Brooke County Accountability Report

1 Executive summary

In Brooke County, Thomas A. Oughton’s office assesses residential property with a coefficient of dispersion (COD) of 33.9 — a measure of how evenly comparable homes are valued — against an IAAO target of 15 or below, where the county ranks 37th of 54 for uniformity. Vertical equity (PRD 1.168, PRB -0.1206) shows a regressive tilt — lower-value homes carry a heavier assessment burden than high-value homes. Of the roll, 26.0% is stale (≥20% uncaptured market movement); the county ranks 43rd 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 33.9 (IAAO ≤ 15)

Ranks 37th of 54 for uniformity

PRD (vertical equity) FAIL

PRD 1.168 (IAAO 0.98–1.03)

Ranks 46th of 54 for vertical equity

PRB (vertical equity) FAIL

PRB -0.1206 (IAAO ±0.05)

Ranks 52nd of 54 for vertical equity

Reappraisal cadence WARN

26.0% stale (IAAO < 15% stale)

Ranks 43rd of 55 for reappraisal currency

2 Uniformity — Coefficient of Dispersion (COD)

33.9 IAAO target ≤ 15 (improved residential)

FAIL

COD 33.9 — 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, Brooke ranks 37th of 54 for uniformity (1st = most uniform).

3 Vertical equity — PRD & PRB

1.168 Price-Related Differential · IAAO 0.98–1.03

FAIL

PRD 1.168 (regressive — high-value homes under-assessed vs low-value).

-0.1206 Price-Related Bias · IAAO ±0.05

FAIL

PRB -0.1206 (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|), Brooke ranks 52nd of 54 for vertical equity of the 55 counties (1st = most equitable).

4 Reappraisal cadence

26.0% stale IAAO/best-practice target < 15% of roll stale · avg 4.0 yrs since last value change

WARN

26% of the residential roll has ≥20% uncaptured market movement (avg 4 yrs since last value change) — parts of the roll are lagging.

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

Brooke Ranks 43rd 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.

Thomas A. Oughton term 2025–2028

current officeholder

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

Phyllis Sisinni (2004–2008)

n=941 · Confidence: Medium · 0 of 3 standards met

COD FAIL 36.2 PRD FAIL 1.174 PRB FAIL -0.1526 Level ratio 0.7750 (context)

Thomas A. Oughton (2009–2024)

n=1,812 · Confidence: High · 0 of 3 standards met

COD FAIL 31.2 PRD FAIL 1.151 PRB FAIL -0.1035 Level ratio 0.8543 (context)

Term-over-term trend

From Phyllis Sisinni (2004–2008) to Thomas A. Oughton (2009–2024). Lower COD = more uniform.

▲

Uniformity (COD) improved by 5.0 COD points (36.2 → 31.2) under Thomas A. Oughton vs. Phyllis Sisinni.

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 →