Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
According to The Handbook of Texas, Austin County was founded in 1837 and named in honor of Stephen F. Austin, who colonized Texas by establishing the first Anglo-American settlement.
Austin County is located in southeastern Texas. It is bordered by Waller and Fort Bend Counties on the east, Washington County on the north, Colorado and Fayette Counties on the west and Wharton County to the south.
The 2005 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 26,070. Population centers include the city of Bellville having 4,190 residents; the city of Sealy, 6,246 residents; and the city of Wallis having 1,263 residents. The county's remaining population resides in a number of small towns and unincorporated areas.
The county includes the Bellville, Sealy, and Brazos Independent School Districts as well as portions of Brenham and Columbus Independent School Districts.
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Austin CAD, formed in 1981, became active in 1982. Austin CAD has 14 full-time staff positions, with three supervisory positions (including the chief appraiser) and no part-time positions. Four of the positions are dedicated to the collections function. Four positions are full-time appraisers. Austin CAD has a contract for professional appraisal services.
Exhibit 1 presents Austin CAD's current organization chart.
Board of Directors
Chief Appraiser
Director of Operations
Appraisers (4)
Collections Clerks (4)
Administrative Assistant
Data Entry Clerks (2)
GIS Technician
The Austin CAD board of directors has no authority to set values or determine appraisal methods under Property Tax Code Sections 6 and 25.01. The chief appraiser carries out the appraisal district's legal duties, hires its staff, makes appraisals and operates the appraisal office.
Austin CAD provides appraisal services for 13 taxing units (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Austin CAD Taxing Units
| Austin CAD Taxing Units |
|---|
| Austin County |
| Bellville ISD |
| Brazos ISD |
| Sealy ISD |
| City of Bellville |
| City of Brazos Country |
| City of Wallis |
| City of Sealy |
| Town of San Felipe |
| Bellville Hospital District |
| Austin County Emergency Services District #1 |
| Austin County Emergency Services District #2 |
| Austin County Emergency Services District #3 |
Source: Austin CAD 2006.
PTD does not track appraisals performed by external appraisers. PTD uses parcel counts reported in the appraisal district's 2005 self-report and school district self-reports.
PTD includes commercial real and personal property parcels in the calculation, since it cannot determine how many parcels the CAD assigns to the in-house staff versus contracted firms. PTD determined the number of parcels appraised in-house by adding the number of parcels reported in Categories A, Single-Family Residential; B, Multifamily Residential; C, Vacant Lots and Tracts; D1, Qualified Agricultural Land; D2, Non-qualified Land; E, Farm and Ranch Improvements; F1, Commercial Real Property; L1, Commercial Personal Property; M1, Mobile Homes; O, Residential Inventory; and S, Special Inventory.
Exhibit 3 contains Austin CAD parcel counts by property category. It compares Austin CAD's data to the state and group averages. For analytical purposes, PTD groups appraisal districts according to the number of parcels. The Austin CAD is included with appraisal districts that have 25,000-34,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories Versus State and Group Averages
Parcel Size Group (by number of locally appraised parcels): 25,000 - 34,999
| Parcels and Categories | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels | 30,546 | 51,112 | 29,763 |
| Number Taxing Units | 13 | 15 | 12 |
| Estimated Local Parcels per Staff | 2,350 | 2,971 | 2,480 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report)
| Parcels and Categories | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Value | 31.8% | 47.4% | 32.9% |
| Non-Residential, Non-Mineral | 13.1% | 4.3% | 7.7% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 55.1% | 48.3% | 59.3% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report)
|
Parcels and Categories Parcel Type |
Austin Number of Parcels | Austin Percent of Parcels | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Residential | 7,265 | 23.8% | 50.2% | 27.0% |
| B - Multi-Family | 107 | 0.4% | 1.2% | 0.4% |
| C - Vacant Lots | 2,213 | 7.2% | 14.3% | 14.1% |
| D - Agricultural | 11,989 | 39.2% | 14.3% | 31.9% |
| E - Farm and Ranch Improvement | 5,756 | 18.8% | 5.3% | 15.0% |
| F1 - Commercial Real | 870 | 2.8% | 3.5% | 3.0% |
| L1 - Commercial Personal | 1,200 | 3.9% | 6.8% | 4.5% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes | 1,127 | 3.7% | 2.6% | 3.1% |
| O - Residential Inventory | 0 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 0.9% |
| S - Special Inventory | 19 | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Total | 30,546 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Sum of data reported in ISD Self Reports of Value in the County Appraisal District.
Totals may not add to 100 percent due to rounding.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data), September 2006 and Appraisal District Self Report of Value 2005.
Exhibit 4 provides financial and staffing data for the Austin CAD and compares them with other appraisal districts in its group and throughout the state.
Exhibit 4
Reported Budget, Staffing and Training Data Versus State and Group Averages
Financial Information
| Financial and Staffing Information | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 Budget | $671,580 | $1,144,025 | $600,015 |
| 2005 Surplus | $50,000 | $95,915 | $26,843 |
| 2005 Surplus as a Percent of Budget | 7.4% | 8.4% | 4.5% |
| 2006 Budget | $678,500 | $1,200,084 | $630,195 |
| Percent Change in Budget | 1.0% | 4.9% | 5.0% |
| 2005 Budget per Total Parcel | $21.66 | $21.96 | $19.67 |
| 2005 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | $21.99 | $22.38 | $20.16 |
Staffing - 2005 Budget
| Financial and Staffing Information | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees | 13.0 | 17.2 | 10.9 |
| Supervisory | 3.0 | 3.3 | 2.8 |
| Supervisor to Staff Ratio | 1:4 | 1:6 | 1:4 |
Chief Appraiser
| Financial and Staffing Information | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performs Appraisals | No | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 2005 Compensation (excluding benefits) | $53,000 | $52,766 | $53,427 |
Appraisers - 2005 Budget
| Financial and Staffing Information | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appraiser Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees | 3.0 | 6.4 | 4.2 |
| Salary Range Low | $28,000 | $25,687 | $24,462 |
| Salary Range High | $32,570 | $39,505 | $37,712 |
| Training Budget | $12,300 | $9,267 | $8,284 |
| Number Registered with Board of Professional Tax Examiners (BTPE) | 7.0 | 9.1 | 6.5 |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data), September 2006.
Exhibit 5 provides operations information for the Austin CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Data Versus State and Group Averages
Reappraisal
| Operations Information | Austin |
|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | 2005 |
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2006 |
| Type of Reappraisal | Complete |
Protests
| Operations Information | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2005 tax year) | 5,790 | 3,435 | 1,033 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Collections
| Operations Information | Austin |
|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | Yes |
| Collection Budget | $12 |
Geographic Information System (GIS)
| Operations Information | Austin | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? | Yes | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Percent GIS Complete | 100.0% | 49.9% | 52.7% |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data), September 2006.
Based on this comparison, the Austin CAD appraised 2,350 parcels per full-time employee. According to IAAO in Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, Chapter 16, Elements of Administration, Staffing Patterns and the Effect of Computers, the ratio of parcels per full-time employees for a small appraisal district should be between 1,500 and 1,700. For a large appraising entity, these numbers should be between 3,000 and 3,500.
Workloads in appraisal districts can vary due to considerations other than parcel count. The geographic size of an appraisal district or property type, for instance, may have an impact on the time required to work all parcels. Complex commercial and some residential properties may require more staff work to appraise. The data given here are meant to provide the reader with some basis for comparison with other appraisal districts with similar parcel counts.
1.3
Self Evaluation Questionnaire
In preparation for this ASR, the Austin CAD was asked to complete the IAAO's Self Evaluation Questionnaire, which asks the appraisal district to assess its compliance with acceptable procedures, standards and organization. Each appraisal district received an electronic version of the questionnaire and an IAAO manual explaining each question and how to answer it.
The Austin CAD answered all 111 questions, providing specific and clear concise responses where necessary. In responding to the self-assessment, Austin CAD pointed to certain strengths. Among the identified strengths are:
- Sophisticated automated mapping system;
- Experienced and qualified staff; and
- Good public relations.
Austin CAD also indicated areas of concern, including a lack of access to adequate sales information because Texas is not a full-disclosure state.
In Chapter 1, which discusses legal issues and assessment cycles, Austin CAD indicated that it endeavors to keep abreast of current laws and proposed legislation through a variety of methods, including publications from the comptroller's office; attendance at annual legislative updates and seminars provided by professional organizations; and online monitoring of legislative activities.
In Chapter 2, which deals with resources and management, Austin CAD indicated that it does not formally estimate its resources, but informally surveys its staff annually to assess needs, goals and the requirements to meet them. Austin CAD has a conservative budget philosophy and uses the services of an outside engineering firm and a mass mailing service to keep costs within budget limitations. The CAD monitors its expenditures through monthly reports to its board of directors detailing line items and their expenditure status.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, the CAD indicated that it has sufficient hardware and its computer system manages document imagery. The CAD's appraisal software is integrated with its Geographic Information System (GIS) for efficiency. The CAD maintains the security and integrity of its computer records by unique password protection as well as assignment of system functions based on an individual's qualifications and/or job assignments. The CAD's software vendor maintains its Web site and provides access to appraisal data at www.austincad.org.
In Chapter 4, on mapping, the CAD indicated that appraisal district maps comply with IAAO standards and Comptroller rules. The CAD maps are part of its GIS and have been computerized for easy access by the public. The CAD is part of a countywide GIS consortium and works with many city and county departments to reduce costs and eliminate duplication.
In Chapter 5, on data collection, the CAD indicated that its property records comply with the data required by Comptroller rules, state law and appraisal standards. The CAD indicated that it collects and uses pertinent data in the assessment process, including building permits and sales history. It does not effectively collect commercial income data. The CAD said it inspects properties every four to six years and assigns portions of the county to each appraiser. Because of budget constraints, the CAD does not use hand-held computers for field data collection.
In Chapter 6, on land evaluation, the CAD indicated that its primary source for land evaluation is market data. The CAD stratifies land by use and location. The CAD plots land sales on maps and makes adjustments for size, depth and location. These are built into its existing land tables.
In Chapter 7, on residential property valuation, the CAD indicated that it uses sales data and market analysis in appraising residential properties. The CAD conducts countywide ratio studies at the beginning of each reappraisal year and reviews, analyzes and reconciles value estimates before generating final values.
In Chapter 8, regarding commercial property valuation, Austin CAD indicated it uses all three approaches to value in appraising business properties after it defines the market characteristics. However, the CAD only obtains income data through the hearing process. When available, the CAD uses sales information to develop market trends and cost factors. The CAD estimates depreciation in commercial property by using observed physical and economic conditions. Austin CAD uses multiple software tools in analyzing commercial properties and reviews all results periodically.
In Chapter 9, on sales data, ratio studies and stratification, the CAD indicated that it follows accepted procedures for gathering sales data. The CAD confirms the sale when the actual deed transfer occurs, participates in a Realtor multiple listing service (MLS) when available and uses questionnaires for unique properties. The CAD correlates sale data with CAD data and initiates a field check if the data does not correlate. The CAD conducts ratio studies throughout the year and stratifies properties using a number of parameters.
In Chapter 10, which covers personal property assessment, Austin CAD indicated it employs multiple methods to discover taxable personal property. Rendition forms are mailed or delivered to business owners, and forms that are not returned are flagged for follow up. The CAD uses reported sales cost information and comparable values from trade publications to make adjustments in its cost and depreciation tables and schedules. Austin CAD uses the cost approach to value leased equipment.
In Chapter 11, on assessment administration, the CAD reviews eligibility for exemptions through secondary document review and field inspection if necessary. The CAD stated that all property owners receive the required notifications of their values and their right to appeal as well as notifications for denial of exemptions. The CAD updates ownership and legal information 30-60 days after the transfer deed is recorded.
In Chapter 12, regarding defense of values, Austin CAD indicated that it has a public-oriented process. It worked extensively with taxpayers and owners to address concerns and complaints by providing taxpayers with the ability to review property records at any time with the assistance of trained district staff. The CAD has a documented monitoring process to ensure that each formal appeal is appropriately disposed of and records maintained. During the appeals process, Austin CAD attempts to obtain independent outside resources to validate appraisals within its staffing and budgetary constraints.
In Chapter 13, on public relations, the CAD indicated it publishes tax-related notices and news releases; makes public appearances to civic groups and homeowners associations; and provides taxpayers with public information on its Web site. CAD staff is also available to explain the CAD's valuation methods and will provide a written analysis when requested.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study and Summary Worksheets
The PVS determines the total property value in each school district in the Austin CAD. With a few exceptions, the law requires all CADs and PTD to appraise property at market value according to Government Code Section 403.302 and Property Tax Code Section 23.07. Agricultural land and timberland are appraised according to productivity value. Market value is, in general, the price for which a property would sell under normal conditions, as defined by Property Tax Code Section 1.04(7).
The CAD determines the local tax roll value, or local value, and submits it to PTD in its annual self-report. PTD staff estimates the total taxable value in a school district, referred to as state value, by determining market value or by accepting the local appraised value in each property category in the school district, then adding these category values for an overall school district value. PTD then deducts state-mandated homestead exemptions, disabled veterans' exemptions, value limitations, reinvestment zones, freeport exemptions, the loss between market value and productivity value appraisal of qualified agricultural lands, the school tax ceiling for homeowners over age 65 or with a disability and other state-mandated exemptions.
PTD issues a preliminary and final PVS each year. School districts and CADs may protest the findings of the preliminary PVS through an informal administrative hearings process. School districts may protest the findings of the final PVS in district court. The administrative hearings process requires the protester to file a written protest with supporting documentation within 40 days of the issuance of the preliminary PVS. PTD may amend the findings of the preliminary PVS based on the submission of the written protest, a conference between PTD staff and CAD representatives or a formal hearing. A hearings examiner who is appointed by the Comptroller's general counsel holds formal hearings. The hearings examiner is not a PTD employee.
When conducting the property value study, PTD assigns properties to categories, such as residential, commercial and rural property, so like properties are assessed together.
In general, a ratio indicates the percentage of market value at which a property or group of properties is appraised. A ratio between 0.95 and 1.05 in any property category means that the appraisal district is appraising property within 5 percent of its market value, according to the PVS.
Eligible School Districts
Bellville ISD was identified as an eligible school district with values outside of the confidence interval limit. The confidence interval is a range of school district values that the Comptroller has accepted.
Four property categories were tested in Bellville ISD:
(1) Category A, single-family residences;
(2) Category D, rural real;
(3) Category F1, commercial real properties; and
(4) Category J, utility properties.
Austin CAD is placing below-market value on the ISD Category A, single-family residences. A review of Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 58 percent to a high of 135 percent of market value, with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9023. Category A, single-family residences, make up 30 percent of the ISD reported value and 37 percent of the tested value.
Category D represents rural properties and contains two subcategories: D1 and D2. Subcategory D1, productivity value of qualifying acres, is primarily farm and ranch land that qualifies for the special productivity appraisal. Subcategory D2, non-qualifying acres and farm and ranch improvements, is primarily rural homes and land that does not qualify for farming or ranching or timberlands.
The CAD is placing a value above the statutory productivity value on the ISD sub-category D1, qualified acreage. A review of the sub-category D1 indicates that the CAD over-valued irrigated cropland, dry cropland, native pastureland and acreage designated for wildlife management. Sub-category D1 makes up 3 percent of the ISD reported value and 4 percent of the tested value. This sub-category had a weighted mean ratio of 1.2366.
The CAD is placing below-market value on the ISD sub-category D2, non-qualified acreage. Sub-category D2 makes up 38 percent of the ISD reported value and 49 percent of the tested value. This sub-category had a weighted mean ratio of 0.9601.
The CAD is placing market value on the ISD Category F1, commercial real properties. A review of Category F1 properties indicates that the CAD appraised from 77 percent to 160 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9938. Category F1 makes up 5 percent of the ISD value and 6 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is placing slightly below-market value on the ISD Category J, utilities. A review of Category J properties indicates that the CAD appraised from 80 percent to 102 percent of market value, with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9677. Category J makes up 6 percent of the ISD value and 4 percent of the tested value.
Bellville ISD appealed the self-reported values but did not appeal any specific Category tested in the Property Value Study.
Austin CAD Summary
In summary, the Austin CAD's overall median ratio is 0.91.
- In Category A, Single-Family Residential, the sample ratios range from 0.51 to 1.40, with a median ratio of 0.89;
- In Category D2, Non-qualified Land, the sample ratios range from 0.51 to 2.26, with a median ratio of 0.95;
- In Category F1, Commercial Real Property, the sample ratios range from 0.71 to 1.60, with a median ratio of 0.96;
- In Category G, Oil, Gas & Minerals, the sample ratios range from 0.82 to 1.58, with a median ratio of 0.99;
- In Category J, Utilities, the sample ratios range from 0.57 to 1.24, with a median of 0.98; and
- In Category L1, Commercial Personal the sample ratios range from 0.67 to 1.34, with a median of 1.02.
Coefficient of Dispersion
The coefficient of dispersion (COD), the primary measure of appraisal uniformity, measures the average percentage by which individual ratios vary from the median ratio. According to IAAO in Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, a low COD indicates that appraisals within a category of property are uniform and a high COD indicates properties are being appraised at inconsistent percentages of market value. Also, according to IAAO in the Standard on Ratio Studies, Category A, Single- Family Residences, should generally be 15 or less, and for new and fairly homogeneous areas, 10 or less. For Category C, Vacant Lots, the COD should be 20 or less, and for income producing properties, the COD should be 20 or less. For other real property and personal property, CODs should reflect the nature of the properties, market conditions and the availability of reliable market indicators.
The 2005 COD for Austin CAD Category A was 13.90; Category D2 was 21.78; Category F1 was 8.39; Category G was 7.33; Category J was 6.65; and Category L1 was 13.43.
The 2005 COD for Bellville ISD Category A was 13.82; Category D2 was 14.82; Category F1 was 14.14; and Category J was 5.71.
These numbers indicate uniformity in appraisal in these categories in the CAD and ISD, except for category D2.
2006 Final PVS
All three school districts in Austin CAD received valid findings in the 2006 PVS.