RETAIL BU IL DINGSRETAIL BU IL DINGSAPARTMENTSAPARTMENTS OFFICE BU IL DINGSOFFICE BU IL DINGS
Apar tm ents, Office Build ings, Retail Build ings & W ar ehouses in Har r is CountyApar tm ents, Office Build ings, Retail Build ings & W ar ehouses in Har r is CountyLITIGATION OF 2012 COMMERCIAL PROPERTIESLITIGATION OF 2012 COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES
LITIGATIONDENSITY
LITIGATION AT HCADEver y year the Har ris County Appr aisal Distr ict (HCAD) is involved in litigating alarge num b er of lawsuits. Par t of the reason for the large num b er is the sheer size ofHar r is County, Texas, which, in ter m s of num b er of par cels of proper ty, is the secondlargest county in the U nited States. The appraisal d istr ict of Har r is County values over1.7 m illion parcels annually, and m any of these valuations are pr otested . If proper tyowner s d isagree with HCAD’s d eter m ined appraised value, they can sched ule an infor m alm eeting with an appraiser. If there is no agr eem ent at this level, the next step is a for m alhear ing with the Har r is County Appr aisal Review Boar d (ARB).If a proper ty owner still d isagrees with the ARB’s d ecision, it is his or her right und er theTexas Proper ty Tax Cod e to appeal the d ecision to the state d istrict cour t in Har ris County. Ifthe d istrict cour t agrees to hear the case, the d ecision is litigated b etween the appr aisal d istrictand the proper ty owner.HCAD’s L itigation Depar tm ent asked the GIS team at the d istrict to provid e analytical m aps in aneffor t to prepare for upcom ing cases. The GIS group was asked to stud y four specific types ofcom m ercial pr oper ty: apar tm ent com plexes, office b uild ings, r etail b uild ings, and war ehouses for thetax year 2012.The m ain m ap shows the d ensity of com m ercial proper ties that went to litigation in 2012. SouthwestHar r is County had the d ensest region for com m ercial litigation. This m ap also shows a percentage b r eakd own of com m ercial proper ties that went to litigation b y school d istrict. Only three school d istr icts hadover 10% of com m ercial pr oper ties going to litigation; Spr ing ISD, Spring Branch ISD & Clear Creek ISD.HCAD appraisers value each proper ty accor d ing to its assigned class. The Com m ercial Pr oper ty Class Stud ychar t reflects the percentage of pr oper ty in litigation b y class categor y. Categor ized from “A” to “E”, the gr ad e“A” is the m ost expensive in ter m s of pr ice per sq uar e foot and “E” is the least in price per sq uar e foot.
W AREHOU SESW AREHOU SES
* Com m erc ial Proper ty V alues as of August 19, 2013
Legen
d School Bound ar y
Highway
W ater
Har ris County
Low
HighGeospatial or m ap d ata m aintained b y the Har ris County Appraisal Distric t is for infor m ational pur poses andm ay not have b een prepared for or b e suitab le for legal, engineering, or sur veying purposes. It d oes not representan on-the-ground sur vey and only represents the approxim ate loc ation of proper ty b ound aries.
Apar tm ent
Offic e Build ing
Retail Build ing
W ar ehouse
Map Key
W ar ehousein L itigation
W ar ehouseMap Key
Retail Build ingin L itigation
Retail Build ingMap Key
Office Build ingOffice Build ingin L itigation
Map Key
Apar tm entin L itigation
Apar tm ent
Total Office Buildings
Litigation
Settled
U nsettled7.44%
92.56% 4.22%3.23%
Total Warehouses
Litigation
Settled
U nsettled3.62%
96.38% 2.06%1.56%
BRIA
RGRO
VE D
RIVE
W INSOME L ANE
N PARK AT FAIRDALE
W PA
RK AT
FAIR
DALE
BRIA
RHUR
ST PA
RK (P
VT)
FALL
S AT F
AIRD
ALE
E PAR
K AT F
AIRDA
LE
RICHMOND AV E
BRIA
RHUR
ST D
RIVE
FAIRDAL E L ANE
GREE
NRID
GE D
RIVE
DDEETTAAIILL MMAAPP
TotalRetail Buildings
Litigation
Settled
U nsettled7.51%
92.49% 4.09%
3.43%
Har ris County Appraisal DistrictInfor m ation & Assistance Division - GIS Departm ent
ÚScale: N.T. S.
KATY ISD9.53% SPRING BRANCH ISD
10.07%
ALIEF ISD9.53%
CYPRESS-FAIRBANKS ISD8.71%
KLIEN ISD6.4%
WALLER ISD0%
NEW CANEY ISD0%
HUFFMAN ISD1.09%
DAYTON ISD0%
HUMBLE ISD7.96%
SHELDON ISD2.27%
CROSBY ISD1.61%
GALENA PARK ISD4.4%
CHANNELVIEW ISD1.26%
DEER PARK ISD2.12%
GOOSE CREEK3.13%
LA PORTE ISD4.63%
PASADENA ISD6.18%
CLEAR CREEK ISD10.47%
PEARLAND ISD0%
HOUSTON ISD6%
SPRING ISD10.06%
ALDINE ISD7.29%
TOMBALL ISD3.54%
Total Apartments
Litigation
Settled
U nsettled10.50%
89.50% 6.80%3.69%
4,0003,5003,0002,5002,0001,5001,000
5000
936
881
667
706
832
1265
747
891
776
1038
637
782
948
1045
586
770
584
936
536
598
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Commercial Properties in Litigation Tax Years 2008 - 2012
Commerical Properties Class StudyClass Percentage
A 20.27%B 37.24%C 37.09%D 3.45%E 1.95%
TOTAL 100.00%
Class PercentageA 26.12%B 17.05%C 10.45%D 2.02%E 44.36%
TOTAL 100.00%
Class PercentageA 14.88%B 33.52%C 12.62%D 0.19%E 38.79%
TOTAL 100.00%
Class PercentageA 17.81%B 13.88%C 5.75%D 7.29%E 55.26%
TOTAL 100.00%Retail Stores
Apar tm ents
W arehouses
Offices
2012 Commercial Properties in Litigation
W arehouses Apartm ents
OfficesRetail Stores
23%
18%36%
23%
