[00:21:59] JAMES VALADEZ: GOOD MORNING. THE TIME IS 11:32 ON THURSDAY, [Public Hearing] [00:22:04] AUGUST 14, 2025. I'LL CALL TO ORDER THE TRAVIS CENTRAL [00:22:12] APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS FOR THE [00:22:17] PUBLIC HEARING. QUORUM IS PRESENT. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR [00:22:23] AGENDA IS CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP TO SPEAK FOR THIS ITEM? MICHAEL MILLS: WE DO NOT. JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR, WHICH IS THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED 2026 TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BUDGET TO INCLUDE A, B AND C, WE'RE GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, YES, OKAY, AND RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE 2026, PROPOSED BUDGET. AND YOU'VE ALREADY SAID NO ONE'S SIGNED UP, AND SO WE WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, YES, OKAY, AND AT 1133 DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? JOHN HAVENSTRITE: MOVE JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY. MOVED BY JOHN, SECONDED BY DICK, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY AT 1133 WE WILL ADJOURN. THE TIME IS 1135 ON THURSDAY, AUGUST 14, 2025 AND I'D LIKE TO [Regular Meeting] [1. Call to Order] CONVENE THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL [00:25:03] DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS. A QUORUM IS PRESENT. THE FIRST [2. Establishment of Quorum] ITEM IS CITIZENS COMMUNICATION. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED [3. Citizens Communication] UP TO SPEAK? MICHAEL MILLS: WE DO. WE HAVE TWO TODAY. JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY AND THEY'RE BOTH IN PERSON, CORRECT? MICHAEL MILLS: THEY'RE BOTH HERE, YES. JAMES VALADEZ: FIRST I HAVE IS MARK WILLIAMS MICHAEL MILLS: SURE MARK IS HERE. JAMES VALADEZ: GOOD MORNING, SIR, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: THANK YOU. HI. MY NAME IS MARK WILLIAMS, AND MY PROPERTY ID IS 156588, AND I APPRECIATE YOUR GIVE ME THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS THE BOARD. I AM HERE TO BRIEFLY DISCUSS SEVERAL ISSUES OF I THINK, SERIOUS CONCERN. IN NOVEMBER OF 2023 WE WERE SENT A BILL FOR PROPERTY TAXES. THEN IN JANUARY OF 2024 WERE SENT A SECOND BILL, SIX, SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE FIRST, WITH THE ENTIRE INCREASE ATTRIBUTED TO AISD AND I COPIES OF BOTH BILLS BEEN DISTRIBUTED. I ENCLOSED A LETTER AS WELL FROM CATIE LEE, FINALLY PROVIDED, MAY 6 2024 STATED THERE HAD BEEN A RECALCULATION OF MY QUOTE FREEZE LEVEL. THIS ACTION, I BELIEVE, WAS ILLEGAL FOR TWO REASONS. NUMBER ONE, I WAS OLDER THAN 65 I'M 60 I'M 73 NOW, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE FREEZE LEVELS ARE TO REMAIN CONSTANT ONCE THAT MILESTONE HAS BEEN REACHED. ALSO, THE STATED REASON FOR THE INCREASE IN THE FREEZE LEVEL WAS TO OFFSET THE EFFECTS OF THE PASSAGE OF PROP ONE IN MAY OF 2022 AND OF PROP FOUR IN NOVEMBER OF 2023. THIS, I THINK, REPRESENTS A DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO FRUSTRATE THE WILL OF THE VOTERS. NUMBER TWO, DUE TO THE HIGHLY INFLATED MARKET VALUES FOR 2022 AS STATED BY TCAD, THERE WERE, PREDICTABLY, A RECORD NUMBER OF PROTESTS AS SUCH. MY ARBITRATION FOR THAT YEAR WAS NOT COMPLETED UNTIL OCTOBER OF THE FOLLOWING YEAR. NONETHELESS, TCAD USED THEIR ORIGINALLY STATED MARKET VALUE FOR 2022 AS THE BASELINE FOR THEIR PERCENTAGE INCREASE FOR THE FOLLOWING YEAR, AND REFUSED TO ADJUST THIS BASED ON THE OUTCOME OF THE ARBITRATION FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR, DESPITE THE FACT THAT THEIR OWN APPRAISER HAD SUGGESTED THE MUCH LOWER FIGURE ARRIVED AT IN ARBITRATION NUMBER THREE FOR THE YEAR 2024 THE ARB REFUSED TO HEAR MY CASE FALSELY STATING THAT PROTESTS HAD BEEN NO MY PROTEST HAD BEEN FILED LATE, HOWEVER, AND I'VE GIVEN YOU COPIES OF THIS. I PROVIDE A STAMP COPY OF MY PROTEST THAT WAS SUBMITTED ON MAY 9, AND THE SUBMIT AND THE DENIAL OF HEARING LATER BY ARB, DATED APRIL 10, 2025, AND INTERESTINGLY, THIS YEAR, WHEN I FILED A PAPER COPY OF MY PROTEST, THE CLERK REFUSED TO STAMP MY COPIES, CLAIMING THAT THIS HAD NEVER BEEN DONE. IN FACT, I'VE HAD MY COPIES STAMPED IN EVERY PREVIOUS YEAR. OTHERWISE, HOW WOULD I HAVE PROOF OF WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IN THE CASE THAT THERE'S AN OPPOSITION TO THIS. THIS IS ONLY A PRELIMINARY ASSESSMENT OF THE VARIOUS ACTIVITIES THAT I FIND TO BE OF CONCERN THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED BY TCAD RELATED ENTITIES. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. JAMES VALADEZ: MR. WILLIAMS, YES, I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION FROM A MEMBER, DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: HOW ARE YOU? MR. WILLIAMS, SORRY, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS DOESN'T HAVE REAL AUTHORITY TO HANDLE DIRECTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, ALTHOUGH I DO HEAR SOME SOME PROBLEMS THAT YOU'VE RAISED, I WOULD LIKE FOR YOU, IF POSSIBLE, TO MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO MEET WITH OUR LEGAL COUNSEL, MR. DUSTIN BANKS, WHO'S SITTING HERE TO TALK WITH HIM ABOUT THE LEGAL ISSUES INVOLVED AND SEE IF ANYTHING CAN BE WORKED OUT, BECAUSE WE DON'T WANT TO PUT YOU IN THE POSITION OF HAVING TO FILE LITIGATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT CAN BE DONE OR WHAT CANNOT BE DONE, BUT MR. BANKS COULD ASSIST YOU, IF YOU COULD MAKE AN APPOINTMENT TO MEET WITH HIM. OKAY, COULD YOU PLEASE SEND ME AN EMAIL WITH HIS CONTACT? WELL, MR. HE'S RIGHT HERE. MR. BANKS WILL GET IN TIME. WILL BE IN TOUCH WITH YOU ABOUT THAT. TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: ANYTHING ELSE DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: THAT'S ALL JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. MICHAEL MILLS: SO WE NEXT HAVE JUDY GRACIE. JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY, UNKNOWN: MISS GRACIE, YOU'LL HAVE THREE MINUTES. TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: HI. MY NAME IS JUDY GRACIE. MY PROPERTY ID IS 169190, I'VE BEEN THROUGH THIS FOR TWO YEARS TRYING TO GET MY 24 APPRAISAL OF MY LAND CORRECTED, IT WENT UP 3.7 [00:30:04] MILLION FROM 700,000 TO 4.4 IN 24 IF I WAS APPRAISED ON THE OTHER TWO ADJOINING MARKET AREAS, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPRAISED AT 1.7 SO IT WOULD HAVE GONE UP A MILLION. THERE'S NO WAY I CAN PROTEST AND GET THE MARKET VALUE DOWN TO JUST FOR THIS. IT'S BASICALLY MY WHOLE VALUE. YOU'VE NOW PUT OVER MY VALUE INTO MY LAND. I'VE BEEN ASKING, WHO HAS THE AUTHORITY TO LOWER MY LAND VALUE AND CORRECT THIS. I USED AND TALKED TO BETTY TOM MISS THOMPSON. I'VE ASKED MR. MILLS, AND I HAVE NOT RECEIVED AN ANSWER. THEY SAID, I CAN APPEAL IT. APPEAL IT WHERE, YOU KNOW, I'M SO FRUSTRATED TWO YEARS INTO THIS. AND YOU KNOW, RIGHT NOW, MY SQUARE FOOTAGE IS PRICED AT $41 A FOOT, AND OTHERS ARE 1217, MIKE, THERE'S IN IT'S THE LAKEFRONT FOOTAGE THAT WAS REAPPRAISED IN 2024, AND IT HAS NO REGARD TO ACREAGE. SO THERE IS A PROPERTY THAT'S RIGHT DOWN FOR ME IN MY MARKET AREA THAT IS GOT TWICE THE WATERFRONT AND 17 ACRES VERSUS MY 2.5 AND THERE'S I'M HIGHER, SO THERE'S NO REGARD IN THIS PROCESS ON THIS APPRAISAL WITH ACREAGE. SO I'VE GOT AN ISSUE, AND I WANT TO GET IT RESOLVED THIS YEAR. SO I'M ASKING FOR, WHERE DO I WHAT APPEAL CAN CHANGE MY LAND VALUE? SO THEN THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THE OTHER THING IS, THIS MARKET AREA I I KNOW I COULDN'T USE THEY TOLD ME YOU CAN'T USE PROPERTIES IN THE OUR MARKET AREA. SO I'M T, SOME T3, 100. AND SO THERE'S MANCHESTER TRAIL IS FIVE MINUTES FROM ME. THEY WERE T1, 100. WELL, I CAN'T USE THEM EITHER, BECAUSE IT'S, AGAIN, A DIFFERENT MARKET AREA. I HAVE A PIE SHAPED LOT. THEN IT'S GOT A LOT OF FRONTAGE, AND THE DISCOUNTS THAT THEY RECEIVE ARE SO DIFFERENT FROM ME. AS I SAID, IF MY HOUSE WAS OVER THERE, I WOULD BE APPRAISED AT 1.7 THAT'S THREE, YOU KNOW, 3 MILLION, 3 MILLION LESS. ALMOST IT'S, YOU KNOW, I'M JUST ASKING FOR THIS TO BE CORRECTED. I, YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY I NEED AN APPEAL PROCESS, BUT WHICH ONE CAN LOWER MY LAND VALUE? JAMES VALADEZ: THANK YOU. QUESTION FOR MISS CARTWRIGHT DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: HAVE YOU HAD AN APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD HEARING? TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: YES. DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: SO HAVE YOU RECEIVED AN ORDER DETERMINING PROTEST FROM THE APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD? JAMES VALADEZ: YES, AND THEY LOWERED MY IMPROVEMENT VALUE AND COULD NOT. THEY SAID THEY DID NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO LOWER MY LAND VALUE. DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: YOU CAN FILE A LAWSUIT BASED ON THAT ORDER DETERMINING PROTEST WITHIN 60 DAYS OF RECEIVING IT. 60 DAYS TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: OKAY, SO WOULD THAT BE IN DISTRICT COURT, DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: IN DISTRICT COURT THAT YOU'RE THAT IS YOUR REMEDY IS TO FILE A DISTRICT COURT. YOU CAN ALSO FILE FOR BINDING ARBITRATION, WHICH IS ANOTHER OPTION. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE DEADLINES ON THAT I'VE GOTTEN VAGUE, BUT YOU MIGHT CHECK THOSE OPTIONS. AS FAR AS YOUR APPEAL, TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: CAN THEY CHANGE LAND VALUE? DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: THEY CAN CHANGE THE VALUE ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: I CAN'T, YOU KNOW, I NEED THE LAND VALUE CHANGE. DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: THEY CAN CHANGE VALUE ON THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ONCE IT'S IN, BEEN IN, TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: BUT CAN THEY SPECIFICALLY LOWER THE LAND VALUE? DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: THEY CAN SPECIFICALLY LOWER THE ACCOUNT VALUE, WHICH INCLUDES THE LAND AND THE IMPROVEMENT. TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: IT DOESN'T HELP ME, UNLESS YOU CORRECT MY LAND BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, 200, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THAT'S THE ISSUE. THE DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: THE ARBITRATOR OR THE DISTRICT JUDGE CAN DO WHATEVER. TRAVIS COUNTY TAXPAYER: OKAY SO IT LOOKS LIKE DISTRICT JUDGE IS THE ONLY WAY TO I CAN GET THE LAND REDUCED. DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: IT, GOING TO COURT IS ALWAYS A AN OPTION FOR ON A ON AN APPRAISAL REVIEW. JAMES VALADEZ: THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THE PUBLIC TESTIMONY FOR TODAY, WE WILL MOVE ON TO ITEM FOUR OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA, [4. Consent Agenda] WHICH IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THESE ITEMS MAY BE ACTED UPON BY ONE MOTION, NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OR VOTE ON ANY OF THE ITEMS WILL BE HELD UNLESS REQUESTED BY A BOARD MEMBER, I KNOW, DICK LAVINE: YEAH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO TAKE ITEM 4E, THE PERSONNEL REPORT, OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND THE REASON IS THAT I SEE THAT WE HAVE A NEW DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL APPRAISAL AND A NEW DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL. AND. THEY'RE HERE. I JUST LIKE TO MEET THEM AND HAVE THEM [00:35:02] INTRODUCED TO THE BOARD. MICHAEL MILLS: WOULD YOU LIKE TO DO THAT NOW? JAMES VALADEZ: LET'S DO IT AFTER THE CONSENT. SO THE REMAINING ITEMS ARE FOR A THROUGH D, WHICH INCLUDE THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE JUNE 12, 2025 REGULAR MEETING. THE SECTION 2525 B REPORT, THE ACCOUNTING STATEMENTS AND BUDGET LINE ITEM TRANSFERS ALL GIVE THE BOARD SOME TIME TO REVIEW THOSE ITEMS. AND IF ANYONE WOULD LIKE ANYTHING ELSE PULLED, WE CAN PULL THOSE. OKAY. MOTION BY MR. HANNAH, SECOND BY MR. LAVINE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THAT MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. CAN WE GO AHEAD AND HAVE THE FOLKS FROM 4E COME UP? MICHAEL MILLS: YEAH, SO WE ACTUALLY ARE GOING TO INTRODUCE YOU TO THREE INDIVIDUALS TODAY. THE FIRST ONE SITTING RIGHT HERE TO MY LEFT. THAT'S RUSSELL LEDBETTER RUSSELL LEDBETTER: MORNING, EVERYBODY. MICHAEL MILLS: SO I KNOW MOST OF YOU KNOW RUSSELL. RUSSELL'S THE NEW DEPUTY CHIEF OF OPERATIONS, AND HE'S BEEN A TREMENDOUS ASSET. HIT THE GROUND RUNNING THIS SUMMER, HELPED US GET THROUGH THE PROTEST SEASON. WITHOUT HIM, WE WOULD HAVE NOT AS DONE AS WELL AS WE HAVE. SO WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE HIM IN THAT ROLE. RUSSELL STARTED IN 2011 HE'S BEEN HERE FOR 14 YEARS. STARTED AS A RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER, BECAME A RESIDENTIAL TEAM LEADER, RESIDENTIAL MANAGER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, AND THEN EVENTUALLY, MOST RECENTLY, THE DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL SO HE'S BEEN HERE FOR A LONG TIME. HE'S A GRADUATE OF BAYLOR UNIVERSITY WITH A BACHELOR'S DEGREE IN BUSINESS MANAGEMENT, IS A STRONG RECORD IN RESIDENTIAL VALUATION, OBVIOUSLY OVER THESE LAST YEARS, A GOOD LEADER AND GOOD AT EXECUTING REAPPRAISAL PLANS. SO WE'RE VERY HAPPY TO HAVE RUSSELL IN THAT ROLE AS CO DEPUTY. SO NOW I'LL INTRODUCE YOU TO TWO NEW DIRECTORS. WE HAVE A NEW DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER. THAT'S ZACH DYE. ZACH'S BACK THERE BEHIND ME. HE'S ALSO WELL TENURED AT TCAD. HE'S BEEN HERE SINCE 2014 AND HE STARTED AS A GIS TECHNICIAN, EVENTUALLY WENT INTO APPRAISAL AS A RESIDENTIAL APPRAISER. HE ALSO WAS A CONDO SPECIALIST MANAGER IN RESIDENTIAL, AND MOST RECENTLY, HE WAS THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, NOW FILLING THE ROLE AS OUR DIRECTOR OF RESIDENTIAL. HE TOO IS A KEY PLAYER IN OUR SUCCESS IN THE PROTEST SEASON, AND WE KNOW HE'S GOING TO TRAIN A GOOD REPLACEMENT FOR THAT. HE'S VERY GOOD WITH COMPLIANCE RESIDENTIAL VALUATION. HE ALSO HAS A BACHELOR'S DEGREE FROM TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, AND, OF COURSE, AN RPA. SO ZACH'S BEEN IN THAT ROLE FOR ABOUT A COUPLE OF WEEKS NOW, AND HE'S ALREADY DOING REALLY, REALLY WELL. WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE HIM. AND OUR THIRD IS OUR NEW DIRECTOR OF COMMERCIAL VALUATION. THAT'S JOSH MALDONADO. JOSH WILL STAND BACK THERE. WE WERE FORTUNATE ENOUGH TO FIND JOSH IN OUR NATIONWIDE RECRUITMENT, AND HE DIDN'T HAVE TO MOVE TOO FAR. HE CAME FROM HARRIS COUNTY, SO HARRIS DID A REALLY GOOD JOB FOR 10 YEARS. HE WORKED THERE. HE'S GOT GOOD EXPERIENCE WITH A LARGE JURISDICTION, WITH HIGH VALUE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, AND SO WE'RE VERY PLEASED TO HAVE HIM HERE. HE'S GOT GOOD EXPERTISE IN MASS APPRAISAL MODELING. HE'S GOT VERY SPECIFIC EXPERIENCE WITH RETAIL AND WAREHOUSE VALUATION, WHICH WE HAVE A LOT OF HERE IN TRAVIS. SO HE'S BEEN A GREAT ADD TO OUR TEAM. HE'S ALSO HAS A BACHELOR'S IN TELECOMMUNICATIONS FROM TEXAS A AND M AND HIS RPA, SO ALL THREE OF THOSE HAVE MADE A BIG IMPACT ALREADY. THIS SUMMER, WE'RE REALLY HAPPY TO HAVE THEM. GREAT. JAMES VALADEZ: ANYTHING ELSE? DICK LAVINE: THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND CONGRATULATIONS ON YOUR PROMOTION. AND WELCOME TO AUSTIN. BLANCA ZAMORA GARCIA: AND GIG 'EM. UHM, WE NEED A MOTION ON 4E TO INCLUDE THAT, SINCE WE ALREADY JAMES VALADEZ: DON'T START IT. [00:40:04] PASSED A THROUGH D, SO CAN I GET 4E MOTION ON 4E DICK LAVINE: THE MOTION WOULD BE TO ACCEPT THE PERSONNEL REPORT. JAMES VALADEZ: YEAH. DICK LAVINE: OKAY. SO MOVED, JAMES VALADEZ: MOVED BY MR. LAVINE, SECONDED BY BLANCA. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WE'LL NOW MOVE ON TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA, STARTING [5. Regular Agenda] WITH FIVE A DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON TAXPAYER [5A. Discussion and Possible Action on Taxpayer Liaison Officer Report] LIAISON OFFICER REPORT. BETTY THOMPSON, TAXPAYER LIAISON: GOOD MORNING. I'D LIKE TO START OFF WITH AN APOLOGY THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A WRITTEN HIGHLIGHT REPORT. I WAS A LITTLE LATE IN ANALYZING DATA, AND SO MISSED THAT DEADLINE. SO I'M GOING TO PROVIDE IT TO YOU ORALLY, WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IF I'M NOT CLEAR ON A MATTER OR YOU HAVE A QUESTION, YOU'LL STOP ME SO THAT WE CAN ADDRESS IT RIGHT THEN, BECAUSE I DO HAVE A LOT OF DATA TO PRESENT TO YOU. SO THE FIRST ITEM THAT WE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT IS OUR MONTHLY REPORT, AND I'M SPECIFICALLY LOOKING AT THE FORMAL HEARING REPORT, WHICH, AT THE TIME YOU MET LAST MONTH, WE HAD JUST BEGUN THE FORMAL HEARING SEASON, SO WE WOULD EXPECT THAT THIS NUMBER WOULD INCREASE. AND SO THIS REPORT CAPTURES MY ACTIVITY, WHICH DURING JUNE AND JULY ARE 34 I HAVE ALSO ADDED TO THAT 12 THAT THE DEPUTY TLO, WHO WAS HERE DURING THE FORMAL HEARINGS, CAPTURED FORMAL HEARING COMMUNICATIONS. SO WE ARE AT A TOTAL OF 56 THAT'S A REPRESENTATION OF 77% DURING THE LAST TWO MONTHS. SO I WENT THROUGH, I THINK YOU REALIZE THAT THESE ARE THE COMPLAINTS THAT I REPORT TO THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. I'M REQUIRED, IF THEY MEET A CERTAIN CRITERIA, TO REPORT THOSE COMPLAINTS VERBATIM, AND THAT CRITERIA TO REMIND YOU IS THEIR COMPLIANCE WITH THE MODEL HEARING PROCEDURES AND THEIR FAIRNESS AND EFFICIENCY. SO I HAVE ACTUALLY GONE THROUGH THE 56 THAT WE RECEIVED TO SEE WHICH ONES WE WOULD REPORT IF WE WERE REPORTING AS OF TODAY, AND IT WOULD BE 12. SO I ANALYZED THOSE 12 AND DETERMINED THAT FOUR OF THEM RELATED TO TECH ISSUES DURING THE FORMAL HEARING SEASON, I TRIED TO CHECK MY EMAIL WITH REGULARITY THROUGHOUT THE DAY FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT WERE HAVING TECH ISSUES, MOST OF THEM ARE ISSUES THAT THEY SIMPLY DO NOT SIGN INTO THEIR PORTAL TILL THE MOMENT OF THEIR HEARING, AND THEN THEY HAVE TECH PROBLEMS. SO I AM ABLE TO DIRECT THEM TO THE WEBSITE, TO THE MODULE THAT WILL HELP THEM, OR I STAY IN COMMUNICATION WITH THEM LIKE A CHAT LINE ACROSS EMAIL TILL I KNOW THAT THEY HAVE EITHER GOTTEN INTO THEIR HEARING OR SOMEONE IS TAKING CARE OF THEM. THAT IS HERE. THOSE ARE ALL USUALLY VIRTUAL HEARINGS. THE OTHER EIGHT ARE IN REGARD TO FAIRNESS, NONE OF THEM ALIKE, I HAD COMPLAINTS THAT THE PANEL HADN'T CONSIDERED THEIR EVIDENCE. THE TREATMENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. THEY WERE INCORRECTLY ADVISED HOW TO SUBMIT THEIR PURCHASE PRICE. THE ONE PROPERTY OWNER CLAIMS HE WAS ASKED OR FORCED TO GO, FIRST BECAUSE OF A TECH ISSUE IN THE ROOM, AND THEN PROPERTY OWNERS COMPLAINTS THAT THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SELECT THEIR SCHEDULING. ONCE YOU ARE RESCHEDULED, IT IS A RANDOM DATE, AND YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ATTEND A HEARING BY AFFIDAVIT OR VIRTUALLY, IF YOU CAN, OR BY AGENT. SO OF THOSE HEARINGS, I THOUGHT, HOW DOES THAT COMPARE 12 MIGHT GO TO THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE TO WHAT WE SENT LAST YEAR. WE ARE NEVER GOING TO BE AN APPRAISAL DISTRICT THAT SENDS THREE COMPLAINTS TO THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE. THAT IS 21% LAST YEAR, WE SENT 31% NOT ABLE TO MAKE ANY REAL ASSUMPTIONS ABOUT THAT DATA. YET, WHAT I DO KNOW IS, AT SEVEN MONTHS IN 56 COMPLAINTS, VERSUS 178 FOR THE ENTIRE 2024 YEAR, THAT WE WILL HAVE. FEWER COMPLAINTS REGARDING THE FORMAL HEARING PROCESS IN 2025 SO I DO [00:45:10] SEND TO THE COMPTROLLER'S OFFICE, LIKE I SAID VERBATIM, THOSE COMPLAINTS BECAUSE I'M INVOLVED IN A PRESENTATION. I HAVE NOW TAKEN THE COMPTROLLER TRAINING FOR THE TLO THREE TIMES THIS MONTH, AND I DID RECOGNIZE ONE OF OUR COMPLAINTS FROM LAST YEAR WAS USED AS AN EXAMPLE IN THE NEW COMPTROLLER TRAINING. THEY IT WAS INITIALLY ESTABLISHED IN 2024 THEY HAVE REVISED THAT TRAINING IN 2025 I AM REQUIRED TO TAKE IT AGAIN IN 2026 AS IS OUR DEPUTY TLO. SO WITH THAT INFORMATION, I'M STEPPING BACK TO YOUR QUESTIONS AND INQUIRIES FROM THE LAST MEETING RELATED TO EXEMPTIONS, AND LET ME FIND THAT PIECE OF PAPER. I'M SORRY, OUR EXEMPTIONS TOTAL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MONTHLY REPORT, ARE 159 LAST MONTH, THEY WERE SHOWING 35% ONE OF THE INQUIRIES FROM YOU WAS, WHAT IS THE MAKEUP OF THOSE EXEMPTION INQUIRIES? SO I DID AN ANALYSIS OF THE ENTIRE YEAR, WHAT ARE THE CATEGORIES THAT PEOPLE ASK ME ABOUT FOR EXEMPTIONS? AND SO I CAME UP WITH OVER 10 OF THEM, BUT ONLY THREE OF THEM REALLY TOTAL 50% OF ALL EXEMPTION INQUIRIES, THEY'RE RELATED TO THE EXEMPTION VERIFICATION PROGRAM. THEY'VE EITHER RECEIVED A CANCELATION LETTER AND THEY HAD DONE NOTHING ABOUT IT PRIOR TO THAT CANCELATION LETTER THEY'VE RECEIVED, OR THEY ARE SUBMITTING SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION. SOMETIMES IT COMES TO ME, I MAKE SURE EXEMPTION GETS IT AND RECEIVES WHATEVER THEY HAVE SENT TO ME, WHETHER WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH OR NOT, SO I CLOSE THAT APPLICATION FOR THEM WITH THE INFORMATION. THE SECOND ONE THAT HAPPENS, IN ORDER OF FREQUENCY, IS THAT IT'S EDUCATION. NEW HOMEOWNERS WRITE ME. THEY WANT TO KNOW, HOW DO THEY APPLY? WHAT IS THE BEST TIME TO APPLY? SO OF COURSE, WE HAVE EXCELLENT WEBINARS, VIDEOS THAT I CAN REFER THEM TO IF THEY'VE GIVEN ME ENOUGH INFORMATION, I CAN TALK SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE TIMING ISSUE AND WHETHER THEY HAVE AN EXEMPTION SOMEWHERE ELSE, SO THAT I CONSIDER ALL OF THAT TO BE OWNER EDUCATION. THEN OVER 65 FOR SOME REASON, I FREQUENTLY FIND PROPERTY OWNERS BELIEVE THAT WE KNOW WHEN YOU TURN 65 AND THAT WE AUTOMATICALLY ADD THAT OVER 65 EXEMPTION. SO THEY WAIT UNTIL THEY DON'T, THEY CANNOT FIGURE OUT THEIR TAX BILL. THEY DON'T SEE IT ON THEIR TAX BILL, AND THEY ASK ABOUT IT. SO I GET QUITE A FEW INQUIRIES ABOUT OVER 65 THEN JOINT OWNERSHIP IS ANOTHER THING THAT I SPEND TIME EDUCATING OUR PROPERTY OWNERS ON. I JOINTLY OWN A HOME WITH MY SISTER WHO DOESN'T LIVE HERE. WELL, YOU ARE NOT ENTITLED TO A 100% EXEMPTION, SO WE WORK THROUGH EDUCATING WHERE I CAN GIVE THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS A PLACE TO BE EDUCATED OR PROVIDE THEM THE ANSWER SO BEYOND THAT, THE LIST, IN ORDER, IS HEIRSHIP, STATUS OF THEIR APPLICATION. HOW DO THEY SUBMIT THAT NEW APPLICATION? PRIOR YEAR? APPLICATIONS, TRANSFERS FROM AN OLD HOME TO A NEW HOME. TAXES AND FRAUD. SO PROPERTY OWNERS ACTUALLY DO REPORT FRAUD TO ME, I JUST TURNED THAT OVER TO EXEMPTIONS. RIGHT NOW, I THINK WE'RE REPORTING 64 DAYS FOR PROCESSING TIME. THE WEB SAYS WE HAVE A 90 DAY PROCESSING TIME. WE'VE BEEN MUCH FASTER AT CERTAIN PERIODS THAN THE 64 DAYS. GENERALLY, I END UP TELLING A PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEIR EXEMPTION APPLICATION IS IN PROCESS, TO WATCH THEIR PROPERTY RECORD PAGE, AND IF THEY ARE CONCERNED, TO WRITE ME BACK AGAIN. BUT I DON'T STOP THE EXEMPTION DEPARTMENT TO STATUS EVERY APPLICATION, BECAUSE I WANT THEM WORKING APPLICATIONS RATHER THAN STATUSING SO. SO THEN THE NEXT THING THAT WAS A TOPIC OF DISCUSSION LAST TIME WAS ABOUT COMPLAINTS AGAINST THE CHIEF APPRAISER. SO. I TALKED ABOUT LAST TIME THAT THEY ARE [00:50:02] MORE NARRATIVES ABOUT THE LAW. SO IF YOU TURN TO MY ACTIVITY REPORT, THE FIRST FOUR HAVE BEEN CLASSIFIED AS TIER FOUR. STEP FIVE, TIER FOUR. THOSE ARE FOR YOU TO REVIEW. SO WE HAVE FOUR THAT I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH WITH YOUR PATIENTS AND TALK ABOUT THE ALL FOUR OF THESE PROPERTIES HAD INFORMAL HEARINGS. SO THEY THE VERY FIRST PROPERTY OWNER. IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT I WOULD HAVE CALLED A NARRATIVE. THIS PROPERTY OWNER ADMITTED TO ME THAT, OR COMMUNICATED THAT HIS NOTICE OF VALUE FOR 2025 WAS HIGHER THAN HE EXPECTED. HE WAS UNABLE TO ATTEND HIS FIRST SCHEDULED HEARING, FORMAL HEARING BECAUSE HE TRAVELS AND HE HAD FAMILY TRAVEL PLANNED. HE GOT SCHEDULED FOR A SECOND HEARING. IT CONFLICTED WITH HIS FAMILY TRAVEL, SO I ADVISED HIM OF THE ALTERNATE WAYS TO APPEAR. HE SUBMITTED AN AFFIDAVIT. HE ALSO, AT THAT TIME, SUBMITTED HIS EVIDENCE, A JULY 2025 BROKER'S EMAIL OF WHAT HIS PROPERTY WOULD SELL FOR. SO HE HAS TAGGED THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS ERRED BECAUSE THEY REFUSE TO CONSIDER HIS BROKER'S OPINION OF VALUE. SO HE HAS AN ARB DETERMINATION. I'VE ADVISED HIM ABOUT BINDING ARBITRATIONS, THAT THAT IS A JULY OF 2025, OPINION OF VALUE, WHEN SALES ARE GENERALLY CONSIDERED FROM 2024, AND THAT IT IS AN OPINION OF VALUE. SO HE SUGGESTED HE THINKS THAT THE LAW IS UNFAIR. WE ENFORCE THE LAW, WE DO NOT WRITE THE LAW. SO I'VE BEEN SUGGESTED THAT PERHAPS SOME OF HIS COMMENTS ARE MORE APPROPRIATELY PROVIDED TO LEGISLATORS. SO THOSE THAT IS THE TYPE OF NARRATIVE THAT I WAS DISCUSSING LAST TIME. ALL FOUR OF THESE COMPLAINTS HAVE BEEN MADE AGAINST THE TO THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT, NOT THE ARB PANEL. THE SECOND ONE IS A COMPLAINT FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHO WENT THROUGH AN INFORMAL HEARING CHANGED HER CHARACTERISTICS OF HER PROPERTY WITH THE APPRAISER, AND HE MADE NOTE OF THEM AND MADE NO CHANGE TO THE NOTICE VALUE. SHE PROCEEDED TO A FORMAL HEARING. HER EXPECTATION WAS THAT THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT WOULD CHANGE THEIR EVIDENCE BASED UPON HER CONVERSATION OF THE CHARACTERISTICS THE APPRAISAL DISTRICT HAS A 14 DAY NOTICE REQUIREMENT FOR EVIDENCE. THEY DID NOT CHANGE THE EVIDENCE AND PROVIDE HER NEW EVIDENCE BECAUSE THEY FELT LIKE THEIR INITIAL EVIDENCE SUPPORTED THEIR OPINION OF VALUE. SO IN THE HEARING, THIS WAS A 50 MINUTE HEARING, THE PRO PRAY PRAISE OR ASKED FOR TIME TO DISCUSS THE PROPERTY. IT LASTED A LITTLE LONGER THAN THE ARB TRIES TO TELL PROPERTY OWNERS WERE HERE FOR 15 MINUTES, AND WE NEED TO MOVE THROUGH YOUR EVIDENCE. THIS PROPERTY OWNER BROUGHT NEW EVIDENCE, BUT I HAVE PROVIDED HER REMEDY IS BINDING ARBITRATION. I HAVE LISTENED TO THIS HEARING MULTIPLE TIMES. THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE EMAILS SUBMITTED ABOUT THIS HEARING SO AND IT'S BEEN REFERRED NOT ONLY TO THE CAD BUT ALSO TO THE ARB. MY FINDINGS ABOUT THIS HEARING WAS THE ARB. IT WAS A MODEL HEARING. THE APPRAISER DID AN EXCELLENT JOB. IT WAS HIS OWN FIELD NOTES THAT HE WAS READING IN THE HEARING. SO I FIND I FOUND NOTHING THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER HAD REALLY TO COMPLAIN ABOUT. THE NEXT ONE THIS PROPERTY OWNER, WHEN I DID NOT FOLLOW UP TO SEE WHAT HAPPENED IN HER FORMAL HEARING, SHE WENT TO AN INFORMAL HEARING. SHE BROUGHT REALIST REALTORS NOTES FROM MLS THAT CONTAINED THE PURCHASE PRICE. THAT'S NOT A SETTLEMENT STATEMENT. THE APPRAISER IN THAT INFORMAL HEARING ACKNOWLEDGED TO HER THAT THOSE WERE NOT SETTLEMENT STATEMENTS AND THAT THEY COULD NOT TAKE THAT AS A VERIFIED, QUALIFIED SALE, AND SO THAT SHE WOULD HAVE TO. UM, PROCEED TO A FORMAL HEARING. THIS IS MULTIPLE [00:55:04] PROPERTIES, AS I RECALL, ALMOST 10. AND SHE WAS NOT THE PURCHASER OF ANY OF THESE NOTES FROM MLS, SO SHE DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THE SETTLEMENT STATEMENT THEY BELONG TO THE BUYER. SO SHE ADMITTED TO ME SHE DIDN'T HAVE ACCESS THAT THESE WERE NOTES FROM MLS, SO I DIDN'T FOLLOW UP. BUT SHE UNDERSTANDS THAT THE CAD IS NOT GOING TO TAKE NOTES FROM A REAL ESTATE AGENT AS VALID, QUALIFIED SALE. SO THE NEXT EVEN BLANCA ZAMORA GARCIA: IF THOSE MLS STATEMENTS ARE FROM TCAD, NOT TCAD, BUT ABOR, BETTY THOMPSON, TAXPAYER LIAISON: I'M SORRY BLANCA ZAMORA GARCIA: IF YOU HAVE, IF YOU HAVE PROOF THAT A PROPERTY SOLD, AND YOU HAVE THAT FROM A BOARD FROM THE MLS SYSTEM, BETTY THOMPSON, TAXPAYER LIAISON: I DON'T KNOW, I'LL HAVE TO DEFER BLANCA ZAMORA GARCIA: YOU DON'T, YOU DON'T ACCEPT THAT. YOU USE THEM. YOU USE THEM TO TO FIND OUT WHAT, WHAT NEIGHBORHOODS, HOW THEY'RE DOING, AND TO ASSESS PROPERTIES. SO BUT YOU DON'T TAKE THEM. MICHAEL MILLS: THERE'S QUITE A FEW STEPS INVOLVED WITH VERIFYING A SALE SO A SALE PRICE IS ONE OF THEM. BUT THERE IS ALSO A NEED TO VERIFY WHAT WHAT SOLD. WHAT WERE THE CONDITIONS OF THE SALE? HAS THE PROPERTY CHANGED SINCE THE SALE? WAS THERE ANY DISTRESS ON EITHER SIDE? SO JUST SIMPLY A NOTE FROM THE MLS WOULD LIKELY NOT BE ENOUGH ON THE SPOT TO CONFIRM THE SALE. YEAH, COMPARABLE. BECAUSE THERE'S MUCH INVOLVED WITH VERIFYING THE SALE, IT NEEDS TO BE A REPRESENTATIVE SALE. IT NEEDS TO BE A SALE THAT WOULD BE A SUBSTITUTE FOR OTHER PROPERTIES. BLANCA ZAMORA GARCIA: THAT'S THE FIRST TIME I HEAR THIS. YEAH, IT IS ALWAYS, I MEAN, I KNOW THAT WE'VE, WE'VE USED INFO SOLD COMPS. MICHAEL MILLS: YES, WE DO USE SOLD COMPS, BUT WE HAVE TO VERIFY THOSE SALES. IT'S MORE THAN SAYING, DID IT SALE OR NOT? IT'S WHAT DID IT SELL FOR? IS IT REALLY TRUE? IT SHOWS THERE WHAT IT SOLD FOR. YES, THE MLS WILL SHOW WHAT IT SALES FOR. BUT THERE'S, THERE'S OTHER WHAT WAS THE CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY, WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE INVOLVED? ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAVE TO BE VETTED AND SO ON THE SPOT. AND I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS PROVIDED, IF IT WAS REALLY AN OFFICIAL MLS STATEMENT, OR IF IT WAS JUST SOMETHING IN NOTES, SO UNCLEAR. BUT WHATEVER, THE POINT IS THAT THIS APPRAISER FELT THAT IT DIDN'T MEET THE THRESHOLD TO BE CONSIDERED QUALIFIED WITHOUT FURTHER INVESTIGATION, AND SO HE DID NOT BLANCA ZAMORA GARCIA: I'M JUST CONCERNED WE'RE GOING TO USE IT BUT THEN WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT IT. THAT'S NOT FAIR TO THE TAXPAYER AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. THANK YOU. BETTY THOMPSON, TAXPAYER LIAISON: SO MY FOURTH ONE IS, WAS A 20 MINUTE HEARING. THE PROPERTY OWNER PROVIDED TWO PIECES OF EVIDENCE. ONE IS, WAS A HANDWRITTEN NOTE. WAS UNCLEAR, EVEN LOOKING AT THE NOTE IN THE HISTORY OF THE HEARING AS TO WHAT THE NOTE REPRESENTED. THE PROPERTIES LISTED FIVE OF THEM, ONE OF THEM, CLEARLY SHE HAD INDICATED IT WAS A MILLION DOLLAR PROPERTY, BUT OTHERS HAD 1.09 NO FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT, I SUSPECT, 1.0 9 MILLION. AND THEN SHE ALSO HAD A JULY STATEMENT FROM A REAL ESTATE AGENT OF WHAT HER PROPERTY WOULD SELL FOR. SHE SPENT MOST OF HER HEARING TIME TELLING US WHO SHE WAS, A THREE YEAR PROTESTER, WELL VERSED IN THE WALL STREET JOURNAL'S ARTICLES ON MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTIES. HER OWN MARKET SEGMENT, PROPERTY VALUATIONS DECLINING AS PER PUBLICATIONS. SO WHEN SHE WRITES ME WELL, SHE DURING THE HEARING, SHE ASKED THE APPRAISER IF SHE HAD EVER BEEN TO HER NEIGHBORHOOD. HOW COULD SHE APPRAISE A PROPERTY IF SHE HAD NEVER BEEN TO HER NEIGHBORHOOD? THERE WERE 16 SALES IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THE APPRAISER WAS ABLE TO QUICKLY TAKE A PROPERTY THAT THE REAL ESTATE AGENT HAD PROVIDED AS A COMPARABLE, AND IT INCLUDED IT INTO THE SALES GRID. SO THAT REVISED THE DISTRICT'S OPINION OF VALUE, LOWERED IT, AND THAT BECAME THE ARBS DETERMINATION OF VALUE. WHEN SHE WRITES ME, SHE INDICATED TO ME THAT SHE FOUND SHE'S. ASKED THE APPRAISER TO BE [01:00:01] UNKNOWLEDGEABLE, DISMISSIVE AND INSULTING, AND THAT SHE HAD NOT BEEN TOLD THAT THE INFORMAL HEARING OFFER WAS OFF OF THE TABLE ONCE SHE OPENED THAT HEARING. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE THAT ON SLIDES OUT IN THE HEARING ROOM, AND SO A PROPERTY OWNER IS ADVISED OF THAT WHEN THEY SHOW UP FOR THEIR HEARING. SO WHEN I SAY THAT SHE MADE A COMPLAINT, SHE SAYS THAT THIS APPRAISER SHOWED RACIAL BIAS, INCOME BIAS AND MARITAL STATUS BIAS, NONE OF THAT WAS EVER MENTIONED DURING THE HEARING. SO THESE ARE FOUR EXAMPLES OF COMPLAINTS THAT WENT TOWARD THE CAD THE CHIEF APPRAISER DELEGATES HER AUTHORITY TO THE APPRAISERS THAT APPEAR IN THEM FORMAL HEARINGS. AND I THINK THIS IS THE WORK THAT A TLO, THE TLO OFFICE WAS SET UP FOR, IS TO INVESTIGATE THESE TYPE OF COMPLAINTS. I FOUND NOTHING. BUT LIKE I SAID, EXEMPLARY FOLLOWING OF THE MODEL HEARING PROCEDURES BY THE ARB AND THE APPRAISERS DOING THEIR JOB. SO MOVING ON THROUGH MY REPORT, JUST TO SHOW YOU THAT I DO SORT THIS IN DESCENDING ORDER, THE NEXT ONES ARE TIER THREE, THAT MEANS I'VE TALKED TO ONE OF THESE GENTLEMEN THAT ARE HERE ABOUT THE PROPERTY TO RESOLVE WHATEVER THE COMPLAINT IS. TIER TWO IS GENERALLY. I'VE COMMUNICATED WITH THE ARB FROM THERE, ON THERE, TIER ONE, THERE COMMUNICATIONS THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT FOR THE TLO TO RECEIVE, GENERAL QUESTIONS THAT I FIELD, AND THEN ALL THE WAY DOWN TO STEP ONE, WHICH ARE CUSTOMER SERVICE QUESTIONS THAT I FIELD. SO THAT'S WHAT I HAVE ABOUT MY REPORT QUESTIONS. OKAY, THE NEXT REPORT THAT YOU HAVE IS THE DEPUTY. THE DEPUTY FULFILLS YOUR PUBLIC ACCESS FUNCTION BY PROVIDING LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE. 60% OF HER ACTIVITY DURING THE SUMMERTIME WAS RELATED TO LANGUAGE ASSISTANCE. SHE ALSO IS FIELDING CUSTOMER SERVICE QUESTIONS AND FORMAL HEARING QUESTIONS. NONE OF HER FORMAL HEARING QUESTIONS RELATE TO SOMETHING THAT WILL BE SENT TO THE COMPTROLLER AS FAIRNESS OR EFFICIENCY, SHE ENDS UP SEEING PROPERTY OWNERS WHO ARE ANGRY BECAUSE OF THE DETERMINATION OR THEY WANT HER TO EXPLAIN WHY HER THEIR EVIDENCE WAS NOT THE PREVAILING EVIDENCE BY THE ARB. SO WHILE WE CAN LOOK AT THEIR EVIDENCE, HELP THEM FOR OUR FUTURE, THAT ARB DETERMINATION IS AN APPEALABLE ORDER THROUGH BINDING ARBITRATION, THAT'S WHAT WE TELL THEM. AND SO ONCE THEY GET THEIR FINAL ORDER, THEY CAN MOVE INTO FILING THAT BINDING OUR INVITATION. SHOULD THEY DECIDE, YOU'LL FIND MY ACTIVITY REPORT IS THE FINAL REPORT I'M ONLY LISTING BY ISD FOR COMPLAINTS THAT INDICATE TO ME THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO IT'LL NEVER MATCH MY ACTIVITY NUMBERS. BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THAT IN WEST AUSTIN, WE ARE BEGINNING TO SEE MORE, BIGGER INCREASE. I KNOW WE'RE LOOKING FOR A COMMUNITY PARTNER IN WEST AUSTIN, EANES LAKE, TRAVIS AND LEANDER, LAGO VISTA HAVE NOW EXCEEDED THEIR LEVEL OF COMMUNICATIONS THAT WERE DONE IN 2024 AT SEVEN MONTHS, MANOR ALSO HAS EXCEEDED WHAT WAS DONE IN 2024 AND WE ARE ALMOST THERE WITH PFLUGERVILLE. SO REGARDING PFLUGERVILLE, THERE WAS A COMMUNITY OUTREACH PROGRAM IN PFLUGERVILLE. I WENT THROUGH MY FILE, I NOTIFIED EVERY PROPERTY OWNER IN PFLUGERVILLE THAT I HAD COMMUNICATED WITH ABOUT THAT, AND SO THAT I COULD POTENTIALLY GET THEM TO A SOURCE OF EDUCATION THAT WE'RE PROVIDING. THERE IS AN OUTREACH PROGRAM IN DEL VAL ON 823, AND SO AS I GO FORWARD, I WILL BEGIN TO LET PROPERTY OWNERS KNOW ABOUT THAT OUTREACH PROGRAM. AND I KNOW THAT'S A LOT, BUT THAT'S WHAT I HAVE. JAMES VALADEZ: THANK YOU SO MUCH. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MS THOMPSON, OKAY, THANK YOU WITH THAT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 5B OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION [5B. Discussion and Possible Action on Appraisal Review Board Chairman Report] ON THE APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD CHAIRMAN'S REPORT. BARRY MCBEE: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN MEMBERS. I'M GOING TO BE VERY, VERY BRIEF TODAY, PROBABLY THE TWO HIGHLIGHTS ARE THE APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD WAS ABLE TO TURN THE TAX ROLL BACK, BACK OVER TO THE CHIEF APPRAISER ON FRIDAY, JULY 18, AS WE HAD [01:05:05] HOPED TO DO, THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED, I WOULD EMPHASIZE, IN GREAT COLLABORATION WITH MR. MILLS, ALL THOSE AT TCAD TO BE ABLE TO ACCOMPLISH THAT. SO WE ARE IN THE GUESS WHAT I COULD REFER TO AS THE CLEANUP MODE, WITH TODAY BEING OUR LAST DAY OF HEARINGS SCHEDULED FOR THE REGULAR PROTEST SEASON. TOMORROW, WE'LL DO OUR FIVE MEMBER PANELS, WHICH ARE THE LAST TWO YEARS, CURRENT AND LAST YEAR, TWO YEARS OF ARB MEMBERS, TCAD EMPLOYEES, AND ACTUALLY MEMBERS OF THIS BOARD FOR THEIR PROTEST HEARINGS. AND THEY WILL DO A ROUND OF WHAT I WILL CALL THE CORRECTION HEARINGS, SUCH AS 2525 B MOTIONS TO CORRECT THE ROLE, AND THEN SOME TRUE LATE HEARINGS, PROBABLY IN LATE AUGUST OR EARLY SEPTEMBER, TRYING TO WORK ON THOSE DAYS WITH MR. MILLS IN TERMS OF THE SCHEDULING OF THAT YOU WOULD SEE IN MY WRITTEN REPORT. WE'VE BEEN KEEPING KIND OF A RUNNING TALLY OF ISSUES, QUESTIONS, EXPERIENCES, OBSERVATIONS OUT OF THE PROTEST SEASON, AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO SIT DOWN WITH TCAD STAFF AFTER WE DO WRAP UP THOSE FINAL HEARINGS IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, THOSE ISSUES VERY MANY THINGS, MR. THOMPSON TALKED ABOUT COMMUNICATIONS BETWEEN TCAD AND THE ARB AND OWNERS AND AGENTS. CAN WE REFINE SOME OF THOSE IN SOME WAYS? I THINK YOU EVEN HEARD IN ONE OF MS THOMPSON'S NOTES, ISSUES ABOUT THE INFORMAL PROCESS AND THE CONCLUSION OF THE INFORMAL PROCESS THAT TCAD ADMINISTERS, AND A NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO SAID, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT I HAD A DEAL, IF YOU WILL. AND THEY COME THEN TO THE ARB BECAUSE THEY'VE MISSED THEIR HEARING THAT WAS SCHEDULED BECAUSE SOMEWHERE IN THAT PROCESS THERE WAS FAILURE TO SORT OF CONSUMMATE THAT AGREEMENT, AND WE'LL WORK WITH TCAD TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN OBSERVE AND OFFER SOME COMMENTARY ABOUT THAT, JUST TO TRY TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS. I THINK THAT'S OUR COLLECTIVE MUTUAL GOAL HERE, IS JUST TO IMPROVE THE PROCESS, BOTH FOR TAXING UNITS TAXPAYERS AND THE TCAD AND THE ARB. SO YOU WOULD SEE A LONG LAUNDRY LIST OF THINGS WE CAN TALK ABOUT. WE'LL SEE WHAT WE COULD DISCUSS, AND THEN BRING BACK TO THE BOARD IN THE FALL. AND THEN LASTLY, I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MS THOMPSON. I THINK SHE SENT A COMMUNICATION, IN FACT, TO THE ARB COMMITTEE THIS WEEK ABOUT SOME IDEAS THAT SHE AND I HAVE TALKED ABOUT. WE'VE LOST SOME PEOPLE OVER THE COURSE OF THE SEASON. YOU'LL HEAR A NUMBER OF OTHER RESIGNATIONS BROUGHT FORWARD, I THINK, IN THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM, VARIOUS REASONS FOR THAT. I AM DOING A TOURNAMENT, AN INFORMAL EXIT SURVEY FOR THOSE WHO HAVE RESIGNED, TRYING TO DETERMINE WHAT WHAT CAUSED YOU TO DO THAT. SOME INSTANCES, THEY'VE TAKEN A JOB. SOME INSTANCES THERE THEY'VE MOVED. SOME INSTANCES THEY'VE JUST FOUND THE EXPERIENCE NOT TO BE WHAT THEY EXPECTED. SO I'LL TRY TO REFINE THAT A LITTLE BIT AND PERHAPS GET TO THE COMMITTEE AND OR THE FULL BOARD. MS THOMPSON, I TALKED ABOUT WAYS WE'RE GOING TO WE VIEW MORE ACCURATELY. WE'LL OBVIOUSLY NEED TO REPLENISH THE ARB MEMBERSHIP. WE HAVE FIVE MEMBERS WHO ARE FINISHING THEIR SIXTH YEAR, BUT WE ALSO HAVE MEMBERS THAT WILL NOT BE COMING BACK FOR VARIOUS REASONS, AND THESE MEMBERS THAT HAVE RESIGNED, SO WE WOULD LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH THE ARB COMMITTEE AS MISS THOMPSON AND THE COMMITTEE DETERMINES THE NUMBER OF POSITIONS TO BE FILLED, AND THEN SOME IDEAS ABOUT OTHER WAYS TO EITHER ADVERTISE, OR, I THINK EVEN HOPEFULLY MORE PRODUCTIVELY, PUBLICIZE OPPORTUNITIES TO SERVE ON THE ARB THAT WOULD NOT COST, COST ANYTHING, BUT MIGHT SORT OF GO TO DIFFERENT CONSTITUENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS WITHIN THE COMMUNITY TO TRY TO GET SOME ADDITIONAL MEMBERS BACK. SO THAT IS WHERE WE ARE COUNTING DOWN THE MOMENTS BETWEEN NOW AND FIVE O'CLOCK TO FINISH UP THE REGULAR PROTEST SEASON. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, ANYTHING ABOUT THE MISS THOMPSON RAISED. I'LL ALSO BE OBVIOUSLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT COME OUT OF THE REPORT MR. MILLS AND OTHERS MAKE ABOUT THE WRAP UP OF THE SEASON. JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY, THANK YOU. THANK YOU. HANG TIGHT. OKAY, WE'LL MOVE ON TO 5C OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WHICH IS [5C. Discussion and Possible Action on the Removal of Appraisal Review Board Members Who Have Resigned] DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON THE REMOVAL OF APPRAISAL REVIEW BOARD MEMBERS THAT HAVE RESIGNED, BETTY THOMPSON, TAXPAYER LIAISON: HAS 87 MEMBERS. YOU HAVE FIVE RESIGNATIONS TO APPROVE TODAY, AND THEN TWO MORE THAT WILL COME NEXT MONTH THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THAT 87 SO LET ME READ I'M ASKING FOR YOUR APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THE RESIGNATION. THEIR RESIGNATIONS GAVE NO REASONS, BUT THEY WERE FOR TAKING A FULL TIME JOB, HEALTH NOT EXPECTED. THE JOB WASN'T AS EXPECTED, AND ONE OF THEM MOVED THE NAMES THAT I'M PRESENTING TO YOU TODAY ARE KIMBERLY ATKINS, FARRIS, BASICS, PAULA EFFERSON, WILFRED NAVARRO, IRV TAGERMAN, SO I'LL NEED APPROVAL TO ACCEPT THEIR RESIGNATIONS. JAMES VALADEZ: MOVED BY MR. HAVENSTRITE AND A SECOND BY DANIEL WANG. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL [01:10:03] TAKE A VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED. THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THANK YOU. NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS 5D DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION ON FISCAL YEAR 2026, PROPOSED BUDGET, MR. MILLS., [5D. Discussion and Possible Action on Fiscal Year 2026 Proposed Budget] MICHAEL MILLS: SO KAT'S GONNA DO THAT FOR US. KAT HARVEY: GOOD AFTERNOON, EVERYBODY. OKAY, SO WE'RE GONNA GO OVER JUST A HIGH LEVEL FOR THE BUDGET PROCESS. SO JUST TO START OFF, THE DISTRICT STAFF, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANY TAXING UNITS REGARDING THIS PROPOSED BUDGET. PART OF THIS PROCESS IS THAT WE PRESENT THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO YOU ALL AND SUBMIT A COPY TO EACH TAXING UNIT. BEFORE JUNE 15, THE PROPOSED BUDGET WAS PRESENTED TO YOU ALL ON JUNE 12, AND LATER THAT DAY, WE MAILED OUT COPIES OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET TO THE PRESIDING OFFICERS ON ON ON JUNE 12 AS WELL. AND AGAIN, PART OF THIS PROCESS IS AFTER THAT WE HOLD A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE BUDGET AND PROVIDE NOTICE TO THOSE PRESIDING OFFICERS OF EACH TAXING UNIT NO LATER THAN THE 10TH DAY THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS HELD TODAY. NOTICE OF THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS SENT TO THEM ON JUNE 12 OF 2025 AND THEN IT WAS ALSO PUBLISHED IN THE AUSTIN AMERICAN STATESMAN ON JULY 21 2025, MEETING THAT NO LATER THAN 10TH DAY BEFORE THE DATE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO HERE IS AN OVERALL FROM THE LAST FIVE YEARS AND FROM LAST YEAR'S BUDGET. SO FISCAL YEAR 2026 WE ARE PROPOSING A $34,160,980 BUDGET. THAT'S AN INCREASE OF 1.9 MILLION, AND OVERALL 5.95% VERSUS LAST YEAR. SO OUR 2026, PROPOSED BUDGET JUST FOCUSES MAINLY ON STAFFING. WE'RE ADDING AN ADDITIONAL SEVEN FULL TIME EMPLOYEES AND INCREASING PAY RATES FOR THOSE EXISTING POSITIONS. AND THIS IS JUST A SLIDE OF COMPARABLE CADS, WHICH WARRANTED US TO INCREASE OUR EMPLOYEE COUNT. SO PART OF THESE CHANGES IS TO RECLASSIFY SOME ROLES AND PROPOSE SOME GRADE ADJUSTMENTS. SO COMMERCIAL APPRAISERS THAT ARE CURRENTLY A GRADE SIX WOULD MOVE TO A GRADE SEVEN. THOSE THAT ARE A GRADE EIGHT WOULD MOVE TO A GRADE NINE, AND TEAM LEADS WHO ARE ALL CURRENTLY A GRADE NINE WOULD MOVE TO A GRADE 10. OUR GIS TECHNICIANS, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY A GRADE FOUR, WOULD MOVE TO A GRADE FIVE. AND THEN THOSE GRADE ADJUSTMENTS, GRADES TWO AND FIVE WOULD HAVE AN 8% ADJUSTMENT, AND GRADES THREE AND FOUR WOULD HAVE A 5% ADJUSTMENT. OVERALL. HERE'S THE SUMMARY PAGE OF OUR FULL BUDGET WITH A 5.95% INCREASE. UNKNOWN: ANY ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MS CARTWRIGHT DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS FOR STAFF? DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: I THINK LAST MEETING, WE WERE LOOKING FOR A LITTLE DIRECTION ON I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLEAR THAT INCLUDED IN THIS WHEN YOU REFER TO GRADE ADJUSTMENTS AT 8% AND 5% THOSE ARE PAY RAISES, CORRECT? KAT HARVEY: YES, THAT IS INCREASING THE GRADE BY 8% LIKE AN INCREASE SALARY. DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: SALARIES? YEAH, I'M SIMPLE MINDED. YOU HAVE TO HELP ME WITH THOSE THINGS. SO DO WE HAVE ENOUGH? DO DO WE INCLUDE IN OUR CALCULATIONS INCREASES FOR ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF AND THE LOT? BECAUSE I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT GRADES ARE WITHOUT IT SITTING IN FRONT OF ME. SO KAT HARVEY: YES DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: WE HAVE SUFFICIENT MONEY IN OUR BUDGET IN ORDER TO PROVIDE PAY RAISES TO OUR EMPLOYEES. KAT HARVEY: THAT IS CORRECT DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: INCLUDING ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF. KAT HARVEY: CORRECT. DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: THAT'S I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH WE DIDN'T PROVIDE AS MANY PERSONNEL AS HAD BEEN PROPOSED, THAT WE DID APPROVE PAY RAISES FOR THE STAFF. KAT HARVEY: YES, THAT IS CORRECT. DICK LAVINE: MOVING I JUST LIKE TO MENTION THAT NICOLE CONLEY AND I HAD A EXTENSIVE EXAMINATION OF THE PROPOSED BUDGET. THIS WAS WHEN IT WAS FIRST BEING BROUGHT TOGETHER, AND WE HAD A CHANCE TO HAVE A GOOD DISCUSSION THEN WITH A LOT OF DETAIL. JAMES VALADEZ: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? OKAY DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: I HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT ON ONE OF THE SLIDES YOU JUST SHOWED US. IT INDICATES THAT THIS IS ONE OF THE LOWER INCREASED BUDGETS THAT WE'VE HAD FOR THE LAST NUMBER OF YEARS. THAT IS SO THE BOARD, I BELIEVE, HAS BEEN VERY SENSITIVE TO. UM BUDGETING SITUATIONS FOR THE TAXING UNITS, AND VERY [01:15:04] CONSERVATIVE IN PUTTING TOGETHER THIS BUDGET. AND IN 2024 THE INCREASE WAS OVER 16% AND LAST YEAR WAS ALMOST 8% AND SO I THINK OUR 6% APPROXIMATELY BUDGET INCREASES, IS FOLLOWS THE NEEDS OF OUR TAXING JURISDICTIONS. JAMES VALADEZ: MR. HAVENSTRITE JOHN HAVENSTRITE: YEAH, MY RECOLLECTION IS THAT THE ORIGINAL BUDGET IS CONTEMPLATED 7% OVERALL. KAT HARVEY: THAT IS CORRECT. JOHN HAVENSTRITE: SO WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE PASSING, IS ACTUALLY LESS THAN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT WAS INITIALLY REQUESTED KAT HARVEY: THAT IS CORRECT. JOHN HAVENSTRITE: THANK YOU. JAMES VALADEZ: MR. WANG SHENGHAO WANG: YES, SO I LIKE TO JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD. SO I, AS YOU MAY REMEMBER, I WAS THE LOAN VOTE TO IN SUPPORT OF THE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED BUDGET. SINCE THEN, I I'VE HAD SOME INFORMAL CONVERSATIONS WITH SOME OF THE AND I DON'T CLAIM THIS REPRESENTATIVE SAMPLE, BUT I WAS ABLE TO TALK SOME CITY COUNCILORS, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AND THE LIKE THE AISD TRUSTEES THAT I SPOKE TO, YOU KNOW, INDICATED THEIR DISTRESS WITH THEIR BUDGET THAT THEY'VE EXPERIENCING. BUT IN MY CONVERSATIONS WITH THE OTHER TAXING ENTITIES, THEY DIDN'T SEEM TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE TCAD BUDGET OR PREVIOUS BUDGET INCREASES. SO JUST SOMETHING THAT I WILL KEEP IN MIND GOING FORWARD, AND MAYBE OTHER BOARD MEMBERS MAY OR MAY NOT KEEP IN MIND THAT, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S A DISCREPANCY IN THE FUNDING MECHANISMS BETWEEN OUR DIFFERENT TAXING ENTITIES, AND UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOCATE. YOU KNOW HOW MUCH EACH ONE PAYS, IT'S JUST ALL PRO RATA, AND THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS ARE BOUND BY THE RECAPTURE PROCESS, SO THAT IS PROBABLY ULTIMATELY A QUESTION FOR OUR LEGISLATORS, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO KEEP IN MIND OF. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SOME TAXING ENTITIES THAT ARE PERFECTLY FINE AND THINK THAT TCAD IS DOING A GREAT JOB, AND THEN OTHERS, THEY DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH TCAD, BUT ARE FACING THEIR OWN BUDGET CONSTRAINTS. JAMES VALADEZ: MR. HANNA JETT HANNA: YEAH, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT, JUST KIND OF A CASUAL OBSERVATION, NOT CALCULATING THINGS OUT, BUT GIVEN THE 3.5% THAT THE OTHER FOLKS ARE LIMITED ON, AT LEAST AS FAR AS CHANGING IN TAX RATES, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL REVENUE THAT COMES IN FROM FROM VARIOUS SOURCES, THIS LOOKS VERY REASONABLE TO ME. JAMES VALADEZ: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. WE WILL NEED ACTION ON THIS TODAY. SHENGHAO WANG: I MOVE TO ADOPT THE FISCAL YEAR 2026, BUDGET AS PRESENTED WITH A TOTAL BUDGET AMOUNT OF 34,160,900 $4,160,980 REPRESENTING A 5.95% INCREASE OVER THE 2025, ADOPTED BUDGET. JAMES VALADEZ: IT'S BEEN MOVED BY MR. WANG, SECONDED BY MR. HAVENSTRITE. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE. WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, ALL THOSE OPPOSED, THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU SO MUCH TO STAFF. WE WILL NOW MOVE ON TO ITEM 5E OF OUR REGULAR AGENDA, WHICH IS DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION TO INCLUDE ADOPTION OF TEXAS COUNTY AND DISTRICT RETIREMENT SYSTEM, TCDRS, RETIREMENT PLAN RATE FOR 2026, PLAN YEAR IS THIS? MICHAEL MILLS: YEAH, WE'RE GOING TO TABLE THIS. JAMES VALADEZ: OKAY, SO ITEMS E THROUGH, I WE WILL BE POSTPONING TILL OUR NEXT MEETING, WHICH WILL BE HELD ON AUGUST 21 2025 SO DO I HAVE A MOTION TO DEBORAH CARTWRIGHT: I MOVED TO TABLE THE ITEMS JUST MENTIONED ON THE AGENDA UNTIL OUR MEETING. TABLE, THE ITEMS JUST MENTIONED BY THE CHAIR TO OUR MEETING NEXT WEEK, COME THURSDAY, AUGUST, 24 21ST 21ST JAMES VALADEZ: IT'S BEEN SECONDED BY MR. WANG. SOME MOVED BY MS CARTWRIGHT, SECONDED BY MR. WANG. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION ON THAT? HEARING NONE TAKE A VOTE TO MOVE THOSE OR TO TABLE THOSE ITEMS. I. AYE, ALL THOSE OPPOSED. OKAY, THAT PASSES [01:20:03] UNANIMOUSLY. AND WITH THAT, THAT BRINGS US TO ITEM SIX OF OUR [6. Adjournment] REGULAR AGENDA, WHICH IS ADJOURNMENT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN, MOVED BY BLANCA, SECONDED BY MS CARTWRIGHT. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? HEARING NONE OKAY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE, AT 12:30 ON AUGUST 14, 2025, THE TRAVIS CENTRAL APPRAISAL DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS STANDS ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.