like I'm always sitting here next to you. >> Good morning and welcome to the lot of sound there. Uh welcome to this meeting of the Taran Appraisal District Board of Directors. As we always do, we will start with invocation. We have Luke Myers from the
Hope Church of Fort Worth Family Ministry Pas Associate Pastor. And Luke, if you'll uh lead us in an invitation. Thank you very much for this invitation. Let us pray. Almighty God, we praise and thank you.
We praise you for your love for us, how you know and care for every one of us. We thank you for all the men and women who have faithfully served in this county for years. We thank you for your
protections and your blessings. We pray that you would bless this meeting, that you would give insight and discernment to Chairman Rick, to fellow board members, and all those making presentations and key decisions.
Your word says, "If you need wisdom, ask our generous God and he will give it to you. He will not rebuke you for asking. But when you ask him, be sure that your faith is in God according to your word.
I ask for wisdom for all the board members, for those who are making decisions, that the appropriate steps and decisions would be made in this meeting that would bless Texans and the residents of Tarant County both now and in years to come.
God, we pray that you would block any evil, that you would not allow it to have any footholds among us. And we pray that you would be honored in this meeting, that there would be unity in this meeting. God, we thank you for our
county, for our state, for our nation. And we pray that Tarant County might be a county of peace, full of goodness, fairness, righteousness, and justice. And I pray this in the name of Jesus Christ. Amen.
>> Please join me in reciting the pledge. First to the US flag to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands. One nation indivisible.
>> Now the Texas pledge. the Texas flag. I aliance to the Texas one and indivisible. Seated. >> Uh, roll call.
>> Rick Barnes, >> present. >> Matt Bryant here. >> Wendy Burgess. >> Fred Campos here. >> Eric Kryle. >> Kzia Ferrar. >> Eric Morris. Calli Ricky >> and Kelly Ricky. Hi Kelly. Uh we do have
a quorum. We uh I really have no announcements. This is a regularly scheduled meeting of the board. Uh it's frankly good to be in a position where we can have regularly scheduled meetings and not a bunch of specially called meetings. Uh so it's it's a it's a good good position to be in. Our first report
is from Dr. Mane uh taxpayer leazison. Uh good morning. How are you? >> Good morning. Do you think it's time to talk about watershed events? Good morning, Chairman Barnes, Kelly Riggney, our secretary,
distinguished board members, and uh Joe Don Babett, our uh our chief appraiser. This morning, I'd like to draw attention to what watershed events mean in our society. If you'll recall last week, a
rising senior from North Texas track and field distinguished himself by setting a world record at the 800 meter run. Just recently, a relatively unknown thoroughbred horse
ran from the back of the pack to win the Kentucky Derby and then repeated that act again last week with notoriety and with a female trainer, which is is really rather
unheard of in the uh racehorse business. Of course, those are what is known as watershed events. And I relate that my report for this week. Um, I could say a lot about this data or I could say very
little. So, I'm going to trim it down just enough to draw your attention to the amount of miscellaneous referrals to my office in the early part of this of the uh calendar year. That
signifies folks trying to make decisions but having difficulty perhaps accessing data because they the online sources could not necessarily confirm what they needed and that caused them to um have a
different kind of uh referral than normally. Normally at the first of the year we're talking with our uh patrons about um uh homestead exemptions, how to how uh apply for those. We're talking with them about how to pro possibly set
up for a protest. Uh but this year they were more concerned about some of the more mundane sources of information that they couldn't find online to confirm what they were thinking in order to make their decisions. Now that that uh took place through really February and March.
Now you can see it's it's uh not yet quite typical because with the watershed event things don't settle in quite so neatly as they might but they are beginning to settle in because now we're seeing more protest efforts more
questions and concerns about those again and certainly more homestead events. So uh there's a lot to be said about that. I'm sure um Mr. in his report will cover quite a bit in in uh great detail but just to know uh
watershed events are interesting to statistitians and it's uh it's something uh when it's a a huge change event we know that things don't normalize as quickly as everyone would like and so uh
I will tell you that our our typical uh inquiry was often one of a little frustration But coupled with quite a bit of patience, actually more than I might have thought I might have been patient myself with. So, uh people were very understanding that we were undergoing
some uh right of passage, if you will, to improve our systems and that that was important to them too when they uh had that information to deal with. So, just know these are not normal times. There is an interesting saying I used to use a
lot. Uh the Chinese used to say may you live in interesting times and this is one of those interesting times for us all and uh we will survive. Most of our referrals have been quite satisfied once they knew that down the road if not in the middle of March they could access
the information they were needing to make more fine-tuned decisions. So I congratulate you for uh working as I say around the corner and down the road for sustainable change. That's incredibly important for the future of this county
and its taxpayers and its processes to come. So, I want to congratulate you. Any questions? >> Thank you for the uh the job that you hold. >> Thank you. And anybody that knew enough about that
horse to win on it, come see us afterwards because you may be able to predict future values of properties very well. Um, I wish I own that horse right now. Uh, next thing on the agenda is report
from Chief Fraser. So, January 9th was the last day of entry. So, for me and most of the staff, I think we're very excited about that move on their system. We still have some that, you know, change
would have been happy to stay with. But overall, I think we're we're excited. We're moving forward. plan go live was March 3rd. We were able to go live immediately. We wanted to make sure that everything turned on just
new system to able to export the tax office. So we've been sending corrections monthly basis to the tax office and then we were able to actually send
out a 2026 test file that was also able to be loaded system. So already I think we're in a better place we were 10 years ago. So I think that was one of the major challenges tax couldn't we couldn't get the data out.
So now I think major hurdles that we faced last. So on our original plan, we converted 2026 and we converted all of prior years. Our pricing model models we have about half of those done commercial. We need
some basic development work. We need to change our process. We're leaning towards development work with what it appears. We're able to we have
our schedules that are more detailed our commercial income more detailed than most other counties. So we we're able to break it up by size range and age range whereas most counties just have property type and class construction class building or
class B as far as they break it up. So we want to break it up by area. >> There we go. That helps. Thank you. Technology. Um, so
the the web portals are working. Uh, appraisal notices were sent out. We still have maybe a few thousand few thousand properties left that that notices will go out on on phase seven. We're kind of early in appeals cycle.
Um, but we do have I think all the existing uh protests that have been filed, we have them scheduled and were scheduled through like July 3rd. So that's everything basically scheduled and in the books, but we know there's going to be reschedules. We know there's going to be other things. And so that'll all take place, but that kind of gives
us a two or three week period for all that stuff to kind of take place and for for a place for it to land. Certification, that will happen July 24th. That's a Friday. We have to certify by by July 25th, which is Saturday, but we'll do it on that Friday.
August 7th, we'll create the new year layers in that ballpark. We want to make sure that the that everything works like it's supposed to in the new system. And then in October 15th, we'll have a retrospective. So, we'll sit down with the vendor and see how the system went,
how the conversion went, and any lessons learned. We'll go over those and kind of document them. And so the next few slides we're going to kind of show uh our focus on customer service and trying to be a kind of
friendlier appraisal district. U so this is from April 30th to to when I pull the report. And as you can see up to May 15th the protest deadline the volume of the blue bars are the volume the number of people and that relates to the left
bar the left And so May 15th, we had roughly 1,700 people come in and see us on that day. And so there's quite a bit of traffic. And then the red line is the average weight time. And so on the 14th and 15th, we got up to around 16 minute
average wait time. And so overall, that's pretty phenomenal. Uh because if you remember a few years back, we're talking two to four hour wait times that people were encountering. And so the staff have have come up with a lot of good ideas. They've they've implemented that stuff. And so when you let the staff do what they what they see and
what they want to do, they're able to resolve things and try to get the the taxpayers through in a in a faster, more efficient method. We're trying to not just make people mad because of bureaucracy. So that the staff have done an outstanding job with that. This is phone
calls and this is in seconds. So on May 14th and the 15th, we were reaching close to about a two-minute wait time on on phone calls. Um, but overall we typically run just under a minute for the average wait time for us to to answer the phone.
And then this is aggregate volume. So on May 14th and 15th, we were exceeding 2400 phone calls per day on top of our 1700 people that were coming in to see us. And now we've dropped back down to more of an average closer to 600 per day. And so that that's much more
doable. So this is a comparison of last year versus this year and owner and agent and then by property or by property type. And so most of the categories from one year to the next are are pretty close. There's not much of a change. The red
box I highlighted, this is where we're seeing most of the increase. Basically 40,000 additional protests have have occurred for residential agents. And so it's not unexpected. We're kind of seeing that same kind of trend across the entire state.
But overall, so last year we had 271,000 protests that were filed that were protests, not motions that kind of come after the fact, but things that were filed during the the tax season. So far this year, we've already exceeded 299,000. We'll still get some more in the future
protest deadline column. Those are the number of properties that that their their protest deadline has not passed or there's some other category. But anyways, it's it's a handful of properties that we know or maybe haven't been noticed yet. So those properties
are ones that could potentially still follow protest. >> Hey Jon. >> Yes, sir. Um would be interesting to break down if we're looking at the number of agents
protest file. I'd like to see the numbers on 500,000 to 5 million,000 >> like yeah category price breakdown. >> Yeah, it' be really interesting to see if our agents are meeting the needs of
lower houses. >> Okay. I Let's Let's No, I don't know. >> I would just like to >> Yeah. I mean, >> I can break it up just by every hundred thousand or whatever or
I appreciate that. >> Okay, >> um we'll go back to the previous slide. The the green box. So, out of the 299,000 that we have received currently, we have resolved 177,000. So, that's 60% that that staff
have resolved. um through our online appeals and through discussing phone calls and emails with the with the public. And so basically, we're we're going out of our way. We're trying to resolve these things. We want it to be as efficient as
possible. Um and we're not trying to be we're intentionally trying not to be combative in these these appeal season. >> Joe, I've got the data dropped off to you guys. Continue to use
negotiation button um to an incredible amount. I think we we're at 36,000 right now and that's up I think about 15% from last year and the number is going to keep growing. This is
this is the most efficient way and the most painfree way for our and I'm going to call them customers for our customers to get their um get their day in court. get their day in front of the group. I mean, getting it online. You got to
fight through about six signature pages. Um, but again, you guys responded because, you know, I people were communicating with me. I can't get to it. They didn't know to use the legacy portal rather than So, um, I think my opinion is you
did a phenomenal job. Um, and and you know, the rest of the appraisal districts aren't doing this. It's shocking, but job well done. Thank you so much. >> Thank you. The staff have done an outstanding job and there's lessons learned every time with conversion. Some
of the tools that we had didn't quite work integrating with the new system like we had hoped, but some of it we worked through a lot of it and we have plans going forward to make it even better than than what it is right now. >> Well, and then I mean the what we might want to focus on for next year is how do
we promote this? How promote this. No. Um, you know, I I just for the good of our taxpayers, um, it's not going to be the best thing for agents. It's gonna chew into their, you know, their numbers. But, um, I
think our customers will really appreciate it. I don't know how to better get the word out there. Um, maybe through Fred Campos, his little YouTube, again, any any way we can get the word out there. Let's let's double actually
he does get the word out his presentation throughout the county about what we're doing. >> I like to attend because every time I do I learn something new. Um but I think as a board if we can help them find those locations little groups that's what I
do. I call them and I say have a group that would like to hear your presentation. So we as a board can also find places for him to give his presentation and then spread the word. >> Yeah. If anybody requests uh like used to we'd go to Lions clubs and different
civic organizations, Rotary, and so we'd go to those organizations, give a presentation, and so if we know somebody wants us to come out, we'll we'll come out and give an overview of the property tax system or exemptions that are available. Just kind of we'll tailor it to whatever they are interested in. >> If you could think of doing a road show
next March. >> Yes, sir. >> Uh I think it would be very helpful. I think it would drive the numbers through the roof. >> I already got him scheduled for some stuff. I'd just like to say job well done on the wait times. Uh I go to my doctor's office. I'm the only one waiting and it
takes 20 minutes to get in. So, >> excellent job on that. Yes, sir. >> Um we also pulled I think McKisick pulled this data from the 2024 operation survey. a survey the comproller does and
so 24 is the most recent one that's been published and we compared the other large metro counties uh total number of protests filed in 24 how many were resolved informally and how many went to the ARV and so then we're able to determine our percent that we resolved
and so we're sitting at 98% our next closest competitor is Bear County at 85 then Harris at 81 and then you get down to 13% in some counties and so We're we and staff are very proud of the fact that we're able to resolve as many.
>> Jodon, can you say who M. McKisik is? >> Well, the residential director Brian McKisik is has been helpful with a lot of the the the process changes and the data we pulled. >> Thank you. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Sounded a lot more for just
say like Mckiss and Mckiss law firm or something. I have I have a question. 98% being a lot higher than the other counties. You're not just picking numbers out of the air. It's there's evidence to back this. Correct. >> Yeah.
>> Yes, sir. But it's also an an opinion is an an appraisal is an opinion of value. And so we're taking the approach that that opinion has some some leeway in it. We have evidence to back up our number that we initially send out, but at the same time, we don't go inside most of
the homes or most of the properties. There's things that we just don't know and the homeowner knows their property better than we do. And so if they can come in and show us something that we're not aware of or have other sales that we're not aware of, we'll take that in consideration and and and make them a reasonable offer.
Next slide. >> Oh, we're clear. Okay. Um there on in the packet there's also um I think our investment report >> which
>> no that's fine but investment report I don't if you have any questions regarding it but it's just our our we have a lot of our money invested into either uh money market account we've moved some to the text pool risk pool or the the pool for that
invest money is fairly liquid and fairly safe. >> There it is. >> Can you zoom in on the top part? So, in our uh interest checking account, we have well, we earned $971 in interest. On our
first financial money market account, we earned $143,000 in interest on our origin bank money market account. $63,000 in interest. In our text pool account, we earned $2,000. That's the smallest pool that we have of
money. We just put that in there recently and that's kind of a new force and so that may grow over time as we get more comfortable with it. We are complete with our maps review. I think I sent the board an email. We received u unofficial approval from our
map auditor that that everything was complete and that we'll get 100% uh when it comes out officially either in October or January. It's late in the year when it comes out. Uh the other thing we have Brad Patrick, our director of administration, he
received an award from TAD for excellence in teaching. He's been doing a basically a personal property class for years for the state. And so we're excited to have that award go to Brad for him to be recognized.
So I think that's it. >> Questions, comments? >> I just throw one comment out there. U obviously we'll talk more about this in the uh IT committee meeting, but
there's more than a dozen or two dozen things that happened required late nights. Uh Brian's group did an amazing job. You saw the stats and all that. We just can't say enough of some of the thing. I mean, right down to getting API from the vendor and writing some code to
fix things as they go live. Just kudos. This this went well on the camera stuff and continuing to do so. >> Let me elaborate on a couple of things. one is the is that the uh the transition. I don't know if anybody in the room understands the importance of
getting away from momentum more than Fred and I in particular and Wendy uh and others that have had to work with that system. Um we were the only people working with that system which ought to tell you a lot about that system. And so it was very very good to get away from that. January 9th was a big day. But
when you look at the schedule, the fact that he was able to get us through the full transition then by February the second, that's also a huge huge reality that we made a really positive change. So our staff and the tax office and the
staff out here has been working together throughout this entire process and it's it's actually gone very very well. I talked to our staff in the tax office without Jodon Stout in the room if they still say that. So that's a that's a
very good very good thing to say. The customer service uh scores I agree with with we the customer service there's something wrong with government when government has zero desire to be good in customer service and most of government has zero desire to be good with customer
service. If you don't agree with that, just go over here to the DMB office anytime and just try to go use it. And so, uh, I I have really pushed this with the TA tax office and Joe's pushing it out here. And I think it's people are
seeing an improvement with what's going on with with Taran County, the tax business. Um, I do think it's interesting and one of the So, I you know, we talked about wanting to get the appraisals up. Uh there's the other side
of that reality in that when that many people are appraing even in a freeze year I continue to question the reality of what's going on with appraisal districts
not just here but across the state uh in that they can be wrong up to 98% of the time and we think we're doing good. There is no other profession in the world that can say that other than the weather man. >> If the weather guy told you this morning that it's going to rain and you brought
an umbrella and it doesn't rain today, you say, "Oh, good. It didn't rain." Whenever they tell you your house is worth a certain amount, and you go argue about it, 98% of you get to say, "Oh, yeah. Well, I was right. You were wrong." I don't know how we say that's good. And so, I think that we need to continue to challenge the process, not
just here. It's not a not a Tarant County issue as much as a statewide issue. I know the legislature is going to be addressing that this next session uh pretty heavily, maybe maybe more than they ever have. Um and then congratulations, M. Patrick. I we don't recognize when Tarant County people do
well near enough, but I do think in this business, we are the we're the top of the list. Those other counties that are on that list, I wouldn't ever want to be a part of the appraisal board in >> Harris County.
Travis, Dallas, any of those counties, we despite your worst times in Taran County, they're still better than any of those counties. And so, um, so and whenever we have an opportunity to say thank you to the staff member, we ought
to do that. And so, greatly appreciate the work you're doing out there. I run into our staff out at conferences. We don't always know we're both going and then we see each other in the hallway. We're like, "Oh, well, you're here, too." Um, so it's to see our folks doing really well.
Any other comments on that report? See none committee reports? IT committee is there. >> You know, I think Joe uncovered it in just the last little things just that we're still got three or four more phases. I do want to say board and
public and u go look at the the control room box. Everything's cleaned up. looks awesome. Everything's labeled. It's truly amazing. I don't want that to fall. Good job on that because that was a major project as well. No, we've already pretty much
covered it. >> So, we got machines in there that are not they're just sitting there. They're no longer just sitting there not collected in. >> Boy, I wish we had before and after. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh ARB committee. >> Yeah, we had um a couple of items that
are showing up on the schedule today. Um one we've uh We had some appointments and we had secretary position decline. So, um we had to go back to the stack of
applications that we hope will follow our recommendation for secretary. And then um we received um some really good data on pdium costs and suggestions of how we might
change those and you know as a group um we we really we gave it a good look but at this point in time what we recommended is just not make a change we'll be happy to discuss
I don't think now >> we have some business later okay uh budget finance we are having a budget presentation today is any >> comments I'll Just a kind of a quick little rundown. Um, so the budget committee initially met on May 13th. Um,
present for that meeting was myself, Miss Burgess, Miss Pñena, Mr. Bobett. Each of the department heads, Mr. Morris was unable to attend. However, it's my understanding that Mr. Bobbit met with them to review the budget and provide feedback. Um, during that May 13th meeting, each department head presented their proposed budget. Committee members
had the opportunity to ask questions, uh, provide feedback, discuss potential adjustments, and based on those discussions, a revised budget was prepared and distributed via email to the committee on May 27th for review. Following that review, the updated budget was provided to the full board.
Um, the propos the proposed budget does reflect a 4.05% increase over the 2026 adopted budget. I do think it's worth noting though that included in that increase are two significant IT capital items. Approximately $500,000 for an emergency
backup power system and approximately $330,000 for the initial phase of the hardware replacement cycle. Stuff has advised us that the hardware replacement program is intended to establish a regular replacement schedule that supports efficiency and cyber security best
practices. Um the committee discussed the possibility of funding these items through the committed funds following the completion of the 2025 audit. Staff did advise us that once that audit is complete, which I believe is that this month or next next maybe >> we think it's going to complete July,
but it could be late July. >> Okay. So some sometime over the summer um that the board would have the opportunity to evaluate if that is a better option option at all. Um while removing these items from the budget would reduce the overall budget increase to approximately 1.55%
uh staff did note that it would not reduce the amount requested from the taxing entities because the associated use of those committed funds would also be removed. So resulting in no net change to the funding request. The proposed uh funding request to the entities reflects a 3.61%
increase over the prior year driven primarily by elected election related funding needs including a proposal to in setting aside funds for the 2028 election along with several technology related investments. Um I know we have a presentation today so I won't go into
too much any any further detail but I would like to thank all the department heads staff working through this process. Um you all were super responsive to all the emails and questions. So I just appreciate your hard work. >> Questions? >> See none there's a board policies
committee. I'm assuming there's been no meeting. We don't have anything to talk about on board policies. >> Yeah, I was just going to let you know there there we're not on the agenda. There's no meeting, but we will have a meeting between now and our next board meeting. So, >> perfect. All right. Public comments. Uh
I see one sign up crotch. Just wanted to You're waiting for me. Thank you. I was waiting for you. Uh appreciate the opportunity to get to speak here. Um wanted to touch on a couple things. The first thing is the reappraisal plan. Uh I did my best to
reach out to all of you through the official channels and reach out to many of you privately. I heard from a few people um and then after I released my video, I was heard some character attacks, some innuendos about there might be a problem with uh some of the
stuff I released. I just want you to know I would love if there's any factual data that I got wrong. If there's anything that you would like to uh talk with me about so that I can set the record straight, I think the public and myself, we would love to know because
I'm not interested in doing anything other than presenting facts that people need to hear about. So, um there's that. I also want to mention uh Matt, you were uh love your comments. I I think we've come a long way from the time of coming
into this room and it's the board against the public to now like let's have a tugof-war to figure out how to best serve the public and the public's going to win. I think it's great. I I think um it's probably safe to say I've I've probably promoted the instant
answer tool more than any other person on earth uh because you know Taran County is pretty small but uh it's it's a phenomenal tool. I would agree with everything you said. Uh Taran County leads the way and I don't know of another county that makes it as easy for people to protest as Tarant County. I
think it's a great idea. Uh and if there's anything I can do to help with my door's open. Um, I wanted to also just acknowledge some of my own personal experience. I think that uh I'm probably also the number one user of the new
software because I'm just I've got a team of people that are on it right this second. I'm on it every day. I'm downloading stuff. We're uh looking at the data and I would say uh just in general things have gone remarkably smooth compared to what I feared. Um,
there are definitely some things that we've got to learn from. I was super excited to see the retrospective uh bullet there. There's always going to be ways to improve. If anybody has questions for me, I'd be more than happy to share my experience. But um the other
stats about customer service, I came down here on May 15th and it was absolutely remarkable to see top executives out front helping people like without making a big deal of it. just like a rank and file employee sitting there not trying to take protest
requests but actively trying to resolve the value and help them out the door so they don't have to deal with it again. Uh the res the the agent team has been great. Jodon's been accessible. The everybody in the lobby was kicking butt. Uh on the ARB side u R is what I'll call
her. She's been phenomenal. Uh there have been a number of people all over the board. Um just wanted to say thank you for all your efforts. appreciate it. We'll be sure and get a plaque to R. >> Uh, thank you, Chandler. Um, we have two
discussion items. These are items. >> Okay, we're gonna Okay, I can't even see that part. >> Go ahead. >> Sharma. Uh, yeah. Sorry, I didn't know that's how you say. Um so yeah my name is Anaka Sharma. I have been uh in touch
with uh Mr. Bobett and his team. Um I was here yesterday learning about some of the data centers and the appraisals. Uh but what I wanted to speak about is kind of what Chandler just said. I want to thank you all in terms of all the protests and how cordial your team has had been. I actually called a few times
came here with my mom. I think it was May uh 13th and the lines were out the building but everybody all the staff were like helping very being very cordial. So thank you for like just giving good service. So I appreciate the sentiment that you said that the that the government should be doing good
service, customer service or should be applying. Um but you also said like why even in a year when there the appraisals were frozen why are we seeing so many protests and so I go back to that notion which is why a year this past year like
the market was down during COVID when the market was up our appraisals went up and so when markets down appraisals should also go down to say that appraisals have been frozen and we did such a good job I find that intellectually or logically confusing
because the the appraisal should follow the market. If the market's down, appraisal should have gone down. So that's probably why Mr. Barnes, you saw so many people still contesting and protesting because the appraisals were not in line with the market expectation. Um, so I guess my feedback here is we
should follow the market. If the market's down, we should lower the appraisals, not just keep it uh frozen year-over-year. Thank you. >> Anybody else? Seeing we have two discussion items. Uh one is the budget workshop and one is
the discussion of proposed 2728 reappraisal plan. So these are discussion items. They're not actionable items today. Um so there are things we can discuss to make this one even a little bit more in uh solid. It's really a presentation of a budget proposal. Um
the budget per se, dollars and cents was not presented early to the public and so Rather than us discussing it, we're going to allow the chief of to present it and then we will uh talk about it when we put on the agenda for the August
meeting informally formally talked about it on the agenda for meeting. >> So Mr. B, >> do you all want to go through the full budget or do you want to go through the slides that Brad prepared? >> I don't know how detail you want to go. >> Do you want to hear the recommendation by the committee or you want to hear the
original? So this should be the what came out of the committee. >> Okay. >> Do we want to start with the >> the PowerPoint slides? But Brad >> do that. >> Okay. >> It's a little shorter and gets the
point. H and then Brad you can jump in anytime. We so for 2027 so by the code like before June 15th we have to present to the board of directors and to the entities our draft budget or proposed budget. uh before
September 15th, the the board has to finally we have to have a public hearing and finally adopt a final budget. Uh then I think the entities have 30 days to draft a resolution if they disapprove of our budget after that point. So this is just our initial I guess
we've slightly modified based on input of the committee. So this is where we're at currently. This will be what gets presented to the entities and we'll still have a chance to revise it one more time before we adopt it. So for 2027, we're proposing uh an overall increase of just over 4% from
2026. Uh to the entities, that's a 3.6% increase. Uh we're proposing the use of committed funds that will offset some of the of the increases and that's for usually for onetime expenses or for the election cost.
Overall reduction in budget staff headcount from 204 to 194. And this is a reduction of 22 positions since 2024 and the lowest proposed headcount since 1999. >> Joe Don,
>> I'm sure there's an explanation reduction of 22 positions, but the headcount only went down >> for from this year. >> Oh, got it. 22 since since 2024. The highlights, there's been a reduction in overall payroll cost while allowing for a merit increase and planned
increases of medical insurance cost. Medical insurance right now is is we have a rate lock for a 10% increase. The there is an increase in training and travel uh for 26 for the current year. One of the conferences we go to is actually in Taran County. Next year
they'll both be out of town, out of county and we'll have to travel. That's why I've increased uh travel expenses. There's a decrease in the ARB predeem budget based on continued efficiencies. So we're expecting to have less people
less ARB members and less hearings as we go forward just as we try to resolve we're doing 98% roughly. So with that with that change we're trying to reflect that in the budget. utility cost increase is projected but could be offset with anticipated change
in our off-site location. So we have the ARB annex which we haven't used since I guess 23 and so right now there's there's an office space in the front of it and warehouse in the back and we're paying a decent amount for it. I think 5,000 a month or something roughly in that ballpark but we're just going to
move to a storage unit by itself and not office storage and so that cost will go down quite a bit. We're also propos budgeting a portion of the upcoming 2028 board election for 2027 to split up the cost. So, we'd expect roughly 800,000 per year for
election cost. And so, we're putting 400,000 in each each budget year to help pay for that cost and kind of even out the the payments. It's an every other year cost. For customer service needs, there's an increase in professional services. uh
we've been using a company called True Roll and so they're able to expedite Drocessing and exemptions and then we'll also have additional need for IT consulting. So we've been using the True RO product to handle exemptions. So they'll help
find homeowners that should qualify for homestead exemption that currently are claiming it. So it'll identify those so we can send them a notice and get them to apply for it. Uh it will also audit the ones that ex have an existing homestead uh exemption that shouldn't have it. If they've moved or they passed
away or if they have multiple homesteads, we'll find those. And then it helps with an online application tool. And so when people when we identify people that need to apply or when they buy a new house, they can apply online and it moves into the system almost real time. It's is pretty quick for our staff to uh review those
and import them into the system. And so this would expand that to include deed processing. So that way we can process the deeds quicker, get them in so we can make the exemption changes. And then for dues and publications, there would be an increase also
attributed to pros true role tool uh to expedite processing uh because we're also looking at bringing in appointment of agents and protest. So we get a lot of paper appointment of agents forms and we get a lot of protest that are paper filed. So this would allow us to scan
those extract the data even if it's handwritten. would be able to read the handwriting, extract the data, and then import that into the system and speed up the processing time so we can get people scheduled and get get them through the system quicker. Technology needs,
we have material, supplies, and services increase for hardware and software upgrades, which includes additions for security and safety. There's an capital outlay that increases for previously planned hardware replacement and and a needed emergency backup power improvements. So that includes the
backup power includes a $500,000 uh expense for basically a gas powered backup generator and that's a sliding scale. So that would back up the entire building and keep the servers and everything online. We may not need the entire building backed up. We've discussed, you know, it's a sliding
scale. So as long as we keep the servers up and running and maybe the front off like the front customer service area, if the power's down for more than three hours, we can send most people home and work remotely. So we we really only need limited areas of the building to to really maintain power. And if the power stays out for longer than that, there's
a bigger issue. >> Joe Don. >> Yes, ma'am. >> But there is a loss of service if you do that. If we get what we really need, there will be no loss of service. >> There would be no, you wouldn't even know the power went out. >> And that's really what we our goal should be is to ensure that there's no
loss of service because what if this happened during the protest season? Then what >> it would be? We'd have to reschedu everything. becomes a crisis and we don't need any more crisis. >> So, oh, I just want to emphasize that because it's projected that we will have
the funding to to uh provide something that will maintain the whole building with no loss of service and I think that should be our goal. >> Yes, you explored >> have you explored any grants available
for this because in Collville I think we got like a $250,000 uh grant generator. >> We haven't, but that's a good idea. >> So, yeah, I mean apply for anything. Worst case scenario, they say no. >> Okay. >> So, >> yes, ma'am.
>> And also, Joe, the current existing generator isn't it over it shelf life, so we could hit that crisis at any time. >> The the current one is actually a battery backup. Um, and the overall system we moved into the building when
we moved here a long time ago. um we can replace batteries, but the vendor there's I think one guy at the at that company that still knows how to work that particular system. And so if the overall system goes down, then we're stuck. I mean, we can replace batteries, but we just don't know how much longer. They're no longer really supporting that
that system. So >> like Windows 10 >> no longer supported. >> Yes, ma'am. >> I just have a question. How many times have we lost power like in the last five years? >> I don't know. I don't
and they >> at least they fixed the system because with the new system our doors don't automatically unlock anymore. >> Yes. Yes. The doors stay locked now if we lose power. >> The um That's a joke. joke. A joke. A
joke. The uh the challenge with that is it's one of those you can prepare for it all you want to, but you dang sure want it when you need it. And so South Lake as an example has lost power five times
this spring already as a city, not just parts of South Lake. And so we don't want to become that. So you don't prepare for want to spend the money on that. Yes sir. >> They're on sale at Lowe's.
>> Get those gas power. >> This is a comparison of of some of the other metro counties. The highlighted yellow part shows if you take out minerals that we're running about $45 per parcel. And compare that to the other counties,
we're the second lowest. So, Bear County runs about $38 per parcel. the others are in the 60s. Um, so overall, we're we feel like we're doing a a a good job of being fiscally responsible. Granted, there's always room that we
could tighten things up, but overall, in comparison to the other county, other appraisal districts, we feel like we're being reasonable and frugal. Next slide. This is 40-year history of our employee count and our budget. So, we started off
uh with 182 employees back in ' 86. I guess we didn't start off. We started off in like 81. Um but in 1986, we had 182 employees and then so like we're saying like we've been running over 200 employees for for the
long time, even back as far as 1991. So right now we're at 194 is where we're proposing. So with the new technology, with the new camera system, we feel like we're starting to see some of the the efficiencies that we can be gained. We expect that may continue to some extent,
but we still we don't want to be we don't want to cut too far because until we get all all of our processes kind of remapped for the new system, we don't want to cut too deep and and customer service suffer from it. I want to add too that was one of the questions that came up in the budget committee like are we cutting back too
many employees where customer service is going to lack and it is my understanding that that number the 194 was a good number that you felt comfortable >> being able to maintain the the quality of service that we're currently providing. >> Yes ma'am. That that's where we're at right now and so we feel comfortable with that.
>> Yes, ma'am. No, Joe, I we appreciate the um all hands on deck. Roll your sleeves up leadership team. I mean, I hear even quite a bit. But so, uh no, we we really
appreciate it because we don't want to over hear loud and clear. We don't It's a sticky weight, but we you guys being capable being visible. Um, I know that kind of
leadership really helps the entire team. It's appreciated. >> Yes, sir. >> This probably is a really good time to interject this one piece of information. We came to our our budget committee meeting when it was packed out there and parking. There was no parking. So, where
would we have put those rental cars or whatever those were? There was no parking. Then the room was crowded. So, Even when we don't have that volume, the room typically stays crowded. But it was so crowded, people were even spilled
into where the bathroom area was when I walked and I came in the front door because there was no parking and I waited till somebody pulled out so I could pull in to get a parking space for this committee meeting. And I just think we need to be aware and stay aware of
the fact that our facilities are not what they should be in order to because the line was out the door like someone said and the staff here was great because they put up tents, tried to do everything to protect them because there was some rain but still our facilities
are lacking and that I'm just making that statement so that we continue to consider the fact that we will a bigger facility at some point in time. So we need to maintain that funding that we have that's contingent or what do we call that >> the build a reserve fund
>> reserve fund. We need to make sure that whenever possible we add funds to that reserve fund so that at some point we're able to accommodate the crowd that comes in. I mean Rick should know even in the building down in the Arlington Municipal
Building it stays pretty crowded and unfortunate because I know parking on the other side of that building. Most people park in one area and that stays full. So that building better accommodates the number of people and they staff them through pretty quick as
they do here. But still, I've never I think only one time I've seen standing room only in that municipal building and here I see it all the time. So I just wanted to interject that to keep it in our thought process when we talk about budget where we put money for reserves.
I'll just say something since we're on well I had the screen up still. Uh with the overall staffing changes uh of uh the reduction uh we've given kudos to our uh residential team because they uh they
wear the brunt at this point in time. Uh and we've talked about it a lot today. uh and the residential uh department uh shaved 10 people out of their department yet still did the job exceptionally.
And so, you know, we're we're talking about we don't give enough kudos and we we have today some, but uh they're doing it and they're permanently giving up those 10 uh those 10 positions because
they said uh internally and their leader Brian McKisick, which now everybody's gonna know your name, uh said, "I believe in my team. we can do it and we can continue to do it even though so
many people are moving to this area. And so I I think that it is uh it's amazing because there is uh they've changed and reduced uh the workforce in almost every category
uh throughout their department and I think that's uh that's also a very strong statement about management and leadership with our chief appraiser that they will look at uh at the numbers
really hard and say, "Can we do this? And can we promise that we'll continue to do this in the future?" And uh and they swore that they would because we really questioned, we're like, "Are you sure that you want to do this?" And they
said, "Absolutely." Because residential I wrote down big loss of people. Why? And are you sure? And they were very sure. Jonah, I have one question. >> Yes, sir. >> Um, budgeting for the elections,
>> did you calculate runoff or is that assuming no run? >> That's assuming no runoff. So, the 800,000 is the current estimate. So, if we go into runoff, then it's I think the estimate right now is about a million dollars additional. >> Okay.
So realistically, where would those funds come from? >> Yeah. So that's something we didn't discuss. >> No, we didn't. >> And y'all have a copy of the reserve funds in your on the papers on your
desk. Um but we have 1.7 million that so far has been put away into the litigation or the election reserve fund. Uh and just as a reminder with that with the reserve funds previously we had 90-day we had a 90-day
reserve that was uh separated by board policy and so we keep that and then we had reserve funds with dedicated purposes for them. Um I have never been comfortable with a general 90-day reserve fund. I wanted it committed towards something also, but still maintain 90 days, but then still have a
little bit extra for the things we know we're going to spend. But I just don't want y'all to forget that part of this is 90-day reserve. So, but we do have the money in the reserve fund. We could use it if needed without having to go back to the entities asking for more
because that would be the other option. Yeah. No, it's not good. Ask for more. Is there another slide? Okay. So, overall staffing changes. Uh so, as Miss Burge was saying,
residential is losing five people at this lo from their department. Uh there's one from most the other departments. Administration is showing one increase. We actually did remove one, but we're moving two I call
them ghost uh positions. Um they're basically we're move we put two VTECs in administration at a dollar. Um that way they're there in case we need them for some in case we we do realize later on in the year that we're like whoops we we cut a little deep. We'll have a position
already in the budget. They just won't be funded and we can always reallocate some money move it in there and fund it from someplace else and then then we won't be hurt. Uh so it's more of a a cushion basically unfunded to unfunded positions that we can move as as needed.
Is that basically because if we add positions then we have to go back to the taxing entities but if we do it at this point we're fine. >> Yes ma'am. So if we change positions and stuff that we have to have that in our budget. Okay. Uh, the other thing I was going to
mention um well, Deputy Smouse has done an outstanding job for us, but I think he's about to, uh, he won't be with us much longer. And then also the contract expires in August, I believe. And so, right now, we're proposing, but I don't know if we've highlighted in the budget,
is that we've we've gotten bids from a couple different security agencies and city of Fort Worth. >> Um, it city of Fort Worth association. So, we've contemplated is moving to full-time security, armed
security, uh, which is quite a bit cheaper. And then during our busy season, we'd have C4 police officers association come and then we'd have two people on staff. One would be security, one would be an actual officer, would also be cheaper overall. So that I
don't think that's been really highlighted, but I just want to point that out. >> Any liability associated with that? I'd have to check with one of the attorneys, but I mean Oh. >> Um, so probably uh without having looked at the the contracts with whoever would
be, but typically, you know, if you are a licensed peace officer uh and you're part of a force like the the sheriff's deputy or the city, uh you're going to have insurance and coverage for that kind of thing on the officers. I would assume the same would be true for for
private uh for a private uh system. Uh the other thing is uh you know the laws of of the state and this country are very favorable for our law enforcement officers. Uh we give them the freedom and the ability to do the job the way they want to and the way that they need to. So it it is difficult to sue a uh a
peace officer for for civil damages uh unless they have really done something uh that is is sort of uh beyond the pale. So there certainly is some risk of liability to it. My guess is that that risk is mostly covered by the insurance of people that we contract with. Um, and
even beyond that, I think it would be it would be a remote situation uh that we would we would have a situation where we would have a real a real money damages issue. >> So, our responsibility would be to ensure that the um liability associated with either one of those are either
equal or greater than if should we contract out. >> Yes. And then if it's not covered by those then we probably ought to make sure that it is a part of our insurance uh to make sure that those individuals and the entity itself is covered. >> So then is it really cheaper?
>> We'll we'll validate >> but yeah even still even with additional insurance it should be cheaper. The the security guard rates are are quite a bit less. >> When do we lose Mr. uh I believe in July
>> you stepped out but I was telling that we're going to lose you before too long and uh we really do appreciate your service. >> So is he retiring or leaving the force or is just not >> Well, I didn't want to volunteer his information for him. >> Are you leaving us or just the the
force? Darn it. >> You didn't mess around. >> Well, we'll miss you. Definitely. >> Whatever you do, stop at the front desk and make sure we know that you're 65 or older on your property. It's a magical day.
>> It's a magical day. >> Well played, Rick. >> Oh, and if your spouse is too, register her as well. >> All right, that concludes the presentation on the budget workshop. This will be on the August agenda for
continue discussion and actual action at that time. Next discussion items discussion B proposed 2728 reappraisal plan brought by Wendy Bor first Wendy. Well, um I I wanted this on
the agenda because we got emails, there's been publicity, everybody's talking about the reappraisal plan, and I felt that if we didn't get this on the agenda to have an open discussion based on the information that we've received, um that it would be a slap in the face
to the public. I felt like the attention needed to be given uh to this item. Um there are areas that we receive information. Um, I even got calls from other counties asking me if what Chandler put on the YouTube was correct
and u I said for the most part yes, what he's telling you is correct. Now, we did get clarification um because initially the word was that there were 190,000 uh properties values that went down. But
after another review was done that included 60,000 of the who have the homestead exemptions. Now, does it still impact them? In my opinion, yes. And that's because, you know, we were talking about the
freeze and the freeze may have helped some people. And why are we protesting it? Okay. um if if your property is inherited by your child, let's say, and you didn't protest the property value that whole
time, then they're not going to get the value that was decreased to begin with. That was my mindset. The other thing was is that um the equal and uniform issue was brought up. It's not equal and uniform based on what we've done now. Um there's no fairness and equity in all of
that. Um, one of our board members said that at some point in time if we've discovered this type of information, we would pivot. I want to see us pivot because it's very necessary. The other thing is
we received information. Um, Rick sent out something last at the last meeting and he said, "Our duty is not to follow the loudest voice in the room. It is to follow the law, the data, and the long-term best interest of the people we serve.
We don't need to hear the loudest voice because we certainly aren't hearing as many voices I would have hoped we had received from the people whose uh valuations went down. But we need to follow the law that
requires us to do the equal and uniform uh adjustments for everyone. And we also the data is there. It's telling us that and it's in the long-term best interest of the people that we identify and react to this whole thing. Now, all the people
that I've talked to in Arlington that except for one, all their values went down. So, if I talk to five and one tells me his went up, is that fair? It's not equal. So my
question is what are we going to do about it folks? Because it's our responsibility as a board to make sure that everyone gets fair return on their buck. So that's basically why I wanted here. I wanted to have a discussion with the
whole board involved that we address this issue because it's here in our face and we can't turn away. At least if we do, we're being very disrespectful. >> Okay. Well, I will uh take it from there because I have some questions uh for staff and then I have some uh comments
as well. So uh Jodon and team uh just have uh three questions. Uh based on the 2025 ratio study that we all received uh single family residential coefficient
dispersion increase from 6.98 in 2023 to 10.14 in 2025 and the price related difference increased from 1.0 1 to 1.04. Does staff agree that these numbers show the residential role became less uniform
and more regressive after the freeze or hold or whatever that we're calling it? >> Yes, ma'am. That would be the general. >> Yes, ma'am. >> Thank you. All right. Do we know how many
residential taxpayers were um overappraised relative to market value or similarly situated properties because values were held rather than reappraised? Specifically, can staff confirm or uh
explain the open records figure that approximately 190,000 or some number uh of taxpayers were harmed? Based on the data that we had sent during the public information request from Chandler, the 190,000 does look
correct. If you look at market value, if you look at uh the appraised value was limited by the homestead cap, then it it was closer to 130,000. >> Okay. So, 130,000 people is still a lot of people. Uh did the two final question
is did the two districts that failed the 2025 property value study fail because of single family residential values another category or a combination of categories? >> Technically be a combination but
primarily residential has the most weight. >> Okay. Thank you. So, this is why I think that the board needs to focus less on whether the freeze was popular and more on whether
it produced accurate, equal, and uniform values for all taxpayers. Based on the ratio studied data, I do not believe that we can say that it did. In 2023, before the freeze, TAD's single family residential values were centered on the
market with a median ratio of one. And we had done this for 18 years at least I believe the coefficient of dispersion which measures how tightly appraisal ratios are grouped around the median was 6.98
price uh relation uh related differential which indicates which uh whether lower and higher valued properties are being treated uniformly was 1.01 1. In 2025, after the freeze, those numbers moved in the wrong
direction. The single family median dropped to 0.97. The CoodOood increased to 10.14 and the PRD rose to 1.04. The 2025 worksheet itself shows that the ideal COOD range
for a single family residential property is 5 to 10 and the ideal PRD range is 0.98 to 1.03 in plain terms so everybody can understand it. the residential role became less uniform and more regressive
meaning higher valued properties were underappraised relative to lower valued properties and that's why I asked what is lower value I I think we we need to establish that that matters because the
freeze did not help taxpayers evenly the information we have indicates that approximately 65% of taxpayers benefited, but 32% were harmed,
including the alleged 190,000 or however many taxpayers, 130,000 uh with uh with the homestead who paid more than their fair share. A policy that helps many
taxpayers but harms a substantial minority is not true taxpayer protection. It shifts the burden from some taxpayers to others. This is also a school funding issue. The proposed 2027
2028 plan acknowledges that two districts did not pass the 2025 property value study. Even if there was no immediate funding loss due to the state's grace period process, that does not mean the appraisal role was accurate
or uniform. Annual reappraisal does not mean automatic increases. It means that we review the market every year and can increase the staff can increase,
decrease or hold values based on actual evidence. I believe the board should seriously consider returning to annual residential reappraisal or at a minimum requiring annual corrective reappraisal when ratio studies show inequity. So
that all t that we protect all taxpayers and not just the majority which apparently are high value residences. Can you repeat the percentage and number of households that benefited from the
reappraisal plan? >> Uh well, and that was uh according to uh to what Chandler said, uh 65% benefited and 32 were harmed. However, uh with if it has the change uh with uh what Jodon
said with the uh homestead, I would ask the expert uh what what percent actually benefited. >> I have to do the math. >> I am math in public. >> The majority of people have benefited
>> from our reapprais. >> Yes. A majority. Yes. >> And and the larger homes pay significantly more in taxes. >> Well, they should, >> right? Right. It's based on a percentage. So, it is fair and everyone
can protest. So, it's just interesting how you're spinning everything. But >> I I think one of the questions is if you look at the market value, um the higher percentage, but you got to
remember the constitution has the uniform and equity clause in it. So, from the uniform and equity portion, um, how many people benefited? And I think that number is going to end up being a lot lower. Do you have an opinion on that, Mr. Bobbit? Say that one more
time. From a market value standpoint, um it benefited more people, but from a uniform and equal standpoint, um would the numbers be the same or would you think that less people actually benefited from a uniform and equal
perspective? >> Um I don't know if I'm answering your question exactly, but what when people protest right now, they're typically not they're not being reduced because of market value. being reduced because of equal and uniform equity issues. And so
our our equity numbers are out of whack. And so that's what why we're lowering the values typically. And just so I understand uniform and equal correctly, it basically means if I'm paying 70% of the value of my house, then my neighbor
should be paying 70% of the value of my home. And it's to keep someone from paying 90% of the value there. Is that is that the point of uniform and equal? >> Basically. Okay. Um, I have a few more questions. I thank you, uh, Miss Ben Burgess for bringing this up. I've I've
been doing a lot of research and studying on this, and you all got a packet of information, and I just want to quickly hit on it real quick. After the uh last meeting, I reached out to the comp patrollers's office uh to inquire about Grace uh
since there was some confusion and um regarding Ail and Carol ISD, they will be studied in 2026 and it's assumed that since they failed 2025 and we haven't changed any of their values that they will fail 2026
and they will not qualify again for grace until 2031. And that's assuming that we are spot on u in 2027. Um if Azor Carol do fail 2027,
the district will be put into a tarp review. Three consecutive failures by a school district will require the comproller in the Texas Department of L licensing and registration to get involved and evaluate our procedures.
Uh, so I I just want everyone to keep that in mind. I um when I I spoke to a Mr. Rostin down there and he told me there's 1551 school districts in in the state and of those uh about 7 and a
half% failed the uh property value study. Um 115 districts is what he said failed. So, uh, comments made last meeting about if we do our job correctly. A lot of these appraisal districts are trying to do their job
correctly and it's just the nature of the beast how the comproller pulls data later after January 1st that can lead to this outcome. The other thing, the other piece of information I've given you is um, it's
the 2025 property value studies family residential. If you uh go through it, the uh PRD numbers that Wendy brought up, there were 14 of them um that fell outside
and of those 14, five are in the TARP program. Um so that's that's just something to keep in mind. Also, 2023, I just want to say that um I went through this packet of information And in 2023,
Tarant County was number eight overall in uniform and equal out of out of every district study. Um and we were number five overall in um I believe it was the
residential portion. So we had excellent numbers. So for the coefficient of dispersions and the PRDS, is it your opinion that those changed
because we did not appraise in 25? >> Yes, sir. It it affected it. So that was year two because we froze in 2024. So we all know that 2027 is supposed to be
reappraised. What is this something that could happen in 2028? If we're not going to be studied if we if we pass 2027, correct? But if you were to do a study of it, would you anticipate that maybe something like this could happen?
>> Yes, sir. If we don't rephrase the 28, then I would expect that our numbers would get more skewed. >> Okay. Um, so I went and I went to the comproller site and they have these littleformational
onepage flyers that I printed off. So I just I want to read it and then I have a question at the end. Um, just some of the highlights and this is specific to appraisal district reappraisal plan and their purpose. By law and as a matter of
best practice, appraisal districts must have reappraisal plans to ensure effective use of resources to meet their statutory requirement of appraising property at market value as of January 1st each year.
Then under planning a reappraisal, it says the basic motivation for reappraisal is to maintain equity without frequent reappraisals. Overappraised property causes the owners to pay more than their fair share of taxes. Underappraised properties
contribute to lower tax bases causing the taxing units to set higher rates. The and this is under this is just a statutory requirement. The IAAO, which is the International Association of Assessing Officers, cautions that long
intervals between re-evaluations generally result in regressive assessments and violation of the uniformity principle. Continuing to use market factors from prior years without recalibrating them for current market creates value estimates that are
hypothetical and risk violating the constitutional equal and uniform clause. So before my question My one comment, Chairman Barnes, when you say about the number of protests,
protesting is about equity and it's making sure that each homeowner pays their fair share. So my question is for Mr. Ter. Are we in violation of the uniform and equal of the constitution? And I don't
know if you can give that answer out here, but I would like So yeah, I would not know the answer to that question without being able to to and I say without being able to study the data. I'm not sure if I studied the data, I would even be able to understand it. Um, but certainly I could work with
the appraisal staff to look at what the what the data look like and and give you an answer on that. The part that I will say out here is that there is a statutory definition of what equal and uniform is that is sort of separate and apart from just the constitutional
language that says all taxation shall be equal in uniform. And probably if we are going to analyze whether or not we think the role in Taran County is equal and uniform or not, we ought to be using those statutos that are that are in the tax code. That that's something that
like I said I could work with staff to look at and come up with a with formalized opinion that probably either way I would give you all an executive session. >> That was good lawyer speech. >> That's what I do. >> Good way to talk around that. Matthew, >> can you return to your comment where you
emphasize the word each and read that line to us again? >> This is what's on the uh comproller site. >> I know where it is. By law and as a matter of best practice, appraisal districts must have reappraisal plans to ensure effective use of resources to
meet their statutory requirement of appraising property at market value as of January 1st each year. >> Yeah. So there it's an absolute misstatement regardless of where you got it from that it's a statutory require requirement to
do it each year. That is not at all what the law says. It says that they have to be done on January the 1st when they're done and they have to be done at least every three years. So you can people can continue to emphasize the word each. Even
legislators in Austin can continue to say you're required to do it and we're flat not and they're wrong in their comment every single time they say it. >> So even if it's not each, it's still not fair and equitable. >> That not arguing that point at all.
>> All right. What I'm arguing is that this overemphasis about the word each is incorrect if not an absolute lie. >> I would agree. I mean at 25.18 I believe is what we're talking about. It it does
not use the word each. I just wanted to bring the attention to the controllers >> office does not overstep what the law says. So unfortunately their the comprollers manual is not up to date and they don't have any plans to update it.
That is why it's not referenced on our website. >> They told me themselves they're not planning to update it. >> This was from February of 2025. >> Okay. Okay, to go back to my statement,
um just to uh so we all received a lot of emails about this subject, which is why I thought that it was important for us to uh have a discussion about it because it was a large subject for the taxpayers
and the public. And so us being the board, we are responsive to those whether we answer each email or we discuss it as a a whole board. So I thought it was important for us to do that. And uh there is a concern for a
certain percent of the taxpayers, a certain number of the taxpayers. And if it's the less percent, if a lower percent of taxpayers matters less, but they were hurt and overpaid
and they were here speaking to you at the board, would you tell them that they really don't matter because they're in a lesser grouping? And I think that we are here to represent everyone as a whole, no matter
what group that they're in, to ensure that we are following uniform and equal practices in our appraisal practices. And that was the discussion that I wanted to make
sure that we had was not to say you're in a winning group and you're in a losing group. you matter more than you do. I want to make sure that the taxpayers know that everyone matters and we're going to look at it and we're
going to talk about it until we figure out the best system possible. So that was my uh goal in the discussion today was not to and I know that you just look at me like with the look every time
>> or for the for the purpose of discussion >> for for the purpose of discussion because it we've received we've all received a lot >> for the purpose of discussion I got some rhetoricals to ask in the same way other rhetoricals are being asked. Could somebody define for me the word
winners and losers when we're talking about appraisals or don't want to use that one? Those that are harmed versus helped when it comes to >> those that are that have paid more than their fair share uh according to uh what
they should have. >> I agree with that. I'm just asking because those are words are thrown around constantly and included on videos that are online and I don't understand I've never made a video those words they've been brought up multiple times in your presentation today.
>> I'll jump in and give an example though. >> Okay. >> This phone cost $20. If I can buy this phone for 15, I'm a winner. If I pay $20 and the phone is now on sale for 15, I'm a loser.
I have no idea how much you want to pay for your phone, but I also know that if my appraisal goes up, >> I'm a loser. If my goes down, I'm a winner. >> So, >> I can give you another example. After
after I wanted I I go on our website periodically. I just want to see what we're doing and and maybe learn a little bit more or um sometimes I find a problem and I call Joe and tell him I found a problem. But um I looked at my whole neighborhood and what our
appraised values were and come to find out my neighbor across the street whose house is almost as big as mine um pays $100,000. His his value was $100,000 less than mine. And I think that his square footage
uh is maybe 200 square feet less than mine. So how did that happen? You know, is that was that fair? That means he also has the over 65 exemption, but why is his value so much less than mine? Was that fair?
>> So, I would ask you, what was the value of those two properties? Were you looking at the value before 2025? So, what was the val was there still a discrepancy in 2023 and 2024 when we were I think that matters when you're using that argument because if if you're
using it just for this year when it wasn't reappraised, what was the data before that when we were reappraising it every single year? My house has always been o over his my house is the largest one in my development. >> So my value is always the height. >> So then that wouldn't be a fair >> that wouldn't be a fair example because
>> if it's 200 square feet and he has more property than I do. He has more land much more land than I do. >> Right. So all of that information matters. But if we're reappraising it, if you're looking at the data from the reappraisals from every single year, but then just now using that example in a
year that we didn't reappraise, it's not a fair. >> This is the first year was that significant of a difference. >> So how was it? It was that so the appraisal changed from last year to this year for both of us.
>> Mine went up, so a protest. I I don't have access to what his was or I didn't look for it. I just know that his value down. I don't know why. I don't know how he did that. >> My point is not to be argumentative. My
point is that you will always have winners and always have losers in this business. >> That's the 98%. >> That's the 98%. >> It's just reality. You're always going to have winners. You're always going to have losers. If I look at my neighborhood and I see every house
that's exact same square feet and they aren't exact same value, you got winners and losers. >> But is it fair? >> I don't know. I didn't ask you that. I'm asking you, do you have winners and losers? Yes. >> But Rick, >> so to so to talk about how we need to
take care of the losers and not the winners or take care of the winners and not the losers, that's not a viable reason to do have a conversation about what the appraisal process ought to be. The appraisal process is more technical than whether or not Fred won and I lost because we bought a cell phone for a
different price because I didn't go shop everywhere that he might have gone to shop and got the cheap phone. That that's just not how that's simple marketing. We can go to freshman level business school and learn how to do that. This is way bigger than that. So
my next question would be how often should appraisals take place? >> As frequent as possible. But I I'll I'll make a comment on that. In a fastmoving, heavily populated
county such as Tarant, in order to keep the equity, I think they need to be yearly. Whereas, if you go to a slowmoving, less dense rural county, um, where you don't have as many sales, I think you can do, uh, less frequent
appraisals. And I think the I wasn't around when the law was written, but I would think that the intent of the legislature was to allow for data collection um over those three years. So I just think
heavily populated to maintain equity needs to be done yearly. >> Yeah. Well, and I think you're using yearly because that's what some legislators decided to say because if annually is better than every three years, is every six months better than annually?
>> Yes. >> Depends on when you collect taxes in my opinion >> and they collect them annually. So, >> may I give an um I received 18 emails.
That's what I received. 18. Right now, there's 14 people watching this online. And for us as leaders to recommend a change
as big as this over that type of um response, I don't see it. And I'm not good. >> Isn't that what we did when we created this? You all created this street appraisal plan. Same thing, same volume.
>> No, I had 35,000 people vote for me and it was on this platform to make change and to to for us to get up here and say, "No, no, it was better the way it was. It really was. Let's go back to it." I think it's ill advised. That's just my
opinion. I'm just one vote here. >> That's why I as a discussion and so the public what your opinion is. >> They heard it loud and clear when we advocated for this change. It's change. >> It's it's if you every good deed
>> can go unpunished. Um there is a certain percentage that feels the change we made was ill advised. And then there's another percentage that thinks, hey, those guys um >> it's in it's in a better direction >> and in this process we're educating them
more. >> Yeah, I like that. But again, asking to overturn a reappraisal plan over the volume of of people we're hearing from. >> No, they don't matter. >> Matt, if I can ask you a question. If we
get legal advice that says we're in violation, would you consider a change at that point? >> Well, we had legal advice in advance of making this change. >> And and we had legal advice that's sitting right over here before we made
this change. So, um No, I don't know. Has the law changed? >> I don't think so. >> I would I would go with what we did. And again, to insinuate that we didn't have legal advice going into this decision, it's just not accurate.
>> I'm not insinuating. I just I wasn't part of this conversation. Whenever the infamous video went out, uh, I had no desire to respond to the video. My issue is to respond to the issue that's before us, not what some
interpretation of that is. That said, our office did our own review of everything. And one of the things that we saw was a presentation to the entities on whatever date this presentation was,
but it was after that said that the market decrease in Tarant County in 2020 and 22 was 41,12 properties. 2023 was 23,09 properties.
2024 was 3 thou 307,494 properties. 25 was 23,815 properties, but then in 2026 only 15,073 properties. And to this minute, we don't understand why that was shared with the
entities versus what was shared in the video. That was u I think uh one of the board members asked for roughly that kind of data as far as the the belief that appraisal districts never never decrease their values. So it's always just an upward
upward trend that if the market changes, we would never actually decrease. And so that was a query I pulled together to pull what our values had done in the prior years. And then I even query the other other metro cavs just to see what their historical things had had done just to
show that if the market actually does go down, it may not be it may still have an average increase for the entity, but we're not trying to be we're not trying to artificially hold values up if the market indicates they should decrease.
>> The reason it's a curious number is that the video suggest It was 190,000 that would have gone down. This is only 15,000. >> I think that the video is based on 2025. So this 26 is based on the current year
and the data we have in the new system which is actually what we ought to be talking about is current not what happened in the past. So we want to be honest at this table and have a conversation. The numbers 15,000 not what was shared in the video.
Yes, ma'am. I don't think I've rerun the query since since that meeting,000 25,000,000, >> which is my exact question I asked whenever the video came out. If we're actually frozen, why is there new numbers this year? Because we
actually didn't freeze appraisals in this building. simply appreci. >> So just I just want a flat answer. Is it the 190 or 130,000 plus the 23,000 >> for the two years? >> I'd have to go back and look at the
query because I think what it was based on was our calculated cost value and so it's comparing 26 calculated cost to 25 calculated cost. So I don't think at this point we I was comparing it to what our appraised value was or is that that
has been static and been sent down appraisal notices. It was just what is our internal calculation compared from one year to the next. >> So that would be the real question because if you add it or you subtract it that makes a big difference.
So is this discussion for information only or this is not no action >> discussion >> that's why I just asked questions related to the information for uh that we received on the 2025 appraisal district ratio study that was dated
March 12th 2026. So it is valid recent information related to the coefficient dispersion and cross related differential and that's why I asked the questions only related to this most recent document uh
to get the answers on that and you know the public expects you know whether it's a a portion of the public you know we've discussed things that uh that were related to a portion of the public also. So I think every portion of the public
matters. So >> I and so I stick to uh the information and the ratio study and thank you for the answers. >> Yeah, I I and don't misunderstand me. I I think everybody matters in this conversation as well. One thing that is
very curious about this is that when we went into the 20 halfway through the process we were looking into the future and again if you can look into the future go bet on that horse that nobody would have bet on in the Kentucky Derby. If you're as smart as that that some
people act like they are and relate to the market, we went into with an assumption that at worst we would be at best worse whichever way you want to say we would be flat in the current year. So I've done my own conversations with numbers of realators out there in the
real real estate business too and the quote that I was given was Tarant County is in a mild correction plateau phase. Prices are slightly down or flat while inventory is up, which is a supply
and demand conversation. So, you can find realators that will say everything went down and you can find 15 realtors that'll say didn't go down at all. It's flat. We just didn't have as many high sales
as we've had in the past. I don't know if that means California quit coming as much as they were because they were willing to pay anything you ask. another 25% for what it was. So I I I and in talking to the comprollers's
office that I talked to instead of get whoever answers the phone when you call the 1800 number comprollers's office has been surprised that it actually worked in Tarant County. >> They've been surprised that it actually
worked well in Tarant County to the point that they have advised on the governor's plan for the future, which is to actually go to a fiveyear freeze for the very reasons that we did it for a two-year freeze.
>> Who Who did you talk to? >> I talked to the comproller himself. >> Oh, the alleged official. Uh I didn't know if you talked to Shannon or any of the experts in the office. to the comproller himself that runs the whole office.
>> Which the one that >> there is a controller in the state of Texas and his name is Kelly Hancock and I talk to him once a week about something. in the past 2022 when y'all were talking about >> and I did not vote for it because I was
worried about that. I was worried about the the impact it was going to have on all the taxing entities. There were multiple things that I became concerned about as I read more and more of what was going to be done because initially I thought it might be a good idea, but when it came down to voting for it, I
realized this was not a good idea. >> I mean, I don't disagree. >> Any other Yes. >> So, I just want to understand what the point of this discussion is since y'all brought it up. Um, I understand this is not an action item, but I do want to ask
this real quick. So, y'all who brought this up, what's the goal? Like, what's the proposal? Let me understand clearly. If this was an action item, what would your proposal be? I brought it as a discussion item because it's been brought to me by the
public, an attention item, a concern item, um not fair or equitable item, and that we would reconsider and redo the reappraisal plan so that it was fair and equitable to everyone. My point was to bring it to listen to
what you all said so the public would also listen. This is not the board, the entire board that voted that in. There still is an opportunity to make some changes. I understand that you personally wanted to know if we could make minor changes just to those who
were whose property values went down, but then it wouldn't be fair and equitable to the property values that went up. So that's not a possibility. We can't pinpoint groups and say we're going to redo you. So, I just wanted the public
to hear that it was a concern to at least a few of the board members of maybe possibly changing this so that it was fair and equitable. That was my point of doing it. And I I'll say uh just since you asked, my point was uh
taxpayers reached out and they wanted us to uh deliberate and and discuss whether this was uh the best way moving forward. And so we have now So again, what's the proposal? Like
>> there's not a proposal. It's a discussion. >> I understand. I know I said that, but ideally, okay, so you there was a line that you said, I don't remember the exact verbiage where you recommended yearly appraisal or the second part, an appraisal that factors in fair and
equitable or whatever that line was. So I want to know when you said that, could you define that for me? What do you mean when you say that? Because I think that kind of gets to the root of what your ideal proposal is >> fair and equitable is what taxation is based on. >> Okay, you're not understanding. Never
mind. So, >> what is it you want to hear? >> No, I want to hear what your idea is. >> What you want to hear? Tell us what you want to hear. >> No, I want to hear what your proposal is. Like, are you just saying, "Hey, we need to just go to yearly appraisal. That's it." Or did you have something else in mind if this was an action item?
>> It wasn't an action item and we're discussing it and we've done it before on other things. So, I What is it you want to hear? >> No, I'm that's what I'm asking you. What is your ideal solution? Like like Okay, that's the thing. What's your solution to this?
>> That we re redo the reappraisal plan to >> but to say what like what do you want to say? >> Make it fair and equitable to all concerned which is all property owners. >> And how do you do that? Like just yearly appraisal. That's it. >> If that's the best fair and equitable direction. Yes. So
>> that's what the discussion is for for the board to make that determination. I know what I feel personally, but it's the board that makes the decision. I didn't vote for it last time. >> So that tells you a lot, >> right? And this is a point I want and
just to respond also to uh Callie's inquiry about what percentage would have benefited based off Jodon's last email that included the uh the uh homestead exemption in those numbers. you know, feel free to double check me, but my understanding, just basic math on that
email, about 75% of properties based off your criteria benefited benefited from what we did. So then the next question I have, uh, I guess I'll direct this to you, Gloria. You mentioned that you talked with a lot of homeowners in Arlington and most of them supposedly
should have seen their, uh, appraisal gone down. So did you advise them because there is a solution to this. Did you advise them to protest their appraisal? >> Every one of them. I even tell people who don't ask me. >> And did they do so?
>> Yes, they did. >> So then, >> and I asked them to continue to do it until, you know, I'm not on this earth. >> There's the solution. So then for them, for those individuals, what's the issue? >> The issue, >> their problem solved.
>> Well, not really. They protested and in theory got whatever that that value was I would assume what that value was going to be. So their problem is solved and and I think that's what we're missing here is that there is a solution. So I view it
two ways. You view it as okay we're ignoring the 25%. I I guess I view it as okay if we do an appraisal there's 75% of homeowners who will be harmed by that action. I'm hurting 75%
of them. I think there would be a different argument if this was more of a split issue, right? If we saw that only 50% of properties benefited, okay, then it's a coin toss. I could understand that argument. But a super majority benefited from what we did. That's the way I view it. And then for the 25% or
20%, whatever that number is, if you protest your appraisal, you're where you should be in theory. >> It just be an additional 200,000 people uh protesting. Y'all can handle that, right? >> So, so what I'm hearing, and you can
correct me, is those 25% don't count. >> No, they don't matter. Please don't twist my words. No, that's not what I said. That's why I said what I said is there is a solution that we're not talking about, and that is to protest your appraisal. >> Because the other way around, if we view view it the other way around, okay, if
we did a reappraisal, 75% would have been hurt. And they can protest, too. But it's a lot harder to stop an increase than it is to get a decrease when you're protesting if if it's a downward market. I mean, just ask >> how does that happen? Can you tell me
that if you we've already frozen it, does it matter that they got their protest in and it was accepted? Are their taxes going to stay the same? Because the value it may they may have devalued, but if there's no reappraisal and reappraisal, that's what I'm saying. It doesn't matter. >> Anybody that protests, their value went
down. Now, whenever they go into the system of being of adding the tax rate for whatever area they're going to be at that new number, that's why everybody protests. You and I both do that everywhere we go. I tell everybody protest because the system is that flawed.
>> So, the beauty of this discussion is that we have elections. >> Yep. >> And there you have, you know, there's there's a handful of us um that are going through, you know, election that's um countywide
and then you know the other whatever percentage of us you know there's there's elections where the entities get to decide who sits up here with us and argues um you know argues we're we're just talking we're deliberating and again it's a healthy
discussion and and I do want to thank you guys for your preparation you came to this discussion very prepared and it's appreciated um But past that, I think we're at that point where we've discussed this enough
and maybe we can move on to the next topic. >> I I want to say something. I didn't bring it, Eric, but if I had a proposal, my one proposal would be what I tried to do back in February, which is to take care of the school districts that fail
the property value study. That's not >> But then that becomes not fair and >> that solves everything you just mentioned. If we did that, I'm not seeing how that solves. >> I have concerns about the equity portion of it, but realizing that this has been
discussed several times. It's, you know, I I understand where where we are, but I'm you asked the question and I'm just telling you what. >> So, I'm going to piggyback on that. I didn't bring this up either and I'm exactly with Eric. My concern is that we
said we would do something about it. Talking about school boards specifically, we clearly have, as you showed here, we have invalids and two that must pass. At what point board do we let them totally fail? I mean, is there a point that we say,
"Okay, you know what? You're right, Fred. Now three totally failed in losing funding. Maybe we should reook at this." And and and my answer to that is I think whoever I don't I don't know who was here to make this decision or not. I can't remember who I wasn't here.
>> Neither was I. But they set it up in such a way >> that those groups are going to get reappraised before they fail. That's happening in 2027, which is a whopping six months from right now. >> But I guess my point is should they
fail, do we reevaluate? >> Reevaluate what? >> This this approach of not doing Well, we're going to have to re we're going to have to reevaluate that anyway. This process, this current policy goes through 2027 right now.
>> We're going to be we're going to be having this conversation again to figure out what should the future be. >> That's what I thought. >> But I think that those who >> I don't I don't think this is a bad bad No, >> I don't think this has been a bad discussion at all, >> Eric. I think what the those that
brought it to us, they're wanting us to talk about it. They want to talk out loud and have an open conversation about it. We can't do that because we have all kinds of laws about how we can't get together and have conversations. So, this is about the only place we can get together and have those conversations adequately. And so, I think it's been a good conversation. I just
>> then when we start going into, well, they're going to die. I mean, you know, their whole school district's just going to go. No, it it was set up specifically. There's going to be another appraisal to before they get to that point. That's just the reality of it.
If they even get that far, that's still a big if. >> Asel and Carol are there next year. If they if they if we do incorrectly, >> they will they will fail. >> Okay. So 50% of those don't give a flip
what any of this means. So I guess just my last comments about it, it's like I said before, you know, I know there's no proposal, there's no action today, but I think the concerns are premature, like I said, and then the points you're making to me, it just seems like we're trying to throw out the
baby with the bathwater here, right? Uh I'm definitely open, of course, to any discuss like like Chairman Barn said, this was a good discussion. I do appreciate it. If you have ideas, you know, I'm always open to hearing it. Um, I'm open to ideas that maintains the spirit of appraisal relief while
relieving your concerns. I I always am. Um, but and that's the final point that Chairman Barnes just touched on here is a lot of this discussion, believe it or not, is a moot point because we've got a governor right now campaigning on a plan that's going to take the discussion out
of this room completely. And and that's really where I think the discussion needs to be had. I think that's our opportunity here to to advise policy makers on what our experience has been. >> No, and I don't want you to misunderstand what I did say about that. We've got a governor that's campaigning on it. He's still got to get himself elected to do it and he's got to
convince the legislature to do it. And Lord knows if any of that's going to happen. So, we got a long ways to go if that's going to be the rally. I'm just saying that the comproller is actually supporting that plan and used his own home county as an
It worked. Miss Burgess, we do we have anything else for you? Y'all brought this to us. >> No, hopefully we'll get more input from the public and voting is one of those ways too, right? Well, and I would hope that the
information we get from whomever in the public is actually legit and upfront and not utilizing the numbers to say what they want the numbers to say versus what they might actually say, >> which did not include 2026 that went all the way down to 15,000 properties from
190,000 properties. >> Thank you for bringing this up. Good conversation. And uh if there's not objection, I'm going to move this forward. We have number five is a consent agenda. Two action items. Consent agenda uh consent agenda. First one is approval of
minutes. Second is the approval of two-year extension of primary banking depository agreement. I'm going to move for approval for 5 A and B. Is there a second? Is there any further discussion on 5 A or B consent agenda? Hearing none.
I mean on whatever this thing >> it hasn't come up yet show >> here show voting show voting But it doesn't. Oh, >> you don't have I don't see nothing's up on
it four times. What are you >> What are you hitting? >> Oh, boom. It got in. >> Next item is item uh 6A which is an action item order to accept ARB declinations and resignations removing
eligible members and appoint ARB secretary for 112 January 1st 26 through 123127. previous secretary declined the appointment see >> since the committee recommended is that the move to approve >> matter you got supplements
>> no that's that's how >> okay so I'll is this public comment is there >> nobody sign up >> no sign up for public comment um is there a motion then >> that the committee made the motion and I'll second it
>> the motion has been made to do something >> approve had a vote. >> Orders to accept ARB declination. Okay. Okay. Yeah, I got it. >> Please vote. 6B staff recommendation uh approve
orders as recommended by the subcommittee discussing act changed the appraisal review board pdium to $200 per day $100 for a half day with ARB chair receiving an additional $20 per day $10 half day Texas property tax code section
642 C states C members of the board are entitled to a predium set by the appraisal district budget for each day the board meets and for actual and necessary expenses incurred in the performance of board function as provided by the district jud budget.
The current piums vary greatly and change uh daily. The standard is 105 per day panel chairman 205 per day secretary 225 per day chairman 240 per day. You have a predium chart on your screen or wherever it is
you're looking. uh staff there's there is no staff recommendation on this one. >> So per our committee we recommend no >> is that what this does? >> So is there a motion in favor of 6B
>> the committee made the motion? >> We made the motion to no change then there is no motion. Is there you don't make a negative motion. Is there a motion uh in Is there a motion on 6B
>> hearing? None. We move. >> I have a question before we move on. The no change is that from the current because we tabled it at the last meeting. So is that from the current pay or is that from this new pay scale that from
the current that way for the budget as well. >> So seeing no motion, we will continue to pay as we have in the policy right now. 6 C. That's right. Authorize chief appraiser to enter a
master agreement for business airplane business audit services for tax year 202426 with Aviation Capital Partners LLC with options to renew for successful successive terms of one year each for up to three years. Enter into three
interlocal agreements with Alliance Arlington Municipal and Mum airports to provide reimbursements to eligible taxing units geographically aligned with these airports. I'm gonna ask Jod to elaborate on this in just a minute. >> We do have the vendor Neil Bara here uh
to expand if you have any questions. Um what this project does uh there are we expect roughly $30 million in tax levy that is of aircraft. These are typically charter aircraft that are in the county. They they intentionally
evade taxation by registering in Delaware and and trying to hide their assets. And so we we typically use uh FFA logs, FAA logs to determine what pro what aircraft are in our county, but you can hide your
tail number. You can there's ways to circumvent the way we the way the data that we have that we have access to. Uh STR is an expert in aviation. They're they're from that industry. They understand how to find these assets and they have they understand how to value
them. And so they can bring these assets back to us, add them to the role, uh go through the appeal process with us, and then once it finally makes it to the tax office, then the entities actually collect that money. We would get a bill from the vendor. We would
take that vendor and split up, split it up to the entities based on their tax rate and actually charge the entity from the the additional uh revenue that was generated. So it's there's really no risk or very limited risk. Uh any money
that's captured is used to pay for the product project itself, but it's basically a 12 to1 return. So the total fee that we're estimating is $2.8 million, but it would generate $37 million for those nine entities that that have the three airports, or at
least it's expected to. They still have the taxpayers would still have the ability to file an appeal and actually argue the value of their property or or try to prove that they're actually don't have situs in Taran County. Um Travis County has has started this and they're seeing like a six to1 return
through the appeal process, but still I mean six to1 that's that's a lot of additional revenue that's just kind of free. U our our original intent was to do this through interlocal agreement. That way the nine entities that get the get the reward or the the revenue would
be the ones that help pay for it and reimburse our our budget. Um the city of Fort Worth and Tarant County staff that we've talked to had initial concerns because it's outside of the normal budget process that we normally go through. And so they had concerns with
that. And so what we'd be recommending is that if we can get the participating entities to agree for each airport, then we could enter you would allow me to enter an agreement with them and then they could go forth and then we can start the project on. If we can't get
them to agree, then in August, we'd bring this back to y'all for discussion as to add into the budget for 2027. But it's a 10% hit to our budget, and all 73 entities would have to would get a a piece of that as far as the cost, but they wouldn't get the benefit. Only these nine entities would get the
benefit. So, >> right now, >> yes, ma'am. It it seems like a like an easy call, but I know they have concerns with the funding. I did speak with Matthew Ter about it just because it is outside the normal.
But I believe Travis County has has might have been the first one to do this reimbursement arrangement. So overall, we think it's a a benefit for the entities. >> So I asked you a question, but I want to ask it again on on behalf of our public and record. First off, I think this is a
fabulous idea, but They don't get charged unless they get results and it's basically a 12 to1 in favor of them, right? >> Yes, sir. >> And then my second question I asked you I need to ask for the record is that this can be is not necessarily an
ongoing thing because maybe they capture a lot of money in year one but in year two they don't capture as much so that fee goes down, right? >> Yes, sir. >> So, and so this is three years of of omitted property essentially in the tax role. So, it'll be added. It will be a large amount. And then going forward,
those properties would still be on the tax roll, those aircraft. Um, there's a a maintenance fee in the contract. It's like $40,000, I believe, for just ongoing paperwork, just handling the renditions and stuff from those entities going forward. Uh, but
there would still be a collection fee. So, any new aircraft they find in future years would have a similar funding model. Well, at least we would get built for it. and that would just be absorbed into our normal budget process. But from their initial estimates, if we initially
find $37 million in levy, it would be roughly 20 million or 20% of that going forward. >> So the the $2.8 million that we would expend for the product be 20% of that going forward that we might need to put into the 27 budget. >> And this is values that we don't
currently have nor the entities currently have. >> Yes, sir. Okay. Well, hats off to you on your road show of getting this approved, but it's a good idea. Yes, sir. >> Well, so are you saying that they're not paying taxes anywhere is considered a property like
>> Okay. Because I don't know what's what's normal for this. >> These are uh these are typically charter aircraft. So, they're business use. They're not personal use. So, if y'all have any friends that have aircraft for personal use, those wouldn't be taxed or added. >> Okay. >> It's only business or in Tarant County.
>> Yes, ma'am. It's not American Airlines. The big guys do what's what's correct and they render to us. >> These are typically charter aircraft or mixed use. Uh and they're they intentionally register them in Delaware even though they are always pretty much here in Taran County. >> They hide them.
>> Okay. So, you're wanting them to report to us who's coming and going? >> Yes, ma'am. >> Okay. And so, uh, we would get a report from STR that shows these are the aircraft that have situs here and how much time they spend in Tarant County. So, if they're flying around, we can see
that and then we can see how much is actually contributed to Taran County. >> Okay. >> Mr. Craw, >> I think it's a great idea. Uh, my question would be, you'd mentioned the appeal process. So, we value it at this and then they appeal it. The fee isn't
contingent upon that initial. It is would it go lower if the appeal was to lower the value? >> I'm not sure. Neil, do you want to come up? >> To answer your question, to answer your question, the the final value is based
off of whatever the final value is. So, um it doesn't do me any good to throw out a number that doesn't make any sense, like to say a worth 5 million and they come back and it it's actually worth 1 million. That just puts a bad taste in everybody's mouth. So, we have
certified appraisers, Texas certified appraisers, um that only do aircraft in Texas and they will manage this account. So, they have thousands and thousands of aircraft appraisals that they do. So, we look at sales data, we look at uh we pull market comps from across the state,
across the nation. So, instead of just using a generic blue book uh that could put that at 1.5. Uh we pull market comps and we pull other market data that says actually that plane based off what uh what things it has on it uh other conditions, you know, blue book is
probably a little high. It's probably worth 1.3. Um and then the value will be set at 1.3. They get the rendition, they have every chance to formally appeal uh go to ARB and then we fully defend it uh all the way through completion. So that's our job is to make sure they're
accurately fairly valued not across Texas, but but here in >> so they go to an ARB um when they want to appeal and then they have the same path to go to the controllers's office pass that if they
uh again these are all going to be in LLC's all these correct >> since you're at the podium can you tell us any other success stories or other counties you've done this with >> uh Travis County was the first call that that Jon made We really started in Tom
Green was the first one. We work in Web County, uh, Williamson County, uh, Zabala, a handful of other ones. Um, but the the the biggest picture is the metro areas. As you can imagine, that's where the the largest most valuable aircraft
are. Uh, it's the most opportunity for them to kind of use these evasion tactics. >> What are those evasion tactics? At the at the very surface level, the easiest thing to do is register your plane wherever you want. When you
register with the FAA, it's it's the FAA doesn't really care where you register. It's essentially where do you want your mail to go? So, you can register in Delaware. You can go right now and go to, you know, delaware.com and for 75 bucks and on paper you're going to look like a Delaware agency.
So Montana Delaware Florida wherever there's not property tax. Um, and then there's other, without getting way of the weeds, there's other things that they intentionally do to make it difficult for his office to find. Um, and without our technology, our support,
and our just relent relentlessness to to find them, >> you guys taking pictures and using drones, how are you? >> All the above. All the above. >> Good. Yes. >> Well, I I just had a quick question. Because it's a plane, >> I mean, it's it could be in a different parked in a different place more often
next year or the next year. And so, you it seems a little bit big government to me so I'm trying to understand >> sure >> um >> how this works. >> Well, you have to there's three things you have to measure when you're looking at personal property. There's situs, nexus, and doicile. Um all three of
those things play a role into what makes that asset taxable at the time. So you look at it as of January one to determine the value and then historically you look at the previous year's activity to determine where that plane is based. So
>> with with aircraft uh they have various exemptions that they can use. So um a business asset has the ability to allocate their value. So if it's if the plane worth a million dollars uh and they spend 50% of their time here in Texas, they would actually get a 50%
reduction in their if they spend 100% they will pay 100% of their value and that goal is to pay based off how much they use Texas uh specifically Taran County. >> Um so we go through that entire process as well. Um we
will value the plane. We'll give them the right allocation formula deal with the agents. Um go back and forth in terms of informed values and allow them every opportunity to uh protect and defend that value. But most of the time the aircraft owners are
pretty withholding in terms of the information which puts their staff at a big disadvantage. Uh and they kind of aircraft owners only tell part of the truth which can sway what that value looks like. When we have all the answers in front of us, we can clearly define
defend whether it's taxable or not. So it eliminates the ambiguity. >> Any other questions? Okay. >> Um, can So, thank you. You've already answered one of my questions about uh
who has uh used your services, Tom, Green, Williamson, Zavala, uh counties like that. Uh do you you don't have any counties that have uh multiple airports like we have uh here in Tarant, do you?
>> Uh no, Austin. >> Austin. >> Travis County. >> Okay. >> And you guys actually have a lot of airports, but many of them are like helipads, hospital systems that aren't going to be taxable anyway, >> right? >> So, we've already gone through that filtering process um and identify that these are the three largest ones. And
actually, interesting enough, um DFW is right on the border, >> right? >> Uh and as we analyzed it, there's no commercial, there's no business activity there. It's all commercial. So, that one, you know, as we started looking like, oh man, that's it's right there. But there's no taxable assets that are doing what we're talking about,
>> right? But Mechum Arlington and Spanx. Yeah. Yeah. >> Alliance is included, right? >> Spanx is the one in Burson that we haven't added. >> We'll have to look at and see if there's enough stuff out there. >> Sure. >> Right. Sure. >> Okay. And then my other question is uh
what ROI have you realized for uh your existing customers? >> Anywhere from 5 to 12 to1 um depending on how they choose to pay for it. Um this is a unique opportunity um that allows us to focus the revenue on the
entities that will be benefited from it. Uh in my personal opinion, I think it's a good way to do it because the other 70 entities don't get any value because the taxable value goes to the situs location. Um and I think when you look at I think from business perspective it makes a lot
of sense and this is pretty fair for everybody. >> Okay. And I apologize because I did not uh read the uh contract. Is there a 30-day opt out? >> Uh I don't think there's a 30-day opt out, but you have termination clauses
built in. Uh I believe it's 90 days. >> Okay. >> Um once we get rolling, just in terms of time frame, like if we started today, >> it's going to take me and my staff time to school up and we'll be delivery probably in the first 60 days. >> Okay. >> And then as soon as we do that, you
know, process and everything will be a lengthy process. So I would expect revenues to start hitting banks uh probably in the six month range 180ish days. Um that's typically what we see depending on how many >> So do you do this nationwide?
>> Yes, depending on where the taxes >> what states are doing this themselves and what counties are doing this themselves because that that's where this is going to be added. every every state >> giving the government a chance to grow their >> sure everyone everyone does it at various levels of
efficiencies. Um the challenge is is that how how many people are doing it is really specific as to the owners, the assets, the location and then how diligent each entity is. Um and one of the things we talk about with JOD and their staff is this is not uh this is
not an issue with the staff. doing everything that they can with what they have. The issue is that the information they have is not as good as the information that the owners have. So, this is kind of leveling the playing field. Um, like you said, we're aviation professionals. Been doing this a long time. So, we know what rocks to look
under and we know when their their lies are lies to be able to defend. >> I move that we approve 6C. >> There's multiple seconds. Any further discussion? Sorry, quick question. You might have answered this. In the event that you
accidentally pick something up that doesn't qualify you, you're not supposed to. What's the process for for them to get that corrected? >> Uh, say that again. Well, for the taxpayer or for >> for Yeah. So, like if you pick up, you know, something that's not based here, like that should not qualify by accident
and they know it, like what's the process for them to fix that? >> Uh, they file an appeal. Um, they file they file an appeal with us. Uh, and normally those are done very quickly informally and then If our data proves one way or the other that we can recommend to go to board or not. So they get they they get every every appeal
process like anybody else. >> Hearing no further discussion all in say I >> wait go on here and we don't do that. >> We quit. >> That was awkward. >> We quit doing it last year. Did we or
didn't we? >> Good. >> Well, she already voiceed once. Eric, just a suggestion to you. Get your plane to Tyler as soon as you can. >> Um, we do not have any information to go to executive session. So, that clears
out seven and eight. Is there any further discussion on any item before us today? Hearing none, our next meeting is on August the 12th at 9:00 a.m. here. Uh, I would entertain a motion to adjurnn. >> I'll move to adjurnn. >> It's been moved that we adjourn.