Unequal-Appraisal
Evidence Packet

■ §1 — Subject property & result

4810 CAMP BOWIE BLVD

Account SAMPLE-001 · Tarrant County · owner of record: SAMPLE OWNER LLC

Equity-test result — informational estimate

The subject’s assessed unit value exceeds the median adjusted unit value of its comparables. The comparable grid (page 3) and median study (page 4) document how these figures were derived.

■ §2 — Comparable grid

Comparable properties, adjusted

Every comparable is the same use type as the subject — RETAIL STRIP, the district's own classification — and the same property class (F1). Selected by the fixed ladder printed on page 5; every adjustment factor shown.

swipe the grid for more →

Selected at rung: N1: same use type, same neighborhood, size ±50%, age ±15y — 35 comparables.

The grid samples the 35 comparables at 9 evenly spaced positions in the ordered set — lowest, median, highest and equal steps between — so it shows the set's real spread, not the rows nearest the answer. All 35 are in the median and listed in Appendix A.

Source: Tarrant County public appraisal roll, tax year 2026. Size and age factors are the published constants documented on page 5; adjusted $/SF = raw $/SF × size factor × age factor, as computed in the analysis. Situs addresses are abbreviated to fit — each account number identifies the parcel exactly on the district’s own records, and Appendix A lists every comparable in the set.

■ §3 — Median study

Where the subject sits

Adjusted unit values ($/SF), sorted; subject and median marked.

Distribution of ALL 35 adjusted unit values. COD is the coefficient of dispersion (average absolute deviation from the median, as a % of the median); LOO swing is how far the median moves, at most, if any single comparable is dropped; the bars below show the grid's comparables.

Across the 35 comparables the average distance from the median is 15% of it (coefficient of dispersion 15.0) — a tightly grouped comparison — the district's own values for these properties agree closely with each other.

Dropping any single comparable moves the median between $141.60 and $142.42 /SF — the subject stays above the comparable median in every one of those cases. On the least favourable of those, the indicated difference would be $699,375 rather than $710,000.

■ §4 — Statute, selection & adjustments

How these comparables were chosen and adjusted

Every rule below is fixed in advance and applied identically to every property, so the whole study can be re-run from the county’s own public roll.

Statute basis

Tex. Tax Code §41.43(b)(3): a protest on the ground of unequal appraisal shall be determined in favor of the protesting party unless the appraisal district establishes that the appraised value of the property is equal to or less than the median appraised value of a reasonable number of comparable properties appropriately adjusted. This packet presents that test: comparable properties selected by the fixed, documented ladder below, each adjusted for size and age with published constants, and the median of the adjusted unit values applied to the subject's building area.

Selection ladder

Walked in order; the first rung returning enough comparables is used, and then EVERY property meeting that rung’s criteria is included.

1. N1: same use type, same neighborhood, size ±50%, age ±15y← selected
2. N2: same use type, same neighborhood, size ±75%, age ±25y
3. A: same use type, same map grid cell, size ±50%, age ±15y
4. B: same use type, same map grid cell, size ±75%, age ±25y

Adjustment method

• Comparables: EVERY property of the SAME USE TYPE — the district's own building classification, printed for the subject above and for each comparable in the appendix — that meets the criteria of the first ladder rung below to return at least 5 of them, tightest geography first. Use type is never relaxed at any rung, and neither is property class. The median is computed over the whole qualifying set; no subset can move it. When the set exceeds 9 comparables the grid prints 9 of them at evenly spaced positions across the full set ordered by adjusted $/SF — lowest, highest, median and equal steps between, never the rows closest to the answer — and every comparable prints in Appendix A.
• Admissibility: a property is used only if the roll carries a building area of at least 500 sq ft AND an assessed value of at least $1.00 per square foot, so the roll's sentinel areas and its nominal-total records cannot enter a median as a unit value.
• Size adjustment: adjusted = raw × (comp GBA / subject GBA)^0.148. The exponent is not chosen — it is the size-to-unit-value relationship measured within use class × neighborhood on the TAD 2026 roll (28,978 parcels, 192 cells), so a comparable is restated at the subject's size using the district's own values. A comp smaller than the subject adjusts DOWN.
• Age adjustment: adjusted = raw × exp(−0.0124 × years newer), the per-year age effect measured on the same roll and in the same fit; a comp newer than the subject adjusts DOWN.
• Median: the middle of the adjusted unit values ($/SF); equitable value estimate = median × subject building area.

■ §5 — Tax effect

What the difference is worth per year

Adopted rates of the taxing entities that levy on this parcel, applied to the indicated over-assessment. Informational estimate.

This figure ASSUMES NO EXEMPTION APPLIES. This county does not publish exemption data we can check, so we cannot confirm the parcel is taxable. If it carries an exemption the amount at stake is lower, and may be nothing at all — check your notice of appraised value before relying on this figure.

Rates are the entities’ adopted rates (2025 adopted) from public records. Per-entity dollars are informational estimates shown to the whole dollar; rounding may move the column’s sum a dollar or two off the total. Actual tax depends on exemptions, special valuations, and the value finally determined; nothing here promises any particular outcome.

■ Appendix A — all comparables (1 of 3)

The complete comparable set

All 35 properties meeting the selection criteria (rung: N1: same use type, same neighborhood, size ±50%, age ±15y). The median on every page of this packet is computed over this full set; nothing is held back here. The grid samples 9 of them at evenly spaced positions across the set ordered by ADJUSTED $/SF; the rows below are ordered by closeness in building size, so the two numberings differ. Addresses are abbreviated — the account number identifies each parcel on the district’s records.

Source: Tarrant County public appraisal roll, tax year 2026. Adjusted $/SF = raw $/SF × size factor × age factor, the published constants on page 5.

■ Appendix A — all comparables (2 of 3)

The complete comparable set

All 35 properties meeting the selection criteria (rung: N1: same use type, same neighborhood, size ±50%, age ±15y). The median on every page of this packet is computed over this full set; nothing is held back here. The grid samples 9 of them at evenly spaced positions across the set ordered by ADJUSTED $/SF; the rows below are ordered by closeness in building size, so the two numberings differ. Addresses are abbreviated — the account number identifies each parcel on the district’s records.

Source: Tarrant County public appraisal roll, tax year 2026. Adjusted $/SF = raw $/SF × size factor × age factor, the published constants on page 5.

■ Appendix A — all comparables (3 of 3)

The complete comparable set

All 35 properties meeting the selection criteria (rung: N1: same use type, same neighborhood, size ±50%, age ±15y). The median on every page of this packet is computed over this full set; nothing is held back here. The grid samples 9 of them at evenly spaced positions across the set ordered by ADJUSTED $/SF; the rows below are ordered by closeness in building size, so the two numberings differ. Addresses are abbreviated — the account number identifies each parcel on the district’s records.

Source: Tarrant County public appraisal roll, tax year 2026. Adjusted $/SF = raw $/SF × size factor × age factor, the published constants on page 5.