HomeMy WebLinkAboutMeasure 50 Horizontal InequitiesOREGON’S PROPERTY TAX SYSTEM
Horizontal Inequities under Measure 50
RESEARCH REPORT # 4-10
September 2010
Legislative Revenue Office
State Capitol Building
900 Court Street NE, Room 143
Salem, Oregon 97301
(503) 986-1266
http://www.leg.state.or.us/comm/lro/home.htm
STATE OF O REGON
L EGISL A TIVE REVENUE OFFICE
143 State Capitol Building
Salem, Oregon 97301
Research Report
(503) 986-1266
Research Report #4-10 September 2010
Oregon’s Property Tax System
Horizontal Inequities under Measure 50
Summary
During the 2008 interim, the Senate Finance and Revenue Committee conducted hearings on the
consequences of Measure 50, ten years after its passage. Measure 50 has had a profound impact
on local government finances throughout Oregon because it fundamentally changed property
taxes—the largest local revenue source. The committee heard testimony describing the
implications of these changes for the local government fiscal system but it also heard testimony
from individual taxpayers describing how they were adversely affected by Measure 50 compared
to other taxpayers. Testimony from key participants in the design of Measure 50, analysis by
Multnomah County, and an examination of Measure 50’s mechanics confirmed that the property
tax system is subject to widespread horizontal inequities where taxpayers in equal circumstances
are treated differently by the tax system. The committee directed the Legislative Revenue Office
to analyze how widespread horizontal inequities are in under the Measure 50 system. Building
on the work of Multnomah County and working with county assessors and the Department of
Revenue, the Legislative Revenue Office built a detailed data base of properties in Deschutes,
Jackson, Multnomah and Sherman counties. This report summarizes the information on
horizontal inequities under Measure 50 gathered by the committee, traces through the mechanics
of Measure 50 and shows how horizontal inequities occur under the system and then reports on
the findings from the analysis of the four county data base. The report concludes with possible
policy approaches to addressing horizontal inequities in the property tax system.
The key findings of the report are:
x Horizontal inequities—unequal tax treatment of taxpayers with similarly valued property,
are widespread among the four counties observed.
x There does not appear to be a systematic relationship between assessed to market value
ratios and market price, in other words variability in the ratio is spread throughout the
price spectrum.
x The variability of assessed value to market value is widespread in the most common
$200,000 to $300,000 price segment.
x The housing market collapse, with its corresponding home price deflation, slowed down
the build- up of horizontal inequities but did not stop it because nearly all residential
property is still assessed well below market value.
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 2
x When general home price appreciation begins again, horizontal inequities can be
expected to grow over time. This is because the recovery will likely be uneven with
certain properties, neighborhoods and regions of the state growing more rapidly than
others.
x Among the sample counties, Multnomah County is experiencing the most acute degree of
horizontal inequity. This is likely due to its larger, more diverse, housing market relative
to the other counties.
Possible policy approaches to reduce horizontal inequities over time within the property tax
system include: return to a modified market value based system, rebasing assessed value to
market value at time of transaction, establishing an acceptable assessed value to market value
range and adjusting annual assessed value growth for properties outside range, and requiring
Measure 50 to be subject to constitutional uniformity in taxation provisions, thereby forcing the
Legislature to develop a remedy to meet the constitutional requirement.
Introduction and Background
Technically Measure 50 was a product of the 1997 Legislature, but its policy directives were
determined by voters through the passage of Measure 47 in the fall of 1996. Measure 47 was
designed to correct what was perceived as a major flaw in Measure 5 passed in 1990. Measure 5
imposed a rate based system that limited education district taxes to $5 per $1,000 of market
value. A $10 per $1,000 of market value rate limit was imposed for the sum of non-education
districts. In most areas, the sum of the non-school district taxes were less than $10 leaving the
previous levy based system in effect for those districts.
A key feature of Measure 5 was its retention of real market value as the property tax base. When
Measure 5 took effect in 1991, Oregon residential real estate values were just beginning to grow
more rapidly following a period of weakness through most of the 1980s. This meant that as
Measure 5’s rate limits were phased in over a 5-year period, much of the property tax bill
reductions homeowners were expecting from lower rates were offset by rising market values.
Adding to the frustration of homeowners during this period was the fact that residential property
values were growing much faster than commercial and industrial property as the state went
through a period of strong net in-migration. As a result, property taxes on residential property
remained roughly constant over the 1991-96 phase-in period while overall property tax
collections dropped 12%.
The rate reductions called for under Measure 5 reached their limit in 1996. This meant that
property tax bills for the 1996-97 tax year would be largely determined by changes in market
values without the offsetting effect of further rate reductions. Those bills began arriving in
mailboxes around the state in October of 1996. Overall property tax collections rose by 12%
compared to the prior year.
Reacting to disenchantment with Measure 5, Measure 47 was written and sufficient signatures
were gathered for the November 1996 ballot. Measure 47 had a number of features; all designed
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 3
to limit property taxes and local government in general, but the most significant was a process for
reducing and limiting growth in assessed property values. In other words, Measure 47, while not
repealing Measure 5, fundamentally changed the property tax system by moving away from real
market value as the tax base and replacing it with a calculated assessed value to be used for tax
purposes. Measure 47 passed 52% to 48%.
Following the passage of Measure 47, the Legislature was confronted with a series of
interpretation and implementation issues. The Legislature had to decide between implementing
Measure 47 as-is or developing a more workable alternative for voters to consider.
Implementing the measure as-is raised the strong likelihood of numerous legal challenges,
disappointed voters and continued political instability around the state’s property tax system.
Developing an alternative required finding the right balance between retaining the basic elements
of Measure 47 while putting together clear legal language to address complex issues under tight
timelines. The Legislature chose the latter. The result was Measure 50 approved by voters 57%
to 43% in May of 1997.
In September of 2008, the Interim Senate Finance and Revenue Committee heard testimony from
three key participants in the development of Measure 50: Tom Brian (Chair of the House
Revenue Committee in 1997), Jim Scherzinger (Legislative Revenue Officer in 1997) and Tom
Linhares (Columbia County Assessor and representative of the Oregon Association of County
Assessors in 1997). The testimony centered on legislative decisions to replace Measure 47
with a constitutional value and rate limit, to design a local option system within the double
majority requirements contained in Measure 47 and to incorporate a more simplified urban
renewal system.
The key decision, derived directly from Measure 47, was the imposition of a value limit.
Measure 50 created and defined a new “maximum assessed value”. The maximum assessed
value is compared with real market value with the tax bill for the property based on the lower of
the two. The maximum assessed value was initially set at 90% of the 1995-96 assessed value for
each property. The maximum assessed value is then increased 3% annually after 1995-96. An
important element of Measure 50 is that the maximum assessed value calculation remains with
the property when ownership changes. In contrast to California’s property tax limit
(Proposition 13 in 1978), assessed value is not adjusted back to market value when property
changes hands. Measure 50 specifies events that allow for adjustment in the maximum assessed
value calculation (outside the 3% annual increase). These events occur when the property is
subject to: new construction or substantial improvements, partition or subdivision, rezoning,
previous assessor omission or disqualification from exemption or special assessment.
The Legislature made the decision to treat new construction the same as existing property in
terms of assessed value. This led to the creation of the “changed property ratio”. The changed
property ratio is equal to the ratio of assessed value to market value for all existing property
within the same class and geographic area. Geographic area was defined statutorily (SB 1215 in
1997) to be the county. The use of the changed property ratio means that newly constructed
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 4
property receives the same assessed value benefits under Measure 50 on average as existing
properties in that county.
In constructing Measure 50, the Legislature focused on what was perceived as the main sources
of dissatisfaction with Measure 5:
x Unpredictable tax bills when property values are rising rapidly.
x Creation of imbalances between classes of property, especially between
residential and industrial/commercial property.
The creation of maximum assessed value largely achieved this goal. For most property owners,
tax bills would not rise by more than 3% in a given year. Moreover, for classes of property
experiencing rapid market value growth (residential property), the 3% annual cap has the largest
relative impact. However, the Legislature recognized that the predictability provided by Measure
50 would inevitably lead to variations in assessed value relative to market value for individual
properties. This meant that homes with the same market value could be paying widely different
property taxes under Measure 50.
In recognition of this likely outcome, Measure 50 contains language that exempts it from other
provisions of the constitution that guarantee uniform tax treatment. Specifically, Measure 50
(section 18, Article XI) states that section 32, Article 1 and section 1, Article 9 do not apply.
Section 32, Article 1 states “….all taxation shall be uniform on the same class of subjects within
the territorial limits of the authority levying the tax”. Similar language is contained in section 1,
Article 9.
Horizontal Inequities and the Mechanics of Measure 50
Equity is one of the fundamental criteria used by public finance experts to evaluate individual
taxes and tax systems. Most taxpayers and policy makers consider equity or fairness to be
extremely important. However, equity is an inherently subjective concept with individual and
societal perceptions of what constitutes tax fairness changing over time. For tax policy most of
this debate revolves around vertical equity, which refers to how taxpayers with differing ability to
pay are treated by the tax system. Most agree that higher income or wealthier individuals should
contribute more in taxes than those with lesser ability to pay but how much more is often the
subject of fierce public debate. Horizontal equity, on the other hand, is generally less
controversial. Horizontal equity means that equals are treated equally under the tax system or
those with the same ability to pay, pay the same amount of taxes.
Theoretically, the property tax is a wealth based tax with the value of property (usually restricted
to real estate property) serving as the tax base or measure of ability to pay. This implies that
under a horizontally equitable property tax, taxpayers with equally valued property pay the same
amount of taxes. The implicit assumption is that real market value is the appropriate measure of
wealth because it reflects the amount that the owner would receive if the property was liquidated
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 5
or sold. Measure 50, by separating assessed value from market value, virtually assured that this
definition of horizontal equity would be violated.
Shortly after passage of Measure 50, the consequences of this separation were pointed out by
Governor Kitzhaber’s Tax Review Technical Advisory Committee:
“The implementation of Measure 50 may lead to horizontal inequities in the property tax system.
Measure 50 may have reduced the horizontal equity in the property tax system through
separation of assessed values from market values. Initial inequities in assessments may be harder
to correct, and assessed values will not reflect differences in market value growth rates between
properties.” (Governor’s Tax Review Technical Advisory Committee, “Review of Oregon’s Tax
System”, June 1998).
In October of 2007, Willamette Week newspaper published an article detailing the differential
impacts of Measure 50 on residential properties in Multnomah County. The article cited the
example of two families in the Portland area living in homes with a similar market value.
Despite the roughly equivalent market value for the two homes, one family was paying 3.5 times
more in annual property taxes compared to the other family. The mechanics of assessed value
determination under Measure 50 was the cause of the difference in tax bills between the two
properties.
The Senate Finance and Revenue Committee also received detailed testimony from individual
homeowners adversely affected by the Measure 50 value calculation relative to other taxpayers.
Irene Vlatch from Portland presented testimony showing that her home had a substantially higher
tax burden than other properties in the neighborhood with higher market values. Bob James,
from Eagle Point, also presented detailed information showing higher property taxes for his
home compared to other higher valued homes in the same area. Mr. James asked for an
explanation from Jackson County Assessor Dan Ross. Assessor Ross agreed with Mr. James that
his home had a higher assessed value than comparable homes but explained that the provisions of
Measure 50 prevented an adjustment in his maximum assessed value calculation.(Legislative
Revenue Office: Exhibits from Interim Senate Finance and Revenue Committee, September 23,
2008)
While the cases of Ms. Vlatch and Mr. James may be extreme, the mechanics of Measure 50
make variations in the ratio of assessed value to market value inevitable. In testimony before the
Task Force on Comprehensive Revenue Restructuring in May of 2008, Tom Linhares pointed out
three ways in which Measure 50 can cause horizontal inequities for residential property:
x Base Year (1995-96)
o Measure 50, following Measure 47, established a new lower assessed value for all
properties by taking the 1995-96 value and reducing it by 10%. This means that
any inequities that were in place in 1995-96 or differential growth rates that had
occurred between 1995-96 and 1997-98 were locked into place because the
maximum assessed value grows at 3% annually for all properties from this base
year forward. Properties whose value was set too high or too low compared to
other properties in the base year would remain so over time.
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 6
x Neighborhood to Neighborhood
o Maximum assessed value grows 3% annually for most properties regardless of
what is happening to market value. This means that properties with rapid market
value growth over time will be “under assessed” compared to properties with
slower market value growth. The differential impact of the residential real estate
boom between 1998 and 2006 exaggerated this effect.
x New Construction vs. Existing Property
o Newly built homes are assessed at the change property ratio. The change property
ratio is the average ratio of assessed value to market value for the class of
property (residential in this case) for the county. Because it is based on the
average, roughly half the residential property in the county will have a higher
assessment ratio and roughly half will have a lower assessment ratio compared to
the new construction.
Three hypothetical examples show how these inequities develop over time:
Example 1: Equal Valued Properties with Differential Growth Rates
Property 1 Property 2
2010 Real Market Value $200,000 $200,000
2010 Maximum Assessed Value $160,000 $160,000
Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value .8 .8
Tax Rate Based on Assessed Value 1.5%1.5%
Tax Rate Based on Market Value 1.2% 1.2%
Assumed Real Market Value Annual Growth 10%4%
Maximum Annual Assessed Value Growth Under Measure 50 3%3%
Tax Bill $2,400 $2,400
Values and Taxes After 10 Years of Differential Growth
2020 Real Market Value $518,748 $296,049
2020 Maximum Assessed $215,027 $215,027
Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value .415 .726
Tax Rate Based on Assessed Value 1.5% 1.5%
Tax Rate Based on Market Value 0.62%1.1%
Tax Bill $3,225 $3,225
Example 1 is based on a scenario in which properties begin with the same market value
($200,000) and the same maximum assessed value ($160,000). Because assessed values are the
same, the two properties have the same property tax liability ($2,400). However the real market
value of the two properties is assumed to grow at different annual rates over the next ten years.
Property 1 is assumed to be located in a high growth area experiencing 10% annual growth.
After 10 years, the market value of property 1 is $518,748. Property 2, assumed to grow at a 4%
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 7
annual rate, has a real market value of $296,049 after ten years. Despite the fact that property 1
has a market value that is 75% greater than property 2, the tax liability on the two properties is
the same. This occurs because the ratio of the maximum assessed value to real market value is
.415 for property 1 and .726 for property 2. Dividing the tax bill for each property by its real
market value shows a large difference in effective tax rates (tax bill/market value) with property
1 facing an effective rate of .62% and property 2 paying 1.1% of market value. Example 1 shows
how differential property value growth rates can lead to a situation where taxpayers with large
differences in the values of their home pay the same amount of taxes.
Example 2: Unequal Valued Properties with Differential Growth Rates
Property 1 Property 2
2010 Real Market Value $200,000 $100,000
2010 Maximum Assessed Value $160,000 $80,000
Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value .8 .8
Tax Rate Based on Assessed Value 1.5%1.5%
Tax Rate Based on Market Value 1.2%1.2%
Assumed Real Market Value Annual Growth 5%12.54%
Maximum Annual Assessed Value Growth Under Measure 50 3%3%
Tax Bill $2,400 $1,200
Values and Taxes After 10 Years of Differential Growth
2020 Real Market Value $325,779 $325,888
2020 Maximum Assessed $215,027 $107,513
Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value .66 .33
Tax Rate Based on Assessed Value 1.5%1.5%
Tax Rate Based on Market Value 0.99% 0.49%
Tax Bill $3,225 $1,613
Example 2 shows how differential growth rates for properties with previously unequal values
can lead to a classic case of horizontal inequity. Properties 1 and 2 begin with the same
assessment ratio and the same tax rate. Since property 1 has an assessed value twice that of
property 2, it is subject to twice the property tax burden. However, if the market value of
property 2 consistently grows at a faster rate than property 1, the two properties can have
essentially the same market value ($325,000) after 10 years with property 1 still paying twice the
amount of property taxes. This is a clear situation where taxpayers with equal ability to pay
based on the market value of their property are subject to a vastly different property tax burden.
Examples 1 and 2 are both the result of differential growth in property values over time. Given
that Measure 50 was followed by a period of rapid home price appreciation, these examples are
descriptive of what happened in many parts of the state between 1997 and 2007. However, since
2007, residential property values have declined in many parts of the state. The real market value
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 8
of single family residential property declined 7.3% between January 1, 2008 and January 1, 2009
on a statewide basis. Assessors are reporting further declines for the 2010-11 tax year.
Example 3 presents a scenario where properties are declining at differential rates.
Example 3: Unequal Valued Properties with Differential Rates of Decline
Property 1 Property 2
2010 Real Market Value $200,000 $150,000
2010 Maximum Assessed Value $120,000 $90,000
Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value .6 .6
Tax Rate Based on Assessed Value 1.5%1.5%
Tax Rate Based on Market Value 0.9%0.9%
Assumed Real Market Value Annual Rate of Decline -7.0% -1.0%
Maximum Annual Assessed Value Growth Under Measure 50 +3%+3%
Tax Bill $1,800 $1,350
Values and Taxes After 5 Years of Differential Rates of Decline
2020 Real Market Value $139,138 $142,648
2020 Maximum Assessed Value $139,113 $104,335
Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value .99 .73
Tax Rate Based on Assessed Value 1.5%1.5%
Tax Rate Based on Market Value 1.5%1.1%
Tax Bill $2,087 $1,565
Example 3 shows a situation where market values are declining for both properties. However,
the rate of decline for property 1 is greater (-7% annually) than for property 2 (-1% annually). At
the beginning of the period, property 1 has a market value that is 33% greater than property 2 but
both have the same assessment ratio (.6) and the same effective tax rate (0.9%). After 5 years,
the market value of property 1 has fallen to $139,138 while property 2 has declined to $142,648.
Despite the fact that property 2 is now worth more than property 1, it is subject to lower taxes
($1,565) than property 1 ($2,087) because it has a lower maximum assessed value. This means
that horizontal inequities can develop under Measure 50 when market prices are falling as long as
the rate of decline is not the same. There is, however, an important difference under a scenario
of falling home prices over an extended period of time. In example 3, the market value of
property 1 has fallen almost back to its market value; at that point the market value would
become the assessed value. Under Measure 50, the assessed value of a property is the lesser of
the maximum assessed value or the market value.
Evidence of Horizontal Inequities under Measure 50
The designers of Measure 50 recognized that the loss of equity among similarly valued properties
was the cost of providing predictability for annual property tax bills. Individual property owners
have come forward with detailed descriptions of instances where horizontal equity has been
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 9
violated. Finally, the mechanics of Measure 50 demonstrate that horizontal inequities are almost
certain to develop over time. The next step is to systematically look for the degree to which
these inequities exist in the diverse real estate markets around the state.
Multnomah County was the first to do an in-depth analysis of variations in the ratio of assessed
value to market value after 10 years under Measure 50. The Multnomah County analysis showed
that this ratio varied widely for residential properties throughout the price spectrum. The county
did not find a systematic relationship between the price of a home and variations in the ratio of
assessed values to market values.
The Interim Senate Finance and Revenue Committee directed the Legislative Revenue Office
(LRO) to build on the work of Multnomah County and extend the analysis to other counties in
the state. Working with the assessors from Multnomah, Jackson, Deschutes and Sherman
counties and the Department of Revenue, LRO built a data base consisting of assessed value,
market value and tax bill for properties in the four counties. The data are for fiscal years 2005
through 2010. Data were gathered for residential property as well as commercial and industrial
property. This report will focus on the residential property data only.
Table 1 shows the ratio of assessed value to market value for all single family residential
property in each of the four counties for the 5 year sample period.
Table 1: Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value for Residential Property
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Deschutes .700 .658 .533 .442 .471 .570
Jackson .655 .575 .487 .484 .527 .628
Multnomah .656 .612 .567 .514 .503 .551
Sherman .813 .816 .677 .610 .519 .523
Table 1 shows the movement of the assessed to market value ratio through the peak of the real
estate boom and the beginning of the bust in 2008. Both Deschutes and Jackson counties
experienced rapid drops in the ratio from 2005 through 2008 as market value growth soared well
above the 3% annual maximum assessment growth. As the national housing bust hit Oregon in
2008, market values began declining for many residential properties. As a result the ratio of
maximum assessed value to market value rose sharply in Deschutes and Jackson counties.
Multnomah County went through a similar but milder cycle while rural Sherman County had a
steady decline in the ratio until flattening out in 2010. Despite the uptick in the ratio, especially
for Deschutes and Jackson Counties, the average maximum assessed value remains well below
market value. This means the maximum assessed value is the basis for property taxes for nearly
all residential property in the four counties. However, with further market value declines
expected in 2011 and beyond, an increasing number of properties will be assessed at market
value.
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 10
Table 2: Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value by Market Value Segment
Real Market Value in FY 2010 Deschutes Jackson Multnomah
$0 to $100,000 .468 .528 .435
$100,000 to $200,000 .611 .653 .558
$200,000 to $300,000 .598 .653 .541
$300,000 to $400,000 .559 .631 .514
$400,000 to $500,000 .555 .609 .521
$500,000 to $600,000 .559 .591 .546
$600,000 to $700,000 .546 .574 .567
$700,000 to $800,000 .534 .578 .578
$800,000 to $900,000 .555 .595 .585
$900,000 to $1,000,000 .562 .608 .593
Table 2 indicates that the assessed to market value ratio is relatively low for all segments of the
housing market in the three counties. Sherman County is excluded from this table because of its
relatively small number of properties. There is no clearly discernable relationship between
market value and the assessed to market value ratio. In other words, there is no systematic
increase or decrease in the ratio as real market value rises.
Based on the information in Tables 1 and 2, it is clear that the assessed value to market value
ratio is well below one for most residential property. However, these data do not address the
issue of horizontal inequities or cases where properties with similar market values are subject to
significantly different tax burdens. For this issue it is necessary to look for variations in the ratio
of assessed value to market value for individual properties. Table 3 displays single family
residential properties for the 2010 fiscal year grouped by the ratio of assessed value to market
value for Jackson, Deschutes, Sherman and Multnomah Counties.
Table 3: Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value for Residential Property
Jackson Deschutes Sherman Multnomah
Ratio Number %Number %Number %Number %
0 to .2 124 .3 50 .2 2 .6 4,731 2.5
.2 to .4 399 1.0 1668 5.3 56 17.8 21,429 11.5
.4 to .6 10,964 26.5 16,169 51.5 163 51.7 95,726 51.4
.6 to .8 28,299 68.5 12,364 39.4 70 22.2 58,647 31.5
.8 to 1 1,406 3.4 1,092 3.5 24 7.6 5,412 2.9
1 129 .3 25 .1 0 0 223 .1
All 41,321 100 31,368 100 315 100 186,168 100
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 11
Table 3 indicates that the assessed value for residential properties is widely spread between 40
and 80% of market value in all four counties. Urban Multnomah County and rural Sherman both
have a substantial proportion of residential properties assessed in the 20 to 40% of market value
range.
Table 4 presents the same data with tighter 5% intervals. Sherman County is dropped from this
table because of its relatively small number of residential properties.
Table 4: Ratio of Assessed Value to Market Value at 5% Intervals
Jackson Deschutes Multnomah
Ratio Percent of Total Percent of Total Percent of Total
0 to .05 .06 0 .53
.05 to .1 .07 .02 .14
.1 to .15 .05 .05 .43
.15 to .2 .12 .08 1.45
.2 to .25 .08 .35 1.28
.25 to .3 .08 .85 1.32
.3 to .35 .24 1.72 2.69
.35 to .4 .55 2.36 6.28
.4 to .45 1.54 3.64 11.35
.45 to .5 3.29 7.42 14.82
.5 to .55 6.32 16.87 13.79
.55 to .6 15.34 23.58 11.51
.6 to .65 25.84 19.39 10.81
.65 to .7 22.11 11.0 10.54
.7 to .75 13.59 5.69 6.46
.75 to .8 7.0 3.4 3.61
.8 to .85 2.21 2.03 1.56
.85 to .9 .72 1.02 .79
.9 to .95 .33 .37 .37
.95 to 1 .13 .08 .14
1 .31 .08 .11
All 100 100 100
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 12
The three counties show a large proportion of homes with ratios scattered between .5 and .7.
Multnomah County shows the greatest spread with 11.3% of homes assessed between 40 and 45
% of market value and 10.5% assessed between 65 and 70% of market value. It is important to
recognize the differences in tax burdens implied by this spread. For example, a home assessed at
70% of market value will have an effective tax rate (tax bill/ market value) that is 40% higher
than a home assessed at 50% of market value.
Another way to look at the variability in assessment ratios is to focus on typically priced homes.
Table 5 shows only homes with a market value between $200,000 and $300,000, a range that
includes the statewide median home price as well as the median price for most counties.
Table 5: Assessed Value to Market Value Ratio for Homes with a Market Value
Between $200 and $300 K
Jackson Deschutes Multnomah
Ratio Number %Number %Number %
0 to .1 2 0 2 0 505 .6
.1 to .2 2 0 7 0 2,549 3.1
.2 to .3 3 0 117 .8 2,743 3.3
.3 to .4 59 .4 465 3.3 8,173 9.9
.4 to .5 469 3.1 1,144 8.1 18,858 22.8
.5 to .6 2,579 16.8 5,725 40.8 18,217 22.0
.6 to .7 8,555 55.7 4,608 32.8 18,233 22.0
.7 to .8 3,234 21.0 1,341 9.6 10,850 13.1
.8 to .9 416 2.7 556 4.0 2,201 2.7
.9 to 1 36 .2 66 .5 343 .4
1 16 .1 7 0 46 .1
All 15,371 100 14,038 100 82,718 100
Table 3 confirms that there is widespread variability in the ratio of assessed value to market
value for typically priced homes in Jackson, Deschutes and Multnomah Counties. The variability
is most striking in Multnomah County where 8,173 homes in the $200,000 to $300,000 price
range are assessed between 30 and 40 % of market value while 10,850 homes in this same range
are assessed at 70 to 80% of market value. There is less variability in the more homogeneous
Jackson and Deschutes county residential market but nonetheless homes are widely spread in the
40 to 80% of market value range in these two counties as well.
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 13
Data was gathered for Jackson, Deschutes and Multnomah Counties for a 5-year period.
Sherman County data is not available for 2005. Table 6 shows how the ratio of assessed to
market value for residential properties has shifted over time for the three counties.
Table 6: Change in Assessed Value to Market Value Ratios over Time
Jackson Deschutes Multnomah
FY 2005 FY 2010 FY 2005 FY 2010 FY 2005 FY 2010
Ratio % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total % of Total
0 to .2 .2 .3 0 .2 .5 2.5
.2 to .4 .6 1.0 .4 5.3 4.9 11.5
.4 to .6 11.9 26.5 11.0 51.5 41.9 51.4
.6 to .8 85.0 68.5 78.0 39.4 48.0 31.5
.8 to 1 2.2 3.4 10.3 3.5 4.5 2.9
1 .2 .3 .3 .1 .2 .1
All 100 100 100 100 100 100
Table 6 shows the general downward drift in the assessed value to market value ratio over the 5-
year period. A general spreading out of properties into the different ratio segments can also be
seen. Both of these trends have slowed over the past two years as the housing market collapsed
but they are expected to resume when widespread recovery begins.
Tables 1 through 6 highlight the major findings of the study but more detailed information from
the same data base can be found in Appendix A.
Conclusions and Policy Options
Analyzing the assessed value and market value data for the four counties leads to the following
general conclusions:
x Horizontal inequities—unequal tax treatment of taxpayers with similarly valued property,
are widespread among the four counties observed.
x There does not appear to be a systematic relationship between assessed to market value
ratios and market price, in other words variability in the ratio is spread throughout the
price spectrum.
x The variability of assessed value to market value is widespread in the most common
$200,000 to $300,000 price segment.
x The housing market collapse, with its corresponding home price deflation, slowed down
the build- up of horizontal inequities but did not stop it because nearly all residential
property is still assessed well below market value.
x When general home price appreciation begins again, horizontal inequities can be
expected to grow over time. This is because the recovery will likely be uneven with
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 14
certain properties, neighborhoods and regions of the state growing more rapidly than
others.
x Among the sample counties, Multnomah County is experiencing the most acute degree of
horizontal inequity. This is likely due to its larger, more diverse, housing market relative
to the other counties.
Policy Options
Possible policy options to mitigate the growing inequities in the property tax system were
discussed during the hearings held by the Interim Senate Finance and Revenue Committee. A
more general policy options discussion regarding local government finance and Measure 50 was
also a major part of the report issued by the Task Force on Comprehensive Revenue
Restructuring (Legislative Revenue Office: Task Force on Comprehensive Revenue
Restructuring, Final Report, January 2009). The options list below builds on those discussions.
The intent of the suggested options is to provide a possible framework for addressing horizontal
inequities in the system while minimizing the loss of predictability for taxpayers. They can also
be set up to be revenue neutral in the short term with appropriate phase-in periods.
x Eliminate maximum assessed value calculation and return to market based assessments
with lower tax rates.
o This is essentially a proposal to return to the Measure 5 based system and was
made in testimony before the committee by Don McIntire, Measure 5’s principle
author. Property tax rates (now roughly .95% of market value on a statewide
basis) could be adjusted to achieve short-term revenue neutrality. The proposal
would eliminate horizontal inequities, as defined in this report, but would re-
introduce uncertainty for taxpayers concerning annual tax bills. This could be
softened by incorporating a proportional adjustment factor for periods when
general housing prices are rising rapidly.
x Rebase residential property to market value at time of transaction.
o The designers of Measure 50 explicitly avoided this option because of concerns
over horizontal inequities. In the short-term, horizontal inequities would increase,
as newly sold property is assessed at 100% of market value and existing property
is assessed at 50 to 60%. However, rebasing to market value does provide a long-
term safety valve on the degree of horizontal inequity over time. Assuming that
nearly all property is eventually sold, this proposal would require most properties
to be assessed at market value at some point over the long-term. Measure 50 does
not provide a long-term re-adjustment, as long as property values grow more than
3% over time, the assessed value to market value ratio will continuously fall.
Rebasing to market value would generate additional property tax revenue initially.
This could be partially offset by a phase-in period in which newly sold properties
are assessed at a higher, but less than 100%, proportion of market value.
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 15
x Establish assessed value to market value range; adjust 3% annual growth factor according
to where property ratios are with respect to range.
o Assessment ratios above or below the acceptable range would in effect become a
form of exception to the annual 3% growth restriction, similar to new construction
and rezoning. The growth factor adjustment would be positive for properties
below the range and negative for those above. The annual growth factor
adjustments could be designed in a way that moves properties into the range over
a period of time. Such a system could be designed in a revenue neutral manner in
the short-term but market forces would inevitably influence the revenue impact
over time. Such a system is also likely to be complicated for local assessors and
taxpayers.
x Repeal Measure 50’s exemption for constitutional requirements of uniformity in taxation
and direct Legislature to design adjustments to the property tax system that are consistent
with uniformity in taxation principles.
o This would give the Legislature the mandate to develop a remedy for horizontal
inequities in the system. It could also be designed in a way that gave the
Legislature the flexibility to develop a combination of approaches and adjust them
over time based on results. This approach would however generate uncertainty
around the system during the period when modifications are being developed and
implemented.
All policy options listed above would require a constitutional amendment because they entail
some direct change in Measure 50. In the case of multiple changes, a constitutional revision
would be required. This would entail revisiting some of the policy decisions made by voters in
1997. Restructuring the Measure 50 system to reduce horizontal inequities is likely to cause
some loss in year-to-year predictability for taxpayers—a major reason for passage of Measures
47 and 50. Policy-makers will have to weigh this trade-off carefully and be prepared to fully
explain the changes to voters in order to get their support.
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 16
APPENDIX A
DETAILED STATISTICAL ANALYSIS
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 17
AV/RMV Ratio, All Real Properties, All Counties, FY 2009-2010
FY 2009-2010
Real Property
County RMV AV AV/RMV
Ratio
Baker 1,293,730 891,958 0.689
Benton 9,485,646 5,979,884 0.630
Clackamas 52,244,324 33,870,105 0.648
Clatsop 8,546,223 4,628,304 0.542
Columbia 5,169,904 3,456,022 0.668
Coos 6,741,373 4,005,795 0.594
Crook 3,348,708 1,558,477 0.465
Curry 3,638,999 2,276,511 0.626
Deschutes 32,227,491 16,702,792 0.518
Douglas 10,474,073 6,547,573 0.625
Gilliam 404,910 230,891 0.570
Grant 615,626 405,238 0.658
Harney 586,968 375,014 0.639
Hood River 3,019,838 1,624,882 0.538
Jackson 25,317,423 14,718,486 0.581
Jefferson 2,106,820 1,030,619 0.489
Josephine 8,771,264 5,507,279 0.628
Klamath 6,573,294 3,846,761 0.585
Lake 786,674 439,366 0.559
Lane 40,188,761 23,855,306 0.594
Lincoln 10,169,748 5,856,413 0.576
Linn 9,769,917 7,087,310 0.725
Malheur 1,868,674 1,319,500 0.706
Marion 26,886,231 17,639,932 0.656
Morrow 1,030,292 758,858 0.737
Mult.99,417,282 53,805,915 0.541
Polk 6,248,309 4,241,034 0.679
Sherman 254,509 138,777 0.545
Tillamook 6,299,553 3,584,175 0.569
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 18
Umatilla 4,680,564 3,278,104 0.700
Union 1,925,962 1,247,345 0.648
Wallowa 1,035,529 536,005 0.518
Wasco 2,740,094 1,495,403 0.546
Wash.65,467,506 41,974,973 0.641
Wheeler 273,508 96,982 0.355
Yamhill 9,869,326 5,968,869 0.605
State Total 469,479,056 280,980,858 0.598
AV/RMV Ratio, Single Family Residential, FY 2005-2010
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Deschutes 0.700 0.658 0.533 0.442 0.471 0.570
Jackson 0.655 0.575 0.487 0.484 0.527 0.628
Multnomah 0.656 0.612 0.567 0.514 0.503 0.551
Sherman 0.813 0.816 0.677 0.610 0.519 0.523
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 19
AV/RMV Ratio, Commercial and Industrial, FY 2005-2010
County 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Deschutes 0.695 0.625 0.504 0.427 0.415 0.488
Jackson 0.630 0.587 0.571 0.506 0.501 0.503
Multnomah 0.627 0.590 0.565 0.520 0.509 0.515
Sherman 0.780 0.847 0.874 0.859 0.857 0.828
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 20
AV/RMV Ratios based on Real Market Value, FY 2009-2010
Single Family Residential
RMV < $1 million
RMV ($) Deschutes Jackson Multnomah
[0, 100000) 46.8% 52.8% 43.5%
[100000, 200000) 61.1% 65.3% 55.8%
[200000, 300000) 59.8% 65.3% 54.1%
[300000, 400000) 55.9% 63.1% 51.4%
[400000, 500000) 55.5% 60.9% 52.1%
[500000, 600000) 55.9% 59.1% 54.6%
[600000, 700000) 54.6% 57.4% 56.7%
[700000, 800000) 53.4% 57.8% 57.8%
[800000, 900000) 55.5% 59.5% 58.5%
[900000, 1000000) 56.2% 60.8% 59.3%
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 21
Expected Increase in AV per $1 increase in RMV
Single Family Residential, FY 2009-2010
Jackson Multnomah Deschutes
RMV Less than $100,000 $0.66 $0.45 $0.45
$ 100,000<=RMV<$ 200,000 $0.68 $0.74 $0.66
$ 200,000<=RMV<$ 300,000 $0.60 $0.39 $0.50
$ 300,000<=RMV<$ 400,000 $0.56 $0.51 $0.53
$ 400,000<=RMV<$ 500,000 $0.49 $0.57 $0.60
$ 500,000<=RMV<$ 1M $0.60 $0.67 $0.55
$ 1M<=RMV $0.42 $0.60 $0.48
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 22
AV/RMV Ratio, Single Family Residential, By Tax Code Area
Deschutes County, FY 2009-2010
Code Area Mean Std. Dev. Obs.
1001 0.578 0.117 22727
1003 0.532 0.052 23
1016 0.385 NA 1
1017 0.516 0.088 65
1060 0.553 0.000 2
1061 0.378 0.085 118
1087 0.600 0.057 374
1108 0.568 0.016 24
1109 0.571 0.066 163
1110 0.541 0.017 77
1120 0.521 NA 1
1122 0.529 NA 1
2001 0.614 0.081 6952
2003 0.431 NA 1
2004 0.595 0.099 7
2033 0.358 NA 1
2036 0.837 0.110 52
2039 0.578 0.070 186
5015 0.565 NA 1
6001 0.594 0.130 558
6002 0.632 NA 1
6045 0.404 0.030 2
6047 0.502 0.128 31
All 0.586 0.111 31368
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 23
AV/RMV Ratio, Single Family Residential, By Tax Code Area
Jackson County, FY 2009-2010
Code Area Mean Std. Dev. Obs.
101 0.559 0.078 915
102 0.563 0.106 99
401 0.637 0.052 1095
405 0.614 0.030 26
407 0.686 0.092 1380
408 0.500 0.100 5
419 0.629 0.120 32
429 0.625 0.005 2
501 0.544 0.107 5275
504 0.565 0.091 6
508 0.316 0.164 18
511 0.412 0.196 10
515 0.586 0.104 113
601 0.693 0.084 373
602 0.715 0.074 4512
603 0.583 0.183 13
604 0.617 0.091 453
610 0.595 0.106 73
628 0.623 0.077 576
901 0.680 0.099 2373
903 0.427 0.220 4
906 0.667 0.043 6
909 0.483 0.011 26
915 0.663 0.081 529
924 0.628 0.000 2
926 0.643 0.080 1489
2201 0.610 0.065 1225
2206 0.574 0.100 135
3501 0.665 0.079 538
3503 0.359 0.395 2
4901 0.655 0.075 18280
4903 0.589 0.057 494
4905 0.600 0.037 300
4910 0.598 0.050 99
4915 0.576 0.065 99
4916 0.559 0.076 2
4919 0.612 0.038 53
4939 0.641 0.094 10
4946 0.589 0.074 44
4947 0.620 0.050 16
4949 0.675 0.077 332
4950 0.664 0.127 193
6202 0.674 NA 1
9101 0.635 0.069 93
All 0.642 0.096 41321
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 24
AV/RMV Ratio, Single Family Residential, By Tax Code Area
Multnomah County, FY 2009-2010
Code Area Mean Std. Dev. Obs. Code Area Mean Std. Dev. Obs.
1 0.592 0.109 25376
248 0.683 0.132 106
2 0.640 0.185 35
264 0.677 0.111 40
5 0.636 0.136 27
276 0.641 0.151 82
6 0.611 0.092 6283
277 0.528 NA 1
11 0.625 0.008 2
278 0.690 0.194 143
16 0.629 0.128 27
279 0.762 0.097 3
26 0.700 0.095 12398
281 0.701 0.092 490
27 0.690 0.135 29
296 0.675 0.205 26
28 0.715 0.173 32
303 0.707 0.156 104
36 0.689 0.275 4
304 0.709 0.157 444
40 0.698 0.077 1901
331 0.640 0.062 305
47 0.680 0.059 103
350 0.645 0.081 86
49 0.658 0.137 120
353 0.698 0.090 5
62 0.513 0.185 22
354 0.611 0.115 87
72 0.550 0.129 52
358 0.671 0.180 29
74 0.646 0.145 155
370 0.613 0.080 27
82 0.434 0.246 32
374 0.689 0.125 34
85 0.623 0.156 45
378 0.700 0.139 40
86 0.788 0.180 8
381 0.674 0.104 620
87 0.682 0.169 18
383 0.776 0.105 2056
88 0.671 0.156 47
386 0.666 0.061 1343
90 0.530 0.174 5
391 0.652 0.128 346
103 0.607 0.130 135
402 0.665 0.092 3371
113 0.627 0.112 10986
403 0.575 0.069 4
118 0.664 0.125 116
404 0.648 0.128 216
121 0.650 0.103 339
406 0.627 0.094 1762
122 0.724 0.085 37
407 0.658 0.082 2426
137 0.651 0.073 1226
410 0.834 0.010 2
144 0.599 0.072 35
411 0.678 0.148 17
147 0.642 NA 1
412 0.817 NA 1
149 0.686 0.121 4
413 0.560 NA 1
151 0.572 0.068 2
414 0.663 0.023 2
154 0.698 0.073 54
606 0.644 0.061 3
155 0.873 0.081 6
703 0.555 0.121 4144
160 0.621 0.081 418
704 0.627 0.051 7
161 0.666 0.072 549
705 0.578 0.141 2101
175 0.670 0.092 3564
709 0.534 0.078 12
181 0.539 0.061 23
710 0.358 0.127 8751
187 0.633 0.115 35
711 0.553 0.116 35
201 0.454 0.105 85890
712 0.558 0.108 172
203 0.433 0.240 27
883 0.297 0.135 48
236 0.660 0.104 156
884 0.471 0.114 46
240 0.637 0.090 1555
885 0.330 0.195 5
241 0.627 0.118 526
901 0.669 0.099 194
242 0.699 0.081 4020
904 0.880 0.167 3
243 0.574 0.041 3 All 0.539 0.148 186168
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 25
AV/RMV Ratios for Single Family Residential Properties, FY 2009-2010
AV=Assessed Value, RMV=Real Market Value
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00Frequency
AV/RMV
Deschutes County
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.2)0.147659 0.038065 50
[0.2, 0.4)0.334837 0.047674 1668
[0.4, 0.6)0.535246 0.047532 16169
[0.6, 0.8)0.664325 0.050379 12364
[0.8, 1)0.850560 0.040589 1092
1 1.000000 0.000000 25
All 0.586196 0.111019 31368
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 26
AV/RMV Ratios for Single Family Residential Properties, FY 2009-2010
AV=Assessed Value, RMV=Real Market Value
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Frequency
AV/RMV
JacksonCounty
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.2)0.114739 0.059465 124
[0.2, 0.4)0.344790 0.049767 399
[0.4, 0.6)0.544820 0.047689 10964
[0.6, 0.8)0.674983 0.050209 28299
[0.8, 1)0.847431 0.043280 1406
1 1.000000 0.000000 129
All 0.642459 0.095927 41321
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 27
AV/RMV Ratios for Single Family Residential Properties, FY 2009-2010
AV=Assessed Value, RMV=Real Market Value
0
4000
8000
12000
16000
20000
24000
28000
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0Frequency
AV/RMV
MultnomahCounty
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.017648 0.033248 1248
[0.1, 0.2)0.166028 0.023261 3483
[0.2, 0.3)0.250779 0.029901 4826
[0.3, 0.4)0.363288 0.026545 16603
[0.4, 0.5)0.454218 0.027840 48548
[0.5, 0.6)0.547006 0.028641 47178
[0.6, 0.7)0.649289 0.028434 39831
[0.7, 0.8)0.740403 0.027841 18816
[0.8, 0.9)0.838372 0.028312 4431
[0.9, 1)0.935385 0.026665 981
1 1.000000 0.000000 223
All 0.539024 0.148081 186168
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 28
AV/RMV Ratios for Single Family Residential Properties, FY 2009-2010
AV=Assessed Value, RMV=Real Market Value
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00Frequency
AV/RMV
ShermanCounty
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.2)0.144135 0.061520 2
[0.2, 0.4)0.337985 0.048040 56
[0.4, 0.6)0.493057 0.053872 163
[0.6, 0.8)0.692308 0.055391 70
[0.8, 1)0.892408 0.062089 24
1 1.000000 0.000000 0
All 0.537978 0.164165 315
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 29
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Deschutes County, Single family
residential, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.073103 0.023122 7
[0.1, 0.2)0.159796 0.023169 43
[0.2, 0.3)0.262903 0.025822 375
[0.3, 0.4)0.355726 0.028195 1271
[0.4, 0.5)0.461728 0.028255 3448
[0.5, 0.6)0.555593 0.027472 12610
[0.6, 0.7)0.641319 0.027446 9474
[0.7, 0.8)0.741150 0.028799 2832
[0.8, 0.9)0.838804 0.026944 951
[0.9, 1)0.930379 0.024630 140
1 1.000000 0.000000 25
All 0.586474 0.110947 31176
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 30
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Jackson County, Single family
residential, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.055302 0.028163 54
[0.1, 0.2)0.160591 0.028222 70
[0.2, 0.3)0.252740 0.028047 67
[0.3, 0.4)0.363134 0.027511 327
[0.4, 0.5)0.462257 0.027075 1992
[0.5, 0.6)0.563462 0.027122 8931
[0.6, 0.7)0.647483 0.027920 19765
[0.7, 0.8)0.739062 0.026652 8486
[0.8, 0.9)0.833538 0.025193 1210
[0.9, 1)0.935768 0.026784 189
1 1.000000 0.000000 129
All 0.642567 0.095808 41220
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 31
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Multnomah County, Single family
residential, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.017758 0.033312 1231
[0.1, 0.2)0.166035 0.023262 3475
[0.2, 0.3)0.250740 0.029915 4798
[0.3, 0.4)0.363287 0.026547 16538
[0.4, 0.5)0.454205 0.027833 48267
[0.5, 0.6)0.546966 0.028647 46660
[0.6, 0.7)0.649298 0.028428 39364
[0.7, 0.8)0.740449 0.027845 18570
[0.8, 0.9)0.838465 0.028360 4339
[0.9, 1)0.934979 0.026561 941
1 1.000000 0.000000 212
All 0.538483 0.147955 184395
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 32
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Sherman County, Single family
residential, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0.1, 0.2)0.144135 0.061520 2
[0.2, 0.3)0.262598 0.026280 11
[0.3, 0.4)0.356413 0.030979 45
[0.4, 0.5)0.452830 0.025696 93
[0.5, 0.6)0.546501 0.029235 70
[0.6, 0.7)0.649089 0.031331 38
[0.7, 0.8)0.743631 0.025475 32
[0.8, 0.9)0.841076 0.022004 13
[0.9, 1)0.953072 0.028498 11
1 1.000000 0.000000 0
All 0.537978 0.164165 315
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 33
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Deschutes County,
Commercial/Industrial, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.069457 0.019457 12
[0.1, 0.2)0.164824 0.027641 55
[0.2, 0.3)0.264552 0.027506 324
[0.3, 0.4)0.355662 0.029285 765
[0.4, 0.5)0.449756 0.028179 1079
[0.5, 0.6)0.541646 0.027304 642
[0.6, 0.7)0.640158 0.027668 243
[0.7, 0.8)0.745587 0.028704 90
[0.8, 0.9)0.843833 0.033238 35
[0.9, 1)0.952568 0.028193 18
1 1.000000 0.000000 24
All 0.454536 0.141679 3287
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 34
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 35
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Jackson County, Commercial/Industrial,
FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.074893 0.022194 8
[0.1, 0.2)0.156019 0.030975 27
[0.2, 0.3)0.266706 0.026292 96
[0.3, 0.4)0.354925 0.027300 649
[0.4, 0.5)0.454697 0.027540 1238
[0.5, 0.6)0.540246 0.027069 858
[0.6, 0.7)0.647103 0.027127 272
[0.7, 0.8)0.754067 0.028767 205
[0.8, 0.9)0.842823 0.029787 131
[0.9, 1)0.940465 0.026708 81
1 1.000000 0.000000 160
All 0.527353 0.177691 3725
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 36
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Multnomah County,
Commercial/Industrial, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.006254 0.019946 1125
[0.1, 0.2)0.163539 0.024943 466
[0.2, 0.3)0.256110 0.028033 1465
[0.3, 0.4)0.356286 0.027147 3435
[0.4, 0.5)0.444690 0.027899 3365
[0.5, 0.6)0.538631 0.027538 1315
[0.6, 0.7)0.635380 0.028830 395
[0.7, 0.8)0.744826 0.030450 155
[0.8, 0.9)0.846998 0.027651 95
[0.9, 1)0.951883 0.026582 56
1 1.000000 0.000000 204
All 0.380189 0.187172 12076
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 37
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
AV/RMV ratio based on RMV, Sherman County, Commercial/Industrial,
FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0.1, 0.2)0.142584 0.022769 3
[0.2, 0.3)0.237313 0.023383 6
[0.3, 0.4)0.354574 0.028801 7
[0.4, 0.5)0.443648 0.030046 11
[0.5, 0.6)0.547458 0.024495 8
[0.6, 0.7)0.648931 0.030539 14
[0.7, 0.8)0.734467 0.022607 15
[0.8, 0.9)0.849258 0.023125 11
[0.9, 1)0.949964 0.016522 4
All 0.592876 0.216352 79
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 38
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Deschutes County, Single family residential, Tax Code Area =
1001, FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.078323 0.020313 6
[0.1, 0.2)0.160684 0.024201 33
[0.2, 0.3)0.263117 0.025965 356
[0.3, 0.4)0.355929 0.028229 1127
[0.4, 0.5)0.461290 0.028437 2913
[0.5, 0.6)0.552881 0.027647 8988
[0.6, 0.7)0.640800 0.027331 6296
[0.7, 0.8)0.743815 0.029188 1934
[0.8, 0.9)0.838851 0.026990 780
[0.9, 1)0.931757 0.026589 91
[1, 1.1)1.000000 0.000000 21
All 0.578697 0.116701 22545
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 39
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Jackson County, Single family residential, Tax Code Area = 4901,
FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.081886 0.012076 6
[0.1, 0.2)0.144667 0.027432 11
[0.2, 0.3)0.251729 0.029465 19
[0.3, 0.4)0.354035 0.027751 55
[0.4, 0.5)0.464463 0.028058 211
[0.5, 0.6)0.569154 0.023488 3133
[0.6, 0.7)0.649537 0.027541 10567
[0.7, 0.8)0.734081 0.025729 3756
[0.8, 0.9)0.833889 0.025181 386
[0.9, 1)0.940320 0.026275 70
1 1.000000 0.000000 42
All 0.655021 0.075210 18256
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 40
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Multnomah County, Single family residential, Tax Code Area = 201,
FY 2009-2010
RATIO Mean Std. Dev.Obs.
[0, 0.1)0.015575 0.032002 662
[0.1, 0.2)0.165370 0.022648 2054
[0.2, 0.3)0.253743 0.029340 3389
[0.3, 0.4)0.363622 0.026494 12960
[0.4, 0.5)0.454168 0.027535 39750
[0.5, 0.6)0.536048 0.025915 22780
[0.6, 0.7)0.634866 0.027032 3130
[0.7, 0.8)0.737221 0.026278 733
[0.8, 0.9)0.838473 0.027288 116
[0.9, 1)0.942055 0.033359 25
1 1.000000 0.000000 10
All 0.453750 0.104944 85609
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 41
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Multnomah County, Single family residential, FY 2009-2010
RMV between $200,000 and $300,000
RATIO Mean
Std.
Dev. Obs. Share
[0, 0.1) 0.015 0.033 505 0.6%
[0.1, 0.2) 0.166 0.023 2549 3.1%
[0.2, 0.3) 0.249 0.030 2743 3.3%
[0.3, 0.4) 0.362 0.027 8173 9.9%
[0.4, 0.5) 0.453 0.028 18858 22.8%
[0.5, 0.6) 0.546 0.029 18217 22.0%
[0.6, 0.7) 0.653 0.028 18233 22.0%
[0.7, 0.8) 0.741 0.028 10850 13.1%
[0.8, 0.9) 0.837 0.028 2201 2.7%
[0.9, 1) 0.931 0.024 343 0.4%
1 1.000 0.000 46 0.1%
All 0.541 0.160 82718 100.0%
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 42
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Deschutes County, Single family residential, FY 2009-2010
RMV between $200,000 and $300,000
RATIO Mean
Std.
Dev. Obs. Share
[0, 0.1) 0.074 0.022 2 0.0%
[0.1, 0.2) 0.159 0.033 7 0.0%
[0.2, 0.3) 0.271 0.025 117 0.8%
[0.3, 0.4) 0.353 0.029 465 3.3%
[0.4, 0.5) 0.461 0.028 1144 8.1%
[0.5, 0.6) 0.557 0.026 5725 40.8%
[0.6, 0.7) 0.642 0.027 4608 32.8%
[0.7, 0.8) 0.742 0.030 1341 9.6%
[0.8, 0.9) 0.841 0.027 556 4.0%
[0.9, 1) 0.932 0.025 66 0.5%
1 1.000 0.000 7 0.0%
All 0.598 0.107 14038 100.0%
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 43
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Jackson County, Single family residential, FY 2009-2010
RMV between $200,000 and $300,000
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
200000 220000 240000 260000 280000 300000
RMVRATIOJacksonCounty,Single familyresidential,FY2009-10
RMV between$200,000 and $300,000
RATIO Mean
Std.
Dev. Obs. Share
[0, 0.1) 0.015 0.017 2 0.0%
[0.1, 0.2) 0.180 0.006 2 0.0%
[0.2, 0.3) 0.241 0.005 3 0.0%
[0.3, 0.4) 0.365 0.027 59 0.4%
[0.4, 0.5) 0.468 0.025 469 3.1%
[0.5, 0.6) 0.567 0.026 2579 16.8%
[0.6, 0.7) 0.650 0.028 8555 55.7%
[0.7, 0.8) 0.737 0.026 3234 21.0%
[0.8, 0.9) 0.835 0.025 416 2.7%
[0.9, 1) 0.934 0.023 36 0.2%
1 1.000 0.000 16 0.1%
All 0.653 0.078 15371 100.0%
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 44
Scatter Diagram for AV/RMV ratios
Sherman County, Single family residential, FY 2009-2010
All RMV Range
RATIO Mean
Std.
Dev. Obs. Share
[0, 0.1) NA NA 0 0.0%
[0.1, 0.2) 0.144 0.062 2 0.6%
[0.2, 0.3) 0.263 0.026 11 3.5%
[0.3, 0.4) 0.356 0.031 45 14.3%
[0.4, 0.5) 0.453 0.026 93 29.5%
[0.5, 0.6) 0.547 0.029 70 22.2%
[0.6, 0.7) 0.649 0.031 38 12.1%
[0.7, 0.8) 0.744 0.025 32 10.2%
[0.8, 0.9) 0.841 0.022 13 4.1%
[0.9, 1) 0.953 0.028 11 3.5%
1 1.000 0.000 0 0.0%
All 0.538 0.164 315 100.0%
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 45
AV/RMV Ratio Distribution Comparison between FY 2005 and 2010
Single family residential
Deschutes County
FY2005 FY 2010
RATIO Obs. Share Obs. Share
[0, 0.2) 11 0.0% 50 0.2%
[0.2, 0.4) 93 0.4% 1668 5.3%
[0.4, 0.6) 2631 11.0% 16169 51.5%
[0.6, 0.8) 18627 78.0% 12364 39.4%
[0.8, 1) 2457 10.3% 1092 3.5%
1 77 0.3% 25 0.1%
All 23896 100.0% 31368 100.0%
Jackson County
FY2005 FY 2010
RATIO Obs. Share Obs. Share
[0, 0.2) 60 0.2% 124 0.3%
[0.2, 0.4) 232 0.6% 399 1.0%
[0.4, 0.6) 4367 11.9% 10964 26.5%
[0.6, 0.8) 31242 85.0% 28299 68.5%
[0.8, 1) 795 2.2% 1406 3.4%
1 72 0.2% 129 0.3%
All 36768 100.0% 41321 100.0%
Multnomah County
FY2005 FY 2010
RATIO Obs. Share Obs. Share
[0, 0.2) 849 0.5% 4731 2.5%
[0.2, 0.4) 8971 4.9% 21429 11.5%
[0.4, 0.6) 76696 41.9% 95726 51.4%
[0.6, 0.8) 88057 48.0% 58647 31.5%
[0.8, 1) 8321 4.5% 5412 2.9%
1 369 0.2% 223 0.1%
All 183263 100.0% 186168 100.0%
Sherman County - FY 2005 Data not available
Research Report #4-10
September 2010
Page 46