Uh, good morning. Let's call this meeting to order. Thanks for being here this morning. Uh to get us started, I'll call on Pastor Jake Myers, associate pastor of discipleship at Hope Church in Fort Worthation.
Please rise. Thank you. Next I ask you. for our ladies and to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands nation
flag. Thank you. >> Uh, roll call >> Rick Barnes >> presy. >> Fred Campos >> preser. >> Thank you. We have a quorum. Uh, no announcements for me
other than it seems like we've started everyone meeting here lately with a weather announcement. So, it feels like late late spring, which guarantees we'll have ice soon. Uh, so hope you enjoy the nice weather. We do have a pretty full agenda today. So, um, we will get
started with that. When we come to consent, I'll talk about those consents if we're ready to pull any of those or if we move forward. Um, Dr. M. >> Okay. Um we will sure
next report chief Joe very but I just wanted to recap some of the things we've accomplished. So there was a cyber security then after I was here about a month and a half. So
I think the department allowed us to spend some money out much much We had first election. We have almost exchange 360
updated policies and updated policy. and we've also engaged homestead for software So that is a major major undertaking not insurance company
system. customer still. We also just received our 38 consecutive certificate achievement. That might help. Uh but we have received our 38th
consecutive certificate of achievement and excellence in financial reporting. This is from the Government Finance Officers Association. So we we think that's a pretty big deal that it's been 38 38 years consecutively. And so we're pretty proud of that.
On the property value study results, uh we had two schools that that were that are invalid but in their grace periods. We have Ailistd and Carol ISD. The rest were considered local and valid or they were not studied because they're too small. There weren't enough
properties to actually get a ratio. So overall, uh I was pleasantly surprised because we were estimating eight eight schools that would fall out. And on the next slide, this is a a spreadsheet from the comproller and I added the the two kind
of peach colored columns, column three and four. And so those were our our initial December ratios and July ratios. That was our estimate of single family values. And we were only looking at single family because that's all that we really
have enough sales to actually look at. And so you can see that the yellow stuff is primarily still the same. So the comproller agreed with most of our values for the most part within category A. Category B is up over over 1% and so
that helped kind of lift the overall ratios for the school district for most school districts and kept us in but these are also school districtwide and so for like Hazel ISD they're actually in Parker Wise and Tarant County and so these
numbers reflect at least ratio A through the total that is school districtwide for all appraisal districts districts that they participate And so there will be some discrepancy. Like if you look at AEL, it says they're like 96%
across the board, but that's all three appraisal districts. They're at 96% roughly. And if you go to the next slide or unless you have any questions, but uh on the school district property value study appeal odds,
we'll start at the bottom with Carol. So you have the state upper limit is 17.4 billion. The state value, that's the number that the state came up with was at 16.6 billion. The state lower limit is at 15
point or 15.7 billion. So that's the 95% threshold that you have to be above to qualify for for grace. Our local value ended up being at 14.4, which is outside the conference interval. Ends up being 87%. and the 90% lower limit 90% of the lower
limit is 14.2. So had we got below 14.2 billion then they would not have been eligible for grace at all. And same thing for AEL uh the local test value we ended up having at 2.5 billion which is a 91% overall for Tan appraisal district for
the AEL ISD. Uh the state came in at 2.7 billion and had we been about 200 200 million lower they would have fallen out below the 85 and a half% threshold. Do you have any questions before I move
on the conversion? Oh I do it. Okay. some of them you answered. Um but on that that sheet right there real quick um that prop that property number that includes all property commercial and single family correct?
>> Yes sir. So that's not just single family that's all property categories that they studied. >> Okay. Um I have a few questions so just bear with me here on this. Um on the previous previous slide ratio B you got
a lot of dark green on that um category. Um, is there a reason we're so overvalued? Um, we don't really feel that we are overvalued as far as all pretty much
across the board all category B gets appealed during the property during the the protest time period. And so most of if not all of those values are agreed upon or at least resolved with the tax with the tax agent. And so we have a methodology that we use. The comproller
has a different methodology. I believe they used a different set of expenses than we have used and so we have a difference in agreement on on the value of the property based on income of those multif family properties. But I would have more faith in our
values than than the compro but >> okay William can go deeper into the commercial valuation part. >> Okay. Of the eight ratios, uh, which ratio carries the most weight in determining that, uh, final that local test value number?
>> Category A, ratio A, there's typically more value with the single family properties in any given school district than there are the commercial values. >> Okay. And so the two schools, the districts that were found invalid,
um will the comproller round up um numbers? So if a district falls in at 94.9%, will they round up to 95%. I don't believe so because they they actually calculate the value in each category and then the ratio of the percent is is kind of an after the fact
math. And so when you look at the property value study results on the comprollers's page for each school district, it actually determines a value for each category >> down to the dollar amount. >> Yes, sir. Down to the dollar. >> Does the comproller consider an invalid finding even in grace to be failure?
>> I I would imagine so. Yes, sir. That's why it's grace period. >> Okay. So, Carol and Ail were found invalid. Are they going to be studied again in 2026? >> Yes, sir. >> Okay. Have you had an opportunity to speak with the other district about and to see if they have any concerns
>> with Carol? >> Oh, uh, I spoke with both school districts briefly at the entity meeting. Carol didn't seem that alarmed. I don't know if they're going to appeal from from their initial discussion, at least from what I spoke with them. I believe
Ail does have some concerns. In an email, in an email you sent to the board, you mentioned commercial property saved many districts and you said that number was um eight school districts there about eight that were below on single family. Do you know what
percentage of AOIS is um is commercial? >> Believe it's 10% or less. >> Do you know what percentage Carol is? >> Believe it's still a pretty small percent. >> Okay. So most of those are single family. Okay. Do you believe if the market had been
fast moving the real either up or down that we would have had more invalid findings? >> If the market was moving up, yes, >> if it was moving down, >> then it would have stabilized more.
>> Okay. >> So, with TAD not reappraising residential values in 2026 and they already have one invalid finding, if we stay under the current reappraisal plan and we don't reappraise these schools. Do
you anticipate that they will have an invalid finding on that 2026 study? >> The market doesn't seem to be moving that fast right now. So, I would expect a similar result next year or this year. >> Okay. If one of them fall below the 85
and a half% on this study, do you see a scenario where that could happen >> with Carol? Uh that would be much more likely. Uh I don't know about Hazel if they would fall below 85. >> Um so when a school district gets grace
period in year one of the property value study, they actually automatically get grace in year two. So AEL and Carol will both be in a grace period for 2026 regardless even if they were to fall below that 85.5%.
The problem for those districts is if they get an invalid finding for 2026 after having made the valvalid finding for 2027 now or 2025 now they're going to have to get in in 2027 and again in
2028 to get back to their full grace year periods that are there. But for 2026 both Ail and Carol will be in a grace period almost regardless of what happens to the values. >> Okay. So
that that leads me to my next question. Mr. Ter said 27 Grace will be assumed for 25 and 26. 27 28. When is the next year as or Carol would qualify for Grace if they
have two uh failing studies? I would think be 2031. You can because I would they get if we pass in 27 >> and 28 would be eligible for grace in 29 because you've got to have passed two of the prior three years of of the property
value study in order to get grace. >> But do we get studied on 28 if we pass 27? >> Yeah, I think you will. I'm not positive about that though. I think you will until you get out. >> Okay. All right. Um, just a quick comment. Um,
you know, I had an opportunity, Wendy and I had an opportunity to sit down with Aild and I I handed out those uh spreadsheets to you that their CFO done and they sat with Omar Garcia and those the two spreadsheets I gave
you was one of them is if Grace doesn't apply if the numbers were used that are used today uh the possible loss in funding is 1.7 million if it if they were to fall below the 85 and a half% but Mr. Pepper uh has said that that
shouldn't be an issue. It would have been 3.7 million. Um so, Mr. Barnes, when you said at the last meeting that appraisals aren't the problem, but the way schools are funded, I agree with that. But at the same time, as school funding is now currently decided, appraisals and property values
do play a role in deter determining the funding. And I believe that's something we should take into consideration and take action to prevent any possible loss of funding to the school district. So, thank you. Thank you for answering the questions.
>> So, I'm looking at your your sheet that you provided, which I appreciate that. Um, so it looks like their M tax rate is 73580 for 2526. What what do we know what the max tax rate for that particular district can be? Like are
they able to increase that M tax rate? Is it like 75 or do does anybody I don't do we know what it is or did did y'all discuss that at all? >> No. >> Just increasing if there if they have any eligibility to just increase >> their personal M tax rate.
>> No, I I >> within that district. >> No, I did not. But I believe there are CFOs in the audience if Okay. Yeah. I'm just I'm just thinking like when we're when we're looking at um appraisals, if there's any room for that particular district that's out of grace
to be able to increase their tax rate to make up for some of that funding loss, that might be a discussion worth having. I don't I don't know what their >> typically and I haven't looked at either Ail or Carol ISD's tax rates, but for the M portion of their rate, the state
gives school districts what's called a maximum compressed rate, which is the highest rate that they could adopt. If the CFO is here, he's shaking his head. Yes. Uh I assume both those school districts have adopted their maximum compressed rate. >> You're at your maximum. Okay. Yeah, that that was my question. I couldn't remember exactly what the correct
wording was. So, you're at your maximum. >> And you're at your maximum. You didn't adopt a lower than that tax rate. Okay, that that answers my question. Thank you. >> Are we able to ask the CFO questions? >> No, no, no, no. That's in the time for discussion or debate. This is >> all right. So, a question for Eric.
Eric, do you know what their fund balance is? What their M fund balance and what their interest in fund balance? I can't find it. >> No, I do not. I don't know why they would not include Okay. You can go to the next slide.
So January 9th was the last day of entry into a momentum. Uh we are currently in True Prodigy. We're still refining things, looking for uh issues. Um there's still even though we have turned off momentum, we're not done with
conversion. Conversion won't be complete until we get into really certification and we send the tax role to the tax office. Um there's a lot of additional training that we'll still have that we have scheduled with True Prodigy. They will be on site. They were on site this week. They've already been here for two
other weeks. And as we move to different calendar events and tax year, they will be they'll come back and have additional training with us. And we'll setting up everything that we need to for those different uh key events. Plan go live is March 3rd, potentially
sooner, but that is the date that we we're calling the official go live. The new system does balance to momentum. So, we're able to balance the number of properties, the num the exemptions and the amount of the exemptions, the market value, and the taxable value. And so, I
know with the last conversion there are a lot of concern. Mr. Lassad is no longer here, but always talked about a lot of exemptions fell off and weren't added back to the role. So, we're able to to ver verify and validate that all the exemptions are in the new system and that the math maths the same as a
momentum did. Uh we have been sending functioning exports to the tax office offices and we've been getting feedback from them. There's a few other changes we have to make but it's down to like two items that we need to update or modify.
There will be changes to our website and property search. Uh those are still being finalized and to work through. Our intent right now is to still have some of our legacy property search and functions on our website and dashboards and we'll have the true prodigy version also. So if you you'll be able to use
those at least for one year and then we'll deprecate all of our old internal website property searches at the end of this year. So phase one, the original plan was We have uh 2025 converted by January 29th, 2026 converted by February 24th, and
then the prior years converted by March 3rd. Right now, we have all of these already in the new system. We're working through the valuation pricing models. They pretty much work for residential. Commercial will take a little more love. So, we'll probably still have some of the valuations of commercial coming out
of Momentum and then being imported in into the new system. Uh just the way the two systems work on income approaches, it doesn't quite line up and we'd need a year to take our math for income and stick it into the new system and basically rework all of it.
Web portals, we expect those to be live by March 31st. Appraisal notices that should be working by April 13th. We plan on sending the notices out April 15th. Appeals, we'll have that working by April 21st.
And then certifications still around July 24th. And then by August 7th, we'll have the new year layer created. And then we'll have the last step will be to have a retrospective and just kind of review the entire conversion process and any lessons learned from that or or
future fixes, development kind of needs. And then this is just a sample of I think the top 25 entities is based on market value. And so it shows the legacy count which is how many properties we had per entity in in a momentum and the count delta. So the difference in
property count which is zero and for the legacy market value so a momentum's market value true prodigy's market value which matches uh taxable value for true for a momentum and the current prodigy true prodigy taxable value. So for all
of our 70 some odd entities everything matches the two systems agree. What's our confidence level that you know you're matching it to the aum data is accurate, >> right?
Right now we match but we have we have every have everything kind of in there as a flat value. As we recalculate it kind of finds interesting things >> and so we don't have a full list of those interesting things but there there are >> u
some differences >> and there you would expect. >> Yes sir. the this is the quarterly investment report. We sent the board an updated copy because the the top percentage actually was left in there that the second
percent below it should be moved up one row and the top one deleted and so it was just a a typo in the in the form but the second one we sent out to the board has been updated with that corrected. Um, EECU has fallen off this list because we have closed that account and then we
have not invested any money into the text pool as of this report. I believe it'll pop up on the next report. I believe we have $250,000 in that one that you'll see in next quarter. That's all I have for that. Questions, comments?
The only question I have relation so with with the mineral conversion we had two different things. So we we moved to a new vendor. Uh we had to export all the vendor all the all the mineral account industrial account out of Pritchard Nabbit and import it into
Capital Appraisal Group and then import that into Amentum. Amentum wouldn't set up a it was going to be several hundred,000 to set up a an import for Capital Appraisal Group. So our IT staff basically took the PNA
export and converted it into a standard format that basically to make it look like Richard and Abbott as much as we could and then so there have been some issues with that. Um there are still some accounts I don't believe made it to the tax office
and then but with Capital and True Prodigy they have a worked out import process. So, now that we're on True Prodigy, we're going to reimpport all the minerals and industrial accounts and then we'll be sending an updated file, I believe March 20th, to the tax office to correct any
current uh issues that we've been having. >> Yeah, I wanted to ask because we we're getting calls about it right now in in in the tax office and and we have made the decision not to send bills um until we have the full report because we if we want to make people mad, we only want to
make them mad once, not four or five times. And so, We're going to wait until we have it in full, but it that relates to what we're dealing with in our office as well. Just wanted to hear a report on that. So, any questions from anybody for
All right. Thank you. Uh, next thing is public comments. Um, first to speak, everybody has three minutes here. First speak is Todd Smith. Morning. >> Good morning. And kind of perfect timing with kind of the conversation that you guys just had. And so, uh, I'm going to
read from this only because this is a little bit out of my comfort zone and I and I want to make sure that I don't, you know, have exactly what we have there. So, so kind of, uh, bear with me as we kind of go through this, but it just kind of reiterates what was discussed. So, obviously, and I don't know if y'all have to have it for the record, but my name is Todd Smith,
superintendent schools as Id. Uh, this is not necessarily the first time for us to publicly speak at a board meeting regarding the TAD reappraisal plan. At the time of the consideration, Matt Adams, who was our assistant superintendent and CFO, spoke to, and I know many of you weren't part of the the board at that time, but he's now
retired. And we addressed the board with concerns of failed property value studies, not just for Razeld, but for those seven or eight districts that Joe Don mentioned uh earlier in his report. Uh now, because of this decision, I stand before you today because we just
recently learned, as you just saw, that as a result of the 2025 school district property value study completed by the comprollers that our local values fall to be outside the confidence interval. In other words, not at market value. And as a result, as ISD has been placed on
the first year of grace period and as Mr. Mr. Taper said, "When it's true that grace does not currently impact district funding, there could still be dramatical uh financial impact to AELD should we ever fall out of grace." An example of just using what you just saw uh based
upon the preliminary findings of the recent property value study. If Aild was forced to use the state values in lie of the local values, the district state funding would be reduced to an estimated 1.8 8 million which is roughly 30 teaching positions for us. Fortunately,
most school districts in Tarant County are within the con competence interval. Asel ISD is not. We face even a higher risk. And as Mr. Taper said, the current reappraisal plan is just simply too risky. Without a reappraisal in 2026, our second year of grace, the district
could be forced to rely on nearperfect results in 2027 and 2029 to avoid a loss of funding and falling out of grace in the future. I request that the TAD board amend its 2025 2026 appraisal plan reappraisal plan to allow for full
reappraisal in school districts who fail during any year in which the Texas controller conducts a property value study. This would allow the reappraisal of property values with ISD beginning in year 2026. On behalf of the board of trustees, staff, students, we humbly
respect the request and consider to this amendment. Thank you for your time and your consideration. >> Thank you. Uh, George Dodson. >> George Dodson live in Hollywood. I come this morning to express my appreciation for the work that the TAD team has done
to get the KMA conversion. TAD and and other organizations to get this done. uh to to convert from a momentum to true prodigy. Uh as Joe Don has just reported, the overall TAD and IT teams
have made amazing advances in getting a new software implemented. The teams have worked overtime and very hard to make this happen. I and the IT board committee are very happy that not only is the true prodigy in limited
production, but uh also that the other changes in IT have been implemented because they were so critical and the IT the entire IT department uh had had old servers, bad wiring,
bad software, bad backups, just a a plethora of things. Uh in addition, there are many steps ahead for implementation. As Jodon just described, we we've proven that we have consistent
data and true prodigy from an overall standpoint. And uh I'm confident that the right with the right resources, the the completion will be met this fall. want to express again express my
gratitude for the work that the TAD team, the tax office did and as well as true prodigy did to to meet this target. The complexity of getting the data from the old system to the new was a mountain
like like task. I I've never seen a database so convoluted as as what we were working with and just finding the data is was ultimate and uh it was it went well
beyond I think anyone expected in the beginning but I'm so proud that uh the IT committee recommended true prodigy what we're seeing is just a
dramatic difference from other systems that were chosen by by other appraisal districts. It's uh so again I'm very proud to uh to have played a very small part on the IT committee and I thank
thank the board for uh allowing me to be on the committee. Thank you very much for for your time. >> Thank you Chandler Crouch. Don't stop the clock till he says the first word because he's done a lot and we won't understand half of his words if
he goes He's gonna have to go. >> Thank you. First, I just want to give my own uh kind of version of the taxpayer liaison report. Every day, our office talks with a little over 50 people on the average day uh when we're not in the peak
season. And and one uh kudos that we want to give out to to some interaction that one of our clients had is uh I'm not going to mention her name. It's a TAD staff initials DB uh deserves. I've been warned. I learned. Uh on on January
29th, uh she went out of her way to help a taxpayer waiting in line uh while she was at the tax office. Um she was she had this issue where TAD makes a change. It's reflected in the assessor's system. The whole system, it's not anybody in
one any one person's fault. The systems don't talk to each other quick enough to be able to make the changes. uh DB here at the appraisal district went out of her way to let the taxpayer know that um she could be contacted to get an update from the assessor's office uh and just
the active customer service going out of her way was touching to her and so she reached out to our office to make sure that we knew um and I thought well that's not the place that needs to hear it you guys need to hear it and uh she deserves some accolades on that so just wanted to give that little report and um
I want to be the first person to Okay, thank God the property value study uh ended up much better than I anticipated uh back when it looked like Castleberry was going to fail. That was catastrophic. And I was I was honestly frightened for them. And I was thinking
about my mom who was a teacher. Uh my mother-in-law, all the teachers in my family, there's a bunch of them. And just thinking about the 40 teachers or so that could have lose their lost their job if it went the worst. And it didn't. And uh and then last meeting I said get ready. I'm think about half of the uh
school districts are going to fail. You know, outside of the 5% they would be in grace. Um and thankfully only two did. So I I think that uh it's really important to recognize that u it ended up much better than than we thought. And so I'm very thankful for that. Uh I have
my concerns with the re reappra reappraisal plan. I've emailed you guys uh some data that I've looked at on u what I see as as a concern going forward. I just wanted to acknowledge the the positive note here and I hope that the appraisal district looks at this like um you've done a good thing. I
think that uh in Abbott's reform policies he has incorporated a five-year potential reappraisal plan. I think that there's major issues with that. The difference that Abbott has is that he has to figure out how to account for the
broader implications how the uh school districts are affected through the property value study. if that change goes through and then there's a disparity amongst taxpayers themselves when you know repraising less often helps people whose houses are going up in value the most and if your house
isn't going up in value doesn't help as much. So I hope that um y'all see that as a job well done and then uh here locally uh realizing the the issues that making those decisions on a local level has uh it's not really designed for that. Hopefully we can adjust and improve from there. Thank you so much.
>> Thank you. refresh. That concludes the uh public comments. Uh next thing on the Thank you. Uh next thing on the agenda is agenda. Uh consent items or consent agenda. I'll
run through these really fast that we're good with moving forward. First one is the approving the minutes from the last meeting. The second one is adopt Tarant appraisal district public relations procedural policy. Third one is to approve change to Tarant appraisal
district personnel policy pertaining the comp time calculation. The third uh fourth is consider and possible action on appointment of taxpayer leazison officer for 2026. Next is consider penalty and interest waiver from the city of Bimbrook for
late allocation payments. Next one is to approve the renewal for one year of backup and recovery services. Next is to approve the renewal of the scope of work from improving enterprise for technical conser consulting
services. Next is to approve renewal from annual subscription for Microsoft Office 365. The next one is to approve renewal of annual subscription for Microsoft Azure uh agreement and the last one is to approve renewal of cyber
security services. The only one that I'm suggesting we pull off is E which was the consideration of PNI request from city of Benbrook for allocation because the rest of them I'm assuming there will be a motion to approve. Is there any other we'd like to pull off?
>> I would like to pull one off. >> Okay. Um, I'd like to pull off D and since we're going to go into executive session that I'd like to discuss that >> executive session. Is there any others that anybody would like to pull?
>> Go ahead. >> Uh, I'd like to pull the minutes to make a small correction. >> Okay. >> The staff recommendation is that you can um approve them by amending them. So, if you want to amend them, you can still leave them on the consent. >> Let me see if there's any more. We'll do
it that way. Any others that anybody wants to pull off completely separate? Uh what's your amendment then to the agenda? I mean the minutes >> the resolution for uh Mr. Bllock and Alford pass 90 but uh my name was left
off the minutes. Everyone else was listed >> past 90. We're not sure who that person was. >> I've corrected that. >> We'll we'll make that correction. >> Uh C. So we'll pull D and E. We'll talk about D and Z. We'll talk about E here
in just a minute. Hearing no other changes, I'd entertain a motion to accept the consent agenda as amended. >> So moved. Is there a second? >> Moved and seconded. Are we voting online? A a vote of approve. A vote of yes is to
approve all those reports. >> Mr. campus. Are you able to vote? >> Is that unanimous? Nine. And we do know who the ninth person was this time. >> Okay, good. Uh come back then to E. Consider pen uh consideration penalty and interest waiver request from city of
Benbert for late allocation payment. Um any public comment >> on this one? Yes, sir. Okay. Uh Say where? Oh, I didn't even see you back there. Hello.
>> Good morning. Say and I'm the resident of Bollywood. Uh here for this penalty and interest. I would like to say every case stand alone. Look at the evidence that provided by the
entity and the TAD and then make the decision. not like a straight uh like a hidding policy. Hey, we don't want to look into it and uh go ahead and pay penalty and interest because uh you set
the policy when a big entity and I'm saying who has a more stake every every way you look into it and wave it. But for small entities, you don't care because they don't have any say. They don't have any votes. They don't have
any voters. So the good thing is to please look into it and then make decision that makes the board that that's why you guys here and bring the trust to the T board. Thank you for your time.
>> Thank you. Um do you want to pres present this one? What does anybody need it to be discussed? Have you read I'm assuming everybody did your homework for the meeting? So I I never know. Um, there's
any discussion on this one >> or a motion one way or the other, whatever. Go ahead. >> Well, I'd actually like to make a motion to postpone it until after discussion of the good cause policy to see if that would make any effect afterwards.
>> Okay, that discuss where is that discussion? Just >> the very last one. believe 5J. >> So 5J and so then bring it up after that. Okay, that'd be fine.
That's fine with me. Is any objection to that? Uh the other thing and I understand why it is where it is, but in future let's put these don't don't put these on consent. uh because I agree that I think these are all a case by case kind of conversation or at least
they deserve that discussion whether or not we so go back to E. All right. So we'll handle um D after executive session and E when we get to it uh shortly. Action items.
First action item is a action to establish 2026 subcommittees and appoint members. Uh the I did not even anticipate the desire to add committees. Is there any thought from anybody different than
that? I passed out then the when I got here the appointments to those committees to our current committees and I'll go through those really fast. Uh I I serve as chair of the of the board. Cali serve Cali Riggnney serves as board secretary. Budget and finance committee
Kazia Ferrar chair Wendy Burgess, Eric Morris and Gloria Pena on that committee. Uh board policies committee Eric Morris serves as chair. Fred Campos, Eric Cra, Kazia Ferrar serve on that committee. IT committee, Fred Campo serve as chair, Matt Bryant and George
Dodson on that committee. and then appraisal review board Matt Bryant serve as chair with Wendy Burgess Eric Crawl Gloria Pena on that committee um I would move adoption of those appointments >> there's a second uh any discussion
all in favor >> you don't have you don't have to >> okay it's just an appointment yeah good good well good thank Uh Eric and I agree at least. So all right. Uh so those are the appointments. Um there's some question
on the IT committee that the IT committee frankly will have very little to talk about once we finish this conversion. Uh but there is stuff to stay on top of between now and then. And so uh I appreciate those that are continuing their work there as well as other committees. But that one is kind
of our critical one in getting us forward. Uh B approve purchase of software application to assist with bianial methods and assistance program which is the MAP review by the comproller. Uh Jon >> so the map review is the methods and
assistance program and so the comproller comes in they're actually here well they're scheduled to be here this week. I think they're going to come back next week, but they come in and look at all of our uh policies and procedures and make sure that we're following tax code and the controllers rules and and basically do a procedural
audit essentially. And so with it, there are the the questions there's sometimes up to 90 questions the controller ask us and they may there may be a lot of different things that we have to provide to to prove these things. But in it there are a lot of dates and
deadlines and files that we have to provide to the comproll's office. And so this is a tool that was built by by another or former chief appraiser. And it's basically a tool to keep track of all the different deadlines and and rules and requirements and different
questions. That way you can start putting the your your supporting documentation into a a single source. That way when it comes time for the map auditor, you just give them access to this one system. Say here is all of our stuff. we can show you that we have complied with all the deadlines and here
are all our documents to prove it. And so for $8,500, it seems like a relatively cheap program to make sure that we we are compliant with the state requirements. >> Is there any public comment on this one? >> No, sir. >> Oh, no. No public comment on this one.
Any discussion or a motion from board? I'll move for approval. It's second. Is there any discussion? Hearing none. We're going to vote online. Never know my screen. Won't do anything.
Please vote. >> Pass unanimously. Uh or Fred. Okay. Just kind of picking have fun here. The second B is uh discuss. Nobody noticed that till I said it,
right? Oh, did you? Uh discuss an act to change the appraisal review board ARB per DDM to $200 per day with $100 halfday with the chair receiving an additional $20 per day which $10 half day. Jon, >> we have uh several public speakers
signed up. I have one question about it. We did we said we're going to change it to, but what are we changing it from? >> Oh yeah. >> See where it says write it. >> So it was 185
Okay, >> good. We do have multiple speakers. First one is Victoria Clyde. >> Good morning. I'm a sixyear ARB member and I was ARB secretary for 2024 and 2025. My ARB goal is to provide a professional
experience for property owners with qualified trained ARB members. ARB procedures provide annual training both inhouse and on the job. With experience in hearings, new members can become qualified trained members. When a
qualified member is moved up to a potential panel chair, he trains in hearings with an experienced panel chair. There is currently only one rate for ARB members. A member's pay increases only on the day he chairs a panel.
Each and every day of panel hearings, we're faced with everchanging extensive types of hearings. As a result, varying degrees of experience are required. Thus, the pay is reflective of the type of hearings every day. We don't schedule
hearings, and we don't know until a property owner checks in for a hearing that he is actually coming. He may have settled with Tad or decided not to show and they also have we also have walk-ins so people can walk in ahead of their
their schedule time day and time. This speaks to the comment that the current pdeiums vary greatly and change daily, which is in um in that section. It was written in on the agenda. They really do not. And if the reason for the
change in pdiums was to make calculating them easier, then back office issues should not be predominant. Panel chairs are qualified, trained members that property owners can have confidence in. They run the hearings, manage the flow and timing between
property owner and appraiser, are responsible for following the law and the model hearing procedures. They train newer members with on the job training, understanding the law, interpreting or explaining testimony and evidence, helping them understand appropriate questions to ask paperwork and teamwork.
They're role models for professionalism and impartiality. They work single member panels. They're respected and heavily relied upon by the officers and other members. And this does not come in the first year or on day one. The new proposed PDM pays panel chairs and
secretary the same rate as firstear members with no experience. This will lead to a decline in performance levels visible to property owners and agents. ARB member sorry ARB officers have many additional duties and responsibilities.
Keeping the current PDM does not cost the taxpayers more than a new proposal. An increase in predium is a tool to get members to take on added responsibilities to be panel members to be panel chairs or officers. The member
versus panel chair pdium differential has been in place for probably 15 years. I'm suggesting that no changes need to be made today and that last year's prediums remained in place. By the way, the ARB has not had a cost of living increase in about four years.
>> Thank you. Uh Janet Shriber. >> Had to zero the contact in on that. >> Well, good morning everyone. >> Uh I've been an ARB member for the past four years. I did apply to to for the
remaining two years and haven't heard anything yet. So I'm waiting to hear whether you're going to approve me or not. Um I the reason I joined ARB is because I had a friend I didn't even know it existed. I had a friend who was an ARB member and told me about it. I thought it sounded ideal, especially since my background for the previous 30
years was in human resources. So, I thought it was great to work with with homeowners was sounded really ideal. So, the reason I'm here today is for the not to change what the tiered payment plan is right now. Uh I have earned after the four years to be able to be a chair at
some of the meetings. There's a lot of responsibility in that. I know a lot of you are brand new members and maybe you don't really understand what we do, but if you were and you're always all of you are welcome to join and become an observer and see what we do every day um to understand exactly why it should be
left like it is to change it to the $200 for everyone. We have brand new members on that on the board with us. Me being a experienced chair would be training some of those in how to do this. If they're making the same thing that I'm making, then what would be the reason for me to
be a chair? I just rather sit there and let someone else take responsibility. So I'm just here to say until you really understand what we do, just leave it as it is and then if you after a year if you feel it should be changed then at that time you can make a an informed decision. I want to thank you.
>> Thank you uh David Daniel. >> Morning. >> Good morning. Thank you for uh taking uh this opportunity for me to address the Fraser district's board of directors. Again, my name is David Daniel. I'm a
thirdyear member. I'm starting my fourth year. Uh and I'm here today to offer my thoughts regarding the agenda item before us regarding the the predom prediums. I won't read it again since it's been read. U this is my presumption on where this was arrived at. Um it
serves a twofold purpose. Uh it it's to meet the 30% reduction in the 2026 budget expense item appraisal review board's compensation. Uh and it also serves as maybe to attract a larger cache of
applicants uh to consider as appraisal review board members by offering a more competitive PDM compensation. Again, that's no feedback I've got from anybody that's engaged in it. It's just me thinking through and looking at all the information that I had. Um, as I
best as I can interpret the the changes, uh, it'll be accomplished by reallocating the dollars that are already assigned um, in the current tiered approach which we've heard about for the panel chair and wings along with the ARB secretary and ARB chair. My fear is that this can
adversely impact the efficiencies and expertise in place today. Now, Mrs. CL has already articulated on the various responsibilities required of a panel chair compared to the two wings uh position which make up our three member panel. So I won't enumerate further on
that. Um and although many of today's panel chairs may have altruistic tendencies um the true motivation is incentive based uh the same line of reasoning applies to those interested in the ARB leadership
roles which would be the secretary and the chair. Our property owners deserve well-run hearings. Competent and competent individuals who are willing to guide the protest process to its ultimate conclusion deserve the
additional compensation. Likewise, our ARB panels thrive in the presence of sound collaborative leadership. The leadership between the secretary and the chair. Uh that color aberration warrants uh reasonable
remuneration as well. Thank you for your time this morning. >> Thank you. Um Diane Layman. No >> Henry McCormack. Sorry. I knew you didn't look like a Diane when you stood
up. >> Good morning. Uh my name is Henry McCormack. Uh some of them know me. All know me. I've been in this industry for 41 years. I did my first appraisal in 1986. I worked for 24 years for DAT. I was a
senior territorial appraiser. I've been sitting through probably estimated 35,000 hearings in my career. I've worked uh for DAT. I've worked for other appraisal districts. I've worked for tax reps. And I've worked on the
board for the last five years. I was a ch I was a chair of the board, chairman of the board uh of the panel rather day one whenever I came to de whenever I came to ter. Okay, I know
what a 41411 is a 41462 a 2525 C a D. I know where to look in the tax law to find what I need. I've ran more of these panels than than or I've been in more of these panels than anyone else here probably. And
you're telling me that my worth is the same worth as a person who walks in the door. I know that sounds arrogant. I apologize. It's not meant to. It's a realistic fact. The president and the secretary that I work under are phenomenal. I wouldn't be
able to do my job without them. they need to be uh uh taken care of in that aspect as well. The as stated earlier, if I'm going to get the same pay as the lady
that's just coming in has two months education in this, I might as well sit on wing right on paper and make my call. I run that panel the way it should be run under the law. Um
written stuff down. I forgot. But it the people that take the time, the effort to learn how to do it uh and do it correctly should be taken care of. I mean, you know, you get paid more than
your first day appraisal for a reason. It's because you bring the leadership needed to run this appraisal district correctly. Same should be taken care of for the panel, for the chair, for the ARB. Um,
with all that said, I don't care about the base salary. There should be a base with with a portion for the chair of the the panel chairman and for the secretary president as well. In my opinion, I don't care where the base starts. Figure that part
out. That's up to y'all. It's just, you know, what do you want to put out there for to get good employees for what they are, for the pay that's being given?
>> Thank you. >> Now, Diane very nervous. So, you're gonna have to bear with me here. My name is Diane Layman. I am in my sixth year being an AR member. I have been a panel or chair
since year two. They threw me into that and you know, you learn by the seat of your pants. But what I wanted I mean, uh, Mr. McCormick stole a couple of my lines. So, >> I tried to get you up before him.
>> Well, you know, he's such a talker, I thought maybe I could just kind of sneak in here. But I do want to talk about responsibilities because um the first thing that I look at when I walk into my room and set it
up uh is that property owner coming through the door. They are angry. They are scared. I've been called a monster and dumber than a fifth grader. And I have to use
every skill I have learned in my professional career to try to calm the situation down, make them feel comfortable so we can have a successful hearing.
I've got 15 minutes with a timer to have this hearing. It is very difficult when you've got an angry home to tell them they've got four minutes and they need to shut up. You can't imagine the skills, like I
said, that you have to pull up from your past job to be able to control that room. If I'm lucky, I have a new wing and a seasoned wing. If I'm not lucky,
I've got a new wing and a new wing. So, I put my teacher had on and uh I lasted one semester in teaching in college, you know, but I've got to have a a good
panel to be able to work with uh a property owner and the appraiser and stay in the middle. You've got to teach a new um wing how to
read the data. They've never seen that stuff before. You've got to teach them that we're not rubber stamping a property owner or the appra appraisal district. We're there to
make to look at the data and make an informed decision on what we can do for them. jeopardizing t um I don't know I mean I don't know what
else I can say about the responsibilities it's just I from day one have told you are in control of that and so we take control of that
now you're telling telling me >> that's your >> that my Oh, I'm sorry. I'm gonna close up. I'm a talker. That my worth is not more than that green horn coming through the door. >> Sad.
>> Thank you. Uh Chandler Crouch. >> Well, I have learned a lot by listening to them. I thought I understood the pay structure that they were in and and uh apparently I I was wrong. I didn't realize there was a tiered system. I
thought everybody got paid the same and and I wonder where the intent or the heart of the board is on on this. I I tend to think we might kind of be on the same page here learning a little bit more that there's there's more than meets us the the eye. seems like my my
reading of the the agenda before this meeting was it seemed like the intent was maybe to give these people a raise and um and and I I understand it you're kind of disincentivizing if you give the rookies the same thing as the really experienced people. Um, I was going to come up here and I'll say the same thing
I'm about to say now, which is they've got a really hard job. And there's nothing more frustrating than going into one of these panels and you've got somebody that's inexperienced, that's not really looking at the evidence, that doesn't know anything, and you can just, you don't get to hear their thoughts too
much, but you can just tell they just kind of nod and then go along with what the appraisal district says or what somebody else in the room says without any critical thinking. It's so valuable to have a critical thinking that weighs owner taxpayer evidence and appraisal
district evidence and makes a good good conclusion. So the experienced people are very valuable. Um I typically wouldn't be in favor of spending more money. However, from what I understand the amount of the number of appraisal
review board members is going to shrink significantly from where it was last year, it seems like. And so to give the hopefully we're going to keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones and giving raises to these guys uh seems very appropriate. I would suggest
considering if y'all are up for it. uh maybe amending the resolution to just say let's just give a $10 20 raise to everybody across the board whatever tiers they're at um just because I mean if we can say keep the good guys um
ran out of things to say but I want to keep talking >> anyway I appreciate the discussion I think one more thing to to consider here is is possibly um here it goes consider some of these guys for for the
ARB uh committee. Seems like they've got great insight and I've worked with I've been in some panels with some of them. You got some smart ones here. And then out of the box, maybe something for the future is what if we could tie their pay to the reviews that they get afterwards.
Or maybe I just made friends with all of them. Now I'm burning the fridge. >> Or maybe what All right. What if what if we looked at how many of their hearings got appealed and considered that? I'm
just saying, hey, I'm thinking outside the box. The the the bottom line is they've got a hard job considering additional pay I think is a great idea and I appreciate all these guys showing up because that's not easy either. Thank you. >> Thank you.
>> Okay. Yeah. >> Uh that's our last public speaker on this one. This one came from the staff. Someone asked Jodon to present it. >> The the original, I guess, trigger for this. We moved to Pay Loy, our payroll
system. And so, we were originally trying to add the ARB members into the payroll system so that way we could pay y'all just like we do all of our employees or at least keep track of it simpler. But with the chair function, y'all would y'all will turn the ARB turns in their log and like somebody may
be a chair in the morning, they may not be in the afternoon, they may be one day, they may not be for two more weeks. And so for us, it became difficult to manage because it wasn't consistent. And so that was the the original concern that we have. Looking at other
districts, it seems the most common is that there is a a single rate of pay for ARB members. and the chair from what I've seen. But um so what we were trying to do is just kind of level the playing field. Most of them would
get a raise, but that wasn't the overall driving factor. Most of it was just trying to make payment easier and not have it change from day to day. >> All right. Uh discussion from board members. >> Fred, >> I'll start discussion. One thing that's
clear to me is that maybe And it's been suggested even two different issues because my feeling is very strong that it's been presented that maybe the chair and some of the senior people deserve more money. But I've heard from testimony that maybe the base is not as
much the issue. And I was just thinking I wonder if we want to separate this out two different discussions. >> Matt, no. As the chair, um I want you to know that Gloria
Mr. Durham, Wendy, Eric and I, we we've exhausted this discussion and we're trying to put together along with what Jodon recommends a sensible game plan going forward and Chandler mentioned it. There's a reducing demand for the AR
because Mr. McKis doing such a good job settling online and so it is everything is changing and numbers are are are truly diminishing. So, um, whereas, and again, I have I appreciate the folks on
the ARB. I've been through many, many hearings, and, um, I know the value of a well-run of a well-run AR hearing versus, um, a frustrating ARP hearing. Um, so, um, I have a a large space in my heart
for the, you know, those on the AR. But again, um, we are, even though we're a government, we are tasked with reducing expenses, being right sized um and these are things that I'm finding aren't always um
you know easy for a government entity to swallow that you know we just need less and we think we can fill our demand and again we're not trying to um bismerch the leadership and and what the chair and the secretary brings. No, we very
thoughtfully uh went through a lot of um dialogue on on getting it right to have the right leadership on that arm. Now, it's also interesting. You've got to realize um this is a committee that we put together and then we have we don't have any inputs with them. It's the ARB
is independent. >> Yes. Yes. So, um, you know, it is our job to pick the leadership and again our job to assign what we consider fair pay. And, um, I think we've exhausted the
subject. I'm proud of the work that our committee has done. Um, I do not recommend any changes. >> Yes. >> Okay. So, just kind of I want to make sure that I'm reading this correctly. So, the current pay is 185 a day. Is that correct?
>> Okay. And then uh the panel chair is 205, secretary is 225, and then the ARB chairman is 240. That's great. Okay. So, what we're proposing is that the standard pay be moved to $200 a day and
then the chair receives $220 a day. So, we're looking at increasing the base pay but decreasing the chairman pay by $20 a day. Am I saying that correct? and decreasing the secretary. So the
secretary >> just wait just this board. >> Okay. So the the panel chair the secretary wouldn't they would not receive any additional pay for being secretary. Is that correct? Only the chair would receive an additional $20.
>> That's what we're proposing. Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. So walk me through the thinking in decreasing the chairman pay. Like I I I hear what you're saying, Matt, but why would we now walk that back and decrease that. Have we thought about
I don't know. Walk me through why we're decreasing that particular one. >> $20 a day. >> You know, again, we in a situation like this, um we're never going to make everyone happy. It's
just not going to happen. Um, so what we're trying to do is put together a practical plan practical for the operations of the appraisal district and we've heard loud and clear we have to listen to our staff and our staff um was very instrumental, Mr. Durham and Jodon
on on having this discussion with us of why don't we consider kind of normalizing it up to $200 and then pay a little bit extra for the leadership positions. Um, And again, when you make a decision like this,
we're very well aware we may lose some very useful, talented, tenured people, but I also believe um uh everyone can be replaced. I mean, we can we can find um if we have a shortage. Now, again, we're in a situation where we don't have a
shortage. We have more than we need. We carried more than we needed last year. And um we want to get this rightsized. This is my I believe I've characterized what we've discussed in the background on this, but it's it's not something we
took lightly, but we are trying to run more efficiently and um again, we don't want to we don't want to overstaff an area that doesn't need to be over. >> Okay. So, Mr. >> This is new. This is we did not have this responsibility prior to last year.
So, this is relatively new to this board. Before it was under the control of the county commission, >> the pay and everything was >> the pay. We did the pay. I don't know who decided what the pay would be. Okay. >> But, um, we didn't have and we weren't doing all that we're doing now and
that's why the committee was created so that we could get educated and educate the rest of the board as well. So, that's that's all relatively new as well. So you're you're learning along with us because even if we have a year in, we still have a lot to learn. >> Yeah. So let me ask you this, Mr.
Bobbit, going back to the payloity. So like when they're when they're clocking in, I don't know. Is that done electronically? Is that done how? >> I believe it's been done by paper because we couldn't put them in pay lost because the rates would change. Okay. We we set up a meeting with Payloity and B
basically told us it wouldn't work the way we were paying them. >> Okay. because I like I do I do payroll for our different companies and so there's always like we'll have you know somebody that clocks in as a server and then somebody on another shift will clock in as a bartender. So those rates of pay are different. So I'm I'm kind of
surprised that Payity doesn't have an option for them to be able to clock in at a different I mean it literally you just log in under We don't use Payy. use a different payroll system. But that seems like that would be an easy way to be able to accommodate them clocking in under if that's truly what one of the
issues is is just simplifying it. And I totally understand trying to simplify it, but I have a hard time believing that Pay Locity wouldn't be able to have a function where they could clock in electronically under whatever position that they're doing. I don't know. Again, I haven't wor with Payloity, but that
seems like that would be something standard. >> We thought it would have worked. >> Yeah, but I wasn't at the meeting. I think was >> okay. So that was the different Okay. Okay, that makes a little bit more sense then. Okay. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate
>> So Matt, I have a clarifying question. Is it your recommendation that we don't do anything? >> I re we presented what our committee found and um I recommend we go forward.
Let let me clarify that question then. So this this is out of committee or this is out of staff >> both staff and committee close together on this. >> So
forgive me for just picking this apart. Would there would you entertain a recommendation of not changing the base but changing the increase for the additional positions or your position is we pass. I think we
got it right. Again, we can tweak it here and there. I think we got it right. >> Cra Matt, just a question. Where did the committee come up with the 200 and 220?
Was there a study or anything? How they were doing a few weeks ago. There have been surveys. I don't I don't know if I could find it quickly enough, but I know there have been surveys that TWW sends around on a at least every couple year basis
so we we could find that and give that to y'all. But I don't know if we can do it in a timely manner. last week and they raised their $175 analysis that we did. What were the has been in the past. What do we need? What
we need? They saw they didn't number. What has the operations looked like? nominate a chairman for >> Miss Burgess. Oh, well, sorry. Uh, Jad Jad just did
this this past week. Uh and uh they looked at several districts as well and they moved theirs up from 175 to 185, but they cut positions because they saw that they didn't need as many members uh
on their on their roster because they were maximizing the availability of the members that they had. So uh and that that brings in line you know that we are
actually going to a higher hour uh daily pay you know compared to some of our neighboring uh counties >> some some let me just say this some things in government become as clear as dirty water
uh can we get a clarific so I don't know if this is for Mr. Ter or who? Just a b give us the five- cent version of how we got here like that. So this body reports to the directly to the board and we
determine who they are, who runs them and then we determine how to pay them. And so it's not a staff conversation. It's a board I guess just give us that. >> So the ARB doesn't really report to this board. They're their own independent body. Um and it's part of the reason
like uh there was a suggestion that you have members on the committee and that would actually violate some of the communication laws. So historically the people that have appointed ARB members has changed throughout the years. Sometimes it's been the local
administrative district court judge, other times it's been the board of directors. In larger counties now it is the board of directors. uh the determination of how many members are on the ARB and what their pay is, that has always been a decision for the board of
directors. And so it is your determination to decide what the pay should be for ARB members, how many members there should be, and then every couple of years the legislature decides they want a different group of people uh to appoint the ARB members. Does that get you what you're looking for? >> Yeah, that's exactly. So, in my history
of talking about TAD in general, all the way back to my years as a city council member, there's been two major complaints about the appraisal district has been one is the chief appraiser, whoever that is at the time. So, I don't know if that's right now, but I'm just
saying. Um, and then the other has been the ARB because this is the public. This is what the public sees is the ARB. They don't see all the other stuff we're doing around here because they don't need to or want to. And and so my point in saying that is I think that it's extremely important that whoever we have
doing this are some of the best people when it comes to customer service. Uh some of the best people in when it comes to being able to explain a decision that might or might not be a happy decision and then the best people that are able to take all this convoluted material and make something out of it. uh because the
again the public has well the I think even lots of very highly high level elected officials have absolutely no understanding of appraisal districts. Um and so I I just think it's important that we take uh take care of I guess
that's the right word but uh make sure that we have great people doing it and that we take care of them. I don't know that that that sounds like we're going to give them a tuna sandwich every afternoon, but that's not the that that we make sure that they're if if it's compensation that they're compensated well, etc., etc. And so just I just use
that as kind of my base understanding of where we're headed. And then now let's answer those questions moving forward. So that's just coming from my perspective of who they are, why they are here, and what they do. Now back to the agenda item. Uh where are we uh eventually? So Kelly,
>> I just Well, I want people to feel valued. I'm just um needed some clarification on you know you say the the rate changes if they are chairman that particular day. So we're not talking about the ARB chairman, we're talking about the panel chairman. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> So you're saying the standard pay for a regular um person on the panel would be 200. Then we're decreasing pay for panel and then the secretary is staying the same. So I just need some clarification all the way across. The secretary would
be at 200 also as a board. >> Oh, okay. >> The chair would decrease down to 220. >> The the regular members, the main members would go up from 185 to 200. So the panel, if you were serving as a panel chair, you'd lose $5 a day.
Secretary lose roughly $20 a day or $25 a day. And the chair, the ARB chair will lose roughly 40 >> 20. Sorry, 20. >> And to clarify for me then, there's no
everybody's on the same scale. There's no time served scale. There's no knowledge therefore knowledge served scale. Okay. Just making sure. >> Would it be a problem if someone was a panel chairman for part of the day and just pay them as a chairman? all day or
does is that get >> if if we were >> going to have different steps, it would be easier if it was like your first term is one rate, second that way it's it's set for that year or that term.
>> They're like the front lines of people's experience with us and so I feel like we got to figure out a way for them to feel valued with um while being fiscally responsible there that I don't know >> if we were going to do it. I'd rather do
it by by term and not by chair because that that could change or as they get trained they might become a chair halfway through the year but I rather them kind of stay somewhat consistent. >> It's more like by tenure >> if that's their concern if that's the board's concern.
>> So if you know we've got inputs and then we tossed it around here a little bit and um absolutely if um having a scale that's graduated 180 to 190 to 200. It's
that's what we're looking at. We're not looking at a a massive spread of what we can um pay the the new members and I and I will say this. Um I've been in hearing new members can be delightfully good at
this. Um, you know, we're this is not something that someone um, again, new members, there is something to be said for having new members. There's something to be said for it. And
again, we're in a declining area, but um if it would boost morale for us to have um a graduated pay scale on that type, um we can certainly take this back and um I don't mind us reconvening. Our our
uh our our board is is rather efficient on this and but I will tell you we have discussed this at length. Um we have kicked this around and this is what we came to. But um I like um it's it's encouraging to see those that are
impacted by it financially showing up and I think um absolutely they're they're worth let's reopen this in our committee. We have time. I don't think we're on any um I mean we have time hearings don't start till May 15th.
>> Yeah. But we have training coming up. I do know that. When is when is the training? >> Lots of people are giving me I've got lots of people giving me >> flags. Yeah, we got like five agenda items in a row that that relate to this. Miss, I'm
gonna go this direction. Mr. Carl, you have something. >> Yeah, I you know I get Matt what you're talking about cost savings and Mr. Bett from the uh payroll perspective. Um but one of the agenda items after
this we're going to discuss reducing um the size of the ARB. So there will be cost savings from that. So, I think we should value the chairs and the secretaries and uh you know my my quick math $185
at 60 people which is is $11,000. So, I think I think there's room to reward um the chair and secretary. >> Yes, >> if we do review this again
um it probably be good to do because the budget's going to be um coming back to us in June >> and so at that time we could address any cost savings or budget adjustments anyway. So I don't think there'd be a
problem with us postponing making this decision. >> Just a question. So on the standard members, do they typically I mean are there several of them that just say a standard member and don't ever have any they don't want to move up to a chair? Is that normal or Okay. So, several of them will just stay at that and then
whoever wants to take an initiative to become a chair, then they do that at that point. Okay. Thank you, >> Fred. >> Matt, you know, I know you you're in a community to to do this, so you know more about this than me. It seems to me I'm I'm in favor of a differential for the additional duties.
And from a cost perspective, I'm I'm in favor of keeping the base where it is, but have the differential be for those people. But I yield to you. It sounds like we need to this a little more closely. Now, having said all that, our next meeting is until June. So, and these other issues D and E follow this.
So, I don't know if this needs to be figured out before we go into those next items. >> Wendy, did you have something >> that that ended with a question that discuss multiple ways. I want to make sure that
everyone understands that of the individual secretary just like on this board hearings sorry there's an individual chair and an individual secretary just like on this
board but then in ARB hearings of three individuals there is a panel chair so there goes that that pay scale, you know. So, I I just wanted to make sure that everyone understood that those are there's individuals that are chosen for
the chair and the secretary at the beginning of the year and they're that throughout the year until they choose to not be or they're uh requested by this board to not be for a performance issue say uh or an attendance issue or
whatever, you know, but or they serve for five years possibly. Uh but I just wanted to make sure that you guys understood that there is a chair and a secretary and those two members stay that the entire
time. Panel secretary or panel chairs uh can change within the three panel threeperson panels uh depending on what their needs are or maybe they have a twoperson panel because a bunch of people are sick that day. So I just wanted to bring that to your attention.
Uh I'm perfectly happy uh looking back at it from a graduated pay scale. You know, if uh that's the will of uh the board uh because of what we've heard today. Uh they they carry a gargantuan
effort uh and uh they they are the public eye uh for the the district along with our great directors and and the folks that are out on the front. So happy to do that. Let me uh back to
asking questions now. The are we answering is this an annual conversation or are we answering an issue? Um once you set whatever the ARB members pay is, that pay will stay in place until such
time as the board makes an adjustment to it whenever it's brought up to your attention. Some sometimes the worst thing in organizations is committees because they have a need to do something and um sometimes I think they do things you know and so I was trying to figure out is this because a committee wanted to do something or are we actually answering an issue?
>> It came up because of the pay lost issue. That's >> okay. Okay. So the payroll system may be the issue that that that you see where I'm you peel off enough pieces of the onion you figure out what's the problem here. Uh, and if the payroll system's the
issue, let's get a better payroll system. But, um, but if the issue is actually we we want trying to save money somehow or we're trying to shrink stout somehow, that's another issue. That's a whole separate conversation.
>> One thing to consider is um if let's consider this um we need to go forward with what we presented today because we do need to get a a chair person and a secretary seated
and we're not planning on meeting again for a couple of months. So, we might want to consider um moving forward with that. But it does sound like we've of course got the capability if we want to make an adjustment aligned with what we
might find a better efficiency with our payroll system. Um you know, is it something Mr. that we couldn't adjust, you know, by the next meeting or have a special meeting uh if we think it's that important to adjust. Uh but we we
probably do need to move forward today so we can get um training scheduled. We can we can get the ball rolling on on having an ARB. >> That's why I said let's delay this and not make any changes to the pay until um
June when we approve the next budget. The so the way to do that just the way to move forward is make a motion of some kind and we make a decision on that motion and one emotion could be to table this until June >> and I would entertain anybody making it. >> So I'll make a motion that we table this
until our next move that we table this to to the June meeting. Is there a second? >> I'll second. >> Is there discussion on that motion? Yes, ma'am. >> I have a a question for the chief appraiser. If it is tabled until June,
does the payroll system, will it support the current uh pay scales and be able to make payments uh for it to move forward until the time that we can reconvene? >> We've been doing it manually, so we just keep doing it the way we've been.
>> Okay. Thank you. >> So, one input is I mean, we're moving forward without leadership at the AR, >> but we still have five more agenda items on this topic. Okay. >> Yeah. >> So, it's been moved that we table table
B till the June meeting. >> The second >> Oh, yeah. The second B. I'm just going to go ahead and call it C. We're uh moving C to the uh June meeting. Is there discussion on that amendment? I mean that proposal hearing none. The
motion is to table this till the June meeting. All of uh send it right now. >> It's coming. Did that say table? >> I don't see what's the table option. >> Table
>> pass unanimously. All right. D then is section 6.41 41 B1 consider resolution two uh 20 2026. >> Move to approve. >> Oh, good. Good. It's been moved that we approve number D.
Is there a second? >> There's a second. Is there discussion on this? This is uh just so you know, just so everybody so the people listening can understand. This is to amend the ratio of regular to auxiliary members on the ARB to be comprised of 16 regular and 44
auxiliary members. Any further discussion hearing? None. Please vote. >> Motion passes. >> Motion passes I guess unanimously. Uh E then pass resolution 2026 to appoint
auxiliary ARB members. This is um >> move to approve. >> It's been moved we approve. Is there a second? >> Is there a second? Any discussion? Hearing none. Uh please vote. I haven't seen it yet.
>> Yeah, it's coming. passed. >> That's for the auxiliary members. Then the next resolution is F to appoint regular ARB members. Is there a motion? >> Move to approve. >> Been moved to approve. Seconded. Discussion. >> That was Miss and
>> Miss Burgess. >> Any discussion on approving F? >> Move to approve. >> Yeah, it's been moved and seconded. All in favor, please vote. Did I have pass? >> Mr. Barnes, did you put yours in? It's
not coming through yet. >> I did. >> Now we are. >> Pass unanimously. Then G. Pass resolution accept an ARB member resignations. >> Move to approve. >> Been moved and seconded. Um Miss Pñena
and Miss Burgess discussions hearing. None. Please vote. Oh, I'm sorry. >> I was looking ahead. >> That pass unanimously. And then H. Pass a resolution appointing a chair and a secretary to the appraisal review board.
>> Move to approve. >> Been moved to approve. Second with who? Kelly. >> It doesn't matter. >> Uh discussion. Please vote. Do we want to read off the names?
>> Yeah, it'd be nice to know who the Be nice to know what we're approving here. >> Martha Gates and Jerry Betts. Martha Gates as chair. Jerry Betts as secretary. >> Uh, please vote. It's on your screen. >> Pass unanimously.
That was H I approved transfer. Oh, this is a whole different thing now. Uh new agenda item I approved transfer of funds from KMA committed fund and authorized purchase of data migration systems for KMA software conversion project. J on.
>> So with this uh previously the board is authorized to spend additional money to hire additional resources from True Prodigy to make sure the conversion kind of stayed on task and stayed um was successful. That ended in January and so
we're asking to kind of renew that portion. Um, as we move into the rest of the year, True Prodigy will will be onboarding other clients and kind of moving on with other people. We want to make sure we keep their their priority and their attention. And this kind of gives us a dedicated resource to make
sure that we we we want to make sure we're successful all the way through conversion through certification. Uh, discussions or a motion from the board. It's been moved to approve and in a second from um Fred.
>> Oops. >> Oh, I might have I might have read the wrong one. >> Okay. Wait, we are on I No, you were you were correct, right? >> Okay. Yes. >> Yeah, you did. >> You done good.
>> Okay. Uh I >> And that was motion by Ferrar, second by Campos. >> Yes. Any further discussion? All. Oh, please vote. Approved unanimously. Jay, discussion of possible action on
proposed penalty and interest for good cause. >> This was brought up um we've talked about penalty and interest quite a few times and so we were trying to establish what good cause would be. That way the we as or y'all as the board would have
kind of guidance. And what I was kind of looking at was if if it looked to me like people the entities had good cause then it would be an action item for y'all to review and and act on. And if they didn't have good cause based on this policy then we just put in the
consent agenda to deny it and not just to kind of speed things up and not have to revisit these all the time. That was kind of the the two goals. So just establish what good cause is. It's not really defined anywhere and then speed them up if they don't have good cause
>> uh discussion. >> Any feedback on this legal? >> Um the only thing I would say is uh I think you made the comment earlier when you were talking about the consent agenda. Typically the consent agenda is for items that are going going to get approved. So, I thought your your
comment to pull ones that are the recommendation to deny off the consent agenda uh makes a a a good decision. The only other thing I would say about the way that this policy is written is just to make sure that ultimately the board retains the ultimate authority and
decision to decide what it considers as good cause. I think you can use this policy as a guideline, but uh as was commented earlier, I do think each case needs to be looked at individually and this board needs to decide what it thinks is is good cause. But other than that, if you want to adopt this policy
uh to instruct staff on how to recommend it to you, I don't have a problem with that. >> Any discussion or a motion? >> Yes, ma'am. All I had was a question about uh item three with the words unexpected loss
of a sole financial officer. We have so many financial officers that leave and they forget to tell us that they have a new one in the email. I know that Jodon did a great job reminding them in the entity meetings. Please uh keep up your
contact list or consider uh having us send it to a group that uh that can access uh access it. They know how much they owe at the beginning of the year and they have the option of ma making one single payment. They choose to make
multiple payments. But that's my comment. >> So I'm kind of we've addressed this a million times. I kind of piggy back on what Wendy said. To me, if we want to look at good cause, what goes through my mind is what happens. Some school districts, they get wiped out by a
hurricane. There's no administrative office. I mean, significantly huge mega reasons or everything comes before the board. U or maybe like Mr. Ter says, every one of these get itemized out and get discussion. We
either need to determine what good cause is with at least some basic examples or They all need to come before us. >> Yeah. The the reason um where Mr. Ter and I totally agree is you don't put this on a on a consent agenda. Consent agendas are approvals for if these are
ever going to be denied. You don't say I'm I'm for 10 of them but not that 11th one. So, um we'll just we'll have to be on the action side every time. >> Somebody Oh, here. Um >> Morris,
>> we're gonna need to set the two Erics side by side and just >> thing one thing two. Yeah. Um reading this I'm worried it's going to open up a whole can of worms because I mean it's just going to be so broad and it's just like what Fred was saying unless it's some extreme situation like
obviously you know if you're school districts destroyed by natural disaster well I mean you know we would obviously address that. I don't see a need for a policy for that. were reasonable enough to be able to decipher that. If we're going to go so far as to pass this
policy, why not create a good cause subcommittee? I mean, this that's what we're going to end up becoming. I mean, that's basically what we're going to become. >> Let me let me remind everybody what got us here is we we had two or three in a row and we got tired of talking about them all the time and we said, let's come up with a a rule.
>> I'm going to suggest there is no rule. We need to come up. We need to have we are we are asked to sit on a board to make board decisions and this is one of those decisions we have to make by law. And um I I will propose that we do not do a policy and that we just know that
all each time one of these comes up it's going to come to us >> and it'll be an action item and not in the consent. Correct. >> That's correct. >> I have a >> Yes, ma'am. >> This kind of goes back to when we had this conversation before. We didn't put it to a vote, so no action
has been taken. But the recommendation that Matt had made, which I thought was a good one, was that we now tell the entities, "We're not going to give you a reminder every quarter. Here's the bill. It's your responsibility to pay it and you will not get reminders from us.
That's that's a savings anyway to the budget. If we discontinue that process, um then there is no excuse. Well, you didn't send us the notice. We didn't. Therefore, we didn't pay it, which is a courtesy on our part. But since it's always been tradition that we do send
it, if we're going to now negate that as as a just cause, then we need to discontinue the practice. But, and we discussed this at the last meeting, but we did not take an action or vote to direct the chief appraiser to do so.
>> Yeah, it relates back to what Miss Burgess is saying. they it's a choice they make on whether they pay it in one lump or pay it over time. And um I just still think that there's going to be times where they're going to say, "Look, let's go ask. We have the right to ask. The law allows us the right to ask.
We're going to go ask." And so, um I just think that if we come up with a I think if we come up with a rule that says we're always going to say no, we're violating what our purpose is. Also, >> what um so Joe Don, what do you need to
effectively remove the quarterly invoice is redundant upon the annual invoice that you know Wendy and Rick both share the experiences from the text but there's no quarterly there's just one. Do we need Matthew? Do you think we need
an actual motion on that or just this is operation? >> Yeah. I mean, is that something that you know is that something that is actually written in an official TAD policy or is that just always been the practice of the district has been to send it out? >> Yeah, I think it's practice. I don't >> if if it has just been the practice and
it was never set by a board policy, then that really makes it the chief appraisers's decision. And so, I mean, you all you could take an official action. If you do that, then to change it is going to require official action by the board. Uh if you all just look at the chief appraiser and say that's how
we'd like you to do it and he starts doing it that way, then it's free for either Joe Don or or some other chief appraiser to make the change on that as as they see fit. >> Look at all of us real quick. >> Okay. >> So on J, there's a there's an action item on the agenda. Um
we need to take action on this agenda. Correct. It's a it's an action item. So the action could be to >> Right. Uh I mean you don't necess it's discussion and possible action and so if the will of the board is not to adopt the policy then there should be no
motion no action and you can just move on to the next agenda. >> Okay. Real quick yes >> just one clarification. So what's the decision here? I guess there's an understanding that it's now going to be just send one notice for the whole year. You're just going to send that to them. >> Yes sir. And is that going to be an
email as well? Because I I do want to maybe piggyback real quick. The last meeting, the suggestion you made a letter in the mail as well. >> We can >> just so that whole little thing about chief financial officer was replaced goes away. So you do >> we can send a letter in November
>> and then we'll notify everybody that we're going to quit sending the reminders >> or should we just send just like the collector office? They don't send us emails. they send us a state. >> I don't think it'd be that hard to add
the emails. We have most of their contacts and so we can at least make that effort >> since it's the first time >> and emails are free. So, >> they lead to a path though. Well, I didn't get the email to >> but you're going to do both. >> Do both and he's going to announce at
the entity meeting. We got it covered. Hearing no objections, we're going to not take any action on Jay. Now, we're going to go back to the consent agenda E, which is a considered penalty and interest waiver for the city
of Benbrook for late allocation payment. Uh, Mr. Bob, >> we've received the the payment I believe January 29th. According to staff, we didn't see that there was a very good reason for the
late payment. So that's why we're originally recommending denial under consent. >> See? Yes, ma'am. >> I was just going to go ahead and make a motion to deny >> the it's been moved that we deny uh the city of Benbrook's
request for removal of PN P and I second. Seconded. Any discussion? All in favor of the motion vote and who had the second >> um Kelly I need to talk louder apparently.
>> Okay. Just sent the vote. >> A vote four is the to deny. passed unanimous. >> Passed unanimously. It is 10 till 11. Uh I hate to do this, but we my car stopped
at Starbucks on the way and then I stopped at the coffee thing over here a while ago. And just being very upfront, uh we need to take a little break. Um so we will come back and start at 11 with K. All right, welcome back. Uh, the next
agenda item is K discussion and consider action on a resolution to amend the TAN appraisal district 2025 2026 bannual appraisal reappraisal plan. This item is brought by Wendy Burgess and Eric Cra. I don't know who's doing Wendy. I'll go ahead and kick it off
just since I was one of the uh people that brought it uh to the forefront. So, uh bringing this discussion item forward in my capacity as a member of the board of directors to fulfill our statutory
compliance responsibilities under section 605i and 2518 of the Texas property tax code. uh our role is not to perform appraisals or manage operational workflow. Our responsibility is to
ensure that the adopted reappraisal plan remains compliant with the law, responsive to material developments and aligned with the uh with interest of all involved. The 2526 reappraisal plan
includes language on page 27 stating that if ratios indicate that a school district qualifies for a grace finding or receives an invalid finding in the property value study. Those results will
be identified for board consideration at the March meeting and for possible amendment of the plan which is why I asked for it to be on this agenda because we are required to uh that provision expressly contemplates board
level review when property value study results materially impact a taxing unit. This has occurred. Two districts as we know AEL ISD and Carol ISD have failed the 2025 property value study and gone
into grace. Ail ISD leadership has formally requested a discussion for corrective actions available under the adopted plan. This outreach does not place us in an operational role. and unless invokes the governance mechanism
already written into our plan which allows this board to consider whether an amendment is warranted for tax year 25. The board directed that residential properties be held at the prior year final values except for new construction
and new improvements. While that directive was adopted within our authority, the practical consequence in at least two school districts appears to have contributed to the ratio outcomes that place them in grace or failure
status. Under state law, failure in the property value study can result in the use of state values for school funding purposes in the future. The consequences directly affect state uh affects local taxpayers, school district budgets and
public trust in the appraisal system. We already appraise commercial, industrial, business personal property and mineral accounts annually. Therefore, any corrective action under this discussion would relate only to residentialcoded
properties within the affected districts. uh the scope is measurable and defined. The discussion is specific to the failing uh district per plan and it's my understanding that Carol ISD had a discussion with the chief appraiser uh
and is not interested in having theirs uh looked at. Is that correct? Chief appraiser, >> it was very brief. They they did not plan to appeal at this time or really take any action. >> Okay. Thank you. Um, so this discussion
is specific to failing districts that are interested in re-evaluating it. It's about evaluating whether maintaining the current reappraisal posture remains consistent with our statutory duty to appraise property at market value and to
ensure equity and uniformity across taxing units. It's also about ensuring that our adopted plan functions functions as intended in real world settings. The reappraisal plan explicitly provides that ratios
indicating grace or invalid findings be brought to the board for consideration and possible amendment during this meeting. That's precisely what is occurring. Bringing this matter forward ensures transparency pre preserves board
authority and allows the public to see the reasoning behind any decision. This is a governance decision. I am requesting that we uh consider a discussion and a possible amendment to the 2025 2026 reappraisal plan for
districts that have sought corrective action as specified in the plan's management review process. >> This is a public I mean a um >> there are public comments on this one. Uh the first to speak is Todd Smith.
Well, thank you. I originally had not planned to to speak after addressing earlier, but I just wanted to address a couple of things that have been brought up uh since as we've been here this morning. One is the question about the uh our our M rate. And so that is set by
the state and so the state sets all school districts M rate. And so and then that is used in in calculating obviously our budget and everything, but that is also important in part of that truth and taxation statement that all school districts have to do when going through
that obligation. And so I just wanted to point that out is that was a fix that the state did uh years ago in working through school finance was setting that on the property values. And so without getting too confusing and getting into school finance, then that again is where
the importance of of being sure that we pass that property value study comes in play to be sure that we're able to maximize or to get our state funding at that M rate that the state has already set based on our property values if that makes sense. And then of course we do
have the say in the INS which then requires the voter approval. And so I just again want to just say that you know again I know it's one on the opposite end of the spectrum versus South Lake. And I and I get that Robin Hood is real and those districts that have that are part of that Robin Hood or
Recapture or whatever the name you you're familiar with using for it is real. Uh you know, we're on the opposite end of that. And so I just emphasize the fact that the grace the the risk in and I I won't go over three minutes. the
risk in uh being in grace and the potent I mean this was predicted in seven or eight school districts. We were we obviously were the one that fell or one of the ones that fell in it. It's projected if we stay on the path that it
could impact more school districts and I think we're Joe projected to not necessarily maybe get out of grace and so I think the the biggest impact is just the risk of already being in grace and not being able to have that opportunity again. Thankfully the state does give that grace for these unique
cases. And then so I think I would just make sure and ask you again when this kind of came down it was our understanding and I know some of those board members are no longer here but we had conversations with a couple of board members that said that there would be a plan as part of that reappraisal plan
for school districts that failed their property value studies. And it's our understanding that after that all came out and all the meetings and through close sessions and all that that was not a component of it. And so we're requesting that you reconsider what we
were told would be considered uh uh if a school district failed their property value study. >> Thank you sir. Uh channel uh yeah channel crouch you again for the opportunity to speak. Uh, I just want to say again, thank you
to the leadership here. Um, the the reappraisal plan is not simple. It's it's complex. It has an effect that is not just a simple thing here. Um, and I just want to
mention like I I think that it's very clear that the intent behind this is to help taxpayers. That's it. So, nobody set out to harm anybody, any school district or taxpayers or anything like that. It's it's this board stepping up saying we're going to do what we can to
help taxpayers and I commend you. Um, and I appreciate you. I'm glad it wasn't worse than it than it was. And and again, you were right and I forecasted wrong and I thank God. I think there was a lot of luck in that, but I also am just thankful. I real honestly couldn't
care less like why. Uh, and if you have some data that shows that you had some unique insights that gave you the confidence to go through with this when it looked really scary to me, um, I would love to see the the data that gave you that confidence just so that we could have that and take that into
consideration. Probably hopefully part of this discussion we're about to have. Um, I also want to look at the unfairness of the system in general. I think that we're all passionate in different ways one way or the other because of the
unfairness of the system and uh there's only so much we can do locally. I feel like y'all pushed the envelope to do everything you possibly can within the extent of what the law allows. Uh the law is constrictive and it it hurts
people no matter what. And um now that we've had a chance to see what happens locally, I like you've got you've you've got the attention of Austin Abbott put it on his agenda to try and reconsider this
to make reappraisals less often. I don't know how he's going to do it without hurting taxpayers, but I think that he has the ability to pull different levers to adjust the property value study, that sort of thing to make it happen. My hope is now that you've got some data to look
back that you latch hold of the what you're trying to accomplish and are open-minded to the house. If you've got data and if you're if you're intent is to help taxpayers, then let's stick to that and hold tight to it. And the
question of how is that best achieved, I feel like is a discussion that I'm interested to hear how it goes because it it I don't think it's simple. I don't think it's something that we could imagine. It's something that honestly real estate market cycles have have an effect on who's helped and who's hurt by
this kind of thing. Um and and we're put in a position locally where we've got to carry out a system that we're put in an unfair position by the state and hopefully the state responds and we're in a different place uh after the next legislative session. Thank you.
>> Thank you. Say >> thank you board for giving me opportunity last minute but uh I would like to mention something uh regardless of this I like this reapprisment plan or not what you need to focus is to bring all
those properties on the tax role not only the new development but the existing properties new sales as well new sales of the existing property that um I have a discussion with uh Mr. Bett before not today but uh we are
losing if we stuck with this plan we are going to lose whole lot of sales data to be on the tax role it's not reflecting last year and it will not reflect this year as well all we need is to do not if
you decide not to change it at least take those sales data and bring it to the tax role. Hopefully that will help the entities. And I would like to mention one thing uh and correct me if I'm wrong. You had an
entity meeting on July 22nd, 2024. In that meeting, board decide to go for the study for a new reappraisal plan. And I believe at that time uh Miss Pena and Miss Burgess voted for that.
you voted yes for that and now you bring the there is a problem with the re uh reappraisal plan I believe it's uh because of the entities especially the school district uh they think that they are going to hurt because of that but
you voted for yes ma'am and now you're bringing it it's good if you are going to listen it but in uh you voted in 2024 July and in August 2024 meeting It's time to vote. You had some family
emergency and uh you did not vote on that agenda item. U but uh Miss uh Pena voted no in August meeting if I'm correct. So but my point is the
sales data that you are going to lose. It's it's going down in cracks. You're losing it. Please bring it to the tax rule. that will help a lot of things that uh zoning changes. I don't know if you're going to update it or not. That
will help the entities in getting more tax, less tax regardless of that, but it should reflect on the tax. Thank you for your time. >> Thank you, Ethan Close. >> Thank you, board. I'm Ethan Close, the
treasurer for the city of Arlington. Uh, as I've stated here in front of you before, as I've stated down at the state legislature, city of Arlington would like for uh you to amend the reappraisal plan. We believe that your job is to
appraise properties. You should be appraising all properties every single year as stated in state statute. Um, we are not asking for increases. We're not asking for decreases. We're asking for
actual rates, actual property values to be assessed. It is our job as the city to assess then what taxes should be paid by the taxpayers. it is with uh
when we have um deficits like we had this past year, it complicates the issue for us to have to say, well, part of this is because the economy and part of this is because of Tad's decisions. We don't want to have to try and explain to
our citizens that it's because of political decisions being made as opposed to economy being made as how and where we we make cuts or increase our budgets. So, with that, we just would like to
restate that it's imperative that y'all appraise properties every single year. Thank you. >> Thank you. Uh that's the last Yeah. the last public comment. Uh want to clarify one thing that has been stated. Nowhere
in any tax code of the state of Texas does it state that we have to appraise every single year. That is complete misinformation that's shared by even some elected officials out of Austin. It's just flat not true. Um
that said on this topic before us for a uh I would open the open the table for conversation. >> Yes, Eric Crown. Thank you, Chairman Barnes. Uh, as Wendy stated, this agenda item was requested
by her and I after a meeting with AEL administration and listening to their concerns regarding the comproll respondings. Uh, so have this statement I'd like to read. First, I would like to say thank you to the three elected board members who brought the reappraisal plan
to the forefront of discussion back in 2024. It was a bold step in providing stability and predictability for homeowners to know their home's value over a two-year cycle. I applaud the goal of providing tax relief to the citizens of Tarant County. However, what
would have most certainly worked in a two-year cycle does not necessarily apply to the three-year cycle that 2026 will bring. With home values being frozen at 2024 levels, the crucial 2025 reappraisal was not conducted. And while
home values have remained relatively flat across the county, there's been price appreciation throughout pockets of the county. Two of these communities are AEL ISD and Carol ISD. While the ability to conduct periodic reappraisals falls
squarely to this district, we must do our job and do it well to ensure the policies we enact are not causal to the comprollers's findings of invalid values, thereby putting school districts in danger of losing state funds. Chairman Barnes released a statement
yesterday that all school districts were certified to use the local values assigned and that is true. However, AEL and Carol ISD are now in year one of a possible two years of grace. And while that may not necessarily affect large recapture districts, it can
certainly affect a non-reapture district of which AEL is one. Furthermore, our plan, as written, does create inequities in the appraisal system. It prioritizes existing and modified non-refurbished homes for tax relief over new
construction homes and homes that have been modified. These homes continue to be appraised annually along with all commercial interests in the county. Now, the good news is the two-year reappraisal is not a new phenomenon. In fact, Parker County, just to the west of
us, successfully do their appraisals in odd years to align with comproller study. The difference for them is that school districts found to be invalid are reappraised the next year for when the values to come within tolerance. So we know
with proper safeguards the two-year plan can be successful. So why now? Simple. We have invalid values because of our current plan and we have no safeguards implemented. And in conversations with the chief appraiser, if we want to act, we must do it before the printing of
annual notices begins in March. As an appraisal district, our goal should be to provide accurate values as required by Texas law. Following the law, the state of Texas requires property to be valued at 100% of market value. Now, we know appraisals aren't in exact science,
but we should aim to be as accurate as possible. In Azo ISD, single family homes are undervalued by 240 million. And in Carroll ISD, that number is 2.2 billion. Those are not rounding errors. That's the effect of not appraising in
2025. Not appraising in 2026 will only make the situation worse. Focusing on Hazel for a moment, Tarant County is 897 square miles. Hazel ISD makes up approximately 32 of those miles or 3 and a2%. That means for 96 and a half% of
the county, the reappraisal plan worked. And that's great news. And fortunately, we did leave two school districts behind. and that presents us with the opportunity to implement safeguards to address the shortfalls. When this plan was passed at the August 2024 meeting, several members of this body went on
record and stated the goal is to not hurt school districts. And should an invalid finding occur, this board would go back and re-evaluate its plan. And where I come from, when you give someone your word, you honor it. So, in accordance with page 11 and page 27 of
the reappraisal plan, I move to direct the chief appraiser to reappraise all property located within an ISD's boundaries in 2026 where a written request is received by the chief appraiser or his designate via a schoolboard resolution wherein the
requesting ISD has a preliminary finding of invalid values from the 2025 property value study. This request must be received by 11:59 p.m. March 16, 2026. >> There's a motion. Is there a second?
>> There's a second. Discussion on the motion. >> I'd just like to say I gave my word to the voters and you should remember the election results. We had an overwhelming mandate that this is what the voters wanted and the big picture isn't being told here. The buck stops with the
elected officials on the other end. Um, you could go to the voters with a bader. You could um the cities can adjust their tax rates. For too long, people have been doing nothing. By doing nothing with these the values continuing to rise, they're raising people's taxes and they're they're blaming it on the
appraisal district. So, if the voters wanted what we are planning, then go to the voters and they won't have a problem with an adjustment of the rate to solve the problem. So, I feel like the whole picture is not we're not the bad guys. this is what the voters wanted and they shouldn't have an issue
if we need to adjust a rate to receive more funding. But at the end of the day, promises made, promises kept. It's not political. It's we're doing what we said we were going to do and and their fears didn't materialize. And so, you know, I don't have spouses that work for school
districts where my household income is directly affected by the funding. So, I I don't know where y'all are coming from. Well, there's two people up here that have is is your wife a Tarant County No, I'm just saying it's it's >> No, no, no. It's it's you have different
motivations. I kept my word to the voters and he's saying where I come from, I keep my word. That's what we're doing. That's what I'm doing. So, I can only speak for myself. >> I'm not attacking. No, I'm saying it's you. We have different intents. >> And I mean,
don't talk go to me about attacking another board member. I've tried to be professional and y'all attack me when I have a difference of opinion. >> Y'all brought this up. >> Wait, one one person at a time. Is there anything else? >> No, I can I'm done, but I mean he's acting >> any other discussion. >> Yes, ma'am.
>> Um, so there was um I do have a question. Um, it was mentioned that the city of Arlington adopted a deficit budget. Was this the first time they've ever adopted a deficit budget? >> By way, this isn't a discussion with the public. >> Like this is just for the board to
discuss. So, >> thank you. >> Okay. So, I'm just I'm just curious. I don't think it's fair to state that >> uh the appraisal district is a reason that they adopted a deficit budget unless this is the first time in the history of the city of Arlington. I don't know if it is or not, but I just wanted to make that comment. Um, okay.
So, um, okay. District options. So, once they fall out of grace, what what is the next step for the district? Is there is there an option for them to appeal this with the with the state? Like, walk me through exactly what if I were working for a school district, what would be the
expectation when a study comes out and I fall out of grace? So you can a school district, not so much the appraisal district, but the school district can appeal the findings of the property value study. I think one of the misconceptions about the property value
study is that somehow the values are the state's opinions of values and that's not really true particularly when you're looking at uh single family residential. What the property value study is is it is a ratio study. They pick properties
that actually sold during a six-month period before January 1 and a six-month period after January 1. And then they look at the sales price of those properties and compare it to what the certified market value was for the
district. So in single family residential, in order to effectively challenge the state's findings, you have to show that there was something wrong with those sales. either the reported sales price is wrong, it wasn't a market value transaction. In commercial, uh the
state doesn't have that kind of sales data available to them because there's not like a multiple listing service where you can get that information from. And in the commercial area, the state does do their own appraisals. And that becomes a much easier thing to fight
during the property value study because the district ran their method, they come up with one value, the state ran their method, they came out with another. We all have have opinions. >> So in your conversation, Mr. Bobbit, do you know if either of the two districts that fell out of grace have filed an appeal?
>> I don't believe they have yet, but I believe it was their intent to. >> Okay. >> Um, we We have a copy of the the data from the comproll's office and I've been looking through it. I don't have a high degree of faith that an appeal would be successful because of
what Matthew was talking about. They're they're just actual sales >> and there's you would have to exclude a large number to to move the ratio. >> Okay. Um, so before the reappraisal plan, did the district have any uh did
did any of the districts fall out of grace prior to the reappraisal plan? >> 10 years. >> Not not 10 years. So 10 years prior they did. And then was it recorrected on the next appraisal or how did that >> believe? So I wasn't here that long ago. We believe it is.
>> Okay. So I just want to make sure I'm following. So if they're in grace this year and they they will be in grace again next year and then we will reappraise for the following year. Is that correct? >> 27 that's the current. >> So that would be if they were in grace
for two years we reappraised in 27 then that means that new appraiser values would come would come out and with the history of TAD there hasn't been any districts that fell out of grace in at least 10 years. So there's a good likelihood that they would get back
within the state's margin of whatever you call it. I mean, is that fair to say? >> We would make an extra effort to make sure that we are at 99 or higher just to because normally there's like roughly a third of the state of school districts that are out of in Grace or out of grace
at any given time out of,20 or whatever school districts are. And most of those school districts, the appraisal districts thought they were close to 100% and the comproller said you're not. And so I'm a risk adverse. And so if we were
going to go into for 2027, we're probably going to hit it pretty hard just to make sure that we're that the comproller comes in close to our number. So for for the 2025 2026 as far as funding for the school districts, they're not at risk in 2025 or 2026 of
losing funding from the state because they're in grace. Is that correct? >> Correct. >> Okay. Thank you. >> The risk is to lose the grace period the additional correct they should get their full funding for both this year and next year. >> Okay. Thank you for the clarification. I appreciate that.
>> Yeah. Two years. >> Further discussion. >> Yes. I'd like to address uh Miss Riggney. Um the adjustment of the tax rates, it does work for the cities. The cities have more leniency. The schools do not because of the maximum compress rate um
sent down by the state. And my motion is very specific. Um you know, I know being elected you do answer to the taxpayers. We all answer to the taxpayers. But that's why my motion is to allow the school board who are elected in that
local area to present a resolution to us so that they can answer to their citizens >> since they are elected. >> Their voters voted for us overwhelmingly based on our plans that we put out there and they can go to the voter approved
rate. The voters approved if they need to adjust the rate if they're already maxed out on the M rate. It's called a Vader, >> which I believe they've already passed. Let me let me clarify that. Is there a
Vader in Asel? Okay. It's an interesting conversation because the reality is that the system is flawed. whether anybody wants to accept that or admit to that or not. Um the
message out of Austin depending upon who you talk to is depend upon what you get. Um they all stand on the same floor and vote on the same issues and come home and report very different things. Um for example, some will try to tell us that
we have to appraise every single year and we flat do not. Proof in that is that there are other counties that don't do it right this minute. And if you are in violation of the law, you enforce the law. Instead, what they tried to do last session is pass a law telling us we were
in violation of the law. You don't need a law to tell us we're in violation of the law if we're already in violation of the law. That's like coming up with a new speed limit to say you're in violation of the speed limit that you were in violation of. So the the the reality is we got a mess that we're trying to deal with.
the the and in in this case it may or may not be affecting a school district because I think the may or may not part is all of this is based upon assumptions of values. The comproller even uses different dates
than we use when we determine values. My house today is not what it was worth six months ago based upon all kinds of things. You can call any realtor out there and say, "What's my house worth right now?" and they're going to tell me it's worth less than it was six months ago when we have to make a decision about issues here. And so we got a we
got a mess. And I think that that that the that is the underlying reality of the whole thing. My question that I have asked multiple times has been about the fair and equal part of the appraisal process.
I've yet to understand how you stop and appraise a part of a county and still have fair and equal. If I live across the street from and let's just use the school district we're talking about as school district and you live on their
side of it and we have ultimately the exact same house because we went and bought pickup company a David Weekley and I put my fireplace over here and you put your fireplace over there but we have the same house. Mine is about to be appraised and yours is not about to be appraised because I
live in the appraisal district. I mean in inside the school district that we're talking about. And now we got a unfair and unequal reality literally across the street from each other. I've yet to hear anybody explain to me
how that falls within line with what the code and the laws say. taxed one way and you're being taxed another way because you're in different school districts. >> No. >> Yeah. >> It's not that's not it's not an issue of
taxes. You and I don't deal with taxes in this room. We deal with appraisals in this room. >> But Rick, we already do that. If if I own a business in Tarant County, it gets appraised every year. Whereas if I own a residence currently gets appraised two or three years, that's inequitable as
well in your example. It still happens. That's the way things are. So us taking the 3% for Ail, I understand your feelings like what about the other 97%. Well, this was an exception case. >> No. Well, I don't that that doesn't even answer to my
>> exact issue at all. >> The other issue is like based on sales, we already have an equity issue because as Id is at 91% on market of what they actually sell for, whereas other school districts that are surrounding them are 95 or better. So
>> So it's already There's already equity. >> Yeah. I I I don't if I knew how to answer this question, we wouldn't even need you as a board. >> We wouldn't need the entire state legislature. I'm just telling you that that's unfair
and unequal. And whenever you study everything you study about appraisals, the biggest thing they talk about coming out of Austin is that everything needs to remain fair and equal. >> That's just a challenge to the to the conversation. Yeah, Wendy, sorry. Holler out.
>> No problem. Uh so I brought this item to discussion as a governance item per the existing reappraisal plan as it's stated in the reappraisal plan and not as an argument just as a discussion for adults
on this board to have a discussion on this matter that is a governance item. It is um it's to take the opportunity to make all entities equal and uniform. And to
your question about I live across the street from someone right now in the mass appraisal method that's being done already where you live across the street. you're being appraised differently because of the
neighborhood uh method that is that the chief appraiser just talked about. It's already happening. So, I'm just saying this is an opportunity for us to perfect what was almost perfection in our
reappraisal plan. So, I just brought it uh because it is stated that we would do it in the month of March of this year. And so I brought it to the item so we could discuss it. And why not take an opportunity to perfect something that is
so close. >> Yeah. Don't misunderstand me. I'm not arguing with anybody on anything. I'm telling you that the biggest conversation in this book that many of us have not ever opened. Uh many of you have not ever opened um is that it talks
about fair and equal. And the the reality is whenever Austin is telling us how to do our job, they're violating their own rules that they passed. Not us. This isn't about us at this point. This is about the fact that some of them come home and tell us. Some of them tell
you, some of you rode in cars down to meet with them in Austin last year and they weren't honest with you about some of it. And here we sit. So, we do have a motion on the floor. The motion is moved to direct the chief appraiser to reappraise all properties located within an ISTD's boundaries in
2026 where a written request is received by the chief appraiser or his design via schoolboard resolution wherein the res request ISD has a preliminary finding of invalid values from the 2025 PBS. This request must be received by 11:59 11:59 p.m. March 16, 2026. It also had a
second. We still have discussion. If I could make a quick comment, I just want to clarify before we make our vote here. Um, so it seems like we've already established they're in grace right now. They're good this year and then what we've established is next year they're
good under grace still. So we've established that and then after that we're going to have our reappraisal. So and uh this was one of the reasons why I mean uh and I I say this because uh Mr. Kryle mentioned about keeping our word. I'll have to see exactly what what he's
quoting there. Um, but this is one of the reasons why back then I didn't support putting verbiage to automatically reappraise if someone falls within grace because my opinion is we're having a premature discussion. Not against the discussion at all. I always welcome discussion, but we could
potentially be taking a premature action. Again, making a lot of assumptions. We don't actually know if this concern I mean the track record so far is we had a lot of people predict doomsday today and doomsday didn't
happen right so I think this action is a little premature given that we're fine right now we're fine next year if we have that next property value study or that that reappraisal and then we're still in shaky ground I think that's a different
story that'll be a different kind of conversation but we're not at that level yet. So, this was the reason why I did not support putting that verbiage in there because then we're going to automatically make a premature decision where right now what we're seeing still
I'm I'm not seeing doomsday. I'm not seeing where that is. So, I just wanted to explain that before we make our vote. >> M. >> Yes, sir. >> I don't believe it's premature. we've had a invalid finding and from the
comproller's point of view that is um a failure. The um and I guess you know everyone knows what I do for a career. I'm a firefighter right? So why take the chance of
a calamity happening in 2027 or a mistake or and we fail, the school district would not qualify for grace because they will have used up their second year of grace. So
I just I feel that we have the opportunity to fix the plan that worked for 97% of the county. So, I think we should take that opportunity. Thank you, >> Mr. Chairman. If I could, I'd just like to explain a little clearer about how the grace periods work. Um, it's a
really weird weird system. It probably took me eight years of working in the property value study before I really understood it. But in order for a school district to get grace, you have to have passed two of the prior three-year property value studies. So right now
we've passed two of the last three because we just assuming it doesn't get changed. We failed in 26. In 27 or rather in 25 in 26 the school districts are going to automatically get grace. If
we were to pass in 26 and then also pass in 27, we'd have our two of our last three years and the school district would have its full two grace periods going into the 2027 reappraisal. If we don't do anything in
2026 and the school districts get an invalid finding for 26, when we come in to 2027, we will have failed two of the last three. we're going to have to pass in 27 and then we're also going to have to turn back around and get a valid
finding in 28. Uh and so that's kind of the risk of not doing a reappraisal in 26. Asel ISD and Carol ISD should get their full funding for 26, but we are losing that grace period so that there's a risk that we have to pass in both 27
and 28 in order to make sure that the school districts don't suffer a financial risk of it. So just to add another thing to what he said, there is scenarios where Ail could pass and then fail and be out of funding till 2031.
So it isn't just, oh, we can wait and see. The way the grace works, there are scenarios where this is their warning and they don't get another warning even if they pass this the next year. So it's just a really weird scenario of of
danger for school districts. Help me. Help me understand what >> you help me understand what he just said. >> Okay. So, >> this is 2026 and we're making a decision about 2031. >> Yeah. So,
>> that you help me understand this. >> All right. I'm gonna have to write this down because these numbers always get confusing for me. So, for me to explain this, right? So, I guess we had the last property value study for Ail. I'll use them because they're sitting right here. we passed it. Then we we didn't get one
in 24 because we had passed. So then we had a second property value study that was done in 2025. And as of right now we are outside of the confidence interval. So right now we passed the 2021 study.
We passed the 2023 study but we failed the 2025 study. So we have been successful in each two of the last three property value studies. Now when we do 26 because because we're out of the confidence interval we're getting a
study in Ail ISD in 2026. If we were to fail within Ail ISD again in 26 now we get our second year of grace. Uh you get a first year of grace under the government code. You get an automatic second year of grace. That means when we
come in to 2027, we have failed 25 and 26. If we pass 27, then we've got a valid finding and AEL ISD gets its full funding for 2027. Then we're going to get a study. I think it is for 2028.
That was the question Mr. Bob had asked earlier that I'm not entirely positive what the answer is, but if we get a study in 2028 or 2029, if we were to fail that study again, well, we still have the 26 failure, the 28 failure, and
the 27 pass. So now we don't have two of the three prior years. And then if we get another fail on that, when we come back in 2029 and we look at it, we've got a fail in 28, we've got a pass in 27, and if we fail 29 again, we don't
have two of the prior three years. That explain that a little bit better. >> Yeah. >> As I recall, the I wasn't here when whoever was here made the decision to go to this model of appraisals. I supported it, but wasn't here to make that decision.
We did it for two years and part of the conversation for two years was exactly this. >> No, >> it's in line with the property value study. >> Yeah, was exactly this. We didn't go to a fiveyear. We didn't go to a three-year even. We went to a two-year because
we're going to reappraise in 27. If we properly reappraise, if we do our job, properly reappraise, nobody's going to have a problem in 27. >> No, this this year we didn't we didn't appraise last year and we aren't
appraising this year. That that's based upon a lot of assumptions about what might or might not have been in an appraisal in 2025 that nobody can. People are rubbing the the glass ball and just making stuff up at that point. I I I'll talk about South Lake for just
a minute. There's nobody in South Lake government leadership that will not tell us that that result was the result of two major sales in South Lake to people that
dramatically overbought the price of the house. came here with California money and dramatically overpaid the price. Therefore, they're everybody thinks everybody else's houses should be that worth that much. And none of those
houses are selling. People are living in them. So, they're like, I don't I don't care how much you may want to pay me. I want to live in this town, so I'm going to not sell my house to you. And that's the silliness that we're dealing with right now. And that not out there. Not in AEL. I don't think that's the issue in ASL. Although if I could buy out in Hazel what you can buy in South Lake, I
go buy right this minute. >> Um you know the unique measure that's being proposed for is that we raise values which I believe is also no So um outside of this just invigorating
discussion we're having here about valuations and how to value what do you what do my colleagues I'm not looking out there I'm looking to my colleagues what do you think the taxpayer inel would like to see happen today would they like their taxes to go
up or are would they like them to stay where they're at because I I think that's um kind of a governing principle for me in this discussion is I can assure you if you go hat in hand to 50 as homes
um and ask them I I'm pretty certain of what response I would get but I would like to hear from my colleagues um maybe maybe I'm misaligned with you guys on that and maybe you think there are citizens that would like to see the
taxes raised based upon Um the situation we're in right now, >> the first thing I can think of is the 27 teachers that would uh not this year, not next year. And please correct me if
I misspe, the 27 teachers that would uh be affected that would be that would they would have to let go in the third year if it uh if it came. And we don't have I don't have a crystal ball. I brought this for a discussion and we're
having a reasonable discussion about this. None of us have a crystal ball. >> May I make one input on that? And again, I I hear this and it's irresistible for me not to respond to the school districts that always claim it's 27
teachers. I've not heard one school district say, "No, we're going to get rid of all of our assistant principles and our um assistant superintendent." It's always the emotional, "You're going to you're going to sack the music teacher. You're going to sack um and
again to me when I hear that I um I struggle with it. I struggle with it." >> Let me let me let me answer part of your question, Matt. If I live in AEL, I want
an outstanding education for my kids. That's what they want. And that's what's wrong with the school funding model. We in Texas have a hard time providing what they are in li or in place to do
with a model that was developed by lawyers and judges and passed down and said, y'all go do well. Now, I don't think that the model from the
loggers and judges included multi-million dollar football stadiums. Um, although I would tell you if I live in AEL, I also want my football team to be pretty dang good. Well, maybe even particularly in AEL, I want my football team to be pretty dang
good. Um but but we can't not we cannot ignore that reality. Everybody out there wants an outstanding education for the kids. >> I think one thing we need to think about too, I I kind of agree with Eric when he mentioned we might be jumping the gun
just a little bit. I know that this is an urgent issue, but I think we need to remember that next year is also a legislative session and there have been some major proposals um coming forward that have been talked about. And so right now these districts as of we stand
right now are okay. And look, I'm the biggest proponent of public education. So anybody that wants to say, you know, I've heard it all. But you can't sit on the school board and not support public education. 100% support that. Um I think we need to sit back. Let's see what
happens in legislative session next year. And then if we decide to move forward and make a change, then that might be an opportunity to do it. Just something to think about. um a lot can change in the next year and so then we're going to be looking at this again. We may not even have a two-year reoplasial plan, you know, coming in 15
months or something. We don't know what's going to happen. And so, um my suggestion would be to uh keep keep what we've got right now because they're not at risk this moment of of um losing funding and then maybe possibly next year kind of taking a look at where
we're at and what the legislature tells us we have to do anyways. >> Okay. Further discussion >> just quick comment Matt asked for as chairman Barren said we don't set tax rates we do the appraisal and so a lot
of thought went into let the school board set their rate and answer to their taxpayers and so that's again why I drafted it the way that I drafted it with a spec specificity
however you say that word Um, and uh, Chairman Warren, I the football stadium, you know, just so everyone's clear, that wouldn't come out of the M uh, fund. That would come out of your INS. And so
the funding that is lost by the schools comes off that M and not the INS. >> I agree with that. I just don't think the general public understands any of that. They see my taxes, my property values went up to pay for schools and
they wer and built the stadium. That's the only reason I'm bringing that up. I hear that conversation all the time, even in my own hometown. Yes, ma'am. >> Um I wholeheartedly agree with what you said. If you ask somebody about if they want their child educated, it becomes
very important. Um, when we did this reappraisal plan initially and people came and talked to me and said, "What do you think? You know, we're now we're going to get this tax break." I said, "Do you know what the impact of all this is? Do you know what the domino effect
this is going to have now?" Because as everybody knows, I voted against it. Um, and that I said, "So now it's going to affect your education system. It's going to affect your city. There is no choice that they have but to raise their taxes
because they've got to get the money from someplace. And the people I talked to said they did not realize that. Yes, they were glad they got the savings initially, but then when they started seeing things happen like city of Arlington had to raise their taxes, then
there was the outcry of, wait, wait a minute, we did not know that that was the impact they were going to have. And when you talk about elected officials, you have to remember the city of Arlington, their council members, their mayor, they're all elected. The same with the school boards. They're elected.
So you're you we have three elected here. Well, four, including Rick. Um, and I've heard over and over again the conversation, well, we need to talk to the elected people. Well, you can talk all you want, but you're not listening
because they're telling over and over again what impact they felt it was going to come to them, and nobody's listening. I still hear them. I still hear what they're saying. I still see the impact that it's having. So, we keep saying it's saying that it doesn't matter. We
just do appraisals. Well, when we did this motion, in my mind, we walked out of our lane. That was not anything to do making promises about low lowering your taxes. We don't have that authority here.
So, we got to listen to what the people are saying. You have Asel sitting right here asking that they get that opportunity to have their school district reappraised. And we're still going to say no. I can hear it right here. So, if they're coming to us and we're
not going to listen, what is the point? This is a very small minor sentence to be to the appraisal plan that when we make a lofty goal like I know Arlington school district says we want to educate 100% of our children so that they can
perform once they graduate. The reality is you can't control the 100%. Right. Eric made the point that we maybe 97% of the people got what they needed on this this uh study.
So we want to hit 100%. That's the goal. It should always be the goal to hit 100%. If we make this minor change that gives that opportunity to the taxing entities, then we're shooting for the 100% goal. We're not settling for mediocre.
That's how I feel about this. >> May I make just one comment? And Gloria is absolutely just one of my favorite people. >> Use your microphone. >> One of my favorite people to serve with. Um, but I how can we not see the irony? And this
is nothing against anyone here, but we have appointed appointed board members appointed by arguably the superintendent and the school board. I've sat on the school board. I was on South Lakes. I I I know
how this goes. So we have and this is just the irony. We have folks appointed by the school board arguing in clearly in the favor and again Gloria
has her sphere of people that she talks to and they all tell her public education is more important to me than my tax bill which I just um I've sat on both sides of the fence. I've been on a You know, South Lake's a very notable
school board and I had um a good tenure there, but I'm telling you, I think the alignment with the taxpayers is change. And we started that change in July of 2024. And it was
I'm sorry, August. >> I think I missed it because I was in Colorado. Um so this is an input of um it this is not a perfect system. This is a far from
perfect system. Um there is chaos with what has been set up since the early 80s. And um I am proud to be a part of the appraisal district that has said, you know what, we're going to take a we're going to take a
stab at doing it a little differently. We I I don't care for the this is how it's done. This is how we've always done it. Um that part just doesn't ring with me. Um and if you know me, that's that wouldn't surprise you. I don't mind going against the grain and we're we recognize that we're going against the
grain here, but we think we're right. We think change does need to happen. And again, our job is simple. I love school districts coming to us and telling us how to do our job. I I'm not going to any school district and telling them how to educate kids. I just wouldn't do it.
But being told how we need to administer our reappraisal plan. Um it strikes me a little bit wrong, you know, for the school district to come tell me how to do again. I'm not going to tell them how to educate kids. My responsibility is
accurate, timely valuations on whatever period, whatever schedule that we feel is aligned with state law and is um you know, is it a change? Yeah, there's it's a change. We're we hear we hear from the
state legislature. We hear from our state senators, our state reps that we've started up. um we're comfortable with what we've done and we want to move forward and not make changes. We want to have a steady hand and not make even even brilliant
little tweaks. No. You know what my answer is? No. Let's let's let's ride this out with what we've established. Um I do believe the taxpayer supports what I'm advocating for here. other comments.
>> Just great points. It's not a tweak. It's in the reappraisal plan. >> It It is on page 27 of 162. It says approximately in March, the
final ratios will be presented to the board comparing prior year values to newly calculated values. any ratios that indicate an ISD would qualify for grace period or in the PBS or that would receive an
invalid finding resulting in state values will be identified for board consideration and possible amendment of the reappraisal plan and as I stated earlier I simply b brought it forward as a governance item for this board to
discuss >> not as an argument it was a discussion And we're following our governance uh that we ourselves wrote. Glory and I could talk together on the phone or in person about all kinds of good stuff,
but I will push back on one issue is that what really happens what really really happens is everybody points at everybody else when it comes to taxes. School boards and city councils do not accept the fact that the rate their
taxes are so dang high because of decisions they make. They say, "Well, it's appraisal district. They make your houses cost too much." And we over here point at them and say, "Well, it's because they raised those tax rates. They they, you know, they built they built that stuff that wasn't necessary. They built that brand new high school
when they had one that worked." And you know, and then the public looks at all of us and says, "All y'all are messed up." like I cannot live in this county anymore because I cannot afford to live here because your
appraisal process combined with my city and my school's tax process has literally taxed me out of properties out of living here. And that's a factual statement. When I ran for office in 2024, there was two topics that were the two
topics that pled every single day as the only two topics that were number one and two every single poll. One was the border and one was the economy that related to the taxes. That's why we're here where we're at.
That's why this conversation's taking place. That's why the state made a strong decision that said in these large counties, we can no longer just have appraisal districts that are made up of entity appointments that serve nothing but the entities.
That's why the tax assessor became a voting member of the board. That's why they told us that we need three people voted at large from the public to represent the public, not just the entities. So, it's fair that this is not an easy conversation
and it's fair that it's a struggle to figure out how do you do everything that we are sent here to do that includes taking care of our entities at this point as ISD because as TAD board members we're serving some of us are here to serve the
greater public some of you are not some of you were here sent here by the entities that sent That's just a flat reality. I kind of walk on both sides of it. As ISD is one of my entities, as ID people are also my supporters and so some of us
have a lot of very difficult decisions we have to make on this. My question that relates to it is if the decision is not made today, get your little notepad out again and say it's done one year from now.
They're okay for a year, but one year from let you don't need your help. Let me clarify. If we wait a year, they're good for the year, but what they are potentially risked at is for the year, God's sakes, five years from now.
I think it be it's either 28 or 29 when the next reappraisal will be done. That's the part I'm not 100% sure of is if we pass it in 27 whether we get a study in 28 or whether our next study doesn't come out until 29. But in either
event, if assuming that we don't reappraise for 26 and we fall out of the confidence interval for 26 again, we are going to have to pass the next two property value studies, whether that's 27 and 29 or 27 and 28. And again to
Mr's point and that's assuming the legislature doesn't completely upend the the Apple car and put in a whole new system by there. >> Well, I don't think there's any question that's going to happen. That's the reality. I'm pretty sure it's 2729 in Waco. We missed one of the schools and they didn't study it after we
corrected it. >> That's I think that's what I heard the superintendent say to you. So that is probably correct. And that's how then you get to the 2031. Uh although it really wouldn't be because if we failed in 29 then we would actually get a study in 30. So it would be 2030 not 2031.
>> Yeah. So but again let me it's just such a tough decision. that that's also saying though to this body that we would not effectively appraise between now and then. >> Well, if under your current reappraisal
plan, you would do a reappraisal in 27. Um, and then you would not have a reappraisal in 28, but then you would reappraise again in 29. So, you would have to pass both the 27 and the 29 property value study. And then when you
got to 2031, assuming you passed both of those, and presumably Carol would have their former experience. So again, I don't think the board that made this decision just sat up here and willy-nilly decided, let's just don't appraise for two years and see what happens. I think they've thought through
this stuff. And part of thinking it through was how in the world can we say we're doing our job effectively if we're going to sit here and think we might not pass the year we actually appraise. I just think that's a
I don't know what adjective to call that. >> Rick, the previous board tipped this into consideration. It was into the final draft and was removed at the very end if somebody fell out. >> So, I mean, they took it into consideration because this issue has
come up. >> It was added and Jon can confirm this. the night before it was added and Eric Morris noticed that that item was added and he removed it. So, it wasn't >> we didn't we didn't correct, >> but obviously they thought it was an
issue. >> But but if we're accurately doing our jobs and appraising accurately, it it's in line with property value study. It should be no problem. They're getting the reappraisal when it's >> Do you understand what I'm saying? >> No. >> If we're accurately appraising, why are
we to fail and we also don't know what legislator I mean this is just the same things as we did last year >> right legis being fine so I don't understand >> but they did fail we're not appraising till 27 so they're are very likely to fail again in 26 >> I mean it's it's almost
>> when they would be at risk is when we would be reappraising again >> right but if they have two failures and we corrected 27 they now have the black mark they can't fail again in 28 or 29 or they they they've lost their grace at
that point >> and we have the ability to correct it based on what's currently in our reappraisal as as the mo and the motion's very tight. It what Eric put together is only for the ISDs. It doesn't cover the city of Arlington. It's just very specific to this issue.
>> Well, one thing I wanted to mention that I noticed that Gloria said and and this just made me be a slip, but you said they're going to raise taxes. They shouldn't be raising loss. All they should be doing is adjusting their rate is what they're is what they're saying that they're talking
about is is so when she says that the city of Arlington is going to raise taxes, no, they're they're going to adjust their rate is what they should be doing to compensate for the losses that they're expecting. >> I care an awful lot about the city of Arlington, but not in this discussion. >> So, but that's what I'm saying. It's not >> city of a oral
ISD is maxed on your rate, right? They can't adjust their rate, >> right? But I mean, >> well, they could adjust it down, but >> we're talking about I don't know. It's it's just we're not gonna make everybody happy and we're gonna try to do the best that we can. But my point is is why are we anticipating all of this loss when we
we talked about all this fear a year or two ago. Um, and everything ended up being okay. Um, as far as loss of funding. So, I guess my my question would be what happens if we decide to go ahead and reappraise it and then we have an influx
of property owners come in and go, why did you only reappraise my properties within this 30 something square mile when the however many miles that we stated was in the Tarant County, you didn't reappraise any of them. That's not fair. And so my question would be then how what is your response going to
be to those taxpayers that the small the small group of taxpayers that we are reappraising? How are we going to respond to them if there's an outcry that now they haven't been fair and consistent because we didn't do it across the district? I I'm more of either you do it across the board
reappraise every year or you don't reappraise. I don't know how I would respond to taxpayers that are being reappraised when the the rest of the county is not being reappraised. My answer to that would be it was listed on this agenda and no one has come to
speak on behalf of it except Azo ISD and so they can go to their their elected leaders if they want to speak but no one has shown up here to speak against this. >> Tell me what happens if we reappra we
asel wants to be in line. Good. If we reappraise and appraisals go down, I mean hopefully uh if we reappraise and appraisals go down, that would be indicative of the sales prices in
whatever school district it is going down. So presumably if again if the appraisals were done accurately, they ought to bring us into line with where the state is. And obviously kind of to the point, if you're reappraising a part of the county only and not the entire
county and that area goes down, if the whole county was to go down, then obviously those people that are in the reappraisal area get the benefit of a declining market. Whereas those people that are not in a reappraisal area don't. The same way that if you reappraise part of it and it goes up,
the people that are in the part that gets reappraised and it goes up get an increase. Whereas the people that live in the part of the county that isn't reappraised don't get that for another year or so. >> Can't they just protest? >> What you didn't say is everybody's going to move to Hazel, but that might be reality. >> Yeah. But absolutely. And anybody who
thinks that either the market value of their property is incorrect or the equal and uniform value of their property is incorrect, I think should be encouraged to file a protest, talk to the district about it, and ultimately go to the ARB. If they can't get it, get a resolution.
But absolutely somebody that's got an equal and uniform problem with their appraisal. Uh there there is absolutely a remedy for them to challenge that. >> Matt, >> it's been a while, but my memory s we do have a motion and a second out right
now. Correct. Trying to remember. >> I would love to read it to make sure we all know what >> the motion is move to direct the chief appraiser to reappraise all property located within the anistd's boundary. Let me let me clarify because Mr. Carl
has repeated this over and over and over. This isn't about AEL. This is about >> it started with convers with Wendy saying this is what the rule the policy allows us to do and CL wrote a specific issue to where we're at right now. move
to direct the chief appraiser to reappraise all property located within NISD's boundaries in two in 2026 where a written request is received by the chief appraiser or his design via a school board resolution wherein the requesting ISD has a preliminary finding of invalid
values from the 2025 PBS. This request must be received by 11:59 p.m. March the 16, 2026. So, this is also a one-off that that's a positive statement. It's also a one and it's not opening the door
for everybody else to come flowing in here. So, that's the motion with a second. Further discussion hearing. No discussion. We're going to move to a vote. Am I and I think Julie or somebody
jacked up my screen. I don't know. We're going We're going to see. >> Oh, maybe it's back. >> Never mind. We're good. So, Rick, when it pops up, walk us through the against or Okay.
>> Is it on anybody? >> Bear with me. I haven't sent it yet. I didn't have the text. >> Okay. >> Okay. On the screen. So, a vote for will I'm g I'm gonna put put it in English.
No, I'm gonna put it I'm gonna put it in I'm gonna say it. Let me just say it this way. A move forward will direct the chief appraiser to reappraise all property located in in the as in the ASOL ISD boundaries immediately
to deter. Well, that's why it's ultimate. >> It's not what it says. It's It doesn't narrow for a >> I know it doesn't, but that's the only one that's come to us that's in violation. The only other could possibly come forth would be Carol and Carol has
not come forth. >> Julie, my vote came up and then it's not there anymore. >> So, chairman, is it a yes vote would be to allow the school districts that fell out to request a reappraisal that would be honored and a no vote would be to not do a reappraisal anywhere in the count?
Is that the way that the correct motions with with one exception? It's only dealing with those that fell out. So, the only one that can >> there's only two of them. One of them will be one of them. So, it's a little tighter than that, but yes, >> Matt would be keeping it the way we have it now. >> Rescending with the full language.
>> Let me know if you guys see it. If you want to tell me, I will input >> trial for >> So what I see on my screen is the agenda item. >> No, maybe. >> If you'll click the blue band at the
bottom, it should take you to the changed motion, the edited motion that you guys have turned in. And I'm lacking a vote for Mr. Barnes. >> I haven't voted. I don't I don't have anything on my screen. >> I I have a vote of no from you, Miss Rney.
>> Oh, from the system. >> I I have four four and four against and no vote for Mr. Barnes. >> You what? >> I have votes for and against. four four for the vote, four against, and I've not received your vote yet. >> You're right. Because what I have on my
screen is not the motion that I just read multiple times. >> I I resent it twice with the exact the second time with the exact wording. I can read it to you if you would prefer. If I may, the motion doesn't
>> says, okay, the second one that I sent you, it may not be reloading on everyone's screen, but the second one that I sent you that I have four votes for and four votes against says under the 2025 2026 bienial reappraisal plan, specifically on pages 11 and 27, direct the chief appraiser to reappraise all
property located within an ISD's boundaries in 2026, where a written request is received. received by the chief appraiser or his design via school board resolution wherein the requesting ISD has a preliminary finding of invalid values from the 2025 PBS received
and if you will if you'll click on your blue band that should take you to the at the bottom of the screen that should take you to the most recent recent >> the only language that's missing is the request must be received Okay. >> So, you want to take out the page 20.
Sorry, I got the wrong text. You want to take out the pages. >> Sorry. When they spoke it, they >> All right. Yeah, that's it. >> Bear with me. Okay, resending for vote. You'll know it's the correct third scent
if it starts with move. >> Mine says fail. >> It says it in red. >> Is everyone's vote as they intended? I have Barnes against. the results on the screen. >> Oh, failed as the motion failed, >> right? >> Is what it means.
>> Okay. >> Is that your intent if you'll check the screen and make sure that the way you intended to vote is what went in the system? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. Four or five failed. Next thing on the agenda is that we recess to executive close session
pursuant to the following parts of the Texas Open Meetings Act Government Code Chapter 551, 071, 072, 074, and 076. And we will return from that meeting uh with any items to come
before the body. All right. Uh, welcome back. Welcome back. >> Uh, the only agenda item that we had needed to address back there is, uh, 4 D. Consider a possible action of
appointment of taxpayer leazison on officer for 2026. Uh I believe there's a motion. Yes. Go ahead. I'll >> second. >> So the contract that was presented to us for professional service agreement the new number at 3% would be 127205.
Um any discussion? >> Uh it's been moved. Is there a second? >> Second. >> Second. moved and seconded. Uh any further discussion? Uh if not, please vote. All right. I will >> before I announce the vote just rec need
to recognize that Mr. crow had to leave. So we we still have a quorum. >> The motion passed >> and that carried eight to zero zero. >> Uh anything else good for the order? >> Hearing none, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn.