Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
Lampasas County was founded in 1856 and named after the Lampasas River, according to the Handbook of Texas Online.
Lampasas County is bordered by Mills, Hamilton and Coryell counties on the north, Bell County on the east, Burnet County on the south and San Saba County and the Colorado River border Lampasas County on the west. Lampasas is also the name of the county seat and is located on state highway 281. State highway 183 runs through Lampasas County northwest to southeast. Lampasas County is located 75 miles northwest of Austin.
Most of Lampasas County is in the Grand Prairies region. The county has rolling prairies with sharp inclines made from limestone, according to the handbook. The county also has areas of flat and gently sloping prairies and hills in the eastern and western portions of the county.
Most of the soil in Lampasas County is shallow, stony clay over a limestone base. Oak, elm, pecan and willow trees also grow along the riverbeds, predominantly in the west along the Colorado River. Cedar trees are also found in some areas of Lampasas County.
The 2004 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 19,539, with the city of Kempner having 1,093 residents; the city of Lampasas, 7,579 residents, and the city of Lometa, 842 residents. The county's remaining population resides in a variety of small towns and unincorporated areas.
The county includes the Lampasas and Lometa Independent School Districts (ISDs).
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Lampasas CAD was formed in 1981 and became active in 1982. As of January 2006, Lampasas CAD has a total of six full-time staff positions, which includes one supervisory position and no part-time positions. Two positions are full-time appraisers and two positions handle collections. The CAD contracts with a private vendor for professional utility and industrial appraisal services. Exhibit 1 outlines Lampasas CAD's organization.
The Lampasas CAD board has no authority to set values or determine appraisal methods under Property Tax Code Section 6.05 and 25.01. The chief appraiser carries out the appraisal district's legal duties, hires its staff, makes appraisals and operates the appraisal office. Lampasas CAD provides appraisal services for six taxing units (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Lampasas CAD Taxing Units
| Name of Taxing Entity |
|---|
| Lampasas County |
| Lampasas ISD |
| Lometa ISD |
| City of Lampasas |
| City of Lometa |
| City of Kempner |
Source: Lampasas CAD, February 2006.
Most appraisal districts contract out some work to private firms. The Lampasas CAD appraises all categories of properties in-house with the exception of Category J, which they contract to a vendor. 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 in the appraisal district's 2004 self report and the independent school district self-reports.
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 adding 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.
- A, Real Property: Single-Family Residential;
- B, Real Property: Multifamily Residential;
- C, Real Property: Vacant Lots and Tracts;
- D, Real Property: Acreage (D1 and D2);
- F1, Real Property: Commercial;
- L1, Personal Property: Commercial;
- M, Mobile Homes and Other Tangible Personal Property (M1 and M2);
- O, Real Property: 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 Lampasas CAD is included with appraisal districts that have 15,000-19,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Parcel Size Group (by number of locally appraised parcels): 15,000 - 19,9991
| Parcels and Categories | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels1 | 17,113 | 49,497 | 17,680 |
| Number Taxing Units | 6 | 15 | 9 |
| Estimated Locally Appraised Parcels per Staff1* | 2,852 | 2,985 | 2,539 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report):
| Parcels and Categories | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Value | 40.8% | 51.3% | 23.6% |
| Non-Residential, Non Mineral | 59.2% | 45.0% | 59.9% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 0.0% | 3.7% | 19.5% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report):
| Parcel Type | Number of Parcels | Percent of Parcels | State Average | State Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Real Property: Residential | 5,523 | 32.3% | 50.0% | 29.7% |
| B - Real Property: Multi-Family Residential | 98 | 0.6% | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| C - Real Property: Vacant Lots and Tracts | 2,513 | 14.7% | 14.7% | 15.0% |
| D - Real Property: Acreage2 | 4,845 | 28.3% | 14.4% | 33.0% |
| E - Real Property: Farm and Ranch Improvements | 2,233 | 13.1% | 5.1% | 11.2% |
| F1 - Real Property: Commercial | 546 | 3.2% | 3.4% | 3.4% |
| L1 - Personal Property: Commercial | 679 | 4.1% | 6.8% | 4.3% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes and Other Tangible Personal Property | 518 | 3.0% | 2.5% | 2.5% |
| O - Personal Residential Inventory | 158 | 0.9% | 1.8% | .5% |
| S - Special Inventory | 0 | 0.0% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Total3 | 17,113 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
1 Calculated by the Property Tax Division. This does not include all of the property categories.
2 Sum of data reported in ISD Self Reports of Value in the County Appraisal District.
3 Totals may not add to 100%, due to rounding.
* Staff count includes both appraisal and collection function so locally appraised parcel count per staff is low compared to actual for Lampasas CAD.
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 Lampasas CAD and how it fares with other appraisal districts throughout the state and in its group.
Exhibit 4
Reported Staffing and Training Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Financial Information
| Financial and Staffing Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 Budget | $213,548 | $1,108,158 | $405,520 |
| 2004 Surplus | $50,000 | $48,656 | $27,656 |
| 2004 Surplus as Percent of Budget1 | 23.4% | 4.4% | 6.8% |
| 2005 Budget | $221,000 | $1,150,302 | $423,458 |
| Percent Change in Budget1 | 3.5% | 3.8% | 4.4% |
| 2004 Budget per Total Parcel1 | $10.71 | $9.33 | $13.45 |
| 2004 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 | $12.48 | $22.30 | $22.94 |
Staffing - 2004 Budget
| Financial and Staffing Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Time2 | 6 | 17 | 7 |
| Part Time | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Supervisory | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Programmers | 0 | 1 | 4 |
| Supervisory to Staff Ratio1 | 1:6 | 1:5 | 1:4 |
Chief Appraiser
| Financial and Staffing Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performs Appraisals? | No | ||
| 2004 Total Compensation - Actual | $43,500 | $52,557 | $48,535 |
Appraisers - 2004 Budget
| Financial and Staffing Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full - Time | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Part - Time | * | 0 | 0 |
| Salary Range: | |||
| Low | $22,000 | $25,476 | $25,042 |
| High | $32,750 | $38,313 | $32,808 |
| 2004 Training Budget | $9,500 | $9,140 | $5,639 |
| Appraisers Registered with Board of Tax Professional Examiners | 6 | 8 | 4 |
1 Calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.
Note: An asterisk (*) is shown where data was not reported.
Exhibit 5 provides operations information for the Lampasas CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Operations Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Reappraisal
| Operations Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | 2004 | ||
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2003 | ||
| Type of Reappraisal: | Cyclical | ||
| Method of Reappraisal: | In-House |
Protests
| Operations Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2004 tax year) | 136 | 3,164 | 211 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 | 1.0% | 6.0% | 4.0% |
Collections
| Operations Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | Yes | ||
| Collection Budget | $121,770 |
Geographic Information System (GIS)
| Operations Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? | Yes | ||
| Percent GIS Complete | 0.0% | 80.0% | 74.0% |
Board of Directors - 2004**
| Operations Information | Lampasas | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Members | 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Tax Assessor Votes? | * | ||
| Elected Members | 0 | 3 | 2 |
1 Calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Note: An asterisk (*) is shown where data was not reported.
** All information is presented as reported by the CADs on its survey response.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.
Based on this comparison, the Lampasas CAD appraised 2,852 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 Computerization, the ratio of parcels per full-time employee 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 considerations other than parcel count. The geographic size of an appraisal district, for instance, may affect the amount of time required to work all parcels, as can the types of properties involved. Complex commercial and some residential properties may require more 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, the Lampasas 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 receives an electronic version of the questionnaire and an IAAO manual that explains each question and how to answer it. PTD asks each appraisal district undergoing an ASR to perform the self-assessment.
Lampasas CAD answered all 111 questions, providing mostly "yes" or "no" answers with some detailed responses. A summary of the self-assessment follows.
In responding to the self-assessment, Lampasas CAD pointed to certain strengths. These are some strengths they identified:
- the desire to obtain and maintain technological advancement in its GIS system;
- a uniform and consistent work environment for the employees; and
- the fundamental knowledge necessary to operate efficiently.
The CAD also indicated some areas of concern. They highlighted these concerns:
- the learning curve time staff members are experiencing for new computerized appraisal software that was purchased in November 2005; and
- completing and maintaining current cadastral mapping of ownership lines.
In Chapter 1, on legal issues and assessment cycles, the CAD indicated it attempts to keep abreast of changes in legislation and strives to achieve uniformity; however, the chief appraiser expressed concern that there may be a need to employ another full-time appraiser.
In Chapter 2, on resources and management, the CAD indicated that its small size allows flexibility for planning, and frequent communications with staff members add office efficiency.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, the CAD indicated it has adequate technology and resources for its staff. Lampasas CAD changed software providers in November 2005, which added document and photo imagery capabilities.
In Chapter 4, on mapping, the CAD indicated that ownership lines are not completely entered on the computerized mapping system. The system does provide the capability to print geographic coordinates on maps and the CAD is upgrading software.
In Chapter 5, on data collection, the CAD indicated its staff exhausts all possible sources for data collection, despite the lack of MLS, online data services and other sources of sales data more commonly available to larger metropolitan areas.
In Chapter 6, on land valuation, the CAD indicated it
will amend its process for valuing vacant land to include its computerized maps once the new software upgrade is complete. Typically, land valuation is derived from an in-house sales file and adjustments are made for variances in size, location and other physical characteristics.
In Chapter 7, on residential property valuation, the CAD indicated it analyzes sales ratios by neighborhood, size, age and other key features during the appraisal process. Appraisers review CAD value estimates and reconcile them before generating final values. Depreciation schedules are based on sales analysis and statistical models are technically sound and the associated coefficients are reasonable. Comparable sales are readily available and the CAD uses them for residential property valuation, analysis and value support.
In Chapter 8, on commercial property valuation, the CAD indicated it employs the three approaches for valuing appraising business properties, has defined separate market areas or neighborhoods for business properties and makes a full effort to collect local income and expense data. The CAD indicated it developed base rates and cost factors from local cost data or adjusted to the local market, and that it considers observed physical condition, economic obsolescence and functional obsolescence when estimating total depreciation. While the CAD does not maintain automated income data for analyzing reported sales, revenue and expense data for developing typical market rents and other income, senior appraisers review and reconcile vacancy ratios, expense ratios, capitalization rates or gross rent multipliers, and automated value estimates. The CAD also indicated it uses available sales to help derive capitalization rates and income multipliers, to calibrate depreciation schedules and to develop benchmark per-unit values or build market models.
In Chapter 9, on sales data, ratio studies and stratification, the CAD indicated it separates sales according to property type and classification. The CAD also affirmed that it stratifies residential properties by market area and neighborhood, and it conducts ratio studies in a timely manner and uses them in planning and determining appraisal priorities. The CAD does not have graphic capabilities for its ratio study software, but the program does compute standard measures of level and uniformity and confidence intervals.
In Chapter 10, on personal property assessment, the CAD indicated it discovers property through building permits, sewer permits, taxpayer information, abstract companies and its appraisers. Each year, it mails business personal property renditions to all businesses and, when time permits, the appraisers hand-deliver them. The CAD only follows up on nonreturns (renditions) when time permits. The CAD uses the personal property reporting forms provided by the state. CAD staff coordinates real and personal property field inspections. When time permits, CAD staff members audit returns and inspect businesses to ensure complete and accurate reporting. In lieu of using the income approach to value leased equipment, the CAD obtains most information from renditions, and CAD staff members use an economic life table to value computers, copiers, construction equipment and other items.
In Chapter 11, on assessment administration, the CAD indicated compliance in updating ownership information, verifying eligibility for exemptions and ensuring basic quality assurance requirements were met to maintain efficiency.
In Chapter 12, on defense of values, the CAD indicated compliance with state law for all issues relating to hearings and said it makes a concerted effort to settle all issues prior to an arbitration review board hearing.
In Chapter 13, on public relations, the CAD indicated that, although it does not take an active role in a program that includes public appearances to keep the public informed of actions that may affect them, it does offer information on its Web site, through the local newspaper and in the CAD's office.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study
The PVS determines the total property value in each school district in the Lampasas CAD. With a few notable exceptions, all CADs and PTD are required by law to appraise property at market value according to Government Code Section 403.302 and Property Tax Code Section 23.01. Agricultural land and timberland are appraised according to productivity value. Market value, which a property would sell under normalconditions as defined by Property Tax Code Section 1.04.
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-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 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 administrative hearings process. School districts may protest the findings of the final PVS in district court. The administrative hearings process requires that the protester 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 hearing or a formal hearing. Formal hearings are held by a hearings examiner who is appointed by the Comptroller's general counsel and reports directly to the Comptroller. 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 that like properties are assessed together.
Neither Lampasas ISD nor Lampasas CAD appealed properties in the study findings of the 2004 preliminary PVS in an effort to eliminate the Lampasas ISD's invalid finding. The chief appraiser indicated she will appeal invalid findings in the future, independent of an ISD's decision to appeal, to avoid an ASR. Lampasas ISD remained outside of the confidence interval and was certified an eligible school district in July 2005.
In general, a ratio of between 0.95 and 1.05 in any property category makes it more likely that the CAD is appraising property within the margin on error or that it is appraising property at near market value.
Eligible School District
Lampasas ISD was identified as an eligible district with value outside of the confidence interval limit. There are three property categories tested in Lampasas ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category D, Rural Real; and Category F1, Commercial Real. Category A has 63.7 percent of the tested value and makes up 51.7 percent of the school district's value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9612. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 20.2 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9521. 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, ranching or timberland. The differences in value between qualified and non-qualified rural land are often wide since D1 land is appraised using a special statutory method to determine the lands productivity value and D2 is based on what the land would sell for in an open market transaction. Subcategory D1 consists of 19.8 percent of Category D's value and 5.2 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9698. Subcategory D2 makes up 80.2 percent of Category D's value and 21 percent of the school district's total tested value. Subcategory D2 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9478. Category F1, Commercial Real properties are 7.3 percent of the district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8725.
Other School District
Lometa ISD is within the confidence interval limit. There are three property categories tested in Lometa ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential, Category D, Rural Real, and Category J, Utilities. Single Family Residential A has 18.2 percent of the tested value, makes up 17 percent of the school district's value and received a weighted mean ratio of 1.1312. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 57.9 percent of the district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9871. Subcategory D1 consists of 29.6 percent of Category D's value and 19.3 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9650. Subcategory D2 makes up 70.4 percent of Category D's value and 45.9 percent of the school district's total tested value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9967. Category J, Utility properties are 15.4 percent of the district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9563.
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 Residential, 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 2004 COD for Lampasas CAD Category A, Single Family Residential, was 20.26; Category D, Rural Real, was 15.82; and Category F1, Commercial Real, was 12.28. These numbers indicate a lack of uniformity in the 2004 PVS sample tested for Single Family Residential. In 2005, Lampasas CAD showed improvement in uniformity with the following CODs: Category A, Single Family Residential, was 8.67; Category D, Rural Real, was 8.85; and Category F1, Commercial Real, was 6.73. These numbers indicate uniformity in the 2005 PVS samples for the tested categories.
Lampasas CAD Summary
In summary, the Lampasas overall CAD median ratio is 1.00. Nevertheless, there are wide ranges within these locally (in-house) appraised categories:
- in Single Family Residential, sample ratios range from 0.43 to 2.19 with a median ratio of 1.00; and
- Category F1 Real Commercial Property, sample ratios range from 0.66 to 1.26 with a median ratio of 0.89.