TCAD EVIDENCE PACKAGE · Generated 2026-09-20 07:50 CDT · Print this page to PDF for filing (File → Print → Save as PDF)

TCAD Noise & Traffic Evidence Report — 12704 Palfrey Drive

Travis County Central Appraisal District — unequal appraisal / environmental externalities evidence
Property: 12704 Palfrey Drive, Austin, TX 78727 · County: Travis · Site: Palfrey · Snapshot: 295 ADS-B zone visits / 7d · 253 unique hex · evening+night 31% · ABIA pax 2009→2023 +168.8% · 24h zone visits 22 (chart visits = ≤1.5 nm & ≤5k ft — not full zone / not mic detections / not “over the house”)

1. 1. Protest letter (narrative)
2. 2. Location & road proximity
3. 3. Property tax / market / taxable history
4. 3b. Property tax rates since 2009 (Texas / local)
5. 4. MoPac & Parmer traffic
6. 4b. Travis & Williamson County population (since 2009)
7. 4c. Road construction within ~5 mi (since 2009)
8. 5. Airport growth & local aircraft (live sample)
9. 7. Sirens / Station 28
10. 8. Crime & neighborhood housing change (APD staffing, funding, Oak Creek / Elysium; “no report, no crime”)
11. 9. Comparables by distance from interchange
12. 9b. Real estate market summary & nearby sales tables
13. 9c. Ownwell / Redfin / TCAD CAD appraisal evidence (continuing protest)
14. 10. Noise, health, pollution & tax reduction estimate
15. 11. Data sources & exhibits checklist

1. Protest letter

2. Location & road proximity

Table 1

3. Property tax, market value & taxable value

Owner of record (public extract): COFFMAN DEWEY JR / DEWEY I COFFMAN / DEWEY COFFMAN JR. Values below are compiled from TCAD Notices of Appraised Value and Travis County Tax Office records for this parcel.

Δ% columns: year-over-year increase (+) or decrease (−) vs the prior year that has a value for that metric. US CPI-U %: official U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer inflation (annual average). Source: includes protest / ARB notes when a protest was filed or is otherwise known.

Table 2

• Market value: lowest $160,000 (2013) → current $398,575 (2026) increased $238,575 (+149.1%).
• Tax paid: lowest $3,918.01 (2018) → current $5,478.18 (2025) increased $1,560.17 (+39.8%). US CPI-U alone would put the 2018 amount at ~$5,026 in 2025 dollars (actual vs CPI: $452, +9.0%).

• Market values, assessed values, and tax amounts are compiled from Travis County Central Appraisal District (TCAD) Notices of Appraised Value and Travis County Tax Office statements and payment records for account 02641304040000.
• Where a TCAD protest or ARB appeal is known for a tax year, it is noted in that year's Source column of Table 3.
• Year-over-year percent change in Table 3 uses the prior year with a non-null value for the same metric (market or tax paid). Summary totals compare the lowest observed amount to the latest year amount.
• US CPI-U: CPI-U All items, U.S. city average (CUUR0000SA0) — U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Official U.S. government consumer price inflation. Annual-average CPI-U index and year-over-year % change. Used to compare property market/tax dollars to general inflation. 2025 figure is full-year estimate from published monthly averages available at compile time — re-verify on BLS.

Figure 29 [Unavailable: Figure · City of Austin property tax RATE context (Save Austin Now / Prop I, Aug 2026) — rate layer vs appraisal/CPI above]

3b. Property tax rates since 2009 (Texas & local)

Key point: Texas has no statewide property tax. Rates are set by local taxing units (ISD, city, county, hospital district, ACC, etc.). Since 2009, statutory school M&O rates have been compressed and homestead exemptions expanded, but appraised values and total statewide levies rose sharply — so many homeowners still pay more in dollars even when the rate per $100 falls.

Texas does not levy a state property tax. The bill is the sum of local rates (school M&O + I&S, city, county, hospital district, ACC, etc.). Rate compression and homestead exemptions can lower the rate or taxable base while appraised values and total collections still rise.

Δ% columns: percent increase (+) or decrease (−) vs the previous row with a value. US CPI-U %: official U.S. BLS consumer inflation (annual average) for that calendar year (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) — compare rate/levy changes to general inflation).

School homestead exemption (statewide school-district flat exemption)

Table 3

2009→2025: school homestead exemption rose from $15,000 to $140,000 ( successive constitutional amendments). That reduces school taxable value but does not replace a fair market appraisal.

Statewide local property tax levies (all entities)

Texas Comptroller series (via public compilations). Dollars collected, not the rate per $100.

Table 4

Statewide total levy 2009 → 2025: ~$39,397,999,161 → ~$89,446,084,843 (about +127.0%). Statewide levy dollars (all local entities) roughly more than doubled from 2009→2025 even after compression/exemptions — values and spending drove collections.

Austin ISD total tax rate (M&O + I&S, $ per $100)

AISD total = M&O + I&S. M&O compressed under state school-finance policy after 2019; I&S held near $0.113–$0.123.

Table 5

Source: AISD Taxes & Debt. M&O compressed substantially from ~$1.08 (FY2017–19) toward the mid-$0.70s–$0.80s after state school-finance compression; I&S stayed near $0.113–$0.123.

Travis County (county entity only) adopted rate

Travis County (county entity only — not full combined bill). County cut its published rate while values rose.

Table 6

Texas Public Policy Foundation analysis: Travis County total tax rate −33.3% from 2015→2024 while total taxable values +163.8% (levy still rose ~76%).

City of Austin property tax rate

Table 7

Source: City of Austin tax rates.

Why rates can fall while bills stay high

• Rate compression and larger homestead exemptions reduced the school rate component versus ~2017 peaks, but did not prevent large absolute tax bills when market/appraised values rose.
• Statewide local property tax collections (all entities) rose from ~$39.4B (2009) to ~$89.4B (2025) — +127%.
• School homestead exemption rose from $15,000 (2009) to $140,000 (2025) — important for taxable value, not a substitute for fair market appraisal of externalities.
• Travis County cut its own rate while taxable values surged; levy dollars still increased — appraisal growth is the main lever on bills.
• For TCAD protest: over-appraisal (market value) is the direct lever; rate history shows the system still extracts more dollars as values rise even when rates fall.

Sources (tax rates)

• https://www.austinisd.org/budget/taxes-debt
• https://www.austintexas.gov/budget-excellence/tax-rates
• https://www.traviscountytx.gov/tax-rates
• https://www.texaspolicyresearch.com/texas-property-tax-levies-1998-2025/
• https://www.texaspolicy.com/assessing-tax-trends-in-travis-county/
• https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/

4. MoPac (Loop 1) & Parmer Lane traffic studies

This package already cites MoPac and Parmer agency / media studies (section sources below). How far back: the protest baseline is 2009 (same tax / population frame). Official TxDOT STARS II station AADT series typically run from the late 2000s through the present (attach Loop 1 stations nearest Parmer as Exhibit A — multi-year tables, often continuous ~2009–current). The MoPac Improvement Project (express lanes) is documented roughly 2013–2017 (opened ~Oct 2017) with post-opening volume reporting in Dec 2017. Parmer (FM 734) corridor studies and 4→6-lane project development span the 2010s–present (CAMPO/TxDOT; MoPac→Whitestone and RM 1431→SH 45 segments).

Table 8

MoPac — sources in this package

• Austin Monitor — Traffic volumes increasing on MoPac (Dec 2017): After MoPac Improvement Project express lanes opened, some sections saw large volume gains.; Example cited: ~28,000 additional vehicles per day between Enfield Road and RM 2222 after express lanes opened.; Illustrates induced / redirected demand after capacity projects.
• Texas A&M Transportation Institute / media — MoPac congestion ranking: MoPac frequently cited among most congested Texas roadways.; Media summaries of TTI analyses have cited volumes approaching ~200,000 vehicles per day on busy MoPac segments.
• TxDOT Statewide Traffic Analysis and Reporting System (STARS II) / traffic count maps: Authoritative AADT time series by station — pull Loop 1 stations nearest Parmer for formal exhibit.; Use STARS II station history 2009–present as official volume exhibit for TCAD.

Exact station AADT for MoPac near Parmer must be attached from TxDOT STARS II as Exhibit A. Public reporting consistently places MoPac among Austin’s highest-volume freeways with substantial growth since the late 2000s / post-express-lane era.

Documented post-project increase example: Enfield–RM 2222 segment post express lanes (Austin Monitor 2017): approximately +28,000 vehicles/day — Capacity projects can increase absolute traffic (and thus noise exposure) on the corridor even when speeds improve.

Parmer Lane — sources in this package

• TxDOT / CAMPO — Parmer Lane (FM 734) Corridor Study (MoPac to Whitestone / RM 1431): Parmer serves as a critical arterial for tens of thousands of trips daily.; Segment near MoPac described as six-lane divided urban highway; further NW segments under study for capacity / safety improvements.
• TxDOT — FM 734 from RM 1431 to SH 45 (four-lane to six-lane expansion): Proposed expansion from 4 to 6 lanes over ~4.4 miles.; Purpose: reduce congestion and improve mobility to meet future traffic demands from population growth.
• CAMPO Parmer Lane Corridor Study page: Study evaluates current and projected traffic volumes, crash hotspots, and improvement options from MoPac to Whitestone.

Public agencies are actively planning additional Parmer capacity because demand is already high and projected to rise. Capacity expansions historically increase absolute vehicle-miles and noise exposure along adjacent residential parcels even when congestion is partially relieved.

Not yet attached as raw tables: multi-year STARS II station extracts (CSV/PDF from TxDOT) for the Loop 1 count stations nearest Parmer. Those go back as far as the station has been published (often 2009 or earlier through the latest count year). Section 4c lists the same corridors in a construction timeline.

4b. County population growth & cross-county traffic (since 2009)

Regional population is a primary driver of cross-county vehicle demand on the MoPac / Parmer system that serves the subject. Tables cover Travis plus adjacent counties (Williamson, Hays, Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell). Population series: U.S. Census Bureau resident estimates (July 1) via FRED.

Travis County is bordered by Williamson (N), Bell is not adjacent; adjacent for this protest package: Williamson, Hays, Bastrop, Blanco, Burnet, Caldwell. Regional growth (especially Hays + Williamson) feeds MoPac/Parmer commute demand.

Table 9

Williamson County + Parmer Lane (cross-county spine): Williamson County is immediately north of the subject’s North Austin basin and has grown far faster than Travis since 2009 (on the order of +80%+ vs Travis ~+35%). Parmer Lane (FM 734) is a primary east–west / north-metro arterial that carries cross-county commute and commercial traffic between Williamson County growth areas and Travis employment / retail nodes — not merely “neighborhood traffic.” The subject sits ~0.4 mi from Parmer and ~0.55 mi from the MoPac / Parmer interchange, so it absorbs noise and congestion from that regional load. Capacity projects on Parmer and MoPac increase long-run throughput past residential edges even when speeds improve. Williamson County growth is the clearest cross-county demand story for this site: the county is immediately north of North Austin and grew far faster than Travis since 2009. Parmer Lane (FM 734) is a major cross-county arterial linking Williamson growth areas to Travis employment and retail; MoPac (Loop 1) is the parallel freeway spine. Homes next to the MoPac/Parmer interchange therefore absorb regional, multi-county traffic noise and congestion — not only local street traffic.

Travis & Williamson — year-by-year population (cross-county pair)

Detail tables for the two counties that most directly feed MoPac/Parmer demand at this site. Other adjacent counties appear in the summary table and the index chart above.

Travis County

Table 10

Williamson County

Table 11

4c. Notable road construction within ~5 miles (since 2009)

12704 Palfrey Drive sits ~0.35 mi from MoPac (Loop 1), ~0.4 mi from Parmer Lane (FM 734), ~0.55 mi from the MoPac/Parmer interchange. Events below are notable post-2009 road construction / capacity projects within about five miles that increased absolute traffic exposure potential.

Table 12

Primary sources: Mobility Authority / MoPac Improvement Project coverage; Austin Monitor (Dec 2017) post–express-lane volumes; TxDOT Parmer corridor study & FM 734 expansion pages; Census/FRED population series.

5. Airport growth & local aircraft monitoring

Sample window: Aircraft day/hour charts below reflect the current ADS-B retention window (about one week as of this generate time).

5.1 Austin Airport (ABIA / Austin–Bergstrom) passengers

Table 13

Peak year 2023 is +168.8% above 2009. Latest compiled year is still +163.6% above 2009. This is structural regional growth, not a one-year anomaly. Austin Airport (ABIA) continues major terminal/concourse expansion (Journey With ABIA), which supports further flight capacity.

5.2 On-site ADS-B zone statistics (subject neighborhood)

Continuous ADS-B logging at the Palfrey site counts an aircraft visit when a target enters then exits the monitoring cylinder. This report’s ADS-B charts and maps use only visits with closest approach ≤ 1.5 nm and altitude ≤ 5000.0 ft (noise-relevant close-in traffic — not the full 5 nm zone archive). Re-entry counts again. Data pulled at report build time (UTC): 2026-09-20T12:00:03.754836+00:00 · report generated 2026-09-20 07:50 CDT.

Sample date range for all §5.2–5.4 tables/charts: Mon Aug 31, 2026 4:24 PM – Sun Sep 20, 2026 6:51 AM CDT (calendar days 2026-09-13 → 2026-09-20). Last-24h volume is a rolling window ending at generate time (not a fixed calendar day). The multi-day sample grows forward as zone logging continues; it cannot invent aircraft before the archive start date (zone visits begin 2026-07-07). Re-run this report before ARB filing so §5.2 numbers and the LAST 24 HOURS hour-chart match the same generate clock.

Table 14

5.2b Aircraft traffic maps — SkyAware-style GPS flight paths

Real flight paths (filtered): these maps plot multi-point ADS-B GPS polylines (latitude/longitude samples over time), the same class of trail data shown on PiAware SkyAware when aircraft pass the site — not schematic chords. Trail color follows altitude (red = very low through yellow). Rings are 0.5 / 1.0 / 1.5 nm (qualify band). The map frame is wider (~4–5 nm) so approach legs into the 1.5 nm cylinder are drawn as continuous paths — not cut off at the ring.

Which aircraft are plotted: closest approach ≤ 1.5 nm and ≤ 5,000 ft. The live logger may retain a wider 5.0 nm archive for other tools, but only aircraft that entered that noise-relevant band are drawn — distant corridor-only or high-cruise-only traffic is excluded. For those qualifying aircraft, the full GPS approach within the map frame is shown (not a stub clipped to 1.5 nm). At this site, low-altitude traffic is heard constantly outdoors and often inside the home.

Coverage note: full GPS trail capture (dense lat/lon polylines) began with the zone-logger trail archive upgrade. Section 5.2 visit counts cover the full 7-day window (295 visits); the path maps show every logged GPS pass that meets the filter since trail storage started, and grow denser each day the logger runs. Re-generate this report before filing for maximum path density.

Time windows: maps for the last 24 hours, 7 days, 30 days, and 12 months (older windows fill in as the GPS trail archive grows). Same inclusion filter on every window. Zone visit archive begins 2026-07-07. If multi-point GPS polylines are missing for a window, maps fall back to zone-visit closest-approach points so volume is not under-shown — §5.2 visit counts remain the authority for total aircraft.

How to read the maps: Traffic patterns = cyan dots for every visit in the window that meets the ≤ 1.5 nm & ≤ 5,000 ft filter, plus colored GPS polylines for those paths. Closest / lowest = a subset of those paths (nearest/lowest only) — it will look sparse compared with the hour-count chart and is not total traffic.

Traffic patterns (≤ 1.5 nm & ≤ 5k ft — dots + low-alt GPS paths)

All windows use the same 1.5 nm / ≤ 5,000 ft filter (no 5.0 nm dual map).

Closest / lowest approaches (subset of low-alt paths only — not total volume)

5.3 Top aircraft — every tail looked up (FAA registry)

Sample date range: Mon Aug 31, 2026 4:24 PM – Sun Sep 20, 2026 6:51 AM CDT. This table ranks individual tails / idents by repeat visits in the window — not total airline volume.

Each registration below was queried against the FAA Aircraft Registry (owner + type). Important: N145TX and N361TX are Texas DPS (Department of Public Safety) helicopters — not TxDOT. TxDOT Flight Services operates separate state fixed-wing passenger aircraft (Citation Latitude / Embraer Phenom class) for official state travel; those N-numbers are not in this top list. Austin Police helos in this sample: N125AP and N6227 (both AS350B3, owner AUSTIN POLICE DEPT).

Table 15

Southwest Airlines (SWA): 1,655 zone visits in this sample (20.7% of 8,000 visits) — usually the largest single airline. SWA is often absent from Table 5.3 because that table ranks unique tails / idents by repeat visits; each Southwest flight is typically a different aircraft and flight number (one pass each), so volume shows up in the operator rollup below, not the top-repeat tail list.

Hex-only tracks: 23 visits (0.3%) had Mode-S hex but no flight callsign — these used to inflate an opaque “Other” bucket; they are now labeled No callsign (hex-only).

Airline / operator rollup — all zone visits in sample

Counted from every visit in the sample (8,000 rows), not just the top-20 tails. Date range: Mon Aug 31, 2026 4:24 PM – Sun Sep 20, 2026 6:51 AM CDT. Classified by ICAO callsign (e.g. SWA4490 → Southwest), N-number GA, public-safety TX-style idents, or hex-only when no callsign was broadcast.

Table 16

Residual idents (formerly opaque “Other”)

Hex-only, unlisted ICAO codes, and unparsed callsigns — so the rollup is not a black box.

Table 17

Top-list-only rollup (for comparison; understates multi-tail airlines like Southwest): SKW=91, GA/N-number=81, DAL=14, CXK=10.

Scheduled airline volume (Southwest, United, American, Delta, SkyWest regionals, etc.) shows this is recurring commercial traffic tied to Austin Airport (ABIA) schedules — not random GA only. Public-safety helos (APD + DPS) add low-altitude impulsive noise distinct from jets at altitude.

5.4 Close / low passes over the zone

Sample date range: Mon Aug 31, 2026 4:24 PM – Sun Sep 20, 2026 6:51 AM CDT. Archive start: continuous ADS-B zone visit logging on this site begins 2026-07-07 (no earlier visit rows available in the zone logger archive). Red text = altitude below 3000 ft. Circled = shortest distance / lowest altitude (among passes ≤ 10000 ft for altitude). Min distance under 1,000 ft is shown in feet (1 mi = 5,280 ft): <500 ft red, <1,000 ft orange. Altitude average excludes passes above 10000 ft (typically en-route or long descent into Austin Airport (ABIA) or KEDC), noted in the average row when any were excluded.

Table 18

5.5 Austin Executive Airport (KEDC) — opened 2011

Austin Executive Airport (KEDC / EDC) in the Pflugerville area opened as the modern corporate / general-aviation airport in 2011 (official opening reported June 2011; predecessor Bird’s Nest turf strip dated to the 1960s). A new ~6,025 ft runway and jet-capable facilities replaced the short legacy strip. FAA / published histories show the scale-up after opening: about 2,700 operations and 9 based aircraft in the late Bird’s Nest era (2008-era FAA stats cited for the prior field) versus roughly 18,000 general-aviation operations per year and ~93 based aircraft by 2013 at the new Executive Airport — a multi-fold increase in local GA / business-jet activity after 2011. The airport markets itself as a corporate jet / business-aviation center (Henriksen Jet Center FBO, Jet-A, charters). That growth adds small-jet and turbine traffic in the same north-Austin airspace used by Austin Airport (ABIA) arrivals over the subject neighborhood.

Sources: Wikipedia — Austin Executive Airport · Aero-News — opened for business June 2011 · austinexecutiveairport.com · Distance from subject ≈ 8.5 mi.

7. Sirens & AFD Station 28 — correlation with 311 / CAD

Station 28 is located at 2410 W. Parmer Lane, Austin, TX on the Parmer corridor (station reference). Emergency responses from this station and mutual-aid units produce high-intensity siren events that propagate into adjacent residential streets — a qualitatively different noise than steady highway hum (startle, sleep fragmentation, evening/night spikes).

AFD does not publish a simple Station-28-only siren-count series from 2009 in one public dashboard. Attach Austin open data emergency response extracts filtered to Station 28 / first-due area (and AFD CAD if available). Do not invent a 2009 percentage without the open-data extract.

7.1 Can we correlate fire/police responses with 311 or 911?

Table 19

Practical exhibit package: (1) 311 noise/abatement at Oak Creek / 78727, (2) APD incident list at 3300 Oak Creek, (3) ADS-B low-pass timestamps from §5.4. That stack approximates 911/CAD impact without non-public CAD access.

Going-forward metric: attach AFD open-data extracts for Station 28 first-due trends when available, refreshed each protest cycle.

8. Crime & neighborhood housing change (staffing, funding, reports)

8.1 City-enabled multifamily density — Elysium Grand / 3300 Oak Creek corridor

Imported corridor intensity: After the 2009 baseline, the City’s housing pipeline put a concentrated affordable / Section 8–accepting multifamily complex into the immediate North Austin market. That is a discrete change in who lives, moves, and is policed within about one mile of the subject — not a static single-family comparable set.

Elysium Grand at 3300 Oak Creek Drive, Austin, TX 78727 was put into service in 2020. Housing listings report 69 low-income units and that the community accepts Section 8. Address-level APD incident extracts for that site and the Oak Creek corridor (below) document elevated police activity (family disturbance, trespass, assault, theft, mail theft, auto theft, SWAT-class events) that citywide bulk totals obscure.

• Opened / put into service in 2020 (after 2009 baseline).
• Listed as affordable housing community accepting Section 8; 69 low-income units per housing listing databases.
• Approximately 1 mile-class proximity to the 12704 Palfrey / Northwood area (verify map distance for filing exhibit).

Sources: City of Austin Open Data — Crime Reports (APD); Elysium Grand — 3300 Oak Creek Dr (affordable / Section 8 accepting); Elysium Grand property site

8.2 Police staffing (Austin Police Department) — defund timeline & understaffing history

Where this lives in the package: §8.2 (staffing history table below), §8.3 (budget / funding dollars), and §8.3a–b (funding → crime reporting / crime impact). Primary narrative sources: Austin Bulldog “Did Austin defund the police?” (Dec 2020 numbers); contemporaneous Council coverage of the Aug 2020 cut; Statesman / Spectrum / KVUE vacancy updates into 2025–2026.

APD sworn capacity fell after the August 2020 Council cut package and 2021 attrition even as population and corridor intensity rose. Vacancies remain well above pre-2020 norms into 2026 — reducing response capacity and report-taking relative to demand. Budget dollars recovered faster than officers on the street.

When the cut occurred: Austin City Council voted in August 2020 (FY2020-21 budget) to eliminate ~150 vacant sworn slots, decline ~30 planned new officers, cut cadet/OT funding, and move large support functions out of the APD line — the package widely described as ~$150M / ~⅓ of the departmental budget (see §8.3). Cadet classes were delayed. Separations spiked in 2021 (~210 officers left). Budget dollars were largely restored by FY2021-22+, but vacancies remained far above pre-2020 norms into 2025–2026.

Current understaffing (keep updated): As of mid-2026 reporting to Council: ~1,474 sworn officers on duty and ~345 vacant positions (~19% vacancy rate), including ~174 patrol openings. Still roughly double to triple pre-2020 vacancy levels (~180). Understaffing has been continuous from the 2020 cut / 2021 attrition peak through 2026.

APD staffing & vacancy history (keep current)

Table 20

Appraisal use: Chronic understaffing and vacancies reduce report-taking and neighborhood coverage capacity even when emergency noise (helos / sirens) continues. Do not treat a lower open-data crime-report count (§8.4) as proof that property-crime pressure or police demand near the subject declined. Re-check Table S1 against the latest APD staffing memo / Council Public Safety Committee materials before ARB filing.

• Fewer officers and high vacancies mean slower response, more triage, and less capacity to take property-crime reports — which feeds the “no report, no crime” undercount in open data (§8.4).
• Neighborhood demand near dense multifamily (3300 Oak Creek) and arterials did not shrink when authorized strength and on-duty ranks fell.
• Public-safety aviation and ground response still generate noise externalities (helos, sirens) while patrol depth for property crime remains constrained.

Sources: Austin Bulldog — Did Austin 'defund' the police? (numbers) · KVUE — APD vacancies (Feb 2020) · Spectrum News — APD budget six years after 2020 (vacancies ~340) · Wikipedia — Austin Police Department (budget & staffing summaries; verify to City docs). Attach latest APD authorized-strength / vacancy memo when filing.

8.3 Police funding (APD budget trajectory)

Austin first cut and reallocated a large share of the APD budget in FY2020-21, then restored and grew dollar appropriations in later years. Budget dollars recovered faster than sworn headcount — money alone does not equal neighborhood police capacity.

Table 21

FY2020–21 cut / reallocation (context)

• Hard cut / reinvestment package: on the order of $20M reduced from cadet classes and overtime for reinvestment in housing, family violence, violence prevention, and related programs (City / contemporaneous news summaries).
• Functional transfers: nearly $80M of functions (forensics, Communications/911, strategic support, internal affairs, etc.) moved out of the APD departmental budget over the year — reducing the APD line without eliminating all services.
• Net effect for residents: the departmental police budget shrank sharply in FY2020-21 even as citywide population and housing density (including new multifamily near the subject) continued to grow.

8.3a Funding cuts → staffing → crime reporting / crime (summary table)

Open-data Crime Reports rows are reports filed and entered, not a pure measure of experienced crime. When authorized strength and on-duty ranks fall, property offenses are triaged, response times lengthen, and some residents stop calling — so totals can fall while risk and emergency-noise load stay high.

Table 22

Key pattern for ARB: CD7 open-data rows peaked in 2020 (10,652) during the cut year, then fell through 2021–24 even as vacancies remained far above pre-2020 levels. Citywide violent crime (homicides) rose sharply 2020–21 (NICJR) while bulk report totals continued a multi-year decline — evidence that lower report counts are not proof of lower neighborhood risk.

8.3b Stories & references (funding cuts and crime)

Table 23

Appraisal use: Restored or record-high dollar budgets do not equal restored officer capacity on the street. Pay, overtime, and incentives can rise while vacancies stay high — so open-data crime totals can fall for reporting/capacity reasons while experienced risk and public-safety noise externalities at this parcel remain elevated. Political claims that “defund caused every murder” are contested; the documented facts for this exhibit are: large FY2020-21 cut package, multi-year vacancy spike, homicide spike 2020–21, and divergence between open-data row totals and violent-crime severity.

• A lower or reallocated police budget during 2020–21 coincided with elevated violent crime (see NICJR) and the 2020 opening of Elysium Grand / Oak Creek multifamily intensity.
• Later budget restorations fund pay and incentives but chronic vacancies show capacity still lags — open-data crime-report totals can fall while experienced risk and emergency-noise externalities remain high.
• For ARB: do not equate a rising APD dollar budget alone with restored neighborhood safety or reduced disamenity at this parcel.

Sources: FOX 7 — Council cuts millions from APD (FY2020-21 package) · Austin Bulldog — Did Austin 'defund' the police? (numbers) · Texas Tribune — Feds / budget cuts / crime debate (Dec 2020) · Statesman PolitiFact — police cuts and murder rate (2021) · KVUE — FY2021-22 APD budget ~$443M · Spectrum News — APD budget trajectory / vacancies · City of Austin — Budget & Organizational Excellence (primary budget PDFs). Primary filing exhibit: City of Austin Budget & Organizational Excellence (APD operating budget pages for each FY).

8.4 Context only — Council District 7 open-data totals (not site-specific)

The subject address is in Austin City Council District 7. District and citywide Crime Reports open-data rows are shown for context, but they are not the primary evidence of neighborhood risk: bulk feeds lack street address / lat-lon for precise radius counts, and totals can fall when reporting practices change, offenses are reclassified, or residents stop filing reports because response capacity is thin (§8.2–8.3). Prefer the Oak Creek / Elysium address-level APD extracts in §8.5–8.6.

Reporting caveat (“no report, no crime”): A declining open-data total is not proof that neighborhood risk or property crime pressure declined. Understaffing, triage, and non-response to some property offenses systematically undercount experienced crime relative to 2009–2019 baseline years with fuller sworn strength.

Table 24

Citywide APD Crime Reports rows: 141,208 (2009) → 89,067 (2025) (-36.9%). District 7: 11,137 (2009) → 8,653 (2025) (-22.3%); 2020 count was 10,652 (-4.4% vs 2009).

Violent-crime context: Austin homicide counts rose sharply around 2020–2021 (about +39% 2019→2020 and further rise into 2021 per NICJR problem analysis), with 2021 rate roughly double the 2019 baseline; later years declined but remained elevated vs pre-pandemic. Source: https://nicjr.org/files/galleries/Austin-GVPA-3_2024.pdf (NICJR Austin Gun Violence Problem Analysis).

8.5 Within ~1 mile of the subject / Oak Creek corridor

APD’s bulk Crime Reports open-data feed no longer publishes street address or lat/lon. This report therefore uses the same method as the AISG hub hourly digest:

• Crime: census block groups intersecting a ~1.0 mi buffer around 12704 Palfrey (TIGERweb), matched to APD census_block_group — approximate neighborhood, not exact parcel-to-incident meters (§8.5a tables).
• Crashes: Vision Zero crash records with true lat/lon + haversine filter (§8.5a).
• Traffic construction: City of Austin WZDx work-zone GeoJSON near the subject (§8.5a).
• Address-level police: APD Incident Reports Database extracts for Oak Creek / Elysium (§8.6d2) remain the preferred street-level exhibit when available.

Also attach or cross-check:

• 3300 Oak Creek Dr / Elysium Grand (since 2020 put-into-service), and
• the automated ~1.0-mile buffer tables below (§8.5a).

Neighborhood property-crime pattern (for exhibit supplementation):

• Residents in the subject area report repeated property-crime pressure including multiple mailbox break-ins / mail theft along the street and nearby collectors.
• These localized property crimes are not fully visible in citywide totals and should be documented with APD case numbers / MyCaseNumber reports when available for ARB exhibits.
• In 2020 the City's housing pipeline put Elysium Grand (3300 Oak Creek Dr) into service: ~69 low-income / Section 8–accepting units within about one mile of the subject. That is a discrete, post-2009 change in neighborhood intensity — denser multifamily + publicly documented APD activity on that corridor — not a static single-family baseline.
• Address-level APD incident extracts for 3300 Oak Creek and the Oak Creek corridor (family disturbance, trespass, assault, theft, mail theft, auto theft, SWAT-class events in public windows) establish concentrated police demand near the subject that citywide or district-level totals understate.
• Citywide, APD and local media reported a roughly 30% increase in mail-theft reports from 2022 to 2023, with elevated activity continuing into 2024 (CBS Austin / APD statements on mail-theft enforcement).

8.5a Subject-radius open data (~1.0 mi / 1609 m · last 365 days)

Same official feeds as AISG hourly “Chart C” (no SpotCrime scrape). Center: 30.425641, -97.707413 · pulled 2026-09-20T12:54:50.082389+00:00. APD Crime Reports still lack public lat/lon; radius uses census block groups intersecting the buffer (TIGERweb) matched to APD census_block_group. Crashes use true lat/lon (Vision Zero). Work zones: City of Austin WZDx GeoJSON.

APD crime reports in buffer: 1,432 · Vision Zero crashes (all streets): 91 (fatal 1 · serious 2 · injury 39) · Austin work zones (WZDx) nearby: 135

APD Crime Reports no longer publish lat/lon; radius uses census block groups intersecting the buffer (approximate neighborhood, not exact meters).

Table 25 APD crime types within ~1.0 mi of subject (census BG buffer, 365d)

Table 26 Vision Zero crashes within ~1.0 mi (lat/lon, 365d)

Table 27 Austin WZDx work zones near subject (traffic construction context)

8.5b MoPac / Loop 1 / Parmer — how often do wrecks & traffic problems happen?

Leaving 12704 Palfrey onto Loop 1 (MoPac) / Parmer (FM 734) regularly exposes the household to arterial crashes and incident-related delay. Two complementary sources:

1. Vision Zero crash reports (official, historical) — street-name filter for MoPac / Loop 1 / Parmer within ~2.2 mi of the subject since 2024.
2. DriveTexas live conditions (TxDOT, ~5 min refresh) — wrecks, closures, congestion on state-maintained roads. The API has no history; once the key is approved we poll and log events so frequency accumulates.

Corridor crash total: 690 crashes · ~20.9/month · deaths 5 · serious injury crashes 23 · injuries 522.

Official crash reports on MoPac / Loop 1 / Parmer near the subject — best answer to “how often do wrecks happen here?”. DriveTexas live feed adds same-day wrecks/closures once the API key is approved.

MoPac / Loop 1 / Parmer crashes near subject by year (Vision Zero)

Crashes = orange · Deaths > 0 = red · Serious > 0 = orange · Injuries > 0 = yellow (same palette as recent-crash table below).

Table 28

Recent MoPac / Loop 1 / Parmer crashes near subject

Sorted by time, most recent first. Deaths > 0 = red · Serious > 0 = orange · Injuries > 0 = yellow.

Table 29

DriveTexas status: DriveTexas live now: 1 events (MoPac corridor 0, wreck-class 0). Poll log: 1 unique / 0 MoPac wrecks logged.

Sources: APD Crime Reports · Vision Zero crash records · City of Austin WZDx (d9mm-cjw9) · DriveTexas API (/api/conditions.geojson?key=… · refresh ≥5 min · WZDx construction subset also available).

8.6 Other crime / quality-of-life sources

8.6a Council District 7 — top crime types (occ. 2024–present, open data)

Legend: Felony-class (burglary, auto theft, theft, mail theft, aggravated, assault w/ injury, …) = red; theft by shoplifting → misdemeanor yellow · Arrest / warrant = orange · DWI / DUI (at least) = orange bold · Misdemeanor-class (disturbance, trespass, mischief, harassment, …) = yellow. Colors are narrative severity cues for appraisal readers, not a formal UCR classification of every row.

Table 30

Source: City of Austin Open Data — APD Crime Reports (dataset “Crime Reports”, filtered to Council District 7, offense occurrence 2024–present). Portal: https://data.austintexas.gov/Public-Safety/Crime-Reports/fdj4-gpfu. Pulled 2026-09-20T12:54:33.649484+00:00.

Notable for appraisal narrative: BURGLARY OF VEHICLE, THEFT, MAIL THEFT, AUTO THEFT, and family/disturbance categories dominate recent CD7 volume.

8.6b Council District 7 — mail theft reports by year (open data)

Table 31

* 2020 — Elysium Grand (3300 Oak Creek Dr) was put into service in 2020 (~69 low-income / Section 8–accepting units). Mail-theft and corridor pressure should be read against that neighborhood-intensity change, not as a pure citywide trend alone.

8.6c ZIP 78727 — top Austin 311 types

Timeframe: service requests created 2024-01-01 through latest open-data pull (2026-09-20T12:54:33.649484+00:00). Citywide 311 feed is continuous; this extract is filtered to ZIP 78727 only (not a single year).

Table 32 ZIP 78727 — top Austin 311 types (created 2024–present)

Quality-of-life signals in-ZIP: high Vehicle Abatement and APD Non Emergency Noise/Alarm volumes alongside sanitation/code requests. Compared with quieter interior residential ZIPs, abatement + noise types are elevated for a “single-family neighborhood” narrative (dense multifamily + arterial corridor load).

8.6d 3300 Oak Creek Dr (Elysium Grand) — 311 history

Open-data match on addresses that start with 3300 and contain Oak Creek: 192 service requests (all years present in the City 311 open-data feed for that location match — not limited to 2024). Top types:

Table 33 311 types at exact 3300 Oak Creek (all years in feed)

8.6d2 3300 Oak Creek — live APD Incident Reports (beyond 311)

Source: APD Incident Reports Database — https://services.austintexas.gov/police/reports/ (public Advance Search; street name + ZIP; multi-window queries). Counts below support the neighborhood-risk narrative near the subject.

APD public incident search results (pulled 2026-09-20T12:01:00.770372+00:00): 78 unique Oak Creek / 78727 reports · 57 at exact 3300 Oak Creek (73.1% of corridor hits) · 1 on 3200–3400 blocks · 20 other Oak Creek addresses. Query span: 2025-03-20 → 2026-09-20 (78 × 7-day windows).

Do not confuse metrics: APD Incident Reports Database (address search, rolling ~12–18 mo) is a different product from Austin Crime Reports open data (district/ZIP/census, multi-year) and from 311 service requests. Figures below for exact-3300 APD often look “low” next to 311 or 1-mile Crime Reports — that is expected (different systems / geographies / time windows), not an undercount bug. Portal fields on this extract: area_command=NORTH WEST (78); district=D3 (78) (scanner “Adam NW” ≈ NORTH WEST; not a separate sector total).

Elysium / exact-3300 exclusion summary: If every report at exact 3300 Oak Creek (Elysium Grand) is removed from the corridor extract, the remaining load is 21 incidents (26.9% of the 78 corridor total) — i.e. the corridor would show 57 fewer incidents (−73.1% vs the full extract). Exact-3300 alone is 73.1% of all Oak Creek / 78727 hits in this public window.

How far back? The public APD Incident Reports Database is a rolling “public portion” window (typically ~12–18 months; older windows return no records). To keep evidence after reports roll off, we maintain a durable local archive at data/tcad_protest/palfrey_12704/apd_archive/ (JSON + SQLite + CSV + dated snapshots), refreshed weekly on dell2. Each pull merges new portal rows and marks missing ones still_on_portal=false without deleting them. For multi-year citywide context beyond what we have archived, use APD open-data district totals (§8.4) or a public-information request.

APD incidents by year (Oak Creek / 78727 vs exact 3300)

Table 35

APD incidents by month (Oak Creek / 78727 vs exact 3300)

Every calendar month from 2025-03 through 2026-09 (public portal query span) is listed. If a month shows 0, the portal returned zero reports that month — not “missing data.” Months outside the rolling public window are not listed (portal returns no records before ~2025-03).

Table 36

Top offenses (all Oak Creek hits)

Offense colors (same as Tables 28–30): felony-class = red · arrest/DWI = orange · misdemeanor-class = yellow (shoplifting = misdemeanor).

Table 37

Exact-3300 reports (newest first, up to 100)

Table 38

Sorted by parsed offense date/time (newest first); max 100 rows. Date column: weekday · date · time (red time = after midnight, 12:00–5:59 AM). Corridor unique total = 78; exact 3300 unique total = 57 (73.1%).

Exact-3300 reports by apartment (most reports first)

Parsed from location text (Apt # …). Rows with >5 events inside any rolling 12-month window are highlighted in red (2 apartment(s) currently flagged). Total / max columns are centered. Table kept on one page when printed.

Table 39

Imported density / neighborhood-risk narrative: Elysium Grand at 3300 Oak Creek Dr is a large affordable / Section 8–accepting multifamily complex (~69 units, opened ~2020) within about one mile of the subject. Address-level APD incident data (not 311) at that site and along the Oak Creek corridor document family disturbance, criminal trespass, assault, theft, mail theft, auto theft, and at least one SWAT-class operation in the public window — a material change in local intensity of police activity relative to a lower-density single-family block. That is the kind of publicly documented corridor pressure buyers and appraisers treat as a location disamenity when comparing otherwise similar homes farther from concentrated multifamily + arterial corridors.

8.6d3 Oak Creek Dr corridor — 311 types (ZIP 78727)

Timeframe: Austin 311 open data, location matches on Oak Creek Dr in ZIP 78727 (street-name / address filter — typically all years available in the feed for that corridor, not only the last 12 months). Pulled 2026-09-20T12:54:33.649484+00:00.

How this differs:

• vs exact 3300 (8.6d): corridor table includes the whole Oak Creek Dr string in 78727 (other addresses + multifamily), not only the Elysium street address.
• vs ZIP 78727 top types (8.6c): ZIP table is citywide-in-ZIP volume since 2024 (all streets); corridor table is geography-specific to Oak Creek Dr and is dominated by vehicle abatement, code, garbage, parking, and noise — denser multifamily + arterial activity vs a quiet residential collector.
• vs prior years: the open feed is cumulative by address match; it is not a clean YoY chart unless re-queried by created-date year. Use 8.6c (2024–present ZIP) for a recent-period comparison and APD incident Tables for address-level police activity in the public window.

Table 40 311 types — Oak Creek Dr corridor (78727)

8.6e Homelessness / public camping — allow, reinstate, and crime/reporting by era

Austin had a long-standing public camping ban, largely rolled back in 2019 (Council ordinance changes effective fall 2019), then reinstated by voters via Proposition B on May 1, 2021 (enforcement phased starting mid-May 2021). The open-camping window (≈ late 2019–mid 2021) overlaps the pandemic, APD funding/staffing shock, and citywide violent-crime spike — so crime and reporting changes in that window reflect multiple concurrent policies, not camping alone.

Timeline — when camping was allowed and when the ban returned

Table 41

Crime levels & reporting — before / during / after open camping

Figures below use APD Crime Reports open data for Council District 7 (subject district) and citywide, plus NICJR violent-crime context. Multiple policies and COVID overlapped 2019–2021 — do not treat camping as the sole cause of every crime change; treat it as a documented City policy shock that co-moved with elevated disorder, APD capacity loss, and the violent-crime spike.

Table 42

• The 2019–2021 open-camping window is a discrete City policy shock after the 2009 appraisal baseline — buyers and residents experienced more visible disorder, fire/trash, and property-crime adjacency along arterials and commercial edges.
• Crime-report open data cannot isolate 'camping caused X crimes,' but CD7 rows peaked in 2020 (during open camping + APD cut), and violent-crime severity spiked in the same window.
• Prop B restored the ban (May 2021) but did not restore 2019 officer capacity; lower post-2021 open-data totals still reflect underreporting risk (see §8.2–8.3).
• For ARB: treat public camping policy as a quality-of-life / corridor disamenity layer alongside freeway noise and multifamily intensity — not as a claim that every crime type is camping-driven.

Sources: City of Austin — Proposition B / camping ordinance (Council Direction & Policy) · Ballotpedia — Austin Prop B (May 2021) · KUT — Voters reinstate camping / resting / panhandling bans (May 1, 2021) · KVUE — Prop B camping ban: what happens next · Spectrum News — phased enforcement after Prop B · NICJR — Austin gun violence / homicide context.

Prop B enforcement sample (open data) & Point-in-Time

Table 43

Citywide Prop B rows: 2,412. Oak Creek / Palfrey street-name matches: 0.

Point-in-Time (Austin/Travis CoC) — citywide, not block-level:

Table 44

Mail theft — dated news (APD / local media):

Table 45

Headline figure from APD via local media (CBS Austin / KEYE, July 2, 2025; also KXAN July 1, 2025; KVUE July 3, 2025): mail-theft reports rose about 29.5–30% from 2022 to 2023, with elevated activity continuing into 2024. KXAN (May 30, 2024) reported three Austin-area mail carriers robbed for arrow/master keys since 2023. Pair with resident reports of multiple mailbox break-ins near the subject and any APD case numbers.

9. Comparables: same price band, different distance from MoPac/Parmer

TCAD should not treat homes next to a major freeway/arterial interchange as equivalent to otherwise similar homes set back from that interchange. Suggested comparable framework:

Table 46

9b. Real estate market summary & nearby sales tables

Summary (as of 2026-09-20): Market data refreshed best-effort on each TCAD run from Redfin ZIP 78727 (last-good kept if scrape fails). The subject’s zip (78727) is in a cooling / buyer-leaning market: median sale price about $491,787 (-3.6% YoY), median $/sqft -14.7% YoY, longer days on market, and roughly one-third of listings with price cuts. Same-street neighbor 12707 Palfrey cut list from ~$580k to $525k before closing (Oct 2025). Recent SFH activity within ~1 mi clusters roughly $419k–$635k by size/condition — not a 2022 peak bidding environment.

Public MLS portal data is zip/neighborhood grain, not a true GIS 1.0 mi ring. Below: Redfin 78727 market + recent Palfrey / Northwood / Scofield-area sales within ~1 mi of 12704 Palfrey (street network). Verify closed prices in TCAD/MLS before filing.

Zip 78727 market metrics (Redfin)

Table 47 78727 Redfin headline metrics

Table 48 78727 homes sold by month (Redfin; X = no data yet)

Caption: number = confirmed Redfin month · X = no data collected yet. Bar colors: blue ≈ cooling context · red ≈ heating context.

78727 is cooling on price while sales volume is up: median sale ~$460K (−5.2% YoY), $/sqft −14.7% YoY, days on market longer (44 vs 35). Buyers negotiate ~1.5% off list on average. Homes-sold monthly series below is extended as Redfin publishes each month.

Source: https://www.redfin.com/zipcode/78727/housing-market. Citywide Redfin median ≈ $542,460 (-2.3% YoY) — Citywide Redfin median is higher than 78727; subject zip underperforms city on YoY price. CNBC/Redfin (2026-08-07): Austin metro avg sale ~3.17% below ask in June 2026 (#4 largest discount among top-50 metros).

National / metro sale-to-list — CNBC + Redfin (June 2026 data)

CNBC / Redfin: homes selling below ask in 38 of 50 largest metros

Source: Homes are selling below asking in 38 of the 50 biggest U.S. cities (CNBC, 2026-08-07; underlying data: Redfin monthly metro sale-to-list (June 2026), period June 2026 (latest metro-level Redfin sales data cited by CNBC)).

Table 49

Top 10 average discounts (% below ask, June 2026):

Table 50

Austin / 78727 takeaway: Austin ranked #4 nationally for average discount from asking (~3.17% below list in June 2026). That is consistent with a buyer-leaning Texas market and supports arguing that 2026 notice values should not assume 2021–22 peak list-price / bidding conditions. Pair with zip 78727 Redfin sale-to-list (~98.5%) and same-street price cuts (12707 Palfrey).

Drivers cited: Higher mortgage rates reduced buyer purchasing power; sellers slower to reprice (Redfin chief economist Daryl Fairweather). Florida and Texas metros with large discounts also had post-pandemic homebuilding surges → more inventory options for buyers. Rising insurance premiums and property taxes increase ownership cost, shrink buyer pool, pressure sellers to negotiate. Some 2022 peak buyers have little room to cut ask and still clear commissions/costs.

Austin city context (Redfin / Zillow)

Table 51

Same street / ~1 mi sales (Redfin public cards)

Table 52

Protest-relevant trend read

• CNBC / Redfin (2026-08-07): homes sold below ask in 38 of 50 largest U.S. metros; Austin avg discount ~3.17% below list in June 2026 (#4 nationally). National share selling above ask ~25% (vs ~55% peak 2022) — buyer-leaning pricing, not peak bidding.
• Zip 78727 median sale price ≈ $460k (May 2026 window), down ~5.2% YoY — steeper than Austin citywide (~−2.3% YoY on Redfin).
• Price per square foot in 78727 down ~16% YoY — buyers are paying less per foot even when larger homes close.
• Days on market lengthened (44 vs 35) and ~32% of listings take a price cut — seller concessions are common.
• Immediate neighbor 12707 Palfrey cut list from $579.9k → $525k before closing Oct 2025 — same-street evidence of pushback on ask.
• Recent ~1 mi SFH closes cluster roughly $419k–$635k depending on size/condition; not a 2022-peak bidding market.
• Redfin Home Value Report (Aug 2026) local sold comps: $320k–$635k closed, buyer $/sqft ~$234–$375; lower-band closes support Ownwell opinion $365k over CAD sales median ~$455k (see §9c).
• Market softness supports arguing that externalities (noise/traffic/aircraft) are capitalized into buyer willingness-to-pay; appraisals should not assume 2021–22 peak comps without adjustment.

Market softens the appraisal story: zip-level prices and $/sqft are down YoY, DOM is longer, and the house next door cut ask before selling. That is consistent with a buyer market that capitalizes location disamenities (traffic, aircraft, after-hours noise) — not a peak-era bidding environment that would support an unadjusted high appraisal. Pair this section with §3 (subject tax history), §3b (rate history), and §9c (Ownwell / Redfin / TCAD CAD comps for continuing protest).

9c. Ownwell / Redfin / TCAD CAD appraisal evidence (continuing protest)

Sources archived: Ownwell property tax evidence packet + embedded TCAD CAD disclosure + prior TCAD noise report · as of 2026-07-29 (updated 2026-08-02). Structured extract: config/tcad_protest/appraisal_evidence.json · packet: data/tcad_protest/palfrey_12704/evidence/TX_Travis_505550_12704_PALFREY_DR_evidence.pdf.

Primary continuing-protest ask: Ownwell Opinion of Value $365,000 — consistent with the §10 ~8% noise-recognition framework applied to the $398,575 notice.

• Primary value ask: Ownwell Opinion of Value $365,000 (~8.4% under 2026 notice), consistent with the noise NDI ~8% framework in §10 applied to notice market.
• Rebut CAD field remark that no economic (noise) adjustment is warranted: continuous local ADS-B, freeway/arterial growth, sirens, and multi-year measurements are objective evidence a drive-by cannot capture.
• Rebut CAD sales median ~$454k: Ownwell adjusted sales median ~$399k; subject % Good 40 / Poor condition requires larger downward adjustments than CAD applied.
• Use Redfin 2026 sold band (esp. $320k–$423k lower closes) as market soft-comps supporting Ownwell over CAD.

9c.1 Subject snapshot (Ownwell / TCAD)

Table 53

Ownwell final Opinion of Value $365,000 is below sales-approach indicated $393,000 and ~8.4% under the 2026 preliminary notice market $398,575 — aligns with the noise/externalities protest ~8% ask.

9c.2 Ownwell sales comparables (adjusted)

Neighborhood V0510 sales used in Ownwell sales approach. Final adj. prices after living-area, age/% good, land, feature, and time adjustments. CAD-flagged comps also appear in District grids.

Table 54

Ownwell sales summary: median sale $456,000 · median $/sf $255 · median final adj $399,438 · avg final adj $412,382 · sales-approach opinion $393,000.

9c.3 Ownwell equity comparables (§42.26)

Texas Property Tax Code §42.26(3) median-value equity sample of similarly situated comps, adjusted for dissimilarities.

Table 55

Ownwell equity summary: median market $394,975 · median final adj $402,998 · equity-approach opinion $402,000 (final Opinion of Value still $365,000 after sales weight / condition).

9c.4 TCAD CAD evidence packet (14-day disclosure)

Submission 2026-04-10 · valuation date 2026-01-01 · TCAD Evidence Submission Packet (CAD response to 14-day evidence request) — packet pages 56–71.

CAD field remark (road noise): PriorityCheck: permit is to verify Road noise. Drive by done earlier in Field season did not detect any Noise issues. Bassed on Sales/Marketing data for the segment, Economic adjustment does not appear to be warranted at this time.

Condition notes on field card: 11/20/18 JMG // Changed condition to Poor based on photos.; 06/06/18 JMG // Removed physical. will need to provide current evidence. Some remodel done with change out of ….

Alpha V time trend (CAD): -0.5%/mo in 2025 — TCAD applied a downward time adjustment of 0.50% per month to single-family sales in Alpha V for 2026 appraisal year — market was declining through 2025.

CAD comparable sales analysis

Table 56

CAD sales median indicated value $454,805 (above notice — owner rebuttal below).

CAD subject equity analysis

Table 57

CAD equity median indicated $434,172 vs subject notice $398,575.

Rebuttals to CAD packet

• CAD field remark dismisses road-noise economic adjustment after a drive-by — continuous ADS-B, MoPac/Parmer traffic growth, Station 28 sirens, and multi-year noise evidence in this report respond to that remark.
• CAD sales median indicated ~$454,805 exceeds notice $398,575; Ownwell sales approach $393k / opinion $365k sit below notice and better reflect inferior condition (% Good 40 / Poor) plus location externalities.
• Alpha V time trend −0.50%/mo in 2025 supports not treating mid/late-2025 high sales as unadjusted 1/1/2026 value.

9c.5 Redfin Home Value Report — local comps (2026)

Redfin Home Value Report — Comparable Homes table (screenshot) · as of 2026-08-02. Overview: 7 sold · 1 pending · 2 active. Image archive: data/tcad_protest/palfrey_12704/evidence/redfin_home_value_report_comps.png.

Subject row on Redfin HVR: 1982/3/2 · 1,657 sf · list/est $220,000 · sold $198,000 · $132/sf. Sold $198K matches 2009 purchase deed ($197,500). The $220K / $132 ppsf columns appear to be Redfin's last-sale / list-era figures for the subject row, not the 2026 closed-comp band ($234–$375+/sf below). Verify live Redfin Estimate on the property page before ARB; do not treat $220K as a full market appraisal without confirmation.

Table 58

Closed-comp stats: n=7; sold band $320,000–$635,000 (median $472,000); $/sf $234–$375 (median $299). Buyer $/sqft band on closed 2026 comps ~$234–$375; subject notice $398,575 / 1,657 sf ≈ $241/sf sits near the low-mid of that band — condition (Poor / 40% good) and externalities support Ownwell $365k (~$220/sf) over CAD sales median.

• Redfin 2026 closed comps near the subject sell from $320k–$635k; lower-band closes ($320k / $362k / $423k) are more condition- and size-appropriate anchors than CAD's $454k sales median.
• Subject notice market $398,575 ≈ $241/sf — below Redfin sold median $/sf (~$299) but still above Ownwell opinion $365k (~$220/sf).
• Multiple 2026 sales closed under list (91.5%–97.6% sale/list), consistent with the cooling 78727 market in §9b.

How §9c pairs with the rest of this report: Use Ownwell Opinion $365,000 as the market-value ask; use §3 tax history (now including 2025–2026 market) and §10 NDI math on the $398,575 notice base; use ADS-B / MoPac–Parmer / sirens / crime sections to rebut CAD’s “no noise adjustment” field remark.

10. Noise, health, pollution & tax reduction estimate

What Table / §10 is: This section converts the noise, traffic, aircraft, and neighborhood-risk evidence above into a market-value and tax-bill adjustment framework for TCAD. It cites published noise-depreciation research (NDI ≈ % of home value per excess dB), shows an illustrative reduction request (~8% of market), cross-checks against the latest paid property-tax bill, and summarizes health / near-road pollution literature that buyers price into quieter locations.

Property value literature

• Nelson, J.P. (1982). Highway Noise and Property Values: A Survey of Recent Evidence. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy. — Mean noise depreciation index (NDI) ≈ 0.40% of property value per dB of highway noise (review of multiple US/Canadian studies).
• Nelson, J.P. (2004/2008). Meta-analyses of airport and road traffic noise hedonic studies. — Transportation noise meta-analyses commonly find ~0.5–1.0% value loss per additional dB(A) in high-exposure settings; airport noise discounts are also well documented.
• McElveen, Brown & Gibbons (2020). Highway Noise and Elevation Effects on Nearby Home Prices. Urban Economics / Appraisal literature summary. — Highway proximity and traffic counts significantly reduce sale prices; homes adjacent to freeways see larger discounts than homes in the broader impact zone (~half the adjacent discount in some models).
• WHO / environmental health reviews on community noise — Chronic traffic noise associates with sleep disturbance, cardiovascular risk, and annoyance — effects that reduce residential desirability and willingness-to-pay.
• EPA / FHWA traffic noise guidance (context) — Highway traffic noise is a recognized environmental impact; abatement criteria exist because exposure is material to health and land use.

Estimated market reduction & annual tax relief

Published noise-depreciation research supports on the order of ~1% of market value per excess dB(A) of traffic/airport noise in high-exposure settings; ~8 dB excess vs quieter inland comps implies about 8% market recognition. Stacked factors (MoPac/Parmer, aircraft, public-safety aviation, sirens, neighborhood crime/housing change) support that request level. Ownwell 2026 Opinion of Value $365,000 is ~8.4% under the $398,575 notice and is the primary value anchor for continuing protest.

Base: illustrative modern market $398,575 (replace with current TCAD market value). Rate assumption $2.05 per $100 taxable. Requested adjustment: 8% of market (≈ 1.0%/dB × ~8 dB excess traffic/airport noise vs quieter inland comps). Cross-check vs latest tax paid ($5,478.18): ~$438/yr if the same percentage applied to the bill.

Table 59

Base: latest known market in file ($398,575) (compiled TCAD / Tax Office history). Rate assumption $2.05 per $100 taxable. Requested adjustment: 8% of market (≈ 1.0%/dB × ~8 dB excess traffic/airport noise vs quieter inland comps). Cross-check vs latest tax paid ($5,478.18): ~$438/yr if the same percentage applied to the bill.

Table 60

Protest ask: See the formal reduction request at the bottom of §1 (letter) — 8% market recognition (≈ $31,886 / $654/yr on the illustrative modern base ; ~$438/yr vs latest paid bill of $5,478.18). Factors: continuous arterial/freeway exposure + planned Parmer capacity + evening/night aircraft + public-safety helicopters + Station 28 siren corridor + near-road pollution + neighborhood crime/housing change.

Near-road air pollution

• HEI / EPA near-roadway air pollution literature — Residences within ~300–500 m of major roads show elevated ultrafine particles, NOx, and black carbon; associated with respiratory and cardiovascular outcomes.
• California Air Resources Board / near-roadway guidance (widely cited) — Sensitive land uses near freeways face disproportionate pollution exposure; setbacks and barriers partially mitigate but do not eliminate risk.

Health & after-hours character of the nuisance

Community noise guidelines emphasize sleep disturbance and cardiovascular risk from chronic traffic noise. At this site, aircraft visits alone show substantial evening and night activity (92 of 295 weekly visits), and emergency sirens / police helicopters add impulsive night events that appraisers should treat as a distinct disamenity from daytime commercial hum.

11. Data sources & exhibits checklist

Primary local measurements

• ADS-B aircraft zone monitoring at the subject (1.5 nm radius; continuous visit log from 2026-07-07)
• Travis County Tax Office payment records — account 02641304040000
• TCAD Notices of Appraised Value — property ID 505550

Public / agency sources cited

• Austin Airport (ABIA) passenger series: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin%E2%80%93Bergstrom_International_Airport
• TxDOT traffic count maps / STARS II: https://www.txdot.gov/data-maps/traffic-count-maps.html
• TxDOT Parmer corridor study: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/austin/parmer-lane-fm734-corridor-study.html
• TxDOT FM 734 expansion: https://www.txdot.gov/projects/projects-studies/austin/fm734-from-rm1431-to-sh45.html
• Austin Monitor MoPac volumes: https://austinmonitor.com/stories/2017/12/traffic-volumes-increasing-mopac/
• APD Air Support Unit: https://www.austintexas.gov/police/divisions/air-support-unit
• AFD Station 28 reference: https://5280fire.com/home/other-states-fire-apparatus-stations/texas/austin-fire-department/austin-station-28/
• APD Crime Reports open data: https://data.austintexas.gov/Public-Safety/Crime-Reports/fdj4-gpfu
• City of Austin budget PDFs (APD staffing & funding): https://www.austintexas.gov/budget-excellence/city-budget
• Austin Bulldog — APD budget / authorized strength numbers: https://theaustinbulldog.org/did-austin-defund-the-police-here-are-the-numbers/
• Elysium Grand / 3300 Oak Creek (Section 8 accepting, 2020): https://section8search.org/texas/austin/elysium-grand/kxbio7ihuirwbj84l67wzc36
• Nelson (1982) highway noise & property values; subsequent noise–hedonic meta-analyses (see §10)
• Redfin 78727 housing market: https://www.redfin.com/zipcode/78727/housing-market
• CNBC / Redfin (2026-08-07) — homes below ask in 38/50 largest metros; Austin avg −3.17% vs ask (June 2026): https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/07/homes-are-selling-below-asking-in-38-of-the-50-biggest-us-cities.html (extract: data/tcad_protest/palfrey_12704/evidence/cnbc_redfin_sale_to_list_2026-08-07.md)
• Redfin Home Value Report comps (local 2026 sold/active/pending) — see §9c and data/tcad_protest/palfrey_12704/evidence/redfin_home_value_report_comps.png
• Ownwell property tax evidence packet (parcel 505550) — sales/equity comps + Opinion of Value $365,000; archive data/tcad_protest/palfrey_12704/evidence/TX_Travis_505550_12704_PALFREY_DR_evidence.pdf
• TCAD CAD 14-day evidence submission (valuation 1/1/2026; packet pages 56–71 of Ownwell archive) — field card, sales/equity grids, Alpha V time trend
• Austin ISD tax rates: https://www.austinisd.org/budget/taxes-debt
• City of Austin tax rates: https://www.austintexas.gov/budget-excellence/tax-rates
• Texas Comptroller property tax / statewide levies (via public compilations): https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/property-tax/

Recommended attachments when filing

1. This report (PDF)
2. Ownwell evidence packet + TCAD CAD 14-day disclosure (parcel 505550) — Opinion of Value $365,000 / notice $398,575
3. Redfin Home Value Report comparable-homes exhibit (2026 sold/active/pending grid)
4. TxDOT STARS II / traffic-count AADT history — MoPac & Parmer stations nearest subject (2009–present). TxDOT traffic count maps / STARS II · https://www.txdot.gov/data-maps/traffic-count-maps.html
5. Map exhibits: subject, MoPac/Parmer, 0.5 / 1.0 mi rings, 3300 Oak Creek context, Station 28, KEDC (static map embedded below — printable, no network required)
6. City Adopted Budget pages for APD (FY2019–20 through latest) — authorized sworn strength, vacancies, and operating budget
7. APD / Vision Zero / WZDx subject-radius tables (§8.5a) + APD Incident Reports for Oak Creek (§8.6d2)

Zoomed-out metro frame for ARB orientation: red star = subject (North Austin, MoPac/Parmer influence). Reference markers: Downtown / Central Austin, Austin Airport (ABIA), Austin Executive (KEDC). Dashed lines are approximate corridor cues only (not surveyed centerlines). Red ring ≈ 2 mi around the subject so the local zone is readable at metro scale.

Local zoom: marker = subject (12704 Palfrey Drive). Nearby landmarks for ARB narrative: MoPac (Loop 1) & Parmer Ln (FM 734) west/south of the pin; 3300 Oak Creek Dr (Elysium Grand) within ~1 mi; AFD Station 28 on W Parmer; Austin Executive (KEDC) ~8.5 mi NE.

Appendix

Supporting definitions, source URLs, and extract metadata. Body sections above are the protest narrative; this appendix is for ARB / filing cross-check.

Appendix A — Source URLs (name + full URL)

Table 61

Appendix B — APD Incident Reports extract metadata (§8.6d2)

Table 62

The public portal is a rolling window (~12–18 months). Older history requires open-data district totals (§8.4) or an open-records request.

Appendix C — ADS-B / zone monitoring notes

• Zone radius: historical store was 1.5 nm through 2026-07-24; expanded to 5.0 nm on 2026-07-25 for MoPac approach lineup. Tables that use visit archives may still reflect the 1.5 nm era for older rows.
• Trail maps: GPS polylines only when the logger stored track points; visit counts remain authoritative for volume.
• Table 5.3 / top tails: ranks repeat idents; multi-tail airlines (e.g. Southwest) appear stronger in the operator rollup than in the top-tail list.
• Sample window (this generate): Mon Aug 31, 2026 4:24 PM – Sun Sep 20, 2026 6:51 AM CDT
• Visits in sample (~7d window stats): 295 · unique hex 253

Appendix D — Glossary (short)

Table 63

Appendix E — Document identity

Table 64

Build / processing statistics (runtime, chart QA, ADS-B pull counts, paths) are emailed with the daily TCAD package — not printed in this filing PDF.

TCAD Noise & Traffic Evidence Report · Dewey Coffman · 512-689-5867 · Disclaimer: Public figures below are compiled for TCAD protest support. Verify primary sources before formal filing. ADS-B overflight counts and maps are from on-site aircraft monitoring at the subject property (Palfrey); public data tables are from the cited City/FAA/Census sources. Property: 12704 Palfrey Drive · ADS-B stale flag: False