Chapter 1
Overview of County Appraisal District
1.1
County History and Demographics
According to The Handbook of Texas, Montgomery County was established by the Republic of Texas Congress in December 1837 and named for the largest settlement.
Montgomery County is located north of Houston in the East Texas Timberlands Region and bounded on the north by Walker and San Jacinto counties, on the east by Liberty County, on the south by Harris County and on the west by Waller and Grimes counties. Conroe, the county seat, is located on Interstate 45, forty miles north of downtown Houston.
The south and west portions of Montgomery County consist of soils that are light in color and loamy with deep, reddish, clayey to loamy subsoils. The remainder of the county consists of soils that are reddish in color with loamy surfaces and very deep, clayey subsoils. The principal water source in Montgomery County is the San Jacinto River basin drainage system, which includes Peach, Caney, Spring and Bushy creeks. The Lake Conroe Reservoir is located 7 miles northwest of Conroe and covers a surface area of 17,600 acres. It drains an area of 445 square miles and has a storage capacity of 380,400 acre-feet. Trees found in the county include thick stands of longleaf, shortleaf and loblolly pines, as well as hickory, maple, sweet and black gum, oak and magnolia trees. Grasses in the area include Virginia wildrye, blackseed needlegrass and purpletop.
The 2005 county population, according to the Texas State Data Center, was 368,833, with the city of city of Conroe having 46,217 residents; the city of Oak Ridge North, 3,410 residents; the city of Panorama Village, 2,234 residents; the city of Roman Forest, 2,704 residents; the city of Willis 4,762 residents. The county's remaining population resides in a variety of small towns and unincorporated areas.
The county includes the Conroe Independent School District, Montgomery Independent School District, Willis Independent School District, Magnolia Independent School District, Splendora Independent School District and New Caney Independent School District, as well as a portion of the Richards Independent School District (Grimes, Walker CADs).
1.2
Appraisal District Organization and Staffing
Montgomery CAD was formed in 1981 and became active in 1982. As of March 2006, Montgomery CAD has a total of 65 full-time staff positions, including nine supervisory positions and no part-time positions. Twenty-eight positions are full-time appraisers. Montgomery CAD contracts with Pritchard & Abbott, Inc. (P&A) for professional appraisal services on minerals, utility and industrial appraisals.
Exhibit 1 presents the appraisal districts current organization chart.
The chief appraiser has three direct reports including an administrative assistant, the accounting/personnel director and the deputy chief appraiser. Five areas report to the deputy chief appraiser: appraisal; appraisal support and public assistance; geographic information system (GIS), mapping and property transaction; data processing; and technical assistance. Montgomery CAD is made up of the following personnel:
Chief Appraiser
Administrative assistant
Accounting personnel director
Accountant secretary
Deputy chief appraiser
Director appraisal
Appraisal specialist (2 employees)
ARB coordinator
Residential appraiser (10 employees)
Personal property appraiser (5 employees)
Commercial/industrial appraiser (3 employees)
Land appraiser (2 employees)
Ag and timber appraiser
Director appraisal support and public assistance
Appraisal support (6 employees)
Public assistance (10 employees)
Director GIS/mapping/ptd
GIS (3 employees)
Mapping (3 employees)
Property transaction (7 employees)
Data processing
Technical assistance
The Montgomery CAD board of directors (board) has no authority to set values or determine appraisal methods under Section 6.05(a), Tax Code. The chief appraiser carries out the appraisal district's legal duties, hires its staff, makes appraisals and operates the appraisal office.
Montgomery CAD provides appraisal services for 95 taxing units (Exhibit 2).
Exhibit 2
Montgomery CAD
Taxing Units
| Name of Taxing Entity |
|---|
| Montgomery County |
| Richards Independent School District (Grimes, Walker CADs) |
| Conroe Independent School District |
| Montgomery Independent School District |
| Willis Independent School District |
| Magnolia Independent School District |
| Splendora Independent School District |
| New Caney Independent School District |
| City of Woodloch |
| City of Conroe |
| City of Montgomery |
| City of Willis |
| City of Magnolia |
| City of Oak Ridge North |
| City of Shenandoah |
| City of Panorama Village |
| City of Stagecoach |
| City of Woodbranch Village |
| City of Roman Forest |
| City of Patton Village |
| City of Splendora |
| Chateau Woods MUD |
| Clover Creek MUD |
| Corinthian Point MUD #2 |
| East Montgomery County MUD #1 |
| East Montgomery County MUD #3 |
| Kings Manor MUD |
| Lake Conroe Hills MUD |
| Montgomery County MUD |
| Montgomery County MUD #4 |
| Montgomery County MUD #6 |
| Montgomery County MUD #7 |
| Montgomery County MUD #8 |
| Montgomery County MUD #9 |
| Montgomery County MUD #15 |
| Montgomery County MUD #16 |
| Montgomery County MUD #18 |
| Montgomery County MUD #19 |
| Montgomery County MUD #24 |
| Montgomery County MUD #36 |
| Montgomery County MUD #39 |
| Montgomery County MUD #40 |
| Montgomery County MUD #42 |
| Montgomery County MUD #46 |
| Montgomery County MUD #47 |
| Montgomery County MUD #56 |
| Montgomery County MUD #60 |
| Montgomery County MUD #67 |
| Montgomery County MUD #83 |
| Montgomery County MUD #89 |
| Montgomery County MUD #90 |
| Montgomery County MUD #92 |
| Montgomery County MUD #94 |
| Montgomery County MUD #98 |
| New Caney MUD |
| Point Aquarius MUD |
| Porter MUD |
| Rayford Road MUD |
| River Plantation MUD |
| Roman Forest Cons MUD |
| Southern Montgomery County MUD |
| Stanley Lake MUD |
| Texas National MUD |
| Wood Trace MUD #1 |
| Woodlands Metro Center MUD |
| Woodlands MUD #2 |
| East Plantation UD |
| Far Hills UD |
| Montgomery County UD #2 |
| Montgomery County UD #3 |
| Montgomery County UD #4 |
| Spring Creek UD |
| Woodlands Road UD #1 |
| Montgomery County DD #6 |
| Montgomery County DD #10 |
| Lazy River ID |
| Montgomery County HD |
| Montgomery County FWSD #6 |
| Roman Forest PUD #3 |
| Roman Forest PUD #4 |
| North Harris-Montgomery College District (Harris CAD) |
| Montgomery County WCID #1 |
| Montgomery County ESD #1 |
| Montgomery County ESD #2 |
| Montgomery County ESD #3 |
| Montgomery County ESD #4 |
| Montgomery County ESD #5 |
| Montgomery County ESD #6 |
| Montgomery County ESD #7 |
| Montgomery County ESD #8 |
| Montgomery County ESD #9 |
| Montgomery County ESD #10 |
| Montgomery County ESD #11 |
| Montgomery County ESD #12 |
| Montgomery County ESD #14 |
Source: Montgomery CAD, March 2006.
Most appraisal districts contract out some work to private firms. The Montgomery CAD appraises all categories of properties in-house with the exception of minerals, utilities, and industrial properties which they contract with P&A. PTD does not track appraisals performed by external appraisers because contracts with external appraisers generally do not include a parcel count for the number of appraisals to be performed. In assessing the staff-to-parcel count ratio in each appraisal district, PTD uses parcel counts reported in the appraisal district's 2004 self report and the independent school district self-reports.
PTD includes commercial real and personal property parcels in the calculation, since it cannot determine how many parcels are assigned to in-house staff versus private firms. The total parcels appraised in-house are calculated by summing the total number of parcels reported in categories A, Single Family Residential; B, Multifamily Residential; C, Vacant Lots; D, Rural Land; E, Rural Improvements; F1, Commercial Property; L1, Personal Property; M1, Mobile Homes; O, Residential Inventory; and S, Special Inventory.
Exhibit 3 contains data concerning appraisal district parcel counts by categories of properties. It compares the appraisal district's data to the state and group averages. For analytical purposes, PTD groups appraisal districts according to the number of parcels. The Montgomery CAD is included with appraisal districts that have 150,000 - 299,999 parcels.
Exhibit 3
Reported Data on Parcels and Categories
Comparison to State and Group Averages
Parcel Size Group (by number of locally appraised parcels): 150,000 - 299,999
| Montgomery | State Average | Group Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimated Number Locally Appraised Parcels | 222,898 | 49,497 | 213,999 |
| Number of Taxing Units | 94 | 15 | 68 |
| Estimated Locally Appraised Parcels per Staff | 3,377 | 2,985 | 3,403 |
Composition by Percentage of Value (Self Report):
| Montgomery | State Average | Group Average | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Residential Value | 63.1% | 51.3% | 59.9% |
| Non-Residential, Non Mineral | 36.5% | 45.0% | 38.5% |
| Non-Residential, Mineral | 0.4% | 3.7% | 1.5% |
Composition by Locally Appraised Parcel Category (Self Report):
| Parcel Type | Number of Parcels | Percent of Parcels | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A - Residential | 112,749 | 50.6% | 50.0% | |
| B - Multi-Family | 397 | 0.2% | 1.2% | 59.4% |
| C - Vacant Lots | 73,235 | 32.9% | 14.7% | 0.8% |
| D - Agricultural | 10,067 | 4.5% | 14.4% | 16.2% |
| E - Farm and Ranch Improvement | 2,394 | 1.1% | 5.1% | 6.5% |
| F1 - Commercial Real | 4,741 | 2.1% | 3.4% | 1.9% |
| L1 - Commercial Personal | 13,378 | 6.0% | 6.8% | 3.1% |
| M1 - Mobile Homes | 5,762 | 2.6% | 2.5% | 6.3% |
| O - Residential Inventory | 0 | 0.0% | 1.8% | 2.6% |
| S - Special Inventory | 175 | 0.1% | 0.1% | 3.1% |
| Total | 222,898 | 100.0% | 100.0% | 0.1% |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Sum of agricultural data reported in ISD Self Reports of Value in the County Appraisal District.
Totals may not add to 100.0%, due to rounding.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006 and Appraisal District Self Report of Value, 2004.
Exhibit 4 provides financial and staffing data for the Montgomery CAD and how it fares with other appraisal districts throughout the state and in its group.
Exhibit 4
Reported Budget, Staffing and Training Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
| Financial Information | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2004 Budget | $4,146,335 | $1,108,158 | $4,398,804 |
| 2004 Surplus | $0 | $48,656 | $40,600 |
| 2004 Surplus as Percent of Budget | 0.0% | 4.4% | 0.9% |
| 2005 Budget | $4,325,286 | $1,150,302 | $4,662,492 |
| Percent Change in Budget | 4.3% | 3.8% | 6.0% |
| 2004 Budget per Total Parcel | $17.30 | $9.33 | $18.78 |
| 2004 Budget per PTD Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | $18.60 | $22.30 | $20.56 |
| Staffing - 2004 Budget | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full Time | 66 | 17 | 63 |
| Part Time | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Supervisory | 10 | 3 | 9 |
| Programmers | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Supervisory to Staff Ratio | 1:7 | 1:5 | 1:7 |
| Chief Appraiser | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Performs Appraisals? | Yes | n/a | n/a |
| 2004 Total Compensation - Actual | $100,000 | $52,557 | $95,435 |
| Appraisers - 2004 Budget | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Full - Time | 29 | 6 | 27 |
| Part - Time | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Salary Range: | |||
| Low | $25,900 | $25,476 | $28,779 |
| High | $55,000 | $38,313 | $64,194 |
| 2004 Training Budget | $15,000 | $9,140 | $35,752 |
| Number Registered with Board of Tax Professional Examiners | 31 | 8 | 28 |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.
In Exhibit 5 operations information is provided for the Montgomery CAD, state and group.
Exhibit 5
Reported Operations Data
Comparison to State and Group Averages
| Reappraisals | Montgomery |
|---|---|
| Last Year of Reappraisal | Not reported |
| Next Year of Reappraisal | 2004 |
| Type of Reappraisal: | Not reported |
| Method of Reappraisal: | Complete |
| Protests | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Protests (2004 tax year) | 11,857 | 3,164 | 15,561 |
| Protests per Estimated Locally Appraised Parcel | 5.0% | 6.0% | 7.0% |
| Collections | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Consolidated Collection | No | n/a | n/a |
| Geographic Information System (GIS) | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| District Has or Plans to Purchase GIS? | Yes | n/a | n/a |
| Percent GIS Complete | 80.0% | 80.0% | 94.0% |
| Board of Directors - 2004 | Montgomery | State Average | Group Average |
|---|---|---|---|
| Members | 6 | 6 | 6 |
| Tax Assessor Votes? | No | n/a | n/a |
| Elected Members | 3 | 3 | 2 |
State and group averages calculated by the Property Tax Division.
Source: Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, Appraisal District Operations Report (2004 and 2005 Data), March 2006.
Based on this comparison, the Montgomery CAD appraised 3,377 parcels per full time employee. The IAAO publication Property Appraisal and Assessment Administration, Chapter 16, Staffing Patterns, states that the ratio of parcels per full-time employees for a small appraisal district is between 1,500 and 1,700. For a large appraising entity, these numbers are 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 are meant only to give the reader some basis for comparison with other appraisal districts with similar parcel counts.
1.3
Self Evaluation Questionnaire
In preparation for this ASR, the Montgomery CAD was asked to complete the IAAO's Self Evaluation Questionnaire, which asks the appraisal district to assess its compliance with acceptable procedures, standards and organization. Each appraisal district received an electronic version of the questionnaire and an IAAO manual that explains each question and how to answer them. PTD asks each appraisal district undergoing an ASR to perform the self-assessment.
The Montgomery CAD answered all 111 questions, providing concise responses where necessary. A summary of the self-assessment follows:
In responding to the self-assessment, the appraisal district pointed to certain strengths. Among the identified strengths are:
- experienced and qualified staff;
- state of the art appraisal and mapping technology; and
- excellent facilities with room for growth.
Due to its continuing growth, with more than 30,000 deed transactions filed in 2005, the Montgomery CAD indicated that mapping partial splits and combinations within a month of a deed's recordation has been a challenge.
In Chapter 1, on legal issues and assessment cycles, Montgomery CAD indicated that it understands the legal framework, value standard and assessment cycles required of it. Management and staff attend a variety of seminars each year to stay current with proposed laws and court decisions. Professional organizations and Montgomery CAD's law firm provide current information on tax legislation and case law. The Internet is also used to obtain current data on property tax issues. Montgomery CAD indicated that it has adequate size and resources to perform effectively and efficiently.
In Chapter 2, on resources and management, Montgomery CAD indicated that formal planning involves forecasting its current needs through the annual budget process, as well as long-range planning. Montgomery CAD indicated that it has adequate funding, recently completed a 6,000 square-foot office addition, runs a well-organized and well-managed operation, monitors contracts and the CAD staff is quality conscious concerning its work. Montgomery CAD indicated that its salaries and benefits are competitive.
In Chapter 3, on computerization, Montgomery CAD indicated that its current infrastructure meets its needs. The system provides for multiyear processing, has adequate mechanisms for data security and integrity and is integrated with Montgomery CAD's GIS system. Montgomery CAD indicated that its appraisal system can manage photos, document imagery and maintain a Web site.
In Chapter 4, on mapping, Montgomery CAD indicated that CAD maps comply with IAAO standards and Comptroller Rules. Maps are computerized and parcel splits/combinations are recorded in a timely manner. Montgomery CAD indicated that having a GIS system is very beneficial to the CAD and the public. Montgomery CAD participates in an Arc User's Group as part of a multipurpose GIS.
In Chapter 5, on data collection, Montgomery CAD indicated that it knows what data is required by Comptroller Rules, state law and appraisal standards. Montgomery CAD indicated that it collects and uses all relevant data in the assessment process, physically inspects property and collects building and occupancy permits from several sources. Montgomery CAD indicated that it has computerized edits checks, collects income data on commercial property and does not currently use hand-held computers in the field.
In Chapter 6, on land valuation, Montgomery CAD indicated that it understands the land valuation process using market data as its primary source. Land values are based on use and location and adjusted based on the market. GIS allows Montgomery CAD to identify market areas and mass update land values. Abstraction, allocation and land residual capitalization are used when vacant land sales are not available.
In Chapter 7, on residential property valuation, Montgomery CAD indicated that it uses sales data and market analysis in the appraisal process for residential properties. Building schedules are market based. Ratio studies are routinely performed as part of the valuation process, cost schedules are fully computerized and depreciation tables have been adjusted using sales analysis.
In Chapter 8, on commercial property valuation, Montgomery CAD indicated that it uses all three approaches to value when appraising commercial property, using whichever is the most appropriate for the subject. Montgomery CAD collects income and expense information from local business owners, fee appraisers and agents for property owners. In addition, Montgomery CAD subscribes to several industry publications to aid in valuing commercial property. The property's total condition is considered when calculating depreciation. The commercial supervisor reviews automated value estimates.
In Chapter 9, on sales data, ratio studies and stratification, Montgomery CAD indicated that it follows the accepted procedures for gathering sales data and can generate ratio studies at will, stratifying by property characteristics and computing numerous statistical measures. Buyers, sellers and realtors confirm sales. Montgomery CAD indicated that its ratio study software has graphics capabilities and unsold properties are tested for appraisal uniformity.
In Chapter 10, on personal property assessment, Montgomery CAD indicated that it follows the accepted procedures for discovery and appraisal of personal property and feels that the cost approach is best for valuing personal property. Montgomery CAD uses a variety of discovery methods and cost guides and coordinates real and personal property inspections. Renditions are mailed annually to all business owners and Montgomery CAD assesses penalties for those who fail to render.
In Chapter 11, on assessment administration, Montgomery CAD indicated that it believes it is following the accepted practices of assessment administration in the Comptroller rules and IAAO standards. Eligibility for exemptions and other tax relief is verified, properties are properly coded by jurisdiction and tax rate and notifications of appraised values and taxpayers' rights to appeal are followed. Montgomery CAD requires new applications be filed every five years to maintain current information.
In Chapter 12, on defense of values, Montgomery CAD indicated that the appraisal review board process encourages communication between taxpayers and the CAD and informal resolution of appeals when possible. Montgomery CAD tracks appeals using a computerized tracking system and contract appraisers perform complex appraisals.
In Chapter 13, on public relations, Montgomery CAD indicated that it believes it has an effective public relations program. Comptroller publications, mail-outs, public appearances, in-house public information terminals and Montgomery CAD's Web site provide taxpayers with information about property values and their rights and responsibilities.
1.4
Findings of the Property Value Study
The Property Value Study (PVS) determines the total property value in each school district in the Montgomery County Appraisal District (CAD). With a few notable exceptions, all CADs and the Comptroller's Property Tax Division (PTD) are required by law to appraise property at market value according to Section 103.302, Government Code, and Section 23.01, Tax Code. Agricultural land and timberland are appraised according to productivity value. Market value, in short, is the price that a property would transfer from a willing seller to a willing buyer and both the buyer and seller seek to maximize their gains and neither is in a position to take advantage of the exigencies of the other.
Local tax roll value, or local value, is determined by the CAD and submitted to PTD by the CAD and each school district on their annual self-reports. PTD staff estimates the total taxable value in a school district, referred to as state value, by determining market value or by accepting the local appraised value in each property category in the school district, 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 homeowners over age 65 or disabled and other state-mandated exemptions.
PTD issues a preliminary and final PVS each year. School districts and county appraisal districts may protest the findings of the preliminary PVS through an informal 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, an informal hearing or a formal hearing. A hearings examiner, who is appointed by the Comptroller's general counsel and reports directly to the Comptroller, holds formal hearings. The hearings examiner is not an employee of PTD.
When conducting the property value study, 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.
Conroe, Montgomery, Willis, Splendora and New Caney School Districts (ISDs) formally appealed properties in the study findings of the preliminary study.
Montgomery and Willis ISDs were unable to get into the confidence interval and were certified eligible districts in July 2005.
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
Montgomery ISD was identified as an eligible school district with value outside of the confidence interval limit. There are three property categories tested in Montgomery ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category C, Vacant Lots; and Category D, Rural Real. Category A has 88.9 percent of the tested value and makes up 77.6 percent of the school district's value. A review of the Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 75 percent to a high of 142 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9451. Category C, Vacant Lots, is 8.9 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9237. The CAD valued vacant lots from as low as 71 percent to a high of 145 percent of market value. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 3.1 percent of the school district's value and has a weighted mean ratio of 1.0197. 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 farming or ranching or timberlands. The differences in value between qualified and non-qualified rural land are often wide since D1 land is appraised using a special statutory method to determine the land's productivity value and D2 is based on what the land would sell for in an open market transaction. Subcategory D1 consists of 23.6 percent of Category D's value and 0.9 percent of the tested value. Category D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0894. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 76.4 percent of Category D's value and was not tested.
Willis ISD was identified as an eligible school district with value outside of the confidence interval limit. There are five property categories tested in Willis ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category C, Vacant Lots; Category D, Rural Real; Category F1, Commercial Real Property; and Category L1, Commercial Personal Property. Category A has 72.6 percent of the tested value and makes up 66.1 percent of the district's value. A review of the Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 76 percent to a high of 154 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9390. Category C, Vacant Lots, is 7.1 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9175. The CAD valued vacant lots from as low as 57 percent to a high of 182 percent of market value. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 5.8 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9927. Subcategory D1 consists of 44.2 percent of Category D's value and 3 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0223. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 55.8 percent of Category D's value and 3.8 percent of the school district's total tested value. The CAD appraised rural homes from as low as 85 percent to a high of 110 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9705. Category F1, Commercial Real Properties, makes up 7 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9587. The CAD valued Commercial Real Properties from as low as 84 percent to a high of 111 percent of market value. Category L1, Commercial Personal Properties, makes up 5.4 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9634. The CAD valued Commercial Personal Properties from as low as 85 percent to a high of 127 percent of market value.
Other School Districts
Conroe ISD is within the confidence interval limit. There are six property categories tested in Conroe ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category B, Multi-Family residential; Category C, Vacant Lots; Category D, Rural Real; Category F1, Commercial Real Property; and Category L1, Commercial Personal Property. Category A has 67.3 percent of the tested value and makes up 62.7 percent of the district's value. A review of the Category A properties indicates that the school district appraised from as low as 77 percent to a high of 147 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9465. Category B, Multi-Family Residential, is 2.3 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9865. The CAD valued Multi-Family Residences from as low as 87 percent to a high of 121 percent of market value. Category C, Vacant Lots, is 4.3 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9429. The CAD valued vacant lots from as low as 60 percent to a high of 138 percent of market value. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 1.7 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0028. Subcategory D1 consists of 25.2 percent of Category D's value and 0.5 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0112. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 74.8 percent of category D's value and was not tested. Category F1, Commercial Real Properties, are 15.4 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9644. The CAD valued Commercial Real Properties from as low as 80 percent to a high of 151 percent of market value. Category L1, Commercial Personal Properties, are 8 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9749. The CAD valued Commercial Personal Properties from as low as 79 percent to a high of 109 percent of market value.
Magnolia ISD is within the confidence interval limit. There are three property categories tested in Magnolia ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category C, Vacant Lots; and Category D, Rural Real. Category A has 80.8 percent of the tested value and makes up 69.4 percent of the district's value. A review of the category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 76 percent to a high of 167 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9576. Category C, Vacant Lots, is 8.6 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8895. The CAD valued Vacant Lots from as low as 50 percent to a high of 132 percent of market value. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 7.4 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9930. Subcategory D1 consists of 15.8 percent of Category D's value and 1.4 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0237. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 84.2 percent of Category D's value and 7.7 percent of the school district's total tested value. Subcategory D2 tested below market value. The CAD appraised rural homes from as low as 84 percent to a high of 110 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9875.
Splendora ISD is within the confidence interval limit. There are four property categories tested in Splendora ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category C, Vacant Lots; Category D, Rural Real; and Category J, Utilities. Category A has 68.8 percent of the tested value and makes up 60.8 percent of the district's value. A review of the Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 77 percent to a high of 125 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9479. Category C, Vacant Lots, is 8.4 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9216. The CAD valued vacant lots from as low as 69 percent to a high of 125 percent of market value. Category D, Rural Real makes up 11 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0147. Subcategory D1 consists of 35 percent of Category D's value and 4.6 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0068. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 65 percent of Category D's value and 8.5 percent of the school district's total tested value. Subcategory D2 tested near market value. The CAD appraised rural homes from as low as 81 percent to a high of 171 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0190. Category J, Utility Properties, is 8.1 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9622. The CAD valued Utility Properties from as low as 77 percent to a high of 107 percent of market value.
New Caney ISD is within the confidence interval limit. There are six property categories tested in New Caney ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; Category B, Multi-Family Residential; Category C, Vacant Lots; Category D, Rural Real; Category F1, Commercial Real Property; and Category L1, Commercial Personal Property. Category A has 46.3 percent of the tested value and makes up 42 percent of the school district's value. A review of the Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 80 percent to a high of 134 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9595. Category B, Multi-Family Residential, is 5.5 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9098. The CAD valued multi-family residences from as low as 86 percent to a high of 100 percent of market value. Category C, Vacant Lots, is 5.8 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.8245. The CAD valued Vacant Lots from as low as 60 percent to a high of 113 percent of market value. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 3.9 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0021. Subcategory D1 consists of 35.5 percent of Category D's value and 1.6 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0060. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 64.5 percent of Category D's value and was not tested. Category F1, Commercial Real Properties, is 21.7 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9857. The CAD valued Commercial Real Properties from as low as 86 percent to a high of 122 percent of market value. Category L1, Commercial Personal Properties, is 14.6 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9773. The CAD valued Commercial Personal Properties from as low as 80 percent to a high of 107 percent of market value.
Richards ISD is within the confidence interval limit. There are two property categories tested in Richards ISD: Category A, Single-Family Residential; and Category D, Rural Real. Category A has 55.8 percent of the tested value and makes up 50.5 percent of the school district's value. A review of the Category A properties indicates that the CAD appraised from as low as 73 percent to a high of 138 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9695. Category D, Rural Real, makes up 38 percent of the school district's value and tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.0345. Subcategory D1 consists of 44.9 percent of Category D's value and 19.8 percent of the tested value. Subcategory D1 tested with a weighted mean ratio of 1.1292. Subcategory D2, however, makes up 55.1 percent of Category D's value and 24.3 percent of the school district's total tested value. The CAD appraised rural homes from as low as 75 percent to a high of 129 percent of market value with a weighted mean ratio of 0.9685.
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 low COD indicates that appraisals within a category of property are uniform and a high COD indicates properties are being appraised at inconsistent percentages of market value. All school districts in Montgomery CAD are within the ratios listed by the IAAO in the Standard on Ratio Studies.