Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District1.1
County History and DemographicsAccording to The Handbook of Texas, Parker County was founded in 1855 pursuant to a petition requesting the establishment of a new county signed by 224 settlers in the area who arrived under the leadership of Isaac Parker, the county namesake. The latter pioneer departed Illinois for Texas in late 1833 and settled at Mustang Prairie, Houston County, in 1834. As a representative in the Texas House during 1855-56, Parker introduced a bill to establish Parker County, which the legislature formed in December 1855 from Bosque and Navarro counties with Weatherford designated as the county seat.
Located in north central Texas, Parker County is bounded on the north by Jack and Wise counties, on the east by Tarrant County, on the south by Hood and Johnson counties, and on the west by Palo Pinto County. Weatherford, the county seat, lies 30 miles west of Fort Worth, and is located at the intersection of Interstate Highway 20 (east to west), U.S. Highway 180 (east to west), and State Highway 171, which runs south from the city.
Parker County's gently rolling plains, situated mostly in the Rolling Timbers vegetation region, are covered by tall grasses, mesquite, and oak, with elm, walnut, and pecan trees being common along streams and valleys. The sandy loams found in the Cross Timbers part of the county are drained by the Brazos River; the eastern and central parts of the county are within the Grand Prairie region and are drained by the upper tributaries of the Trinity River. Lakes Weatherford and Mineral Wells, which provide recreational facilities as well as municipal water, are located in Parker County.
The 2004 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 99,940, with the city of Aledo having 2,198 residents; the city of Hudson Oaks 1,790 residents; the city of Millsap 362 residents; the city of Springtown 2,639 residents; the city of Weatherford 25,515 residents; and the city of Willow Park having 3,089 residents. The county's remaining population resides in a variety of small towns and unincorporated areas.
Parker County includes the Aledo, Brock, Garner, Millsap, Peaster, Poolville, Springtown and Weatherford Independent School Districts.
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and StaffingParker CAD was formed in 1981 and became active in 1982. As of January, 2006, Parker CAD has a total of 32 full-time staff positions, including five supervisory positions and no part-time positions. Ten positions are full-time appraisers. The district contracts with Pritchard & Abbott, Inc. for professional appraisal services on utilities, minerals and selected industrial accounts.
Exhibit 1 presents the appraisal district's current organization chart.
The Parker 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.
Parker CAD provides appraisal services for 18 taxing units as shown in Exhibit 2.
Exhibit 2
Parker CAD Taxing Units
Name of Taxing Entity Parker County Poolville ISD Springtown ISD Weatherford ISD Millsap ISD Aledo ISD Peaster ISD Brock ISD Garner ISD City of Springtown City of Weatherford City of Willow Park City of Aledo City of Millsap Parker County HD Weatherford Junior College District Parker County ESD #1 Parker County ESD #3 Source: Parker CAD, 2006. Most appraisal districts contract out some work to private firms. The Parker CAD appraises all categories of properties in-house with the exception of minerals, utilities and selected industrial accounts, which they contract with Pritchard & Abbott, Inc. PTD does not track appraisals performed by external appraisers. 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 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 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 Parker CAD is included with appraisal districts with 75,000 - 149,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Parcels and Categories Parker State Average1 Group Average1 Parcel Size Group
(by number of locally appraised parcels):75,000 - 149,9991Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels 80,253 49,497 102,421 Number Taxing Units 18 15 23 Estimated Locally Appraised Parcels per Staff1 2,508 2,985 3,037 Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report): Residential Value 55.4% 51.3% 52.0% Non-Residential, Non Mineral 43.6% 45.0% 45.3% Non-Residential, Mineral 1.0% 3.7% 2.7% Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report): Parcel Type Number of Parcels Percent of Parcels A - Residential 32,978 41.1% 50.0% 48.7% B - Multi-Family 320 0.4% 1.2% 1.2% C - Vacant Lots 11,689 14.6% 14.7% 19.1% D - Agricultural2 15,863 19.8% 14.4% 11.6% E - Farm and Ranch Improvement 7,833 9.8% 5.1% 4.2% F1 - Commercial Real 1,453 1.8% 3.4% 3.6% L1 - Commercial Personal 3,156 3.9% 6.8% 6.9% M1 - Mobile Homes 3,317 4.1% 2.5% 2.8% O - Residential Inventory 3,644 4.5% 1.8% 1.6% S - Special Inventory 0 0.0% 0.1% 0.2% Total3 80,253 100.0% 100.0% 100.0% 1
Calculated by the Property Tax Division.
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.
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 Parker 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 and Staffing Information Parker State Average1 Group Average1 Financial Information 2004 Budget $1,643,530 $1,108,158 $2,105,659 2004 Surplus $25,000 $48,656 $97,377 2004 Surplus as Percent of Budget1 1.5% 4.4% 4.6% 2005 Budget $1,743,075 $1,150,302 $2,266,100 Percent Change in Budget1 6.1% 3.8% 7.6% 2004 Budget per Total Parcel1 $17.53 $9.33 $17.16 2004 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 $20.48 $22.30 $20.56 Staffing - 2004 Budget Full Time 32 17 34 Part Time 0 1 1 Supervisory 5 3 7 Programmers 0 1 12 Supervisory to Staff Ratio1 1:6 1:5 1:5 Chief Appraiser Performs Appraisals? Yes 2004 Total Compensation - Actual $100,000 $52,557 $84,476 Appraisers - 2004 Budget Full - Time 10 6 15 Part - Time 0 0 0 Salary Range: Low $28,000 $25,476 $25,512 High $75,000 $38,313 $54,985 2004 Training Budget $15,000 $9,140 $16,886 Number Registered with Board of Tax Professional Examiners 11 8 16 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, Parker CAD appraised 2,508 parcels per full time employee. 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 and Parker CAD is considered a larger entity.
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.
In Exhibit 5 operations information is provided for the Parker CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Operations Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Operations Information Parker State Average1 Group Average1 Reappraisal Last Year of Reappraisal 2002 Next Year of Reappraisal 2005 Type of Reappraisal: Complete Method of Reappraisal: In-House Protests Protests (2004 tax year) 515 3,164 4,242 Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel1 1.0% 6.0% 5.0% Collections Consolidated Collection Yes Collection Budget $418,725 Geographic Information System (GIS) District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? No Percent GIS Complete 80.0% 74.0% Board of Directors - 2004 Members 5 6 6 Tax Assessor Votes? Elected Members 0 3 0 1
Calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.1.3
Self Evaluation QuestionnaireIn preparation for this ASR, the Parker 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 them. PTD asks each appraisal district undergoing an ASR to perform the self-assessment.
The Parker 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:
- new office building in 2002 with over 400 square feet of office space per employee;
- staff have the appropriate skills as all administrative positions have college degrees, all appraisers are registered with BTPE and five appraisers have RPA's;
- staff salaries and benefits are better than most appraisal districts of similar size.
The CAD also indicated some areas of concern. These included:
- ratio studies are not conducted on a timely basis, but instead on a three year cycle corresponding to the reappraisal plan;
- the CAD does not have a ratio study software program; and
- only a select number of personal property accounts receive an on-site visit.
In Chapter 1, on legal issues and assessment cycles, the CAD indicated that it understands the legal framework, value standard and assessment cycles required.
In Chapter 2, on resources and management, the CAD indicated that it is satisfied with the budget process, personnel training, management, organization, training and current skill level of the staff. Of particular note was the district's new building, staff skills, salaries and benefits.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, the CAD indicated that its system meets computer and application software requirements for assessment office operations. The answers also reflect the fact that the CAD is in the process of developing a geographic information system.
In Chapter 4, on mapping, the CAD indicated that it has a mapping system with the necessary tools and information to meet the standards of assessment. The answers indicate the CAD knows how the system works and has integrated it with the computer system in order to have a working system.
In Chapter 5, on data collection, the CAD indicated the CAD knows what data is required by Comptroller rules, state law, and appraisal standards. They also stated that they collect and use the data in the assessment process.
In Chapter 6, on land evaluation, the CAD indicated it understands the requirements of situs, size, location, shape, density, unit measurements, and adjustments for negative influences. These are all required either by appraisal standards or by state law or Comptroller rule. However, the CAD's answers indicate the lack of automated statistical software to assist in the valuation process, but appraisers are conducting ratio studies using an Excel spreadsheet developed by the assistant chief appraiser.
In Chapter 7, on residential property valuation, the CAD indicated it understands the three approaches to value and the data requirements to achieve an effective appraisal program for residential property. The answers indicate that the CAD follows the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
In Chapter 8, on commercial property valuation, the CAD indicated it follows the accepted standards and the published requirements of commercial valuation reflected in Texas statutes, appraisal standards and Comptroller rules. The CAD noted, however, that automated value estimates are not reviewed by senior appraisers and software tools are not employed in analyzing commercial properties, but the senior appraisers are conducting edit checks for possible discrepancies.
In Chapter 9, on legal sales data, ratio studies, and stratification, the CAD indicated it screens sales and uses sales in the valuation analysis. However, the CAD further indicated that it conducts ratio studies in conjunction with the reappraisal plan. The CAD continued that ratio studies are not used in planning reappraisal priorities due to the reappraisal plan requiring a reappraisal of all property every three years. Also, the CAD noted that it did not have a software program for ratio studies capable of evaluating appraisal uniformity and appraisal level.
In Chapter 10, on personal property assessment, the CAD indicated it follows the accepted procedures for discovery, and appraisal of personal property. However, the CAD answered that it physically inspected only a select number of personal property accounts.
In Chapter 11, on assessment administration, the CAD indicated it is following the accepted practices of assessment administration in Comptroller rules and International Association of Assessing Officers standards.
In Chapter 12, on defense of values, the CAD indicated it follows the accepted standards of the Comptroller, and International Association of Assessing Officers Standards.
In Chapter 13, on public relations, the CAD indicated it believes it has an effective public relations program.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value StudyThe Property Value Study (PVS) determines the total property value in each school CAD in the Parker 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. 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.
Local tax roll value, or local value, is determined by the county appraisal district and submitted 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 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. The 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, appointed by the Comptroller's General Counsel, and reporting directly to the Comptroller. The hearings examiner is not an employee of the PTD.
When conducting the property value study, PTD assigns properties to various categories, such as residential, commercial and rural property. Properties are divided into categories so that like properties are assessed together.
Garner ISD was unable to get into the confidence interval and was certified an eligible district in July 2005.
A review of the school districts in the county indicates that Parker CAD is under-appraising rural residences outside the acceptable tolerance range in Poolville, Weatherford, Millsap, Peaster, and Garner. The CAD is under-appraising rural residences within the acceptable tolerance range in Springtown, Aledo, and Brock.
In the 2004 PVS Garner (identified as eligible) school district fell outside the study's statistical margin of error. Rural residences (sub-category D2) are the primary reason that the school district's values are not within the acceptable range determined by the study.
In general, a ratio of between 0.95 and 1.05 in any property category makes it more likely that the district is appraising property within the margin of error, or that it is appraising property at or near market value, according to the PVS.
Eligible School District
Garner ISD was identified as an eligible district with values outside of the confidence interval limit. The confidence interval contains a range of values which statistically are acceptable as representing the market value.
There were three property categories tested in Garner ISD: (1) Category A, Single-family Residential; (2) Category D, Rural Real Estate; 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. The ISD category D1 ratio is 1.32 because the CAD is over-appraising improved and native pastureland. Category D1 is 2 percent of the ISD's total value.
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 in an open market transaction.
The CAD is placing a below-market value on the sub-category D2, rural residential. A review of the sub-category D2 properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 17 percent to a high of 111 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of .7378.
Sub-category D2 makes up 31 percent of the ISD's value and 68 percent of the tested value.
Garner did not formally appeal the Property Value Study.
Other School Districts
There are seven other school districts in the Parker CAD. They are Poolville, Springtown, Weatherford, Millsap, Aledo, Peaster and Brock. These seven school districts were within their respective confidence interval limits.
Parker CAD Summary
In summary, the Parker overall CAD median ratio is 99.
Nevertheless, there are wide ranges within these categories. For example: In Category A (Single Family Residential) the ratios range from .59 to 8.42 with a median ratio of .99.
In Category D2, Real Property Non-Qualified Land, the ratios range from .17 to 2.95 with a median ratio of .99.
In Category F1, Real Property-Commercial, the ratios range from .79 to 2.02 with a median ratio of 1.04.
In Category G, Real Property-Minerals, the ratios range from .84 to 1.51 with a median ratio of 1.02.
In Category J, Real and Tangible Personal Property (utilities), the ratios range from .33 to 4.25 with a median ratio of .99.
In L1, Commercial Personal Property, the ratios range from .89 to 1.70 with a median of ratio of 1.03.
