I am not sure what has happened but I look forward to finding out. Just like everyone else I have gotten my 2017 Notice of Appraised Value. I own several different properties here in Brazos county and I work very hard every year with the fine folks at the Appraisal district to insure my valuations are fair.

On one particular property last year during a hearing the board agreed with me on the value of this property. The total market valuation was determined to be $185,000.00. Most of the issue I was disputing was the land valuation. I made a great case and the board agreed with me. I walked out happy and thought I was done with this particular property for two years. Well come to find out such is not the case. The county did not use the numbers we talked about in the hearing. They did not adjust the land value as it was discussed in the hearing they just dropped the improvement value.

In last years valuation they broke it up as follows. (This is a 3 bedroom 2 bath 2 car garage home in College Station.)

Improvements $10,920.00 Market Value non Ag. land $174,080.00. total as agreed $185k

Now this year they have increased the improvements to $79k and land to $218k.

I guarantee this year I will ask the board to be a little bit more specific in the wording of their motions when assigning value.

Folks I do not have any problem paying my fair share and I most likely pay more than my fair share but lets play fair.
In the news lately I have seen talk of no housing available at reasonable rates. A big part of that are the taxes.
If my taxes on this home go up 30% what do you think is going to happen to the rent on this home? Well if you said the rent is going up you are wrong. My profit is going down. Our city is currently so over built rents are falling.

Couldn't that also mean that it is time to sell? What I hear from some folks is that there is a shortage of homes to buy (not rent) in the valuation you described as opposed to buying new homes that are priced higher. So couldn't it be more than just excess rental inventory that is determining market prices?

Oogway said:

---

Couldn't that also mean that it is time to sell? What I hear from some folks is that there is a shortage of homes to buy (not rent) in the valuation you described as opposed to buying new homes that are priced higher. So couldn't it be more than just excess rental inventory that is determining market prices?

---

Great point.

Dont worry, I bought my custom build in December and they have my house valued at over 120K than what I paid for it. Guess its time to sell and I havent been in it 1/2 a year.

My problem with them is that they are manipulating the numbers. It becomes a snow ball effect when doing equity comps. This really does need to be brought to light. I saw a very basic report by KBTX and it was very lacking.

hopeandrealchange said:

---

My problem with them is that they are manipulating the numbers. It becomes a snow ball effect when doing equity comps. This really does need to be brought to light. I saw a very basic report by KBTX and it was very lacking.

---

How are they manipulating the numbers with respect to "equity comps"?

I bought raw land approx. 5 months ago. They increased the value of the land almost $20,000 over what was paid for it, with no improvements being made on it. How is it possible that the value of the land I bought has increased 20k in value in the last 5 months?

Gunner740 said:

---

I bought raw land approx. 5 months ago. They increased the value of the land almost $20,000 over what was paid for it, with no improvements being made on it. How is it possible that the value of the land I bought has increased 20k in value in the last 5 months?

---

can you sell your property for the amount they have it Appraised for? Maybe you got a hell of a deal?

It wasn't even listed at the price they appraised it at when we began the buying process, before the haggling began...

Gunner740 said:

---

It wasn't even listed at the price they appraised it at when we began the buying process, before the haggling began...

---

That may be, but could you sell it for what they Appraised it for?

No.

Gunner740 said:

---

I bought raw land approx. 5 months ago. They increased the value of the land almost $20,000 over what was paid for it, with no improvements being made on it. How is it possible that the value of the land I bought has increased 20k in value in the last 5 months?

---

Somewhat depends on the value of the land. If your land is a 10 million dollar valued property, a $20,000 increase is only 2 tenths of one percent increase!

Well it was well shy of $100,000 so it increased in value by 27% over a five month period. Also, when it was appraised for the purchase it was only appraised at 5k over what we paid for it. Seems like quite of an increase.

Many appraisers appraise with the contract price in mind and often the property is worth more. Have a real estate agent pull comps for the past calendar year sales and see what it is currently worth.

Sounds to me that you may have got a good deal on the purchase?

Welcome to the game of "We didn't raise taxes".....

Gunner740 said:

---

Well it was well shy of $100,000 so it increased in value by 27% over a five month period. Also, when it was appraised for the purchase it was only appraised at 5k over what we paid for it. Seems like quite of an increase.

---

If you have an appraisal you should definitely make a trip to their office and show them, they will either lower it or show you why they Appraised it for what it is.

InMyOpinion said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

My problem with them is that they are manipulating the numbers. It becomes a snow ball effect when doing equity comps. This really does need to be brought to light. I saw a very basic report by KBTX and it was very lacking.

---

How are they manipulating the numbers with respect to "equity comps"?

---

In the example I used they manipulated the numbers between the value of the land and the value of the improvements. I argued on the value of the land and the board agreed with my argument. So if the district had used the numbers as should have been done, this year my neighbors could have used those numbers as their comp. I could have used those numbers as a comp for the home I own next door and so on. I have talked to others that have had the exact same issue. If they had left the value of the improvements at $10,920.00 it would have been easy for them and reasonable for them to explain that away as a mistake. It is obvious they are manipulating the numbers to increase valuations.

hopeandrealchange said:

---

InMyOpinion said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

My problem with them is that they are manipulating the numbers. It becomes a snow ball effect when doing equity comps. This really does need to be brought to light. I saw a very basic report by KBTX and it was very lacking.

---

How are they manipulating the numbers with respect to "equity comps"?

---

In the example I used they manipulated the numbers between the value of the land and the value of the improvements. I argued on the value of the land and the board agreed with my argument. So if the district had used the numbers as should have been done, this year my neighbors could have used those numbers as their comp. I could have used those numbers as a comp for the home I own next door and so on. I have talked to others that have had the exact same issue. If they had left the value of the improvements at $10,920.00 it would have been easy for them and reasonable for them to explain that away as a mistake. It is obvious they are manipulating the numbers to increase valuations.

---

I guess I understand your point of view but I have a hard time understanding how any livable 3 bed / 2 bath / 2 car garage improvement would be valued at 10K in College Station, so I can see how that number needed to go up, but at the end of the day is your total property worth what they appraised it at? Based on your numbers it sounds as if your property is somewhat unique and not a typical subdivision home. If that's the case you probably will be making annual trips to get it adjusted.

I must not be communicating. The issue that they dropped the value of the improvements and inflated the land value is the issue.

hopeandrealchange said:

---

I must not be communicating. The issue that they dropped the value of the improvements and inflated the land value is the issue.

---

This is what gets me, my improvement went down 5k and land went up 40k

They are doing that in preparation for people coming through, tearing down a house, and building a new house. If they have all the value in the house, and not the land, so when somebody comes in and tears down the house the taxing Authority loses out. At least, that's how I look at it

I do wonder if the taxing authority has explained this somewhere, 'this' being the greater emphasis on the land vs the structure sitting upon it.

In a way, it could make sense, right? Land closer to campus, for example, would be worth more. If the structure upon it is older and needs improvement then the taxing entity is probably wanting to value the land higher in order to pull in as much $$ as possible prior to the land being bought by someone who is perhaps going to tear it down and build a higher priced structure like a fourplex or gameday house. That, in turn, brings in more $$. If there was a really dilapidated rental property then the owner would have to decide if the rent charged could cover the higher taxes or if selling it to someone who would fix it up to live in or tear it down would be the best option. (Thus spurring redevelopment)

Just a thought... but I am asking some of the same questions you are as our land value increased as well, but our structure not at the same rate.

Edit to add: harrier doc replied while I was typing and said it way more succinctly!

But at the end of the day if The market value of your property is the same or more than what BCAD has as the total Appraised value then They have done their job, right?

So if property values are going up, taxing entities should lower their tax rate to arrive at the same overall tax revenue of the prior year, plus inflation.... right?

This shouldn't be a windfall for local government entities to live high on the hog.

Right?

MemphisAg1 said:

---

So if property values are going up, taxing entities should lower their tax rate to arrive at the same overall tax revenue of the prior year, plus inflation.... right?

This shouldn't be a windfall for local government entities to live high on the hog.

Right?

---

Taxing entities SHOULD set their tax rate so that enough money is generated to cover their approved budgets.

InMyOpinion said:

---

But at the end of the day if The market value of your property is the same or more than what BCAD has as the total Appraised value then They have done their job, right?

---

Yes you are correct. The problem you just will not notice it that they are manipulating the numbers to effect the values.The values are skewed and are not a true market value. If the district had used the numbers that the board determined was the true market value of my property I would not be complaining. For some reason you just will not concede the fact that the numbers where manipulated to change values. At this point I have put way to much energy into this discussion. Have a great Sunday.

hopeandrealchange said:

---

InMyOpinion said:

---

But at the end of the day if The market value of your property is the same or more than what BCAD has as the total Appraised value then They have done their job, right?

---

Yes you are correct. The problem you just will not notice it that they are manipulating the numbers to effect the values.The values are skewed and are not a true market value. If the district had used the numbers that the board determined was the true market value of my property I would not be complaining. For some reason you just will not concede the fact that the numbers where manipulated to change values. At this point I have put way to much energy into this discussion. Have a great Sunday.

---

I think your missing the point that BCAD doesn't set market rates, they should be trying to match the current market rates.

the value of my house went down a couple thousand, but they raised the value of the land 66%.
66%.
that's way too much for one year.

InMyOpinion said:

---

MemphisAg1 said:

---

So if property values are going up, taxing entities should lower their tax rate to arrive at the same overall tax revenue of the prior year, plus inflation.... right?

This shouldn't be a windfall for local government entities to live high on the hog.

Right?

---

Taxing entities SHOULD set their tax rate so that enough money is generated to cover their approved budgets.

---

no, they should set their budget based off the revenue generated. they shouldn't spend a **** load of money, then figure out how high taxes need to be to cover their spending spree.

YellowPot_97 said:

---

the value of my house went down a couple thousand, but they raised the value of the land 66%.
66%.
that's way too much for one year.

---

I know where your coming from my land went up 55%, improvement up 9%, in all mine has gone up over 35% in past 3 years. Fortunately assessed can only go up 10% per year, unfortunately this means that even if my Appraised value stays the same next year I still get to see a bump in Assessed value.

As much as I would love to have a lower amount and not believe my property has increased that much in value, I have been proven wrong as I will be closing on the sale of that home for more than they have for my Appraised value.

They suck. They're really in the bag for the taxing authorities, developers and real estate investors/industry. On top of that is the civilian review board that rubber stamps and allows them to trample all over tax payers. Bryan/College Station just turning into east California.

InMyOpinion said:

---

hopeandrealchange said:

---

InMyOpinion said:

---

But at the end of the day if The market value of your property is the same or more than what BCAD has as the total Appraised value then They have done their job, right?

---

Yes you are correct. The problem you just will not notice it that they are manipulating the numbers to effect the values.The values are skewed and are not a true market value. If the district had used the numbers that the board determined was the true market value of my property I would not be complaining. For some reason you just will not concede the fact that the numbers where manipulated to change values. At this point I have put way to much energy into this discussion. Have a great Sunday.

---

I think your missing the point that BCAD doesn't set market rates, they should be trying to match the current market rates.

---

I do understand that BCAD does not set market rates. I think you are having difficulty understanding how the system is supposed to work. This is the way I understand it. With research BCAD assigns a value to a property. If it has improvements on the land they give two valuations,one for the improvements and one for the land. If I as the owner disagree with their value I have the opportunity to protest that value with the board. The determination of the board can be further protested if need be. I think part of our disagreement here is that once the board assigned two different values to one of my properties one for improvements and one for the land at that point it should be considered market value. And should be represented as what the board agreed to and the district does not have the right to manipulate those numbers after that point. I did my market research and the district did theirs both sides presented to an independent body that we both agree to accept the results. In this particular case the board agreed with my valuation. Sure it does not immediately effect my tax liability on this property. the total valuation was the same. It is apparent that the district is working to drive up land valuations above true market value. And to address one of your earlier points. This property is a typical 3-2-2 brick home in a central neighborhood. If you understand the procedure for preparing an argument for an equity comp you must be able to understand how this manipulation is a big advantage for the district.

Our-turn-to-rule said:

---

They suck. They're really in the bag for the taxing authorities, developers and real estate investors/industry. On top of that is the civilian review board that rubber stamps and allows them to trample all over tax payers. Bryan/College Station just turning into east California.

---

I disagree. For years I have always found the review board more that fair. The first time I presented before them they spanked me really bad because I was not properly prepared. But ever since I have found them very open to a reasonable, professional argument.

hopeandrealchange said:

---

Our-turn-to-rule said:

---

They suck. They're really in the bag for the taxing authorities, developers and real estate investors/industry. On top of that is the civilian review board that rubber stamps and allows them to trample all over tax payers. Bryan/College Station just turning into east California.

---

I disagree. For years I have always found the review board more that fair. The first time I presented before them they spanked me really bad because I was not properly prepared. But ever since I have found them very open to a reasonable, professional argument.

---

We can agree to disagree.
I've been there MANY times. I see the "packing" of the board that occurs. Last year I saw them totally disregard what an owner presented and agree with the appraisers on multiple properties. That is one of the criteria to have their decisions overturned in District Court. But who wants to spend thousands to save hundreds....and they know that. I was close to taking one property to court last year but became busy and let it go. We need someone or a coordinated group to take the next step. It's bull crap that we have to tolerate the county powers who are printing money for themselves and their friends

I have a very similar example. I have a property in south Brazos County in the Navasota School district (Investment Property/Rental) It has ~5 acres and a modular house in a neighborhood that needs quite of bit of cleanup. I have protested the last 2 years on the property. Year 2014 House Appraisal $24K Land ~21K Year 2015 Valuations was $31K Higher ( I don't have the breakdowns of what was raised) Met with CAD rep and settled before going to review board. Price stayed relatively the same. Year 2016 Assessed Improvement $24K - Land assessment $62K. Went to formal review and protested the increase in land. We presented only arguments that supported land valuations only. The CAD rep contented that the land was worth $12K/Acre and I contended that the value was closer to $6K/acre. The Board made a final decision and the chairman/speaker says they feel the land value would be fair at $7,600/acre. Then the board does some calculations based off this and says the overall valuation would be $65,270 (Improvement and Land). Great!! Right? They make a motion for the overall valuation to be set at $65,270. Then I get this years Proposed valuation. They made the land on the 2016 reflect $61,250 with the improvement set at $4020.00. The 2017 valuation shows the improvement at $40,820 and the land at $57,870. I speak with the director at BCAD and he goes back and listens to the ARB hearing and agrees that the entire presentation was based on land valuation and that he even heard the speaker on the board give the $/acre amount in his decision making. But, because the board made a motion for the overall valuation and not land/improvement, he says it is within their power to change the numbers to fit whatever they see as appropriate. "Sometimes the board misses on their numbers" he says. I ask him how a reasonable person could listen to that hearing and not clearly identify the intent of the ARB. He won't answer the question; he keeps saying that they have the power to change the numbers to fit whatever they feel is more representative to their perceived market value. Next, I ask how a reasonable person could lower an improvement valuation from $24K down to $4K in one year, but feel that it is undervalued by $40K the next year. Again, no response directly addressing the question. I am disgusted with the process at this point and feel like the BCAD has misused their authority to interpret the laws however best suites their objectives. I also, have a great deal of respect for the members of the ARB and feel like they have done exactly what they are commissioned to do. The problem, in my opinion , is : we as a society, set up a system of checks and balances; When we circumvent these for irrational reasons, we start to loose faith in the system. It's not the job of the BCAD reps to interpret numbers how they see fit, when they knowingly do so against the intent of the ARB findings. Please don't respond to this post with disagreements on my valuations. That's not why I'm posting. Whether you agree with the valuations is besides the point. It's about the manipulation of numbers.