HomeMy WebLinkAbout20032698.tiff •
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
VALUATION SPECIALISTS
2003
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
WELD COUNTY
Prepared for
The Colorado Legislative Council
ice c15
(1/2,,N7,- 4,70.4v
,7JOA
2003-2698
C19 o. .) {z3 v
tl
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
VALUATION SPECIALISTS
September 15, 2003
Mr. Charles S. Brown
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 209, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2003 Colorado Property Assessment Study
for Weld County
Dear Mr. Brown:
Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists LLC is pleased to submit the Final Report
for the 2003 Colorado Property Assessment Study for Weld County.
This report represents the results of a two-part analysis and audit: a procedural
analysis and a statistical analysis.
The procedural analysis included all classes of property and specifically looked at
how the assessor developed economic areas, confirmed and qualified their sales,
developed their time adjustments, and performed their periodic physical property
inspections. The audit also examined the procedures for discovering, classifying and
valuing agricultural residences and outbuildings, discovering subdivision build-out
and subdivision discounting procedures. Valuation methodology for residential
properties and commercial properties was examined. Procedures 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
were also reviewed.
Statistical analysis was also performed on vacant land, residential properties,
commercial/industrial properties, agricultural land, agricultural residences and
outbuildings, other agricultural properties and personal property.
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
VALUATION SPECIALISTS
Throughout this project RMVS has remained committed its belief that for an ad
valorem system to be successful, values must be equitable and market driven in all
parts of Colorado. Only then is the taxpayer assured of a fair property tax.
RMVS appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the State of Colorado.
(hack O)€4-a
Mark R. Linne MAI, CAE, ASA
Managing Director
Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists LLC
2003
Weld County
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT STUDY
Prepared for The Colorado Legislative Council
ROCKY MOUNTAIN
VALUATION SPECIALISTS
Weld County
Property Assessment Study
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Historical Sketch of Weld County 3
Ratio Analysis 5
Time Trending Verification 6
Sold/Unsold Analysis 7
Agricultural Land Study 8
Agricultural Land 8
Agricultural Residences 9
Agricultural Outbuildings 9
Sales Verification 9
Economic Area Review and Evaluation 10
Economic Area Narrative and Maps 10
Natural Resources 11
Earth and Stone Products 11
Producing Gas Procedures 11
Producing Oil Procedures 11
Vacant Land 12
Subdivision Discounting 12
Possessory Interest Properties 12
Personal Property Audit 13
RMVS Auditor Staff 15
Appendices 17
T a
2003
Property Assessment Study
Weld County
INTRODUCTION
Beginning in 1967 and continuing through the present, the Tax Commission and its
successor, the Division of Property Taxation, have conducted a sales valuation
analysis(sales ratio study) each year. In the analysis,the sales prices of properties are
compared to their assessed valuations to determine how well assessed valuations
reflect real property values.
In 1982, the voters of Colorado approved an amendment to the State Constitution
that affected the manner in which property is assessed. This amendment was
proposed in anticipation of implementation of the 1977 level of value during 1983.
The Amendment requires appropriate consideration of the three approaches to value:
cost, market, and income. There are two exceptions to this requirement. Residential
property is valued on market only. Agricultural land is valued solely on the earning
or productive capacity of such lands.
All property is assessed at 29% of actual value with two exceptions. Residential
property, the first exception, is assessed at its yearly determined assessed value.
Producing mines and oil and gas leaseholds are the second exception and they are
assessed at a portion of annual production.
2003 WeldCounty Property Assessment Study—Page 1
S
Also, beginning in 1983, the State Board of Equalization was to review assessments
for conformance to the Constitution. The State Board will order revaluations for
counties whose valuations do not reflect the 1977 level of value.
C.R.S. 39-1-104 (16) (a) (b) and (c) outlined how this was to be accomplished by
stating that during each property tax year, the Director of Research of the Legislative
Council shall contract with a private person for a valuation for assessment study.
The study shall be conducted in all counties of the state to determine whether or not
the assessor of each county has, in fact, used all manuals, formulas, and other
directives required by law to arrive at the valuation for assessment of each and every
class of real and personal property in the county. The person conducting the study
shall sample each class of property in a statistically valid manner and the aggregate
of such sampling shall equal at least one percent of all properties in each county of
the state. The sampling shall show that the various areas, ages of buildings,
economic conditions, and uses of properties have been sampled. Such study shall be
completed and a final report of the findings and conclusions thereof shall be
submitted to the state board of equalization by September 15 of the year in which the
study is conducted.
The property assessment audit conducts a two-part analysis: A procedural analysis
and a statistical analysis.
The procedural analysis includes all classes of property and specifically looks at how
the assessor develops economic areas, confirms and qualifies sales, develops time
adjustments and performs and plans periodic physical property inspections. The
audit also examines the procedures for discovering, classifying and valuing
agricultural residences and outbuildings, discovering subdivision build-out and
subdivision discounting procedures. Valuation methodology for residential
properties and commercial properties is examined. Procedures 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 are also reviewed.
Statistical analysis is also performed on vacant land, residential properties,
commercial/industrial properties, agricultural land, agricultural residences and
outbuildings, other agricultural properties and personal property.
RMVS has completed the Property Assessment Study for 2003 and is pleased to
report its findings for Weld County in the following report.
Page 2—Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists
,
HISTORICAL SKETCH OF WELD COUNTY
t
Weld County, one of the original seventeen territorial counties, was established in
1861 and has 4,002 square miles and an approximate population of 131,821. The
county was named for Lewis Ledyard Weld,the first secretary of Colorado Territory. li
The county seat is Greeley, named for Horace Greeley of the New York Tribune,
whose agricultural editor, Nathan C. Meeker, was so impressed with the agricultural I
potential of the area that he began a publicity campaign in the paper to found a f
colony. This group,known as The Union Colony,bought a town site and named it in s
s
Greeley's honor. (William Bright,Colorado Place Names,Johnson Books, 1993,p.64 and
152) ,
--a- 4.,,,s,I Ill G ii. mai, 41 '
aill."415lik
�. C ' M.. , ,� ) v iii w CD- I- j u
o...4? a..ae..'
: wrs.nk, r eE s
E I
,tea...
—41-
.,µ, sptia. ' a wt • I... ,. e.,..4
---- 1 Rrl F7 al ""
1L! '" t1
t
x h'x h
,
v iw
Y & VOyigM4 ..•
t �i� I It_o• Vi^ �•
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 3
RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodology
All significant classes of properties were analyzed. Sales were collected for each
property class over the appropriate sale period, which was typically defined as the
18-month period between January 2001 and June 2002. Counties with less than 30
sales were allowed to extend the sale period back up to 5 years prior to June 30, 2002
in 6-month increments. If there were still less than 30 sales, supplemental appraisals
were performed and treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for all counties using
this method totaled at least 30 per county; for commercial sales, the total number
analyzed was allowed to fall below 30. Although we examined grouping smaller
counties by economic region to augment commercial sale totals, we still examined
each county individually for compliance. There were no sale quantity issues for
counties requiring vacant land analysis or condominium analysis. Although it was
required to examine the median and coefficient of dispersion for all counties, we also
calculated the weighted mean and price-related differential for each class of property;
counties were not passed or failed by these latter measures, but were counseled if
there were anomalies noted during our analysis. Qualified sales were based on the
qualification code used by each county, which were typically coded as either "Q" or
"C." The ratio analysis included all sales; for counties with obvious outliers, the data
was trimmed to include only sale ratios between 0.25 and 2.0; in every case, we
examined the loss in data by this trimming method to insure that only true outliers
were excluded. Any county with a significant portion of sales excluded by this
trimming method were examined further. In no case was a county allowed to pass
the audit if more than 10% of the sales were "lost" because of trimming. For the
largest 11 counties,the residential ratio statistics were broken down by economic area
as well.
Conclusions
For this final analysis report, the minimum acceptable statistical standards allowed
by the State Board of Equalization are:
ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Unweighted Median Coefficient of
Property Class Ratio Dispersion
Commercial/Industrial Between.95-1.05 Less than 20.99
Condominium Between.95-1.05 Less than 15.99
Single Family Between.95-1.05 Less than 15.99
Vacant Land Between.95-1.05 Less than 20.99
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 5
1 1.M
, The results found for Weld county are:
RATIO GRID
Number Price Coefficient
Qualified . Unweighted Related Of Time Trend
Property Class Sales. Median Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
CommerciaUlndustrial 153 0.987 1.019 7.5 Compliant
Condominium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Single Family 3,811 0.974 1.004 8.8 Compliant
Vacant Land 121 0.986 1.025 13.6 Compliant
RATIO GRID BY ECONOMIC AREA
Price Coefficient
Weighted Related Of
Group Mean Median Mean Differential Dispersion
0 0.97 0.97 0.97 1.00 8.80
2 0.98 0.98 0.98 1.00 7.30
3 0.96 0.96 0.95 1.01 9.20
4 0.95 0.94 0.95 1.00 9.90
5 0.98 0.98 0.99 1.00 7.40
6 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.01 9.30
7 0.97 0.94 0.97 1.00 10.40
8 0.98 0.97 0.97 1.01 11.10
9 0.99 0.98 0.98 1.00 8.70
I Overall 0.98 0.97 0.97 1.00 8.80
After applying the above described methodologies, it is concluded from the sales
ratios that Weld County is in compliance with SBOE,DPT,and Colorado State Statute
valuation guidelines.
Recommendations
None
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION
Methodology
To verify if rime trending analysis was considered by each county for each
appropriate class of property, we used an inverted ratio regression analysis, where
the sale price was divided by the 2002 assessed total value (2002 assessed land value
for vacant land) for each sale. The resulting ratios were trimmed if there were any
identified outliers; the reported time trending for each county was tested against the
time trend model developed by the auditor. When appropriate, the time trending
analysis was broken down by economic area or sub-class, as in the case of counties
with significant condominium properties. Our goal was to validate,not replicate,the
county's time trending methodology. For classes with significant trends, the actual
monthly adjustment used by the county was compared to the coefficient we derived
Page 6—Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists
E
At
3 1'
E �
t
n
jS
I,'
for the same data. Appraisal judgment was also considered; as long as the assessor
could justify to the auditor the modification of a demonstrable trend based on an
appraisal rationale,the county was found in compliance. Any discrepancy was noted
and discussed with the county assessor. Also considered was the length of the sale
period and the number of actual sales. Counties with very small sale amounts were
analyzed, but this was carefully weighted against the statistical significance and
relevance of the sale data quantity.
Conclusions
After verification and analysis Weld County is determined to comply with the
statutory requirements to analyze the effects of time on value in Weld County. Weld
County has also satisfactorily applied the results of their time trending analysis to
arrive at the time adjusted sales price(TASP).
Recommendations
None
SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodology
Weld County was tested for the equal treatment of sold and unsold properties to
verify that "sales chasing" has not occurred. The auditors employed a two-tiered
process to determine how unsold properties were considered. The first tier test was a
ratio analysis using the 2002 and 2003 actual values for each qualified class of
properties. A class was considered qualified if it met the criteria for the ratio analysis.
The sale property ratios were arrayed using a range of 0.8 to 1.5, which theoretically
excluded changes between years that were due to other unrelated changes in the
property. These ratios were also stratified at the appropriate level of analysis. The
goal was to construct the proper decision tree to select the unsold sample. Once the
percent change was determined for each appropriate class and sub-class, the next
step was to select the unsold sample. This sample was at least 1% of the total
population of unsold properties and excluded any sale properties. The unsold
sample was filtered based on the attributes of the sold dataset to closely correlate
both groups. The ratio analysis was then performed on the unsold properties and
stratified. The median and mean ratio distribution was then compared between the
sold and unsold group. A non-parametric test such as the Mann-Whitney test for
differences between independent samples was undertaken to determine whether any
observed differential was significant. If this test determined that the unsold
properties were treated in a manner similar to the sold properties, then it was
concluded that no further testing was warranted and that the county was in
compliance.
• If a class or sub-class of property was determined to be significantly different by this
method, then the next tier test was a multi-variate mass appraisal model that
developed ratio statistics from the sold properties that were then applied to the
unsold sample. This test compared the measures of central tendency and confidence
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 7
intervals for the sold properties with the unsold property sample. If this comparison
was also determined to be significantly different, then the conclusion was that the
county had treated the unsold properties in a different manner than the sold. In
other words,it was concluded that the county had chased sales.
These tests were supported by both tabular and chart presentations, along with saved
sold and unsold sample files.
Conclusions
,dhArktqa'llt liken at AIRMAITtrt•
Commercial/Industrial Compliant
Condominium N/A
Single Family Compliant
Vacant Land Compliant
After applying the above described methodologies, it is concluded that Weld County
is reasonably treating its sold and unsold properties in the same manner.
Recommendations
None
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Agricultural Land
Methodology
Weld County has 2,959 farms and ranches according to Colorado Agricultural
Statistics (CAS), utilizing approximately 2,000,000 acres of agricultural land. The
land was classified using the Soil Survey developed by the Natural Resources
Conservation Service. This provided the basis for the production classes for the
various use types of agricultural lands. Yields established by the county for irrigated,
dry farm and meadow hay land were compared to the yields reported in CAS.
Expenses were reviewed to assure that only those expenses that were proper and
necessary were used. Also, each agricultural land class formula was reviewed to
ensure that all applicable commodity prices, expenses and other directives provided
by the Division Of Property Taxation (DPT) were used. In addition, a minimum of
one percent of the lands was physically reviewed.
Conclusions
An analysis of the data collected for agricultural lands indicated an acceptable level
has been achieved. Yields used by the county compare favorably with those
published in CAS. Expenses used in the formulas were within a reasonable range
and were all allowable expenses. Directives provided by the DPT were utilized.
Page 8—Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists
§ p cif
o�
�1 �kss
i �$ r
".r
I .;
I.
� T
Irrigated land had a ratio of 1.00 and dry farm had a ratio of 1.00. Since the DPT
issued a directive freezing meadow hay land and grazing land at the previous base
year assessment,no ratio was calculated for these subclasses of agricultural land.
Recommendations
None
Agricultural Residences
Methodology
The county analyzes single-family residential sales and uses the sales comparison
approach to value residences situated on agricultural lands. These residences are
valued in the same manner as other single-family residences. The county used
economic areas to determine the economic locational adjustments. The county
receives building permits that assist in the discovery of new construction. Also, they
strive to physically review all agricultural residences over a five-year period.
Conclusions
A comparison of the single-family residential sales to a sample of unsold agricultural
residences indicated that agricultural residences were appraised in the same manner
as the sold single-family residential properties and that the overall level and
uniformity of appraisals of agricultural residences have met State Board of
Equalization standards. Based on this, one can conclude that agricultural residences
were valued using appropriate appraisal procedures.
Recommendations
None
Agricultural Outbuildings
Weld County is exempt from the Agricultural Outbuilding Study.
SALES VERIFICATION
Weld County obtains transfer documents (TD 1000's) for the sales that occur in this
county. When a TD 1000 is received the property is flagged for penalty and a letter is
sent to the new owner. If the letter is not returned, the sale is assigned to an
appraiser who then contacts the buyer or seller to confirm the sale. If the TD 1000
indicates that the sale is valid, it is given to the appraiser who has been assigned to
the relevent geographic area. The appraiser must then review the sales in the area
and make a final determination as to whether the sale should be qualified or
disqualified. The appraisers can access the deeds and/or the MLS listings to assist
them in making their determinations. Sales are then coded as to whether they are a
confirmed valid market transaction or whether they are some other type of
transaction such as a correction deed, or a conveyance between relatives. The county
uses a coding scheme that follows the recommendations of the Division of Property
Taxation. In order to assure that all market based transactions are being used in the
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 9
analysis of sales, a master sales list was obtained from the county which contained all
of the various transactions that had occurred during the time period January 1st,2001
through June 30, 2002. In addition, each sale that had a documentary fee was coded
as to whether it was a qualified sale or a disqualified sale. Sales that were
disqualified were coded to reflect the reason they were not considered a valid market
transaction. A sample of sales coded as disqualified was selected. The TD 1000's and
other documents, such as deeds or taxpayer contact information on property record
cards, were reviewed. In each instance the reason for disqualification was correct and
the sale was properly coded. Based on this review, it appears the county is doing a
good job of confirming, screening and coding their sales.
Conclusions
Weld County is in compliance with Department of Property Taxation guidelines.
II�
Recommendations
None
ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW AND EVALUATION
Economic Area Narrative and Maps
Methodology
Weld County has submitted a written narrative describing the economic areas that
make up the county's market areas. Weld County has also submitted a map
illustrating these areas. Each of these narratives have been read and analyzed for
logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps were also compared to the narrative for
consistency between the written description and the map.
Conclusions
After review and analysis, it has been determined that Weld County has adequately
identified homogeneous areas comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each economic
area defined is equally subject to a set of economic forces that impact the value of the
properties within that geographic area and this has been adequately addressed. Each
economic area defined adequately delineates an area that will give "similar values for
similar properties in similar areas."
Recommendations
None.
{
Page 10-Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists
,1
iG yr
,"
`As
t;
4
15.
r
NATURAL RESOURCES
Earth and Stone Products
1
Methodology
Under the guidelines of the Assessor's Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income approach was the primary method
applied to find value for production of earth and stone products. The number of tons
was multiplied by an economic location factor that represented the landlord's
royalty. The landlord's share was multiplied by a recommended Hoskold factor to
determine the actual value. The Hoskold factor was determined by the life of the
reserves, or the lease. The value was primarily based on two variables; life and
tonnage. The operator determines these since there is no other means to obtain
production data through any state or private agency.
Conclusions
Weld County has applied the correct formulas and state guidelines to earth and stone
production.
Recommendations
None
Producing Gas Procedures
Methodology
The Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) in Article 39, Section 7, and the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL), volume 3 were the basis for valuing the production of gas
property. The gross volume of thousand cubic feet(MCF) sold was multiplied by the
current average field price per unit sold. Any federal, state, or local government
ownership (royalty)was deducted from the gross value sold to arrive at actual value.
Conclusions
Weld County valued gas production using acceptable appraisal procedures.
Recommendations
None
Producing Oil Procedures
Methodology
The Colorado Revised Statutes (CRS) in Article 39, Section 7, and the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL), volume 3 were the basis for valuing the production of oil
property. The gross volume of barrels sold was multiplied by the current average
field price per unit sold. Any federal, state, or local government ownership (royalty)
were deducted from the gross value sold to arrive at actual value.
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 11
� G
ICI
, II
tl
Yik
ttj; i� il
l���,,` Y➢Id��; � p
} Ii1 is
Conclusions
Weld County valued oil production using acceptable appraisal procedures.
Recommendations
None
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
J Subdivisions were reviewed and discounted pursuant to the Colorado Revised Statutes
in Article 39-1-103(14). Discounting procedures were applied to all subdivisions where
less than 80 percent of all sites were sold, using present worth method. The market
approach was applied where more than 80 percent of the subdivision sites were sold.
Questionnaires were mailed to all developers to obtain information regarding expense
data for each subdivision. An absorption period was estimated for each subdivision
that was discounted. A discount rate of 0.12 percent was developed, using the
summation method. Subdivision land with structures was appraised at full market
value.
Conclusions
Weld County has implemented proper procedures to adequately estimate value and
expenses for subdivisions. Weld County is also correctly applying the subdivision
discounting procedures to qualifying subdivisions.
Recommendations
None
POSSESSORY INTEREST PROPERTIES
Possessory interest property discovery and valuation is described in the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 section 7 pages 71 through 104 in accordance
with the requirements of 39-1-103(17)(a) (II) C.R.S. Possessory Interest is defined by
the Property Tax Administrator's Publication ARL Volume 3, Section 7.79; A private
property interest in government-owned property or the right to the occupancy and use of any
benefit in government-owned property that has been granted under lease, permit, license,
concession, contract,or other agreement. This county under audit,has been reviewed for
their procedures and adherence to guidelines when assessing and valuing possessory
interest properties. The county under audit has also been queried as to their
confidence that the possessory interest properties have been discovered and placed
on the tax rolls.
Conclusion
Weld County has implemented a discovery process to place possessory interest
properties on the roll. Weld County also is correctly and consistently applying the
Page 12—Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists
i ' t1 'E
6Slls; �,
t,r
11• €1TI �I
,G �
r
correct procedures and valuation methods in the valuation of possesssory interest
properties.
Recommendations
None
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT
Weld County was studied for its procedural compliance with the personal property
assessment outlined in the Assessor's Reference Library (ARL) Volume 5, and in the
State Board of Equalization (SBOE) requirements for the assessment of personal
property. The SBOE requirements are outlined as follows:
Use ARL Volume 5 including current discovery, classification, and documentation
procedures, and including current economic lives table, cost factor tables,
depreciation table,and level of value adjustment factor table.
The personal property audit standards narrative must be in place and current. A
listing of businesses that have been audited by the assessor within the twelve month
period reflected in the plan is given to the auditor. The audited businesses must be in
conformity with those described in the plan.
Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from the personal property accounts which
have been physically inspected. The minimum assessment sample is one percent or
ten schedules, whichever is greater, and the maximum assessment audit sample is
100 schedules.
For Weld County 129 schedules were audited. The ratio was 1.00. This is in
compliance with the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements
which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD requirements.
Weld County is compliant with the guidelines set forth in ARL Volume 5 regarding
discovery procedures. The county uses the Division of Property Taxation (DPT)
recommended classification and documentation procedures. The DPT's
recommended cost factor tables, depreciation tables and level of value adjustment
factor tables are also used.
Weld County submitted their personal property written audit plan and was current
for the 2003 valuation period. The number and listing of businesses audited was also
submitted and was in conformance with the written audit plan.
For the counties having over 50,000 population, RMVS selected a sample of all
personal property schedules to determine whether the assessor is correctly applying
the provisions of law and manuals of the Property Tax Administrator in arriving at
the assessment levels of such property. This sample was selected from the personal
property schedules audited by the assessor. In no event was the sample selected by
the contractor less than 30 schedules. The counties to be included in this study are
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 13
•
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa,
Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received a procedural study with a full
statistical study to be performed on all counties for the intervening year of 2004.
Weld County audited 360 parcels which is .04 percent of the total number of personal
property schedules in the county. At this rate it will be 22 years before all businesses
are audited.
Conclusions
Weld County has employed adequate discovery, classification, documentation,
valuation, and auditing procedures for their personal property assessment.
Recommendations
None
Page 14—Rocky Mountain Valuation Specialists
t , `0
fr;'i
s
a +. 5�
qh
tY
RMVS AUDITOR STAFF
Mark Linne,MAI,CAE,ASA,Corporate Managing Director of RMVS
Stephen M. Snyder,CAE,Audit Project Manager of RMVS
Suzanne J.Howard,Audit Administrative Assistant for RMVS
M. Steven Kane, Statistical Analyst of RMVS,Audit Division
Garth Thimgan,CAE, General Audit Support and Consultant to RMVS
Helen D. Powszukiewicz, General Audit Support Administrative Assistant
Carl W.Ross,Agricultural Coordinator and Supervisor for RMVS
Cathie B. Ross,Agricultural Audit Administrative Assistant
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study-Page 15
APPENDICES
2003 Weld County Property Assessment Study-Page 17
r
RESIDENTIAL RATIO ANALYSIS
11-: tt
• J^
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASPI
Coefficie
Price Coefficient nt of
Group Mean Median Weighted Related of Variation
Mean Differential Dispersion Median
Centered
0 .972 .966 .971 1.001 .088 12.1%
2 .980 .978 .978 1.002 .073 9.8%
3 .956 .957 .951 1.006 .092 13.2%
4 .945 .941 .947 .997 .099 14.1%
5 .984 .982 .987 .996 .074 10.6%
6 .987 .981 .982 1.005 .093 13.3%
7 .969 .944 .966 1.003 .104 15.2%
8 .982 .967 .974 1.008 .111 14.4%
9 .987 .977 .982 1.004 .087 12.3%
Overall .976 .974 0.972 1.004 .088 12.4/o
Sales Ratio Analysis
Residential Properties
3000
2000-
' 1
1000-
IStd. Dev=.10
A
, Mean=.98
0 - - N=8883.00
SALRAT
Weld County Appendices Page 1
u
wal
Sale Ratio by Eco Area
2.0
1.8-
1.6-
1.4-
1.2-
-3+
a- �
a
a
to .4
N= 3701 239 1430 543 533 130 2028 29 43 207
Missing 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
ECONAREA
RESIDENTIAL TIME TREND ANALYSIS
MARKET TREND ADJUSTMENT
ECO Auditor
N Minimum Maximum Mean Median
AREA Adjustment
0 239 .00000 .01076 .0020424 .0000000 NONE
2 1430 .00000 .01045 .0048237 .0063020 .010054
3 543 .00000 .00508 .0005511 .0000000 NONE
4 533 .00000 .01017 .0021808 .0000000 .008277
5 130 .00000 .00821 .0033266 .0000000 .008065
6 2028 .00000 .01102 .0043782 .0052757 .007962
7 29 .00000 .00000 .0000000 .0000000 NONE
8 43 .00000 .00000 .0000000 .0000000 NONE
9 207 .00000 .00849 .0019618 .0000000 .007206
Total 5182 .00000 .01102 .0035826 .0000000
Weld County Appendices Page 2
Residential Market Trend Analysis
Inverted Ratio Method
3.0
2.5
8 °
° ° ® a °
2.0 ° ® o 8 ° 9 ° 8 ° °
° 8 0 •
® ° a
° 8 ° 9 ® ° ° ° ° 8
is = ® - ® ® 1 U
° O
CO
0mows
12345678 ;
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
SALPER
RESIDENTIAL SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Report
PCTCHG
GROUP
SOLD
UNSOLD 8473 ®®
Total 49800 1.1198 1.1215
1215
1.1232 1.1256
eld County Appendices
{ Page 3
Residential Sold /Unsold Analysis
16%
14%-
12%-
10%-
8%
6%-
4%-
.Sold
d 0% T44 ■■.■�" II Unsold
oar�$.2,a i ,, '�:v 1�TT�� 'T�
�L bj.,qq 1'$.9$,$S�$�og$,�S$qi��`f1yS"'r�S 4'�S$,S94 $S
4 ssJS$7°$''S '`'.; �'ss$�?r',44�s�33��s's'4.
Percent Change
COMMERCIAL RATIO ANALYSIS
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP
Mean 964
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound
for Mean .945
Upper Bound
.983
Median 987
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound
for Median .974
Upper Bound 1.000
Actual Coverage 96.5%
Weighted Mean .946
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound
for Weighted Mean .890
Upper Bound 1.003
Price Related Differential 1.019
Coefficient of Dispersion .075
Coefficient of Median Centered
Variation 12.4%
Weld County Appendices Page 4
Sales Ratio Analysis
Commercial/Industrial Properties
80
60-
40
20-
Std.Dev=.12
Mean=.96
0 N= 153.00
.56 .69 .81 .94 1.06 1.19 1.31 t44 1.56
.63 .75 .88 1.00 1.13 1.25 1.38 1.50
SALRAT
COMMERCIAL TIME TREND ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.345 .056 23.904 .000
SALPER .001 .006 .012 .136 .892
a. Dependent Variable: ASRAT
Weld County Appendices Page 5
Comm/Ind Market Trend Analysis
Inverted Ratio Method
2.5
°
2.0- s
° G
0
o ° H
° 0 0 ° ° 0
1.5- ° 0 ° 0 ° 0 ° a ®
B ° 0 °
e g ° HO o ° H a o g O O ® °
1.0- o ° ° ® H @ ® °
° ° o H H
C) °
< .5
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
SALPER
COMMERCIAL SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Report
PCTCHG
GROUP N Median Mean
SOLD 86 1.1408 1.1673
UNSOLD 2160 1.0802 1.1050
Total 2246 1.0833 1.1073
Weld County Appendices Page 6
Commercial Sold /Unsold Analysis
30%
20%—
10%
c
Sold
II
a 0% .Unsold
s+ sat*orik's esp sa s�'sNkr,, 44 wol
Percent Change
VACANT LAND RATIO ANALYSIS
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP
Mean .999
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound .962
for Mean
Upper Bound
1.036
Median .986
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound 957
for Median
Upper Bound 1.001
Actual Coverage 95.5%
Weighted Mean .974
95%Confidence Interval Lower Bound 939
for Weighted Mean
Upper Bound 1.009
Price Related Differential 1025
Coefficient of Dispersion .136
Coefficient of Median Centered 20.8%
Variation
Weld County Appendices Page 7
Sales Ratio Analysis
Vacant Land
30
20-
10-
Std. Dev= .20
Mean= 1.00
0 N = 121.00
66 �B •66 O 77 7 7 7 7 7 7
O QS "'6 '90 4 66
SALRAT
VACANT LAND TIME TREND ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Unstandardized Standardized
Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .943 t Sig.
.041 23.101 .000
SALPER .005 .004 .114 1.262
.209
a. Dependent Variable: SALRAT
III
II
Weld County Appendices
Page 8
Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis
Inverted Ratio Method
2.0
+
+
+
1.5-
+ + +
+
co 0.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
SALPER
VACANT LAND SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Report
PCTCHG
GROUP N Median Mean
SOLD 75 1.1000 1.1266
UNSOLD 8917 1.0000 1.0856
Total 8992 1.0000 1.0860
Weld County Appendices Page 9
Vacant Land Sold /Unsold Analysis
70%
60%-
50%-
40%-
30%-
20%-
d 10%-
`` LL II `■` + Sold
[1 0% r , .Tel , .4 i4LhI4 rill 4. IP ,1 _Unsold
wi$az s°sa, a a)s$:Gsst -8, 2r)gT'st-t"2s(
tit -%t -. 8-sga ageagag�g3PS,0 gag S•
P
Percent Change
AGRICULTURAL RESIDENTIAL ANALYSIS
Test Statistic&
SPSF
Mann-Whitney U 1126062
Wilcoxon W 1231173
Z -.256
Asymp. Sig. (2-tailed) .798
a. Grouping Variable:ABSTRIMP
Agricultural Residential Analysis
300
200'
100-
4
cn
u1 0
= 47103
<953
SF Res Ag Res
Weld County Appendices
Page 10
Hello