LEGISLATIVE BUDGET BOARD
                              Austin, Texas
                                     
                    FISCAL NOTE, 77th Regular Session
  
                              March 2, 2001
  
  
          TO:  Honorable Rene Oliveira, Chair, House Committee on Ways &
               Means
  
        FROM:  John Keel, Director, Legislative Budget Board
  
       IN RE:  HB1564  by Talton (Relating to remedies for the unequal
               appraisal of property by an appraisal district.), As
               Introduced
  
**************************************************************************
*  No significant fiscal implication to the State is anticipated.        *
**************************************************************************
  
The bill would amend Chapters 41 and 42 of the Tax Code to allow
protesting parties to argue before the appraisal review board (ARB) that
the appraised value of their property was greater than the median
appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties,
appropriately adjusted.

The burden of proof at the ARB level would be shifted from the appraisal
district to the protesting party.  If residence homestead properties
were used as comparable properties, the value of the homestead property
would be calculated based on market value rather than the capped value.
The capped value is normally less than the fair market value, therefore
using market value could reduce the number of cases decided in favor of
the residential homestead owner.  In addition to the ARB level
requirements, a district court would be required to grant relief for
unequal appraisal, if the appraisal ratio of the property exceeded by at
least 10 percent the median level of a sample of properties in the
appraisal district, or if the appraised value of the property exceeded
the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable
properties appropriately adjusted.  Given the limited number of
properties that are actually protested and the number litigated in a
district court, it is not anticipated that this additional state
statutory requirement would result in any significant fiscal impact for
the state or units of local government.
  
Local Government Impact
  
No significant fiscal implication to units of local government is
anticipated.
  
  
Source Agencies:   304   Comptroller of Public Accounts
LBB Staff:         JK, SD, BR