Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
According to The Handbook of Texas, the Republic of Texas created Bowie County in 1840 to honor James Bowie, a hero for Texas Independence who perished in the Alamo. The county is located on the Red River in the furthermost northeastern corner of Texas, bordering the states of Oklahoma and Arkansas, to its north and east, respectively. Cass County in Texas, borders Bowie to the south; Red River County is on its western boundary and Morris abuts the southwestern corner of Bowie County.
New Boston, located on IH 30 in the geographic center of Bowie County, serves as the county seat. Texarkana, with a population of 34,799, is the largest city in Bowie County and is located 175 miles east of Dallas on the state line with Arkansas. Texarkana is home to Texarkana College, as well as a museum and a zoo. The National Register of Historic Places lists both the Bowie County Courthouse and the jail in New Boston. Seven major lakes are found in Bowie County, the largest being Wright Patman Lake.
Bowie County occupies 891 square miles of East Texas timberland. Natural resources in the county include oil, gas, lignite, ceramic clay and timber. The Red and Sulphur Rivers, respectively, form the northern and southern boundaries of Bowie County.
The 2005 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 91,555. In addition to Texarkana, Bowie County has the following cities: Dekalb, population 1,653; Hooks, population 3,070; Leary, population 572; Maud, population 1,011; Nash, population 2,379; New Boston, population 4,688; Red Lick, population 856; and Redwater, population 884. The county's remaining population resides in a variety of small towns and unincorporated areas.
The county includes the DeKalb, Hooks, Maud, New Boston, Redwater, Texarkana, Liberty-Eylau, Simms, Malta, Red Lick, Pleasant Grove, Hubbard and Leary independent school districts.
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Bowie CAD, formed in 1980, became active Jan. 1, 1981. As of September 2006, Bowie CAD has 24 full-time staff positions, with one supervisory position and one vacant position. Six employees are full-time appraisers. Bowie CAD has a contract with a vendor for professional appraisal services.
The chief appraiser oversees both a collections and an appraisal department (Exhibit 1). The director of collections oversees an administrative assistant and four collections clerks. The appraisal section includes six appraisers and an office manager for the New Boston office that report directly to the chief appraiser. The New Boston office manager supervises two collection clerks and the deed specialist. The abstractor supervises the mapping technician. The chief appraiser also has the help of a staff accountant, who serves as the human resources coordinator, an appraisal administrative assistant and a switchboard operator.
The Bowie CAD board of directors has no authority to set values or appraisal methods. The chief appraiser carries out the appraisal district's legal duties, hires its staff, makes appraisals and operates the appraisal office.
Bowie CAD provides appraisal services for 27 taxing units (Exhibit 2), including 13 school districts, 10 cities, three special districts and Bowie County. The school districts served are DeKalb, Hooks, Hubbard, Leary, Liberty-Eylau, Malta, Simms, Texarkana, New Boston, Maud, Pleasant Grove, Red Lick and Redwater. Cities served by Bowie CAD include DeKalb, Hooks, Leary, Maud, Nash, New Boston, Texarkana, Red Lick, Redwater and Wake Village. The CAD also serves Texarkana College, the Liberty-Eylau Emergency Services District #2 and Bowie County Emergency Services District #1.
Exhibit 2
Bowie CAD Taxing Units
| Name of Taxing Entity |
|---|
| DeKalb ISD |
| City of DeKalb |
| Hooks ISD |
| City of Hooks |
| Hubbard ISD |
| Leary ISD |
| City of Leary |
| Liberty Eylau ISD |
| Malta ISD |
| Maud ISD |
| City of Maud |
| City of Nash |
| City of New Boston |
| New Boston ISD |
| Simms ISD |
| Texarkana ISD |
| City of Texarkana |
| Texarkana Community College District |
| Liberty-Eylau Emergency Response District |
| Bowie County Emergency Response District #16 |
| Bowie County |
| Pleasant Grove ISD |
| Red Lick ISD |
| City of Red Lick |
| Redwater ISD |
| City of Redwater |
| City of Wake Village |
Source: Bowie CAD, 2005.
PTD does not track appraisals performed by external appraisers; instead it uses parcel counts reported in the 2005 appraisal and school districts self-reports to calculate parcels per employee.
PTD includes commercial real and personal property parcels in the calculation, since it cannot determine how many parcels the CAD assigns to the in-house staff versus contracted firms. PTD determined the number of parcels appraised in-house by adding the number of parcels reported in Categories A, Single-Family Residential; B, Multifamily Residential; C, Vacant Lots and Tracts; D1, Qualified Agricultural Land; D2, Non-qualified Land; E, Farm and Ranch Improvements; F1, Commercial Real Property; L1, Commercial Personal Property; M1, Mobile Homes; O, Residential Inventory; and S, Special Inventory.
Exhibit 3 contains Bowie CAD parcel counts by property category. It compares Bowie CAD's data with the state and group averages. For analytical purposes, PTD groups appraisal districts according to the number of parcels. Bowie CAD is included with appraisal districts with 50,000-74,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories,
Comparison with State and Group Averages
Parcel Size Group: 50,000-74,999
| Parcels and Categories | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels | 59,505 | 51,112 | 63,495 |
| Number Taxing Units | 27 | 15 | 17 |
| Estimated Locally Appraised Parcels per Staff | 3,500 | 2,971 | 3,101 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self-Report):
| Parcels and Categories | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Value | 48.0% | 47.4% | 46.1% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 0.2% | 4.3% | 5.5% |
| Non-Residential, Non Mineral | 51.9% | 48.3% | 48.4% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self-Report)
| Parcel Type | Number of Bowie Parcels | Percent of Bowie Parcels | Percent of State Parcels |
Percent of Group Parcels |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Real Property: Single-Family Residential | 25,141 | 42.3% | 50.2% | 44.9% |
| B - Real Property: Multifamily Residential | 442 | 0.7% | 1.2% | 1.0% |
| C - Real Property: Vacant Lots and Tracts | 8,789 | 14.8% | 14.3% | 15.2% |
| D - Real Property: Acreage | 9,733 | 16.4% | 14.3% | 14.5% |
| E - Real Property: Farm and Ranch Improvements | 5,301 | 8.9% | 5.3% | 9.2% |
| F1 - Real Property: Commercial | 2,346 | 3.9% | 3.5% | 3.7% |
| L1 - Personal Property: Commercial | 3,795 | 6.4% | 6.8% | 5.7% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes and Other Tangible Personal Property | 2,984 | 5.0% | 2.6% | 4.1% |
| O - Real Property: Residential Inventory | 860 | 1.4% | 1.8% | 1.6% |
| S - Special Inventory | 114 | 0.2% | 0.1% | 0.1% |
| Total | 59,505 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 100.0% |
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2054 and 2006 Data), September2006 and Appraisal District Self Report of Value, 2005.
PTD uses parcel counts reported in the appraisal district's 2005 self-report and school district self-reports to calculate parcels per employee. PTD includes commercial real and personal property parcels in the calculation, since it cannot determine how many parcels the CAD assigns to the in-house staff versus contracted firms. PTD determined the number of parcels appraised in-house by adding the number of parcels reported in Categories A, Single-Family Residential; B, Multifamily Residential; C, Vacant Lots and Tracts; D1, Qualified Agricultural Land; D2, Non-qualified Land; E, Farm and Ranch Improvements; F1, Commercial Real Property; L1, Commercial Personal Property; M1, Mobile Homes; O, Residential Inventory; and S, Special Inventory.
Exhibit 4 provides financial and staffing data for the Bowie CAD and compares them with other appraisal districts in its group and throughout the state.
Exhibit 4
Reported Staffing and Training Data,
Comparison with State and Group Averages
Financial Information
| Financial Information | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2005 Budget | $1,064,471 | $1,144,025 | $1,212,624 |
| 2005 Surplus | $25,000 | $95,915 | $74,602 |
| 2005 Surplus as Percentage of Budget | 2.3% | 8.4% | 6.2% |
| 2006 Budget | $1,082,217 | $1,200,084 | $1,279,588 |
| Percentage Change in Budget | 1.7% | 4.9% | 5.5% |
| 2005 Budget per Total Parcel | $17.70 | $21.96 | $18.86 |
| 2005 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | $17.89 | $22.38 | $19.10 |
Staffing
| Staffing - 2005 Budget | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time | 17 | 17 | 20 |
| Supervisory | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Supervisory to Staff Ratio | 1:9 | 1:6 | 1:5 |
Chief Appraiser
| Chief Appraiser | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Chief Appraiser Perform Appraisals? | No | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| 2005 Total Compensation - Actual | $72,096 | $52,766 | $68,619 |
Appraisers
| Appraisers - 2005 Budget | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full-time | 6 | 6 | 8 |
| Part-time | Not applicable | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Salary Range: Low | $22,368 | $25,687 | $26,508 |
| Salary Range: High | $58,992 | $39,505 | $47,418 |
| 2005 Training Budget | $12,194 | $9,267 | $13,172 |
| Appraisers Registered with Board of Tax Professional Examiners | 8 | 9 | 11 |
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data), September 2006.
Exhibit 5 provides operations information for the Bowie CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Operations Data, Comparison with State and Group Averages
Reappraisal
| Operations Information | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | 2004 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2007 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Type of Reappraisal: | Complete | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Protests
| Operations Information | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2004 tax year) | 472 | 3,435 | 2,366 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.05 |
Collections
| Operations Information | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | Yes | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Collection Budget | $407,433 | Not applicable | Not applicable |
Geographic Information System (GIS)
| Operations Information | Bowie | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Appraisal district has or plans to purchase GIS? | Yes | Not applicable | Not applicable |
| Percent GIS complete | 0% | 49.9% | 70.6% |
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2005 and 2006 Data), September 2006.
Based on this comparison, Bowie CAD appraised 3,500 parcels per full-time employee. According to IAAO in Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, Chapter 16, Elements of Administration, Staffing Patterns and the Effect of Computers, the ratio of parcels per full-time employees for a small appraisal district should be between 1,500 and 1,700. For a large appraising entity, these numbers should be between 3,000 and 3,500.
Workloads in appraisal districts can vary due to any number of considerations other than parcel count. The geographic size of an appraisal district, for instance, may have an impact on the time required to work all parcels, as can the types of properties involved. Complex commercial and some residential properties may require more staff work to appraise. The data given here provides the reader with a comparison with other appraisal districts with similar parcel counts.
1.3
Self Evaluation Questionnaire
In preparation for this ASR, PTD asked Bowie CAD to complete the IAAO's Self Evaluation Questionnaire, which asks the appraisal district to assess its compliance with acceptable procedures and standards.
The Bowie CAD answered all of the 111 questions, providing specific, clear and concise responses. A summary of the self-assessment follows. The CAD's complete responses are in Appendix 7.
In responding to the self-assessment, Bowie CAD pointed to certain strengths. Among the identified strengths is the longevity of employment of CAD employees. Bowie CAD also indicated some areas of concern, including the lack of a GIS and the management of two separate offices located in Texarkana and New Boston.
In Chapter 1, which discusses legal issues and assessment cycles, the CAD indicated that it keeps current with legislative proposals, laws and court decisions through its attorneys, the Comptroller's Web site and state tax associations. The CAD indicated the need for possible additional staff or combining of its two office locations.
In Chapter 2, which deals with resources and management, the CAD indicated that it engages in formal planning through staff meetings and that the staff is quality conscious. Staff has adequate skills and receives adequate compensation. The CAD believes its office space and funding is adequate and is well organized and managed.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, the CAD indicated that appropriate appraisal staff have computer workstations. The computer system has network capabilities, security features and the ability to run basic reports. The CAD indicated that the appraisal software does not have the ability to run queries for special request lists and reports. The CAD indicated that the computer system supports multiyear processing, GIS capabilities and offers the ability to manage document images. The CAD also indicated that it has a Web site.
In Chapter 4, which covers mapping, the CAD indicated it maintains paper maps that show the size, shape and location of each parcel in the jurisdiction in a professionally accepted standard for size, scale and symbols. The CAD indicated that staff draws splits and combinations on maps as they occur, and all parcels have a parcel identifier that uniquely identifies the parcel. The CAD indicated that it does not display geographic coordinates, value influences and spatial assessment areas on maps. While the CAD does not have computerized maps at this time, it is in the process of computerizing on a GIS system.
In Chapter 5, which covers data collection, the CAD indicated that computer records contain information for zoning and remarks relating to current property use. The CAD indicated that its policy is to inspect properties physically every three years, and the CAD regularly obtains building permits from taxing units that require permits for building. The CAD indicated that it has an appraisers and data entry manual, and it hopes to acquire hand-held computers in the near future. The CAD indicated that experienced appraisers collect data for commercial properties and collect income data as available.
In Chapter 6, which covers land valuation, the CAD indicated that each appraiser maintains a land sales file for his or her appraisal area. Each appraiser reviews and confirms sales. The CAD indicated that location and use are utilized primarily, and it uses a per unit value that is plotted on a sales map. The CAD indicated that the office uses market-derived tables to make adjustments, has a standard procedure for adjusting land values for shape or location and makes adjustments for positive location factors. The CAD indicated that it does not use spreadsheets or statistical software to develop land values, nor does it use a GIS to assist in data quality control. The CAD indicated that it uses abstraction, allocation or land residual methods to derive standard unit values in areas with few vacant land sales and uses the cost-of-development method in the appraisal of large tracts awaiting development.
In Chapter 7, concerning residential property valuation, the CAD indicated that it places primary emphasis on the sales comparison approach for residential homes and analyzes sales ratios by neighborhood, size, age and other key features during the appraisal process. The CAD indicated that appraisers review and reconcile value-estimates before generation of final values, and comparable sales are readily available and used for residential property valuation, analysis and value support. The CAD indicated that it checks and adjusts cost schedules against known building costs. Cost schedules are fully computerized, and the CAD bases depreciation schedules on sales analysis.
In Chapter 8, regarding commercial property valuation, the CAD indicated that the office uses the three approaches to value in appraising business properties and makes a comprehensive effort to collect local income and expense data. The CAD stated that it does not define separate market areas or neighborhoods for business properties, nor does it maintain automated income data or use software tools in analyzing commercial properties. It does, however, use commercial publications to help in the development of rental rates, vacancy ratios, expenses or capitalization rates. The CAD uses available sales to help in the development of income multipliers and calibration of depreciation schedules. Additionally, the CAD indicated that cost factors have been developed and adjusted to the local market. Physical condition and economic and functional obsolescence are considered. Senior appraisers review and reconcile automated value estimates.
In Chapter 9, which deals with sales data, ratio studies and stratification, the CAD indicated that it screens real estate sales and conducts ratio studies in a timely manner. The CAD uses ratio studies in determining reappraisal priorities. The CAD performs ratio studies by property groups and subgroups and by user-selected combinations for property characteristics. The CAD computes ratio studies for standard measures of level, uniformity and confidence intervals. The CAD indicated that it does not maintain a "snapshot" of properties at the time of sale. The CAD does not adjust sales used in the valuation analyses and ratio studies to the valuation data. Additionally, the CAD indicated that it does not stratify residential properties by market area or neighborhood, and it does not supplement ratio study analyses with tests to ensure that it appraises unsold properties similarly to actual sales.
In Chapter 10, which covers personal property assessment, the CAD indicated that it systematically employs several methods to discover taxable personal property, delivers property declaration forms and follows up on non-returns with supplemental mailings, field inspections or estimated assessments. The CAD also indicated that it tailors reporting forms to the needs of the different businesses, and the assessment office coordinates real- and personal-property field inspections to ensure proper classification. Additionally, the CAD indicated it utilizes all appropriate approaches to value and maintains separate cost trend and depreciation indexes, as well as using price guides, to value frequently-sold used items. The CAD indicated it does not use the income approach to value leased equipment.
In Chapter 11, which deals with assessment administration, the CAD indicated that it updates ownership and legal description information within 30 days of the recording of a transfer. It also maintains computer records that contain the source of all appraised or assessed values, verifies eligibility for exemptions, assigns properties to the correct jurisdiction, notifies property owners by mail of the amount and reason for changes in appraised values and produces computerized assessment rolls of all properties on the assessment rolls.
In Chapter 12, regarding defense of values, the CAD indicated that owners and taxpayers are encouraged to discuss concerns and complaints with the office before lodging a formal appeal. Additionally, the CAD indicated it tracks the status of each formal appeal and has a documented process for handling formal appeals. In cases where the valuation is difficult and considerable value is at issue, the CAD does not obtain an independent review from another appraiser as part of the defense in a formal appeal.
In Chapter 13, which covers public relations, the CAD indicated that it is not required to submit information to a regulatory body for approval and does not have an active public relations program or an active program of public appearances to keep the public informed of actions that may affect them. The public can view property records by parcel identifier, situs address and owner. The CAD has available for public distribution a non-technical description of how it assesses property, of appeal rights and procedures, of exemptions and other forms of tax relief and of how property tax bills are calculated.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study and Summary Worksheets
The PVS determines the total property value in each school district in Bowie CAD. With a few notable exceptions, the law requires all CADs and PTD to appraise property at market value according to Government Code Section 403.302 and Property Tax Code Section 23.01. Productivity value is the basis used to appraise agricultural lands and timberland. Market value, as defined by Property Tax Code Section 1.04 (7), means the price at which a property would transfer for cash or its equivalent under normal market conditions.
The CAD determines the local tax roll value, or local value, and submits it to PTD in its annual self-report. Each school district submits its local value on the PTD school district self-report. PTD staff estimates the total taxable value in a school district, referred to as the state value, by estimating market value or by accepting the local appraised value in each property category and then adding these category values for an overall school district value.
PTD then deducts state-mandated homestead exemptions, disabled veterans' exemptions, value limitations, reinvestment zones, freeport exemptions, the loss between market value and productivity value appraisal of qualified agricultural lands, the school tax ceiling for disabled homeowners and those over age 65 and other state-mandated exemptions.
PTD issues a preliminary and final PVS each year. School districts and CADs may protest the findings of the preliminary PVS through an administrative hearings process. School districts may protest the findings of the final PVS in district court. The administrative hearings process requires the protester to file a written protest with supporting documentation within 40 days of the issuance of the preliminary PVS. PTD may amend the findings of the preliminary PVS based on the submission of the written protest, a conference between PTD staff and CAD representatives or a formal hearing. The Comptroller's general counsel appoints a hearings examiner who holds formal hearings. The hearings examiner is not a PTD employee.
When conducting the PVS, PTD assigns properties to various categories, such as residential, commercial and rural property. PTD divides properties into categories so that it can appraise like properties together.
In general, a ratio of between 0.95 and 1.05 in any property category makes it more likely that the CAD is appraising property within the margin of error or that it is appraising property at or near market value.
Eligible School Districts
In the 2005 PVS, Liberty-Eylau ISD and Red Lick ISD fell outside the study's statistical margin of error and became eligible school districts leading to this ASR. The statistical margin of error or confidence interval is a range of school district values that the Comptroller has accepted.
Rural Real Property (Category D) values in both school districts were not within the acceptable range. Single-family residential properties (Category A) in Red Lick also were outside of the margin of error.
Category D represents rural properties and contains two subcategories: D1 and D2. Subcategory D1, productivity value of qualifying acres, is primarily farm and ranch land that qualifies for the special productivity appraisal. Subcategory D2, non-qualifying acres and farm and ranch improvements, is primarily rural homes and land that does not qualify for special appraisal.
Liberty-Eylau ISD
Farm and ranch land make up 1 percent of the school district's reported value and 1 percent of the tested value and had a weighted mean ratio of 1.1158. The CAD is placing below market value on the ISD subcategory D2. Subcategory D2 makes up 10 percent of the ISD reported value and 14 percent of the tested value. This subcategory had a weighted mean ratio of 0.8777.
Farm and ranch improvements, primarily rural homes, in Liberty-Eylau appraised at 0.8777 of market value and represent 10 percent of the school districts value and 14 percent of the tested value.
Bowie CAD is placing slightly below market value on single-family residences in Liberty-Eylau ISD. The CAD appraised these properties from as low as 64 percent to a high of 220 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9544. Single-family residences make up 42 percent of the ISD reported value and 53 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is placing slightly below market value on commercial real properties. A review of these properties indicates that the CAD appraised them from 74 percent to 140 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9633. Commercial real properties make up 14 percent of the ISD value and 18 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is placing slightly above market value on Liberty-Eylau ISD utilities. The CAD appraised utilities from 95 percent to 104 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0147. Utilities make up 5 percent of the ISD value and 3 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is placing slightly below market value on the school district's commercial personal properties. The CAD appraised these properties from 58 percent to 151 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9701. Commercial personal properties make up 9 percent of the ISD value and 11 percent of the tested value.
While Liberty-Eylau appealed findings of the preliminary PVS for residential and commercial properties, it did not appeal rural properties.
Red Lick ISD
A review of these properties indicates that the CAD under appraised irrigated cropland, dry cropland, native pastureland and acreage designated for wildlife management. Qualified acreage makes up less than 1 percent of the school district's reported value and less than 1 percent of the tested value and has a weighted mean ratio of 0.9717.
The CAD is placing below market value on Red Lick ISD farm and ranch improvements, which are primarily rural homes. These properties make up 11 percent of the school district's reported value and 13 percent of the tested value and had a weighted mean ratio of 0.9023.
Bowie CAD is placing below market value on residential properties in Red Lick. A review of residential properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 69 percent to a high of 107 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9334. Lower-stratum properties came in at 0.8705, second-stratum properties appraised at 0.9495 and properties in the upper stratum appraised at 0.9418. Only tier three properties were within the margin of error. Residential properties contribute 72 percent of the total value in Red Lick ISD and 79 percent of the tested value.
The CAD is placing slightly above market value on utilities. The CAD appraised utilities from 97 to 104 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0371. Utilities make up 7 percent of the ISD value and 7 percent of the tested value.
The Red Lick ISD did not appeal the findings of the preliminary PVS.
Bowie CAD Summary
Bowie CAD's overall median ratio is 0.96 but there are wide ranges within the categories appraised.
For Single-Family Residential, the sample ratios range from 0.49 to 2.74 with a median ratio of .95. Non-qualified land had ratios ranging from 0.30 to 2.10 with a median ratio of 1.
Commercial real property recorded ratios from 0.50 to 1.40 with a median ratio of .95. For utilities, the sample ratios range from 0.66 to 1.04 with a median of 1. Commercial personal property, meanwhile, had sample ratios ranging from 0.53 to 3.22 within a median ratio of 1.
Coefficient of Dispersion
The coefficient of dispersion (COD), the primary measure of appraisal uniformity, measures the average percentage by which individual ratios vary from the median ratio. According to IAAO in Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, a lower COD indicates that appraisals within a category of property are uniform, and a high COD indicates the CAD is appraising properties at unequal percentages of market value. However, a COD that is very low may indicate, "sales chasing," a form of unequal appraisal. In addition, according to the IAAO Standard on Ratio Studies, Category A, Single-Family Residences generally have a COD of 15 or less, and for new and homogeneous areas, 10 or less. For Category C, Vacant Lots, the COD should be 20 or less, and for income producing properties, the COD should be 20 or less. For other real property and personal property, CODs should reflect the nature of the properties, market conditions and the availability of reliable market indicators.
The 2005 COD for Bowie CAD Category A was 11.29; Category D2 was 18.6; Category F1 was 11.67; Category J was 4.10; and Category L1 was 19.74.
The 2005 COD for Liberty-Eylau ISD for Category A was 16.20; Category D2 was 7.90; Category F1 was 10.04; and Category J was 2.21.
The 2005 COD for Red Lick ISD for Category A was 6.61, and for Category D2 it was 11.89.
These numbers generally indicate uniformity in appraisal in these categories in the CAD and ISDs, although there is increasing variance in Categories D2 and L1.