Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
According to The Handbook of Texas, the Texas Legislature carved Nolan County from the Young-Bexar territory in 1876 and attached it to Shackelford County for administrative purposes. The county was officially organized after an election held on January 20, 1881. The following April, the Nolan County Court declared the city of Sweetwater to be the new permanent county seat. Nolan County takes its name from Irish immigrant Philip Nolan (1771 - 1801), an adventurer whose mustanging expeditions into Texas during the last decade of the eighteenth century earned him recognition among many filibusters to follow that eventually helped to free Texas from Spanish and Mexican rule.
Nolan County lies in west central Texas, surrounded on the east by Taylor County, on the south by Coke and Runnels counties, on the west by Mitchell County, and on the north by Fisher County. Sweetwater, the county seat and largest population center, is located 42 miles west of Abilene, 125 miles southeast of Lubbock and 130 miles northeast of Odessa.
The topography of Nolan County comprises rolling uplands to the north, with plateaus traversed by valleys in the south. Altitudes range from 2,000 to 2,700 feet above sea level. Streams in the northern part of the county, including Cottonwood, Bitter, Stink and Sweetwater creeks, drain into the Clear Fork of the Brazos River. In the southern part of Nolan County, Silver, Wilson, Fish and Oak creeks drain into the Colorado River. Larger bodies of water include Lake Sweetwater and Oak Creek Lake. Nolan County is also home to the Texas State Technical College in Sweetwater, a vocational training facility that began operation in 1970.
The January 2005 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 15,180 inhabitants. The city of Sweetwater has 11,062 residents; the city of Roscoe 1,354 residents; and the city of Blackwell has 369 residents. The county's remaining population resides in a variety of small towns and unincorporated areas.
The county includes the Roscoe, Sweetwater, Blackwell and Highland ISDs.
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Nolan CAD originated in 1981 and became active in 1982. As of December 2005, Nolan CAD had a total of 10 full-time staff positions, with one supervisory position and no part-time positions. Two positions are full-time appraisers. The CAD contracts with Pritchard & Abbott, Inc. for professional appraisal services on commercial and industrial properties appraisals in Categories G (Oil, Gas, Minerals), J (Utilities) and a portion of L (Personal Property).
Exhibit 1 presents the appraisal district's current organization chart.
The Nolan Central Appraisal District is governed by the board of directors. The chief appraiser reports directly to the board. These positions report directly to the chief appraiser: the senior appraiser and two appraisers, mapper, tax collections supervisor and two collections clerks (one vacant at the time of the review), data processing supervisor, and an administrative assistant and one clerk (vacant at the time of the review).
The Nolan 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.
Nolan CAD provides appraisal services for 10 taxing units in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2
Nolan CAD
Taxing Units
| Name of Taxing Entity |
|---|
| Nolan County |
| Sweetwater Independent School District |
| Highland Independent School District |
| City of Sweetwater |
| Wes-Tex Groundwater Conservation District |
| Roscoe Independent School District |
| Blackwell Independent School District |
| City of Roscoe |
| City of Blackwell |
| Nolan County Hospital District |
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Property Tax Appraisal District Directory, 2005 Edition.
Most appraisal districts contract out some work to private appraisal firms. Nolan CAD appraises all categories of properties in-house, with the exception of Categories G, J and a portion of L, which they contract with Pritchard & Abbott, Inc. PTD does not track appraisals performed by contracted appraisal firms. Contracts with private appraisal firms generally do not stipulate that a parcel count for the number of appraisals 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 districts' Self Reports to calculate parcels per appraisal district staff.
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 appraisal firms. The total parcels appraised in-house comprise the sum 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 Real; L1, Personal Property; M1, Mobile Homes; O, Residential Inventory; and S, Special Inventory.
Exhibit 3 contains data regarding 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 their number of parcels. Nolan CAD is in the group of appraisal districts with 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 | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels | 15,298 | 49,497 | 17,680 |
| Number Taxing Units | 10 | 15 | 9 |
| Estimated Locally Appraised Parcels per Appraisal Staff1 | 1,912 | 2,985 | 2,539 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report):
| Parcels and Categories | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential | 24.4% | 51.3% | 23.6% |
| Non-Residential, Non Mineral | 67.1% | 45.0% | 59.9% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 8.6% | 3.7% | 16.4% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report):
| Parcel Type |
Nolan
Number of Parcels |
Nolan
Percent of Parcels |
State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Single-Family Residential | 5,639 | 36.9% | 50.0% | 29.7% |
| B - Multifamily Residential | 69 | 0.5% | 1.2% | 0.3% |
| C - Vacant Lots | 2,318 | 15.2% | 14.7% | 15.0% |
| D - Agricultural2 | 3,760 | 24.6% | 14.4% | 33.0% |
| E - Farm and Ranch Improvement | 1,689 | 11.0% | 5.1% | 11.2% |
| F1 - Commercial Real | 785 | 5.1% | 3.4% | 3.4% |
| L1 - Commercial Personal | 826 | 5.4% | 6.8% | 4.3% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes | 201 | 1.3% | 2.5% | 2.5% |
| O - Residential Inventory | 2 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 0.5% |
| S - Special Inventory | 9 | 0.1% | 0.1% | 0.0% |
| Total3 | 15,298 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
1Calculated by the Property Tax Division based on number of appraisal staff.
2 Sum of data reported in ISD Self Reports of Value in the County Appraisal District.
3 Totals may not add to 100.0%, due to rounding.
Sources: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data) March 2006; Appraisal District Self Report of Value, 2004.
Exhibit 4 provides financial and staffing data for Nolan 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 Information
| Financial and Staffing Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 Budget | $365,250 | $1,108,158 | $405,520 |
| 2004 Surplus | $0 | $48,656 | $27,656 |
| 2004 Surplus as Percent of Budget1 | 0.0% | 4.4% | 6.8% |
| 2005 Budget | $384,750 | $1,150,302 | $423,458 |
| Percent Change in Budget1 | 5.3% | 3.8% | 4.4% |
| 2004 Budget per Total Parcel1 | $12.14 | $9.33 | $13.45 |
| 2004 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 | $23.88 | $22.30 | $22.94 |
Staffing - 2004 Budget
| Financial and Staffing Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Time | 10 | 17 | 7 |
| Part Time | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Supervisory | 1 | 3 | 2 |
| Programmers | 1 | 1 | 4 |
| Supervisory to Staff Ratio1 | 1:9 | 1:5 | 1:4 |
Chief Appraiser
| Financial and Staffing Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performs Appraisals? | No | ||
| 2004 Total Compensation - Actual | $45,000 | $52,557 | $48,535 |
Appraisers - 2004 Budget
| Financial and Staffing Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full - Time | 2 | 6 | 2 |
| Part - Time | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Salary Range: Low | $23,000 | $25,476 | $25,042 |
| Salary Range: High | $45,000 | $38,313 | $32,808 |
| 2004 Training Budget | 0 | $9,140 | $5,639 |
| Number Registered with Board of Tax Professional Examiners | 4 | 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.
In Exhibit 5 operations information is provided for the Nolan CAD, state and peer group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Reappraisal
| Operations Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | 2004 | ||
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2005 | ||
| Type of Reappraisal: | Complete | ||
| Method of Reappraisal: | Combination |
Protests
| Operations Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2004 tax year) | 141 | 3,164 | 211 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 | 1.0% | 6.0% | 4.0% |
Collections
| Operations Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | Yes | ||
| Collection Budget | $231,610 |
Geographic Information System (GIS)
| Operations Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appraisal District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? | Yes | ||
| Percent GIS Complete | 99.0% | 80.0% | 74.0% |
Board of Directors - 2004
| Operations Information | Nolan | State Average1 | Group Average1 |
|---|---|---|---|
| Members | 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Tax Assessor Votes? | No | ||
| Elected Members | 0 | 3 | 2 |
1 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, Nolan CAD appraised 1,912 parcels per full-time appraisal staff. The IAAO Standards state 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, Nolan CAD completed 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 that explains each question and how to answer it. PTD asks each appraisal district undergoing an ASR to perform the self-assessment.
Nolan CAD answered all 111 questions, providing primarily yes or no responses, with a few brief responses on some questions. 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 competent staff;
- a good board of directors and working relationship with the board; and
- a good appraisal review board and agricultural advisory board.
The appraisal district also indicated some areas of concern. These included:
- the diverse classes of properties to appraise; and
- mass appraisal software and mapping integration.
In Chapter 1, on legal issues and assessment cycles, the appraisal district indicated that it regularly checks internet Web sites and attends seminars for legal issues. The appraisal district also marked concerns about "full disclosure" of sales information, and was concerned about not having adequate staff for the mix of properties located in the appraisal district.
In Chapter 2, on resources and management, the appraisal district indicated that the office's funding could be better but was adequate for a rural area, some salaries were low for the area, and that attorneys review contracts that the appraisal district enters into.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, the appraisal district indicated that the new computer system will address deficient areas, such as query/reporting tools, workflow processing and management, and the ability to manage document images or photo imagery.
In Chapter 4, on mapping, the appraisal district indicated satisfaction with the current mapping system.
In Chapter 5, on data collection, the appraisal district again indicated that the new computer system will positively address items such as edit programs for range and consistency checks. The appraisal district indicated that it physically inspects property annually and answered positively to other items in this chapter. The appraisal district does not use any type of hand-held computer for field data collection.
In Chapter 6, on land valuation, the appraisal district indicated that it performs all items in this Chapter including:
confirming sales, stratifying land by use and by location, and the use of market derived tables for adjustments. Some calculations are done by hand.
In Chapter 7, on residential property valuation, the appraisal district answered positively to all items, with the exception of cost schedules, which are not fully computerized.
In Chapter 8, on commercial property valuation, the appraisal district indicated that when using the income approach, the appraisal district does not maintain automated data but instead uses spreadsheets and manual reports generated by staff appraisers. Commercial properties are analyzed manually.
In Chapter 9, on sales data, ratio studies, and stratification, the appraisal district answered "yes" to all questions in this chapter, with the exception of time adjustment for sales data.
In Chapter 10, on personal property assessment, the appraisal district answered "yes" to all questions and indicated it mails rendition forms to all property owners.
In Chapter 11, on assessment administration, the appraisal district indicated that it attempts to update ownership within 30 days of the transfer being recorded. The appraisal district answered "yes" to other questions in this section.
In Chapter 12, on defense of values, the appraisal district answered "yes" to all questions.
In Chapter 13, on public relations, the appraisal district indicated that it has a positive relationship with the public by answering "yes" to all questions in this section. The appraisal district submits its agendas to the Secretary of State's office for public filing.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study and Summary Worksheets
The Property Value Study (PVS) determines the total property value in each school district in the Nolan County Appraisal District (Nolan CAD). With a few notable exceptions, all county appraisal districts and the Property Tax Division (PTD) by law must appraise property at market value. Agricultural land and timberland are appraised according to productivity value. Market value, in short, is the price that a property would transfer from a willing seller to a willing buyer. For it to be a market transaction, neither party may be under duress to buy or sell, the sale must be on the market for a reasonable time and the parties to the sale may not be related.
The county appraisal district determines local tax roll value, or local value, and submits it to PTD on its annual self-report. The 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 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 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 with the Comptroller, and 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, 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. Properties fall into classified categories so that appraisers value and compare like properties.
Highland ISD formally appealed properties in the findings of the preliminary study. This school district fell outside of the confidence interval and became an eligible school district in July 2005.
A review of the school districts in the county indicates that Nolan CAD did not consistently appraise Single-Family Residences. The CAD appraised Single-Family Residences in Sweetwater and Blackwell ISDs at 94.86 and 103.48 percent, respectively, of the state value in 2004 (0.9486 and 1.0348 weighted mean ratios).
In Roscoe ISD, Qualified Land was appraised at 143 percent of productivity value as determined in the 2004 PVS (or a 1.43 ratio), while in Blackwell and Highland ISDs, Nolan CAD appraised the same category at 86 and 92 percent, respectively, of productivity value (0.86 and 0.92 ratios).
Nolan CAD appraised Non-Qualified Land and Farm and Ranch Improvements in Roscoe, Sweetwater and Highland ISDs at 100, 97 and 99 percent, respectively, of market value in 2004. The CAD appraised the same category at 91 percent of market value in Blackwell ISD.
In 2004, Highland ISD's local value fell outside the Property Value Study's statistical margin of error and it was identified as a eligible school district. Qualified Land (Subcategory D1) and Utilities (Category J) were the two categories with largest variances between local value and state value.
In general, a ratio indicates the percentage of market value at which a property or group of properties is being appraised. A ratio between 0.95 and 1.05 in any property category means that the appraisal district is appraising that property category within five percent of its market value according to the PVS.
Eligible School District
Highland ISD became an eligible school district when its local value fell outside of the confidence interval limit of the 2004 PVS. The confidence interval is a statistically determined range of school district values which the Comptroller has accepted.
There were three property categories tested in Highland ISD: (1) Category D, Rural Real; (2) Category G, Oil, Gas, Minerals; and (3) Category J, Utilities.
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 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 land's productivity value and D2 is based on what the land would sell for in an open-market transaction. Highland ISD's Category D1 ratio was .9244 and this category made up 8 percent of the school district's total value in 2004.
Nolan CAD assigned a below-market value on the Category J, Utilities Category. A review of Category J sample properties indicates that the contracted appraisal firm appraised from as low as 34 percent to 100 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of .7414. Category J made up 8 percent of the school district's total value and approximately 8 percent of the total test values.
Highland ISD formally appealed Category J.
Other School Districts
There are three other school districts in the Nolan CAD. They are the Roscoe, Sweetwater and Blackwell ISDs. These three school districts' local values were within their respective confidence interval limits.
As previously mentioned, the CAD appraises Qualified Land inconsistently. In Roscoe ISD the Qualified Land weighted mean ratio was 1.43 and the dry cropland, improved pastureland and native pastureland classes had the largest differences from productivity value as determined in the 2004 PVS. In Blackwell ISD, Nolan CAD appraised Qualified Land at 86 percent of productivity value as determined in the 2004 PVS with the native pastureland class showing the largest differences between local value and state value.
Nolan CAD Summary
In summary, Nolan CAD's overall median level of appraisal in 2004 was 1.00.
Nolan CAD valued sample property Single-Family Residences from 64 to 188 percent of market value with a median level of appraisal in this category of 1.00, and only 55.63 percent of the sample ratios are within a plus or minus 10 percent range of the median.
Nolan CAD valued sample property Rural Real from 67 to 186 percent of market value with a median level of appraisal of .98 in this category, and only 58.13 percent of the sample ratios are within a plus or minus 10 percent range of the median.
The CAD valued sample property Commercial Real in Category F1 from 70 to 139 percent of market value, with a median level of appraisal of 1.06, and only 60.46 percent of the sample ratios fell within a plus or minus 10 percent range of the median.
In Category G, Oil, Gas and Minerals, the contracted appraisal firm valued sample parcels from 77 to 153 percent of tested value, with a median level of appraisal of .99, and 74.19 percent of the sample ratios lie within a plus or minus 10 percent range of the median.
In Category J, Utilities, the contracted appraisal firm valued sample parcels from 34 to 109 percent of market value, with a median level of appraisal of .99, and only 69.44 percent of the ratios fall within a plus or minus 10 percent range of the median.
In Category L1, Commercial Personal, The CAD valued sample property from 89 to 122, percent of market value, with a median level of appraisal of 1.00, and 87.23 percent of the ratios lie within a plus or minus 10 percent range of the median.
The 2004 PVS found the overall coefficient of dispersion (COD) for the Nolan CAD to be 10.45. The COD is the primary measure of appraisal uniformity and measures the average percentage by which individual ratios vary from the median ratio. The statewide average COD for the same period was 11.29.
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. All school districts in Nolan CAD are within the ratios listed by the IAAO in the Standard on Ratio Studies.