Lewis County Accountability Report · New River Analytics

1 Executive summary

In Lewis County, John L. Breen’s office assesses residential property with a coefficient of dispersion (COD) of 34.5 — a measure of how evenly comparable homes are valued — against an IAAO target of 15 or below, where the county ranks 40th of 54 for uniformity. Vertical equity (PRD 1.123, PRB -0.0727) shows a regressive tilt — lower-value homes carry a heavier assessment burden than high-value homes. Of the roll, 5.5% is stale (≥20% uncaptured market movement); the county ranks 13th of 55 for reappraisal currency. Overall the office meets 0 of 3 iaao standards — reported per standard, with no single overall grade.

COD (uniformity) FAIL

COD 34.5 (IAAO ≤ 15)

Ranks 40th of 54 for uniformity

PRD (vertical equity) FAIL

PRD 1.123 (IAAO 0.98–1.03)

Ranks 36th of 54 for vertical equity

PRB (vertical equity) WARN

PRB -0.0727 (IAAO ±0.05)

Ranks 38th of 54 for vertical equity

Reappraisal cadence PASS

5.5% stale (IAAO < 15% stale)

Ranks 13th of 55 for reappraisal currency

2 Uniformity — Coefficient of Dispersion (COD)

34.5 IAAO target ≤ 15 (improved residential)

FAIL

COD 34.5 — uneven assessment across parcels (>20).

Statewide context: the median county COD is 31.6; this county is less uniform than the typical WV county.

Among all 55 counties, Lewis ranks 40th of 54 for uniformity (1st = most uniform).

3 Vertical equity — PRD & PRB

1.123 Price-Related Differential · IAAO 0.98–1.03

FAIL

PRD 1.123 (regressive — high-value homes under-assessed vs low-value).

-0.0727 Price-Related Bias · IAAO ±0.05

WARN

PRB -0.0727 (regressive — lower-value homes assessed at a higher ratio).

Regressive assessment. Lower-value homes are assessed at a higher ratio of market value than high-value homes — the burden tilts onto the people who can least afford it. This is the most consequential equity finding in the report.

On vertical equity (|PRB|), Lewis ranks 38th of 54 for vertical equity of the 55 counties (1st = most equitable).

4 Reappraisal cadence

5.5% stale IAAO/best-practice target < 15% of roll stale · avg 1.0 yrs since last value change

PASS

5.5% of the residential roll has ≥20% uncaptured market movement (avg 1 yrs since last value change) — roll is current.

Statewide context: the median county has 11.6% of its roll stale.

Lewis Ranks 13th of 55 for reappraisal currency (1st = most current roll).

5 Level of assessment (context only — not graded)

Median sales ratio — context only, never graded

0.8250 CONTEXT

Appraised at 83% of market. WV runs below 100% (reappraisal lag + market) — reported as context, not graded.

Why this is not graded: West Virginia’s mandated reappraisal cycle and the housing market — both largely outside any one assessor’s control — push the level (whether values sit at, say, 84% vs 95% of market) far more than assessment practice does. A county can be perfectly uniform and equitable while still sitting below 100% simply because the cycle hasn’t come around. So the level is reported as context.

6 Assessor tenure scorecard

Each graded assessor era, scored on its own roll against the same IAAO standards. WV assessors serve four-year terms; the seat is on the ballot in November of a term’s end year.

John L. Breen term 2025–2028

current officeholder

On the ballot 2028 — this seat is up for election in November 2028.

R. Gary Smith (2005–2008)

n=363 · Confidence: Medium · 0 of 3 standards met

COD FAIL 38.4 PRD FAIL 1.164 PRB WARN -0.0525 Level ratio 0.7385 (context)

T. Chad Kelley (2009–2016)

n=570 · Confidence: Medium · 0 of 3 standards met

COD FAIL 29.9 PRD FAIL 1.102 PRB WARN -0.0834 Level ratio 0.8325 (context)

John L. Breen (2017–2024)

n=857 · Confidence: Medium · 0 of 3 standards met

COD FAIL 34.4 PRD FAIL 1.121 PRB WARN -0.0807 Level ratio 0.8473 (context)

Term-over-term trend

From T. Chad Kelley (2009–2016) to John L. Breen (2017–2024). Lower COD = more uniform.

▼

Uniformity (COD) worsened by 4.5 COD points (29.9 → 34.4) under John L. Breen vs. T. Chad Kelley.

7 Methodology & integrity

Real elected officials. Level (median ratio) is confounded by the statewide reappraisal cycle and the housing market; COD/uniformity is the more assessor-attributable signal. Not a judgment of any individual.

Grades rest on a direct, time-matched sales-ratio study: the assessor’s own appraised value in the sale year divided by the actual arms-length sale price. There is no model and no prediction. Grading gates: an era is graded only with ≥100 attributable sales across ≥2 distinct sale years; the current roll year (2025) is excluded until it settles.

Confidence tiers (by attributed sales): High ≥ 1,000 · Medium 300–999 · Low 100–299 · Insufficient < 100.

Targets: COD ≤ 15 (IAAO, improved residential); PRD 0.98–1.03 (IAAO); PRB ±0.05 (IAAO); cadence < 15% of roll stale; level context only — confounded by reappraisal cycle + market, not graded.

Data sources: county assessor records — appraised values from parcel_tax_history, arms-length (validity-code 0) residential (class R) sales from parcel_sales_history. This dataset contains no billed tax dollars.

These are assessment-practice metrics, not a judgment of any individual, computed the same way for every county. Full detail: Methodology & Data →