HomeMy WebLinkAbout20112495.tiff I
I .1\ !
ll •':1
I
2011
WELD COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
._ ... ._ ..eirip.„„ iirkm,i lin ,
rrrysgs
I .Iiir AIIP
I ! . 1
4: rl: oti .iirS .1.,,, :11. 17- jf:I_ -, .. tit_
1 _ iv ri„ _ p
3
. ,,,. ... ., 4.,.::
.M_...--
_... 06: ,,,,:li -1:„,-.1 . .--. .--,,:-:1. ,
c Nir r , a — ks.
A ,J . , 4 i
III IF , Is = I - Kia_ ,
tii rt, ..4.,.... ;,
F
- I !� � ,� 7474"
lf 1 I OS 1 •1 - " _ . _ _ M •17-701 " .
ft IIIIIIII LS:
• a4.
Y
1"4,4 ' 4 ;6 " 01 • 1 -1 . 1 , it: ‘I,LIOVIal I
1.. 1719_ r /sr_ ` �' 1111 E
1111 w
. is
IlikWILDRO(1.A SE
Al'PRA Al I -' 1,141%11/\71 11
Audit Division
tc-vyy\yvywki tix-V;ovl cb . As,.
I q - pi - i I 2011 -2495
q ♦ ao - I 1
W\MII ki nitlg,it 11 EP
LDRO11E
Audit Division
September 15, 2011
' Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2011 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc.-Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2011 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, Larimer, Mesa,
Pueblo and Weld. The 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.
ih aidAr
Harry J. Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. - Audit Division
' WILDROSE
:\1'1'0..\I,AI I\,�WN�µ111
IAudit Division
I TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Regional/Historical Sketch of Weld County 4
I Ratio Analysis 6
Random Deed Analysis 7
Time Trending Verification 8
ISold/Unsold Analysis 9
Agricultural Land Study I 1
I Agricultural Land II
Agricultural Outbuildings 12
Sales Verification 13
IEconomic Area Review and Evaluation 14
Natural Resources I5
I Earth and Stone Products 15
Producing Oil and Gas Procedures 15
Vacant Land 16
IPossessory Interest Properties 17
Personal Property Audit 18
Wildrose Auditor Staff 20
IAppendices 21
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
701 I Weld Count% Puterty Assessment Study Pa; ?
I
WILDRU6E
\�a�xa.+u.I x.�xwwn�i
IAudit Division
INTRODUCTION
I
ill I 0.11 c®lo ° The procedural analysis includes all classes of
property and specifically looks at how the
assessor develops economic areas, confirms and
The State Board of Equalization (SHOE) qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments.
The audit also examines the procedures for
reviews assessments for conformance to the
Constitution. The SHOE will order adequately discovering, classifying and valuing
I
agricultural outbuildings, discovering
revaluations for counties whose valuations do
subdivision build-out and subdivision
not reflect the proper valuation period level of
I discounting procedures. Valuation
value.
methodology for vacant land, improved
residential properties and commercial
The statutory basis for the audit is found in
C.R.S. 39-1-104 (16)(a)(b) and (c).
properties is examined. Procedures for
producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and
The legislative council sets forth two criteria lands producing, producing coal mines,
Ithat are the focus of the audit group:
producing earth and stone products, severed
mineral interests and non-producing patented
mining claims are also reviewed.
To determine whether each county assessor is
I applying correctly the constitutional and
statutory provisions, compliance requirements Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land,
residential properties, commercial industrial
of the State Board of Equalization, and theI
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 arc
compared with State Board of Equalization
each class of property.
compliance requirements and the manuals
published by the State Property Tax
Eo determine if each assessor is applying
Administrator.
correctly the provisions of law to the actual
I values when arriving at valuations for
assessment of all locally valued properties
Wildrose Audit has completed the Property
Assessment Study for 2011 and is pleased to
subject to the property tax.
report its findings for Weld County in the
I
following report.
The property assessment audit conducts atwo-
part analysis: A procedural analysis and a
Istatistical analysis.
I
I
I201 I evi•Id County Propel-33 Ass•ssmcnt Study I'aac 3
WILD- ' • E
A19IL.k IM 10KPUK-V E-[1
IAudit Division
REGIONAL / HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
IAdams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Regional Information
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
II 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 arc just cast
of the foothills of the Front Range . It includes
I ;s. •,,-I,
•
1.
'1 I OFT I..,
1 S, ,ii , 1' ;
. , _,, 3 , .„,I
= K.1
St
, .
.. s ,, : ,
i,- vf ,.,. .. . 1 atinuaii . _ . 4 .if . ,
. , ,, .
c.,. 1 ' .,
. • .. TiI J.,
. .�
1
.. . , _ ;
_ is ...a 4
'''..:1;;:-' 1:'''
--It
I } to tis ., I 041
M .
I ii
ti
INSEttl
I ;, qg
a..
•
�r.
• �'� ` I 0 / .
' / I ../iitiar
'IL Ill
I
+ #{� _ �
S.
L r. 4 r.-�.- L�
I
I
I
I
2011 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 4
' AM
ILDROSE
IAudit 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
I 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
I 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
I 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
I 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 Tribune, and popularized the phrase "Go
Island, Delaware and the District of Columbia West, young man."
I combined.
Weld County's cultural assets include
Major Stephen H. Long made an expedition to Centennial Village, an authentic recreation of
I 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
I 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
I 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
Ithe State Historical Society. premier college dramatic organizations.
(Ian.co.weld.co.oc, www.wikipe(lia.org)
The county seat is Greeley which began as the
IUnion Colony, which was founded in 1869 as
I
I
I
I
I
2011 Wcld County Property Assessment Study Page 5
I
W\inILDIE
I
Audit Division
' RATIO ANALYSIS
I Methodology All significant classes of properties were latter measures, but were counseled if there
were anomalies noted during our analysis.
Qualified sales were based on the qualification
analyzed. Sales were collected for eachI
property class over the appropriate sale period,which was typically defined as the I 8-month code used by each county, which were typically
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,supplemental appraisals were performed and ensure that only true outliers were excluded.
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,I
to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity counties, the residential ratio statistics were
slues for counties requiring vacant land broken clown by economic area as well.
analysis or condominium analysis. Although it Conclusions
Iwas 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 arc:
I related differential for each class of property.
Counties were not passed or failed by these
I _ ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Unweighted Coefficient of
I Property Class Median Ratio Dispersion
Commercial/IndustrialBetween.95-LOS Less than 20.99
Condominium Between .95 1.05 Less than 15.99
ISingle Family Between.95-I.05 Less than 15.99
Vacant I nd Between .95-I.0; Less than 20.99
I
I
I
I
I )0I I AVcld County Property Assessiiicnt Studs I'a,2, 6
I
WILDROSE
ANI.0.\I�V.I\(ViN1Y\M\Ift•
tAudit Division
The results for Weld County are:
IWeld County Ratio Grid
r
I
Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient
Qualified Median Related of Time Trend
Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
C'ommrrcial/Industrial 79 0.990 1.041 8.8 Compliant
Condonumun, N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Single Lundy 5,627 0.981 1.017 II Compliant
Vacant I.and 174 1.028 1.063 16 Compliant
Ratio Statistics fat cunt*flaw
' Group Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
0 .988 1.021 .107
I
2 .980 1.011 .090
3 .986 1.008 .086
4 .979 1.018 .113
' 5 961 1.010 .159
6 .984 1.039 .159
7 .967 1.013 .157
I
8 .959 1.013 .155
9 .975 1.014 .124
IOverall .981 1.017 .110
I 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
I None
Random Deed Analysis
An additional analysis was performed as part of Conclusions
the Ratio Analysis. Ten randomly selected
After comparing the list of randomly selected
deeds with documentary fees were obtained
Ifrom the Clerk and Recorder. These deeds deeds with the Assessor's database, Weld
were for sales that occurred from January 1, County has accurately transferred sales data
2009 through June 30, 2010. These sales from the recorded deeds to the qualified or
I were then checked for inclusion on the
unqualified database.
Assessor's qualified or unqualified database. Recommendations
I None
I2011 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 7
' WILDROSE
I'c,WO.uR\ILO
' 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
1
1
20I I Wv,Id cOnnty I'ropcFtv .ascsSuwnt Studs Fagg' 8
WILRCSE
:�I'1' D
H.\ U.Iii\�rn'c \11.1
' Audit Division
SOLD / UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodology was at least 1% of the total population of
unsold properties and excluded any sale
IWeld 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
IThe 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
Ibetween 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 he unsold properties were
Iit 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
Iperspective. If no significant difference was 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
Iin compliance in terms of sold/unsold determined to he significantly different by this
consistency. method, the final step was to perform a multi-
variate mass appraisal model that developed
I 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,I test compared the measures of central tendency
then the next step was to perform a ratio and confidence intervals for the sold properties
analysis comparing the 2010 and 2011 actual with the unsold property sample. If this
values for each qualified class of property. AllI 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
I theoretically excluded changes between years
properties.
that were due to other unrelated changes in the
property. These ratios were also stratified at I the appropriate level of analysis. Once the These tests were supported by both tabular and
chart presentations, along with saved sold and
percent change was determined for each unsold sample files.
I appropriate class and sub-class, the next step
was to select the unsold sample. This sample
I
I
I70I I Weld County Property Assessment Stud% Palm 9
WILDi• tmEE
' Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
Property Class Results
Commercial/Industrial Compliant
Condominium N/A
Single Family Compliant
Vacant I.and 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
1
JUI 1 Wcld Countv Property Assrs.mcnt Stud, Pa,,rc 10
I
WILDROSE
-\l'I'R V�AI I ti II4NH4V7.I'
IAudit Division
i AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
I Acres By Subclass Value By Subclass
Sprinkler 50,000,000
Waste 5.09% 45,000,000
5.31% Flood 40,000,000 - --
I
112.0796
35,000,000
.• ,.- .. 30,000,000 4
25,000,000
le
. -I
20,000,000
4 15,000,000
Dry Farm
w 288.29% 10,000,000 4
Grazing 1 5,000,000 -
48 4896
0 1 1 I -A I I I
Sprinkler Flood Dry Farm Meadow Grazing Waste
Meadow Hay
0 76% Hay
I
Agricultural Land
County records were reviewed to determine (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3
major land categories such as irrigated farm, Chapter 5 .)
dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other Conclusions
I 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
I soil conservation guidelines have been used to property type. Directives, commodity prices
classify lands based on productivity; crop and expenses provided by the PTA were
properly applied. County yields compared
rotations have been documented; typicalI
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
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
I
have been classified and valued; he capacities were in an acceptable range. The
properly t data analyzed resulted in the following ratios:
number of acres in each class and subclass have
I
been determined; the capitalization rate was
P PY applie
d.lied. Also, documentation was
required for the valuation methods used and
I any locally developed yields, carrying
capacities, and expenses. Records were also
checked to ensure that the commodity prices
I and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), were applied properly.
I
I2011 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 11
I
WIL_I
' Audit Division
' Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Number County County WRA
Abstract Of 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 hood 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 I lay 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 105768 2 170,705 170,705 1.00
Total/Avg 105,768 35.00 69,917,067 70,607,300 0.99
I
Recommendations
I None
I
Agricultural Outbuildings
I
IMethodology 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
IReference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.74 Property Taxation for the valuation of
through 5.77 were being followed. agricultural outbuildings.
I Recommendations
None
I
I
I
I
201 1 Weld County Prepertc Assessment Study Pane 12
APPALLS U-NtORPOR
LE
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
(o)(1) 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 2011 for Weld County. This
that are compared fir 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 he valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 46
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 two 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 Two sales had inadequate justification for
not be included in any such sample. disqualification.
Conclusions
(b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be
coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as Weld County appears to he doing a good job of
screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103, verifying their sales. "there arc no
C.R.S.) recommendations.
Recommendations
None
1
1
2011 Weld County Property .Ss casnicnr Study Fogy' 13
WAm-IILDRUSE
' 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
submitted a map illustrating these areas. Each properties within that geographic area and this
of these narratives have been read and analyzed properties
been adequately addressed. Each economic
area defined adequately delineates an area that
for logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps
were also compared to the narrative for consistency between the written description will give "similar values for similar properties
in similar areas."
and the map. Recommendations
Conclusions None
After review and analysis, it has been
determined that Weld County has adequately
1
701 I Weld County Property ,Assessment Study I'agc 14
' WILDIeSE
.�PLL�V V.t\�oMN�0.V IP
' Audit Division
I
NATURAL RESOURCES
Earth and Stone Products Actual value determined -when.
(2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds
Methodology and lands producing oil or gas shall be
determined as provided in article 7 of this title.
Under the guidelines of the Assessor's § 39-1-103, C.R.S.
Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural Article 7 covers the listing, valuation, and
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income assessment of producing oil and gas leaseholds
approach was applied to determine value for and lands.
production of earth and stone products. The
number of tons was multiplied by an economic Valuation:
royalty rate determined by the Division of Valuation for assessment.
Property Taxation to determine income. The (I) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
income was multiplied by a recommended section, on the basis of the information
Hoskold factor to determine the actual value. contained in such statement, the assessor shall
The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of value such oil and gas leaseholds and lands for
the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two assessment, as real property, at an amount
variables: life and tonnage. The operator equal to eighty-seven and one-half percent of:
determines these since there is no other means (a) The selling price of the oil or gas sold there
to obtain production data through any state or from during the preceding calendar year, after
private agency. excluding the selling price of all oil or gas
Conclusions delivered to the United States government or
The County has applied the correct formulas and state guidelines to earth and stone any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or
any agency thereof, or any political subdivision
production. of the state as royalty during the preceding
calendar year;
Recommendations (h) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the
None same field area for oil or gas transported from
the premises which is not sold during the
preceding calendar year, after excluding the
Producing Oil and Gas selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the
Procedures United States government or any agency
thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency
thereof, or any political subdivision of the state
Methodology as royalty during the preceding calendar year.
§ 39-7-102, C.R.S.
Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3,
Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources Conclusions
' The county applied approved appraisal
STATUTORY REFERENCES procedures in the valuation of oil and gas.
Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifies that Recommendations
producing oil or gas leaseholds and lands are
valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S. None
I
I201I Weld County ProportvAsscssnnCntStudy I'a_rcI3
WAPPILILDROSE
Audit Division
' VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2011 in Weld developed using the summation method.
County. The review showed that subdivisions Subdivision land with structures was appraised
were discounted pursuant to the Colorado at full market value.
Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 (14). Conclusions
Discounting procedures were applied to all
subdivisions where less than 80 percent of all Weld County has implemented proper
sites were sold using the present worth procedures to adequately estimate absorption
periods, discount rates, and lot values for
method. The market approach was applied
where 80 percent or more of the subdivision qualifying subdivisions.
sites were sold. An absorption period was Recommendations
estimated for each subdivision that was None
discounted. An appropriate discount rate was
t
I
201 I Weld Countv I'rupertc Assessment Stud% I'aoe 16
' WILDROSE
' 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-I-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
occupancy and use of any benefit in on the roll. They have also correctly and
government-owned property that has been consistently applied the correct procedures and
granted under lease, permit, license, valuation methods in the valuation of
concession, contract, or other agreement.
possessory interest properties.
Recommendations
Weld County has been reviewed for their None
procedures and adherence to guidelines when
assessing and valuing agricultural and
t
1
2011 Weld Count Prnpertc Asrrssmcnt Studs Patic 17
I
WAl'IltILDROSILIO
IAudit Division
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT
I
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
documentation procedures, current economic • MLS Listing and/or Sold Books
lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation •
Chamber of Commerce/Economic
I table, and level of value adjustment factor
Development Contacts
table. • Local Telephone Directories,
Newspapers or Other Local
The personal property audit standards narrative
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 he determined solely from Taxation (DPT) recommended classification
I the personal property accounts that have been and documentation procedures. The DP'1"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 2011 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
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 arc Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, • Accounts with omitted property
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.
additions for 2 or more years
2011 Weld County Propcity 4sscssn ent Study Pa,=c 18
' rr WIL I
.\ L 141)MIVYS
' 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 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 SHOE requirements.
in compliance with the State Board of
Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements
Recommendations
None
1
1
7011 Weld County I'rnperty AS( Sturnt Study Pau(' 19
WAPPILDRO%
Audit Division
WILDROSE AUDITOR STAFF
1
Harry J. Fuller,Audit Project Manager
Suzanne Howard, Audit Administrative Manager
Steve Kane, Audit Statistician/Field Analyst
Carl W. Ross, Agricultural/Natural Resource Analyst
J. Andrew Rodriguez, Field Analyst
2011 Weld County Property Assessment Stud. Page 20
I '
0 WILDIOSE
Audit Division
APPENDICES
I
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
1
1
1
1
I
1
2O11 A\-chd County Prohcrtc nt Stud% FIE 21
WILDICSE
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
TOR WELD COUNTY
2011
' I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
123,063 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2011 . The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
80,000
Real Property Class Distribution
60,000
C
3
j 40,000 -
171 .679
' 20,000 -
32,254
14,749
0 4,381
T T 1 I
' Vacant Land Res Imp Commilnd Imp Other tweThe vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 81 % of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92% 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.
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 22
W I L' 4≤≥ E
Audit Division
I II. DATA FILES
I The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2011 Colorado Property Assessment
Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2011. The data included all 5
property record files as specified by the Auditor.
IIII. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
IThe following steps were taken to analyze the residential sales:
1. Qualified sales 5,999
I 2. Improved sales 5,727
3. Select residential sales only 5,627
IThe sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
I Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
econarea 0 528 9.9%
2 1707 31.9%
I3 1281 23.9%
4 469 8.8%
5 66 1.2%
I 6 1119 20.9%
7 20 .4%
8 33 .6%
I 0verall
9 132 2.5%
5355 100.0%
Excluded 272
Total 5627
I Group Ratio Statistics for currtot ltasp
Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
' 0 .988 1.021 .107
2 .980 1.011 .090
3 .986 1.008 .086
I4 .979 1.018 .113
5 .961 1.010 .159
I
6 .984 1.039 .159
7 .967 1.013 .157
8 .959 1.013 .155
' 9 .975 1.014 .124
Overall .981 1.017 .110
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 2
WWILD '.O.E
Mrw.u.m Im,.w�n,.0
Audit Division
The above ratio statistics were in compliance with the standards set forth by the Colorado State Board
I of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall residential sales. The following graphs describe further the sales
ratio distribution for these properties:I Mean = 1 00
Std. Dev = 0 158
N = 5,627
I 1 . 50
I1 ,000 -
>, r
IC
C
3 750 -
a'
d
U_I 500 -
•
I
250 -
1
I
0 a - T I
000 050 1 00 1 50 200 2 50 300
salesratio
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24
SWILDRZ E
Ann L hat won in)
Audit Division
1
3.00 -
Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
I - •
•
2.50 -
I •
2.00 -
o •
•
.2
R •
N 1.50 - •
1
TO •
u+ •
% • ••
1.00 - •
at •
•
••••
I 0.50 - •
•
I 0.00
T T 1 T I T I T I
$0 $1 ,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000
1 tasp
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of the sale ratios was within state mandated limits.
IResidential Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the residential dataset using the 18-month sale period for any residual market
I trending and broken down by economic area, as follows:
I
I
I
I
I
I
1 2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 25
illikWILDR06E
\rrau..u.�.• lTlittILLI
Audit Division
ICoefricientsa
econarea Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
I
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
0 1 (Constant) .992 .014 72.319 .000
SalePeriod .002 .001 .072 1 .650 .100
2 1 (Constant) .984 .005 179.895 000
I SalePeriod .002 .001 .072 2.990 .003
3 1 (Constant) 988 .006 160.953 .000
SalePeriod .001 .001 .049 1 .752 080
I 4 1 (Constant) .935 .012 75.178 .000
SalePeriod .008 .001 .276 6.211 .000
5 1 (Constant) 950 042 22.515 .000
SalePeriod .002 .004 .058 .465 .644
I 6 1 (Constant) 1 .031 .012 85.418 000
SalePeriod 001 001 019 -.633 .527
7 1 (Constant) 1 .052 .079 13.245 .000
SalePeriod -.011 .008 - 304 -1 .354 .192
I 8 1 (Constant) .899 .055 16.291 000
SalePeriod .007 005 .236 1 .350 .187
9 1 (Constant) 972 .027 35.429 000
SalePeriod .004 .003 107 1 .224 223
Ia. Dependent Variable: salesratio
I3.00 Residential Sale Price Market Trend
. •
1 2.50—
. •
•
• • •
I 2.00—
• • • • • •
• • • •
o - = • • • •
13 • $ • • •
ig
•
• • i
se
1.50 - • • ♦ t • • _•
• •
1 —•
N
II
1.00—■. ■■ ■■ ■. ■■ ■■ ■. ■ ■■ ■• ■■ ■■ ■■ . ■■ ■.
0.50— • ♦ • •
•
I 0.00—
0 5 10 15 20
ISalePeriod
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
Isignificantly; we therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the
valuation of residential properties.
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 26
' WILDROSE
Audit Division
ISold/Unsold Analysis
I In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the
median actual value per square foot for 2011 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows:
IGroup N Median Mean
Unsold 62,214 $105 $105
Sold 5,355 $111 8113
ECONAREA Group N Median Mean
I0 Unsold 4,896 $116.18 $115.82
Sold 528 $115.38 $114.68
I 2 Unsold 17,478 $118.17 $119.49
Sold 1,707 $122.93 $125.39
3 Unsold 12,521 $117.22 $118.42
I Sold 1,281 $118.03 $121.01
4 Unsold 5,4-20 $80.98 $80.71
Sold 469 $95.90 $95.11
5 Unsold 1,229 $73.93 $77.35
Sold 66 $75.10 $82.36
6 Unsold 17,147 $90.12 $88.40
Sold 1,119 595.67 $92.36
7 Unsold 741 548.56 558.50
Sold 20 $51.73 $62.03
I
8 Unsold 592 $62.59 $66.45
Sold 33 $80.00 $82.50
' 9 Unsold 2,190 $111.00 $106.70
Sold 132 $121.30 $117.39
I The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner.
I
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: W HLD COUNTY Page 27
IlkWILD • CLE
Maw ne*
nIL l..t�raruim
Audit Division
IV. COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
Ii . Qualified sales 5 ,999
2. Improved sales 5 ,727
3. Select commercial/industrial sales only 79
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:
IMedian 0.990
Price Related Differential 1 .041
Coefficient of Dispersion .088
The above table indicates that the Weld County vacant land sale ratios were in compliance with the
SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution further:
30 — a Mean = 1 01
I
Std Dev = 0147
N = 79
I
20 —
C -.
W
7
Iiii
ar
u_
DI
I
I
10 -
I
0.8 a 18
salesratio
I
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 28
WILD ' O F
titAudit Division
1
1.8 —
Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio
I - x
1.6 — x
x
I
1.4 —
0
Io
N -
d x
To
N x
I 1.2 — illit
xx
x x
x
1 w b. wx x
lir
x
4(
I
it x
0.8 —
1 T T 1 T
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000
trip
Commercial / Industrial Market Trend Analysis I The assessor did apply market trend adjustments to the commercial/industrial land dataset. The 79
commercial/industrial land sales were analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 month sale
Iperiod with the following results:
Coefficients'
I Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1 .036 .029 35.854 .000
I SalePeriod .003 .003 -.101 890 .376
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 29
WILI? ' 0,_ E
*
Am.\o.U-I%fl*fl
Audit Division
1
18 —
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
1G — +
+
I ta -
0
a+
fa
an
•
+
I To
N +
12 — ♦ +
+ +
I + + + + ++stoseestestliscip *,� ♦ t + + ♦ +
+ 4.
+ + +
+ + + + + +
0s —
I I . I I r
0 5 10 15 20
SalePeriod
I There was no residual market trending present in the commercial sale ratios. We concluded that the
assessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the commercial/industrial
land valuation.
Sold / Unsold Analysis
I We compared the median actual value per square foot for 2011 between sold and unsold groups to
determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as follows:
I
Median Mean
Group No. Props Val/SF Val/SF
Unsold 4,020 $60 $75
Sold 77 $65 $76
The above results indicated that sold and unsold commercial/industrial land properties were valued
consistently.
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 30
1
WILD ' ®.E
Anaahca+wautw
Audit Division I V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
IThe following steps were taken to analyze the vacant land sales:
1 . Qualified sales 5,999
I 2. Vacant land sales 177
3. Residential & commercial/ind vacant land sales 174
IThe sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:
Median 1 .014
IPrice Related Differential 1 .039
Coefficient of Dispersion . 128
IThe above ratio statistics were in compliance overall with the standards set forth by the Colorado State
Board of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall vacant land sales. The following graphs describe further
the sales ratio distribution for all of these properties:
50 —
Mlean = 1 Oti
Std Dev = 0 177
N = 167
40 -
>a 30 -
I
0
7
Q
W
2
:0 -
10 -
I 0 ---a-,-S-rilir - I - ,
05 (1 -: 1 75
Si e Ratio
I
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
1
IllkWILD '‘O.AITILWAL )
Audit Division
1
x Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
I
13 -
'C
- :$
I 1.25 - le
X x
x
e x
A x x
A
1
d xx >
tn x
x x x
x x
x 1 x x
0.75 -
xf% x
x
0.5 -
x
1 T T r T
$0 $500.000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2.000,000
Vtasp
IThe above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
IVacant Land Market Trend Analysis
IWe next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 18-month sale period, with the following results:
Coefficientsa
I Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
Ii (Constant) 1 036 .025 d 41 493 NMI
VSalePeriod 002 003 064 ici21 411
a. Dependent Variable: SalesRatio
I
I
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 32
ilk WILD ' O.E
Audit Division
1
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis +
++
+ +
+ +
+ + + + + +
t + ♦ +
1 25 - +
+ + + + + + + + + +
+ + }+ + +
�o ♦ 4. * + 1 ♦ + + +
b I+ * $ * +
I cc
t + .. #14•4. lln
iii + i + + + 4'
♦ + + +
+
0 -
+
o s 10 is zo
VSalePeriod
I The above analysis indicated that no significant market trending was present in the vacant land sale data.
We concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties.
Sold/ Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the
I median change in value for 2010 and 2011 between each group. We stratified the vacant land
properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall
comparison results:
iSubdivtwa GrouSillakNot Median Mean
TOTAL Unsold 11,869 0.8824 0.8661
ISold 164 0.8333 0.8769
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 33
II
W I LD ' 0...J,
Ilk � L Iw.
Audit Division I V. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS
I The final statistical verification concerned the assigned actual values for agricultural residential
improvements. We compared the 2011 median improved value per square foot for this group and
compared it to the 2011 median improved value per square foot for residential single family
Iimprovements in Weld County.
The following indicates that both groups were valued in essentially the same manner:
I
ak$mP Statlstk Std Err
impvaISF SFR Mean $189 26 S13 7(,L
I95%Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound S162 23
Upper Bound I 5216 28
5% Trimmed Mean $80.55
i
`Median $81 99
Variance 1.253E7 -._.
`Std Deviation 13.539.351
so
U4alrlmum 5234,945
ip►erguanne Range $34
$tcewn0 37 759 010
IKurtosis 1614 485 .019
Ag Mean 5745 04 $54.853
Res 95%Confidence Interval for Mean Lower Bound S37 43
IUpper Bound S252 66 _ .
5% Trimmed Mean S83 35
Median GTO
IVariance 3860358.440
Std Deviation 51.964 779
I Minimum SO
Maximum 570.395
Range 570.395
I
Irde.f:WO llc Range $49
Skewness 711 .068
Kurtosis 1277.771 .137
VI . CONCLUSIONS
I Based on this 2011 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial/industrial and vacant land
properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
I
I
12011 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 34
I
I :
II et
\ � \ tg \6. \ \ IS� �ct g \ 7.
I EE`A"±' O \ `ta } / � }
0 0 0(
/ � � \ \ \ ra� \ \ \ co n \
/ � 0 / \ � \ / 0 C
{ ° \ \ $ ` \ � \ k ~
i-i
/ ! \ Tog I
� »\ | { \
I _ : ` \
_, = gc( \ � \ \
a \ \ \ ei \ \ ^
H
I / : \ _ \wc I :: H
oc 3.21 z
�
I
I
WILDROSE
i.
' Audit Division
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
I
Count Percent
SPRec LT$25K 12 .2%
$25K to$50K 92 1.6%
$50K to$100K 620 11.0%
' $100K to$150K 1367 24.3%
$150K to$200K 1420 25.2%
$200K to$300K 1446 25.7%
$300K to$500K 595 10.6%
I $500K to$750K 60 1.1%
$750K to$1.000K 11 .2%
Over$1,000K 4 .1%
Overall 5627 100.0%
I Excluded 0
Total 5627
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
I
Group Price Related Coefficient of Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LT$25K .972 .884 .330 67.5%
$25K to$50K 1.267 1.011 .203 25.9%
$50K to$100K 1.086 1.010 .160 20.9%
I $10oK to$150K .978 1.001 .111 15.0%
5150K to 5200K .976 1.000 .086 11.9%
$200K to 5300K .973 1.000 .077 10.7%
$300K to$500K .958 1.000 .097 14.0%
$500K to$750K .936 .997 .103 13.4%
I $750K to$1,000K .919 .995 .126 15.2%
Over$1,000K .892 .955 .108 13.3%
Overall .980 1.018 .109 16.3%
I Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
I
abstrimp 1212 5272 93.7%
1215 76 1.4%
1220 8 .1%
1224 1 .0%
I
1225 2 .0%
1230 264 4.7%
2234 .0%
2746 1 .0%
I
9240 1 .0%
9249 1 .0%
Overall 5627 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 5627
I
I
I
2O11 Weld County Prolxrn Asscssmcnt Siu& Pa2c ib
' WILDRQSE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
' Group (Price Related Coefficient of Coefficient of Variation
Median bifferential Dispersion Median Centered
1212 .980 1.017 .109 16.0%
1215 1.030 1.050 .178 31.5%
1220 1.087 1.029 .110 15.1%
I 1224 1.177 1.000 .000
1225 1.045 1.024 .029 4.0%
1230 .970 1.024 .079 15.4%
2234 .826 1.000 .000 .%
2746 .823 1.000 .000 .%
I 9240 1.083 1.000 .000
9249 .883 1.000 .000 .%
Overall .980 1.018 .109 16.3%
I Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
I AgeRec Over 100 102 1.8%
75 to 100 166 3.0%
50 to 75 311 5.5%
25 to 50 802 14.3%
I 5 toor 25 2330 41.4%
5 or Newer 1916 34.1
Overall 5627 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 5627
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
Group Price Related Coefficient of Coefficient of Variation
I
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
Over 100 .999 1.059 .251 35.1%
75 to 100 .990 1.057 .187 27.3%
50 to 75 .971 1.073 .212 30.0%
I 25 to 50 .979 1.020 .149 20.9%
5 to 25 .983 1.013 .098 13.1%
5 or Newer .980 1.008 .074 10.6%
Overall .980 1.018 .109 16.3%
IImproved Area
Case Processing Summary
I
Count Percent
ImpSFRec LE 500 sf 8 .1%
500 to 1.000 sf 502 8.9%
I 1,000 to 1,500 sf 2096 37.2%
1,500 to 2,000 sf 1609 28.6%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 1070 19.0%
3,000 sf or Higher 342 6.1%
Overall 5627 100.0%
I Excluded 0
Total 5627
I
I
ill201 I Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY I'aswc 37
WILMOT
' Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
' Group Price Related Coefficient of 'Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LE 500 sf .972 1.033 .070 13.8%
500 to 1,000 sf .970 1.050 .175 23.6%
1,000 to 1,500 sf .975 1.021 .110 16.9%
' 1,500 to 2,000 sf .980 1.017 .092 13.8%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .990 1.016 .099 14.7%
3,000 sf or Higher .991 1.012 .113 16.6%
Overall .980 1.018 .109 16.3%
' Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
'
quality 1 118 2.1%
2 1616 28.7%
3 3413 60.7%
4 409 7.3%
I
5 60 1.1
6 .2%
Overall 5627 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 5627
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
'
Group Price Related Coefficient of Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1 .969 1.082 .209 28.5%
2 .972 1.036 .153 22.5%
' 3 .981 1.012 .087 12.3%
4 .994 1.013 .091 12.5%
5 .993 1.021 .118 20.0%
6 .991 1.008 .097 12.7%
Overall .980 1.018 .109 16.3%
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT$25K 4 5.1%
'
$25K to$50K 3 3.8%
$50K to$100K 19 24.1
$100K to$150K 8 10.1%
$150K to$200K 4 5.1%
$200K to$300K 9 11.4%
5300K to$500K 10 12.7%
$500K to$750K 5 6.3%
$750K to$1,000K 4 5.1%
'
Over$1,000K 13 16.5%
Overall 79 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 79
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: Will)COUNTY Pare 38
' WILDIO'E
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot/rasp
' Group Price Related Coefficient of Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LT$25K 1.135 1.050 .117 17.0%
$25K to$50K .965 1.003 .040 7.5%
$50K to$100K 1.004 1.008 .142 23.9%
I
$100K to$150K .999 .996 .053 9.0%
$150K to$200K .968 1.009 .092 15.3%
$200K to 5300K 1.000 .991 .121 15.2%
$300K to$500K .962 1.000 .034 4.8%
$500K to$750K .987 .999 .058 8.7%
I $750K to$1,000K .991 1.001 .006 1.2%
Over$1,000K .973 1.004 .043 5.8%
Overall .990 1.041 .088 15.1%
I Suhclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
I abstrimp 0 1 1.3%
215 1.3%
2212 16 20.3%
2215 1 1.3%
I 2220 4 5.1%
2225 1 1.3%
2230 13 16.5%
2233 1 1.3%
I
2235 30 38.0%
3212 3 3.8%
3215 5 6.3%
3746 1 1.3%
9249 1 1.3%
I
9279 1 1.3%
Overall 79 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 79
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
Group Price Related Coefficient of Coefficient of Variation
'
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1.444 1.000 .000 .
1215 1.034 1.000 .000 .
212 .971 1.053 .097 20.8%
I
215 1.000 1.000 .000
220 1.059 .988 .065 11.8%
225 1.031 1.000 .000 .%
230 .945 1.011 .063 9.9%
233 .925 1.000 .000 .%
I
235 .975 1.100 .098 16.4%
212 1.000 1.001 .004 .8%
215 1.006 1.007 .018 2.7%
746 .952 1.000 .000 .%
249 1.055 1.000 .000 .%
I
279 1.087 1.000 .000
veral .990 1.041 .068 15.1%
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: Will)COUNTY Page 39
WILDROSE
' Audit Division
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
1 Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
abstrind 100 53 31.7%
200 9 5 4%
300 5 3.0%
I
400 4 2.4%
520 6%
1112 81 485%
' 1135 7 4.2%
2112 2 1 2%
2120 1 6%
I 2130 2 1.2%
2135 2 1.2%
Overall 167 100.0%
I
Excluded 0
Total 167
I Group Ratio Statistics for currind I Vlasp
Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
100 1.042 1.041 .148
200 1 000 1.072 .082
300 .951 .991 .108
400 1.133 .996 .048
' 520 .943 1.000 000
1112 1.000 1.049 .126
1135 1.003 .997 .124
2112 1.029 976 032
2120 1.000 1.000 _000
2130 1.031 1.011 018
I 2135 1.053 1.016 050
Overall1 014 1.039 1 28
I
I
I
I
I201I Slalislical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 40
Hello