HomeMy WebLinkAbout20122596.tiff 1
I
I
rcii,
6
C
CuuN
UN I 2 0 1 2
I WELD COUNTY
I PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
I -
_ er_.... . _:, 11-i Mr. i '
-t •
IY' '
rain 7 1 rt I r
r,
• , r
411 ' 41 rm. ,
„, _
I -" r ..... i
ra
I: - 71 ir to . kl { -1It I - it- 1 ,
se
re-err
'1)13
st. 71 y
Gam`-•-.,� i ..: .�'�.
Linill
'-` r7. `oi
_
•
rf r�r ♦ �17r pip o j. ., IP11- 7 " '—'7,i, 4 it:
;_iii 4 i
tpl
WILD F
11•rw ,l-„ I., , ,P , I
Audit Division
I
G1 -- 4aV --‘ a ,.'1 - at-1
- I a 2012-2596
0 WILD ROSE
I I2OS
A, L, I.ROS O
Audit Division '
I
September 15, 2012
Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2012 Colorado Property Assessment Study I
Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc.-Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2012 Colorado
Property Assessment Study.
These reports are the result of two analyses: A procedural audit and a statistical audit.
The procedural audit examines all classes of property. It specifically looks at how the assessor develops
economic areas, confirms and qualifies sales, develops time adjustments and performs periodic physical
property inspections. The audit reviews the procedures for determining subdivision absorption and
subdivision discounting. Valuation methodology is examined for residential properties and commercial
properties. Procedures are reviewed for producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and lands producing,
producing coal mines, producing earth and stone products, severed mineral interests, and non-
producing patented mining claims.
Statistical audits are performed on vacant land, residential properties, commercial/industrial properties
and agricultural land. A statistical analysis is performed for personal property compliance on the eleven
largest counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Latimer, Mesa,
Pueblo and Weld. 'Elie remaining counties receive a personal property procedural study.
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. — Audit Division appreciates the opportunity to he of service to the State of
Colorado. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.
141 44(211ALL3r
I
Harry J. Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. —Audit Division
WILDROSE
Audit Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Regional/Historical Sketch of Weld County 4
Ratio Analysis 6
Random Deed Analysis 7
Time Trending Verification 8
Sold/Unsold Analysis 9
Agricultural Land Study 1 1
Agricultural Land 11
Agricultural Outbuildings 12
Agricultural Land Under Improvements 12
Sales Verification 1 3
Economic Area Review and Evaluation 14
Natural Resources 15
Earth and Stone Products 15
Producing Oil and Gas Procedures 15
Vacant Land 16
Possessory Interest Properties 17
' Personal Property Audit 18
Wildrose Auditor Staff 20
Appendices 21
1
1
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Stud\ Page 2
0 WLDROSE '
I
., L, .,. ., SI�
Audit Division I
INTRODUCTION
I
INil The procedural analysis includes all classes of
®Norad® property and specifically looks at how the
assessor develops economic areas, confirms and
The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments.
The audit also examines the procedures for
reviews assessments for conformance to the
Constitution. The SBOE will order adequately discovering, classifying and valuing
agricultural outbuildings, discovering
revaluations for counties whose valuations doI
subdivision build-out and subdivision
not reflect the proper valuation period level of
discounting procedures. Valuation
value. '
methodology for vacant land, improved
The statutory basis for the audit is found in residential properties and commercial
C.R.S. 39-1-104 (16)(a)(b) and (c). properties is examined. Procedures for
producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and
I
lands producing, producing coal mines,
The legislative council sets forth two criteria
producing earth and stone products, severed
that are the focus of the audit group.
mineral interests and non-producing patented
I
mining claims are also reviewed.
To determine whether each county assessor is
applying correctly the constitutional and
Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land,
statutory provisions, compliance requirementsI
residential properties, commercial industrial
of the State Board of Equalization, and the
manuals published by the State Property Tax
properties, agricultural land, and personal
Administrator to arrive at the actual value of property. The statistical study results are
compared with State Board of Equalization
each class of property.
compliance requirements and the manuals
To determine if each assessor is applying
published by the State Property Tax
Administrator.
correctly the provisions of law to the actual
values when arriving at valuations for
assessment of all locally valued properties
Wildrose Audit has completed the Property
Assessment Study for 2012 and is pleased to
subject to the property tax.
report its findings for Weld County in the
The property assessment audit conducts a two-
following report.
part analysis: A procedural analysis and a
statistical analysis.
I
I
I
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page i
L WILDROSE
e !1' ` \rrx ki b.( (W POI:%,I
Audit Division
I REGIONAL / HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
1
Regional Information Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
I Weld County is located in the Front Range Pueblo, and Weld counties.
region of Colorado. The Colorado Front
Range is a colloquial geographic term for the
I populated areas of the State that are just east
of' the foothills of the Front Range. It includes
i
, .
PP —._ . ._ .,,
• ise ...,..,„..s, - -
R i
.I �.
._.__
,. . '.IB_s a a as
n
I f *tort;
/4 C: e
I 4 IN� f
WI f
4401 /
r , 1
'` 1f fl- . . , ii.
l._.ai l I ...
I i
.,.. .
Sii
'r ,,, -r
41' 4) �
T_j � k
I
I
I
I
201 2 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 4
IllWILDICSE '
Audit Division '
Historical Information
Weld County has a population of an experimental utopian community of "high
approximately 252,825 people with 63.32 moral standards" by Nathan C. Meeker, a
people per square mile, according to the U.S. newspaper reporter from New- York City.
Census Bureau's 2010 census data. This Meeker purchased a site at the confluence of
represents a 39.73 percent change from the the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers
2000 Census. (that included the area of Latham, an Overland
Trail station), halfway between Cheyenne and
Weld County covers an area of 4,004 square Denver along the tracks of the Denver Pacific
miles in north central Colorado. It is bordered Railroad formerly known as the "Island Grove
on the north by Wyoming and Nebraska and on Ranch." The name Union Colony was later
the south by the Denver metropolitan area. changed to Greeley in honor of Horace
The third largest county in Colorado, Weld Greeley, who was Meeker's editor at the New
County has an area greater than that of Rhode York 'fribune, and popularized the phrase "Go
Island, Delaware and the District of Columbia West, young man."
combined.
Weld County's cultural assets include
Major Stephen H. Long made an expedition to Centennial Village, an authentic recreation of
the area now known as Weld County in 1821. pioneer life on the Colorado plains. The
In 1835 a government expedition came through Meeker Museum in Greeley is a national
the general area; the next year a member of historic site. Fort Vasquez in southern Weld
that party, Lt. Lancaster Lupton, returned to County has an exciting history as an early
establish a trading post located just north of the Colorado trading post. The Greeley
present town of Fort Lupton. In 1837 Colonel Philharmonic Orchestra is one of the oldest
Ceran St. Vrain established Fort St. Vrain; Fort symphony orchestra west of the Mississippi.
Vasquez was built south of Platteville about The University of Northern Colorado's Little
1840. The latter was rebuilt in the 1930's by Theatre of the Rockies is one of America's
the State Historical Society. premier college dramatic organizations.
(www.co.weld.co.us, www.wikipedia.org)
The county seat is Greeley which began as the
Union Colony, which was founded in 1869 as
I
I
I
2012 Weld Counts Property Assessment Studs Pave S
' WAltRILDROSE
' Audit Division
' RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodology latter measures, but were counseled if there
All significant classes of properties were were anomalies noted during our analysis.
analyzed. Sales were collected for each Qualified sales were based on the qualification
I property class over the appropriate sale period, code used by each county, which were typically
which was typically defined as the 18-month coded as either "Q" or "C." The ratio analysis
period between January 2009 and June 2010. included all sales. The data was trimmed for
I Counties with less than 30 sales typically counties with obvious outliers using IAAO
extended the sale period back up to 5 years standards for data analysis. In every case, we
prior to June 30, 2010 in 6-month increments. examined the loss in data from trimming to
If there were still fewer than 30 sales, ensure that only true outliers were excluded.
supplemental appraisals were performed and Any county with a significant portion of sales
treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for all excluded by this trimming method was
I counties using this method totaled at least 30 examined further. No county was allowed to
per county. For commercial sales, the total pass the audit if more than 5% of the sales were
"lost" because of trimming. For the largest 11
number analyzed was allowed, in some cases,
to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity counties, the residential ratio statistics were
sues for counties requiring vacant land broken down by economic area as well.
analysis or condominium analysis. Although it Conclusions
was required that we examine the median and For this final analysis report, the minimum
coefficient of dispersion for all counties, we acceptable statistical standards allowed by the
also calculated the weighted mean and price- State Board of Equalization are:
I related differential for each class of property.
Counties were not passed or failed by these
IALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Unweighted Coefficient of
Property Class Median Ratio Dispersion
ICommercial/Industrial Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99
Condominium Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99
I Single Family Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99
Vacant Land Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99
201 2 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 6
firkWILDROSE '
Audit Division '
The results for Weld County are:
Weld County Ratio Grid
Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient I
Qualified Median Related of Time Trend
Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
Commercial/Industrial 78 0.981 1.044 9.3 Compliant
Condominium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/AI
Single Family 5,612 0.981 1.017 10.8 Compliant
Vacant Land 173 1.014 1.058 14.3 Compliant
I
Ratio Statics for CURRTOT 7 TASP
Group Price Related Coefficient of '
Median Differential Dispersion
0 988 1021 106
1 980 1 012 088
3 986 1 008 084 '
4 979 1 017 113
5 963 1 009 158
6 983 1 037 156 '
7 970 1025 152
8 959 1 016 157
9 976 1 016 121
Overall 981 1017 108 '
After applying the above described SBOE, DPT, and Colorado State Statute
methodologies, it is concluded from the sales valuation guidelines.
ratios that Weld County is in compliance with Recommendations
INone
Random Deed Analysis
An additional analysis was performed as part of I
Conclusions
the Ratio Analysis. Ten randomly selected
After comparing the list of randomly selected
deeds with documentary fees were obtained
from the Clerk and Recorder. l'hese deeds deeds with the Assessor's database, Weld
were for sales that occurred from January 1, I
County has accurately transferred sales data
2009 through June 30, 2010. These sales fromthe recorded deeds to the qualified or
I
were then checked for inclusion on the unqualified database.
Assessor's qualified or unqualified database. Recommendations
None I
I
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Studs — Page 7
' WILDI'SE
' Audit Division
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION
Methodology trending adequately, and a further examination
is warranted. This validation methodology also
While we recommend that counties use the considers the number of sales and the length of
inverted ratio regression analysis method to account for market (time) trending, some the sale period. Counties with few sales across
the sale period were carefully examined to
counties have used other IAAO-approved determine if the statistical results were valid.
methods, such as the weighted monthly median
approach. We are not auditing the methods Conclusions
used, but rather the results of the methods After verification and analysis, it has been
used. Given this range of methodologies used determined that Weld County has complied
to account for market trending, we concluded with the statutory requirements to analyze the
that the best validation method was to examine effects of time on value in their county. Weld
the sale ratios for each class across the appropriate sale period. To be specific, if a County has also satisfactorily applied the results
of their time trending analysis to arrive at the
county has considered and adjusted correctly time adjusted sales price (TASP).
for market trending, then the sale ratios should Recommendations
remain stable (i.e. flat) across the sale period.
If a residual market trend is detected, then the None
county may or may not have addressed market
I
1
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Pale 8
0 WILDRCy3E
�„IL ., I
, .,�.,.� ,.
Audit Division '
SOLD / UNSOLD ANALYSIS ,
Methodology was at least 1% of the total population of
unsold properties and excluded any sale
Weld County was tested for the equal
properties. The unsold sample was filtered
treatment of sold and unsold properties to based on the attributes of the sold dataset to
ensure that "sales chasing" has not occurred. closely correlate both groups. The ratio
The auditors employed a multi-step process to analysis was then performed on the unsold '
determine if sold and unsold properties were
properties and stratified. The median and
valued in a consistent manner. mean ratio distribution was then compared
between the sold and unsold group. A non-
All qualified residential and commercial class parametric test such as the Mann-Whitney test
properties were examined using the unit value for differences between independent samples
method, where the actual value per square foot was undertaken to determine whether any
was compared between sold and unsold observed differential was significant. If this test
properties. A class was considered qualified if determined that the unsold properties were
it met the criteria for the ratio analysis. The treated in a manner similar to the sold
median value per square foot for both groups properties, it was concluded that no further
was compared from an appraisal and statistical testing was warranted and that the county was
perspective. If no significant difference wasI
in compliance.
indicated, then we concluded that no further
testing was warranted and that the county was If a class or sub-class of property was
in compliance in terms of sold/unsold determined to be significantly different by this
consistency. method, the final step was to perform a multi-
variate mass appraisal model that developed
If either residential or commercial differences ratio statistics from the sold properties that
were significant using the unit value method, or were then applied to the unsold sample. This
if data limitations made the comparison invalid, test compared the measures of central tendency
then the next step was to perform a ratio and confidence intervals for the sold properties I
analysis comparing the 2010 and 2012 actual with the unsold property sample. If this
values for each qualified class of property. All comparison was also determined to be
qualified vacant land classes were tested using significantly different, then the conclusion was
this method. The sale property ratios were that the county had treated the unsold
arrayed using a range of 0.8 to 1.5, which properties in a different manner than sold
theoretically excluded changes between years
properties.
that were due to other unrelated changes in the
property. These ratios were also stratified at These tests were supported by both tabular and
the appropriate level of analysis. Once the chart presentations, along with saved sold andI
percent change was determined for each unsold sample files.
appropriate class and sub-class, the next step i
was to select the unsold sample. This sample
I
201 2 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 9
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
Property Class Results Commercial/Industrial Compliant
Condominium N/A
Single Family Compliant
Vacant Land Compliant
Conclusions Recommendations
After applying the above described None
methodologies, it is concluded that Weld
County is reasonably treating its sold and
unsold properties in the same manner.
1
2012 Weld 1 County Property Assessment Study Page 10
WILD • ,E
Oft.
Audit Division
I
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
I
Acres By Subclass Value By Subclass
Sprinkler
waste 5.09% 50.000,000
5 31% 2 45,000,000 •
Floor
lib
2 0796 40,000,000
;; 35.000,000
30,000,000
25,000,000
3'''Tig 20,000,000
♦. , , 1t - 15,000,000
Dry Farm 10,000,000
28 29%
Grazing 5,000,000 —
48 48% 0 r i • T i
Sprinkler Flood Dry Farm Meadow Grazing Waste
Meadow Hay Hay
0 76%
I
Agricultural Land
I
County records were reviewed to determine (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3
major land categories such as irrigated farm, Chapter S . ) I
dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other Conclusions
lands. In addition, county records were
reviewed in order to determine if: Aerial An analysis of the agricultural land data
photographs are available and are being used; indicates an acceptable appraisal of this
soil conservation guidelines have been used to property type. Directives, commodity prices
classify lands based on productivity; crop and expenses provided by the PTA wereI
properly applied. County yields compared
rotations have been documented; typical
commodities and yields have been determined; favorably to those published by Colorado
orchard lands have been properly classified and Agricultural Statistics. Expenses used by the il
valued; expenses reflect a ten year average and county were allowable expenses and were in an
are typical landlord expenses; grazing lands acceptable range. Grazing lands carrying
have been properly classified and valued; the capacities were in an acceptable range. TheI
number of acres in each class and subclass have data analyzed resulted in the following ratios:
been determined; the capitalization rate was
properly applied. Also, documentation was
required for the valuation methods used and
any locally developed yields, carrying
I
capacities, and expenses. Records were also
checked to ensure that the commodity prices
and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), were applied properly.
I
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 11
' WILDROSE
' Audit Division
Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Number County County WRA
Abstract O1 Value Assessed Total
I Code Land Class Acres Per Acre Total Value Value Ratio
4107 Sprinkler 101,461 119.00 12,036,104 12,334,273 0.98
4117 Flood 240,481 180.00 43,335,409 43,144,479 1.00
I4127 Dry Farm 563,679 15.00 8,680,332 9,263,326 0.94
4137 Meadow Hay 15,061 43.00 647,611 647,611 1.00
4147 Grazing 966,052 5.00 5,046,906 5,046,906 1.00
4167 Waste 105,768 2.00 170,705 170,705 1.00
Total/Avg 105,768 35.00 69,917,067 70,607,300 0.99
Recommendations
I None
Agricultural Outbuildings
I
I Methodology Conclusions
Data was collected and reviewed to determine Weld County has substantially complied with
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's the procedures provided by the Division of
I Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.74 Property Taxation for the valuation of
through 5.77 were being followed, agricultural outbuildings.
I Recommendations
None
IAgricultural Land Under Improvements
I
Methodology Property Taxation for the valuation of land
I
under residential improvements that may or
Data was collected and reviewed to determine may not be integral to an agricultural
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's
operation.
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.19
Iand 5.20 were being followed. Recommendations
None
I Conclusions
Weld County has substantially complied with
the procedures provided by the Division of
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page 12
IllWAltitIL :”DRO '
Audit Division '
SALES VERIFICATION
According to Colorado Revised Statutes: The assessor is required to use sales of real property
only in the valuation process.
A representative body of sales is required when
considering the market approach to appraisal. (8)(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only
those sales which have been determined on an
(8) In any case in which sales prices of comparable individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real
properties within any class or subclass are utilized property only or which have been adjusted on an
when considering the market approach to appraisal in individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real
the determination of actual value of any taxable property only. (39-1-103, C.R.S.)
property, the following limitations and conditions
shall apply: Part of the Property Assessment Study is the
sales verification analysis. WRA has used the
(a)(I) Use of the market approach shall require a above-cited statutes as a guide in our study of
representative body of sales, including sales by a the county's procedures and practices for
lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and verifying sales.
appraisals shall reflect due consideration of the
degree of comparability of sales, including the extent WRA reviewed the sales verification
of similarities and dissimilarities among properties procedures in 2012 for Weld County. This
that are compared for assessment purposes. In order study was conducted by checking selected sales
to obtain a reasonable sample and to reduce sudden from the master sales list for the current
price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be valuation period. Specifically WRA selected S I
included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true sales listed as unqualified.
or typical sales price during the period specified in
section 39-1-104 (10.2). Sales of personal property All but one of the sales selected in the sample
exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 39-3- gave reasons that were clear and supportable.
102, 39-3-103, and 39-3-119 to 39-3-122 shall One sale had insufficient documentation.
not be included in any such sample. Conclusions
(b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be Weld County appears to be doing a good job of
coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as verifying their sales. There are no
screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103, recommendations.
C.R.S.) Recommendations
None
I
I
I
201 2 \Veld Countv Property Assessment Study Page 1 3
WILDROSE
' Audit Division
' ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW AND
EVALUATION
Methodology identified homogeneous economic areas
Weld County has submitted a written narrative comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each
describing the economic areas that make up the economic area defined is equally subject to a set
of economic forces that impact the value of the
county's market areas. Weld County has also
properties within that geographic area and this
submitted a map illustrating these areas. Each
of these narratives have been read and analyzed has been adequately addressed. Each economic
for logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps area defined adequately delineates an area that
will give "similar values for similar properties
were also compared to the narrative for
consistency between the written description
n similar areas."
and the map. Recommendations
Conclusions None
After review and analysis, it has been
determined that Weld County has adequately
1
1
1
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 14
0 WILDROSE I
Audit Division I
NATURAL RESOURCES '
Actual value determined- when.
Earth and Stone Products (2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds
and lands producing oil or gas shall be
Methodology determined as provided in article 7 of this title.
§ 39-1-103, C.R.S.
Under the guidelines of the Assessor's Article 7 covers the listing, valuation, and
Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural assessment of producing oil and gas leaseholds
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income and lands.
approach was applied to determine value for
I
production of earth and stone products. The Valuation:
number of tons was multiplied by an economic Valuation for assessment.
royalty rate determined by the Division of (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
Property Taxation to determine income. The section, on the basis of the information
income was multiplied by a recommended contained in such statement, the assessor shall
Hoskold factor to determine the actual value. value such oil and gas leaseholds and lands for
The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of assessment, as real property, at an amount
the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two equal to eighty-seven and one-half percent of':
variables: life and tonnage. The operator (a) The selling price of the oil or gas sold there
determines these since there is no other means from (luring the preceding calendar year, after
to obtain production data through any state or excluding the selling price of all oil or gas
private agency. delivered to the United States government or
Conclusions any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or
any agency thereof, or any political subdivision
The County has applied the correct formulas
and state guidelines to earth and stone of the state as royalty during the preceding
calendar year;
production.
(b) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the
Recommendations same field area for oil or gas transported from
None the premises which is not sold during the
preceding calendar year, after excluding the
selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the
Producing Oil and Gas United States government or any agency
Procedures thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency '
thereof, or any political subdivision of the state
as royalty during the preceding calendar year.
Methodology §39-7-102, C.R.S.
Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, Conclusions
Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources The county applied approved appraisal
procedures in the valuation of oil and gas. I
STATUTORY REFERENCES Recommendations
Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifies that
producing oil or gas leaseholds and lands arc None
valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S.
I
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 15
' W\PPRILDROSE
' Audit Division
VACANT LAND
' Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2012 in Weld County. The review showed that subdivisions per year calculated for the plat, the absorption
period was left unchanged.
were discounted pursuant to the Colorado Conclusions
Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 (14) and
by applying the recommended methodology in Weld County has implemented proper
ARL Vol 3, Chap 4. Subdivision Discounting in procedures to adequately estimate absorption
the intervening year was accomplished by periods, discount rates, and lot values for
reducing the absorption period by one year. In qualifying subdivisions.
instances where the number of sales within an Recommendations
approved plat was less than the absorption rate None
I
I
1
2012 Weld Counts Propertc Assessment Study— Page 16
Ilk WLDROSE I I
IM
Audit Division '
POSSESSORY INTEREST PROPERTIES '
Possessory Interest
Possessory interest property discovery and commercial possessory interest properties.
valuation is described in the Assessor's The county has also been queried as to their
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 section 7 confidence that the possessory interest
in accordance with the requirements of properties have been discovered and placed on
Chapter 39-1-103 (17)(a) (II) C.R.S. the tax rolls.
Possessory Interest is defined by the Property Conclusions
Tax Administrator's Publication ARL Volume
3, Chapter 7: A private property interest in
Weld County has implemented a discovery
process to place possessory interest properties
government-owned property or the right to the
on the roll. They have also correctly and
occupancy and use of any benefit in
government-owned property that has been consistently applied the correct procedures and
granted under lease, permit, license, valuation methods in the valuation of
possessory interest properties.
concession, contract, or other agreement.
Recommendations '
Weld County has been reviewed for their None
procedures and adherence to guidelines when
assessing and valuing agricultural and
I
I
I
I
I
I
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 17
WLDROSE
AI'I II Nu_P.(oRPOIMIA.
IAudit Division
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT
Weld County was studied for its procedural
compliance with the personal property Weld County is compliant with the guidelines
Iassessment outlined in the Assessor's Reference set forth in ARL Volume 5 regarding discovery
Library (ARL) Volume 5, and in the State procedures, using the following methods to
Board of Equalization (SBOE) requirements for discover personal property accounts in the
Ithe assessment of personal property. The county:
SBOE requires that counties use ARL Volume
5, including current discovery, classification, • Public Record Documents
Idocumentation procedures, current economic • MLS Listing and/or Sold Books
lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation • Chamber of Commerce/Economic
table, and level of value adjustment factor Development Contacts I table. • Local Telephone Directories,
I The personal property audit standards narrative Newspapers or Other Local
must be in place and current. A listing of Publications
businesses that have been audited by the • Personal Observation, Physical
assessor within the twelve-month period Canvassing or Word of Mouth
reflected in the plan is given to the auditor. • Questionnaires, Letters and/or Phone
The audited businesses must be in conformity Calls to Buyer, Seller and/or Realtor
I with those described in the plan.
The county uses the Division of Property
Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from Taxation (DPT) recommended classification
I the personal property accounts that have been and documentation procedures. The DPT's
physically inspected. The minimum assessment recommended cost factor tables, depreciation
sample is one percent or ten schedules, tables and level of value adjustment factor
I whichever is greater, and the maximum tables are also used.
assessment audit sample is 100 schedules.
Weld County submitted their personal
I For the counties having over 100,000 population, WRA selected a sample of all property written audit plan and was current for
the 2012 valuation period. The number and
personal property schedules to determine listing of businesses audited was also submitted
I whether the assessor is correctly applying the and was in conformance with the written audit
provisions of law and manuals of the Property plan. The following audit triggers were used
Tax Administrator in arriving at the assessment by the county to select accounts to be audited:
I levels of such property. This sample was
selected from the personal property schedules • Businesses in a selected area
audited by the assessor. In no event was the • Accounts with obvious discrepancies
I sample selected by the contractor less than 30 • New businesses filing for the first time
schedules. The counties to he included in this • Incomplete or inconsistent declarations
study are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, • Accounts with omitted property
I Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa,
• Same business type or use
Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received
• Businesses with no deletions or
a procedural study.
Iadditions for 2 or more years
2012 Weld Count's Property Assessment Study Page 18
0 W .(OSE
I I,\D., ,,,A,,. ,-Iw„,,,
Audit Division '
• Non-filing Accounts - Best Information which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD
Available requirements.
• Accounts close to the $5,500 actual
value exemption status
p Conclusions
• Accounts protested with substantial Weld County has employed adequate
disagreement discovery, classification, documentation,
valuation, and auditing procedures for their
personal property assessment and is in
Weld County's median ratio is 1.00. This is statistical compliance with SBOE requirements.
in compliance with the State Board of
Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements Recommendations
None
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2012 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 19
WILDROSE
Audit Division
WILDROSE AUDITOR STAFF
1
Harry J. Fuller,Audit Project Manager
1
Suzanne Howard, Audit Administrative Manager
1
Steve Kane, Audit Statistician
Carl W. Ross, Agricultural/Natural Resource Analyst
J. Andrew Rodriguez, Field Analyst
1
2012 Weld Counts Property Assessment Studs Page 20
likWILflE ,
D
Audit Division '
APPENDICES '
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2012 Weld County Prohcr v Asscssrucnt Study Page 2I
WILDROSE
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
FOR WELD COUNTY
2012
I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
123, 177 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2012 . The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
80,000 —
IReal Property Class Distribution
60,000 -
I
�j 40,000 —
72.387
1
20,000
32,390
13,993
' - _ - 4,407
0 - - tt t r
Vacant Land Res Imp Conun 'Ind Imp Other
type
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
' 1112) accounted for 80. 5% of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92 . 1 % of all residential
properties.
Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in
comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 4% of all such properties in this county.
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 22
WILDROSE
Audit Division
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2012Colorado Property Assessment
Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2012. The data included all 5
property record files as specified by the Auditor.
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
The following steps were taken to analyze the residential sales:
1. Qualified sales 5,977
2. Improved sales 5,707
3. Select residential sales only 5,612
The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 23
Iilk WILDRCE
Pkr Audit Division
I
Case Processing Summary
I
Count Percent
ECONAREA 0 527 9.9%
I
2 1708 32.0%
3 1281 24.0%
4 469 8.8%
I5 67 1.3%
6 1108 20.7%
I
7 20 .4%
8 31 .6%
9 131 2.5%
1 Overall 5342 100.0%
Excluded 270
I
Total 5612
Ratio Statistics for Cl1RRTOT 1 TASP
IGroup ` Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
988 ' 1.021 .106
IC
2 .980 1.012 .088
3 986 1.008 .084
I
4 .979 1.017 .113
5 963 1.009 .158
6 .983 1.037 156
I7 970 1.025 152
8 959 1.016 157
I
9 976 1.016 .121
Overall 981 1.017 .108
IThe above ratio statistics were in compliance with the standards set forth by the Colorado State Board
of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall residential sales. The following graphs describe further the sales
1 ratio distribution for these properties:
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24
\VII . I ?Itst
Audit Division
Mean - 100
Std Dev - 0 154
N - 5.612
1250 -
1 000
V
C
3 750
Q
v
L
500
250 -
r
0 00 0 50 1 00 : 50 300
salesratio
3.00 Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
•
2.50
♦ •
2.00
•
•
•
M 1.50
r
•• 1 ••
1.00 •
di •'•
•
•
r••
0.50 •
•
0.00
r r •
SO 31.000.000 32.000.000 33.000.000 34.000.000
TASP
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of' the sale ratios was within state mandated limits.
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 2S
IWILDRalE
Audit Division
I
Residential Market Trend Analysis
1 We next analyzed the residential dataset using the 18-month sale period for any residual market
trending and broken down by economic area, as follows:
I
Coefficients'
I ECONAREA Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std.Error Beta t Sig.
0 1 (Constant) • .989 014 71.920 000
I
SalePeriod 003 001 .081 1.867 062
2 1 (Constant) .981 • .005 181.634 .000
I
SalePeriod 002 • .001 .084 3.479 001
3 t (Constant) 986 .006 170.048 000
SalePeriod a .001 .001 .049 1.752 080
I 4 1 (Constant) 935 .013 74 770 000
SalePeriod008 .001 274 6.167 000
5 1 (Constant) .950 .042 22 728 000
I SalePeriod . 002 ' 004 067 .542 590
6 1 (Constant) 1.025 .012 87 013 000
SalePeriod .000 .001 -011 - 359 720
I7 1 (Constant) 1.054 ' .078 13 503 000
SalePeriod -011 008 - 317 -1 419 173
8 1 (Constant) - .890 055 16145 000
I
SalePeriod , .010 006 312 1 770 .087
9 1 (Constant) 973 • .027 35.986 000
SalePeriod .003 .003 .093 1.065 .289
I
a Dependent Variable. salesratio
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 26
aWILDROSF
Audit Division
I
3.00 —
Residential Sale Price Market Trend
2.50 —
•
• + .
•
2.00 —
• • + •
• +
• •
w • _• • •
• • •
•
a 1 .50 - * ♦ • •i •• $ • :• � •• • . $ •• ••
•
rs !
1.00 —• ••1• • .. .. . . .. . . . .. . . .. . .. . . .. . .. . .
z $ • ♦ 1
•
0.50 — ` •
•
0.00 —
I • I T I I
0 5 10 15 20
SalePeriod
There was no residual market trending present in the sale ratio data for any of the economic areas.
While two economic areas had statistically significant results, the magnitude of each trend was not
significant; we therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the
valuation of residential properties.
Sold/ Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the
median actual value per square foot for 2012 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows: il
Group N Median Mean
Unsold 66,499 s104 8104
Sold 5 ,611 silo) Slll
I
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 27
' WILDROSE
Audit Division
'
ECONAREA Group N Median Mean
I 0 Unsold 4,994 $116.09 $115.69
Sold 527 $115.36 $114.59
2 Unsold 17,682 $118.26 $119.55
ISold 1,708 $122.89 $125.11
3 Unsold 12,807 s117.13 $118.76
Sold 1,280 $117.79 $120.78
4 Unsold 5,463 $81.02 580.71
Sold 469 $96.13 $95.16
5 Unsold 1,247 $73.64 $77.24
Sold 67 $74.96 $82.81
6 Unsold 17,178 $89.96 $88.43
I Sold 1,108 $95.66 $92.40
7 Unsold 760 $47.91 $66.40
Sold 20 $51.73 $61.29
I8 Unsold 598 $62.59 $66.29
Sold 31 $80.00 $82.65
I 9 Unsold 2,206 $111.05 $106.74
Sold 131 $120.71 $116.86
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
Imanner.
IIV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
1. Qualified sales 5,977
2. Improved sales 5,707
I3. Select commercial/industrial sales only 78
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:
Median 0.981
I Price Related Differential 1.044
Coefficient of Dispersion .093
I 'Ile above table indicates that the Weld County commercial/industrial sale ratios were in compliance
with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution
further:
I
I
I
2012 Statistic-al Report: WELD COUNTY Page 28
1,40- wIL.DRCS
Audit Division
30 — Mean - 1 01
SW Dev - 0 154
Na78
I
I
20 -
aft
C
r
z
Q .
r
L .
I
10 -
t r
map p , pa_r_ I
08 1 1 : 14 16 18
salesratio
1'8 Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio
x
16— x
x
1.4 — x
0
N
A
6.
• x
0 x
1.2— X•
x
)ScIx x
es
x x
x x
x Xx
ex
0.8-,
I - 1 I I I I I
$0 $2,000,000 $4.000,000 56,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 512,000.000
TASP
I
I
2012 Statistic al Report : V1/2.ELL) C( HINT). Page 29
' \VIL' 2
ilk
Audit Division
Ill
Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis
The assessor did apply market trend adjustments to the commercial/industrial dataset. The 78
commercial/industrial sales were analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 month sale period
with the following results:
Coefficients'
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
I
B Std. Error Beta t Sig
1 (Constant) 1021 .031 33.397 .000
SalePeriod -.001 .003 -.029 -.255 .799
Ia. Dependent Variable. salesratio
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
16- +
+
14- +
O
w
M
To N +
I 12- + + +
+ +
+
+ + +
+ + + + + +
06-
I 1 I .
I 0 5 10 15 20
SalsPsrlod
I There was no residual market trending present in the commercial/industrial sale ratios. We concluded
that the assessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the vacant land
valuation.
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 30
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Analysis
We compared the median actual value per square foot for 2012 between sold and unsold groups to
determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as follows:
Median Mean
Group No. Props '
Val/SF Val/SF
Unsold 3,965 $60 $77
Sold 76 $65 $84
The above results indicated that sold and unsold vacant land properties were valued consistently.
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
1
'fhe following steps were taken to analyze the vacant land sales:
1. Qualified sales 5,977
2. Vacant land sales 175
3. Residential & commercial/ind vacant land sales 173
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:
Median 1.014
Price Related Differential 1.058
Coefficient of Dispersion .143
The above ratio statistics were in compliance overall with the standards set forth by the Colorado State
Board of Equalization (SB(2E) for the overall vacant land sales. The following graphs describe further
the sales ratio distribution for all of these properties:
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
Ilik WILDRObE
Audit Division
I
50 -
Mean - 108
I
_ Std Dev - 0214
N . 173
I so -
o 30 -
c
m
3 —
Q
m
I-
20 -
r—I 10 -
-jail iii T MI I
05 15 _ 25
SalesRatio
I2.s Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
x I 2
I o x
x
in UI
5 4
I
X
x %
x
1
x
x x x x
INA x x
Wit x
x
0.5
T - I -
SO $500,000 $1,000,000 $1.500.000 52.000.000
VTASP
1 The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 32
WILDRQiE I
Audit Division
Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 18-month sale period, with the following results: I
Coefficients' I
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients I
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.046 .030 35.052 .000
VSalePeriod .004 .003 090 1177 241 I
a Dependent Variable SalesRatio
I
:s—
Vacant Land Sates Market Trend Analysis
+ I
I
2-
o +
oN ts- + •+ I
w + + + + +
v► + + + + + + +
+ + * +
+ + + +
+ I $ + $ * + $ 1' + 4. + * ++ 1
+ T } ♦ + $ + +
•
+ + + + + + 4 I
+ + + +
+
OS^ I0 5 10 15 20
VSalePeriod
The above analysis indicated that no significant market trending was present in the vacant land sale data. 1
We concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties.
Sold/Unsold Analysis 1
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the I
median change in value for 2010 and 2012 between each group. We stratified the vacant land
properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall
comparison results: I
I
2012 Statistical Report: ‘V LLD COUNTY Page 33
WILDROSE
Audit Division
� '. j do o� a'k
TOTAL Unsold 10,753 0.8969 0.8952
Sold 170 0.8333 0.9043
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.
V. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS
The final statistical verification concerned the assigned actual values for agricultural residential
improvements. We compared the 2012 median improved value per square foot for this group and
compared it to the 2012 median improved value per square foot for residential single family
improvements in Weld County.
The following indicates that both groups were valued in essentially the same manner:
1
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 34
WILDROSE. ,
Audit Division
ABSTRIMP Statistic Std. Error
ImpVaISF SFR Mean $243.90 $19.105 '
95%Confidence Interval for Lower Bound $206.45
Mean Upper Bound $281.34 '
/
5%Trimmed Mean $80.59
Median ( $82.08 )
Variance 2.41317 I
Std. Deviation 34.932.927
Minimum $0 '
Maximum $713,405
Range 3713.405 '
Interquartile Range $34
Skewness 62.417 .009
Kurtosis 7022.900 .019 '
Ag Mean $145.10 355.959
Res 95%Confidence Interval for Lower Bound $35.32 I '
Mean Upper Bound $254.89
5%Trimmed Mean -0 '
Median $80.02
Variance 3929896.320
Std.Deviation 31.982.397 I
Minimum $0
Maximum $70,246 '
Range $70,246
Interquartile Range $49
Skewness 35.319 .069 I
Kurtosis 1249.882 .138
VI. CONCLUSIONS '
Based on this 2012 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial/industrial and vacant land
properties were found to he in compliance with state guidelines.
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 35
I
{! ;! f E t , .I
I ° / al � - » \ ` /
I 2\ :! 0 ° _! 7 k
32 0
00 e
08 a (\ )
.25 7 § !ti \ \ !
® - \\_ / `ro rat 2
a = 8
° k! \ Ecac
I no
\ \� s \
Q ! ` ; - ;
I t \ 2 -J
t22c: E ! 2c | :
§ ) | 2 - § \ ° t /
� : ! _a ,
i :1 -
I IS ii Y, c-,
! 32 ° ] | 7 )§ ° ! `
| \ | § ( 2 { _
I it ° , ° : \ 5 � : .
i / ; 0 -
aiR I co` \ � \ .0 \ ° / \
® \ ; ! \ \ } \
e ` !
c : / � :
( - oag ° - _ -
$ 1 ~ _ re
/ }
Il 0
0 ® 0 ^ �
\ 5 IC / \ . k \ O \ \
• . ` .
! : )r \ < r;
( � ■ &
cn ) `� 2 . . !, }
I
I
I
WLDRCSE
Illk :lrrx I u.0 I,��MIP1.k,TI I.
Audit Division I
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
I
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent I
SPRec LT 825K 10 .2%
825K to 850K 90 1.6%
850Kto$100K 613 10.9% I
8100K to 8150K 1364 24.3%
8150K to 8200K 1417 25.2%
8200K to 8300K 1447 25.8% I
$300K to 8500K 596 10 6%
$500K to 8750K 60 1.1% I
8750K to$1,000K 11 2%
Over 81,000K 4 .1%
Overall 5612 100 0% I
Excluded 0
Total 5612
I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
Group Coefficient of I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered I
LT$25K .972 .847 363 73 9%
$25K to 850K 1.261 1 010 192 23 2%
850K to 8100K 1 086 1 009 159 20 7% I
5100K to 8150K 977 1.001 .110 14 9%
$150K to$200K 979 1 000 085 11 8%
$200K to 8300K .973 1 000 076 10.5% I
8300K to 8500K .959 1.000 .093 13 2%
8500K to 8750K 923 997 .099 12.6%
8750K to 81,000K .935 995 108 13 3% I
Over 81,000K 892 955 108 13.3%
Overall 980 1 018 107 15.9% I
I
I
2O1 2 WcI,I County Propert‘ Asscsni.nt Study PAL(' 37 I
IWILDRCiE
Audit Division
1
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
1 Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 0 1 .0%
5256 93.7%
I1212
1215 76 1.4%
1220 8 .1%
I 1225 2 .0%
1230 262 4.7%
2234 1 0%
I
2746 1 .0%
4277 1 .0%
4278 1 0%
I
9240 2 .0%
9249 1 0%
I Overall 5612 100 0%
Excluded 0
Total 5612
I
Ratio Statistics for CLIWtTOT I TASP
I Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
I
0 903 1 000 000 .%
1212 980 1 016 107 15.6%
1215 1 026 1 044 166 27 3%
I
1220 1 087 1 029 108 14 6%
1225 1.045 1.024 029 4 0%
I
1230 .970 1.024 079 15.4%
2234 .826 1.000 000 %
2746 .823 1 000 000 .%
I 4277 .762 1.000 .000 %
4278 .491 1.000 000 %
9240 .909 1.016 191 27 0%
I
9249 .883 1 000 000 %
Overall .980 1.018 .107 15.9%
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELT)COUNTY Page 38
ILR06E I
di Wll
Audit Division
Age I
Case Processing Summary I
Count Percent
AgeRec 0 1 .0%
Over 100 118 2.1% 1
75 to 100 152 2.7%
50 to 75 364 6.5% '
25 to 50 790 14.1%
5 to 25 3089 55.0%
5 or Newer 1098 19 6% I
Overall 5612 100.0%
Excluded 0 I
Total 5612
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation '
Pnce Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
0 903 1.000 .000 .%
Over 100 .990 1.043 .219 28 3%
75 to 100 .988 1.068 .192 28.6%
50 to 75 .973 1.067 .199 28.4% I
25 to 50 .975 1.022 .146 20.5%
5 to 25 .988 1.013 .093 12.6%
5 or Newer .970 1.002 .062 9.0% I
Overall .980 1 018 .107 15.9%
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 39
Idilli WILUROhi;
Audit Division
I
I
Improved Area
I Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ImpSFRec 0 1 .0%
ILE500sf 7 .1%
500 to 1,000 sf 499 8.9%
I 1,000 to 1,500 sf 2082 37.1%
1,500 to 2,000 sf 1610 28.7%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 1068 19.0%
3,000 sf or Higher 345 6.1%
Overall 5612 100.0%
I Excluded 0
Total 5612
Ratio Statistics for CURIUM*I TASP
Group Coefficient of
I Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential i Dispersion Centered
0 .903 1.000 000 %
I
LE 500 sf .972 1.043 033 6.4%
500 to 1,000 sf .970 1.049 .173 23.3%
1,000 to 1,500 sf .975 1.021 108 16.5%
1,500 to 2,000 sf .980 1.016 .090 13.1%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .990 1.017 098 14.5%
I3,000 sf or Higher .992 1.014 112 16.3%
Overall .980 1.018 107 15.9%
I
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report;WELD COUNTY Page 44)
dik s'4ILDIOSE I
Audit Division
I
Improvement Quality I
Case Processing Summary I
Count Percent
QUALITY 1 .0%
1 67 1.2% 1
2 1601 28 5%
3 3448 61.4% I
4 425 7.6%
5 60 1.1%
6 10 .2% I
Overall 5612 100.0%
Excluded 0 I
Total 5612
Ratk Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
.903 1.000 000 .%
1 1.013 1 079 227 31.1% I
2 972 1 035 151 21.8%
3 .981 1.013 086 12.2% I
4 .995 1.014 .092 12.9%
5 .992 1 022 119 20.1%
6 .987 1.006 .079 11 4% 1
Overall .980 1 018 .107 15.9%
I
I
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELT)COHN FY Page 41 I
Idi lyn RosE
illokir Audit Division
I
IImprovement Condition
I Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION 1 .0%
I
1 4 1%
2 29 5%
I
3 5568 99.2%
4 10 .2%
Overall 5612 100.0%
I
Excluded 0
Total 5612
IRatio Statistics for CIJRRTOT I TASP
I Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
I .903 1.000 .000 ' %
1 1.008 1.001 .014 2.3%
I
2 1 319 1.089 .195 28.7%
3 980 1.017 .106 15.6%
4 .899 .976 .099 15.4%
Overall .980 1.018 .107 15.9%
I
I
I
I
I2012 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 42
1VIL DROSE I
allinkir Audit Division
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification I
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary 1
Count Percent
SPRec LT$25K 4 5.1% I
$25Kto$50K 3 3.8%
$50Kto $1 00K 19 24.4% I
$100K to$150K 8 10.3%
$150K to$200K 4 5.1%
$200K to$300K 9 11.5% I
$300K to$500K 10 12.8%
$500Kto$750K 5 6.4% I
$750Kto$1,000K 4 5.1%
Over$1,000K 12 15.4%
Overall 78 100.0% 1
Excluded 0
Total 78 I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered I
LT$25K 1.135 1.050 .117 17.0%
$25Kto$50K .965 1.003 .040 7.5% I
$50K to$100K .982 1.005 .134 24.5%
S100Kto $150K .999 .996 .053 9 0%
$150K to$200K 968 1.009 .092 15.3% I
$200K to$300K 1.000 .991 .121 15.2%
$300K to$500K .962 .999 .041 5.7%
$500Kto$750K .987 .992 .130 23.0% 1
$750K to$1,000K .980 1.000 .022 3.4%
Over$1.000K .972 1.011 044 6.0% I
Overall .981 1.044 .093 16.1%
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 43 I
' WILDROSE
Audit Division
I
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
I ABSTRIMP 0 Count Percent
1 1.3%
1215 1 1 3%
2212 16 20 5%
I2215 1 1 3%
2220 4 51%
2225 1 1 3%
I
2230 12 15 4%
2233 1 1 3%
2235 31 39 7%
I
3212 3 3.8%
3215 3 38%
3746 1 1 3%
9249 1 1 3%
I
9259 1 1 3%
9279 1 3%
Overall 78 100 0%
I Excluded 0
Total 78
' Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT f TASP
Group Coefficient of
I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
0 1.444 1000 000 %
I
1215 1034 1.000 000 %
2212 971 1053 097 20.8%
2215 1000 1.000 000 %
I
2220 1059 988 065 11.8%
2225 1 031 1 000 000 %
2230 951 1 013 067 10 2%
I 2233 .925 1000 000 %
2235 973 1.052 .090 15 6%
3212 1000 1001 004 8%
3215 1.035 990 019 3.2%
I3746 952 1.000 000 %
9249 1.411 1.000 000 %
9259 866 1.000 000 %
I9279 1.08 7 1.000 000 %
Overall 981 1.044 093 16 1%
I
i2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 44
w11a»zt '
S
Audit Division
Age '
Case Processing Summary I
Count Percent
AgeRec 0 1 1.3%
Over 100 3 3.8% '
75 to 100 4 5.1%
50 to 75 7 9.0% '
25 to 50 19 24.4%
5 to 25 33 42.3% I
5orNewer 11 14.1%
Overall 78 100.0%
Excluded 0 '
Total 78
Rath Statistics for CIRtRTOT/TASP '
Group Coefficient of
Variation '
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
0 1.444 1.000 .000 .% '
Over 100 1.034 1.000 .047 8.0%
75 to 100 1.082 1.143 .243 35 6%
50 to 75 .961 1.070 .151 28.7% I
25 to 50 .979 1.013 076 11.3%
5 to 25 .990 1.021 .069 10.6% '
5 or Newer .973 1.021 .063 11.0%
Overall .981 1.044 .093 16.1%
I
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 43
' WILD,RQSE
Audit Division
I
1 Improved Area
I Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ImpSFRec 0 1 1.3%
1 LE 500 sf 4 5.1%
500 to 1,000 sf 5 6.4%
I 1,000 to 1,500 sf 11 14.1%
1,500 to 2,000 sf 9 11.5%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 11 14.1%
I
3,000 sf or Higher 37 47.4%
Overall 78 100.0%
I Excluded 0
Total 78
IRatio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
I Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
0 ' 1.444 1.000 000 .%
ILE 500 sf 1.058 1.030 .043 8.5%
500 to 1,000 sf 1.018 1 049 .089 12.6%
I 1,000 to 1,500 sf 954 1.004 .062 7.8%
1,500 to 2,000 sf .965 1.007 .065 11.3%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 1.000 1.069 .134 24.8%
I3,000 sf or Higher .975 1.039 084 15.4%
Overall .981 1.044 093 16.1%
I
I
I
I
1 2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 46
dii WILDRO6E 1
illikir Audit Division
1
Improvement Quality I
Case Processing Summary I
Count Percent
QUALITY 1 1 3%
1 1 1.3% I
2 12 15.4%
3 54 69.2% I
4 9 11.5%
6 1 1.3%
Overall 78 100 0% I
Excluded 0
Total 78 1
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT!TASP
Group Coefficient of I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median I
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1.444 1.000 .000 %
1 842 1.000 .000 •% 1
2 .972 1.024 .129 22.4%
3 .986 1022 084 14.7%
4 .987 1 063 056 8.2% I
6 .945 1.000 .000 .%
Overall .981 1.044 .093 16.1%
1
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47 I
\VILnRC E
illokr Audit Division
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Sunxnaty
Count Percent
' CONDITION 1 1.3%
2 5 6.4%
3 72 92.3%
Overall 78 100 0%
Excluded 0
' Total 78
Ratio Statistics Tor CURRTOT I TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
' Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1.444 1.000 .000 %
2 1.137 1.115 146 22.9%
1 3 .975 1.031 .080 13.6%
Overall 981 1.044 .093 16.1%
1
1
1
1
1
' 2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 48
Audit Division
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRLND 100 49 28.3%
200 8 4.6% 1
300 3 1.7%
400 3 1.7%
520 1 .6%
600 1 .6%
1112 91 52.6%
1135 8 4.6%
2112 2 1.2%
2120 1 6% 1
2130 2 1.2%
2135 2 1.2%
3115 1 .6%
9159 1 6%
Overall 173 100 0% 1
Excluded 0
Total 173
1
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COl1NTY Page 49
Iill WILllIE
Audit Division
I
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND I VTASP
U Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
I100 1.087 1.051 .167 23.5%
200 .997 1.072 .081 12.8%
I
300 950 .987 .174 26.1%
400 1.143 1.004 .006 1.2%
520 .943 1.000 .000 .%
I600 1.099 1.000 .000 .%
1112 1.000 1.058 .139 21.7%
I1135 1.003 .998 .109 17.9%
2112 .998 .999 .002 .3%
2120 1.000 1.000 000 .%
I 2130 1.031 1.011 .018 2.696
2135 1.053 1.016 .050 7.1%
3115 .966 1.000 .000 .%
I
9159 .951 1 000 .000 .%
Overall 1.014 1 058 .143 22.0%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2012 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 50
Hello