A study of Nassau

County Assessment
Accuracy and Fairness
Prepared by Matt Clark, Newsday Staff Writer

1
Foreword
This report describes in technical detail Newsdays methodology for analyzing the effects of the 2010
overhaul of Nassau Countys property assessment system. More general explanations are contained
within each story and in accompanying explanatory boxes in the papers Separate and Unequal series.

Executive Summary
Newsday conducted a property sales ratio study to analyze the effects of two Nassau County assessment
system reforms adopted early in the first term of county executive Edward Mangano. A sales ratio study
measures the accuracy and fairness of assessments by comparing them to prices of properties sold in
open-market, arms-length transactions, which provide the best evidence of a propertys worth.

In particular, the study focused on county officials decision to award assessment reductions to nearly 80
percent of property owners challenging their assessments beginning in the 2011-12 tax year and their
decision to freeze the assessed values of nearly all other properties in 2012-13. The latter reform ended
the countys practice of updating assessments annually for changes in the real estate market.

This study is separate from analyses Newsday conducted to determine how tax bills changed under the
policies and whether the reforms saved taxpayer money. Those are detailed in a separate report.

Newsdays ratio study was done in accordance with standards set by the International Association of
Assessing Officers (IAAO) and the New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPTS). Newsday
was assisted by multiple assessment experts, who also reviewed the study and found no significant
departures from industry-accepted methodology.

The study involved the analysis of more than 42,000 property sales determined to be valid reflections of
market value by both Nassau County and ORPTS. Newsday conducted an additional level of sales
verification and eliminated additional sales it determined were not reflective of market value. Sales
prices were time-adjusted using market trends calculated following industry-standard methods and a
small number of sales with extremely high or low ratios were eliminated through the use of industry-
standard methods of outlier detection and removal.

After a review of a wide range of ratio statistics, the study found Nassau Countys assessments were
inside all IAAO standards for accuracy and fairness for the 2010-11 tax year, but were outside of all of
them by 2016-17. Additionally, the assessments were more inaccurate and more than three times as
regressive (higher-valued properties assessed at lower levels than other properties) in 2016-17 than
they were in 2002-03, the year before the county finished a court-supervised reassessment under the
settlement of a civil lawsuit alleging it was overtaxing homes in minority communities.

In fact, after stratifying properties by whether they lie in or out of minority communities, the analysis
showed that homes in minority communities were assessed at a higher level than other properties in

2
2016-17 more so than they were in 2002-03. The study found they were assessed at a level 11.7 percent
higher in 2002-03 and 12 percent higher in 2016-17, a 2.5 percent increase in the difference.

Nonetheless, as described later in this summary, studies of Nassaus 1997-98 assessments found much
higher levels of discrimination, unfairness and inaccuracy, suggesting the 2002-03 tax year may have had
much better assessments than there were years before the reassessment.

To measure whether the two county policies were causing the decreasing fairness and accuracy of the
assessments, properties were further stratified by whether they had or had not appealed. Properties
with assessed value changes that could not be attributed to an assessment appeal, which make up less
than ten percent of all properties (20 percent of sales), were ignored for this portion of the study.

The further stratification of properties found that the countys assessment challenges and not the
market value updates being denied by the freeze are driving the overall deterioration of the accuracy
and fairness of the countys assessments. Properties that have not appealed their assessments are
assessed at a median level 18.4 percent higher than those that have.

Further, properties in minority communities that have not appealed are assessed at a level 27.2 percent
higher than those in other areas that have appealed. The data suggests that assessment appeals are also
the main driver of the gap in assessment levels between properties in and out of minority communities,
primarily due to properties in minority communities being 30 percent less likely to appeal.

Newsday compared the results of its study to those conducted by ORPTS, the countys first appointed
assessor and the countys reassessment contractor. The comparison found Newsdays results were
generally lower than those reported by others.

None of the other studies results varied by more than 11.4 percent from Newsdays results with two
exceptions pertaining to accuracy measurements in a 2002-03 tax year study conducted by the countys
reassessment contractor. Those measurements varied by up to 23.9 percent. The contractor analyzed
two different, large groups of sales Newsday used one year of sales, similar to the countys method
for establishing assessments and its accuracy measurements varied significantly even among those
two groups of sales.

Data was not available for earlier years, but Newsday also reviewed a study completed by the U.S.
Department of Justice for 1997-98. It is the only other study available that also examined assessments in
and out of minority communities, and served as the basis for Newsdays methodology in this study.

The DOJ study found properties in minority communities were assessed 27 percent higher in that year,
nearly double the 13.6 percent over-assessment Newsday identified for 2002-03. A separate study
conducted by ORPTS for the same tax year found 1997-98 assessments were also far more inaccurate
and regressive in that year than this study found for 2002-03.

Before its public release, this study was shared with county officials, the heads of various tax appeal
firms and several other experts. In response, one expert questioned whether the study was conducted
appropriately. The expert alleged that the county had been sales chasing, the act of assessing

3
recently-sold property at its sales price instead of assessing it in the same manner as all properties,
which has the effect of making a ratio study results look better than they actually are.

Even though county officials have not assessed most properties since 2011, Newsday conducted a
separate ratio study to determine whether they were, in fact, sales chasing. While the study was
suggestive of sales chasing, other explanations for the discrepancy exist and the results of the second
study also suggest the countys assessments are actually less fair and accurate than the original study.

Since a guiding principle in developing a methodology for the original study was to remain fair and
conservative in approach, the decision was made to maintain the original methodology but share the
results of the second study in this report. Newsday has no other evidence to confirm the experts
allegations of sales chasing.

A more detailed explanation of Newsdays methodology and findings follows, along with appendices
containing a full breakdown of the results.

Introduction and study goals

This study was conducted to analyze the effects of two Nassau County assessment policy changes made
early in the first term of county executive Edward Mangano, who first took office in 2010.

At that time, the county began awarding assessment reductions to nearly 80 percent of property owners
filing assessment appeals, from 49 percent in the five prior years. One year later, the county froze all
assessments except when properties were reduced due to an assessment appeal or underwent a
physical change. Under the freeze, properties would not be updated their assessed values would not
be changed based on market trends unless their owners filed an appeal.

This study focuses on the countys 386,000 class one residential parcels, which include single and
multiple family homes, low-rise condominiums and vacant land zoned residential. The assessment
system is used by nearly 300 different taxing authorities to levy nearly $6 billion in taxes annually,
producing among the highest property tax bills in the country.

Filing an assessment appeal in Nassau County is easy, and carries no risk of assessment increases.
Homeowners can fill a form out online or mail it in or hire one of dozens of taxpayer representatives,
who solicit their services via thousands of mailers sent throughout the county to prospective clients.

The ease of appealing has been blamed for the nearly 200,000 assessment appeals filed each year.
County officials struggled for many years to process the appeals before tax bills were sent out, leading to
property tax refunds. Under state law, the county is required to pay refunds not just for the taxes it
levies but for taxes levied by any government that uses its assessments. The debt taken on to pay these
refunds is currently over $1 billion with another estimated $296 million owed as of Dec. 2014.

4
Settlement Program

To reduce its refund burden, the county introduced its Residential Tax Grievance Negotiation and
Settlement Program. Under the program, officials would become far more lenient in settling appeals to
ensure they never go to court and result in reductions after tax bills are sent out. This eliminated the
$30 million residential portion of the countys $100 million annual refund bill, according to the county.

The assessment freeze was proposed as a way to stabilize tax bill swings occurring due to the annual
market value updates and to buy time for the county to fix errors being blamed for the refunds.

Under the settlement program, the county began settling negotiations over its level of assessment,
the fraction of fair market value that all residential properties in Nassau are supposed to be assessed at.
For instance, under the countys 2010-11 level of assessment of 0.25 percent, a home with a fair
market value of $300,000 should have had an assessed value of $750 ($300,000 x .0025).

For many years before the settlement program began, the county had refused to lower its level of
assessment despite demands from taxpayer representatives for it do so. The leniency in doing so under
the settlement program was the most significant change from prior practice.

Each year of the settlement program, the countys attorneys have agreed to value properties at a lower
assessment rate. Assessment challengers were given the benefit of a 0.22 percent level in 2012-13, 0.20
percent in 2013-14, 0.19 percent in 2014-15, 0.18 percent in 2015-16, and 0.17 percent in 2016-17.

Appealed properties are now assessed using rates 32 percent lower than the 0.25 percent rate used
before the freeze. Nonetheless and despite state law requiring that all properties be assessed at the
same rate the county has not recalculated frozen assessments using the lower rates. As such, the
program would have assessed a $1 million home filing an appeal for the 2016-17 tax year the same as
one appraised by the county at $680,000 when the freeze began. The assessment rate listed on the
countys roll remains 0.25 percent even though appealed homes are assessed at 0.17 percent.

The settlement program, then, has not surprisingly led to a large drop in the countys residential taxable
value, from $186.1 billion in 2010-11 to $149.9 billion in 2015-16 (-19.4 percent).

However, governments have not shrunk their budgets. Instead, they have increased tax rates to make
up for the reduction in their tax base. As a result, unappealed properties have seen their tax bills
increase with the higher tax rates while those who have appealed their assessments have seen tax bill
reductions or much smaller increases. Frozen properties are essentially paying for others tax breaks.

Former lawsuit

This is not the first time the county has been accused of choosing not to assess properties uniformly. In
1997, a group of Nassau County homeowners sued the county alleging it was over-assessing property
owners in minority communities.

5
At the time, the county employed a cost-based assessment system that used 1938 construction costs
plus the value of land as established at various times between 1938 and 1964. This use of historical
values resulted in homes that increased in market value more quickly (higher-valued homes) being
assessed at a lower rate than those that did not (lower-valued homes), resulting in regressive inequity.

Coleman v. Seldin resulted in a 2000 court-supervised settlement agreement requiring the county to
assess properties at the same assessment rate. After coming out of the settlement in 2006-07, the
county continued annual assessment updates until the recent overhaul began.

Study goals

Sales ratio studies attempt to determine the accuracy and fairness of assessments by focusing on the
ratio of a propertys market value as reflected in open-market, arms-length sales to its assessed
value at the time of the sale. For instance, a $100,000 home with an assessed market value of $50,000
(or $125 assessed value at a 0.25 percent level of assessment) has a sales ratio of 50% (or 0.125 percent
level of assessment). As assessed values are set as of a particular date, known as the valuation date, a
sales ratio study also attempts to adjust sales prices to that date using market trends.

This study aims to quantify the effects of the Nassau policies by examining the condition of its 2016-17
assessment roll in comparison to rolls from 2010-11 before any of the reforms, 2012-13 when the freeze
began and 2002-03 before the court-supervised reassessment and subsequent updates. The 2015-16
assessment roll is also analyzed to determine whether ratios used for 2016-17 appeals are supported.

Properties will also be stratified by whether they are in minority communities and whether they have
appealed their assessments. A full set of ratio statistics with confidence intervals will then be generated
for each group and study year, where appropriate, to isolate and quantify the effects of the policies.

The study was conducted with the assistance of multiple assessment experts who also reviewed the
study and found no significant deviations from standards set by the International Association of
Assessing Officers (IAAO) and the New York State Office of Real Property Tax Services (ORPTS).

The study seeks to answer the following questions

Are the lower assessment rates the county uses in appeals supported by this study?
How have assessments changed between 2002-03, 2010-11 and 2016-17?
Were properties in predominantly minority communities over-assessed more in 2016-17 than
they were in 2002-03?
Did the countys policies cause any assessment deterioration or increased discrimination?

Appendices to this report share details of sales eliminated from the study and a full set of ratio statistics.

All calculations were done in the R statistical software application using the aratio package and the
simple linear regression function. Data was filtered and prepared for R using the PostgresSQL relational
database management system, including the PostGIS extension for geospatial analysis.

6
Sales data and time periods
For this study, Newsday obtained sales data from the county assessment department and ORPTS.
Assessed values listed on the countys 2002-03, 2010-11, 2012-13, 2015-16 and 2016-17 tax tables were
used to incorporate assessment challenge reductions that dont make it onto the countys final roll.

IAAO and ORPTS standards provide a long list of criteria for validating the use of sales in ratios studies.
The purpose of these criteria is primarily to eliminate any sales not representative of the open market,
including sales between family members or sales involving other property or businesses. Both county
and state officials sales validation conclusions were available in the sales data used for this study.

A comparison of the county and state sales data revealed that before 2008 many sales marked invalid in
the state data were marked valid in the county data. The opposite was true after 2008. In some cases,
state officials may have determined the before-2008 sales were invalid, but after research it was
determined that many of these sales were marked invalid by the countys reassessment contractor,
which handled sales verification for the county before 2008. Apparently, the contractor did not make
the same corrections it sent to the state to the sales data provided by the county for this study.

As a result of the above issue, Newsday used sales marked valid in the county data as a starting point
and later excluded any sale marked invalid in the state data where a reason was provided for the
exclusion. Several of these state exclusions were reviewed during a sales verification process described
later in this report. Newsday also excluded a series of duplicate sales (same book and page number)
from the county data and any properties with a sale price or assessed value of zero.

One year of sales was selected leading up to the valuation date for each study year. The below table
provides the time periods used, total number of sales, and number of county-validated sales. Note that
state officials expanded the countys assessment calendar by one year after 2002-03.

Year Valuation Date Sales Period Sales Valid sales

2002-03 1/4/2002 1/1/2001 to 12/31/2001 26445 12568
2010-11 1/4/2009 1/1/2008 to 12/31/2008 20662 7960
2012-13 1/4/2011 1/1/2010 to 12/31/2010 18688 7782
2015-16 1/4/2014 1/1/2013 to 12/31/2013 21312 9404
2016-17 1/4/2015 1/1/2014 to 12/31/2014 20886 8619

Sales verification including verification of exclusions based on state data

Though the sales data used as the starting point for this analysis had already been verified by local and
state officials, Newsday still undertook a review of a sample of sales with ratios greater than 150% or
lower than 50%. This follows guidance in IAAOs Standards on Verification and Adjustment of Sales.

The review of high and low ratio sales utilized data from a wide array of sources, including inventory and
photo data available on the countys land lookup website, deeds available from the county clerks

7
website, aerial or street level photography for various years available from Google or the states
orthographic imagery database and data from the real estate website Property Shark, which contained
older county-produced photos than are currently displayed on the countys website.

The review found numerous sales with low ratios had new homes built on them within 1 year of the
valuation date (up to two years from sale date). Officials reviewing the sale when it occurred may not
have known it involved the purchase of a new, yet-to-be-built structure. As such, new county inventory
data was used to exclude any home built within one year of any study years valuation date.

The sales review was completed before eliminating sales marked invalid in state data, and as a result the
review included an examination of 132 state-excluded sales. Only two exclusions could not be verified.

Each time a sale was excluded, the reason for the exclusion was documented in a spreadsheet that
accompanies this report. The table below details how many sales were excluded from each study year
due to state data, the review of high/low ratios and the use of county inventory data.

Valid Excluded: Excluded: Physical Excluded: Other Percent

Year Sales State Data Change Reasons Included Included
2002-03 12568 806 161 55 10778 86%
2010-11 7960 110 283 6 7473 94%
2012-13 7781 71 211 0 7437 96%
2015-16 9404 56 289 22 8934 95%
2016-17 8619 85 317 21 8170 95%

Notably, the number of valid sales found for the 2002-03 study year was far greater than the number
found for any other study year. While it is not known exactly why this occurred, the most obvious
explanation is that the countys reassessment contractor reviewed a much larger number of sales for
that year as it prepared the new assessment roll, which had to meet stringent, court-supervised
requirements.

While the larger number of sales for 2002-03 is concerning, the contractor was the primary entity
validating sales at that time, and it used the approach that was later solidified into the countys sales
validation manual. So, even though it reviewed more sales, the contractor did so under policies that are
identical to those utilized by county staff to this day. As noted in the executive summary to this report, a
separate ratio study was conducted to examine whether sales chasing was occurring in any year of the
study period. That study used a separate set of sales for 2002-03, but produced identical findings. The
second study is detailed in a later section of this report.

Market Condition Adjustment

Newsday adjusted sale prices to the valuation date in each study year using the sales-to-assessment
ratio (SAR) time-adjustment technique described in IAAOs Standards on Ratio Studies.

8
Market trends were generated for each study year and group. Outlier sales were eliminated before
regressions were performed using the same interquartile-range outlier exclusion method used to
eliminate outliers before ratio statistics were produced (described later in this report). Trends were
applied to sales prices whenever they were statistically significant (p < .05).

ORPTS cautions that the SAR method works best when assessment uniformity is good. At the time of the
study, it was suspected that the later study years assessments were poor and a court had ruled 2002-03
assessments were poor. Conversely, courts had ruled on the good uniformity of 2003-04 assessed values
and OPRTS and county assessor ratio studies found good uniformity with 2010-11 assessments.

To account for this, Newsday first ran the SAR regressions using each study years assessed values and
then after consultation with assessment experts ran the regressions with 2003-04 values instead of
2002-03 values and 2010-11 values instead of all other study year values. In other words, for the 2002-
03 study year the sales-to-assessment ratios were made up of each sale price for that year (as the
denominator) and the assessed value for the same property from the 2003-04 tax year (numerator).

Using the different-year values resulted in better assessment uniformity ratios for all study years.
Therefore, this method was used for all market condition adjustments. A chart of the market condition
regression results, including significance measurements, appears in an appendix to this report.

Race and Ethnicity Stratification

The portion of the study focused on homes in predominantly minority communities was modeled after
one completed by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) for a lawsuit it filed in federal court against
Nassau County over its assessment system in 1999. The lawsuit was dismissed in favor of state remedies
to the situation and the DOJ joined the state-filed Coleman lawsuit.

For its analysis, the DOJ tagged all residential properties in the county that were located in Census tracts
with majority Hispanic and/or non-Hispanic black populations. The agency then calculated mean and
median sales ratios for each group to examine disparities.

For this study, Newsday used geospatial data from Census 2000 and Census 2010 and a geospatial map
of all parcels in Nassau County as of 2016 to determine which properties were in predominantly
minority Census tracts.

Newsday calculated the number of Hispanics and non-Hispanic blacks in each Census tract using table P4
from Census 2000 and table P9 from Census 2010. Non-Hispanics who identified as black alone or in
combination with any number of other races were included in the calculation. This identified 37 of 270
tracts for Census 2000 and 53 of 279 tracts for Census 2010 as predominantly minority.

Homes in minority tracts were grouped together and those in non-minority tracts were grouped
together for each study year. For the 2002-03 study year, Census 2000 tracts and data were used. For
other study years, Census 2010 tracts and data were used.

9
Assessment Appeal Stratification
Properties were further stratified based on whether they appealed their assessments since the freeze
began or have maintained the same assessed value since that time. This was accomplished using
assessment rolls and data files provided by the county that detail the outcome of each appeal.

Special care was taken to discard any properties with value changes not associated with an assessment
appeal. This created three groups of properties from the 385,088 properties that were class I residential
from 2012-13 (when the freeze began) to 2016-17

No AV Change (187,819 properties): Properties with the same assessed value since 2012-13 that did not
file an assessment challenge during the time period.

Appeal (163,943): Properties that appealed their assessment in any year of the time period and either
lost their appeal (same value as prior year) or received a reduction (new assessed value equal to
reduction awarded on appeal). Properties were eliminated from this category if their assessed values
changed from what was listed in the prior-years assessment roll to what was listed in the protest data
files, which contain values from what the county describes as the adjusted tentative assessment roll.

Other (33,326): This group includes properties with assessed values that increased or decreased for
several other reasons. A common reason was physical changes, including Superstorm Sandy damage.
Other reasons include the correction of assessment inventory errors or prior-year appeals settled after
tax bills were sent out having their reductions carried forward to a year when no appeal reduction
occurred. Many of these properties filed appeals, but their assessed value changed in at least one year
between 2012-13 and 2016-17 for reasons other than an appeal.

Eliminating outliers and completing the analysis

Newsday also excluded sales from the study using the inter-quartile range (IQR) outlier exclusion
method documented in IAAOs Standards on Ratio Studies. This process is meant to eliminate
extremely high or low ratios that are not representative of the market.

Also per IAAO standards, the natural logarithm of the ratios was used to identify sales that were more
than three times the IQR below the 25th percentile or above the 75th percentile. These sales fell outside
of a normal progression for each of the study years and groups and were eliminated. A table detailing
the disposition of all county-validated sales in each study group appears in the appendices.

Results and discussion

As stated in the introduction, the goal of this study was to answer the following questions

Are the lower assessment rates the county uses in appeals supported by this study?
How have assessments changed between 2002-03, 2010-11 and 2016-17?
Were properties in predominantly minority communities over-assessed more in 2016-17 than
they were in 2002-03?

10
 Did the countys policies cause any assessment deterioration or increased discrimination?

Are the lower assessment rates the county uses in appeals supported by this study?

Tax representation firms negotiating with the county to lower its level of assessment likely would use
the countys adjusted tentative assessment roll as the basis for whether ratios should be lowered. The
adjusted tentative roll is necessary due to the length of the countys assessment calendar. The county
releases its initial tentative roll before the prior years roll has been finalized, requiring an adjusted
tentative roll to incorporate assessment reductions and other changes made since the prior years roll.

However, in this study we will instead use the 2015-16 tax tables to examine whether the 0.17 percent
assessment rate used in 2016-17 appeals is supported. The 2015-16 assessment roll incorporates all
appeal reductions made for that year and is therefore similar to the adjusted tentative roll for 2016-17.

The IAAOs Standards on Ratio Studies recommends three measures of appraisal level or central
tendency. These measures examine how close the assessment system is to its stated, 0.25 percent level
of assessment. All of them are listed in the below table for the 2015-16 study year. Confidence intervals
(95%) are also listed.

According to the IAAO, the median of the ratios is the preferred method for evaluating appraisal
performance. The mean of the ratios can be affected by outliers. The weighted mean of the ratios,
which gives weight to the value of property, is the statistic used by ORPTS to measure an assessment
jurisdictions appraisal level because it is the IAAOs accepted measure of indirect equalization.

Mean Mean Median Median Weighted Weighted Weighted

Mean C.I. C.I. Median C.I. C.I. Mean Mean C.I. Mean C.I.
Year Ratio Low High Ratio Low High Ratio Low High
2015-16 0.20% 0.19% 0.20% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19% 0.19%

The table shows that all of the accepted measures of appraisal level were well above 0.17 percent
before the county began using that rate to settle appeals.

The analysis suggests, then, that the 0.17 percent assessment rate granted to challengers for 2016-17 is
not supported by this ratio study, as it is 10.5 percent lower than the median calculated here. Notably, all
of the measures are also higher than the 0.18 percent rate used for 2015-16 appeals, even after they
were affected by appeal reductions for that tax year. This suggests that rate, too, is unsupported.

How have assessments changed between 2002-03, 2010-11 and 2016-17?

It will be necessary to review several different statistical measurements to determine how Nassaus
assessments have changed over time and answer the studys second question.

Appraisal levels like those used above measure the overall appraisal performance of an assessment
system and are one of a series of measures for which the IAAO has established standards. Other
measures examine how uniformly a system is assessing property. Vertical inequity measurements

11
examine whether there is a systemic over-assessing of lower-valued properties in comparison to higher-
valued properties (regressivity) or the opposite (progressivity). Horizontal inequity measurements can
be thought of as the average error of a system regardless of the value of properties.

The most common horizontal inequity measurement is the coefficient of dispersion (COD). Vertical
inequities are measured using the price-related differential (PRD) or the more modern coefficient of
price-related bias (PRB), which is less influenced by extreme prices and ratios. The table below lists the
IAAO standards for each measurement

IAAO Standards for older, heterogeneous areas like Nassau County

Acceptable appraisal level of between 90% and 110%
Acceptable COD Range is 5.0 to 15.0
Acceptable PRD Range is 0.98 to 1.03
PRB should generally range from -5% and 5%. Measures outside of -10% to 10% indicate unacceptable
vertical inequities.

The below table shares the studys appraisal level measurements and demonstrates that Nassaus
system was within standards (90% to 110%) in 2010-11, but outside of them in 2002-03 and even more
so in 2016-17. Only 2010-11s weighted mean ratio falls just outside of the standard.

Mean Mean Median Median Weighted Weighted Weighted

Mean C.I. C.I. Median C.I. C.I. Mean Mean C.I. Mean C.I.
Year Ratio Low High Ratio Low High Ratio Low High
2002-03 85.4% 85.2% 85.7% 86.1% 85.7% 86.4% 83.4% 83.0% 83.8%
2010-11 91.4% 91.2% 91.6% 91.0% 90.8% 91.2% 89.8% 89.4% 90.1%
2016-17 73.4% 73.1% 73.7% 69.4% 69.1% 69.8% 70.2% 69.8% 70.6%

The table below shares the studys coefficient of dispersion, price-related differential and coefficient of
price-related bias results and related significance measurements. It shows the county was well within
COD standards (5.0 to 15.0) in 2010-11 and 2002-03, but outside of them by 2016-17 at 15.3. The county
was also within PRD (0.98 to 1.03) and PRB (-5% to 5%) standards in 2002-03 and 2010-11, but outside
of them in 2016-17 with a PRB more than three times the 2002-03 value.

COD COD PRD PRD PRB PRB

PRB
Year COD C.I. C.I. PRD C.I. C.I. PRB C.I. C.I. PRB t
Sig.
Low High Low High Low High
2002-03 13.1 12.9 13.3 1.02 1.02 1.03 -2.1% -2.6% -1.6% (7.6) 0.000
2010-11 7.6 7.4 7.7 1.02 1.02 1.02 -3.5% -3.8% -3.1% (19.2) 0.000
2016-17 15.3 15.0 15.6 1.05 1.04 1.05 -6.5% -7.1% -5.9% (20.3) 0.000

Taken together, the results show that Nassaus assessment system was within all IAAO standards in
2010-11, but outside all of them by 2016-17. Additionally, the system was more than three times as
regressive in 2016-17 as it was in 2002-03, when looking at the PRB.

12
Were properties in predominantly minority communities over-assessed more in 2016-17 than they
were in 2002-03?

The below chart compares the appraisal performance of assessments in and out of minority
communities over all the study years and can be used to determine whether Nassaus system was
assessing minority properties at a higher level in 2016-17 than in 2002-03.

Mean Mean Med. Med. Wgted. Wgted. Wgted.

Mean C.I. C.I. Median C.I. C.I. Mean C.I. C.I.
Year Group Ratio Low High Ratio Low High Ratio High Low
2003 Elsewhere 84.0% 83.7% 84.3% 84.9% 84.6% 85.2% 82.5% 82.2% 82.9%
2003 Minority 95.4% 94.6% 96.2% 94.9% 94.2% 95.5% 94.4% 93.6% 95.2%
% Difference 13.6% 13.1% 14.2% 11.7% 11.4% 12.1% 14.4% 13.9% 14.8%
2011 Elsewhere 90.7% 90.5% 90.9% 90.3% 90.0% 90.6% 89.1% 88.8% 89.5%
2011 Minority 97.6% 96.9% 98.4% 96.7% 96.2% 97.2% 96.5% 95.8% 97.2%
% Difference 7.7% 7.1% 8.2% 7.1% 6.8% 7.4% 8.2% 7.8% 8.6%
2013 Elsewhere 85.3% 85.0% 85.6% 84.7% 84.1% 85.2% 82.9% 82.5% 83.4%
2013 Minority 91.6% 90.8% 92.4% 91.9% 90.9% 92.9% 90.8% 90.0% 91.5%
% Difference 7.4% 6.8% 8.0% 8.6% 8.0% 9.1% 9.4% 9.1% 9.8%
2017 Elsewhere 72.7% 72.4% 73.0% 68.8% 68.4% 69.3% 69.8% 69.4% 70.3%
2017 Minority 80.6% 79.3% 81.8% 77.1% 74.9% 79.2% 78.2% 77.1% 79.3%
% Difference 10.8% 9.6% 12.1% 12.0% 9.6% 14.4% 12.0% 11.1% 12.9%

The chart shows minority properties were assessed at a higher level than properties elsewhere more in
2016-17 than in 2002-03. The gap between properties in those communities and elsewhere grew in
2012-13 and again in 2016-17.

Nonetheless, the difference between the 2002-03 gap and the 2016-17 gap is different depending upon
which measurement is used. Using the median, the gap was 2.5 percent larger in 2016-17 than it was in
2002-03. But the difference is completely different when the other measurements are used, including a
decrease of 20.5 percent with the mean and 16.5 percent with the weighted mean.

So, which measure is correct? The IAAO recommends using the median ratio to judge the appraisal
performance of an assessment system, because the mean measurements are more sensitive to outliers
or place a higher emphasis on higher-valued property. In this case, it would appear that the reason for
the difference in the measures is due to the coefficient of price-related bias for properties in minority
communities in 2002-03 being 2.2 percent (not significant at 0.14). So, both means were pulled higher
by the significantly higher-assessed, higher-value properties in the earlier study year.

As such, the data suggests Nassau was assessing properties in minority communities at a higher level 2.5
percent more in 2016-17 than it was in 2002-03, based on the median ratio results displayed above.

13
Did the countys policies cause any assessment deterioration or increased discrimination?

As was stated in the introduction, the county began settling nearly 80 percent of all assessment
challenges filed beginning in 2011-12 and froze nearly all assessments beginning in 2012-13. Under the
freeze, properties would not receive a market adjustment unless they challenged their assessment.

Further, the head of the countys assessment appeal board told Newsday that appealed properties only
receive a market adjustment in their first year of appealing under the countys settlement program.

The below table shows the appraisal level results for appealed and not-appealed properties for 2012-13
and 2016-17. For space, the table only lists the mean and median ratios. The weighted mean ratio is
listed in an appendix to this report. Also, only median ratio values will be referenced in this section.

Med.
Mkt. Adj. Mean Mean Mean Median Med. C.I.
Year Group Sale Price Ratio C.I. Low C.I. High Ratio C.I. Low High
2012-13 No AV Change $410,000 88.6% 88.3% 89.0% 88.9% 88.5% 89.3%
2016-17 No AV Change $433,026 82.4% 81.8% 82.9% 81.7% 81.2% 82.2%
% Difference - -7.1% -7.3% -6.9% -8.1% -8.3% -7.9%
2012-13 Appealed $485,000 80.3% 79.9% 80.7% 79.8% 79.4% 80.3%
2016-17 Appealed $511,826 67.0% 66.7% 67.3% 66.7% 66.6% 66.8%
% Difference - -16.5% -16.5% -16.5% -16.5% -16.2% -16.8%

As can be seen in the chart, despite maintaining a consistent assessed value, properties with no
assessment appeals have still seen their assessment level decline 8.1 percent. This is because market
values have increased, which leads to assessment level declines. However, appealed properties rates
decline far more, by 16.5 percent, indicating either that appeal reductions went beyond what market
trends would justify or market values are increasing more rapidly for that group.

Notably, the market condition adjustment analysis performed for this study suggests appealed and not-
appealed properties had similar market forces acting on them before and at the end of the study period.

This suggests appeals and not market forces are playing a larger role in the countys dwindling
appraisal performance and in the 18.4 percent gap in assessment level of appealed and not-appealed
properties for 2016-17 (66.7 percent versus 81.7 percent). It also suggests appeals are driving the
increasing countywide horizontal inequity as the appraisal level of appealed properties continues to
decline at a faster rate than that of the not-appealed properties. Furthermore, median market-adjusted
sales prices of appealed properties for 2016-17 were 18.2 percent higher than not-appealed properties,
suggesting that appeals are also the main contributor to the increasing regressiveness.

As was noted earlier in this report, appealed and no AV change properties do not make up all the
properties in the county. The other category defined earlier, however, makes up only 8.6 percent of all
properties in the county and 20.9 percent of verified sales before outliers were excluded. Therefore,

14
other sales would have a much smaller effect on countywide performance than properties in the other
two categories.

Many other properties filed and won appeals during the study period, but were excluded from the
appealed category due to their assessed values being changed for other reasons, including physical
changes. Not surprisingly, though, appraisal level changes seen for the other category, which can be
viewed in an appendix to this report, more closely resemble changes seen in the appealed group than
those exhibited by the no AV change group.

Minority properties also make up a small portion of the countys assessment roll, at 14.8 percent and
between 9.8 percent and 11.4 percent of sales in each study year before outliers are excluded.
Therefore, forces affecting those properties are having a smaller effect on the county as a whole than
forces affecting properties in other communities.

In answering the second part of the last question posed above did the countys policies cause any
increased discrimination it is also important to examine what percentage of properties appealed in
each community. See the below chart for 2016-17 figures.

% % No AV % No AV Average
Group Properties Other Appeal
Other Appeal Change Change reduction %
Elsewhere 327,323 37,374 11.42% 161,191 49.25% 128,758 39.34% -14.9%
Minority 56,930 4,617 8.11% 19,641 34.50% 32,672 57.39% -15.0%
All properties 384,253 41,991 10.93% 180,832 47.06% 161,430 42.01% -14.9%

As can be seen in the chart, properties in minority communities were 29.9 percent less likely to be in the
appeal group (49.3 percent versus 34.5 percent). This has several implications.

First, since appealed and other properties make up just 42.6 percent of the minority communities, they
will have less of an effect on those communities than no AV change properties.

Second, since a smaller percentage of minority community properties appealed than did properties
outside of minority communities, the minority properties would experience a smaller proportionate
share of market condition adjustments (in their first appeal year) and reductions due to the lower levels
of assessment used for appeals.

The chart also shows that minority community properties received a slightly larger percentage reduction
in their assessed values on appeal (-15 percent versus -14.9 percent). One reason for this could be that
minority community properties did not increase in market value as much as other properties during the
period. If so, they would receive a larger reduction due to the market adjustments they receive on their
first appeal. Without those market adjustments which properties in minority communities were less
likely to receive their assessment levels will not decline as quickly as other properties. This could be
driving the gap between properties in and out of minority communities more so than appeal reductions,
something that we begin to explore in the next chart.

15
 Mkt. Mean Mean Med. Med.
Adj. Sale Mean C.I. C.I. Median C.I. C.I.
Year Group Price Ratio Low High Ratio Low High
2012-13 Elsewh. - No AV Change $428,750 88.3% 87.9% 88.7% 88.6% 88.1% 89.0%
2016-17 Elsewh. - No AV Change $452,504 81.8% 81.3% 82.3% 81.3% 80.8% 81.9%
% Difference - -7.4% -7.6% -7.2% -8.2% -8.4% -8.0%
2012-13 Minority - No AV Change $323,000 90.1% 89.3% 90.9% 90.5% 89.4% 91.5%
2016-17 Minority - No AV Change $328,964 86.8% 85.2% 88.3% 84.8% 83.2% 86.5%
% Difference - -3.7% -4.6% -2.9% -6.2% -6.9% -5.5%
2012-13 Elsewh. - Appeal $500,000 80.3% 79.9% 80.6% 79.8% 79.4% 80.3%
2016-17 Elsewh. - Appeal $530,972 66.9% 66.6% 67.2% 66.7% 66.6% 66.9%
% Difference - -16.7% -16.7% -16.7% -16.4% -16.1% -16.7%
2012-13 Minority - Appeal $297,983 89.2% 87.7% 90.8% 87.6% 85.6% 89.5%
2016-17 Minority - Appeal $320,000 74.7% 73.2% 76.3% 68.3% 67.3% 69.2%
% Difference - -16.3% -16.6% -16.0% -22.0% -21.4% -22.7%

As can be seen in the chart, unappealed minority properties did not see their assessment levels decline
as much as properties in other areas, indicating that their market values have not increased as much.
However, this is likely impacted by the fact that the 0.5 percent market condition decrease measured for
2012-13 minority no AV change properties was not statistically significant (sig. of 0.09), even though
the entire minority community property population had a statistically significant market adjustment
decrease of 0.7 percent. If the market condition adjustment for 2012-13 minority no AV change
properties were applied, then those properties would have declined in assessment level by 9 percent,
even more than the decrease for unappealed properties not in minority communities.

All other market condition adjustments that were not statistically significant were reviewed to
determine whether they would have an impact on the findings in this report. Only one other statistically
insignificant adjustment would have produced a large change in the sales prices of properties, for the
2016-17 appealed minority properties group displayed above (sig. of 0.08). As can be seen in the chart,
the assessment level of such properties declined 22 percent without the adjustment. With the
adjustment, which mirrors the statistically significant adjustment for the entire minority community
group for 2016-17, they would have declined 23.1 percent.

Regardless of the market condition adjustments, the assessment levels of properties in and out of
minority communities are very similar when grouped by whether they appealed. For instance,
unappealed minority properties were assessed at 84.8 percent of their value in 2016-17 and unappealed
properties elsewhere were assessed at 81.3 percent, suggesting that the minority community properties
are assessed at a level 4.3 percent higher, a number that does not change regardless of whether
statistically insignificant market adjustments are applied. The same goes for appealed properties.
Minority appealed properties were assessed just 2.3 percent higher than appealed properties elsewhere
in 2016-17 or just 0.9 percent if all market condition adjustments are applied.

16
Given that minority properties are assessed very close to the properties elsewhere once they appeal, it
appears the gap existing in the assessment levels of properties in and out of those communities is also
driven primarily by the assessment reductions being awarded on appeal. Since properties in minority
communities are 30 percent less likely to appeal, they are getting fewer market adjustments and fewer
reductions based on the lower levels of assessment used for appeals.

Another notable finding of the examination of the appeal groups in each community is that minority not-
appealed properties are today assessed 27.2 percent higher than appealed properties elsewhere

Mean Mean Med. Med.

Mean Ratio Ratio Median Ratio Ratio
Year Group Ratio Low High Ratio Low High
2016-17 Elsewh. - Appeal 66.9% 66.6% 67.2% 66.7% 66.6% 66.9%
2016-17 Minority - No AV Change 86.8% 85.2% 88.3% 84.8% 83.2% 86.5%
% Difference 29.7% 28.0% 31.5% 27.2% 25.0% 29.3%

Comparison to other Ratio Studies

An attempt was made to obtain as many other ratio studies of the countys assessment system for the
tax years examined in this study as possible. Several studies were obtained and are compared to
Newsdays results in this section with a discussion of the possible reasons for any disparities and any
impact they might have on this studys findings.

County officials told Newsday the only ratio studies they prepared were for use in litigation, and cited
that exemption to the states open records law in refusing to provide them. Two ratio studies they did
provide were commissioned by taxpayer representation firms. Neither of them appeared to use final
assessed values as used in this study, and only one examined a tax year that was examined in this study.

Newsday also obtained several other studies from various publicly-available sources, including those
produced by ORPTS, the countys prior assessor and the countys reassessment contractor. Many of
these were more applicable for a comparison, but did not provide a full range of statistics.

The market value surveys produced by ORPTS focus solely on the assessment level (equalization rate) of
Nassaus system, and do not contain any equity statistics to compare to Newsdays results. The chart
below compares the results of ORPTS analyses of weighted mean ratios to Newsdays study.

Study 2002-03 2010-11 2012-13 2015-16

ORPTS 1.83% 0.25% 0.23% 0.20%
Newsday 1.76% 0.22% 0.21% 0.19%
Difference 4.0% 11.4% 10.1% 6.5%

As can be seen in the chart, ORPTS assessment level results were all higher by up to 11.4 percent
than those found by Newsday. Based on a review of the states methodology, one major reason for the
disparities may have been a choice by state officials to use the 2010-11 locally stated assessment level

17
instead of one they calculated, which they do in cases when there is a less than five percent difference
between their calculations and the local ratio. Other reasons for the disparity may include the states
use of sales the county considers to be invalid or the states use of sales Newsday eliminated during its
additional sales verification measures or outlier exclusions.

Focusing on Newsdays examination of the overall performance of Nassaus assessment system, had
Newsdays assessment level measurements been higher in the ranges produced by ORPTS, this studys
findings would not have changed.

In particular, had Newsday produced a higher weighted mean ratio for 2015-16, it would have been
even less supportive of the lower assessment rates used by the county for appeals. Further, none of the
assessment level measurements currently outside of IAAO standards would have come into them
(except for the weighted mean ratio for 2010-11, which is just outside of the standard) or exceeded
them if Newsdays results showed them within standards.

Another study completed by the countys last appointed assessor produced coefficient of dispersion
measurements for the 2010-11 tax year. The results of the analysis found a COD for that year of 8.2322,
which is 8.5 percent higher than the 7.5865 COD found by Newsday. The assessors report does not
provide any details on the methodology employed, but one might guess that Newsdays additional
validation measures or outlier exclusion could explain its lower result.

Had Newsdays study reflected COD measurements that were 8.5 percent higher for all tax years, it
would not have changed whether any of the measurements were in or outside of IAAO standards.

The countys reassessment contractor conducted a full study of the 2002-03 tax year as it prepared the
countys reassessment. The study used various periods of sales to examine that tax year. The results of
those various periods are compared to Newsdays results in the below chart.

Study Median COD PRD

Newsday - 1/1/01-12/31/01 1.76% 13.11 1.024
Contractor - 1/1/00-12/31/01 1.85% 14.83 1.026
Difference 5.11% 13.12% 0.17%
Contractor - 8/1/00-7/31/02 1.83% 16.24 1.035
Difference 3.98% 23.88% 1.05%

As can be seen in the chart, the contractor used two years of sales as opposed to the one year of sales
used by Newsday. Two different time periods of sales were also used, with one resulting in
measurements showing far more inaccuracy. Further, the contractor used a far more advanced time-
adjustment method known as multiple regression analysis to adjust sales prices.

Again, Newsdays results are lower than those of the comparison study. The disparity in the PRDs is
slight, about 1 percent or less when compared to the contractors results. The median assessed values,
however, show a greater disparity (about as much as when compared to ORPTS), and the COD results
are much different, up to a 24 percent disparity.

18
Of course, a 24 percent increase in Newsdays results for the COD measurement of tax year 2002-03
would have produced different findings. Not only would the 2002-03 COD be outside of standards, it
would exceed the COD for 2016-17 and therefore be more inaccurate, not less as reflected in Newsdays
findings. The latter is also true if there is only a 13 percent increase as shown in the first of the two sales
periods reviewed by the contractor.

While it is not clear exactly why the COD disparity exists, the fact that two years of sales are used seems
like a likely explanation. Newsday used one year of sales leading up to the valuation date, which is the
same time period used by the county in preparing its assessments. Because more poorly-assessed
properties might have sold in different years, this could push the COD up. Further, conducting a time-
adjustment over two years, even with multiple regression analysis, might result in less accurate results
than adjusting over one year. All of this is reflected by the fact that the contractors own COD
measurement varied so widely depending on the time period of sales used.

Only one study reviewed by Newsday examined the disparities in and out of minority communities in
Nassau County. Newsday modeled its analysis off of one completed by the U.S. Department of Justice
for the 1997-98 tax year. While not comparable to this studys results, its finding is far different from the
results produced by Newsdays analysis.

The DOJ analysis found mean assessment levels in predominantly minority communities were 27
percent higher than those in other areas in 1997-98. Newsday found the over-assessment was only 13.6
percent five years later in 2002-03.

The DOJ study also reported median and average assessment levels for the county as a whole for 1997-
98. They are comparable to results published by ORPTS (using the weighted mean) for the same year,
varying by only 1.6 percent to 3.8 percent depending upon which measure is compared to the ORPTS
weighted mean. So, the results of the DOJ study are not widely different than those of ORPTS.

While ORPTS did not produce detailed ratio statistics for more recent years, it did produce COD and PRD
results for 1997-98 and they are significantly higher than what Newsday found for 2002-03. For 1997-98,
ORPTS reported a COD of 18.19 and a PRD of 1.04. Both are far greater than the 13.1 COD and 1.02 PRD
Newsday found for 2002-03.

Taken together, the DOJ study and the old ORPTS analysis suggest strongly that Nassaus assessment
system was far more regressive, inaccurate and discriminatory in earlier years before the reassessment.
Notably, this is when the Coleman lawsuit was filed.

Sales Chasing
As noted in the executive summary of this report, an expert that has worked with one tax appeal firm
reviewed an earlier version of this study report and provided substantial feedback. The expert had
produced prior analyses of Nassau Countys assessments that suggested the county was using sales
chasing in its preparation of assessments.

19
IAAO defines sales chasing as the practice of using the sale of a property to trigger a reappraisal of that
property at or near the selling price. If such sales are used in a ratio study, it can result in invalid
uniformity and appraisal level results.

In his comments on this report, the expert alleged that Nassau County has been sales chasing and that
Newsdays analysis failed to account for this practice in developing its methodology.

IAAO defines a method for detecting sales chasing and for evaluating the uniformity and appraisal level
of assessments if sales chasing is occurring. In particular, IAAOs Standards on Ratio Studies suggests
conducting a new study using a separate set of sales that occurred after the valuation date of each study
year. If the separate analysis produces uniformity measures that are higher than a study using sales
before the valuation date the method Newsday used in its study the results of the original study
should be discarded in favor of the new results.

Throughout the process of developing methodologies for the various analyses undertaken in reviewing
the effects of the countys overhaul, Newsday has focused on producing analyses that are conservative
and fair in approach. During the process of developing these methodologies, Newsday became aware of
the experts work and considered the possibility of sales chasing.

However, the experts allegations that the county has established a policy of sales chasing are incorrect.
In particular, in his comments on this study, the expert alleged that under its assessment freeze the
county was updating assessments if a property sold as a matter of policy. This is not true. According to
the Executive Order that began the freeze, assessments would only be updated if a property underwent
a physical change or a grievance resolved in favor of the appellant. A review of the data suggests that
the Department of Assessment has followed this policy. Further, even if the Department of Assessment
were sales chasing, it would have little way of knowing how the practice was affecting study results,
because a request for any study it has conducted was denied on the basis that it does not have any.

Nonetheless, the county has at times set assessments using the sale price of a property during its
assessment freeze.

First, for its 2012-13 assessment roll that began the freeze, the county established assessments at the
lowest of a range of values, including those produced by the countys modeling software, by the
Assessment Review Commission in challenges and, among other values, the recent sale price of the
property. The Nassau County Comptroller reviewed the methodology used to produce that assessment
roll and found that 827 residential properties had been valued using the sale price of a property out of
more than 300,000 such properties.

Second, whenever a property filing an assessment challenge has been sold recently, the Assessment
Review Commission often uses the sale price of the property as its appraisal of the propertys value. As
there have been tens of thousands of assessment challenges filed every year, this means that hundreds
of properties are assessed by the commission in this manner every year. Due to the assessment freeze,
these assessments get carried forward into future years by the countys assessment department, but

20
because it is assessing property at a much higher rate than the commission the market values listed on
its assessment roll and analyzed by this study are much lower than the sales prices of the properties.

It would seem that the few properties that had their assessments set at the beginning of the freeze at
their sales prices would have a limited effect, if any, on the results of this ratio study, which used many
thousands of sales in each study year. It is less clear how the Assessment Review Commissions practices
would affect the results of the study, but it is clear that the market values calculated by the Department
of Assessment using the assessments calculated at lower, varied rates by the commission are not
representative of sales prices.

Nonetheless, out of an abundance of caution Newsday produced a separate study using sales one year
after the valuation date to verify that the results of such an analysis are not wildly different from those
developed in this study. Sales in this study were market-adjusted using the same SAR method described
earlier in this report, but they were adjusted backward (instead of forward) to the valuation date. All
other methods described in this report remained the same for this separate study.

While it is not surprising that this new method produces different numbers than the original study, it
does not affect any of the conclusions. Here is a rundown of the key results

Statistic mentioned in story Original Result New Result Comments

What was the weighted mean ratio for 2015-
16 before the county used 0.17 percent to Still doesn't justify 0.17
settle appeals? 0.19% 0.19% percent rate.
What was the median ratio for 2010-11? 91.0% 93.4% Still within standards.
Still outside of
What was the median ratio for 2016-17? 69.4% 74.1% standards.
What was the COD in 2010-11? 7.6 9.9 Still within standards.
Now further outside of
What was the COD in 2016-17? 15.3 17.9 standards.
What was the PRD in 2010-11? 1.02 1.02 Still within standards.
Now further outside of
What was the PRD in 2016-17? 1.05 1.06 standards.
What was the PRB in 2010-11? -3.5% -3.3% Still within standards.
Now further outside of
standards and now
more than twice what
What was the PRB in 2016-17? -6.5% -7.9% it was in 2010-11.
How much higher was the median ratio of Now even higher. Was
minority properties in comparison to other 11.7% vs. 12% and now
properties in 2016-17 than in 2002-03? 2.5% 48.1% is 10.3% vs. 15.3%.
How much higher is the median ratio of
unappealed minority properties in
comparison to other, appealed properties? 27.2% 28.6% Now even higher.

21
The results produced a higher COD than was produced by the original ratio study, and IAAO standards
would call for the discarding of the original results due to this finding.

However, it is unclear whether the reason for the higher CODs is actually due to sales chasing. Aside
from the fact that the county doesnt assess most properties, consider that the original study (and this
second one) used assessments from 2010-11 in market condition adjustment SARs through to the 2016-
17 tax year. The results of this new analysis could be worse simply because even later sales are being
coupled with 2010-11 assessments than those used in the SARs in the original study.

Finally, again, there was a focus on being conservative and fair in developing the ratio studys
methodology, and while these results are different, they reach the same conclusions without assuming
the county is engaging in potentially illegal sales chasing. As a result, no modifications to the original
study methodology were made due to allegations of sales chasing.

22
Appendix I Sales validation and outlier exclusion (1 of 2)

Valid Verified Outlier Percent

Year Group Sales Sales Excluded Included Included
2002-03 Overview 12,568 10,761 45(0.4%) 10,716 85%
2010-11 Overview 7,960 7,465 44(0.6%) 7,421 93%
2012-13 Overview 7,782 7,435 18(0.2%) 7,417 95%
2015-16 Overview 9,404 8,843 7(0.1%) 8,836 94%
2016-17 Overview 8,619 8,093 22(0.3%) 8,071 94%
2002-03 Elsewhr. 10,866 9,398 36(0.4%) 9,362 86%
2002-03 Minority 1,702 1,363 11(0.8%) 1,352 79%
2010-11 Elsewhr. 7,032 6,617 41(0.6%) 6,576 94%
2010-11 Minority 928 848 2(0.2%) 846 91%
2012-13 Elsewhr. 6,910 6,587 16(0.2%) 6,571 95%
2012-13 Minority 872 848 2(0.2%) 846 97%
2015-16 Elsewhr. 8,515 7,994 7(0.1%) 7,987 94%
2015-16 Minority 889 849 0(0.0%) 849 96%
2016-17 Elsewhr. 7,756 7,255 19(0.3%) 7,236 93%
2016-17 Minority 863 838 0(0.0%) 838 97%
2002-03 Appeal 5,520 4,762 19(0.4%) 4,743 86%
2002-03 No Av Change 5,541 4,754 14(0.3%) 4,740 86%
2002-03 Other 1,482 1,245 7(0.6%) 1,238 84%
2010-11 Appeal 3,754 3,478 25(0.7%) 3,453 92%
2010-11 No Av Change 3,122 3,033 14(0.5%) 3,019 97%
2010-11 Other 1,076 954 5(0.5%) 949 88%
2012-13 Appeal 2,946 2,870 3(0.1%) 2,867 97%
2012-13 No Av Change 2,404 2,370 7(0.3%) 2,363 98%
2012-13 Other 2,429 2,195 11(0.5%) 2,184 90%
2015-16 Appeal 3,613 3,568 15(0.4%) 3,553 98%
2015-16 No Av Change 1,899 1,843 4(0.2%) 1,839 97%
2015-16 Other 3,749 3,432 2(0.1%) 3,430 91%
2016-17 Appeal 4,518 4,444 113(2.6%) 4,331 96%
2016-17 No Av Change 2,666 2,580 11(0.4%) 2,569 96%
2016-17 Other 1,242 1,069 9(0.8%) 1,060 85%

23
Appendix I Sales validation and outlier exclusion (2 of 2)

Valid Verified Outlier Percent

Year Group Sales Sales Excluded Included Included
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Appeal 4,990 4,334 14(0.3%) 4,320 87%
2002-03 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 4,495 3,914 11(0.3%) 3,903 87%
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Other 1,360 1,150 7(0.6%) 1,143 84%
2002-03 Minority - Appeal 530 428 3(0.7%) 425 80%
2002-03 Minority - No Av Change 1,046 840 6(0.7%) 834 80%
2002-03 Minority - Other 122 95 2(2.2%) 93 76%
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Appeal 3,479 3,214 21(0.7%) 3,193 92%
2010-11 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 2,582 2,516 14(0.6%) 2,502 97%
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Other 963 887 5(0.6%) 882 92%
2010-11 Minority - Appeal 275 264 0(0.0%) 264 96%
2010-11 Minority - No Av Change 540 517 0(0.0%) 517 96%
2010-11 Minority - Other 113 67 1(1.5%) 66 58%
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Appeal 2,734 2,666 3(0.1%) 2,663 97%
2012-13 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 2,020 1,995 5(0.3%) 1,990 99%
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Other 2,154 1,926 11(0.6%) 1,915 89%
2012-13 Minority - Appeal 212 204 0(0.0%) 204 96%
2012-13 Minority - No Av Change 384 375 2(0.5%) 373 97%
2012-13 Minority - Other 275 269 0(0.0%) 269 98%
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Appeal 3,353 3,313 9(0.3%) 3,304 99%
2015-16 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 1,686 1,635 3(0.2%) 1,632 97%
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Other 3,339 3,046 3(0.1%) 3,043 91%
2015-16 Minority - Appeal 260 255 1(0.4%) 254 98%
2015-16 Minority - No Av Change 213 208 1(0.5%) 207 97%
2015-16 Minority - Other 410 386 0(0.0%) 386 94%
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Appeal 4,142 4,073 81(2.0%) 3,992 96%
2016-17 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 2,317 2,236 10(0.4%) 2,226 96%
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Other 1,114 946 8(0.9%) 938 84%
2016-17 Minority - Appeal 376 371 4(1.1%) 367 98%
2016-17 Minority - No Av Change 349 344 1(0.3%) 343 98%
2016-17 Minority - Other 128 123 0(0.0%) 123 96%

24
Appendix II Market Condition Analysis Results (part 1 of 2)

Year Group Beta T Value Significance Beta Low C.I. Beta High C.I. Used/Not Used

2002-03 Overview 1.0% 33.193 0.000 1.0% 1.1% Used

2010-11 Overview -0.5% (12.888) 0.000 -0.5% -0.4% Used
2012-13 Overview -0.2% (3.489) 0.000 -0.3% -0.1% Used
2015-16 Overview 0.5% 8.378 0.000 0.4% 0.6% Used
2016-17 Overview 0.3% 4.916 0.000 0.2% 0.4% Used
2002-03 Elsewhr. 1.0% 30.604 0.000 0.9% 1.1% Used
2002-03 Minority 1.1% 12.422 0.000 0.9% 1.2% Used
2010-11 Elsewhr. -0.4% (10.543) 0.000 -0.5% -0.3% Used
2010-11 Minority -1.0% (8.925) 0.000 -1.2% -0.8% Used
2012-13 Elsewhr. -0.1% (2.470) 0.014 -0.2% 0.0% Used
2012-13 Minority -0.7% (3.727) 0.000 -1.0% -0.3% Used
2015-16 Elsewhr. 0.5% 8.973 0.000 0.4% 0.6% Used
2015-16 Minority 0.0% (0.072) 0.943 -0.4% 0.4% Not Used
2016-17 Elsewhr. 0.3% 4.569 0.000 0.2% 0.4% Used
2016-17 Minority 0.5% 2.777 0.006 0.2% 0.9% Used
2002-03 No Av Change 1.1% 22.896 0.000 1.0% 1.1% Used
2002-03 Other 0.9% 10.091 0.000 0.7% 1.1% Used
2002-03 Appeal 1.0% 21.824 0.000 0.9% 1.1% Used
2010-11 No Av Change -0.5% (9.452) 0.000 -0.6% -0.4% Used
2010-11 Other -0.4% (4.103) 0.000 -0.6% -0.2% Used
2010-11 Appeal -0.4% (7.781) 0.000 -0.5% -0.3% Used
2012-13 No Av Change 0.0% (0.417) 0.676 -0.3% 0.2% Not Used
2012-13 Other -0.4% (3.832) 0.000 -0.7% -0.2% Used
2012-13 Appeal -0.2% (1.937) 0.053 -0.3% 0.0% Not Used
2015-16 No Av Change 0.6% 4.383 0.000 0.3% 0.8% Used
2015-16 Other 0.4% 4.088 0.000 0.2% 0.6% Used
2015-16 Appeal 0.8% 8.927 0.000 0.6% 1.0% Used
2016-17 No Av Change 0.5% 4.566 0.000 0.3% 0.7% Used
2016-17 Other -0.3% (1.103) 0.270 -0.8% 0.2% Not Used
2016-17 Appeal 0.4% 4.487 0.000 0.2% 0.5% Used

25
Appendix II Market Condition Analysis Results (part 2 of 2)

Year Group Beta T Value Significance Beta Low C.I. Beta High C.I. Used/Not Used

2002-03 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 1.0% 19.991 0.000 0.9% 1.1% Used

2002-03 Elsewhr. - Other 0.9% 9.868 0.000 0.8% 1.1% Used
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Appeal 1.0% 21.041 0.000 0.9% 1.1% Used
2002-03 Minority - No Av Change 1.2% 11.000 0.000 1.0% 1.4% Used
2002-03 Minority - Other 0.7% 2.269 0.026 0.1% 1.4% Used
2002-03 Minority - Appeal 0.9% 5.724 0.000 0.6% 1.2% Used
2010-11 Elsewhr. - No Av Change -0.4% (7.237) 0.000 -0.6% -0.3% Used
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Other -0.4% (3.728) 0.000 -0.6% -0.2% Used
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Appeal -0.3% (6.597) 0.000 -0.4% -0.2% Used
2010-11 Minority - No Av Change -1.0% (6.577) 0.000 -1.3% -0.7% Used
2010-11 Minority - Other -0.7% (1.914) 0.060 -1.5% 0.0% Not Used
2010-11 Minority - Appeal -1.2% (5.903) 0.000 -1.6% -0.8% Used
2012-13 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 0.0% (0.021) 0.983 -0.2% 0.2% Not Used
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Other -0.2% (1.938) 0.053 -0.4% 0.0% Not Used
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Appeal -0.2% (1.758) 0.079 -0.3% 0.0% Not Used
2012-13 Minority - No Av Change -0.5% (1.693) 0.091 -1.0% 0.1% Not Used
2012-13 Minority - Other -1.4% (3.211) 0.002 -2.3% -0.5% Used
2012-13 Minority - Appeal -1.3% (2.993) 0.003 -2.2% -0.5% Used
2015-16 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 0.5% 4.321 0.000 0.3% 0.8% Used
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Other 0.5% 4.494 0.000 0.3% 0.7% Used
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Appeal 0.9% 9.772 0.000 0.7% 1.0% Used
2015-16 Minority - No Av Change 0.5% 1.306 0.193 -0.2% 1.2% Not Used
2015-16 Minority - Other 0.3% 0.949 0.343 -0.3% 0.8% Not Used
2015-16 Minority - Appeal 0.1% 0.219 0.827 -0.7% 0.9% Not Used
2016-17 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 0.4% 3.677 0.000 0.2% 0.6% Used
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Other -0.3% (1.043) 0.297 -0.9% 0.3% Not Used
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Appeal 0.3% 4.067 0.000 0.2% 0.5% Used
2016-17 Minority - No Av Change 0.9% 3.304 0.001 0.4% 1.5% Used
2016-17 Minority - Other -0.4% (0.664) 0.508 -1.5% 0.8% Not Used
2016-17 Minority - Appeal 0.5% 1.749 0.081 -0.1% 1.1% Not Used

26
Appendix III Appraisal Performance Results (part 1 of 2)

Mean Mean Med. Med. Wgted.

Mean C.I. C.I. Median C.I. C.I. Mean Wgted. Wgted.
Year Group Ratio Low High Ratio Low High Ratio C.I. High C.I. Low
2002-03 Overview 85.4% 85.2% 85.7% 86.1% 85.7% 86.4% 83.4% 83.1% 83.8%
2010-11 Overview 91.4% 91.2% 91.6% 91.0% 90.8% 91.2% 89.8% 89.4% 90.1%
2012-13 Overview 85.9% 85.7% 86.2% 85.7% 85.3% 86.1% 83.5% 83.1% 83.9%
2015-16 Overview 78.2% 77.9% 78.5% 75.5% 75.1% 75.9% 75.0% 74.7% 75.4%
2016-17 Overview 73.4% 73.1% 73.7% 69.4% 69.1% 69.8% 70.2% 69.8% 70.6%
2002-03 Elsewhr. 84.0% 83.7% 84.3% 84.9% 84.6% 85.2% 82.5% 82.2% 82.9%
2002-03 Minority 95.4% 94.6% 96.2% 94.9% 94.2% 95.5% 94.4% 93.6% 95.2%
2010-11 Elsewhr. 90.7% 90.5% 90.9% 90.3% 90.0% 90.6% 89.1% 88.8% 89.5%
2010-11 Minority 97.6% 96.9% 98.4% 96.7% 96.2% 97.2% 96.5% 95.8% 97.2%
2012-13 Elsewhr. 85.3% 85.0% 85.6% 84.7% 84.1% 85.2% 82.9% 82.5% 83.4%
2012-13 Minority 91.6% 90.8% 92.4% 91.9% 90.9% 92.9% 90.8% 90.0% 91.5%
2015-16 Elsewhr. 77.3% 77.0% 77.6% 74.7% 74.2% 75.1% 74.5% 74.1% 74.9%
2015-16 Minority 88.5% 87.4% 89.6% 87.1% 85.7% 88.5% 86.5% 85.5% 87.6%
2016-17 Elsewhr. 72.7% 72.4% 73.0% 68.8% 68.4% 69.3% 69.8% 69.4% 70.3%
2016-17 Minority 80.6% 79.3% 81.8% 77.1% 74.9% 79.2% 78.2% 77.1% 79.3%
2002-03 No Av Change 85.7% 85.2% 86.1% 86.3% 85.8% 86.8% 83.7% 83.2% 84.3%
2002-03 Other 84.1% 83.2% 84.9% 84.6% 83.7% 85.4% 82.5% 81.4% 83.6%
2002-03 Appeal 85.5% 85.1% 85.9% 86.3% 85.8% 86.8% 83.4% 82.9% 84.0%
2010-11 No Av Change 92.5% 92.1% 92.8% 91.8% 91.5% 92.1% 90.8% 90.2% 91.3%
2010-11 Other 90.6% 90.0% 91.2% 90.3% 89.6% 91.1% 89.0% 88.1% 89.8%
2010-11 Appeal 90.7% 90.4% 91.0% 90.3% 90.0% 90.6% 89.2% 88.7% 89.6%
2012-13 No Av Change 88.6% 88.3% 89.0% 88.9% 88.5% 89.3% 86.4% 85.7% 87.1%
2012-13 Other 88.9% 88.3% 89.5% 88.3% 87.3% 89.3% 85.6% 84.6% 86.6%
2012-13 Appeal 80.3% 79.9% 80.7% 79.8% 79.4% 80.3% 78.9% 78.4% 79.4%
2015-16 No Av Change 85.4% 84.9% 86.0% 84.8% 84.0% 85.5% 81.8% 81.1% 82.5%
2015-16 Other 78.5% 78.0% 79.0% 76.0% 75.3% 76.7% 75.4% 74.7% 76.1%
2015-16 Appeal 73.2% 72.9% 73.6% 70.6% 70.4% 70.8% 71.0% 70.5% 71.4%
2016-17 No Av Change 82.4% 81.8% 82.9% 81.7% 81.2% 82.2% 78.9% 78.2% 79.5%
2016-17 Other 74.6% 73.7% 75.4% 70.7% 69.6% 71.8% 71.4% 70.2% 72.6%
2016-17 Appeal 67.0% 66.7% 67.3% 66.7% 66.6% 66.8% 65.5% 65.2% 65.9%

27
Appendix III Appraisal Performance Results (part 2 of 2)

Mean Mean Med. Med. Wgted. Wgted. Wgted.

Mean C.I. C.I. Median C.I. C.I. Mean C.I. C.I.
Year Group Ratio Low High Ratio Low High Ratio High Low
2002-03 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 83.6% 83.2% 84.1% 84.6% 84.1% 85.1% 82.3% 81.7% 83.0%
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Other 83.2% 82.4% 84.1% 83.9% 83.1% 84.6% 82.0% 80.9% 83.1%
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Appeal 84.4% 84.0% 84.8% 85.4% 84.9% 85.8% 82.8% 82.2% 83.3%
2002-03 Minority - No Av Change 95.0% 94.0% 96.1% 94.2% 93.3% 95.1% 94.1% 93.0% 95.1%
2002-03 Minority - Other 94.9% 91.6% 98.1% 96.6% 92.1% 101.2% 93.7% 90.6% 96.8%
2002-03 Minority - Appeal 96.3% 95.0% 97.6% 95.7% 94.5% 97.0% 95.0% 93.7% 96.4%
2010-11 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 91.6% 91.2% 91.9% 90.9% 90.6% 91.3% 89.9% 89.3% 90.5%
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Other 90.4% 89.8% 91.0% 90.1% 89.3% 90.8% 88.8% 88.0% 89.6%
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Appeal 90.1% 89.8% 90.4% 89.8% 89.5% 90.1% 88.7% 88.2% 89.2%
2010-11 Minority - No Av Change 96.9% 95.9% 97.9% 96.4% 95.7% 97.0% 95.8% 94.9% 96.7%
2010-11 Minority - Other 89.6% 87.4% 91.9% 89.0% 87.0% 91.0% 88.6% 86.4% 90.9%
2010-11 Minority - Appeal 100.0% 98.6% 101.5% 98.5% 97.4% 99.7% 98.5% 97.1% 99.9%
2012-13 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 88.3% 87.9% 88.7% 88.6% 88.1% 89.0% 86.1% 85.3% 86.8%
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Other 86.9% 86.3% 87.5% 85.9% 84.9% 86.8% 83.6% 82.5% 84.7%
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Appeal 80.3% 79.9% 80.6% 79.8% 79.4% 80.3% 78.8% 78.3% 79.4%
2012-13 Minority - No Av Change 90.1% 89.3% 90.9% 90.5% 89.4% 91.5% 89.4% 88.6% 90.3%
2012-13 Minority - Other 95.8% 94.1% 97.4% 95.4% 93.6% 97.2% 94.4% 92.8% 96.0%
2012-13 Minority - Appeal 89.2% 87.7% 90.8% 87.6% 85.6% 89.5% 88.8% 87.2% 90.4%
2015-16 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 84.3% 83.7% 84.9% 83.7% 82.9% 84.5% 81.1% 80.4% 81.9%
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Other 77.6% 77.1% 78.0% 75.0% 74.3% 75.7% 74.9% 74.2% 75.6%
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Appeal 72.6% 72.2% 73.0% 70.4% 70.1% 70.7% 70.5% 70.0% 71.0%
2015-16 Minority - No Av Change 97.7% 95.8% 99.6% 96.0% 94.1% 97.9% 95.9% 94.2% 97.6%
2015-16 Minority - Other 86.4% 84.8% 87.9% 85.4% 83.1% 87.7% 84.8% 83.3% 86.3%
2015-16 Minority - Appeal 83.4% 81.5% 85.4% 78.5% 75.6% 81.3% 81.5% 79.7% 83.3%
2016-17 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 81.8% 81.3% 82.3% 81.3% 80.8% 81.9% 78.6% 77.9% 79.3%
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Other 73.9% 73.1% 74.8% 70.0% 68.8% 71.1% 71.0% 69.8% 72.2%
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Appeal 66.9% 66.6% 67.2% 66.7% 66.6% 66.9% 65.5% 65.1% 65.9%
2016-17 Minority - No Av Change 86.8% 85.2% 88.3% 84.8% 83.2% 86.5% 85.0% 83.7% 86.4%
2016-17 Minority - Other 81.3% 78.1% 84.5% 76.2% 71.9% 80.5% 80.0% 77.2% 82.9%
2016-17 Minority - Appeal 74.7% 73.2% 76.3% 68.3% 67.3% 69.2% 72.5% 71.1% 73.9%

28
Appendix IV Horizontal and Vertical Inequity Results (part 1 of 2)
Year Group COD COD COD PRD PRD PRD PRB PRB PRB PRB
Low High Low High Low High Sig.
C.I. C.I. C.I. C.I. C.I. C.I.

2002-03 Overview 13.1 12.9 13.3 1.02 1.02 1.03 -2.1% -2.6% -1.6% 0.000
2010-11 Overview 7.6 7.4 7.7 1.02 1.02 1.02 -3.5% -3.8% -3.1% 0.000
2012-13 Overview 10.9 10.8 11.1 1.03 1.03 1.03 -4.0% -4.5% -3.5% 0.000
2015-16 Overview 14.1 13.9 14.4 1.04 1.04 1.05 -6.8% -7.3% -6.2% 0.000
2016-17 Overview 15.3 15.0 15.6 1.05 1.04 1.05 -6.5% -7.1% -5.9% 0.000
2002-03 Appeal 12.5 12.1 12.8 1.02 1.02 1.03 -3.0% -3.7% -2.2% 0.000
2002-03 No Av Change 13.7 13.4 14.1 1.02 1.02 1.03 -1.3% -2.3% -0.3% 0.009
2002-03 Other 13.2 12.6 13.9 1.02 1.01 1.03 -0.2% -1.6% 1.2% 0.801
2010-11 Appeal 7.3 7.1 7.5 1.02 1.01 1.02 -2.8% -3.3% -2.4% 0.000
2010-11 No Av Change 7.7 7.5 8.0 1.02 1.01 1.02 -4.8% -5.5% -4.2% 0.000
2010-11 Other 8.1 7.6 8.5 1.02 1.01 1.02 -2.8% -3.7% -1.9% 0.000
2012-13 Appeal 9.6 9.3 9.9 1.02 1.01 1.02 -2.2% -2.9% -1.5% 0.000
2012-13 No Av Change 7.9 7.6 8.2 1.03 1.02 1.03 -4.3% -4.9% -3.7% 0.000
2012-13 Other 12.5 12.0 13.0 1.04 1.03 1.05 -4.0% -4.9% -3.0% 0.000
2015-16 Appeal 12.3 11.9 12.7 1.03 1.03 1.04 -4.6% -5.4% -3.8% 0.000
2015-16 No Av Change 11.7 11.2 12.1 1.04 1.04 1.05 -10.0% -11.0% -9.0% 0.000
2015-16 Other 14.0 13.7 14.4 1.04 1.03 1.05 -5.9% -6.8% -5.1% 0.000
2016-17 Appeal 9.8 9.5 10.1 1.02 1.02 1.03 -3.3% -3.9% -2.7% 0.000
2016-17 No Av Change 12.3 11.9 12.7 1.04 1.04 1.05 -8.7% -9.7% -7.8% 0.000
2016-17 Other 14.3 13.5 15.2 1.04 1.03 1.06 -5.2% -6.8% -3.6% 0.000
2002-03 Elsewhr. 12.8 12.6 13.0 1.02 1.01 1.02 0.3% -0.3% 0.8% 0.316
2002-03 Minority 11.5 10.9 12.1 1.01 1.01 1.01 2.2% -0.7% 5.2% 0.142
2010-11 Elsewhr. 7.4 7.3 7.6 1.02 1.01 1.02 -3.1% -3.4% -2.7% 0.000
2010-11 Minority 8.4 7.8 8.9 1.01 1.01 1.01 -11.4% -14.1% -8.7% 0.000
2012-13 Elsewhr. 11.0 10.8 11.2 1.03 1.02 1.03 -3.8% -4.3% -3.3% 0.000
2012-13 Minority 9.9 9.3 10.4 1.01 1.01 1.01 -2.5% -5.2% 0.1% 0.056
2015-16 Elsewhr. 13.8 13.5 14.0 1.04 1.03 1.04 -5.8% -6.4% -5.2% 0.000
2015-16 Minority 14.8 14.0 15.6 1.02 1.02 1.03 -8.1% -11.7% -4.5% 0.000
2016-17 Elsewhr. 14.7 14.4 15.0 1.04 1.04 1.05 -5.4% -6.0% -4.7% 0.000
2016-17 Minority 17.7 16.6 18.8 1.03 1.02 1.04 -9.3% -13.6% -5.0% 0.000

29
Appendix IV Horizontal and Vertical Inequity Results (part 2 of 2)
Year Group COD COD COD PRD PRD PRD PRB PRB PRB PRB
Low High Low High Low High Sig.
C.I. C.I. C.I. C.I. C.I. C.I.
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Appeal 12.3 12.0 12.6 1.02 1.02 1.02 -1.1% -1.8% -0.3% 0.007
2002-03 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 13.4 13.0 13.7 1.02 1.01 1.02 2.1% 1.0% 3.1% 0.000
2002-03 Elsewhr. - Other 12.9 12.3 13.6 1.02 1.01 1.02 0.9% -0.6% 2.3% 0.242
2002-03 Minority - Appeal 10.7 9.8 11.6 1.01 1.01 1.02 -4.0% -9.0% 1.0% 0.113
2002-03 Minority - No Av Change 11.7 10.9 12.5 1.01 1.01 1.01 5.5% 1.6% 9.5% 0.006
2002-03 Minority - Other 12.4 9.9 14.9 1.01 1.00 1.02 1.5% -8.4% 11.4% 0.762
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Appeal 7.2 7.0 7.4 1.02 1.01 1.02 -2.4% -2.9% -1.9% 0.000
2010-11 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 7.5 7.2 7.7 1.02 1.01 1.02 -4.4% -5.1% -3.7% 0.000
2010-11 Elsewhr. - Other 8.1 7.6 8.5 1.02 1.01 1.02 -2.7% -3.6% -1.8% 0.000
2010-11 Minority - Appeal 8.4 7.5 9.4 1.02 1.01 1.02 -10.5% -14.6% -6.4% 0.000
2010-11 Minority - No Av Change 8.4 7.7 9.1 1.01 1.01 1.01 -14.5% -18.6% -10.4% 0.000
2010-11 Minority - Other 8.0 6.3 9.7 1.01 1.01 1.02 -7.7% -15.2% -0.2% 0.045
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Appeal 9.6 9.3 10.0 1.02 1.01 1.02 -2.4% -3.1% -1.7% 0.000
2012-13 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 8.0 7.7 8.3 1.03 1.02 1.03 -4.4% -5.1% -3.7% 0.000
2012-13 Elsewhr. - Other 12.7 12.2 13.1 1.04 1.03 1.05 -3.8% -4.8% -2.8% 0.000
2012-13 Minority - Appeal 9.9 8.8 11.0 1.01 1.00 1.01 2.3% -3.0% 7.5% 0.397
2012-13 Minority - No Av Change 7.3 6.7 7.9 1.01 1.01 1.01 -5.4% -8.4% -2.5% 0.000
2012-13 Minority - Other 11.1 10.0 12.3 1.01 1.01 1.02 -6.6% -12.0% -1.3% 0.016
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Appeal 12.0 11.6 12.4 1.03 1.03 1.03 -4.0% -4.8% -3.2% 0.000
2015-16 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 11.4 10.9 11.8 1.04 1.03 1.04 -8.7% -9.8% -7.7% 0.000
2015-16 Elsewhr. - Other 13.8 13.4 14.2 1.04 1.03 1.04 -5.1% -6.1% -4.2% 0.000
2015-16 Minority - Appeal 15.2 13.5 16.9 1.02 1.01 1.03 -6.5% -12.7% -0.3% 0.041
2015-16 Minority - No Av Change 10.8 9.4 12.1 1.02 1.01 1.02 -14.9% -20.8% -9.0% 0.000
2015-16 Minority - Other 13.9 12.8 15.0 1.02 1.01 1.02 -5.7% -11.1% -0.2% 0.041
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Appeal 9.7 9.4 10.0 1.02 1.02 1.03 -2.8% -3.5% -2.2% 0.000
2016-17 Elsewhr. - No Av Change 12.1 11.7 12.5 1.04 1.04 1.05 -7.8% -8.8% -6.8% 0.000
2016-17 Elsewhr. - Other 14.0 13.1 14.8 1.04 1.03 1.05 -4.8% -6.5% -3.2% 0.000
2016-17 Minority - Appeal 14.5 12.7 16.4 1.03 1.02 1.04 -9.5% -15.2% -3.7% 0.001
2016-17 Minority - No Av Change 12.5 11.3 13.8 1.02 1.01 1.03 -14.8% -20.4% -9.2% 0.000
2016-17 Minority - Other 17.3 14.4 20.3 1.02 1.00 1.03 8.8% -2.5% 20.1% 0.127

30