declare—it's what the market proves.