Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
According to The Handbook of Texas, the Republic of Texas created Jasper County in 1836, but the county did not survey its boundaries until 1837. Jasper County takes its name from William Jasper, a revolutionary war hero.
Jasper County is located in southeast Texas and borders seven counties: Orange, Hardin, Tyler, Angelina, San Augustine, Sabine and Newton counties. Jasper, the county seat, is located at the intersection of U.S. Highway 190 and U.S. Highway 96, 115 miles northeast of Houston and 23 miles west of the Sabine River and Louisiana.
Jasper County has east Texas timberlands with elevations ranging from 25 to 400 feet above sea level, according to The Handbook of Texas. The Sam Rayburn Reservoir, Lake B. A. Steinhagen, the Neches River (which forms the county's western boundary) and the Angelina River are the major water sources in the county. Principal natural resources include timber, oil and natural gas.
The 2005 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 35,746, with the city of Jasper having 7,486 residents; the city of Browndell having 227 residents; the Buna census-designated place (CDP) having 2,244 residents; the Evadale CDP having 1,381 residents; and the city of Kirbyville 2,093 residents. The county's remaining population resides in a variety of rural and unincorporated areas.
The county includes the Brookeland, Buna, Jasper and Evadale Independent School Districts (ISDs) and Kirbyville Consolidated Independent School District (CISD).
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Jasper CAD was formed in 1980 and became active in 1983. As of May 2006, Jasper CAD has 12 full-time staff positions and three part-time positions. Of these, seven full-time and three part-time positions perform key appraisal functions. The CAD recently hired two new full-time appraisers, for a total of three staff appraiser positions. The CAD contracts with Capitol Appraisal Group Inc. (CAG) for professional appraisal services on mineral, utility and industrial appraisals.
Exhibit 1 presents the CAD's organizational structure.
The Jasper CAD board of directors has no authority to set values or determine appraisal methods under Section 6.05(a), Tax Code. The chief appraiser carries out the appraisal district's legal duties, hires its staff, makes appraisals and operates the appraisal office.
Jasper CAD provides appraisal services for 15 taxing units (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Jasper CAD Taxing Units
| Name of Taxing Entity |
|---|
| Jasper County |
| Brookeland ISD |
| Buna ISD |
| Jasper ISD |
| Kirbyville CISD |
| Evadale ISD |
| City of Jasper |
| City of Kirbyville |
| Rayburn County MUD |
| Jasper County WCID #1 |
| Evadale WCID #1 |
| Jasper County ESD #1 |
| Jasper County ESD #2 |
| Jasper County ESD #3 |
| Jasper County ESD #4 |
Source: Jasper CAD, February 2006.
Most appraisal districts contract out some work to private firms. The Jasper CAD appraises all categories of properties in-house with the exception of minerals, utilities and industrial properties, which they contract with Capitol Appraisal Group Inc. PTD does not track appraisals performed by external appraisers, because contracts with external appraisers generally do not include a parcel count for the number of appraisals to be performed. In assessing the staff-to-parcel count ratio in each appraisal district, PTD uses parcel counts reported by the appraisal district in 2004 and reports from the independent school district.
PTD includes commercial real and personal property parcels in the calculation, since it cannot determine how many parcels are assigned to in-house staff versus private firms. The total parcels appraised in-house are calculated by summing the total number of parcels reported in categories A, single family residential; B, multifamily residential; C, vacant lots; D, rural land; E, rural improvements; F1, commercial property; L1, personal property; M1, mobile homes; O, residential inventory; and S, special inventory.
Exhibit 3 contains data concerning appraisal district parcel counts by categories of properties. It compares the appraisal district's data to the state and group averages. For analytical purposes PTD groups appraisal districts according to the number of parcels. The Jasper CAD is included with appraisal districts that have 35,000 - 49,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Parcels and Categories:
|
Parcel Size Group
(by number of locally appraised parcels): 35,000 - 49,999 |
Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels | 37,139 | 49,497 | 41,134 |
| Number Taxing Units | 15 | 15 | 15 |
| Estimated Locally Appraised Parcels per Staff | 3,376 | 2,985 | 3,478 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report):
| Parcel Type | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Value | 29.1% | 51.3% | 37.9% |
| Non-Residential, Non Mineral | 66.3% | 45.0% | 54.0% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 4.6% | 3.7% | 8.1% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report):
| Parcel Type | Jasper Number of Parcels |
Jasper
Percent of Parcels |
State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Residential | 11,696 | 31.5% | 50.0% | 29.9% |
| B - Multi-Family | 44 | .1% | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| C - Vacant Lots | 11,134 | 30.0% | 14.7% | 22.1% |
| D - Agricultural | 8,503 | 22.9% | 14.4% | 26.0% |
| E - Farm and Ranch Improvement | 2,279 | 6.1% | 5.1% | 9.8% |
| F1 - Commercial Real | 973 | 2.6% | 3.4% | 2.8% |
| L1 - Commercial Personal | 1,064 | 2.9% | 6.8% | 4.2% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes | 1,398 | 3.8% | 2.5% | 3.1% |
| O - Residential Inventory | 9 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 1.6% |
| S - Special Inventory | 39 | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Total | 37,139 | 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 100.0%, due to rounding.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006 and Appraisal District Self Report of Value, 2004.
Exhibit 4 provides financial and staffing data for the Jasper CAD and how it fares with other appraisal districts throughout the state and in its group.
Exhibit 4
Reported Budget, Staffing and Training Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Financial and Staffing Information
| Financial Information | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 Budget | $1,084,100 | $1,108,158 | $690,977 |
| 2004 Surplus | $0 | $48,656 | $41,477 |
| 2004 Surplus as Percent of Budget | 0.0% | 4.4% | 6.0% |
| 2005 Budget | $750,500 | $1,150,302 | $712,193 |
| Percent Change in Budget | -30.8%* | 3.8% | 3.1% |
| 2004 Budget per Total Parcel | $25.28* | $9.33 | $11.94 |
| 2004 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | $29.19* | $22.30 | $16.80 |
| Staffing - 2004 Budget | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Time | 11 | 17 | 12 |
| Part Time | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Supervisory | 4 | 3 | 3 |
| Programmers | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Supervisory to Staff Ratio | 1:3 | 1:5 | 1:4.5 |
| Staffing - Chief Appraiser | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performs Appraisals? | Yes | ||
| 2004 Total Compensation - Actual | $52,092 | $52,557 | $58,186 |
| Staffing - Appraisers | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full - Time | 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Part - Time | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Salary Range: | |||
| Low | $21,432 | $25,476 | $24,719 |
| High | $25,416 | $38,313 | $38,029 |
| 2004 Training Budget | $15,300 | $9,140 | $8,043 |
| Appraisers Registered with Board of Tax Professional Examiners | 6 | 8 | 6 |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Note: The 2004 budget is exceptionally high due to reserving funds to pay for a lawsuit which ended in 2005. Any computations involving the 2004 budget and total or locally estimated parcel counts are skewed atificially high and not representative of budgeted resources for appraisal.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.
Exhibit 5 provides operations information for the Jasper CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Operations Data Information
Comparison to State and Group Averages
| Reappraisal | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | 2004 | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2006 | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Type of Reappraisal: | Cyclical | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Method of Reappraisal: | Combination | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Protests | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2004 tax year) | 0 | 3,164 | 803 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 | 0.0% | 6.0% | 0.0% |
| Collections | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | Yes | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Collection Budget | $129,700 | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Geographic Information System (GIS) | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? | Yes | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Percent GIS Complete | 75.0% | 80.0% | 77.0% |
| Board of Directors - 2004 | Jasper | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Members | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Tax Assessor Votes? | No | Not Applicable | Not Applicable |
| Elected Members | 4 | 3 | 0 |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.
Based on this comparison, the Jasper CAD appraised 3,376 parcels per full-time employee. The IAAO Chapter 16, Staffing Patterns, states that the ratio of parcels per full-time employees for a small appraisal district is between 1,500 and 1,700. For a large appraising entity these numbers are between 3,000 and 3,500.
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 are meant only to give the reader some basis for comparison with other appraisal districts with similar parcel counts.
1.3
Self-Evaluation Questionnaire
In preparation for this ASR, PTD asked the Jasper CAD 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 receives an electronic version of the questionnaire and an IAAO manual that explains each question and how to answer them. PTD asks each appraisal district undergoing an ASR to perform the self-assessment.
The Jasper CAD answered all 111 questions, providing concise responses where necessary. A summary of the self-assessment follows.
In responding to the self-assessment, the appraisal district pointed to certain strengths. Among the identified strengths are a dedicated and tenured staff and an upgraded automated appraisal system.
The appraisal district also indicated some areas of concern. These included limited sales in some areas and the reluctance of business owners to share income and expense information with the CAD.
In Chapter 1, on legal issues and assessment cycles, the CAD indicated that it understands the legal framework, value standard and assessment cycles required of the CAD. The CAD advised that the chief appraiser monitors legislative actions, court cases and attorney general opinions on a regular basis to stay current on these issues. Special-use appraisals and too much emphasis on equal and uniform standards undercut the standard of market value, according to the chief appraiser. The CAD indicated it has adequate size, resources and fiscal capacity to perform effectively and efficiently.
In Chapter 2, on resources and management, the CAD indicated that formal planning involves adhering to the tax calendar. According to the CAD, it has adequate funding, its office space is sufficient, it runs a well-organized and well-managed operation and the district staff are quality conscious concerning their work. The CAD added that its salaries and benefits are competitive when compared locally, but not when compared to larger appraisal districts.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, the CAD indicated it recently upgraded its appraisal software to meet the growing needs of the CAD. The system tracks computer usage to maintain data security and integrity, has query capabilities, supports multi-year processing and offers the ability to maintain imagery. The CAD also has a computerized mapping system and a Web site.
In Chapter 4, on mapping, the CAD indicated that its maps comply with IAAO standards and Comptroller Rules. Maps are computerized and parcel splits and combinations usually take three to six months to map.
In Chapter 5, on data collection, the CAD indicated that it knows what data Comptroller Rules, state law and appraisal standards, require. The CAD advised that it collects and uses all relevant data in the assessment process and operates on a three-year reappraisal cycle. The CAD is developing a reappraisal plan that complies with Sec 25.18 of the Tax Code. The CAD attempts to obtain income and expense data on commercial property when possible, but owners are reluctant to share data. The CAD does not use handheld computers in the field.
In Chapter 6, on land valuation, the CAD indicated that it understands the land evaluation process using market data as its primary source, but it does not stratify land by zoning or use. Zoning does not exist in any area of the CAD. Land values are based on location and desirability and adjusted based on the market. The CAD does not use its mapping system to identify sold properties or as a tool to assist in identifying active market areas or areas needing appraising. Land schedules are not computerized, but the chief appraiser responded in July 2006 that the CAD is developing new land schedules and will computerize them by 2007.
In Chapter 7, on residential property valuation, the CAD indicated that it uses sales data and market analysis, when available, in the appraisal process for residential properties. Cost schedules are fully computerized and depreciation adjustments are made based on appraiser judgment using available data.
In Chapter 8, on commercial property valuation, the CAD indicated that it has limited sources of information to compile cost, income and market data for appraising commercial property. Property owners are reluctant to provide data that could increase property values. The CAD acknowledges the property's total depreciation and complex appraisals are reviewed by management.
In Chapter 9, on sales data, ratio studies and stratification, the CAD indicated that it follows the accepted procedures for gathering sales data, and new appraisal software will generate ratio studies at will, allowing stratification and computing of statistical measures.
In Chapter 10, on personal property assessment, the CAD indicated that it follows the accepted procedures for discovery and appraisal of personal property. The CAD uses a variety of discovery methods and cost guides. The CAD uses the income approach to value leased equipment when the data is available.
In Chapter 11, on assessment administration, the CAD indicated it believes that it is following the accepted practices of assessment administration in the Comptroller Rules and IAAO standards.
In Chapter 12, on defense of values, the CAD indicated that the appraisal review board process encourages communication between taxpayers and the CAD. New appraisal software will track each formal appeal and complex appraisals receive an independent review.
In Chapter 13, on public relations, the CAD indicated that it believes it has an effective public relations program. Comptroller publications, local media coverage, public appearances, and the CAD's Web site provide taxpayers with information about their rights and responsibilities.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study
The Property Value Study (PVS) determines the total property value in each school district in the Jasper County Appraisal District (CAD). With a few notable exceptions, all CADs and the Property Tax Division (PTD) are required by law to appraise property at market value according to Section 403.302, Government Code, and Section 23.01, Tax Code. Agricultural land and timberland are appraised according to productivity value. Market value is the price for which a property would sell under normal conditions, as defined by Section 1.04(7), Tax Code.
Local tax roll value, or local value, is determined by the county appraisal district and submitted to PTD by the CAD and each school district on their annual self-reports. 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 disabled and other state-mandated exemptions.
PTD issues a preliminary and final PVS each year. School districts and county appraisal districts may protest the findings of the preliminary PVS through an informal administrative hearings process. School districts may contest the results of the administrative hearing 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, an informal conference or a formal hearing. A hearings examiner, who is appointed by the Comptroller's general counsel, holds formal hearings. The hearings examiner is not an employee of PTD.
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 it can appraise like properties together.
Brookeland, Buna, Jasper, Kirbyville Consolidated and Evadale Independent School Districts (ISDs) formally appealed properties in the study findings of the preliminary study.
Jasper ISD was outside the confidence interval and the Comptroller certified it as an eligible school district in July 2005.
In general, a ratio of between 0.95 and 1.05 in any property category indicates that the CAD is appraising property within the margin of error or that it is appraising property at or near market value.
Eligible School District
Jasper ISD was identified as an eligible district with a value outside of the confidence interval. Six property categories were tested in Jasper ISD: (1) Category A, Single-Family Residences; (2) Category D, Rural Real; (3) Category F1, Commercial Real; (4) Category G, Minerals; (5) Category J, Utilities; and (6) Category L1, Commercial Personal.
Category A has 44.2 percent of the tested value and makes up 36 percent of the school district's value, with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8665. Category D, Rural Real makes up 12.5 percent of the district's value and tested, with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0849. 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 agricultural or timber appraisal. The difference in value between qualified and non-qualified rural land is often wide, since D1 land is appraised using a special statutory method to determine the land's productivity value and D2 is based on what the land would sell for in an open market transaction. Subcategory D1 consists of 50 percent of Category D's value and 8.1 percent of the tested value. D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.2442. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 50 percent of Category D's value and 8.1 percent of the school district's total tested value. D2 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9618.
Category F1, Commercial Real properties, are 10.8 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9050. Category G, Mineral properties, are 10.9 percent of the district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.1417. Category J, Utility properties, are 4.8 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9911. Category L1, Commercial Personal properties, are 6.9 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9867.
Other School Districts
Brookeland ISD is within the confidence interval limit. Due to the large variance in ratios, the margin of error for this school district was increased to almost eight percent. Five property categories were tested in Brookeland ISD: (1) Category A, Single-Family Residences; (2) Category C, Vacant Lots; (3) Category D, Rural Real; (4) Category G, Minerals; and (5) Category J, Utilities. Category A has 65.9 percent of the tested value and makes up 53.5 percent of the school district's value, with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8870. Category C, Vacant Lot properties, are 10.7 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0405. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 11.6 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.2324. Subcategory D1 consists of 74 percent of Category D's value and 11.2 percent of the tested value. D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.4674. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 26 percent of Category D's value and 3.9 percent of the school district's total tested value. D2 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8467. Category G, Mineral properties, are 2.1 percent of the school district's value and were not tested. Category J, Utility properties, are 9.5 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9832.
Buna ISD is within the confidence interval limit. Four property categories were tested in Buna ISD: (1) Category A, Single-Family Residences; (2) Category D, Rural Real; (3) Category G, Minerals; and (4) Category J, Utilities. Category A has 41.8 percent of the tested value and makes up 31.3 percent of the school district's value, with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9173. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 28.4 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9726. Subcategory D1 consists of 42 percent of Category D's value and 16.8 percent of the tested value. D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0485. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 58 percent of Category D's value and 23.2 percent of the school district's total tested value. D2 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9241. Category G, Mineral properties, are 8.1 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.1155. Category J, Utility properties, are 9.8 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9763.
Kirbyville Consolidated ISD is within the confidence interval limit. Due to the large variance in ratios, the margin of error for this school district was increased almost 9 percent. Three property categories were tested in Kirbyville Consolidated ISD: (1) Category A, Single-Family Residences; (2) Category D, Rural Real; and (3) Category J, Utilities. Category A has 43.6 percent of the tested value and makes up 36.6 percent of the school district's value, with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9024. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 38.6 percent of the district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9454. Subcategory D1 consists of 45.9 percent of Category D's value and 22.3 percent of the tested value. D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.2256. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 54.1 percent of Category D's value and 26.3 percent of the school district's total tested value. D2 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.7920. Category J, Utility properties, are 9.2 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9787.
Evadale ISD is within the confidence interval limit. Three property categories were tested in Evadale ISD: (1) Category A, Single-Family Residences; (2) Category D, Rural Real; and (3) Category J, Utilities. Category A has 56.5 percent of the tested value and makes up 3.5 percent of the district's value, with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0037. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 1.6 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0409. Subcategory D1 consists of 43.7 percent of Category D's value and 12 percent of the tested value. D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.1888. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 56.3 percent of Category D's value and 15.4 percent of the school district's total tested value. D2 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9491. Category J, Utility properties, are 1.2 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9889.
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 15.0 or less and for new and fairly homogeneous areas, 10.0 or less. For Category C, Vacant Lots, the COD should be 20 or less and for income producing properties, the COD should be 20.0 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 2004 COD for Jasper CAD Category A, Single Family Residential, was 18.75; Category C, Vacant Lots, was 68.95; Category D, Rural Real, was 23.55; and Category F1, Commercial Real, was 14.79.
Jasper CAD Summary
In summary, the Jasper CAD is inconsistently appraising several categories of property with the primary concern in single-family and rural residences. Single-family residences represent 28 percent of the appraisal district's value. Jasper CAD valued a sample of single-family residences from as low as 28 percent to 357 percent of market value. Rural lands (subcategory D2) represent 8 percent of the appraisal district's value and are consistently valued below market as compared with the PVS. Jasper CAD's coefficients of dispersion are beyond the recommended range in most categories.