HomeMy WebLinkAbout20102209 I I t =' Ei,n COUNTY
C [-f .. " ." , SS! BNERS
I ZULU SEP I b A 10 I b
I kit
I
2010
WELD COUNTY
I PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
I STUDY
, __ ig
S
1 .
'err Iv
l
+a 40 tr... a "-—------
r----r-- _ m il, : my_..., 7ii _ . ,-a la
L- W. L bit i
t
w0 .1 kt
I � � i
lir
t. r . : Au I rou , , .� d Y 1Pf'1
. i. I ____cigl _
't 4 — ^ The re. .. r" u
•
•, ... _s ..sir. , : r
1
r r: •I 1 " '.L1 A
,_ -.; ;by AWIE k , i I
reli
R fill .4.; `
it I I- WS Er 1
Arnt.WILD ' O.
Audit Division
ova a���
��('f 25Q _\ G : �} S 2010-2209
I °� a Q - i7 - /c7
WAPIILDROS."
' Audit Division
September 15, 2010
Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2010 Colorado Property Assessment Study
' Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc.-Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2010 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 be of service to the State of
Colorado. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.
1414 �
fitr
Harry J. Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. —Audit Division
' WILE ROSE
II ARIL I�lVNM1 S
Audit Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
IIntroduction 3
Regional/Historical Sketch of Weld County 4
1 Ratio Analysis 6
Random Deed Analysic 6
Time Trending Verification 8
' Sold/Unsold Analysis 9
Agricultural Land Study I I
I Agricultural Land 11
Agricultural Outbuildings 13
Sales Verification 14
1 Economic Area Review and Evaluation 15
Natural Resources 16
I Earth and Stone Products 16
Producing Oil and Gas Procedures 16
Vacant Land 17
I Possessory Interest Properties 18
Personal Property Audit 19
I Wildrose Auditor Staff 21
Appendices 22
I
I
I
I
7010 Weld County Property Assessment Stuck Pa�c 2
' WAPPILDIcSE
I
Audit Division
I INTRODUCTION
I
I I MN colored® The procedural analysis includes all classes of
property and specifically looks at how the
assessor develops economic areas, confirms and
I 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
adequately discovering, classifying and valuing
Constitution. The SHOE will order
revaluations for counties whose valuations do
agricultural outbuildings, discovering
not reflect the proper valuation period level of subdivision build-out and subdivision
discounting procedures. Valuation
value.
I methodology for vacant land, improved
residential properties and commercial
The statutory basis for the audit is found in
C.H.S. 39-1-104 (16)(a)(b) and (c). properties is examined. Procedures for
producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and
lands producing, producing coal mines,
The legislative council sets forth two criteria
that 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 are
compared with State Board of Equalization
each class of property.
compliance requirements and the manuals
I
published by the State Property Tax
To 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
to the property tax. Assessment Study for 2010 and is pleased to
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
2010 Weld County Proper . 1ssessnn nt Study — Page 3
WILD '•�•
An nuca hronnu nn
I
Audit Division Ilki REGIONAL / HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
I
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Regional Information
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 d. 1 - 1 alir
:1 1 I r lit :
i
•
• x
i
r ' - -
4Olt I ... - 1 . ,a.
Ilorklit A __ -,
PeksI"-
'
f r
s t.'
_ I�rte /
-L1' . - DTI,
., o, c
•
I
I
I
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 4
WILDROSE
Arrxm.u_6iiwmrnieu
IAudit Division
Historical Inlormation
IWeld County has a population of an experimental utopian community of "high
approximately 254,759 people with 45.3 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 2009 estimated population Meeker purchased a .site at the confluence of
data. the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers
I (that included the area of Latham, an Overland
Weld County covers an area of 4,004 square Trail station), halfway between Cheyenne and
miles in north central Colorado. It is bordered Denver along the tracks of the Denver Pacific
on the north by Wyoming and Nebraska and on the south by the Denver metropolitan area. Railroad formerly known as the "Island Grove
Ranch." The name Union Colony was later
The third largest county in Colorado, Weld changed to Greeley in honor of Horace
I County has an area greater than that of Rhode Greeley, who was Meeker's editor at the New
Island, Delaware and the District of Columbia York Tribune, and popularized the phrase "Go
combined. West, young man."
Major Stephen H. Long made an expedition to Weld County's cultural assets include
the area now known as Weld County in 1821. Centennial Village, an authentic recreation of
I In 1835 a government expedition came through pioneer life on the Colorado plains. The
the general area; the next year a member of Meeker Museum in Greeley is a national
that party, Lt. Lancaster Lupton, returned to historic site. Fort Vasquez in southern Weld
I establish a trading post located just north of the County has an exciting history as an early
present town of Fort Lupton. In 1837 Colonel Colorado trading post. The Greeley
Ceran St. Vrain established Fort St. Vrain; Fort Philharmonic Orchestra is one of the oldest
I Vasquez was built south of Platteville about symphony orchestra west of the Mississippi.
1840. The latter was rebuilt in the 1930's by The University of Northern Colorado's Little
the State Historical Society. Theatre of the Rockies is one of America's
I
premier college dramatic organizations.
The county seat is Greeley which began as the (www.co.weld.co.os, www.wikipedia.org)
Union Colony, which was founded in 1869 as
I
I
I
I
2010 Weld Coun Property Assessment Study Page 5
t'
WILDROSE
IAudit Division
I RATIO ANALYSIS
I Methodology' latter measures, but were counseled if there
All significant classes of properties were 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, 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
included all sales. The data was trimmed for
period between January 2007 and June 2008.I
Counties with less than 30 sales typically counties with obvious outliers using IAA()
extended the sale period back up to 5 years standards for data analysis. In every case, we
examined the loss in data from trimming to
prior to June 30, 2008 in 6-month increments.I
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
excluded by this trimming method was
treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for allI
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 II
number analyzed was allowed, in some cases,
to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity counties, the residential ratio statistics were
ssues for counties requiring vacant land broken down by economic area as well.
analysis or condominium analysis. Although it Conclusions
I 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
' ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Unweighted Coefficient of
Property Class Median Ratio Dispersion
'
Commercial/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 1599
Vacant Land Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99
I
I
I
I
2010 Weld County Property Asstsanent.Studs page 6
' WILDROSE
:\rrc.ar�uJ�n:xmanrr
' Audit Division
The results for Weld County are:
' Weld County Ratio Grid
Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient
Qualified Median Related of Time Trend
Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
Commercial/Industrial 198 0.977 1.020 7.7 Compliant
Condominium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Single Family 7,055 0.980 1.022 10.6 Compliant
Vacant Land 314 0.972 1.036 14.6 Compliant
Ratio Statistics for currtot ltasp
' Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
0 .981 1.014 .102
'
2 .982 1.017 .092
3 .976 1.014 .081
4 .981 1.033 .129
'
5 .973 1.021 .145
6 .983 1.034 .149
' 7 .981 1.019 .129
8 981 1.026 .152
9 .974 1.021 .107
I
Overall .980 1.022 .106
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
IRandom 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
from deeds with the Assessor's database, Weld
the Clerk and Recorder. These deeds
were for sales that occurred from January 1, County has accurately transferred sales data
from the recorded deeds to the qualified or
2007 through June 30, 2008. These sales
unqualified database.
were then checked for inclusion on the
Assessor's qualified or unqualified database. Recommendations
None
I
2010 W C eld ounty 1'roperty assewnent Jtudy Page 7
WILDROSE
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 he 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
t
1
t
1
_2010 Weld Counts Property Assessment Stud, Page 8
' WILDROSE
' Audit Division
I
SOLD / UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodologywas at least 1% of the total population of
unsold properties and excluded any sale
I 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
I 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 theh compared
I
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
Imethod, 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
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
I perspective. 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
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
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, test compared the measures of central tendency
Ithen the next step was to perform a ratio and confidence intervals for the sold properties
analysis comparing the 2009 and 2010 actual with the unsold property sample. If this
values for each qualified class of property. AllI comparison was also determined to he
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
I property. These ratios were also stratified at 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
I2010 Wcld County Properu Assessment Study Page. 9
WILDROSE
,�YP0.LL�LLI\tIKKA10.\Tfn
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
t
1
2010 Weld County Propel-Is lscessment Studv—l',tgc 10
I
.f; > WILD ' • E
IAudit Division
i AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Acres By Subclass Value By Subclass
prinkl
Wage 4
Sr 40,000,000
4.990%0%
&WA Flood 35,000.000
7-12.77%
30,000,000
r
r+tv 25,000,000
1 •
+. :.r. 4..... 1•�' 20.000.000
I
r t 15,000,000
f! ¢ 1
P : r '' . 10,000,000
itke
5,000,000
�, ', \_Dry Farm
Gr in9 28.51% I. _, r-�'
48.947 , Q
Spnnkler Flood Dry Farm Meadow Grazing Waste
I Meadow Hay— Hay
077%
IAgricultural Land
ICounty records were reviewed to determine (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3
major land categories such as irrigated farm, Chapter 5 .)
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
I 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 were
I rotations have been documented; typical properly applied. County yields compared
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
and valued; the capacities were in an acceptable range. The
have been properly classified
I 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
Irequired for the valuation methods used and
any locally developed yields, carrying
capacities, and expenses. Records were also
I checked to ensure that the commodity prices
and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), were applied properly.
I
I2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 11
' WILDROSJ,
.jl•PIL� DItWP�X\T�D
' 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 96,558 89.85 8,675,848 8,834,098 0.98
4117 Flood 251,735 137.65 34,650,507 34,550,108 1.00
I4127 Dry Farm 562,036 10.47 5,882,016 6,322,951 0.93
4137 Meadow Flay 15,193 42.38 643,829 643,829 1.00
4147 Grazing 964,769 5.03 4,856,811 4,856,811 1.00
4167 Waste 80,948 1.62 130,737 130,737 1.00
Total/Avg 1,971,239 27.82 54,839,749 55,338,535 0.99
I
Recommendations
' None
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2010 Weld Countv Propc rt. Assc,:snient Study Page 1 2
WILDROSE
0 Avrwnm Audit Division
nn
on
Agricultural Outbuildings
Methodology Conclusions
Data was collected and reviewed to determine if the guidelines found in the Assessor's Weld County has substantially complied with
the procedures provided by the Division of
Reference Library (ART) Volume 3, pages 5.74 Property Taxation for the valuation of
through 5.77 were being followed. agricultural outbuildings.
Recommendations
None
1
I
2010 Weld County Propc is Assessment Study Pace 1
WILRCOSE
0 �YPM\4. D UI[P(10.\TCI�
IDAudit Division
SALES VERIFICATION
According to Colorado Revised Statutes: The assessor is required to use sales of real property
Ionly in the valuation process.
A representative body of sales is required when
considering the market approach to appraisal. OW) Such true and typical sales shall include only
Ithose 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
I 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.)
I property, the following limitations and conditions
shall apply: Part of the Property Assessment Study is the
sales verification analysis. WRA has used the
I (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.
I 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 2010 for Weld County. This
I 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 Jan 1, 2007 -
price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall he June 30, 2008 valuation period. Specifically
I included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true WRA selected 45 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
I 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 insufficient documentation.
not be included in any such sample. Conclusions
I (h) Each such sale included in the sample shall he
Weld County appears to he doing a good job of
verifying their sales. There are no
coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as
screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103,
recommendations.
C.R.S.) Recommendations
None
I
I
I
I
7010 Weld County Prope its Assessment Study — Page 14
' WAppaILDROSE
Audit Division
ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW AND
EVALUATION
Methodology identified homogeneous economic areas
comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each
Weld County has submitted a written narrative
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 has 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
1
2010 Weld County Proper t‘ lssessment Study Pale 15
' WArrwILDROSE
' Audit Division
' NATURAL RESOURCES
(2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds
Earth and Stone Products and lands producing oil or gas shall he
I determined as provided in article 7 of this title.
§ 39-1-103, C.R.S.
Methodology Article 7 covers the listing, valuation, and
I Under the guidelines of the Assessor's assessment of producing oil and gas leaseholds
Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural and lands.
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income
approach was applied to determine value for Valuation:
production of earth and stone products. The Valuation for assessment.
number of tons was multiplied by an economic (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
Iroyalty rate determined by the Division of section, on the basis of the information
Property Taxation to determine income. The contained in such statement, the assessor shall
income was multiplied by a recommended value such oil and gas leaseholds and lands for
IHoskold factor to determine the actual value. assessment, as real property, at an amount
The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of equal to eighty-seven and one-half percent of:
the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two (a) The selling price of the oil or gas sold there
variables: life and tonnage. The operator from during the preceding calendar year, after
determines these since there is no other means excluding the selling price of all oil or gas
to obtain production data through any state or delivered to the United States government or
Iprivate agency. any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or
Conclusions any agency thereof, or any political subdivision
I The County has applied the correct formulas of the state as royalty during the preceding
and state guidelines to earth and stone calendar year;
(b) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the
production.11
same field area for oil or gas transported from
Recommendations the premises which is not sold during the
None preceding calendar year, after excluding the
I selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the
United States government or any agency
Producing Oil and Gas thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency
I Procedures thereof, or any political subdivision of the state
as royalty during the preceding calendar year.
§ 39-7-102, C.R.S.
IMethodology Conclusions
Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, The county applied approved appraisal
Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources procedures in the valuation of oil and gas.
ISTATUTORY REFERENCES Recommendations
Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifies that None
Iproducing oil or gas leaseholds and lands are
valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S.
IActual value determined - when.
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Pagu 16
I LDROSE
.�MR\L IW11\P.\iPl�
' Audit Division
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2010 in Weld per year calculated for the plat, the absorption
County. The review showed that subdivisions 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
1
1
1
2010 Weld Countv P rup its Assessment Study Page 17
WAPPRILDI2OSE
' 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 ARI. 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 government-owned property that has been on the roll. They have also correctly and
consistently applied the correct procedures and
granted valuation methods in the valuation of
under lease, permit, license,
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
2010 Weld Counts Property .Assessment Study— Paige I R
I
WILD '0.E
Apra L•k r.I...wnoanlri,
I
Audit Division
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT
IWeld County was studied for its procedural
compliance with the personal property Weld County is compliant with the guidelines
Illassessment 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
I 5, including current discovery, classification, • MLS Listing and/or Sold Books
documentation procedures, current economic • Chamber of Commerce/Economic
lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation Development Contacts
I table, and level of value adjustment factor • Local Telephone Directories,
table.
Newspapers or Other Local
Publications
I The personal property audit standards narrative
must he in place and current. A listing of • Personal Observation, Physical
businesses that have been audited by the Canvassing or Word of Mouth
I assessor within the twelve-month period • Questionnaires, Letters and/or Phone
reflected in the plan is given to the auditor. Calls to Buyer, Seller and/or Realtor
The audited businesses must be in conformity
ll with those described in the plan. The county uses the Division of Property
Taxation (DPT) recommended classification
Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from and documentation procedures. The DPT's
I the personal property accounts that have been recommended cost factor tables, depreciation
physically inspected. The minimum assessment tables and level of value adjustment factor
sample is one percent or ten schedules, tables are also used.
I whichever is greater, and the maximum
assessment audit sample is 100 schedules. Weld County submitted their personal
property written audit plan and was current for
I For the counties having over 100,000 the 2010 valuation period. The number and
population, WRA selected a sample of all listing of businesses audited was also submitted
personal property schedules to determine and was in conformance with the written audit
I whether the assessor is correctly applying the plan. The following audit triggers were used
provisions of law and manuals of the Property by the county to select accounts to be audited:
Tax Administrator in arriving at the assessment
I levels of such property. This sample was • Businesses in a selected area
selected from the personal property schedules • Accounts with obvious discrepancies
audited by the assessor. In no event was the • New businesses filing for the first time
I sample selected by the contractor less than 30 • Incomplete or inconsistent declarations
schedules. The counties to be included in this • Accounts with omitted property
study are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, • Same business type or use
I Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, • Businesses with no deletions or
Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received additions for 2 or more years
a procedural study.
I
I7010 Weld Counts Property Assessment Stud. I'age 19
Whet am
.PI't I LLI\R)MI'l Warn
I'1�
Audit Division
• Non-filing Accounts - Best Information which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD
Available requirements.
• Accounts close to the S4,000 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 SBOE requirements.
in compliance with the State Board of
Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements Recommendations
None
t
1
1
1
2010 Wehl County Property Assessment Study Page 20
WArrILDRroitni
OSE
' Audit Division
WILDROSF 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
1
1
1
1
2010 Weld County Propurtt Asscsswunt `;tudv Pagr 21
WII.DeE
Audit Division
APPENDICES
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
I
I
1
1
1
1
2010 Weld Countv Property Assessment Studs Page 22
WILD O E
AI'PR fr-u IN 'nirtik+rr
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
' FOR WELD COUNTY
2010
I . OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
122,746 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2010. The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
Real Property Class Distribution
80,000 -
60,000 -
iC
z
U 40,000 -
I170,949
20,000 -
130,308
17 ,292
0 - - 11 ,197
1 1 I
Vacant Land Res Imp Comm/Ind Imp Other
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 84% 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 3% of all such properties in this county.
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 23
WILDRO5E
IAudit Division
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2010 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in May 2010. The data
Iincluded all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor.
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
The following steps were taken to analyze the residential sales:
I 1. All sales 12,072
2. Qualified sales 7,788
3. Improved sales 7,265
I4. Select residential sales only 7,055
The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Case Processing Summary
ll
Count Percent
econarea 0 685 10.3%
2 1877 28.1%
' 3 1858 27.9%
4 564 8.5%
5 80 1.2%
I
6 1368 20.5%
7 32 .5%
8 28 .4%
I
9 176 2.6%
Overall 6668 100.0%
Excluded 387
ITotal 7055
I
I
I
I
2010 Weld Counts Property Assessment Study l'.ioc 24
I
WILD ' O• E
Arvg s' - hrnama,4nn
IAudit Division
I Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
I
0 .981 1 .014 . 102
2 .982 1 .017 .092.
3 .976 1 .014 .081
I
4 .981 1 .033 . 129
5 .973 1 .021 . 145
6 .983 1 .034 . 149
I 7 .981 1 .019 . 129
8 .981 1 .026 . 152
9 .974 1 .021 . 107
IOverall .980 1 ,022 . 106
I The 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
ratio distribution for these properties:
3,000—
2,500—
I
2,000 -
I0
a)
3
as m 1 ,500
I e
1 1 ,000-
500—
.., I Mean =0.99
7 Std. Dev. =0.157
'� N =7,055
I 0- I I I I I 1
0.00 1 .00 < 00 3 00 4 00 ` 00 6.00
salesratio
I
12010 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 25
WILD ' O E
1
Antctsu. ly • rn .nrrf)
Audit Division
' Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
' 6.00 —
•
' 5.00 -
I 400 -
0
n' 3.00 -. ••
ra
•
2.00 - •
1
•
1 .00
• •
• •
0.00 --
I
SO $1 ,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000
tasp
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of the sale ratios was within state mandated limit L. .
Residential Market Trend Analysis
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:
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 26
' .{W0.\I WLDROSlWtt10.\II1�E L �\t
Audit Division
' Coefficient?
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
I econarea Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.005 .011 93.113 .000
SalePeriod -.003 .001 -.154 -3.051 .002
' 0 1 (Constant) 1.023 .015 68.272 .000
SalePeriod -.003 .002 -.073 -1.920 .055
2 1 (Constant) 1.007 .006 180.545 .000
I
SalePeriod -.002 .001 -.081 -3.498 .000
3 1 (Constant) 980 .005 203.675 .000
SalePeriod .000 .000 -.007 -.293 .769
I 4 1 (Constant) 1.031 .016 63.449 .000
SalePeriod -.003 .002 085 -2.020 .044
5 1 (Constant) 1.038 .041 25.615 .000
I
SalePeriod -.007 .004 -.198 -1.781 .079
6 1 (Constant) 1.028 .011 92.297 .000
SalePeriod -.001 .001 -.034 -1.240 .215
I 7 1 (Constant) 1.013 .075 13.429 .000
SalePeriod 000 .007 -.006 -.035 .973
8 1 (Constant) .889 .110 8.042 .000
I SalePeriod 009 .011 .171 .883 .385
9 1 (Constant) 1.022 .021 47.908 .000
SalePeriod -.004 .002 -.138 -1.837 .068
' a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
I There was no residual market trending present in the sale ratio data for any of the economic areas.
While three economic areas had statistically significant results, the magnitude of each trend was not
significant and we therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the
valuation of residential properties.
Sold/Unsold Analysis
IIn terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the
median actual value per square foot for 2010 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows:
Group N Median Mean
I Unsold 63,645 S108 5109
Sold 7,053 5113 S117
2010 Weld County Property assessment Study Page 27
IWAitirILDI2�SE
IAudit Division
I ECONAREA Group N Median Mean
0 Unsold 4,675 5114 $116
Sold 685 SILO $113
I 2 Unsold 17,117 $124 $127
Sold 1,876 $130 5135
3 Unsold 11,659 $115 $120
ISold 1,858 $118 $125
4 Unsold 5,219 $86 $90
I
Sold 564 $93 $95
S Unsold 1,203 $85 $92
Sold 80 588 $92
I 6 Unsold 16,911 595 $93
Sold 1,368 $99 $96
7 Unsold 713 $58 564
Sold 32 $69 $68
8 Unsold 586 $74 575
Sold 28 $93 $86
9 Unsold 2,135 $115 $112
Sold 175 $124 $121
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner.
IIV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
I. All sales 12,072
I2. Qualified sales 7,788
3. Improved sales 7,265
4. Select commercial/industrial sales only 198
I
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:
IMedian 0.977
Price Related Differential 1.020
ICoefficient of Dispersion .077
The above table indicates that the Weld County commercial/industrial land sale ratios were in
I compliance with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio
distribution further:
I
I
2010 Weld Counts Prop its Tsses5mcnt Study Page 28
I
WILDROSE
:\rrx.uJu_ INC nun vatz)
I
Audit Division
i
100-
Iu GO—
C
as
D
1cu
Q'
L
L
Ll..
40
I
20 —
' Mean =0 97
-- Std_ Dev =0 134
,�(� N =198
I 0 I 1 1 a T
0.25 0 mar
5 0 : 1 1 1 74
salesratlo
I
Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio I 1 .75 —
x
I 1 .5 — X
x
xx
x x
I 1 .25 — x
x
x
O x
x x
N 1 -
4)
�a SG
`" X X
x x
I 0.75 —
x x
At x
I 0.5 —
x
0.25 -
I ► I f 1 t
$0 $2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000
tasp
I
I2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 29
WD ' • E
APP tUIL sAL I\cl)RPOstile
t&tF.I)
IAudit Division
Commercial / Industrial Market Trend Analysis
The assessor did apply market trend adjustments to the commercial/industrial dataset. The 198
I commercial/industrial sales were analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 month sale period
with the following results:
Coefficientsa
IUnstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
I Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .972 .020 49.492 .000
SalePeriod .000 .002 -.008 -. 112 .911
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
I 175—
+
if
+ + +
+ +
+ + + +
IA 1 - ess • r • ••err •*•I• rr • • • • n •Iir • •i••••r•••••r •rl
•
in + 4. $ � $ ♦ + + ♦ +
+
I
o.7s—
+ +
+ + +
I o.zs—
I 1 I 7 T
0 5 10 15 20
SalsPsriod
There was no residual market trending present in the commercial sale ratios. We concluded that the
IIassessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the commercial/industrial
valuation.
I
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 30
' WILDROSE
LL kl\]4tt)p\lfl\
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Analysis
We compared the median change in actual value between 2008 and 2010 for vacant land properties to
determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as follows:
1 Group N Median Mean
Unsold 3,603 $47 $64
Sold 192 $38 $56
The above results indicated that sold and unsold vacant land properties were valued consistently.
' V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
The following steps were taken to analyze the vacant land sales:
1. All sales 12,072
2. Qualified sales 7,788
3. Vacant land sales 327
4. Residential & commercial/ind vacant land sales 314
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:
Median 0.972
Price Related Differential 1.036
Coefficient of Dispersion .146
The 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:
2010 Weld County Propert y Assessment Study Page 31
I
17:% WILD ' O.E
kit R%N\I !\CI.{RPORkTT Ii
il •
Audit Division
r
ll
0 100 -
V
C
C►
m
al
I Mean =0 9807
--iStd Dev =0 35035
N =314
ij Y. ._ t _l I I I 1 r- 1.-
(3 7
SalesRatio
I
Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
I 7 —
I
5—II o
�, 4 —
b
N
I d
To 3 —
t
I 2 — x
1 A X - - — N
0 —
I I I I I T I 1
SO $1 ,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000
Vtasp
I
I2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 32
WILD • • E
I
APP Ratsu_I\(1 Wn»t.%Tf n
IAudit Division
The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis I We next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 18-month sale period, with the following results:
I
C eefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
I Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .951 .045 21 . 116 .000
VSalePeriod .003 .004 .042 .747 .456
a. Dependent Variable: SalesRatio
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis
I 1 .s—
I 1 .6— +
+ + +
1 .4— + + + +
+ + +
o + + + � + +
I1 .2— + + + + + + + + * +
CFA + + t + * t t + t
I li 1 —limns Oft
45 $ * +Ile •ill•I• 1• 111• 1111t• lithana•Inin•••
+ + + t *
I t
0.8- * + * * $ t +
+ + $ + + + * * .+
0.6- + ++ +
I + + * + +*0.4-
I r r r r r
0 5 10 15 20
VSalePeriod
I
The above analysis indicated that no significant market trending was present in the vacant land sale data.
IWe concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties.
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 33
' WILDROSE
.�YP0.Ull.LL IP(i�NMIP\TT I�
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the
median change in value for 2008 and 2010 between each group. We stratified the vacant land
properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall
comparison results:
' AY9flyb1 Y x n n i a
TOTAL Unsold 15,110 1.00 0.95
Sold 297 1.00 1.06
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 2010 median improved value per square foot for this group and
compared it to the 2010 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:
t
2010 \\chi County Prop! i tv Assessment Study— Page 34
I
WApiILDROSE
IAudit Division
' Descriptives
abstrimp Statistic Std.Error
ImpVaISF 1212 Mean $204.24 $15.009
I 95%Confidence Lower Bound $174.82
Interval for Mean Upper Bound
$233.65
I 5%Trimmed Mean
Median $82.44
Variance 146976314.7
I Std.Deviation $3.833 749
Minimum $0
Maximum $275,000
I Range $275.000
Interquartile Range $34
Skewness 36.790 .010
I Kurtosis 1543.892 .019
4277 Mean $481.68 5172.080
95%Confidence Lower Bound $144.09
I Interval for Mean Upper Bound
$819.27
5%Trimmed Mean
Median $87.53
IVariance 38317526.8
Std.Deviation $6.190.115
Minimum $0
I Maximum 5135.507
Range $135,507
Interquartile Range $55
I Skewness 17.571 .068
Kurtosis 325.869 .136
IVI. Conclusions
I Based on this 2010 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial/industrial and vacant land
properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
I
I
2010 Weld Comity PropertN. Assessment Study Page 1i
' WILDROSEI
:�PPIL\IY,\L I�<1WN10.\TP1�
' Audit Division
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential
I Mean Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
.993
95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .989
I for Mean Upper Bound
.997
Median .979
I 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .976
for Median Upper Bound .981
Actual Coverage 95.2%
Weighted Mean .972
I
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound .969
for Weighted Mean Upper Bound .976
Price Related Differential 1.021
I Coefficient of Dispersion .104
Coefficient of Variation Mean Centered 15.8%
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any
I
distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be
greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are
constructed by assuming a Normal distribution for the ratios.
Commercial Land
Ratio Statistics for currtot I tasp
I
Mean .970
95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .952
for Mean Upper Bound
'
989
Median .977
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound .967
I
for Median Upper Bound .987
Actual Coverage 96.1%
Weighted Mean .952
I 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .907
for Weighted Mean Upper Bound .996
Price Related Differential 1.020
I Coefficient of Dispersion .077
Coefficient of Variation Mean Centered 13.8%
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any
I distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be
greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are
constructed by assuming a Normal distribution for the ratios.
I
I
2010 AVeld County Prop It, A,,scssmcnt Mtudv Pagc 3o
' WILLLD 'O.E
.APB'I L tµ'W1%IIL\.
' Audit Division
Vacant Land
' Ratio Statistics for currind/Vtasp
Mean .981
I 95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .942
for Mean Upper Bound
1.020
I Median .972
95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .964
for Median Upper Bound 1.000
I
Actual Coverage 95.2%
Weighted Mean .947
95% Confidence Interval Lower Bound .923
' for Weighted Mean Upper Bound 970
Price Related Differential 1.036
Coefficient of Dispersion .146
I Coefficient of Variation Mean Centered 35.7%
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any
distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be
I greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are
constructed by assuming a Normal distribution for the ratios.
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
ICase Processing Summary
Count Percent
I SPRec LT$25K 14 .2%
$25K to$50K 91 1.3%
$50K to$100K 691 9.8%
I $100K to $150K 1615 22.9%
$150K to$200K 1696 24.0%
$200K to$300K 1801 25.5%
I $300K to$500K 933 13.2%
$500K to$750K 171 2.4%
$750K to$1,000K 25 .4%
I Over$1,000K 18 .3%
Overall 7055 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 7055
I
I
2010 Weld Countv Propert3 .Assessment Study Page 37
I
WILDROSE
IAudit Division
I Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
Coefficient
of
I Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LT$25K .999 .882 .114 28.3%
I $25K to$50K 1.234 1.007 .242 32.3%
$50K to $100K 1.099 1.011 .146 20.1%
I $100K to$150K 980 1.001 .106 14.2%
$150K to$200K .978 1.000 .084 11.3%
$200K to$300K .975 1.001 .079 14.9%
I $300K to$500K .951 1.000 .086 11.2%
$500K to$750K .910 1.000 .105 13.6%
$750K to$1,000K .925 .999 .112 13.9%
I Over$1,000K 867 .974 .119 14.5%
Overall .979 1.021 .104 16.1%
ISubclass
Case Processing Summary
I Count Percent
PredUse 1212 6548 92.8%
1215 89 1.3%
I
1220 31 .4%
1225 6 .1%
1230 381 5.4%
I Overall 7055 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 7055
I
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
ICoefficient
of
Variation
I Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1212 .979 1.021 .104 15.7%
I
1215 1.048 1.059 .206 35.3%
1220 .998 1.055 .163 27.2%
1225 .998 1.006 .031 4.8%
I
1230 .969 1.006 .057 9.9%
Overall .979 1.021 .104 16.1%
I
2010 Weld County Property Assessment Studs Page 3S
I
WAr ILDROAT
IAudit Division
Age
' Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
I
AgeRec 0 1
12 .0%
Over 100 4 1.8%
75 to 100 231 3.3%
' 50to75 315 4.5%
25 to 50 929 13.2%
5 to 25 2643 37.5%
I 5 or Newer 2812 39.9%
Overall 7055 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 7055
IRatio Statistics for currtot/tasp
Coefficient
I
f
Variatio
n
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
I 0 .243 1.000 .000
Over 100 .978 1.047 .224 33.3%
75 to 100 .962 1.052 .197 30.3%
I 50 to 75 .993 1.047 .173 24.4%
25 to 50 .981 1.025 .136 18.3%
5 to 25 .982 1.016 .098 15.9%
I 5 or Newer 974 1.014 .077 10.4%
Overall .979 1.021 .104 16.1%
IImproved Area
Case Processing Summary
ICount Percent
ImpSFRec 0 1 .0%
LE 500 sf 16 .2%
'
500 to 1,000 sf 642 9.1%
1,000 to 1,500 sf 2571 36.4%
I 1,500 to 2,000 sf 1950 27.6%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 1425 20.2%
3,000 sf or Higher 450 6.4%
I Overall 7055 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 7055
I
2010 Weld Counts Prup ro, Asses tncnt Study Page 39
0 I
AYP WILDM.Vl\C,•%O.E
N. . NIM1 VL
' Audit Division
I Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
Coefficient
of
I Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
0 .243 1.000 .000 .
I
LE 500 sf .999 .983 .121 21.4%
500 to 1,000 sf .974 1.045 .169 24.2%
I 1,000 to 1,500 sf 979 1.018 .104 15.0%
1,500 to 2,000 sf .980 1.016 .091 13.6%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .976 1.015 .088 12.1%
I 3,000 sf or Higher 975 1.027 .113 26.1
Overall 979 1.021 .104 16.1%
IQuality
Case Processing Summary
I
Count Percent
qual 1 181 2.6%
2 2125 30.1%
' 3 4076 57.8%
4 583 8.3%
5 76 1.1%
' 6 13 .2%
Overall 7054 100.0%
Excluded 1
' Total 7055
IRatio Statistics for currtot/tasp
Coefficient
of
I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
' 1 .974 1.055 .200 30.6%
2 .979 1.031 .141 20.2%
3 .979 1.011 .082 12.9%
I
4 .978 1.019 .093 12.7%
5 .976 1.030 .102 14.3%
6 .969 1.000 .082 12.2%
' Overall .979 1.021 .104 16.1%
I
?010 Weld buntv Property Assessment Stutiv—Pagc40
I
Olk WILDROSE
' Audit Division
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
ISale Price
I Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT$25K 1 .5%
I $25K to$50K 4 2.0%
$50K to$100K 54 27.3%
$100K to $150K 31 15.7%
I $150K to $200K 23 11.6%
$200K to $300K 19 9.6%
$300K to$500K 23 11.6%
I $500K to$750K 11 5.6%
$750K to $1,000K 8 4.0%
Over$1,000K 24 12.1%
I Overall 198 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 198
I
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
ICoefficient
of
Variation
I
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LT$25K .952 1.000 .000 .
I $25K to $50K 1.000 .999 .028 5.0%
$50K to $100K .990 .996 .046 8.4%
$100K to$150K .960 .996 .076 12.9%
I $150K to$200K 969 .998 .101 19.2%
$200K to$300K .990 .999 .067 11.9%
$300K to$500K .960 1.002 .083 13.8%
I $500K to$750K 969 .996 .088 13.9%
$750K to$1,000K .950 .991 .189 29.2%
Over$1,000K .972 .996 .079 15.5%
' Overall .977 1.020 .077 13.7%
I
I
I
2010 AFold County Property lssessnicnt Study - Page +l
' L WDROISE
.a. I. 2iuxmx%rrn
' Audit Division
Subclass
' Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
I PredUse 2212 23 11.6%
2215 4 2.0%
2220 33 16.7%
' 2230 26 13.1%
2235 92 46.5%
3212 13 6.6%
' 3215 7 3.5%
Overall 198 100.0%
Excluded 0
' Total 198
Ratio Statistics for currtot/tasp
ICoefficient
of
Variation
IPrice Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
2212 .923 1.135 .117 17.6%
I 2215 1.000 1.004 .008 1.5%
2220 .979 .981 .090 14.4%
2230 .977 1.005 .117 20.3%
I 2235 .983 1.001 .047 7.3%
3212 .982 1.005 .092 20.7%
3215 1.000 .959 .090 19.1%
IOverall .977 1.020 .077 13.7%
I
I
I
I
I
2010 Wcld County Prop rU A.wcssmcnt Study Pagu 4Z
' WILDI2rSE
' Audit Division
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
' Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
I VPredUse 100 218 69.4%
200 39 12.4%
300 15 4.8%
' 400 11 3.5%
550 2 .6%
600 1 .3%
' 1112 22 7.0%
1135 3 1.0%
2112 1 .3%
I
2130 1 .3%
3115 1 .3%
Overall 314 100.0%
I Excluded 0
Total 314
IRatio Statistics for currind/Vtasp
Coefficient
I of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
I 100 .979 1.033 .156 41.6%
200 .944 1.015 .097 12.9%
300 1.000 1.122 .182 22.3%
I 400 1.000 .972 .060 9.4%
550 1.109 1.144 .128 18.2%
600 .781 1.000 .000
I 1112 1.000 .994 .110 15.4%
1135 .714 .965 .206 32.3%
2112 .746 1.000 .000 .
I 2130 .971 1.000 .000 .
3115 .968 1.000 .000 .
Overall .972 1.036 .146 36.1%
I
I
I
I
21)10 Weld Countv Prole rtv Assessment Study Pa4c 43
Hello