Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
According to The Handbook of Texas, Culberson County was founded in 1912 and named in honor of David B. Culberson, a lawyer, military officer and United States representative to Congress.
Culberson County is located in the Trans-Pecos region of West Texas. It is bordered by New Mexico to the north, Reeves County to the east, Hudspeth County to the west and Jeff Davis County to the south. Van Horn, the county seat, is located on Interstate Highway 10 and U.S. Highway 90, 120 miles east of El Paso.
The Guadalupe Mountains National Park is located in the northwestern part of the county and includes Guadalupe Peak, which, at 8,751 feet, is the highest point in the county and the state. Vegetation is sparse due to an average rainfall of only 10 inches. The Handbook of Texas states that less than 1 percent of the land in Culberson County is considered prime farmland.
The 2006 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 2,663. The only population center in the county is the town of Van Horn, with an estimated population of 2,197 in January 2006. The remaining population resides on ranches and in unincorporated areas.
The county includes one school district, Culberson-Allamoore ISD.
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Culberson CAD was formed in 1981 and became active in 1982. As of November 2006, Culberson CAD has three full-time positions: a chief appraiser who also serves as the county's tax assessor/collector, a deputy chief appraiser and a deputy tax collector. Culberson CAD has a contract with an outside appraisal firm for professional appraisal services.
Exhibit 1 presents Culberson CAD's current organization chart. The chief appraiser reports directly to the board of directors. The deputy chief appraiser and deputy tax collector report to the chief appraiser.
Board of Directors
Chief Appraiser
Tax Assessor/Collector
Deputy Chief Appraiser
Deputy Tax Collector
The Culberson CAD board of directors has no authority to set values or appraisal methods. The chief appraiser carries out the appraisal district's legal duties, hires its staff, makes appraisals and operates the appraisal office.
Culberson CAD provides appraisal services for five taxing units (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Culberson CAD Taxing Units
| Name of Taxing Entity |
|---|
| Culberson County |
| Culberson-Allamoore Independent School District |
| Culberson County Hospital District |
| Town of Van Horn |
| Culberson County Groundwater Conservation District |
Source: Culberson 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 to calculate parcels-per-employee. 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 Culberson CAD's parcel counts by property category. It compares Culberson CAD's data to the state and group averages. For analytical purposes, PTD groups appraisal districts according to the number of parcels. Culberson CAD is included with appraisal districts with 10,000 - 14,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Parcel Size Group (by number of locally appraised parcels): 10,000 - 14,999
| Parcels and Categories | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels | 14,184 | 51,112 | 12,388 |
| Number Taxing Units | 5 | 15 | 8 |
| Estimated Local Parcels per Staff | 7,092 | 2,971 | 2,468 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report)
| Parcels and Categories | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Value | 7.9% | 47.4% | 16.3% |
| Non-Residential, Non-Mineral | 4.8% | 4.3% | 33.6% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 87.3% | 48.3% | 50.0% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report)
|
Parcels and Categories Parcel Type |
Culberson Number of Parcels | Culberson Percent of Parcels | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Residential | 809 | 5.7% | 50.2% | 27.8% |
| B - Multi-Family | 5 | 0.0% | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| C - Vacant Lots | 4,544 | 32.0% | 14.3% | 14.9% |
| D - Agricultural | 7,969 | 56.2% | 14.3% | 35.2% |
| E - Farm and Ranch Improvement | 258 | 1.8% | 5.3% | 12.3% |
| F1 - Commercial Real | 251 | 1.8% | 3.5% | 3.4% |
| L1 - Commercial Personal | 195 | 1.4% | 6.8% | 3.8% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes | 149 | 1.1% | 2.6% | 2.0% |
| O - Residential Inventory | 4 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 0.3% |
| S - Special Inventory | 0 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Total | 14,184 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
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 Culberson 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 | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 Budget | $156,732 | $1,144,025 | $290,100 |
| 2005 Surplus | $5,182 | $95,915 | $42,184 |
| 2005 Surplus as a Percent of Budget | 3.3% | 8.4% | 14.5% |
| 2006 Budget | $159,927 | $1,200,084 | $306,184 |
| Percent Change in Budget | 2.0% | 4.9% | 5.5% |
| 2005 Budget per Total Parcel | $10.82 | $21.96 | $22.30 |
| 2005 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | $11.05 | $22.38 | $23.42 |
| Staffing Information | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees | 2.0 | 17.2 | 5.0 |
| Supervisory | 2.0 | 3.3 | 1.7 |
| Supervisor to Staff Ratio | 1:1 | 1:6 | 1:3 |
| Chief Appraiser | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performs Appraisals? | Yes | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| 2005 Compensation (excluding benefits) | $35,138 | $52,766 | $43,446 |
| Appraisers | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appraiser Full Time Equivalent (FTE) Employees | 1.0 | 6.4 | 1.8 |
| Low Salary Range | $22,928 | $25,687 | $26,857 |
| High Salary Range | $22,928 | $39,505 | $31,004 |
| Training Budget | $3,050 | $9,267 | $5,597 |
| Number Registered with Board of Professional Tax Examiners (BTPE) | 2.0 | 9.1 | 3.5 |
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data).
Exhibit 5 provides operations information for the Culberson CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Data Versus State and Group Averages
Reappraisal
| Operations Information | Culberson |
|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | 2005 |
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2008 |
| Type of Reappraisal | Cyclical |
Protests
| Operations Information | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2005 tax year) | 36 | 3,435 | 143 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0 |
Collections
| Operations Information | Culberson |
|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | Yes |
| Collection Budget | $48,894 |
Geographic Information System (GIS)
| Operations Information | Culberson | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? | No | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Percent GIS Complete | 0.0% | 49.9% | 37.4% |
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data).
The IAAO publication Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, Chapter 16, Elements of Administration, Staffing Patterns and the Effect of Computers, states that the ratio of parcels-per-full-time employee 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.
For the tax years 2006 and 2007, the CAD entered into a "keep up" contract with an appraisal firm to appraise all new construction, all altered or remodeled structures, new commercial and industrial businesses, and to review commercial and industrial property accounts on the appraisal records and to develop agricultural schedules. According to the chief appraiser and the appraisal firm representative, the role of the firm has expanded during this contract period to include most of the appraisal work performed in the CAD. The appraisal services firm currently updates all property schedules and reviews all sales with the CAD staff before the information is entered in the appraisal system. While the number of parcels-per-full-time employee is greater than the IAAO standards, the CAD's reliance on outside appraisers reduces the workload for CAD employees.
Workloads in appraisal districts can vary due to any number of considerations other than parcel count. The geographic size of an appraisal district, for instance, may have an impact on the time required to work all parcels, as can the types of properties involved. Complex commercial and some residential properties may require more staff work to appraise. The data given here provides the reader with only a basis for comparison with other appraisal districts with similar parcel counts.
1.3
Self Evaluation Questionnaire
In preparation for this ASR, Culberson CAD was asked to complete the IAAO's Self Evaluation Questionnaire, which asked the appraisal district to assess its compliance with acceptable procedures, standards and organization. PTD provided the appraisal district with an electronic version of the questionnaire and an IAAO manual explaining the questions and how to answer them.
Culberson CAD answered 109 of the 111 questions, providing specific and clear, concise responses. A summary of the self-assessment follows.
In responding to the self-assessment, Culberson CAD pointed to certain strengths. Among the identified strengths are:
- experienced and qualified staff;
- well-organized office; and
- adequate resources and facilities.
Culberson CAD also indicated some areas of concern, including:
- lack of an automated GIS system and computerized maps;
- incomplete manual maps; and
- difficulty in obtaining sufficient sales information.
In Chapter 1, which discusses legal issues and assessment cycles, Culberson CAD indicated that the chief appraiser and deputy chief appraiser keep abreast of laws and court decisions by attending classes and reviewing information distributed by the Texas Association of Assessing Officers (TAAO) and the Comptroller. The CAD tests values as required by the Property Tax Code, but finds that the lack of full disclosure of sales information undermines the concept of appraisal at market value.
In Chapter 2, which deals with resources and management, Culberson CAD indicated that it uses formal planning and a line-item budget to develop estimates of available resources. The CAD's chief appraiser has adequate facilities, funding and skills to perform its work. The chief appraiser's 25 years of experience was cited as a reason for the CAD's procurement skills.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, Culberson CAD indicated that each employee has a fully functioning workstation and that the CAD office maintains data security using employee and workstation passwords. The CAD provides information to the public using a vendor sponsored Web site. The appraisal system has the capability to provide geographic information system (GIS) services, but the CAD has not purchased that service.
In Chapter 4, which covers mapping, Culberson CAD indicated that staff use manual maps provided by an outside vendor and that not all maps are drawn to scale or identified by a unique parcel number.
In Chapter 5, which covers data collection, Culberson CAD indicated that the computer records contain information on property use, highest and best use and indicators of legal uses. The CAD reflects land attributes in its land schedules. Properties in different areas of the CAD are inspected on an annual basis. Appraisers inspect each property for which the town of Van Horn provides building permits. The CAD experiences difficulty in routinely collecting income data for commercial properties.
In Chapter 6, which covers land valuation, Culberson CAD indicated that land sales are reviewed, confirmed and maintained in a sales file. The CAD uses the cost-of-development method to appraise large tracts of land awaiting development. Land is not stratified by zoning or use and location due to the small number of sales. The CAD does not use a GIS to assist in data quality control or abstraction, allocation or land residual capitalization methods to derive standard values.
In Chapter 7, concerning residential property valuation, Culberson CAD indicated that the primary emphasis is on the sales comparison approach. Cost schedules are not fully computerized, and depreciation schedules are not based on sales analysis. Depreciation is determined individually on each property being reappraised.
In Chapter 8, regarding commercial property valuation, Culberson CAD indicated that an outside firm appraises commercial property for the CAD. The outside firm uses the three approaches to value in appraising business properties and uses commercial publications as well as local cost data to determine values.
In Chapter 9, which deals with sales data, ratio studies and stratification, Culberson CAD indicated that each sale is verified before being entered into the system. Ratio studies by property class are performed every six months if the CAD has enough samples and sales used in valuation analysis. Ratio studies are adjusted to the valuation date.
In Chapter 10, which covers personal property assessment, Culberson CAD indicated that it uses a variety of methods for discovering and assessing personal property, including mailing rendition forms and inspecting new properties to ensure complete and accurate reporting. The CAD uses depreciation cost index tables for each class of personal property. The CAD does not use price guides to value items that are frequently sold as used items.
In Chapter 11, which deals with assessment administration, Culberson CAD indicated that properties are updated within 30 days of the recording of a transfer and that notices are mailed out in January of each year for exemptions, agricultural use and notice of appraised value.
In Chapter 12, regarding defense of values, Culberson CAD indicated that owners and taxpayers are encouraged to discuss concerns and complaints with the CAD before lodging a formal appeal. The CAD has a documented process for handling formal appeals and tracks the status of each formal appeal.
In Chapter 13, which covers public relations, Culberson CAD indicated that the CAD does not have an active public relations program that reaches out to the public, but it is accessible to the public. All required notices are published and posted appropriately. Brochures using non-technical language describing the assessment of property, appeal rights and exemptions are available in the CAD office. Property records can be accessed by parcel number, physical address or owner.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study and Summary Worksheets
The PVS determines the total property value in each school district served by Culberson 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 23.01. Productivity value is the basis used to appraise agricultural lands and timberland. Market value, as defined by Property Tax Code Section 1.04 (7), is the price at which a property would sell under prevailing market conditions.
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 the state value, by determining market value or by accepting the local appraised value in each property category and 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 appraisals of qualified agricultural lands, the school tax ceiling for disabled homeowners and those over the age of 65, as well as 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 administrative hearings process. 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 a written protest, an informal conference between PTD staff and CAD representatives or a formal hearing. A hearings examiner appointed by the Comptroller's general counsel holds formal hearings. The hearings examiner is not a PTD employee. School districts may protest the findings of the final determination in district court.
When conducting the property value study, PTD assigns properties to various categories, such as residential, commercial and rural property. PTD divides properties into categories so that it can appraise like properties together.
In general, a ratio indicates the percentage of market value, as determined by PTD, at which a CAD appraises a property pr group of properties. A ratio of 1.0 indicates appraisal at market value – the legal standard. Generally, appraisals with ratios that are close to the standard, for instance between 0.95 and 1.05, are considered reasonably accurate for a property group.
Eligible School Districts
In the 2005 PVS, Culberson-Allamoore 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, which the Comptroller has accepted.
Six property categories were tested in Culberson County-Allamoore ISD:
- Category A, Single-Family Residential;
- Category C, Vacant Lots;
- Category D, Rural Real;
- Category F1, Commercial Real Properties;
- Category G, Oil, Gas and Minerals; and
- Category J, Utility Properties.
Culberson CAD is not placing market value on the ISD Category A, Single-Family Residential. A review of Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 51 percent to as high as 135 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8875. Category A, Single-Family Residential, makes up 8 percent of the ISD reported value and 12 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is not placing market value on the ISD Category C, Vacant Lots. A review of Category C properties indicates that the CAD appraised from 13 percent to 151 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.7103. Category C makes up 5 percent of the ISD value and 7 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. Productivity value is based on the land's ability to produce agricultural products. Subcategory D2, non-qualifying acres and farm and ranch improvements, is primarily rural homes and land that does not qualify for farming, ranching or timberlands.
The CAD is not placing a correct productivity value on the ISD sub-category D1, Qualified Acreage. A review of sub-category D1 indicates that the CAD under-appraised irrigated cropland, dry cropland, native pastureland and acreage designated for wildlife management. Sub-category D1 makes up 8 percent of the ISD reported value and 14 percent of the tested value. This sub-category had a weighted mean ratio of 0.8603.
The CAD is not placing market value on the ISD sub-category D2. Sub-category D2 makes up 3 percent of the ISD reported value and 5 percent of the tested value. This sub-category had a weighted mean ratio of 0.8079.
A review of Category F1 properties indicates the CAD appraised from 89 percent to 136 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9760. Category F1 makes up 8 percent of the ISD value and 13 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is placing market value on the ISD Category G, oil, gas and minerals. A review of Category G properties indicates the CAD appraised from 91 percent to 112 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0103. Category G makes up 6 percent of the ISD value and 11 percent of the tested value.
A review of Category J properties indicates the CAD appraised from 94 percent to 102 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9676. Category J makes up 40 percent of the ISD value and 38 percent of the tested value.
Culberson-Allamoore ISD appealed the self-reported values but did not appeal any specific category tested in the 2005 PVS.
Culberson CAD Summary
In summary, the Culberson CAD's overall median ratio is 0.96.
- Category A, Single-Family Residential, sample ratios range from 0.51 to 1.35 with a median ratio of 0.94;
- Category C, Vacant Lots, sample ratios range from 0.13 to 1.51 with a median ratio of 1.00;
- Category D2, Non-qualified Land, sample ratios range from 0.22 to 4.62 with a median ratio of 0.92;
- Category F1, Commercial Real Property, sample ratios range from 0.89 to 1.36 with a median ratio of 0.97; and
- Category G, Oil, Gas & Minerals, sample ratios range from 0.91 to 1.12 with a median of 1.01.
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's 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. In the Standard on Ratio Studies, Category A, Single-Family Residences, should generally be 15 or less, and for new and 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 Culberson CAD Category A was 15.93; Category C was 14.96; Category D2 was 55.16; Category F1 was 6.31; and Category G was 6.65.
The numbers for Categories A, C, F1 and G, indicate uniformity in appraisal in the CAD and ISD; however, the CAD COD for D2 is very high and indicates a lack of uniformity.