Texas Register, Volume 11, Number 2, Pages 81-106, January 7, 1986 Page: 102
81-106 p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
curately represent the ratio of tax ap-
praisals to actual market value.
The agency disagrees with this comment
and proposal for several reasons. First,
it attempts to establish an evidentiary
rule that Is not In accordance with
generally accepted appraisal standards,
and would seriously impair the agency's
ability to accept, develop, and analyze
data that indicates the ratio of tax ap-
praised value to true market value of a
property.
Second, the way the proposal was word-
ed would have imposed stricter rules as
to what constitutes evidence for school
districts and appraisal districts than
would have been required of the board's
staff. That is, the proposal would have ef-
fectively prevented a school or appraisal
district from offering an appraisal as
evidence of the ratio of tax appraised
value to true market value for a property
while imposing no similar limitation on
the use of appraisals by the board in
developing appraisal levels. The board
and staff disagree with any proposal that
would favor one side over another.
Third, the proposal would have imposed
a substantive rule regarding protest hear-
ings without permitting a period for
public comment. The rules as proposed
by the staff are purely procedural In
nature. The board would not have been
in substantial compliance with the Ad-
ministrative Procedure and Texas Reg-
ister Act, Texas Civil Statutes, Article
6252-13a(5)(e), had it acted on the com-
mentor's proposal without first providing
for a public comment period.
Comments against the rules as proposed
were submitted by Arthur O'Connell,
deputy chief apraiser, Bexar Appraisal
District; Dianne Lavake, chief appraiser,
Carson county Appraisal District; and
Tom Harkey, superintendent, Whitedeer
Independent School District.
Comments in favor of the rule or against
the public testimony were submitted by
James Archer, chief appraiser, Travis
County Appraisal District, and Russell
Graham, attorney-at-law.
The new sections are adopted under the
Education Code, 11.86, which requires
the board to adopt procedural rules
governing the conduct of protest hear-
ings; the Property Tax Code, 5.10, which
requires the board to conduct an annual
study of the level of appraisals in each
appraisal district; and Texas Civil
Statutes, Article 6252-13a(4), which re-
quires a state agency to adopt rules of
practice setting forth the nature and re-
quirements of all formal and informal
procedures available concerning ad-
ministrative action.
165.71. Audits of School District Tax-
able Property Values.
(a) A school district may request .an
audit of the board's findings of its taxable
property value.(b) The commissioner of education
may request an audit of the board's findings
of taxable property value within any school
district.
(c) An audit request may be submit-
ted at any time after the board certifies final
values to the commissioner of education,
but must be filed before October 1 of the
year following the year of the study. This
deadline may be extended by a showing that
the petitioner could not have submitted
evidence relating to the request prior to the
deadline or for other good cause.
(d) A school district may not request
an audit if:
(1) the audit request raises the
same issue or presents the same evidence
presented during a protest of preliminary
findings of value;
(2) the audit request raises an issue
or presents evidence that should have been
raised during a protest of preliminary find-
ings of value; or
(3) the request concerns an error in
the school district's annual report of prop-
erty value discovered after May 31 of the
year following the year of the study, unless
*he information supporting the change did
not exist in time to be incorporated into the
board's findings.
(e) The commissioner of education
may not request an audit if:
(1) the audit request raises the
same issue or presents the same evidence
presented during a protest of preliminary
findings of value;
(2) the audit request raises an issue
or presents evidence that could have been
raised by the affected school district in a
protest of preliminary findings of value if
it would have been of benefit to the district;
or
(3) the request concerns an error in
the school district's annual report of prop-
erty value discovered after May 31 of the
year following the year of the study, and
the error could have been corrected by the
school district if it would have been to the
benefit of the district.
(f) The executive director shall deter-
mine if an audit request raises issues that
are within the jurisdiction of the board. He
shall issue a preliminary finding on the re-
quest as soon as practicable and must de-
liver a copy of the finding to any school dis-
trict that is the subject of the audit and to
the commissioner of education.
(g) Any change of a district's taxable
value pursuant to an audit request may be
made only on written order of the board,'
and must be certified to the commissioner
of education.
(h) For purposes of these sections, an
audit is an investigation or review made to
determine whether the certified findings of
a school district's taxable value of proper-
ty are incorrect and should be changed.
165.73. Method of Filing a Protest.
(a) A protest must be filed by submit-
ting a written statement to the board show-ing the name and address of the petitioner
and identifying the determination that is the
subject of the submission.
(b) A protest of the preliminary find-
ings of taxable value or appraisal levels must
be filed within 30 days after the date the
board certifies preliminary findings of
school district taxable value to the commis-
sioner of education. A protest of the pre-
liminary findings of an audit of taxable
values must be filed within 30 days of the
date the district received preliminary find-
ings of the audit. A submission may be
withdrawn, amended, or supplemented at
any time prior to the deadline for filing, but
may not be withdrawn, amended, or sup-
plemented after the filing deadline.
(c) A submission must be signed by:
(I) the superintendent of the dis-
trict if it is a protest filed by a school dis-
trict; or
(2) the chief appraiser of the ap-
praisal district, if it is a protest filed by the
appraisal district.
(d) A submission must specify all
grounds for objection and contain sufficient
information to determine the validity of the
protest. All documents and other evidence
that support the petitioner's protest must
be included with the submission. Except as
permitted by subsection (h) of this section,
no additional evidence may be submitted
after the deadline for submitting the
petition.
(e) The submission must contain a
sworn statement by the person signing the
petition that, to the best of his knowledge,
the information contained in the submission
is true an' correct.
(f) Any ratio study or other appraisal
analysis that is included with the submis-
sion shall contain u sworn statement by the
person producing the study or analysis that
it was performed in accordance with gen-
erally accepted appraisal standards. For
purposes of this section, ratio study is de-
fined as any property sale or appraisal of-
fered as an indicator of the level of proper-
ty appraisals that exists on a district's ap-
praisal or tax roll.
(g) A submission must contain a cer-
tification that:
(1) if it is filed by a school district
and protests the preliminary findings of tax-
able property value, the school district has
delivered a copy of its protest to each ap-
praisal district that appraises property for
the school district; or
(2) if it is filed by an appraisal dis-
trict protesting preliminary findings of the
level and uniformity of appraisals, the ap-
praisal district has delivered a copy of its
protest to each school district that partici-
pates in the appraisal district.
(h) For good cause shown, the execu-
tive director may extend a deadline for sub-
mitting evidence. An extension must be re-
quested and approved in writing before the
original filing deadline. The director may
grant only one extension for each school11 TexReg 102 January 7, 1986 Texas Register 4
Texas Register 4
11 TexReg 102 January 7, 1986
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
Texas. Secretary of State. Texas Register, Volume 11, Number 2, Pages 81-106, January 7, 1986, periodical, January 7, 1986; Austin, Texas. (https://texashistory.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metapth243750/m1/24/: accessed May 1, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, The Portal to Texas History, https://texashistory.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.