Findings of the Appraisal Standards Review
In December 2005, the Comptroller released an ASR of Upshur CAD because the 2003 PVS identified New Diana ISD as eligible school district. The report made 14 recommendations to improve Upshur CAD's appraisal practices and operations. Upshur CAD faced a number of challenges including stabilizing district leadership and management functions; planning for the unexpected and change management; and following generally accepted appraisal practices.
In September 2007, PTAD reviewed the progress made by Upshur CAD in implementing the recommendations found in the original report and found the CAD had fully implemented all recommendations.
In 2007, the 2006 PVS determined the Ore City ISD in Upshur CAD was an eligible school district. This ASR looks at the reasons Ore City ISD received an eligible designation and how the CAD can improve operations to assure it appraises property at market value.
This chapter of the report addresses commendations, findings and recommendations from the appraisal standards review of the Upshur CAD in three sections:
2.1 Commendable Practice
2.2 Key Findings and Recommendations
2.3 Other Recommendation
As part of its review process, PTAD identifies best practices used by each CAD under review. These commendable practices improve efficiency or in some instances address past operational weaknesses. We commend Upshur CAD for its efforts and hope this commendation gives other appraisal districts an idea for improving their own operations.
The CAD temporarily reprioritized the cartographer's job duties to assist with field studies data collection and to meet the workload demand caused by a tenfold increase in appeals before the appraisal review board.
To address the reallocation of critical mapping staff, the Comptroller's 2003 ASR of Upshur CAD recommended the CAD perform a feasibility study for the acquisition of an automated mapping system compatible with the CAD's computerized appraisal system.
Appraisers use maps to identify all property. If the maps contain errors, are out-of-date or missing, accurate appraisals are not possible. Computerizing a mapping system can provide:
- a powerful analytical tool in property appraisal;
- increased staffing productivity and flexibility to meet seasonal demand of appeals;
- an efficient means of organizing, displaying and using spatially oriented data; and
- an opportunity to improve quality by eliminating inconsistent symbols or standards and by correcting mismatch errors between contiguous map sheets or differences in scale.
As noted in the follow-up report to the 2003 ASR, Upshur CAD awarded a new contract for the appraisal and mapping software in November 2005. Its new appraisal system was operational by March 2006. County mapping is nearly complete, except for property that needs extensive deed research. According to the chief appraiser, more than 95 percent of all property is available in the mapping system. The cadastral mapping and appraisal software systems are integrated, as are the CAD's aerial and tax maps.
The CAD's software company performs all map updates. A staff mapper, with many years of service at Upshur CAD, researches deeds and maps of the remaining property locations. The staff mapper manages the mapping system for its use in the CAD's appraisal operations.
As a result of computerizing maps and integrating them with the appraisal system, Upshur CAD improved or made progress toward improving appraisal performance of rural land on a year-over-year basis in five out of seven ISDs in terms of level of appraisal indicated by findings of the 2007 PVS shown in Exhibit 1.
2006-07 Year-Over-Year Results for Subcategory D2
Non-Qualified Acres and Farm and Ranch Improvements
Source: CAD Summary Worksheet, 2006 PVS and 2007 PVS.
Further, the 2007 PVS shows improvement by the CAD in six of seven ISDs in Subcategory D2, in terms of appraisal uniformity as measured by the COD.
In a short period, Upshur CAD computerized its maps, integrated them with the appraisal system, added multiuse mapping layers and improved the CAD's appraisal performance in rural land not used in agriculture.
Key Findings and Recommendations
As part of the review process, PTAD makes recommendations to address challenges identified during its review of a CAD. Below are recommendations addressing key challenges associated with Upshur CAD's appraisal activities.
Upshur CAD's appraisal manual does not fully document the residential class system used in its appraisal model.
According to Property Tax Code Sec. 23.01, if the appraisal district determines the appraised value of a property using mass appraisal standards, the mass appraisal standards must comply with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice.
USPAP Standards Rules 6-4 and 6-5 recommends, among other standards, employing recognized techniques for specifying property valuation models; for calibrating mass appraisal models; and for collecting, verifying and analyzing such data as are necessary and appropriate to develop new cost of the improvements.
Upshur CAD uses Marshall & Swift, a national residential cost handbook, as a substitute for its local residential appraisal manual's system of residential property classification, but the CAD's appraisal model applies local improvement cost schedules using a different system of residential quality classes. According to the chief appraiser, the CAD derives a local modifier to adapt Marshall & Swift cost tables for use in its cost model for appraising real property. The CAD does not document this appraisal process and procedure in its appraisal manual.
The documentation of the residential property class system in the CAD's appraisal manual is different from that used by the CAD in its mass appraisal model, which uses 21 possible classes of single-family residential property. A one-page insert outlines the residential class system used in the CAD's appraisal model. The insert identifies the codes, but omits guidelines for their development, distinction and application. The CAD residential appraisal manual categorizes improvements into only six classes or conditions of residential buildings: Low, Fair, Average, Good, Very Good and Excellent quality of construction. Each class in the manual includes pictures of benchmark improvements in the class and brief instructions on what elements to use to apply the classification to individual properties.
When documenting residential improvements, a benchmark property will have a base price per square foot, the market data to support it and its own unique schedule of adjustments. The appraisal manual, however, does not describe the benchmark improvement for each class of residential property used in the appraisal model. The manual, for example, does not establish differences amongst brick veneer 'excellent (low)' to 'excellent (average)' to 'excellent (good)' class grades (Exhibit 2).
The improvement cost schedules identify significant economic differences in per-foot unit values of $136.57, $151.52 and $166.47 for residential brick veneer improvements less than 1,600 square feet with "excellent condition." The local appraisal manual does not provide the user with documented, identifiable and descriptive benchmark property appraisal characteristics for the improvement cost schedules' bottom-to-top valuation increase of 18 percent for these 1,600-square-foot properties in Exhibit 2 that are essentially the same construction class, built from similar materials and have the same life expectancy.
Upshur CAD Residential Improvement Cost Schedules
Sample Property Classifications
Source: Upshur CAD improvement cost schedules Nov. 16, 2007.
Without the CAD's appraisal manual including identifiable property class characteristics consistent with its appraisal model, CAD field appraisers lack the practical description of benchmark property differences to appraise residential property at market value. By developing functional appraisal manuals, Upshur CAD can provide guidelines to mass appraisers and training materials for appraisal staff trainees on how to apply the CAD's key appraisal processes. In this way, Upshur CAD will enable its mass appraisers to adequately develop, document and report a USPAP-compliant mass appraisal with the common set of procedures necessary to produce and communicate credible mass appraisals.
Fort Bend CAD, for example, developed an appraisal manual that helps taxpayers and staff understand the steps the appraisal district follows to accomplish its objectives. The comprehensive manuals contribute to a well-trained staff and consistency in classifying and appraising properties.
Update the CAD's appraisal manual's residential cost schedules to ensure they are consistent with its appraisal model, so appraisal staff can use them to calibrate the schedules to estimate property values accurately and uniformly and that comply with Property Tax Code Section 23.01 and USPAP Standards 6-4 and 6-5.
Upshur CAD does not fully use its appraisal model's automated functions; consequently, appraisers are required to calculate depreciation manually for each improvement.
Property Tax Code Section 23.011, Cost Method of Appraisal, requires that if the chief appraiser uses the cost method of appraisal to determine the market value of real property, the chief appraiser, among other steps, shall:
- use cost data obtained from generally accepted sources;
- make any appropriate adjustment for physical, functional, or economic obsolescence; and
- make available to the public on request cost data developed and used by the chief appraiser as applied to all properties within a property category and may charge a reasonable fee to the public for data.
According to IAAO's Standard on Mass Appraisal of Real Property,
Mass appraisal is the process of valuing a group of properties as of a given date using common data, standardized methods and statistical testing... To determine a parcel's value, assessing officers must rely upon valuation equations, tables and schedules developed through mathematical analysis of market data.
In most computer assisted mass appraisal (CAMA) systems, depreciation is the loss of improvement value that arises from diminished physical condition of the improvements or shorter life span due to exposure to the elements. The age-life method of estimating accrued depreciation uses a mathematical formula based on age. As improvement age increases, the remaining economic life of the improvement decreases. Percent good is the percentage of remaining economic life of each improvement. CAMA systems use the age-life method to reduce the value of improvements uniformly based on the age of buildings. Age-life tables may reflect different rates of depreciation based on the quality of construction and building use classification.
In the audited sample of Upshur CAD's property records, critical data for year built is missing from some property improvement records. Year built is the actual, or estimated, original construction year of the buildings. Effective year built is a modification of year built that appraisers use to describe substantial updates to improvements. Effective year built can be based on current conditions of buildings or estimates of approximate year built. Age is the year of reappraisal minus the effective year or actual year built.
A measurement of age is required for the automated calculation of depreciation in the cost approach, which is Upshur CAD's primary valuation approach. Without year built, or effective year built for improvements, the CAD cannot derive and apply to building valuations a standardized calculation of building depreciation factors. In applying the cost approach to value, Upshur CAD uses percent good to quantify the improvement value remaining after depreciation is factored out. For example, a building with 20 percent depreciation has 80 percent remaining life.
The Upshur CAD database is available to the public via the vendor's Web site. This service provides instant access to individual property information including homestead, ownership, address and all related appraisal data such as square footage of living area, land size, year built, class, construction type, appraisal roll history and a variety of other useful information.
Upshur CAD recently inspected property in the Harmony ISD according to its reappraisal plan. At the time of this review, this ISD includes the most current mass appraisals by the CAD; whereas Ore City ISD is not scheduled for reinspection until the 2009 appraisal year.
In a residential ratio study of Harmony ISD, some sold property records are missing year built and effective year built, so the CAD cannot use its automated valuation model to annually calculate new age or readjust percent good on the property shown in Exhibit 3.
This requires the appraiser to change percent good on all property manually. As Exhibit 3 shows in the comparison of age to percent good, inconsistencies in their relationship occur in the database. The Construction Class Code 7 for residential property in Exhibit 3 indicates inconsistencies between age and percent good within Harmony ISD.
Harmony ISD Residential Sold Properties
Comparison of Age versus Percent Good
|Property ID Number||Construction Class Code||Age||
Sources: Upshur CAD sold property list, external vendor's Web site and 2007 CAD appraisal cards.
A field review of the Comptroller's audit sample of property records (residential and commercial) for Ore City ISD indicates some records are missing year built and do not have estimated effective year built. The CAD's appraisal software cannot calculate age and percent good from either year built or effective year built. Percent good is stored on property record cards in the physical depreciation field. The physical depreciation field is not programmatically connected to year built or effective year built in the CAD's automated valuation model.
On the CAD's depreciation table, percent good is based on age. Thus, it is essential to have the year built or effective year built to correctly estimate percent good. When every improved property record has year built or effective year built, then age and percent good can be automatically recalculated each year. In an annual reappraisal cycle, manual adjustments to all buildings' percent good is very difficult, but annual computer-generated adjustments to percent good may be automated as part of the software application of the cost approach to value.
Automated calculation of percent good by Upshur CAD's appraisal valuation model will reduce the appraisers' need to assign depreciation and eliminate appraisers' subjective opinions in estimating depreciation for property improvements. In an annual reappraisal with limited staff, it is inefficient for appraisers to recalculate depreciation for each building and improvement. The application of depreciation (percent good) becomes inconsistent among appraisers and is not uniformly applied within and among parcels of the same property class.
Update all CAMA system real property records with year built and effective year built to use the appraisal software's automated features to mass calculate building depreciation.
Without essential data on year built, the CAD's method for describing building condition with effective year built is incomplete and works at cross-purposes for using effective age to extract depreciation schedules derived from the market.
The chief appraiser indicated the CAD's appraisal model uses effective year built as a means to appraise the condition of an improvement, expressed in relation to year built as shown in Exhibit 3. Some of the property records in the audited sample exclude critical data for improvement year built, making it difficult to establish a relationship to condition with effective year built. The IAAO's Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration notes the relationship between market-derived effective age and depreciation for use in building schedules for mass appraisal:
- depreciation is usually estimated using depreciation schedules, which show the typical loss at various stages or effective ages;
- depreciation schedules represent the demand side of the market and, therefore, should be derived from the market; and
- depreciation schedules can be extracted from the market by correlating sale prices, less the value of land and other additions, with effective age.
Economic life and remaining economic life (economic life minus effective age) can be extracted from the market when there is adequate land and building sale price data comparable to the subject property derived from valid arms-length sales. Exhibit 4 shows the basic steps for calculating effective age from market data.
Steps for Calculating Effective Age from Market Data
|1.||identify the sale price|
|2.||identify age of the sale property|
|3.||develop market-supported land value and land improvement value|
|4.||deduct land value and land improvement value from the sale price to determine the residual building value for the sale property|
|5.||develop a reconstructed cost new for the sale property|
|6.||subtract the residual building value from the reconstructed cost new of the sale property to determine the amount of depreciation attributed to the building|
|7.||divide the dollar amount of depreciation into the reconstructed cost new to determine what percentage of the building is depreciated|
|8.||divide the age of the sale property by the depreciation percentage to determine the indicated economic life new of the sale property|
|9.||perform this analysis with each market sale to develop a range of economic life new values supported by market data|
|10.||make plot graphs of effective age versus percent good and fit them with trend lines for extracting depreciation tables|
Source: Adapted from Property Assessment and Administration, 1990.
A best practices for data quality assurance from the IAAO Standard on Automated Valuation Models (AVMs) is that all data used in model specification and calibration pass a screening test in which subjective data is consistent across the population of property the model values. Such data includes quality, physical condition and effective age. The Standard also notes cost models are anchored in tables developed by studying local improvement cost data, and such models are used to derive Replacement Cost New (RCN). Because the initial coefficients provided by cost estimators represent the supply side of the residential market, RCN estimates need additional calibration for actual property condition (depreciation), location and a supportable estimate of vacant land value. Such items represent the demand side of the market and the mass appraiser's ability to calibrate them determines the accuracy and establishes the credibility of the cost model.
Extract the calculation of effective age from local market data and use it for developing depreciation schedules tailored to appropriate property groups by location.
Upshur CAD primarily uses the cost approach to value, but does not annually update land values in a systematic process.
To comply with Property Tax Code Section 25.02, the CAD is required to provide separate appraised values for land and improvements on its appraisal records. Section 25.02(a) (5), and (6), and Comptroller Rule 9.3004(b)(6) and (7) require appraisal records to include the appraised value of land, which may be market value or a special appraised value, depending on whether the land is qualified for special appraisal. Both the statute and the rule require a separate, distinct appraised value for the improvements to the land, if any.
In the reviewer's audit sample of property records for Ore City ISD, the basis for the appraised value of most residential land was the unit value-per-acre. The CAD, however, appraised parcels in some neighborhoods with similar land use using a price-per-front-foot unit value. In the audit sample stratified by value, the residential land appraised by front-foot cost shows higher appraised values-per-lot than the land of similar size residential lots appraised by cost-per-acre. Exhibit 5 shows actual CAD unit values per acre of the land component and the difference in appraisals among those values of the same sold property in Harmony ISD presented in Exhibit 3.
The property data in Exhibit 5 includes a range of values of land size of up to about six acres sorted by parcel size in ascending order. The exhibit shows that land unit values-per-acre are not consistent among like-sized lots. Seven records have land sizes from 1.00 to 1.012 acres with land values from $960 to $6,580. Some land-to-property value ratios are below 10 percent of property value, but some are more than 40 percent of property value. Inconsistencies exist in Upshur CAD's land valuations between:
- land values of like unit-value methods; and
- land allocation ratios of land-to-total property value.
Residential Sold Property in Harmony ISD
Comparison of Acres, Land Values and 2006 Total Values
|21964||1.012||$ 960||$ 949||$74,350||0.01|
|21532 & 21540||3.127||$21,150||$6,764||$52,200||0.41|
Source: Upshur CAD online property search.
A further problem with the CAD's land schedule is that some property records do not show the land sizes.
Without a market-derived, detailed land value schedule and complete data on land size that appear on all records, the CAD cannot accurately calculate and appraise the land value that lot size contributes to the overall value of property, which is a necessary component used in the cost approach to value.
Develop and document a coordinated set of new detailed land and improvement tables that track local market values for use in the CAD's automated appraisal system.
Upshur CAD appraisers do not always consider the three valuation approaches to attain market value of property.
Property Tax Code Section 23.0101, Consideration of Alternate Appraisal Methods, states, "In determining the market value of property, the chief appraiser shall consider the cost, income and market data comparison methods of appraisal and use the most appropriate method."
The IAAO's Standard on Mass Appraisal, Sections 1, 2 and 3, state that all three approaches, sales comparison, cost and income, play important roles in the mass appraisal of real property. In mass appraisal applications, the reliability of all three approaches is dependent upon the quality of the data used in the development of the applicable valuation equations or tables. The cost approach requires current and accurate estimates of land market values, cost data and accrued depreciation from all causes. The sales comparison approach requires adequate sales samples to provide accurate indications of current market values. The income approach requires reliable income and expense data, as well as objective evidence of the relationship of future income to present value. Successful development and application of all three approaches is subject to the reliability of data on property characteristics determining value. Which technique works best in a given situation will vary with the type of property, availability of data, training and experience of appraisers and other factors.
In addition to the cost approach, CADs must consider using the sales comparison and income approaches to appraise some property. Upshur CAD seldom uses these approaches to property appraisal for estimates of market value. The appraisal manual has no procedures or guidelines for using or considering the sales comparison.
Upshur CAD's appraisal software provides automated appraisal models for cost, sales comparison and income approaches. The comparable sales approach needs valid sold properties to value subject properties. This is a market-derived approach to value, useful not only in providing accurate values for older improved property, but essential for estimating the market value of land for use in the cost approach. The appraisal staff does not use the comparable sales approach because the CAD does not emphasize it, as evidenced by the lack of written procedures for gathering market sales data or verifying the sales with sellers, buyers or real estate brokers.
The chief appraiser and senior appraiser are primarily responsible for market analysis and appraisal of all property. There are no written guidelines for any appraisal approaches. Written guidelines for applying the income approach not only will provide the appraisal staff with a consistent process to follow if the need arises, but will also comprise a structured order of work steps that may be broken down into specific activities that can be measured, modeled and calibrated.
The CAD does not consider the cost approach against the other appraisal approaches, which might highlight limitations between approaches or potential updates to cost tables. Within the CAMA system, reconciling the cost tables against valuation estimates from either the sales comparison or income approaches will improve the relationship of cost tables to actual market values. Use of all three approaches to value will improve the quality of market value estimates by supplementing one approach's weaknesses with another's strengths, for instance:
- a key difficulty in use of the cost approach is determination of land value, which is estimated independently from comparable sales; estimation of accrued depreciation must be based on non-cost data that is primarily sales;
- reliability of the sales comparison approach rests on the number and quality of available sales, the absence of which may indicate the suitability of the cost approach;
- the comparable sales method may be complemented by estimates of depreciated improvement costs for separating land value estimates;
- on a category basis, the income approach is the preferred valuation method for income producing properties with known, reliable cash flow data available, as likewise are well-supported income multipliers and capitalization rates; and
- the income approach is the only method for productivity calculations that the Property Tax Code allows for special agricultural appraisals.
Most CAMA systems are designed for production, with limited market analysis programs. A CAD can calibrate cost approach tables directly against the market by using sales and property characteristics in direct market model software. IAAO's Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, Chapter 6, The Sales Comparison Approach, Applying the Model, identifies several model specifications (model structures) including the hybrid model as a method to develop adjustment for the cost approach.
The hybrid method uses both additive (dollar amounts) and multiplicative (percentages) adjustments and more accurately reflects the behavior of the market...The hybrid adjustment method classifies attributes as quantitative or qualitative. Quantitative attributes are usually additive and can easily be expressed as dollar amounts; qualitative attributes are usually expressed as percentages and can be either additive or multiplicative.
The lack of written guidelines limits the use of the other two approaches within the CAD. When a CAD does not perform model calibration tests in a systematic process, unintended results may occur on ratio studies conducted to measure and monitor appraisal performance. For example, Upshur CAD's use of the cost model without independently and annually performing land value estimates based on a comparable sales approach may result in a low land schedule. This could have contributed to single-family residential testing with a median level of appraisal of 0.91 on the 2006 PVS.
According to the IAAO's Standard on Automated Valuation Models (IAAO, 2003), model specification and calibration are, in practice, a repetitive process that entails the following steps:
- specify a model;
- test the specification with calibration;
- make adjustments to model specification;
- test new specification with calibration; and
- repeat the process until statistically significant improvement is minimized.
A CAD can calibrate building and improvement attributes separately and apply them to a model structure representing the following:
- the cost approach
- sales comparison approach, and
- income approach, as applicable.
A best practice is to calibrate the models (cost, sales comparison and income approaches) directly against the market. Since most CAMA systems have limited market analysis capabilities, CADs can supplement their CAMA systems with generic statistical software packages. Two statistical software packages have built-in appraisal ratio studies and hybrid (non-linear) model structure subsystems designed to assist appraisers. These software systems are only appraisal tools, but when used properly, they will improve the accuracy, equity and uniformity of the CAD's appraisals and performance as measured by independent ratio studies.
For example, Nueces CAD has the well-written and comprehensive Commercial Procedures Manual, which contains the department's reappraisal plan and a USPAP document. It discusses when and how to use the three approaches to value for commercial properties - the cost, market and income approaches. It contains a classification guide showing various pictures of commercial buildings. This assists the commercial appraiser in being uniform and consistent in classifying property.
Expand use of statistical software to specify and calibrate all three approaches to market value when appropriate according to the Property Tax Code and generally accepted appraisal standards and practices.
During the course of the review process, PTAD identified a management and operational issue that may not be directly related to the appraisal process, but could indirectly affect the CAD's ability to conduct appraisals accurately and consistently. Upshur CAD is not obligated to implement this recommendation, but it is provided here for consideration as an additional way to enhance operational effectiveness and efficiency. Some of these recommendations, however, may advise compliance with existing laws. Appraisal districts, as Texas governmental entities, are required to comply with all applicable laws.
Upshur CAD contracts with appraisal firms to value real and personal property, but does not monitor the contractors' work or require them to deliver supporting appraisal information to the CAD, even though the CAD's contracts with the appraisal firms require it.
Property Tax Code Section 6.01 (b) defines the responsibility of an appraisal district.
(a) An appraisal district is established in each county.
(b) The district is responsible for appraising property in the district for ad valorem tax purposes of each taxing unit that imposes ad valorem taxes on property in a district:
The chief appraiser is responsible for the CAD's appraisal valuations. Chief appraisers need sufficient knowledge for development of valuation formulas and valuation calculations of all taxable property within the CAD. Property Tax Code Section 25.01(c) defines appraisal property records:
(a) A contract for appraisal services for an appraisal district is invalid if it does not provide that copies of the appraisal, together with supporting data, must be made available to the appraisal district and such appraisal and supporting data shall be public record. "Support data" shall not be construed to include personal notes, correspondence, working papers, through processes, or any other matters of a privileged or proprietary nature.
IAAO's Standard on Contracting for Assessment Services, Section 4.2, requires contracts have specific provisions that, "...establishes the legal obligation of all parties" and incorporate:
- a detailed description of the work to be performed;
- a time frame, delivery date, and other requirements of the project;
- the amount and terms of the contract delineating all expenses (travel and other expenses), including all billable expenses;
- the authorized signatures of the assessment agency and other parties;
- performance standards;
- testing standards and procedures;
- performance bonds and other insurance coverage, including indemnification and hold harmless clauses;
- required documentation;
- implementation, installation, and delivery dates;
- responsibility for maintenance and upgrades;
- payment provisions;
- termination rights and compensation or penalty payments to the agency in the event of failure to perform, unavailability of funds, liquidation, or other factors;
- arbitration of contractual and other disputes;
- confidentiality agreements; and
- other relevant considerations.
In this IAAO Standard, Section 5.1 generally requires contracts to have these monitoring provisions:
Agency personnel must work closely with the contractor throughout the project to ensure full understanding and confidence in the system. They must be able to operate, maintain and support the system once the contract is completed. Similarly, the assessment agency must possess, train or acquire an internal staff that can use the contractor's products and services effectively.
The Upshur CAD chief appraiser accepts the appraisal values for gas, oil and utility property from its appraisal company without question, analysis or testing the results. The CAD's contract does not require delivery of detailed appraisal records, appraisal manuals, appraisal tables of income and expense used to value property or the market analysis the appraisal company uses in the valuation process. The CAD's contract does not include monitoring of the contractor's work progress or provide for quality review of values. The CAD's contract, provision 8, states the following:
Company shall provide all such appraisals and supporting data to the district no later than May 15 of each year or as soon thereafter as practicable, in order to allow District to comply with relevant notice requirements set forth in the Texas Property Tax Code, specifically including Section 25.19. Company shall in good faith devote such time and resources necessary to ensure timely and accurate appraisals under this Agreement in compliance with the Texas Property Tax Code. Company shall provide a written report to District summarizing its progress in completing such appraisal, such reports to be delivered to District's chief appraiser on or about Feb. 15 and April 15 of each year. (Emphasis added.)
The CAD does not require the supporting data or documentation for these property values.
The CAD contracts with an appraisal company to help CAD appraisers inspect and appraise residential and commercial categories of property. The contract does not provide for staggered deliverables of appraised properties nor does it provide for monitoring of the appraisal company's progress and procedures.
In Hansford CAD's process for managing and monitoring contracted services, for example, provides continual oversight. The chief appraiser is responsible for supervising all other contracts except his or her employment contract, which the board manages. All contracts explain what services the CAD expects each vendor to perform, what the CAD gets and when it expects the delivery of services.
Improve annual appraisal contract management and require contractors to provide more appraisal support documentation for appraisals.