Appendix Projects and Plans/City...planning districts in Clive ranges from $2.62 to $6.17 as...
Transcript of Appendix Projects and Plans/City...planning districts in Clive ranges from $2.62 to $6.17 as...
Appen
dix
ii
RESOURCES 1. U.S. News & World Report Unveils the 2017 Best Places to Live. (2017,
February 7). U.S. News. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.usnews.com/info/blogs/press-room/articles/2017-02-07/us-news-unveils-the-2017-best-places-to-live
2. National Association of Realtors. (2014, July 24). NAR Identifies Best Purchase Markets for Aspiring Millennial Homebuyers. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.nar.realtor/news-releases/2014/07/nar-identifies-best-purchase-markets-for-aspiring-millennial-homebuyers
3. Aschbrenner, J. (2015, October 2). “Des Moines is No. 1 in nation for millennial homebuyers.” The Des Moines Register. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/money/business/development/2015/10/02/des-moines-millennials-home-buyers-real-estate-realtor/73202620/
4. Lu, W., Stilwell, V., & Cannon, C. (2016, July 28). “The Most and Least Affordable Places to Buy Your First Home.” Bloomberg News. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2016-housing-affordability/
5. Wang, A. X. (2015, October 03). “Why Des Moines Is a Millennial Para-dise Right Now.” The Atlantic. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2015/10/des-moines-millennials-housing/408841/
6. Salisbury, I. (2015, September 28). “Millennials Dominate Housing Market In Many Small Cities” Money. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from http://time.com/money/4052303/millennials-housing-market/
7. Poff, J. (2015, May 16). “34 Underrated U.S. Cities You'll Actually Want To Move To.” Buzzfeed. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from https://www.buzzfeed.com/jonmichaelpoff/underrated-american-cities
8. Meinch, T. (2015, April 15). Report: Des Moines metro area lacks af-fordable housing. Des Moines Register. Retrieved July 24, 2017 from http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/news/local/des-moines/2015/04/15/report-reveals-affordable-housing-lack/25857687/
9. Housing Tomorrow: Choices For a Greener Greater Des Moines (2015, April). Retrieved from, http://www.pchtf.org/upl/downloads/landing-page/documents-document2.pdf
10. Schwartz, M., & Wilson, E. (n.d.). Who Can Afford To Live in a Home?: A look at data from the 2006 American Community Survey. US Census Bu-reau. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/housing/census/publications/who-can-afford.pdf
11. “History of Federal Minimum Wage Rates Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, 1938-2009.” US Department of Labor Wage and Hour Division. Re-trieved August 09, 2017 from https://www.dol.gov/whd/minwage/chart.htm
12. Manson, S., Schroeder, J., Van Riper, D., & Ruggles, S. (2017). “IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 12.0 [Database].” Minneapolis: University of Minnesota. http://doi.org/10.18128/D050.V12.0
13. U.S. Census Bureau. “S1901: Income in the Past 12 Months (In 2015 In-flation-Adjusted Dollars).” 2011-2015 American Community Survey 5-Year Estimates. Retrieved from https://factfinder.census.gov
14. Pearson, S. (n.d.). “1980's Collector Cars including Prices.” The People History. Retrieved August 08, 2017 from http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/80scars.html
15. Healey, J. R. (2015, May 4). “Average new car price zips 2.6% to $33,560.” USA Today. Retrieved from https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2015/05/04/new-car-transaction-price-3-kbb-kelley-blue-book/26690191/
16. U.S. Census Bureau. “Median and Average Sales Prices of New Homes Sold in United States.” Retrieved August 08, 2017 from https://www.census.gov/construction/nrs/pdf/uspricemon.pdf
17. USDA Economic Research Service. (n.d.). Food Expenditures and Income (Food Consumption, Prices, and Expenditures, 1970-97, pp. 14-16). Re-trieved from https://www.ers.usda.gov/webdocs/publications/47097/14801_sb965e_1_.pdf?v=41056
iii
18. Jones, N. (2011, March 29). “Mapping Global Food Spending (Infographic).” Retrieved August 09, 2017 from http://civileats.com/2011/03/29/mapping-global-food-spending-infographic/
19. The Institute for College Access & Success. (2016, October). Student Debt and the Class of 2015. Retrieved from http://ticas.org/sites/default/files/pub_files/classof2015.pdf
20. Delisle, J., Phillips, O., & Van der Linde, R. (2014, March). The Gradu-ate Student Debt Review: The state of graduate student borrowing. New America. Retrieved August 09, 2017 from https://static.newamerica.org/attachments/750-the-graduate-student-debt-review/GradStudentDebtReview-Delisle-Final.pdf
21. Baum, S. (2013, October). The Evolution of Student Debt in the U.S.: An Overview. Retrieved from http://www.upjohn.org/stuloanconf/Baum.pdf
22. Bleemer, Z., et. al. (2017). Echoes of Rising Tuition in Students’ Bor-rowing, Educational Attainment, and Homeownership in Post-Recession America. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 820. Re-trieved from https://www.newyorkfed.org/medialibrary/media/research/staff_reports/sr820.pdf?la=en
23. Haughey, Richard M. (2002, June). Workforce Housing: Barriers, Solu-tions, and Model Programs. Urban Land Institute Land Use Policy Forum Report. Retrieved from http://m.tbrpc.org/resource_center/pdfs/housing/ULI_Workforce_Housing.pdf
24. Center for Neighborhood Technology. (2010, March) Penny Wise Pound Fuelish: New Measures of Housing + Transportation Affordability. Re-trieved from http://www.cnt.org/sites/default/files/publications/CNT_pwpf.pdf
25. Des Moines Area Metropolitan Planning Organization. (2015, February). Forecasting Our Growth. Retrieved from https://dmampodemo.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/growth-scenario-report.pdf
26. Sage Computing, Inc. (2008, June). Accessory Dwelling Units: Case Study. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Office of Policy Development and Research. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/publications/adu.pdf
27. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. (2018, June 25). Consolidated Planning/CHAS Data. Retrieved from https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/cp.html
28. U.S. Census Bureau. 2017. “OnTheMap”. Longitudinal-Employer House-hold Dynamics Program. Retrieved September 20, 2017 from at https://onthemap.ces.census.gov.
iv
2018 Des Moines-West Des Moines MSA Area Median Income by Household Size
# Persons 50% AMI 50% AMI Monthly
Housing Attainability 80% AMI
80% AMI Monthly Housing Attainability
100% AMI 100% AMI Monthly
Housing Attainability
1 $27,900 $698 $44,600 $1,115 $55,800 $1,395
2 $31,850 $796 $51,000 $1,275 $63,700 $1,593
3 $35,850 $896 $57,350 $1,434 $71,700 $1,793
4 $39,800 $995 $63,700 $1,593 $79,600 $1,990
5 $43,300 $1,075 $68,800 $1,720 $86,000 $2,150
6 $46,200 $1,155 $73,900 $1,848 $92,400 $2,310
7 $49,400 $1,235 $79,000 $1,975 $98,800 $2,470
8 $52,550 $1,314 $84,100 $2,103 $105,100 $2,628
Annual Area Median Incomes are established by the Department of Housing and Urban Development.
v
CLIVE OPEN FORUM RESPONSES A Housing Strategy Series of three questions was published on Clive Open Forum. The questions were available for comment from February through June, and received the following responses: Question 2: What policies do you support for Clive to
further attainable Senior Housing goals?
Option % Responses # Responses
Partner with developers to utilize Low Income Housing Tax Credit to offset costs
- 0
Partner with developers to utilize Tax Increment Financing to offset costs of public improvements
- 0
Allow density bonuses if certain performance standards or goals are met
- 0
Allow residential uses in compatible commercial areas
- 0
Review zoning regulations and reevaluate minimum requirements to increase affordability of housing developments (e.g. lot size, unit size, setbacks)
- 0
Adopt an Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance (for additional info on ADU’s see Housing Attainability Report pgs. 51-53)
- 0
Pursue Universal Design principles to better accommodate “aging in place”. (for additional info on Universal Design see recommendations on pg. 46)
- 0
Other (see comment) - 0
No Responses
Question 1: What attainable housing focus areas should Clive pursue?
Based on the cost provided in the study (mortgage $120,000 and monthly payment under $1,000), I don't see how Clive can provide Low Income Housing without providing some type of subsidy. Thus I would support a program that the market place is willing to provide. If that means living in surrounding communities because they are available at a lower cost I do not see where that is an issue. - Dennis Walker
I would like to see Clive focus on low income housing. As the metro grows, the cost of living goes up and lower income people are squeezed out. Rents are going up, housing prices are going up, and low income people are forced to either move out of the metro or move into undesirable neighborhoods (outside of Clive) or stay in apartment buildings. I would love to see Clive make this a focus, as building low income units is seldom made a priority. Lower income people deserve to live in decent housing. I would like to see Clive strive to make itself available to a diverse population, including income diversity. This city shouldn't only be for the affluent.
I fear the response of many will be that low income people are criminals, undesirables, lazy, need to just work harder to stop being poor, and should live somewhere else. Please, fellow Clive residents, prove me wrong. - Lisa Earles
vi
Question 3: What policies do you support for Clive to further attainable Workforce Housing goals?
Option % Responses # Responses
Partner with developers to utilize Low Income Housing Tax Credit to offset costs
50% 2
Partner with developers to utilize Tax Increment Financing to offset costs of public improvements
75% 3
Allow density bonuses if certain performance standards or goals are met
75% 3
Allow residential uses in compatible commercial areas
50% 2
Review zoning regulations and reevaluate minimum requirements to increase affordability of housing developments (e.g. lot size, unit size, setbacks)
75% 3
Adopt an Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinance (for additional info on ADU’s see Housing Attainability Report pgs. 51-53)
75% 3
Other (see comment) 25% 1
I have no problem with low income housing -- I do have a problem with the density of low income housing. Each time a developer starts a "low-income" project -- it is so dense with housing that it does tend to create neighborhoods where crime increases. Instead of designating a low income housing development, why not require that all new neighbors have a certain percentage of homes that are sold for much lower prices to allow our poorer citizens to have a home in a nice neighborhood. Low income housing developments don't work. Let's try something totally out of the box...if a developer wants to create a new neighborhood -- they must provide a percentage of high quality homes at lower prices (don't let them create poorly constructed homes). This helps integrate rather than segregate.
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
xv
xvi
ANALYSIS 1: ALL HOUSING UNITS
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 1,283 1,263 98.4%
District 2 982 960 97.8%
District 3 768 557 72.5%
District 4 440 127 28.9%
District 5 1,046 259 24.8%
District 6 753 543 72.1%
District 7 1,633 500 30.6%
City 6,905 4,209 60.9%
Properties with a total value of $285,000 or less or monthly rent of $1,990 or below were considered attainable.
12279 Wellington Ridge Dr. is a single family home located in District 4 with a total value of $232,600.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 1,283 1,226 95.6%
District 2 982 728 74.1%
District 3 768 217 28.3%
District 4 440 17 3.9%
District 5 1,046 85 8.1%
District 6 753 279 37.1%
District 7 1,633 284 17.4%
City 6,905 2,836 41.1%
Properties with a total value of $225,000 or less or monthly rent of $1,593 or below were considered attainable.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 1,283 843 65.7%
District 2 982 141 14.4%
District 3 768 1 0.1%
District 4 440 0 0.0%
District 5 1,046 1 0.1%
District 6 753 97 12.9%
District 7 1,633 5 0.3%
City 6,905 1,088 15.8%
Properties with a total value of $135,000 or less or monthly rent of $995 or below were considered attainable.
12578 Diamond Ridge Ct. is a townhome located in District 4 with a total value of $210,000.
8450 Harbach Blvd. is a townhome located in District 1 with a monthly cost of $954.
xvii
ANALYSIS 2: OWNER OCCUPIED UNITS
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 342 332 97.1%
District 2 792 773 97.6%
District 3 627 537 85.6%
District 4 351 125 35.6%
District 5 1,032 254 24.6%
District 6 716 515 71.9%
District 7 1,414 295 20.9%
City 5,274 2,831 53.7%
Properties with a total value of $285,000 or less were considered attainable.
1708 NW 99th Ct. is a single family home located in District 2 with a total value of $229,900.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 342 299 87.4%
District 2 792 549 69.3%
District 3 627 203 32.4%
District 4 351 16 4.6%
District 5 1,032 85 8.2%
District 6 716 253 35.3%
District 7 1,414 131 9.3%
City 5,274 1,536 29.1%
Properties with a total value of $225,000 or less were considered attainable.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 342 27 7.9%
District 2 792 76 9.6%
District 3 627 0 0.0%
District 4 351 0 0.0%
District 5 1,032 1 0.1%
District 6 716 95 13.3%
District 7 1,414 5 0.4%
City 5,274 204 3.9%
Properties with a total value of $135,000 or less were considered attainable.
1719 NW 108th St. is a single family home located in District 3 with a total value of $175,400.
8460 Clark St. is a single family home located in District 1 with a total value of $120,000.
xviii
ANALYSIS 3: OWNER OCCUPIED SINGLE FAMILY UNITS
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 342 328 97.0%
District 2 792 693 97.3%
District 3 627 536 85.6%
District 4 351 93 29.7%
District 5 1,032 97 13.6%
District 6 716 399 62.2%
District 7 1,414 109 9.4%
City 5,279 2,255 50.1%
Properties with a total value of $285,000 or less were considered attainable.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 342 295 87.3%
District 2 792 470 66.0%
District 3 627 202 32.3%
District 4 351 3 0.9%
District 5 1,032 0 0.0%
District 6 716 138 21.5%
District 7 1,414 28 2.4%
City 5,279 1,136 25.2%
Properties with a total value of $225,000 or less were considered attainable.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 342 27 7.9%
District 2 792 0 0.0%
District 3 627 0 0.0%
District 4 351 0 0.0%
District 5 1,032 0 0.0%
District 6 716 0 0.0%
District 7 1,414 4 0.4%
City 5,279 31 0.7%
Properties with a total value of $135,000 or less were considered attainable.
1690 NW 109th St. is a single family home located in District 3 with a total value of $236,400.
8824 Primrose Ln. is a single family home located in District 2 with a total value of $154,800.
1300 NW 78th St. is a single family home located in District 1 with a total value of $111,500.
xix
ANALYSIS 4: RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 941 931 98.9%
District 2 190 187 98.4%
District 3 141 20 14.2%
District 4 89 2 2.2%
District 5 14 5 35.7%
District 6 37 28 75.7%
District 7 219 205 93.6%
City 1,631 1,378 84.5%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,990 or below were considered attainable.
2052 NW 149th St. is a single family home located in District 5 with a monthly cost of $1,790.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 941 927 98.5%
District 2 190 179 94.2%
District 3 141 14 9.9%
District 4 89 1 1.1%
District 5 14 0 0.0%
District 6 37 26 70.3%
District 7 219 153 69.9%
City 1,613 1,300 79.7%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,593 or below were considered attainable.
10414 Clark St. is a duplex located in District 3 with a monthly cost of $1,361.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 941 816 86.7%
District 2 190 65 34.2%
District 3 141 1 0.7%
District 4 89 0 0.0%
District 5 14 0 0.0%
District 6 37 2 5.4%
District 7 219 0 0.0%
City 1,613 884 54.2%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $995 or below were considered attainable.
8190 Harbach Blvd. is an apartment complex located in District 1 with a monthly cost of $678-$781.
xx
ANALYSIS 5: RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS BY TYPE, SINGLE FAMILY & DUPLEX
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 107 97 90.7%
District 2 121 118 97.5%
District 3 25 20 80.0%
District 4 1 0 0.0%
District 5 5 0 0.0%
District 6 10 2 20.0%
District 7 17 4 23.5%
City 286 241 84.3%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,990 or below were considered attainable.
2725 NW 165th Ln. is a single family home located in District 7 with a monthly cost of $1,800.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 107 93 86.9%
District 2 121 110 90.9%
District 3 25 14 56.0%
District 4 1 0 0.0%
District 5 5 0 0.0%
District 6 10 1 10.0%
District 7 17 2 11.8%
City 286 220 76.9%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,593 or below were considered attainable.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 107 15 14.0%
District 2 121 32 26.4%
District 3 25 1 4.0%
District 4 1 0 0.0%
District 5 5 0 0.0%
District 6 10 0 0.0%
District 7 17 0 0.0%
City 286 48 16.8%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $995 or below were considered attainable.
1235 Forest Cir. is a duplex located in District 3 with a monthly cost of $1,078.
9076-9078 Summit Dr. is a duplex located in District 2 with a monthly cost of $750-775.
xxi
ANALYSIS 5: RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS BY TYPE, APARTMENT
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 823 823 100.0%
District 2 68 68 100.0%
District 3 116 0 0.0%
District 4 77 0 0.0%
District 5 3 3 100.0%
District 6 6 6 100.0%
District 7 198 198 100.0%
City 1,291 1,098 85.0%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,990 or below were considered attainable.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 823 823 100.0%
District 2 68 68 100.0%
District 3 116 0 0.0%
District 4 77 0 0.0%
District 5 3 0 0.0%
District 6 6 6 100.0%
District 7 198 150 76.0%
City 1,291 1,047 81.1%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,593 or below were considered attainable.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 823 801 97.3%
District 2 68 32 47.1%
District 3 116 0 0.0%
District 4 77 0 0.0%
District 5 3 0 0.0%
District 6 6 2 33.3%
District 7 198 0 0.0%
City 1,291 835 64.7%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $995 or below were considered attainable.
14100 Pinnacle Pointe Dr. is an apartment located in District 5 with a monthly cost of $1,798.
Stonegate Crossing Apartments located in District 7 with an average monthly cost of $1,078-1,583.
1565 NW 84th St. is an apartment located in District 1 with a monthly cost of $639-652.
xxii
ANALYSIS 5: RENTER OCCUPIED UNITS BY TYPE, TOWNHOME
Median Income Level ($76,900)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 11 11 100.0%
District 2 1 1 100.0%
District 3 0 ----- -----
District 4 11 2 18.2%
District 5 6 2 33.3%
District 6 21 20 95.2%
District 7 4 3 75.0%
City 54 39 72.2%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,990 or below were considered attainable.
2747 Buena Vista Ln. is a townhome located in District 7 with a monthly cost of $1,703.
Low Income Level ($61,500)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 11 11 100.0%
District 2 1 1 100.0%
District 3 0 ----- -----
District 4 11 1 9.1%
District 5 6 0 0.0%
District 6 21 19 90.5%
District 7 4 1 25.0%
City 54 33 61.1%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $1,593 or below were considered attainable.
Very Low Income Level ($38,450)
District Total Units
Attainable Units
% of Units Attainable
District 1 11 0 0.0%
District 2 1 1 100.0%
District 3 0 ----- -----
District 4 11 0 0.0%
District 5 6 0 0.0%
District 6 21 0 0.0%
District 7 4 0 0.0%
City 54 1 1.9%
Units with a monthly rent and utilities of $995 or below were considered attainable.
Country Club Villas Townhomes located in District 6 have a monthly cost of $1,043-1,976.
1314 NW 90th Ct. is a townhome located in District 2 with a monthly cost of $928.
xxiii
TOTAL VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT OF LAND Total Value per sq. ft. of Land assessments by Planning District and for Subdivision Assessment 1B, 2 and 3 can be found in the main report pages 51-58.
Assessment 1: All Residential Subdivisions Assessment 1 analyzed all residential subdivisions without accounting for common spaces in townhome developments. Top ten performing subdivisions for average total value per square foot of land contain 269 dwelling units, which meet the income attainability thresholds as follows: 48 median income units (17.8%, 71.7% combined) 145 low income units (53.9%) 0 very low income units (0.0%)
Top Performing, All Residential Subdivisions Total Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Commons at Boston Park Plat 02 $98.48
2 Stonegate Townhomes Plat 01 $98.07
3 Townhomes of Walnut Creek Hills $92.79
4 Commons at Boston Park Plat 03 $89.73
5 Country Club Pointe Townhomes $88.26
6 Park Side Townhomes Plat 01 $82.79
7 Waters Edge Townhomes Plat 01 $82.45
8 Townhomes of Wood Creek $80.53
9 Diamond Ridge Townhomes $79.54
10 Country Club Ridge Townhomes $71.81
Minimum Development Standards Only two of the top performing subdivisions have minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations: Commons at Boston Park Plat 02 and Commons at Boston Park Plat 03. Plat 03 has one lot remaining that would allow for construction of one additional townhome dwelling unit. Plat 02 has fifteen lots remaining that would allow for construction of up to seven additional townhome dwelling units. Many of the Plat 02 lots were created with fifteen foot widths to be combined in groups of two to four lots for development of various floor plans. Townhomes of Walnut Creek Hills has six lots remaining; the other seven subdivisions are fully developed.
Minimum square footage requirements for townhomes in both Commons at Boston Park Plat 02 and Plat 03 are 1,250 square feet exclusive of basements, with a minimum 2 car garage. Development standards also require high quality, low maintenance materials for siding such as brick, stone, or hardi-plank.
Average Characteristics The highest valued subdivisions are all townhome developments. These subdivisions are developed with the following average characteristic ranges and averages when all lots are assessed together:
Top Performing Average Characteristics All Residential Subdivisions
Total Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median) 2 to 3 2
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage 400 to 789 545
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
1,457 to 3,221 2,224
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
1,420 to 1,920 1,611
Sq. Ft. Lot 1,630 to 3,951 2,800
xxiv
LAND VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT OF LAND Planning Districts Residential Average residential land value per square foot of land in the seven planning districts in Clive ranges from $2.62 to $6.17 as follows: District 1: $2.62 District 3: $3.73 District 2: $3.84 District 6: $4.26 District 5: $5.37 District 4: $6.07 District 7: $6.17
The greatest increase in value within a quantile is between District 1 and District 3, with $1.11 per square foot of land representing a 42% increase. Nonresidential, agricultural, and undeveloped parcels were excluded from the analysis. Townhome values per square foot of land are calculated including common spaces.
Non-Residential Average non-residential land value per square foot of land in the seven planning districts in Clive ranges from $5.23 to $12.93 as follows: District 1: $5.23 District 7: $5.31 District 2: $6.05 District 3: $7.77 District 6: $8.61 District 5: $11.71 District 4: $12.93
The greatest increase in value within a quantile is between District 5 and District 6, with $3.10 per square foot of land representing a 36% increase. Residential, agricultural, rail, school, and undeveloped parcels were excluded from the analysis.
xxv
Subdivisions Analysis 1: All Residential Properties Results of this analysis are the same for average total value per square foot of land, see page xxiii.
Analysis 1B: All Residential Properties with Modified Townhome Values Compared to the previous analysis of average land values per square foot of land, only three of the same subdivisions are ranked in the top ten. Six of the ten top subdivisions by average land values are townhome developments. All ten subdivisions contain 287 dwelling units, which meet the income attainability thresholds as follows: 10 median income units (3.5%, 31.4% combined) 80 low income units (27.9%) 0 very low income units (0.0%)
Top Performing All Residential Subdivisions
with Modified Townhome Values Land Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Waters Edge Townhomes Plat 01 $8.53
2 Lake Pointe Townhomes $8.39
3 Bay Hill Plat 01 $7.91
4 Park Side Townhomes Plat 01 $7.91
5 Woodlands Plat 05 $7.77
6 Berkshire North Plat 06 $7.65
7 Woodlands Creek Reserve Plat 01 $7.63
8 Woodlands Ridge Plat 01 $7.55
9 Stonegate Townhomes Plat 01 $7.48
10 Berkshire North Plat 05 $7.48
Average Characteristics The top performing subdivisions based on the modified townhome land values are developed with the following characteristics:
Top Performing Average Characteristics All Residential Subdivisions
with Modified Townhome Values Land Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
xxvi
Minimum Development Standards Four of the top ten subdivisions by land value per square foot of land have minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations: Berkshire North Plats 05 and 06, Woodlands Creek Reserve Plat 01, and Woodlands Ridge Plat 01. Minimum square footages range between 1,600 and 2,800 depending on subdivision and number of stories. All require a three-car garage. Three of the single family developments require hardi-plank siding material, and one also requires 50% brick or stone veneer on the front of the house. There are seven lots remaining for development.
Assessment 2: Single Family Properties When calculated by land value per square foot of land, the top ten subdivisions contain 292 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 6 median income units (2.1%) 0 low income units (0%) 0 very low income units (0%)
Average Characteristics The top performing subdivisions based on single family land values are developed with the following characteristics:
Top Performing Single Family Subdivisions Land Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Berkshire North Plat 06 $7.65
2 Woodlands Creek Reserve Plat 01 $7.63
3 Woodlands Ridge Plat 01 $7.55
4 Berkshire North Plat 05 $7.48
5 Berkshire North Plat 04 $7.01
6 Berkshire North Plat 03 $6.80
7 Deer Ridge West Plat 03 $6.26
8 Hickory Hills South Plat 01 $6.19
9 Berkshire North Plat 02 $5.78
10 Berkshire Meadows Plat 01 $5.64
Top Performing Average Characteristics Single Family Subdivisions
Land Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
xxvii
Minimum Development Standards All of the top ten performing subdivisions have minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations, except Hickory Hills South Plat 01. Development standards require a minimum square footage between 1,500 and 2,800 depending on subdivision and number of stories. Seven subdivision require a three-car garage, one requires a two-car garage, and one requires an attached garage but does not specify a size. Eight of the subdivisions have siding requirements such as hardi-plank, concrete, wood, stucco, or brick or stone veneer. There are ten lots remaining for development.
Assessment 3: Townhome Properties When calculated by land value per square foot of land, the top ten subdivisions contain 301 dwelling units, which meet the income attainability thresholds as follows: 45 median income units (14.8%, 49.2% combined) 105 low income units (34.9) 0 very low income units (0%)
Average Characteristics The top performing townhome subdivisions (using the modified townhome land values) are developed with the following average characteristics:
Top Performing Townhome Subdivisions Land Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Waters Edge Townhomes Plat 01 $8.53
2 Lake Pointe Townhomes $8.39
3 Bay Hill Plat 01 $7.91
4 Park Side Townhomes Plat 01 $7.91
5 Woodlands Plat 05 $7.77
6 Stonegate Townhomes Plat 01 $7.48
7 Country Club Cove Plat 02 $7.32
8 Country Club Cove Plat 01 $7.18
9 Woodlands Plat 06 $6.62
10 Commons at Boston Park Plat 04 $6.45
Top Performing Average Characteristics Townhome Subdivisions
Land Value / Sq. Ft. Land
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
xxviii
Minimum Development Standards Two of the subdivisions have minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations. Woodlands Plat 06 requires a minimum square footage between 1,800 to 2,200 and a three-car garage. Commons at Boston Park Plat 04 requires a minimum square footage of 1,250 and a two-car garage. High quality, low maintenance siding materials are also required. There are nine lots remaining for development.
Analysis Method Critique Land value per square foot of land was determined to not be an optimum way to assess return to the community from development. These analyses do not provide any knowledge about the development on the property. A new subdivision on the west side with high valued land, but no developed lots, could perform better than a fully developed subdivision on the east side that generates greater return from taxable value when only land value is considered.
Areas ranking high on land value per square foot of land can indicate where affordability of homes will be difficult to achieve due to elevated land costs. If attainable housing is pursued in these areas, financial assistance will likely be required through TIF (tax increment financing), LIHTC (low income housing tax credit), or other partnerships.
xxix
BUILDING VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING Planning Districts Residential Average residential building value per square foot of building in the seven planning districts in Clive ranges from $75.35 to $96.50 as follows: District 1: $75.35 District 2: $79.10 District 3: $31.53 District 6: $83.04 District 4: $95.91 District 5: $96.09 District 7: $96.50 Nonresidential, agricultural, and undeveloped parcels were excluded from the analysis. Townhome values per square foot of land are calculated including common spaces.
Non-Residential Average non-residential building value per square foot of building in the seven planning districts in Clive ranges from $43.15 to $125.90 as follows: District 1: $43.15 District 7: $44.64 District 2: $71.09 District 3: $93.11 District 6: $97.96 District 5: $119.20 District 4: $125.90 Residential, agricultural, rail, school, and undeveloped parcels were excluded from the analysis.
xxx
Subdivisions Analysis 1: All Residential Properties When calculated by building value per square foot of building, the top ten subdivisions contain 234 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 1 median income units (0.4%, 0.8% combined) 1 low income units (0.4%) 0 very low income units (0%) Average Characteristics The top performing subdivisions for all residential properties are developed with the following characteristics:
Top Performing, All Residential Subdivisions Building Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Landsbrook Plat 04 $122.29
2 Verona Hills South Plat 02 $121.22
3 Shadow Creek $119.81
4 Shadow Creek Plat 02 $119.25
5 Berkshire North Plat 06 $117.75
6 Woodlands Ridge Plat 01 $116.13
7 Verona Hills South Plat 01 $114.22
8 Berkshire Woods Plat 01 $113.34
9 Woodlands Plat 04 $113.30
10 Country Club Glen Plat 07 $112.96
Top Performing Average Characteristics All Residential Subdivisions Building Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
xxxi
Minimum Development Standards All of the top ten subdivisions by building value per square foot of building have minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations except Landsbrook Plat 04. Development standards require a minimum square footage between 1,600 and 2,800 depending on subdivision and number of stories. Seven subdivisions require a three-car garage, one requires a two-car garage, and one does not have a garage requirement. Seven subdivisions have siding material requirements including hardi-plank, brick or stone veneer, or lapped siding. There are seven lots remaining for development. Assessment 2: Single Family Properties When calculated by building value per square foot of building, the top ten subdivisions contain 247 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 1 median income units (0.4%) 0 low income units (0%) 0 very low income units (0%) Average Characteristics The top performing subdivisions based on single family land values are developed with the following characteristics:
Top Performing Single Family Subdivisions Building Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Verona Hills South Plat 02 $121.22
2 Shadow Creek $119.81
3 Shadow Creek Plat 02 $119.25
4 Berkshire North Plat 06 $117.75
5 Woodlands Ridge Plat 01 $116.13
6 Verona Hills South Plat 01 $114.22
7 Berkshire Woods Plat 01 $113.34
8 Woodlands Plat 04 $113.30
9 Country Club Glen Plat 07 $112.96
10 Angel Park Plat 04 $112.05
Top Performing Average Characteristics Single Family Subdivisions Building Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
xxxii
Minimum Development Standards All of the ten top performing single family subdivisions by building value per square foot of building have development standards above and beyond minimum zoning regulations. Minimum square footages range from 1,450 to 2,800 depending on subdivision and number of stories. Eight subdivisions require a three-car garage, one requires a two-car garage, and one does not have a garage requirement. Eight subdivisions have siding material requirements including hardi-plank or brick or stone veneer. There are six lots remaining for development. Assessment 3: Townhome Properties When calculated by building value per square foot of building, the top ten subdivisions contain 311 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 58 median income units (18.6%, 35.0% combined) 38 low income units (12.2%, 16.4% combined) 13 very low income units (4.2%) Average Characteristics The top performing townhome subdivisions (using the modified townhome land values) are developed with the following average characteristics:
Top Performing Average Characteristics Townhome Subdivisions
Building Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
Top Performing Townhome Subdivisions Building Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Landsbrook Plat 04 $122.29
2 Woodlands Plat 06 $109.49
3 Woodlands Plat 05 $106.59
4 Country Club Cove Plat 02 $104.96
5 Pinnacle Plat 01 *includes apartments
$104.46
6 Lake Pointe Townhomes $104.11
7 Commons at Boston Park Plat 02 $101.59
8 Legend Townhomes Plat 02 $101.17
9 Bay Hill Plat 01 $99.95
10 Townhomes of Walnut Creek Hills $98.92
xxxiii
Minimum Development Standards Only one of the top ten performing townhome subdivisions by building value per square foot of building has minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations: Commons at Boston Park Plat 02. Requirements include minimum square footage of 1,250 square feet exclusive of basements, a two-car garage, and high quality siding materials. There are lots remaining for up to seven additional dwelling units.
Analysis Method Critique Analyzing the building value per square foot of building can identify properties with high quality finishes and desirable amenities. These properties tend to have larger lot sizes averaging 18,068 for all properties, and 17,794 for single family properties. Dwelling floor areas are also larger. All properties average 2,459 square feet with four bedrooms and a four-car garage. and 2,464 with four bedrooms and a four-car garage for single family properties. Properties performing well on building value per square foot of building will not necessarily perform well for total value per square foot of land due to the decrease in density.
xxxiv
TOTAL VALUE PER SQUARE FOOT OF BUILDING Planning Districts Residential Average residential building value per square foot of building in the seven planning districts in Clive ranges from $97.49 to $156.20 as follows: District 2: $97.49 District 3: $116.85 District 1: $120.06 District 6: $121.17 District 4: $150.21 District 5: $150.81 District 7: $156.20 Nonresidential, agricultural, and undeveloped parcels were excluded from the analysis. Townhome values per square foot of land are calculated including common spaces.
Non-Residential Average non-residential building value per square foot of building in the seven planning districts in Clive ranges from $79.31 to $224.23 as follows: District 1: $79.31 District 2: $81.99 District 3: $136.62 District 4: $167.34 District 5: $170.57 District 7: $177.45 District 6: $224.23 Residential, agricultural, rail, school, and undeveloped parcels were excluded from the analysis.
xxxv
Subdivisions Analysis 1: All Residential Properties When calculated by total value per square foot of building, the top ten subdivisions contain 234 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 23 median income units (9.8%, 11.1% combined) 3 low income units (1.3%) 0 very low income units (0%) Average Characteristics The top performing subdivisions for all residential properties are developed with the following characteristics:
Top Performing Average Characteristics All Residential Subdivisions
Total Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
Top Performing, All Residential Subdivisions Total Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Landsbrook Plat 04 $149.40
2 Woodlands Ridge Plat 01 $148.04
3 Woodlands Creek Reserve Plat 01 $146.23
4 Verona Hills South Plat 02 $145.15
5 Berkshire North Plat 06 $144.97
6 Shadow Creek Plat 02 $143.29
7 Shadow Creek $142.02
8 Angel Park Plat 03 $140.40
9 Woodlands Plat 04 $140.27
10 Verona Hills South Plat 01 $138.87
xxxvi
Minimum Development Standards All of the top ten subdivisions by total value per square foot of building have minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations except Landsbrook Plat 04. Development standards require a minimum square footage between 1,200 and 2,800 depending on subdivision and number of stories. Seven subdivisions require a three-car garage, and two require a two-car garage. Eight subdivisions have siding material requirements including hardi-plank, brick or stone veneer, or lapped siding. There are seven lots remaining for development. Assessment 2: Single Family Properties When calculated by total value per square foot of building, the top ten subdivisions contain 254 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 23 median income units (9.1%, 9.9% combined) 2 low income units (0.8%) 0 very low income units (0%) Average Characteristics The top performing subdivisions based on single family building values are developed with the following characteristics:
Top Performing Single Family Subdivisions Total Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Woodlands Ridge Plat 01 $148.04
2 Woodlands Creek Reserve Plat 01 $146.23
3 Verona Hills South Plat 02 $145.15
4 Berkshire North Plat 06 $144.97
5 Shadow Creek Plat 02 $143.29
6 Shadow Creek $142.02
7 Angel Park Plat 03 $140.40
8 Woodlands Plat 04 $140.27
9 Verona Hills South Plat 01 $138.87
10 Berkshire Woods Plat 01 $138.13
Top Performing Average Characteristics Single Family Subdivisions
Total Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
xxxvii
Minimum Development Standards All of the ten top performing single family subdivisions by total value per square foot of building have development standards above and beyond minimum zoning regulations. Minimum square footages range from 1,200 to 2,800 depending on subdivision and number of stories. Eight subdivisions require a three-car garage, and two require a two-car garage. Nine subdivisions have siding material requirements including hardi-plank, brick or stone veneer, or lapped siding. There are ten lots remaining for development. Assessment 3: Townhome Properties When calculated by total value per square foot of building, the top ten subdivisions contain 277 dwelling units, which meet income attainability thresholds as follows: 60 median income units (21.7%, 39.4% combined) 36 low income units (13.0%, 17.7% combined) 13 very low income units (4.7%) Average Characteristics The top performing townhome subdivisions (using the modified townhome land values) are developed with the following average characteristics:
Top Performing Average Characteristics Townhome Subdivisions Total Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Characteristic Average Range Average of All
Properties
Bedrooms (median)
Sq. Ft. Attached Garage
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, incl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Dwelling, excl. of finished basement
Sq. Ft. Lot
Top Performing Townhome Subdivisions Total Value / Sq. Ft. Building
Rank Subdivision $/Sq. Ft.
1 Landsbrook Plat 04 $149.40
2 Woodlands Plat 06 $134.42
3 Woodlands Plat 05 $132.74
4 Bay Hill Plat 01 $126.74
5 Country Club Cove Plat 02 $126.15
6 Lake Pointe Townhomes $125.87
7 Legend Townhomes Plat 02 $120.56
8 Pinnacle Plat 01 *includes apartments
$119.77
9 Commons at Boston Park Plat 05 $117.47
10 Landsbrook Plat 06 $117.44
xxxviii
Minimum Development Standards
Only one of the top ten performing townhome subdivisions by building value per square foot of building has minimum development standards above and beyond zoning regulations: Commons at Boston Park Plat 05. Requirements include minimum square footage of 1,800 square feet for ranch style exclusive of basements, or 2,200 square feet for two story style townhomes. A three-car garage is required, as well as hardi-plank siding materials. There are six lots remaining for development.
Analysis Method Critique
Total value per square foot of building was determined not to be a reliable metric for determining highly valued properties. Some of the highest valued properties are small homes on large parcels of land that have not yet been developed into traditional subdivisions. The small square footage of the dwelling compared to the large total value from parcel size leads to a high total value per square foot of building. 43.4% of properties in the top performing quantile for total value per square foot of building are in the bottom two performing quantiles for total value per square foot of land (22.4% Quantile 1, 21% Quantile 2).
xxxix
Apartment vs. Single Family Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
SF APT
Mean 23.0359 26.5565
Variance 65.1014 51.4455
Observations 4603 472
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 600
t Stat -10.0328
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000
t Critical one-tail 1.6474
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000
t Critical two-tail 1.9640
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for apartment and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for apartment and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for single family properties is significantly different from apartments.
Apartment vs. Single Family Properties Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
SF APT
Mean 90.1058 71.4588
Variance 304.6097 243.2944
Observations 4603 472
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 599
t Stat 24.4503
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.147E-92
t Critical one-tail 1.6474
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.295E-92
t Critical two-tail 1.9639
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for apartment and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for apartment and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for single family properties is significantly different from apartments.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS
xl
Townhome vs. Single Family Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
TWN SF
Mean 23.0359 59.7819
Variance 65.1014 769.0171
Observations 4603 687
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 703
t Stat -34.5139
P(T<=t) one-tail 9.264E-154
t Critical one-tail 1.6470
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.853E-153
t Critical two-tail 1.9633
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for single family properties is significantly different from townhomes.
Townhome vs. Single Family Properties Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
TWN SF
Mean 90.1058 92.3504
Variance 304.6097 307.8161
Observations 4603 472
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 571
t Stat -2.6484
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0042
t Critical one-tail 1.6475
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0083
t Critical two-tail 1.9641
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for townhomes and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for townhomes and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for single family properties is significantly different from townhomes.
Townhome vs. Single Family Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land (mod.) t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
TWN SF
Mean 23.0359 36.9181
Variance 65.1014 115.0541
Observations 4603 687
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 5288
t Stat -40.1170
P(T<=t) one-tail 0
t Critical one-tail 1.6451
P(T<=t) two-tail 0
t Critical two-tail 1.9604
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes (with modified values) and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes (with modified values) and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for single family properties is significantly different from townhomes (with modified values).
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
xli
Westside Townhome vs. Westside Single Family Properties
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
TWN SF
Mean 60.1523 25.3199
Variance 764.4752 66.7160
Observations 675 2804
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 703
t Stat 32.3921
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.403E-142
t Critical one-tail 1.6470
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.481E-141
t Critical two-tail 1.9633
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for single family properties is significantly different from townhomes.
Westside Townhome vs. Westside Single Family Properties
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
TWN SF
Mean 94.0569 94.5811
Variance 303.3877 322.0113
Observations 675 2804
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1046
t Stat -0.6977
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2423
t Critical one-tail 1.6463
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.4855
t Critical two-tail 1.9622
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for townhomes and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for townhomes and single family properties. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for single family properties is not significantly different from townhomes.
Westside Townhome vs. Westside Single Family Properties
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land (mod.) t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
TWN SF
Mean 25.3199 36.8821
Variance 66.7160 106.6639
Observations 2804 675
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 3477
t Stat -31.2530
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.715E-189
t Critical one-tail 1.6453
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.430E-189
t Critical two-tail 1.9606
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes (with modified values) and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for townhomes (with modified values) and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for single family properties is significantly different from townhomes (with modified values).
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
xlii
Duplex vs. Single Family Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
SF DUP
Mean 23.0359 14.8777
Variance 65.1014 23.6716
Observations 4603 108
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 121
t Stat 16.8895
P(T<=t) one-tail 6.459E-34
t Critical one-tail 1.6575
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.292E-33
t Critical two-tail 1.9798
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for duplex and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for duplex and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for single family properties is significantly different from duplexes.
Duplex vs. Single Family Properties Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
SF DUP
Mean 90.1058 64.6332
Variance 304.6097 118.3874
Observations 4603 108
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 120
t Stat 23.6267
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.955E-47
t Critical one-tail 1.6577
P(T<=t) two-tail 5.910E-47
t Critical two-tail 1.9799
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for duplex and single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for duplex and single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for single family properties is significantly different from duplexes.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
xliii
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 23.0790 26.9555
Variance 59.8098 193.8120
Observations 4603 528
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 565
t Stat -6.2879
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.222E-10
t Critical one-tail 1.6476
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.443E-10
t Critical two-tail 1.9642
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for owner occupied properties is significantly different from renter occupied properties.
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Properties Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 89.7439 74.6539
Variance 338.7069 269.1079
Observations 5354 528
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 665
t Stat 19.9357
P(T<=t) one-tail 5.554E-70
t Critical one-tail 1.6471
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.111E-69
t Critical two-tail 1.9635
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for owner occupied properties is significantly different from renter occupied properties.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land (mod.) t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 24.7076 25.6707
Variance 87.30622 125.0674
Observations 5341 528
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 602
t Stat -1.9138
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0281
t Critical one-tail 1.6474
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0561
t Critical two-tail 1.9639
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied properties (with modified townhome values). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied properties (with modified townhome values). Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for owner occupied properties is not significantly different from renter occupied properties (with modified townhome values).
xliv
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Single Family Properties
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 23.0586 20.9434
Variance 60.7139 288.7584
Observations 4510 66
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 65
t Stat 1.0097
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1582
t Critical one-tail 1.6686
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.3164
t Critical two-tail 1.9971
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied single family properties. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for owner occupied single family properties is not significantly different from renter occupied single family properties.
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Single Family Properties
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 90.2035 83.8199
Variance 303.7445 284.0489
Observations 4523 79
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 81
t Stat 3.3356
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0006
t Critical one-tail 1.6639
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0013
t Critical two-tail 1.9897
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied single family properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied single family properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for owner occupied single family properties is significantly different from renter occupied single family properties.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
xlv
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Townhome Properties
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 61.0145 44.4106
Variance 769.4239 518.9022
Observations 636 51
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 63
t Stat 4.9210
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.252E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.6694
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.504E-06
t Critical two-tail 1.9983
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied townhome properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied townhome properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for owner occupied townhome properties is significantly different from renter occupied townhome properties.
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Townhome Properties
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 94.5289 87.5363
Variance 311.7119 102.2450
Observations 636 51
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 77
t Stat 4.42702
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.5549E-05
t Critical one-tail 1.6649
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.110E-05
t Critical two-tail 1.9913
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied townhome properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied townhome properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for owner occupied townhome properties is significantly different from renter occupied townhome properties.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Townhome Properties
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land (mod.) t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 37.3839 31.1090
Variance 113.1039 104.9420
Observations 636 51
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 59
t Stat 4.1968
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.622E-05
t Critical one-tail 1.6711
P(T<=t) two-tail 9.2430E-05
t Critical two-tail 2.0010
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied townhome properties (with modified townhome values). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied townhome properties (with modified townhome values). Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for owner occupied townhome properties is significantly different from renter occupied townhome properties (with modified townhome values).
xlvi
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Apartment Properties
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 21.9728 29.1368
Variance 15.9658 52.9908
Observations 170 302
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 470
t Stat -13.8028
P(T<=t) one-tail 6.347E-37
t Critical one-tail 1.6481
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.269E-36
t Critical two-tail 1.9650
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied apartment properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for owner and renter occupied apartment properties. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for owner occupied single family properties is not significantly different from renter occupied apartment properties.
Owner vs. Renter Occupied Apartment Properties
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
OWN RENT
Mean 68.3706 73.1972
Variance 199.0393 260.5315
Observations 170 302
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 391
t Stat -3.3847
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0004
t Critical one-tail 1.6488
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0008
t Critical two-tail 1.9660
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied apartment properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for owner and renter occupied apartment properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for owner occupied apartment properties is significantly different from renter occupied apartment properties.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
xlvii
Two-car vs. Three-car Garage Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
2-CAR 3-CAR
Mean 29.4195 28.3942
Variance 417.7987 205.1663
Observations 2353 2407
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4205
t Stat 2.00003
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0228
t Critical one-tail 1.6452
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0456
t Critical two-tail 1.9605
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for two– and three-car garage properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for two– and three-car garage properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for two-car garage properties is significantly different from three-car garage properties.
Two-car vs. Three-car Garage Properties Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
2-CAR 3-CAR
Mean 106.8723 119.2697
Variance 318.3393 500.1464
Observations 2353 2407
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4575
t Stat -21.1658
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.07E-95
t Critical one-tail 1.6452
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.15E-95
t Critical two-tail 1.9605
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for two– and three-car garage properties. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for two– and three-car garage properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for two-car garage properties is significantly different from three-car garage properties.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Two-car vs. Three-car Garage Properties Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land (mod.) t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
2-CAR 3-CAR
Mean 24.5982 26.9221
Variance 73.7423 79.0806
Observations 2331 2382
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4710
t Stat -9.1266
P(T<=t) one-tail 5.129E-20
t Critical one-tail 1.6452
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.026E-19
t Critical two-tail 1.9605
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for two– and three-car garage properties (with modified townhome values). Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for two– and three-car garage properties (with modified townhome values). Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for two-car garage properties is significantly different from three-car garage properties (with modified townhome values).
xlviii
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a Trail Access
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 24.0768 25.1271
Variance 98.9288 76.8889
Observations 1269 4511
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1858
t Stat -3.4078
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0003
t Critical one-tail 1.6457
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0007
t Critical two-tail 1.9612
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile.
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a Trail Access
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 84.2159 90.0455
Variance 337.9766 319.9556
Observations 1269 4511
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1994
t Stat -10.0382
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.818E-23
t Critical one-tail 1.6456
P(T<=t) two-tail 3.636E-23
t Critical two-tail 1.9612
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a Trail Access
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 103.4046 110.5278
Variance 507.6258 476.0961
Observations 1269 4511
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1986
t Stat -10.0182
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.215E-23
t Critical one-tail 1.6456
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.431E-23
t Critical two-tail 1.9612
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile.
xlix
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a Park
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 25.5255 24.3444
Variance 86.9244 76.8649
Observations 2702 3078
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 5574
t Stat 4.9411
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.998E-07
t Critical one-tail 1.6451
P(T<=t) two-tail 7.996E-07
t Critical two-tail 1.9604
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a park and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a park and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a park is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile.
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a Park
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 91.3903 86.4615
Variance 406.1319 251.3148
Observations 2702 3078
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 5109
t Stat 10.2337
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.201E-24
t Critical one-tail 1.6452
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.402E-24
t Critical two-tail 1.9604
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a park and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a park and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a park is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a Park
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 112.1368 106.1786
Variance 575.3154 401.7250
Observations 2702 3078
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 5284
t Stat 10.1670
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.314E-24
t Critical one-tail 1.6451
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.627E-24
t Critical two-tail 1.9604
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a park and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a park and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a park is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile.
l
Properties adjacent to Water Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 24.7550 27.1687
Variance 79.1523 120.8749
Observations 5441 339
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 366
t Stat -3.9622
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.465E-05
t Critical one-tail 1.6490
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.930E-05
t Critical two-tail 1.9665
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to water and those not adjacent to water. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to water and those not adjacent to water. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to water is significantly different from those not adjacent to water.
Properties adjacent to Water Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 88.6767 90.1925
Variance 327.2545 367.4983
Observations 5441 339
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 376
t Stat -1.4170
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0786
t Critical one-tail 1.6489
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1573
t Critical two-tail 1.9663
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to water and those not adjacent to water. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to water and those not adjacent to water. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to water is not significantly different from those not adjacent to water.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties adjacent to Water Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 108.8617 110.6043
Variance 488.0072 548.4847
Observations 5441 339
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 376
t Stat -1.3335
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0916
t Critical one-tail 1.6489
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1832
t Critical two-tail 1.9663
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to water and those not adjacent to water. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to water and those not adjacent to water. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to water is not significantly different from those not adjacent to water.
li
Properties adjacent to the Greenbelt Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 24.7550 27.1687
Variance 79.1523 120.8749
Observations 5441 339
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 366
t Stat -3.9622
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.465E-05
t Critical one-tail 1.6490
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.930E-05
t Critical two-tail 1.9665
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the greenbelt and those not adjacent to the greenbelt. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the greenbelt and those not adjacent to the greenbelt. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the greenbelt is not significantly different from those not adjacent to the greenbelt.
Properties adjacent to the Greenbelt Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 88.6767 90.1925
Variance 327.2545 367.4983
Observations 5441 339
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 376
t Stat -1.4170
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0786
t Critical one-tail 1.6489
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1573
t Critical two-tail 1.9663
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to the greenbelt and those not adjacent to the greenbelt. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to the greenbelt and those not adjacent to the greenbelt. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to the greenbelt is significantly different from those not adjacent to the greenbelt.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties adjacent to the Greenbelt Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 108.8617 110.6043
Variance 488.0072 548.4847
Observations 5441 339
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 376
t Stat -1.3335
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0916
t Critical one-tail 1.6489
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1832
t Critical two-tail 1.9663
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to the greenbelt and those not adjacent to the greenbelt. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to the greenbelt and those not adjacent to the greenbelt. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties adjacent to the greenbelt is significantly different from those not adjacent to the greenbelt.
lii
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a School
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 25.2779 22.2788
Variance 88.7810 74.6992
Observations 4849 1021
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1574
t Stat 9.9161
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.974E-23
t Critical one-tail 1.6458
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.595E-22
t Critical two-tail 1.9615
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a school and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a school and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within a quarter mile of a school is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile of a school.
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a School
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 90.0778 81.5508
Variance 314.5759 371.8672
Observations 4849 1021
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1406
t Stat 13.0172
P(T<=t) one-tail 5.852E-37
t Critical one-tail 1.6459
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.170E-36
t Critical two-tail 1.9617
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a school and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a school and those not within a quarter mile. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a school is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile of a school.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties within 1/4 Mile of a School
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 110.6015 101.3554
Variance 477.0153 601.4360
Observations 4849 1021
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1381
t Stat 11.1517
P(T<=t) one-tail 5.148E-28
t Critical one-tail 1.6460
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.030E-27
t Critical two-tail 1.9617
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a school and those not within a quarter mile. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a school and those not within a quarter mile. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties within a quarter mile of a school is significantly different from those not within a quarter mile of a school.
liii
Properties with a Walkout Basement Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 30.3927 26.5991
Variance 102.2187 77.4468
Observations 1051 2808
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1679
t Stat 10.7367
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.347E-26
t Critical one-tail 1.6458
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.693E-26
t Critical two-tail 1.9614
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with a walkout basement and those without a walkout basement. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with a walkout basement and those without a walkout basement. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with a walkout basement is significantly different from those without a walkout basement.
Properties with a Walkout Basement Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 99.70593 91.2602
Variance 379.3490 265.1056
Observations 1051 2808
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1629
t Stat 12.5160
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.102E-34
t Critical one-tail 1.6458
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.205E-34
t Critical two-tail 1.9614
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with a walkout basement and those without a walkout basement. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with a walkout basement and those without a walkout basement. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with a walkout basement is significantly different from those without a walkout basement.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties with a Walkout Basement Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 120.9018 112.089
Variance 523.2134 453.6258
Observations 1051 2808
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1772
t Stat 10.8518
P(T<=t) one-tail 6.575E-27
t Critical one-tail 1.6457
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.315E-26
t Critical two-tail 1.9613
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with a walkout basement and those without a walkout basement. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with a walkout basement and those without a walkout basement. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with a walkout basement is significantly different from those without a walkout basement.
liv
Properties with On-site Stormwater Detention
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 22.9277 25.3184
Variance 58.2839 60.0717
Observations 89 2718
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 94
t Stat -2.9056
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0023
t Critical one-tail 1.6612
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0046
t Critical two-tail 1.9855
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with on-site stormwater detention and those without. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with on-site stormwater detention and those without. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with on-site stormwater detention is significantly different from those not without.
Properties with On-site Stormwater Detention
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 96.7437 88.4606
Variance 481.5933 331.4876
Observations 95 5775
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 96
t Stat 3.6582
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0002
t Critical one-tail 1.6609
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0004
t Critical two-tail 1.9850
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with on-site stormwater detention and those without. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with on-site stormwater detention and those without. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with on-site stormwater detention is significantly different from those not without.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties with On-site Stormwater Detention
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 120.1192 108.8103
Variance 610.7205 507.2355
Observations 95 5775
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 97
t Stat 4.4301
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.238E-05
t Critical one-tail 1.6607
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.476E-05
t Critical two-tail 1.9847
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with on-site stormwater detention and those without. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with on-site stormwater detention and those without. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with on-site stormwater detention is significantly different from those not without.
lv
Properties with High Quality Siding Materials
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 31.1720 28.0815
Variance 92.5171 63.0972
Observations 1153 723
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1739
t Stat 7.5511
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.464E-14
t Critical one-tail 1.6457
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.930E-14
t Critical two-tail 1.9613
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with high quality siding materials and those without. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with high quality siding materials and those without. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties with high quality siding materials is significantly different from those without high quality siding materials.
Properties with High Quality Siding Materials
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 100.8222 91.3501
Variance 423.8596 275.1032
Observations 1153 723
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1761
t Stat 10.9513
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.388E-27
t Critical one-tail 1.6457
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.777E-27
t Critical two-tail 1.9613
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with high quality siding materials and those without. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with high quality siding materials and those without. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties with high quality siding materials is significantly different from those without high quality siding materials.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties with High Quality Siding Materials
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 120.5465 110.6480
Variance 691.4174 413.4352
Observations 1153 723
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1794
t Stat 9.1453
P(T<=t) one-tail 7.830E-20
t Critical one-tail 1.6457
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.566E-19
t Critical two-tail 1.9613
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with high quality siding materials and those without. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with high quality siding materials and those without. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties with high quality siding materials is significantly different from those without high quality siding materials.
lvi
Properties on a Cul-de-sac (Bulb + Straight)
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 24.7104 25.0568
Variance 90.8493 66.3712
Observations 5093 777
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1126
t Stat -1.0779
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1407
t Critical one-tail 1.6462
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2813
t Critical two-tail 1.9621
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac and properties not on a cul-de-sac. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac and properties not on a cul-de-sac. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac is not significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac.
Properties on a Cul-de-sac (Bulb + Straight)
Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 87.2922 97.1315
Variance 318.5355 358.8192
Observations 5093 777
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 998
t Stat -13.5880
P(T<=t) one-tail 5.203E-39
t Critical one-tail 1.6464
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.041E-38
t Critical two-tail 1.9623
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac and properties not on a cul-de-sac. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac and properties not on a cul-de-sac. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac is significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties on a Cul-de-sac (Bulb + Straight)
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 107.3609 119.6931
Variance 485.9850 542.4955
Observations 5093 777
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1000
t Stat -13.8431
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.656E-40
t Critical one-tail 1.6464
P(T<=t) two-tail 5.312E-40
t Critical two-tail 1.9623
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac and properties not on a cul-de-sac. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac and properties not on a cul-de-sac. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac is significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac.
lvii
Properties on a Cul-de-sac Bulb Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 24.8287 22.8668
Variance 92.2822 61.6022
Observations 4934 414
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 523
t Stat 4.7938
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.068E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.6478
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.136E-06
t Critical two-tail 1.9645
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb and properties not on a cul-de-sac bulb. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb and properties not on a cul-de-sac bulb. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb is not significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac bulb.
Properties on a Cul-de-sac Bulb Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 87.0618 97.4954
Variance 309.6530 410.4593
Observations 4934 414
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 467
t Stat -10.1618
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.371E-22
t Critical one-tail 1.6481
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.7425E-22
t Critical two-tail 1.9651
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb and properties not on a cul-de-sac bulb. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb and properties not on a cul-de-sac bulb. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb is significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac bulb.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties on a Cul-de-sac Bulb Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 107.0296 120.3603
Variance 476.9492 607.7051
Observations 4934 414
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 469
t Stat -10.6576
P(T<=t) one-tail 3.388E-24
t Critical one-tail 1.6481
P(T<=t) two-tail 6.775E-24
t Critical two-tail 1.9650
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb and properties not on a cul-de-sac bulb. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb and properties not on a cul-de-sac bulb. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac bulb is not significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac bulb.
lviii
Properties on a Cul-de-sac Straight Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 24.8287 27.5545
Variance 92.2822 60.2547
Observations 4934 363
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 448
t Stat -6.3424
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.767E-10
t Critical one-tail 1.6483
P(T<=t) two-tail 5.534E-10
t Critical two-tail 1.9653
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac straight and properties not on a cul-de-sac straight. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac straight and properties not on a cul-de-sac straight. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties on a cul-de-sac straight is significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac straight.
Properties on a Cul-de-sac Straight Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 87.0618 96.7164
Variance 309.6530 300.5709
Observations 4934 363
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 419
t Stat -10.2294
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.246E-22
t Critical one-tail 1.6485
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.492E-22
t Critical two-tail 1.9656
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac straight and properties not on a cul-de-sac straight. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac straight and properties not on a cul-de-sac straight. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac straight is significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac straight.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties on a Cul-de-sac Straight Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
NO YES
Mean 107.0296 118.9321
Variance 476.9492 468.5078
Observations 4934 363
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 418
t Stat -10.1054
P(T<=t) one-tail 6.307E-22
t Critical one-tail 1.6485
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.261E-21
t Critical two-tail 1.9657
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac straight and properties not on a cul-de-sac straight. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac straight and properties not on a cul-de-sac straight. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties on a cul-de-sac straight is significantly different from those not on a cul-de-sac straight.
lix
Properties Recently Sold: Citywide Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 26.0074 24.0904
Variance 93.2610 83.3460
Observations 2039 3831
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 3961
t Stat 7.3786
P(T<=t) one-tail 9.69E-14
t Critical one-tail 1.6452
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.939E-13
t Critical two-tail 1.9606
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: Citywide Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 90.6007 87.5269
Variance 375.6794 310.0482
Observations 2039 3831
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 3829
t Stat 5.9690
P(T<=t) one-tail 1.302E-09
t Critical one-tail 1.6453
P(T<=t) two-tail 2.604E-09
t Critical two-tail 1.9606
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: Citywide Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 111.2221 107.8070
Variance 530.4760 496.4774
Observations 2039 3831
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 4041
t Stat 5.4702
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.384E-08
t Critical one-tail 1.6452
P(T<=t) two-tail 4.768E-08
t Critical two-tail 1.9606
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lx
Properties Recently Sold: District 1 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 12.4728 12.3701
Variance 15.5925 37.2161
Observations 110 311
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 296
t Stat 0.2009
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4205
t Critical one-tail 1.6500
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.8409
t Critical two-tail 1.9680
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 1 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 74.7903 75.7445
Variance 243.7599 378.1154
Observations 110 311
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 236
t Stat -0.5151
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.3035
t Critical one-tail 1.6513
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.6070
t Critical two-tail 1.9701
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 1 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 97.4169 99.0349
Variance 391.2807 636.8086
Observations 110 311
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 242
t Stat -0.6834
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.24750
t Critical one-tail 1.6512
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.4950
t Critical two-tail 1.9698
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxi
Properties Recently Sold: District 2 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 21.4978 21.0848
Variance 52.8188 20.6359
Observations 231 663
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 295
t Stat 0.8103
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2092
t Critical one-tail 1.6500
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.4184
t Critical two-tail 1.9680
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 2 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 78.2990 79.3882
Variance 264.1902 262.0243
Observations 231 663
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 400
t Stat -0.8780
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1902
t Critical one-tail 1.6487
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.3804
t Critical two-tail 1.9659
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 2 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 96.6655 97.8479
Variance 448.734 423.7154
Observations 231 663
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 392
t Stat -0.7359
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2311
t Critical one-tail 1.6488
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.4622
t Critical two-tail 1.9660
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxii
Properties Recently Sold: District 3 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 20.6739 21.1586
Variance 22.5422 30.4387
Observations 146 486
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 273
t Stat -1.0404
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1496
t Critical one-tail 1.6505
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2991
t Critical two-tail 1.9687
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 3 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 79.9650 82.0852
Variance 130.4899 140.7582
Observations 146 486
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 246
t Stat -1.949
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0262
t Critical one-tail 1.6511
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0524
t Critical two-tail 1.9697
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 3 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 98.3442 100.3213
Variance 183.4557 205.5442
Observations 146 486
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 251
t Stat -1.5256
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0642
t Critical one-tail 1.6509
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1284
t Critical two-tail 1.9695
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxiii
Properties Recently Sold: District 4 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 27.2968 24.2872
Variance 57.9077 58.7720
Observations 118 239
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 235
t Stat 3.5065
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0003
t Critical one-tail 1.6514
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0005
t Critical two-tail 1.9701
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 4 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 27.2968 24.2872
Variance 57.9077 58.7720
Observations 118 239
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 235
t Stat 3.5065
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0003
t Critical one-tail 1.6514
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0005
t Critical two-tail 1.9701
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 4 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 122.3707 122.3927
Variance 612.2986 628.5013
Observations 118 239
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 236
t Stat -0.0079
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4970
t Critical one-tail 1.6513
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.9937
t Critical two-tail 1.9701
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxiv
Properties Recently Sold: District 5 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 27.9014 27.8913
Variance 119.8301 104.7939
Observations 256 761
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 415
t Stat 0.0130
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4948
t Critical one-tail 1.6485
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.9897
t Critical two-tail 1.9657
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 5 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 94.8278 96.4242
Variance 234.8026 215.7957
Observations 256 761
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 423
t Stat -1.45688
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0729
t Critical one-tail 1.6485
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.14590
t Critical two-tail 1.9656
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 5 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 116.2775 118.713
Variance 344.0538 321.427
Observations 256 761
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 426
t Stat -1.83253
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0338
t Critical one-tail 1.6484
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0676
t Critical two-tail 1.9655
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxv
Properties Recently Sold: District 6 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 24.3631 22.9004
Variance 34.0183 38.795
Observations 243 519
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 502
t Stat 3.1564
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0008
t Critical one-tail 1.6479
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0017
t Critical two-tail 1.9647
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 6 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 80.4107 84.3406
Variance 133.7549 141.7343
Observations 243 519
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 486
t Stat -4.3306
P(T<=t) one-tail 9.04E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.6480
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.81E-05
t Critical two-tail 1.964857
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 6 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 98.3004 104.2422
Variance 228.9989 279.7281
Observations 243 519
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 519
t Stat -4.8819
P(T<=t) one-tail 7E-07
t Critical one-tail 1.6478
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.4E-06
t Critical two-tail 1.9645
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxvi
Properties Recently Sold: District 7 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 30.5940 29.6544
Variance 81.8011 87.5735
Observations 736 852
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1566
t Stat 2.0315
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0212
t Critical one-tail 1.6458
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0424
t Critical two-tail 1.9615
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of land for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Properties Recently Sold: District 7 Building Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 101.0965 93.0507
Variance 300.2589 345.5557
Observations 736 852
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1577
t Stat 8.9203
P(T<=t) one-tail 6.294E-19
t Critical one-tail 1.6458
P(T<=t) two-tail 1.259-18
t Critical two-tail 1.9615
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: building value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Properties Recently Sold: District 7 Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building
t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 122.6702 111.3678
Variance 419.3840 598.6616
Observations 736 852
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1584
t Stat 10.0195
P(T<=t) one-tail 2.967E-23
t Critical one-tail 1.6458
P(T<=t) two-tail 5.93453E-23
t Critical two-tail 1.9615
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in average total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 and properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: total value per sq. ft. of building for properties sold from 2011 to 2016 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
lxvii
Changes in Assessed Values Adjacent to Stonegate Apartments
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Land t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 0.0953 0.1084
Variance 0.0029 0.0034
Observations 54 105
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 115
t Stat -1.4109
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0805
t Critical one-tail 1.6582
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1610
t Critical two-tail 1.9808
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in change in total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the Stonegate Apartments and nearby properties not adjacent to the Stonegate Apartments. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in change in total value per sq. ft. of land for assessed total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the Stonegate Apartments and nearby properties not adjacent to the Stonegate Apartments. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: change in total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the Stonegate Apartments is not significantly different from nearby properties not adjacent to the Stonegate Apartments.
PROPERTY VALUES t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Changes in Assessed Values Adjacent to Westmont Apartments
Total Value per Sq. Ft. of Building t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
YES NO
Mean 0.1768 0.1697
Variance 0.0015 0.0019
Observations 16 65
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 25
t Stat 0.6382
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2646
t Critical one-tail 1.7081
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.5292
t Critical two-tail 2.0595
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in change in total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the Westmont Apartments and nearby properties not adjacent to the Westmont Apartments. Alternative Hypothesis: There is a difference in change in total value per sq. ft. of land for assessed total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the Westmont Apartments and nearby properties not adjacent to the Westmont Apartments. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: change in total value per sq. ft. of land for properties adjacent to the Westmont Apartments is not significantly different from nearby properties not adjacent to the Westmont Apartments.
lxviii
Tenure t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Owned Rented
Mean 3.0263 2.9261
Variance 0.0380 0.0548
Observations 1682 151
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 169
t Stat 5.1006
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000
t Critical one-tail 1.6539
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000
t Critical two-tail 1.9741
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for owner occupied properties and rental properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for owner occupied properties is significantly different from rental properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for owner occupied properties is significantly different from rental properties.
Floodplain Designation t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
In_FP Out_FP
Mean 2.9984 3.0210
Variance 0.0372 0.0405
Observations 241 1593
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 324
t Stat -1.6878
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0462
t Critical one-tail 1.6496
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0924
t Critical two-tail 1.9673
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties in the 100 year floodplain and properties not in the 100 year floodplain. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties in the 100 year floodplain is significantly different from properties not in the 100 year floodplain. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties in the 100 year floodplain is not significantly different from properties not in the 100 year floodplain.
Trail Access t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.0177 3.0186
Variance 0.0412 0.0383
Observations 1176 658
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1403
t Stat -0.0869
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4654
t Critical one-tail 1.6459
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.9308
t Critical two-tail 1.9617
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access and properties not within a quarter mile of a trail access. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access is significantly different from properties not within a quarter mile of a trail access. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties within a quarter mile of a trail access is not significantly different from properties not within a quarter mile of a trail access.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS
lxix
Park Proximity t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.0153 3.0234
Variance 0.0417 0.0372
Observations 1206 628
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1336
t Stat -0.8341
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.2022
t Critical one-tail 1.6460
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.4044
t Critical two-tail 1.9617
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties within a quarter mile of a park and properties not within a quarter mile of a park. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties within a quarter mile of a park is significantly different from properties not within a quarter mile of a park. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties within a quarter mile of a park is not significantly different from properties not within a quarter mile of a park.
Greenbelt Adjacent t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 2.9971 3.0192
Variance 0.0196 0.0412
Observations 95 1739
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 117
t Stat -1.4588
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0737
t Critical one-tail 1.6580
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1473
t Critical two-tail 1.9804
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties adjacent to the Greenbelt and properties not adjacent to the Greenbelt. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties adjacent to the Greenbelt is significantly different from properties not adjacent to the Greenbelt. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties adjacent to the Greenbelt is not significantly different from properties not adjacent to the Greenbelt.
Water Adjacent t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.0145 3.0183
Variance 0.0343 0.0405
Observations 119 1715
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 138
t Stat -0.2162
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4146
t Critical one-tail 1.6560
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.8292
t Critical two-tail 1.9773
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties adjacent to a water feature and properties not adjacent to a water feature. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties adjacent to a water feature is significantly different from properties not adjacent to a water feature. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties adjacent to a water feature is not significantly different from properties not adjacent to a water feature.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxx
Recent Sales: Districts 1, 2, and 3 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.0346 3.0133
Variance 0.0293 0.0431
Observations 406 1429
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 776
t Stat 2.1012
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0180
t Critical one-tail 1.6468
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0359
t Critical two-tail 1.9630
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties recently sold and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties recently sold is significantly different from properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties recently sold is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Recent Sales: District 1 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.1123 3.0536
Variance 0.0566 0.0809
Observations 93 311
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 178
t Stat 1.9931
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0239
t Critical one-tail 1.6535
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0478
t Critical two-tail 1.9734
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 1 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties in Planning District 1 recently sold in Planning District 1 is significantly different from properties not recently sold. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 1 is significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Recent Sales: District 2 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.0066 2.9889
Variance 0.0217 0.0327
Observations 175 609
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 340
t Stat 1.3254
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0930
t Critical one-tail 1.6493
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1859
t Critical two-tail 1.9670
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 2 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 2 is significantly different from properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 2 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxi
Recent Sales: District 3 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Yes No
Mean 3.0177 3.0179
Variance 0.0157 0.0308
Observations 138 509
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 299
t Stat -0.0180
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4928
t Critical one-tail 1.6500
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.9856
t Critical two-tail 1.9679
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 3 and properties not recently sold. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 3 is significantly different from properties not recently sold. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties recently sold in Planning District 3 is not significantly different from properties not recently sold.
Bedroom Count 1 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
1&2 Beds 3+ Beds
Mean 2.9935 3.0203
Variance 0.0652 0.0378
Observations 156 1678
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 172
t Stat -1.2792
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1013
t Critical one-tail 1.6538
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2026
t Critical two-tail 1.9739
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties with 1 or 2 bedrooms and properties with 3 or more bedrooms. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties with 1 or 2 bedrooms is significantly different from properties with 3 or more bedrooms. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties with 1 or 2 bedrooms is not significantly different from properties with 3 or more bedrooms.
Bedroom Count 2 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
1,2,3 Beds 4+ Beds
Mean 3.0176 3.0188
Variance 0.0442 0.0322
Observations 1214 620
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1432
t Stat -0.1288
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4487
t Critical one-tail 1.6459
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.8975
t Critical two-tail 1.9616
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties with 3 or fewer bedrooms and properties with 4 or more bedrooms. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties with 3 or fewer bedrooms is significantly different from properties with 4 or more bedrooms. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties with 3 or fewer bedrooms is not significantly different from properties with 4 or more bedrooms.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxii
Bathroom Count 1 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
1 Bath 2 Baths
Mean 3.0136 3.0119
Variance 0.0601 0.0309
Observations 427 1186
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 591
t Stat 0.1307
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4480
t Critical one-tail 1.6474
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.8961
t Critical two-tail 1.9640
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties with 1 bathroom and properties with 2 bathrooms. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties with 1 bathroom is significantly different from properties with 2 bathrooms. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties with 1 bathroom is not significantly different from properties with 2 bathrooms. Results for properties with 1 bathroom compared to 1 bathroom plus a toilet room also showed no statistical difference.
Bathroom Count 2 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
1+2 Baths 3+ Baths
Mean 3.0124 3.0594
Variance 0.0386 0.0495
Observations 1613 221
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 269
t Stat -2.9870
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0015
t Critical one-tail 1.6505
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0031
t Critical two-tail 1.9688
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties with 1 or 2 bathrooms and properties with 3 or 4 bathrooms. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties with 1 or 2 bathrooms is significantly different from properties with 3 or 4 bathrooms. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties with 1 or 2 bathrooms is significantly different from properties with 3 or 4 bathrooms. Results for properties with 1 or 2 bathrooms plus a toilet room showed similar differences.
Bathroom Count 3 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
1 Bath 2+ Baths
Mean 3.0136 3.0194
Variance 0.0601 0.0341
Observations 427 1407
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 580
t Stat -0.4493
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.3267
t Critical one-tail 1.6475
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.6534
t Critical two-tail 1.9641
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties with 1 bathroom and properties with 2 or more bathrooms. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties with 1 bathroom is significantly different from properties with 2 or more bathrooms. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties with 1 bathroom is not significantly different from properties with 2 or more bathrooms.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxiii
Street Condition t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Very Poor /
Poor Good /
Excellent
Mean 3.0262 3.0066
Variance 0.0313 0.0353
Observations 461 681
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1026
t Stat 1.7933
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0366
t Critical one-tail 1.6463
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0732
t Critical two-tail 1.9623
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties with poor or very poor PCI ratings and properties with good or excellent PCI ratings. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties with poor or very poor PCI ratings is significantly different from properties with good or excellent PCI ratings. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties with poor or very poor PCI ratings is not significantly different from properties with good or excellent PCI ratings.
Property Designation t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
Single Family Duplex
Mean 3.0245 2.9125
Variance 0.0383 0.0583
Observations 1729 105
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 112
t Stat 4.6616
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000
t Critical one-tail 1.6586
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000
t Critical two-tail 1.9814
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for single family properties and duplex properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for single family properties is significantly different from duplex properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for single family properties is significantly different from duplex properties.
Attainability 1 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
VLI Non-VL
Mean 2.8688 3.0241
Variance 0.1023 0.0367
Observations 71 1763
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 72
t Stat -4.0625
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0001
t Critical one-tail 1.6663
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0001
t Critical two-tail 1.9935
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for very low income attainable properties and non-very low income attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties is significantly different from non-very low income attainable properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for very low income attainable properties is significantly different from non-very low income attainable properties.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxiv
Attainability 2 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
VLI & LI MI & EMI
Mean 3.0141 3.0257
Variance 0.0438 0.0333
Observations 1199 632
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1443
t Stat -1.2313
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.1092
t Critical one-tail 1.6459
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.2184
t Critical two-tail 1.9616
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for very low income and low income attainable properties and median income and exceeds median income attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for very low income and low income attainable properties is significantly different from median income and exceeds median income attainable properties. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for very low income and low income attainable properties is not significantly different from median income and exceeds median income attainable properties.
Attainability 3 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
LI MI
Mean 3.0232 3.0084
Variance 0.0388 0.0246
Observations 1128 517
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1235
t Stat 1.6356
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0511
t Critical one-tail 1.6461
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.1022
t Critical two-tail 1.9619
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for low income attainable properties and median income attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for low income attainable properties is significantly different from median income attainable properties. Fail Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for low income attainable properties is not significantly different from median income attainable properties.
Attainability 4 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
EMI LI & MI
Mean 3.1035 3.0186
Variance 0.0656 0.0344
Observations 115 1645
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 122
t Stat 3.4920
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0003
t Critical one-tail 1.6574
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0007
t Critical two-tail 1.9796
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for exceeds median income attainable properties and median income and low income attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for exceeds median income attainable properties is significantly different from median income and low income attainable properties. Reject Null Hypothesis: Property condition for exceeds median income attainable properties is significantly different from median income and low income attainable properties.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxv
Attainability 5 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
LI MI & EMI
Mean 3.0232 3.0257
Variance 0.0388 0.0333
Observations 1128 632
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1391
t Stat -0.2665
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.3949
t Critical one-tail 1.6459
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.7899
t Critical two-tail 1.9617
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for low income attainable properties and median income and exceeds median income attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for low income attainable properties is significantly different from median income and exceeds median income attainable properties. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for low income attainable properties is not significantly different from median income and exceeds median income attainable properties.
Attainability 6 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
MI EMI
Mean 3.0084 3.1035
Variance 0.0246 0.0656
Observations 517 115
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 134
t Stat -3.8242
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0001
t Critical one-tail 1.6563
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0002
t Critical two-tail 1.9778
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for median income attainable properties and exceeds median income attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for median income attainable properties is significantly different from exceeds median income attainable properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for median income attainable properties is significantly different from exceeds median income attainable properties.
Attainability 7 t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
EMI Non-EMI
Mean 3.1035 3.0124
Variance 0.0656 0.0380
Observations 115 1716
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 123
t Stat 3.7429
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0001
t Critical one-tail 1.6573
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0003
t Critical two-tail 1.9794
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for exceeds median income attainable properties and median income or below attainable properties. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for exceeds median income attainable properties is significantly different from median income or below attainable properties. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for exceeds median income attainable properties is significantly different from median income or below attainable properties.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxvi
Planning Districts t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
District 1 District 2
Mean 3.0671 2.9929
Variance 0.0758 0.0303
Observations 404 784
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 574
t Stat 4.9362
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000
t Critical one-tail 1.6475
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000
t Critical two-tail 1.9641
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties in District 1 and properties in District 2. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties in District 1 is significantly different from properties in District 2. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties in District 1 is significantly different from properties in District 2.
Planning Districts t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
District 1 District 3
Mean 3.0671 3.0179
Variance 0.0758 0.0276
Observations 404 647
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 588
t Stat 3.2445
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0006
t Critical one-tail 1.6474
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0012
t Critical two-tail 1.9640
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties in District 1 and properties in District 3. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties in District 1 is significantly different from properties in District 3. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties in District 1 is significantly different from properties in District 3.
Planning Districts t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
District 2 District 3
Mean 2.9929 3.0179
Variance 0.0303 0.0276
Observations 784 647
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 1399
t Stat -2.7758
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0028
t Critical one-tail 1.6459
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0056
t Critical two-tail 1.9617
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties in District 2 and properties in District 3. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties in District 2 is significantly different from properties in District 3. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties in District 2 is significantly different from properties in District 3.
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
lxxvii
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Adjacent Property Condition-Condition t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
100 ft. 101+ ft.
Mean 3.0311 3.0299
Variance 0.0426 0.0305
Observations 258 1543
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 322
t Stat 0.0852
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.4661
t Critical one-tail 1.6496
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.9322
t Critical two-tail 1.9674
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties within 100 ft. of a “poor” condition property and properties greater than 100 ft. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties within 100 ft. of a “poor” condition property is significantly different than properties greater than 100 ft. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties within 100 ft. of a “poor” condition property is not significantly different from properties not within 100 ft.
Adjacent Property Condition-Condition t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
50 ft. 51+ ft.
Mean 3.0359 3.0296
Variance 0.0476 0.0311
Observations 131 1670
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 144
t Stat 0.3229
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.3736
t Critical one-tail 1.6555
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.7472
t Critical two-tail 1.9766
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in property condition for properties within 50 ft. of a “poor” condition property and properties greater than 50 ft. Alternative Hypothesis: The property condition for properties within 50 ft. of a “poor” condition property is significantly different than properties greater than 50 ft. Fail to Reject the Null Hypothesis: Property condition for properties within 50 ft. of a “poor” condition property is not significantly different from properties not within 50 ft.
lxxviii
PROPERTY CONDITIONS t-TEST RESULTS, continued
Adjacent Property Condition-Value t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
100 ft. 101+ ft.
Mean 17.3594 18.9638
Variance 44.6377 32.3396
Observations 288 1542
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 369
t Stat -3.8248
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0001
t Critical one-tail 1.6490
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0002
t Critical two-tail 1.9664
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within 100 ft. of a “poor” condition property and properties greater than 100 ft. Alternative Hypothesis: The total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within 100 ft. of a “poor” condition property is significantly different than properties greater than 100 ft. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within 100 ft. of a “poor” condition property is significantly different from properties not within 100 ft.
Adjacent Property Condition-Value t-Test: Two-Sample Unequal Variances
50 ft. 51+ ft.
Mean 16.2004 18.7113
Variance 48.0197 34.5932
Observations 166 1830
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 187
t Stat -4.5231
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.0000
t Critical one-tail 1.6530
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.0000
t Critical two-tail 1.9727
Null Hypothesis: There is no difference in total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within 50 ft. of a “poor” condition property and properties greater than 50 ft. Alternative Hypothesis: The total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within 50 ft. of a “poor” condition property is significantly different than properties greater than 50 ft. Reject the Null Hypothesis: Total value per sq. ft. of land for properties within 50 ft. of a “poor” condition property is significantly different from properties not within 50 ft.