The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About871764.tiff ov coo Colorado Department of Local Affairs �Q�pi $� DIVISION OF PROPERTY TAXATION Mary Anne Maurer Property Tax Administrator *1876 Roy Romer Governor August 15, 1987 Ms. Mary Anne Maurer Property Tax Administrator State Centennial Building Rm. 623 1313 Sherman Street Denver, Colorado 80203 Dear Ms. Maurer; Submitted herewith is the final report to the State Board of Equalization on the agreed reappraisal of Weld County. The agreement to reappraise all agricultural irrigated, meadow hay, grazing and waste land in Weld County was acknowledged and accepted by the State Board of Equalization on October 6, 1986. In addition to the executive summary, this report contains documentation of the appraisal programs conducted by Weld County in order to accomplish the reappraisal . An addenda is attached to this report which supports the findings and conclusions of the reappraisal . Sincerely, J , ith A. Kahl l praiser Consultant Division of Property Taxation COVLTR2 JAK:jk #(10)3 871764 1313 Sherman Street, 623 Centennial Building Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-2371 A S 0 0 02. E IC'l2 hl I EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Weld County Reappraisal of Irrigated, Meadow Hay, Grazing, and Waste Land August 15, 1987 On October 6, 1986 the State Board of Equalization met to review the findings and recommendations set forth in the Weld County study of agricultural irrigated and grazing land conducted by the Division of Property Taxation, and pursuant to an order issued by the State Board of Equalization on November 13, 1985. The study was conducted to determine whether or not the classification of the land and the agricultural formula were being properly utilized in these subclasses. Based upon the commitment of the Weld County Assessor and the Weld County Commissioners, the Property Tax Administrator and the Auditor recommended that the State Board of Equalization not issue an order of reappraisal . The final recommendation was to acknowledge the agreement between the assessor, county commissioners and the Division of Property Taxation to reappraise all irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County by May 24, 1987. After considering all of the evidence and testimony, the State Board of Equalization found and concluded that an order of reappraisal would not be issued. The agreement between Weld County and the Division of Property Taxation was acknowledged and accepted by the Board. The Weld County Assessor and staff completed the reappraisal of irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land on May 24, 1987. The 1987 abstract of assessment reflects the assessed values in the amount of $34,671,470 for irrigated farm land, $364,270 for meadow hay land, $3,739,930 for grazing , and $37,240 for waste land. The 1986 abstract of assessment for irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land was $31,325,690. The 1987 Abstract of Assessment of these subclasses of agricultural land after a complete reappraisal was $38,812,910 showing an increase of $7,487,220 or 24%. The effective increase, or amount directly attributable to the reappraisal was $7,746,830. 1 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to provide the State Board of Equalization with a comprehensive document on the reappraisal of agricultural irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County. The reappraisal was completed May 24, 1987. This final report is organized in the chronological order of the reappraisal program. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 1986 Pursuant to an order of the State Board of Equalization on November 13, 1985, The Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land was conducted by the Division of Property Taxation to determine whether or not the classification of the land and the agricultural formula were being properly utilized in the these subclasses. Refer to Addendum A - 1985 State Board of Equalization orders for Weld County. On October 6, 1986 the State Board of Equalization convened to review the findings of The Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land submitted. Refer to Addendum B - 1986 State Board of Equalization orders for Weld County. The results of the study concluded that the agricultural formula was not being properly utilized and the subclasses were not properly classified. Testimony further stated that the Weld County Assessor had initiated the reclassification and reappraisal of the these subclasses in July of 1986; that excellent progress was being made; and that a signed commitment for funding existed from the Weld County Commissioners. Based upon the commitment of the assessor and the county commissioners, the Property Tax Administrator and the Auditor recommended the State Board of Equalization not issue an order of reappraisal . The final recommendation was to acknowledge the agreement between the assessor, the county commissioners and the Division of Property Taxation to reappraise all agricultural irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County by May 24, 1987. 2 PLAN FOR REAPPRAISAL The Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land conducted by the Division of Property Taxation and submitted September 6, 1986 was used as the document proving and substantiating that a reappraisal was needed. The study was then utilized as the formal plan for reappraisal in Weld County. Refer to Addendum C - The Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land. • REAPPRAISAL PROGRAM The results of the 1986 Weld County study concluded that the agricultural formula was not being properly utilized and the three subclasses were not properly classified. The 1986 audit conducted by Max P. Arnold and Associates, Inc. showed non-compliance with regard to irrigated, grazing, and meadow hay lands, but acknowledged that the Division of Property Taxation was working with the county to resolve these problems. Refer to Addendum C - The Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land. The reappraisal program consisted of a systematic plan which resulted in the complete reclassification and revaluation of all irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County. The chronological procedures followed to complete this reappraisal are listed under Reappraisal Procedures later in this report. Three regular status reports were filed after meetings with the Weld County Assessor in February, March, and April of 1987. Status checkpoint meetings were held with the assessor and staff employees in April and May to review and collect data information used in valuing the agricultural subclasses listed in the State Board order. Refer to Addenda D - F - February, March, and April Status reports from D.P.T The Weld County Assessor mailed monthly status reports of the county's progress in the reappraisal starting January and ending May 10, 1987. Refer to Addenda G - K - Monthly status reports from the Weld County Assessor. 3 Appraisal Problems The following appraisal problems were identified in the 1986 Auditor's report to the State Board of Equalization which resulted in the reappraisal of the irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County. Refer to Addendum L - Ag sheets from the final report of the 1986 compliance audit for Weld County: 1 . The county used beans and corn silage as typical crops. Only base crops that are published by the Division of Property Taxation are allowable. 2. Incorrect commodity prices were used for alfalfa, barley, corn and meadow hay. 3. The county did not follow Division of Property Taxation directives for valuing meadow hay land in 1986. 4. Adverse crop rotations were found in ten sub-classes of irrigated land. In addition to the above list of problems found by the auditor, Division of Property Taxation personnel found the following problem: I . During the process of review of the county's progress in the reappraisal , the Division of Property Taxation discovered the water expense for irrigated land was not diversified enough to be reflective of both the ditch/pump water cost and the ditch only water cost. Recommendations were made to address this problem. Refer to Addendum F - April status report from the Division of Property Taxation. Problem Resolutions The following procedures were implemented to resolve the specific appraisal problems listed above in Weld County. Each problem will be addressed respective of the numbers listed above: 1 . Only the Division of Property Taxation approved and published base crops were incorporated into the agricultural formulas for all subclasses of agricultural land in Weld County. This procedure is specified in the Division of Property Taxation's Land Valuation Manual ARL Volume 3. 4 2. The most recent published commodity prices were used in the determination of gross income to the landlord as specified in the Land Valuation Manual ARL Volume 3. 3. The revised formula for meadow hay lands submitted by the Division of Property Taxation for 1986 was applied to the meadow hay land in Weld County for 1987. 4. As a result of the complete reappraisal of all irrigated farmland in Weld County, the problem of adverse rotation was resolved. The problem addressed by the Division of Property Taxation: 1 . The typical water expenses were reviewed and the area along the Boulder, Larimer, and Weld county lines were revised to reflect a separation from ditch/pump water cost to ditch supplied only water cost. Refer to Addendum J - April status report from Weld County Assessor and Addendum F - April status report from Division of Property Taxation. Reappraisal Procedures In the resolutions of the problems, a complete reappraisal program was conducted for all the irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County. The following procedures were completed: 1. Questionnaires were mailed to all irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land owners. Refer to Addendum M - blank Weld County questionnaire. 2. Local land owner committees were formed. Refer to Addendum G January report from the Weld County Assessor.) 3. Production areas were defined based on geographic features, climate, range site descriptions, and cropping practices. Refer to Addendum H - February status report from the Weld County Assessor. 4. Revised carrying capacities were developed by using Soil Conservation Service soils range site data, local rancher committees, personal interviews, and questionnaires. Refer to Addendum H - February status report from the Weld County Assessor. 5 5. Production classifications for irrigated land was determined using the Soil Conservation Service soil surveys, questionnaire results, land owner committees and personal farmer-farm operator interviews. The classifications follow the guidelines published by the Division of Property Taxation in the Land Valuation Manual ARL Volume 3. Refer to Addendum I - March status report from the Weld County Assessor and Addendum N - The Weld County Irrigated Land Valuation Summary. 6. Typical cropping practices and yields for Weld County were determined based on the questionnaires, land owner committees, land owner interviews, Soil Conservation Service,and the Colorado Crop and Livestock Reporting Service. Refer to Addendum N - The Weld County Irrigated Land Valuation Summary. 7. The typical 1975-1984 ten-year average landlord share of income and expenses for irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County was determined by using data collected from the questionnaires, landowner committees and personal interviews with both the landowners and agri- businesses. Refer to Addendum I - March status report from the Weld County Assessor and Addendum N - The Weld County Irrigated Land Valuation Summary. 8. The final determination of the typical ten-year average expenses, besides the published Division of Property Taxation expenses, were correlated and developed. Refer to Addendum H March status report from the Weld County Assessor and Addendum N - The Weld County Irrigated Land Valuation Summary. 9. The classification of all irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land parcels according to use, based on land use maps, aerial photos, physical inspection, soil surveys and 35mm aerial slides provided by the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service was completed. Refer to Addendum I - March status report from the Weld County Assessor. 10. Net income of the established classes and sub classes of irrigated, meadow hay, grazing and waste land was calculated using the researched data in conjunction with the published data by the Division of Property Taxation. (Landlord Gross Income - Landlord Expenses = Net Income) 11 . Net income was capitalized using the statutory capitalization rate of 13% for the determination of actual value. 12. Assessed values were calculated using the statutory assessment ratio of 29%. Refer to Addendum 0 - Printout of values as of May 24, 1987 for Weld County. 13. All necessary Notices of Valuation as required by law were completed and mailed by May 24, 1987. 6 REAPPRAISAL PROGRAM RESULTS The reappraisal of all agricultural irrigated, meadow hay, grazing and waste land in Weld County resulted in the following valuation changes from the 1986 Abstract of Assessment to the 1987 Abstract of Assessment. Refer to Addendum P - Agricultural page from the 1987 Weld County Abstract of Assessment. Also, refer to the Summary of Changes in this report: 1986 1987 CLASS ABSTRACT VALUE ABSTRACT VALUE IRRIGATED $27,185,930 $32,671,470 MEADOW HAY 609,540 364,270 GRAZING 3,494,720 3,739,930 WASTE 35.500 37,240 TOTALS $31,325,690 $38,812,910 REAPPRAISAL COSTS The costs incurred in completing the reappraisal of agricultural irrigated, meadow hay, grazing and waste land in Weld County was solely the responsibility of the Weld County Assessor's office. This determination was based on the recommendation to the State Board by Max P. Arnold and the Property Tax Administrator not to issue an order of reappraisal to Weld County. Therefore no calculations were made for state aid payback. The cost of assistance incurred by the Division of Property Taxation in Weld County was: 343 Total Hours $5,134.96 Expenses (per diem, mileage, and salary costs) 7 FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS All irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land properties were valued using the approved formulas, correct commodity prices, expenses published in the Division of Property Taxation's Land Valuation Manual ARL Volume 3, and the statutory capitalization rate of 13%. All of the appraisal problems specifically mentioned, were resolved. An agreement has been reached between the Weld County Assessor and the Division of Property Taxation to refine the irrigated farming areas which would diversify the water cost throughout the county. This will create and ensure better uniformity and equitable assessments for irrigated farmers in Weld County. Refer to Addendum Q - Letter from Dave Wheelock and Addendum K - The final status report from the Weld County Assessor. An analysis of the 1986 value and the 1987 final value of the reappraised irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land in Weld County indicates that the increase directly attributable to the reappraisal is $7,502,630. Refer to the Summary of Changes in this report. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Mr. Wheelock and Ms. Kahl from the Division of Property Taxation express their appreciation to the Weld County Assessor, Mr. Richard Keirnes and Mrs. Dorothy Allen, Deputy Assessor for the cooperation extended to Division personnel in the accomplishment of this reappraisal program. All records and information were provided as requested. The entire assessor's staff was extremely courteous and helpful . FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS Weld County should be found in compliance with all State Board of Equalization requests and orders for the 1987 reappraisal of agricultural irrigated, meadow hay, grazing, and waste land. The abstract of assessment for these subclasses should be approved without modification or adjustment and that no further orders be issued for 1987. A substantial amount of documentation and other supporting data is currently on file in the offices of the Division of Property Taxation. All information and data is available for review. 8 1987 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IRRIGATED, MEADOW HAY, GRAZING, AND WASTE LAND-WELD COUNTY 1986 Abstract Value $31,325,690 1987 Value as of May 24, 1987 $38,969,460 Assessor changes -(159,270) CBOE changes + 2,720 1987 Abstract Value $38,812,910 1987 Calculated Abstract Value Without Reappraisal** $31,066,080 1987 SUMMARY OF CHANGES IRRIGATED, MEADOW HAY, GRAZING, AND WASTE LAND-WELD COUNTY 1987 Calculated Abstract Value Without Reappraisal** $31,066,080 1987 Abstracted Value $38,812,910 TOTAL INCREASE DIRECTLY ATTRIBUTABLE TO REAPPRAISAL $7,746,830 ** The 1987 calculated value is what the value would have been in 1987 without the reappraisal but making adjustments for the following changes: 1. Published commodity price change: 1986 1987 Corn for grain $2.51 $2.49 2. Allowable expense change: 1986 1987 Irrigated fence expense $.54 $.66 Grazing & Waste fence & water expense .32 .39 9 CALCULATION OF THE 1987 ESTIMATED ASSESSED VALUE OF THE IRRIGATED, MEADOW HAY, GRAZING AND WASTE LAND IN WELD COUNTY WITHOUT REAPPRAISAL IRRIGATED Commodity price for corn-1986 $2.51 Commodity price for corn-1987 -(2,491 Corn price difference $ .02 Statutory Capitalization Rate -.13 Capitalized corn price diff. $ . 15 1986 Irrigated acres 410798 Corn price difference x. 15 Actual value of corn price diff. 61619 Statutory assessment rate x.29 Assessed value of corn price diff. 17870 Allowable fence cost for 1986 $.54 Allowable fence cost for 1987 Fence cost difference $. 12 Statutory Capitalization Rate -. 13 Capitalized fence cost diff. $.92 1986 Irrigated acres 410798 Fence cost difference x.92 Actual value of fence cost diff. 377934 Statutory assessment rate x.P9 Assessed value of fence cost diff. 109600 1986 Assessed value $27, 185,930 Corn price difference (rounded) + 17,870 Fence cost difference (rounded) -(109,600) Estimated Irrigated value without reappraisal $27,094,200 MEADOW HAY The recommended formula published by the Division of Property Taxation in the Land Valuation Manual ARL Volume 3 was not used in Weld County in 1986, and was listed as one of the problems causing non-compliance. Therefore, the estimated value of meadow hay land without reappraisal would be the 1986 assessed value. Estimated Meadow Hay value without reappraisal $609,540 10 GRAZING Allowable fence & water cost-1986 $.32 Allowable fence & water cost-1987 Fence cost difference $.07 Statutory Capitalization Rate -. 13 Capitalized fence & water cost diff. .54 1986 Grazing acres 1044265 Fence cost difference x.54 Actual value fence & water diff. , 563903 Statutory assessment rate x.29 Assessed value fence & water diff. 163532 1986 Assessed value $3,494,720 Fence cost difference (rounded) -(163,532) Estimated Grazing value without reappraisal $3,331, 190 WASTE Allowable fence & water cost-1986 $.32 Allowable fence & water cost-1987 -( .39) Fence & water cost difference $.07 Statutory Capitalization Rate -. 13 Capitalized fence & water cost diff. $.54 1986 Waste land acres 27762 Fence & water cost difference x.54 Actual value fence & water cost diff. 14991 Statutory assessment rate x.29 Assessed value fence & water diff. 4348 1986 Assessed value $35,500 Fence & water cost difference (rounded) -(4350) Estimated Waste land value without reappraisal $31,150 TOTAL OF ALL CLASSES: ESTIMATED 1987 VALUATION WITHOUT REAPPRAISAL $31,066,080 11 WELD COUNTY REAPPRAISAL 1986 ABSTRACT VALUE: CLASS ACRES ASSESSED VALUE IRRIGATED 410798 $27, 185,930 MEADOW HAY 23559 609,540 GRAZING 1044265 3,494,720 WASTE 27762 35,500 TOTAL 1506384 $31,325,690 1987 CALCULATED ABSTRACT VALUE WITHOUT REAPPRAISAL: CLASS ACRES ASSESSED VALUE IRRIGATED 410798 $27,094,200 MEADOW HAY 23559 609,540 GRAZING 1044265 3,331 , 190 WASTE 27762 31 , 150 TOTAL 1506384 $31,066,080 1987 ABSTRACT VALUE: CLASS ACRES ASSESSED VALUE IRRIGATED 390167 $34,671,470 MEADOW HAY 14351 364,270 GRAZING 1053564 3,739,930 WASTE 19228 37,240 TOTAL 1477310 $38,812,910 12 SUMMARY OF CHANGES ACREAGE CHANGES DUE TO RECLASSIFICATION: CLASS 1986 ACRES 1987 ACRES CHANGE IRRIGATED 410798 390167 -(20631) MEADOW HAY 23559 14351 -( 9208) GRAZING 1044265 1053564 + 9299 WASTE 27762 19228 8534) TOTALS 1506384 1477310 -(29074) VALUE CHANGES DUE TO REAPPRAISAL: 1987 CLASS CALCULATED VALUE 1987 VALUE CHANGE WITHOUT REAPPRAISAL IRRIGATED $27,094,200 $34,671,470 + $7,577,270 MEADOW 609,540 364,270 -($ 245,270) GRAZING 3,331, 190 3,739,930 + $ 408,740 WASTE 31, 150 37,240 + $ 6,090 TOTAL $31,066,080 $38,812,910 + $7,746,830 13 INDEX OF ADDENDA WELD COUNTY REAPPRAISAL ADDENDUM A - 1985 State Board of Equalization Order of Reappraisal ADDENDUM B - 1986 State Board of Equalization Order of Reappraisal ADDENDUM C - The Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land. ADDENDUM D - February status report from Division of Property Taxation (D.P.T.) . ADDENDUM E - March status report from D.P.T. ADDENDUM F - April status report from D.P.T. ADDENDUM G - January status report from Weld County Assessor. ADDENDUM H - February status report from Weld County Assessor. ADDENDUM I - March status report from Weld County Assessor. ADDENDUM J - April status report from Weld County Assessor. ADDENDUM K - May status report from Weld County Assessor. ADDENDUM L - Ag sheets from the final report of the 1986 compliance audit for Weld County. ADDENDUM M - Weld County sample ag questionnaire. ADDENDUM N - The Weld County Irrigated Land Valuation Summary. ADDENDUM 0 - Printout of Weld County values as of May 24, 1987. ADDENDUM P - Agricultural page from the 1987 Weld County Abstract of Assessment. ADDENDUM Q - Letter from Dave Wheelock WLDSBE87 JAK:jk #(10)3 - -b ADDENDUM A BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION t STATE OF COLORADO ORDER FOR REAPPRAISAL IN WELD COUNTY Docket Number 37 • On November 13 , 1985, the State Board of Equalization ( state board ) convened in the Colorado Heritage Center , 1300 Broadway , Denver , Colorado , to review the findings and recommendations set forth in the valuation for assessment study conducted by Max P . Arnold and -Associates , Inc . , pursuant to 39 - 1 - 104( 16 ) ( a ) , C . R . S . , affecting Weld County . The following members of the state board were present : Kenneth D . Smith , Chairman ; Don Eberle , Vice Chairman ; Carl B . Bledsoe , Speaker. of the House of Representatives ; and David Miller , Designee of Governor Richard U . Lamm . Senator Ted L . Strickland was absent from the meeting . Due notice of the meeting had previously been given to the public , the board of county commissioners , and the county assessor. The study conducted by Max P . Arnold and Associates , Inc . , revealed that Weld County did not comply with the property tax provisions of the Colorado Constitution , the statutes , or the Division of Property Taxation ' s manuals in valuing three subclasses of agricultural land. In valuing irrigated farm land , the study showed that while the application of the agricultural formula was correct , the assessor failed to identify those properties with higher yields and place them in the correct classification . Further , the assessor applied a twenty -five percent obsolescence factor to all property in the dry land classification , which application was not in conformance with the provisions of the agricultural valuation formula as previously approved by the state board . Finally , only the two lowest classes were used by the assessor in valuing grazing land . Mr . Herb Hansen , Weld County Assessor , appeared and testified that his office is using all classifications in valuing agricultural irrigated land . He stated that he used the twenty -five percent obsolescence factor in the dry farm land class because .the ten-year average prescribed by the agricultural formula did not adequately consider present economic conditions and such crop disasters as hail and grasshoppers in areas of Weld County . Page 1 of 3 pages Mr . Bill Hoover , of Max P . Arnold and Associates , Inc . , testified that he determined his findings on the assessor ' s /7 application of the classification by randomly sampling one percent of the record cards for agricultural irrigated and grazing land . After considering all of the evidence and testimony , the state board found and concluded that the findings and recommendations of Max P . Arnold and Associates , Inc . , which provided that an order of reappraisal of agricultural dry farm land should be issued , was supported by evidence , was appropriate and should be adopted . The state board further found that the evidence and testimony presented on agricultural irrigated farm and grazing lands did not support an order of reappraisal for these two subclasses of agricultural land. The state board proceeded to adopt the recommendation and specifically found that the study conducted pursuant to 39-1 -104( 16 ) , C .R. S . , during the property tax year which commenced January 1 , 1985 , established that the assessor failed to value agricultural dry farm land consistent with the Constitution , statutes and the Division of Property Taxation ' s manuals which set forth use of the agricultural land valuation formula . Accordingly , the state board ordered , pursuant to 39-1 -105 ( 1 ) ( b ) ( II ) (8 ) , C . R . S . , that the agricultural dry Farm N land in Weld County be reappraised during the property tax yea: } commencing January 1 , 1986 . The state board further ordered that the reappraisal be under the supervision of the state board through the Property Tax Administrator , and directed that the county present a plan of reappraisal to the Property Tax Administrator for consideration by November 29 , 1985 . µ=,. f merit was reached between the parties , the state board f ssess :,..�, .S1Il -4t. A2°i5"b i s,1. I -- con• u8 '1 a'%t'trti ' ?'Pl a w • )y. f ,t .�'? ?ftEC9`�a..� Page 2 of 3 pages So ordered by the State Board of Equalization this �,5 ` day of November , 1985 , nunc pro tunc , by unanimous vote of all members present , with Senator Strickland absent and not voting , November 13, 1985 . FOR RTTHE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AZ Kenneth D . Smith , Chairman 1) Page 3 of 3 pages SBOE #2 r, t .G,� cam% ! Q1 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Kenneth 0. Smith Chairman DUPLICATE Don Eberle DUPLICATE j lice Chairman Ted L Strickland President of the Senate Carl 5."Ses" 9ledsoe March 24, 1986 Speaker of the House David Miller Designee of Governor Richard 0. Lamm Mary Anne Maurer Property Tax Admmlvtrator Herb Hansen Weld County Assessor 915 10th Street Greeley, Colorado 80631 Dear Herb : During the state board meeting on March 12 , 1986, I discussed with the board my telephone conversation with you of January 27, 1986, concerning the "D±v s*orrof -Propertyy atx ts##1torking with you on the study' o` agricultural irrigated and grazing land instead of Bill Hoover. The boardtigia414#44Carjittela that the Di?Lss.o4 should work with you in conducting the study. As you will recall , the study is to determine whether or not the classification of the land and the agricultural formula are being properly utilized in these two subclasses . The report is to be submitted prior to the filing of the 1986 Abstract of Assessment on August 10, 1986 . Herb, if I can answer any questions, call me. Sincerely, `SFr / tiA 1.-Y, - JA G Kenneth D. Smith Chairman KDS :MEN:mrb Study-W 1313 Sherman Street, 623 Centennial 3uilding, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303) 865-2371 ADDENDUM B BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION STATE OF COLORADO ORDER FOR REIMBURSEMENT TO THE STATE OF COLORADO OF EXCESS STATE AID, PLUS INTEREST, PAID TO SCHOOL DISTRICTS DURING 1986 IN WELD COUNTY Docket Number 42 On October 6, 1986, the State Board of Equalization (state board) convened in the old Colorado Supreme Court Chambers, State Capitol , Denver, Colorado, to review: the findings and recommendations set forth in the valuation for assessment study conducted by Max P. Arnold and Associates, Inc. , pursuant to 39-1-104(16) , C.R.S. , the results of the 1986 reappraisal of agricultural dry farmland, conducted by Weld County Assessor under the supervision of Division of Property Taxation personnel acting on orders of the state board given to Weld County on November 13, 1985; rmi'ne'svhethe. c : l, . . ,,ww,m CmIII a'were The following members of the state board were present: Donald C. Eberle, Vice Chairman; Carl B. Bledsoe, Speaker of the House of Representatives; Lyle C. Kyle, Designee of Ted L. Strickland, President of the Senate; and David Miller, Designee of Governor Richard D. Lamm. Kenneth D. Smith, Chairman, was absent from the hearing. Due notice of the hearing had previously been given to the public, the board of county commissioners, and the county assessor. The Property Tax Administrator submitted evidence that the division's supervision of the 1986 reappraisal established that the Constitution, the statutes, and appraisal procedures published by the Property Tax Administrator had not been followed by Weld County in 1985. !IW 'fistett ; ell rs v. •.a 4 r, r r4r,uvc 4.411 ��R. 1CTlbW1 a +T c uw4 _f yr e .9 J P flSa`S Ai ah$T/m £i OTtur +#r id'gatit al1'n"gh ffirrand ' n emir y britfir747 19 the°'asseiso Mean . > isn H Fip v'fs"" ..pK,y-tas:«i 41I6.nr'af+.Ar kos.'.ve.v= Max P. Arnold, Max P. Arnold & Associates, Inc. , testified that the 1986 audit revealed that the 1985 reappraisal order of the state board was proper and established that the assessor had not valued or assessed agricultural dry farmland in the county. during 1985 in a manner consistent with the Colorado Constitution, the statutes, and published appraisal procedures. He further stated that agricultural dry farmland, after reappraisal in 1986 as ordered by the state board, was in strict compliance with the guidelines established by the Constitution, the statutes, and published appraisal procedures. . � EPW.i- '�ai2-+r._� � ti "the=attdibf mat` ! ¢z< . s ° `' oweve?, tea prafsaf"ThecaiY �' lhe.an order of* eca r ea eif lilt 5etween gg cf County and the ?at�f progrt'i rode' thus ar in the? Herb Hansen, Weld County Assessor, testified that adequate help (staff) has been a historical problem in his office which has caused orders of reappraisal to be issued over the past two years. The previous orders of reappraisal have convinced the county commissioners that his duties do require adequate staffing levels. In addition, Weld County has many, many ditches, and the county has hired an individual from C.S.U. to work with them in this area. He further stated that he is committed to working with the Property Tax Administrator and so are the county commissioners. In a response to a question from the state board as to what would happen if the board of county commissioners backed down, Mr. Hansen stated that there would be no such problem because the county commissioners, the county finance manager, and the assessor had signed the agreement. Mr. Hansen's last statement was that the county was well on its way in the reappraisal effort. tallrfftsts I +lard's 1985 order of reappraisal of agricultural dry farmland was proper; and that the county dry farmland, as reappraised, was now in conformity with the Constitution, the statutes, and appraisal procedures published by the Property Tax Administrator, as found by the auditor. Therefore, the state board ordered pursuant to 39-1-105.5(1) (b) ( III) , C.R.S. , that the commissioners of Weld County, which county was reappraised in 1986 in accordance with the state board's 1985 order of reappraisal , levy in 1986, for collection in 1987, an additional property tax levy on all taxable property in the county. The additional levy shall be sufficient to collect $97,904.92 in property tax revenues, which sum is to reimburse the state for excess state equalization payments of $86,310.01 plus interest in the amount of $11 ,594.91 made to school districts in Weld County during 1986 as a result of the 1985 undervaluation of $4,654,540.00. The state board further ordered that such reimbursement be made to the Department of Local Affairs and sent to the attention of the Division of Property Taxation, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 623, Denver, CO 80203. The Department and the Division will record the payments and turn all monies over to the State Treasurer, who will credit the reimbursement to the State General Fund, pursuant to 39-1-105.5(2) , C.R.S. So ordered by the State Board of Equalization this 29th day of October, 1986, nunc pro tunc, by unanimous vote of all members present, with Kenneth D. Smith absent and not voting, October 6, 1986. FOR THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Donald C. Eberle Vice Chairman SBOE42 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE This is to certify that I have duly served the within order of the State Board of Equalization upon all parties by depositing copies of same in the United States mail , postage prepaid, at Denver, Colorado , this 30th day of October, 1986, addressed as follows : Jackie Johnson , Chairman Board of County Commissioners P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80632 Herbert H. Hansen Weld County Assessor 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Thomas 0. David Weld County Attorney P.O. Box 1948 Greeley, CO 80632 Stanley C. Peek District Attorney P.O. Box 1167 Greeley, CO 80631 Billy Shuman Deputy Attorney General 1525 Sherman St. 3rd Floor Denver, CO 80203 ADDENDUM C EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Weld County Study of Agricultural Irrigated and Grazing Land September 5, 1986 On November 13, 1985 the State Board Of Equalization met to hear the recommendations of Max P. Arnold and Associates, Inc. , set forth in the 1985 valuation for assessment study. Mr• . Arnold recommended that the state board issue orders of reappraisal to Weld County for irrigated and dry farmland and grazing land. Mr. Arnold's report stated that these three subclasses of agricultural land were not classified and valued according to the statutes and the guidelines published by the Division of Property Taxation. Upon consideration of the evidence and testimony, the state board concluded that an order for reappraisal for the subclass of dry farmland was supported by the evidence, but that there was insufficient evidence to so order a reappraisal in the irrigated and grazing subclasses . Accordingly the state board ordered that Weld County reappraise all dry farmland during 1986. However, the state board directed the Weld County assessor to work with Bill Hoover of Max P. Arnold and Associates to conduct a study of agricultural irrigated and grazing land to determine whether or not the classification of the land and the agricultural formula were being properly utilized in these two subclasses . The study was to be completed and report filed with the state board prior to August 10, 1986. On March 12, 1986 the state board voted unanimously to transfer responsibility for the study from Max P. Arnold and Associates to the Division of Property Taxation. The study was conducted from May through July 1986. After careful analysis of the information gathered it was apparent that the Weld County Assessor had incorrectly classified both irrigated farmland and grazing land. This misclassification resulted in incorrect utilization of the landlord agricultural valuation formula and incorrect values in the two subclasses . The Weld County Assessor has initiated an appraisal program to classify and value all irrigated and grazing properties. This program was initiated during July of 1986, with the assistance of the Division of Property Taxation. We believe that substantial progress has been made towards completing the appraisal of irrigated and grazing properties. The assessor has agreed to complete this appraisal program with assistance from the Board of County Commissioners and the Division of Property Taxation. We recommend continuation of this agreement through May 24, 1987. • PTA Exhibit # 3 2 PURPOSE The purpose of this report is to present to the State Board of Equalization the findings and conclusions of the study of irrigated and grazing land in Weld County. This study was designed to determine whether or not irrigated and grazing land were properly classified and whether or not the agricultural formula was properly utilized to determine value. STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION ORDER • On November 13, 1985 the State Board Of Equalization directed the Weld County assessor to work with Bill Hoover of Max P. Arnold and Associates to conduct a study of agricultural irrigated and grazing land to determine whether or not the classification of the land and the agricultural formula were being properly utilized in these two subclasses. (See Addendum A) . On March 12, 1986 the state board voted unanimously to transfer responsibility for the study from Max P. Arnold and Associates to the Division of Property Taxation. (See Addendum A) . PLAN FOR THE STUDY In February of 1986 a plan for the study of irrigated and grazing land was submitted to the Property Tax Administrator. The following issues were addressed in the plan: 1. Classification of irrigated farmland. 2. County production, expenses, and valuation of irrigated farmland. 3. Classification, carrying capacity and valuation of grazing land. The plan and work schedule recommended the use of local Soil Conservation Service information, questionnaires mailed directly to Weld County farmers and ranchers, a local committee of Weld County irrigated farmers and ranchers. (See Addendum B) . This plan was restated in a memorandum by Carl Ross on April 15, 1986 (See Addendum C) . Additional planning data was given in an interim report submitted to Mary Anne Maurer on June 30, 1986 (See Addendum D) . I 3 STUDY PROCEDURES The study considered data collected from sources including, but not limited to: Weld County farmers Weld County ranchers Soil Conservation Service Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service Commercial fertilizer dealers Agricultural service groups USDA publications • Division of Property Taxation files The study was conducted in five phases: 1. Investigation into the classification and valuation methods used by the Weld County assessor's office to value irrigated farmland. 2. Investigation as to the comparison of the standards and guidelines used by the Weld County assessor's office with the published Division of Property Taxation standards and guidelines„ 3. Investigation of published S.C.S. and A.S.C.S. classifications for irrigated farmland and grazing land in Weld County. 4. Investigation of all crop yields, carrying capacities and locally allowable expenses used to value irrigated and grazing land in Weld County. 5. Comparison of Weld County assessor's office information with that gathered from local farmers and ranchers and other related agricultural data. IRRIGATED LAND Research was conducted using existing publications of the Soil Conservation Service, Agricultural Stabilization Conservation Service, Colorado State University Department of Agriculture and Natural Resources, and local chemical and fertilizer suppliers. Local representatives of the farm organizations previously stated were contacted and interviewed. Individual farmers were contacted and physical reviews and inspections of typical farms throughout the county were conducted. Water research was done by Ray Johnson, recently retired from the United States Department of Agriculture, Department of Economics. Mr. Johnson has done extensive research on Northern Colorado irrigation water delivery for the state and federal government. l 4 _l Questionnaires were sent to all the landowners of known irrigated land within the county. Approximately 20% of the 4,000 questionnaires sent were returned. Approximately 50 % of the returned questionnaires contained usable data which represented about 36,500 acres, or 8.9% of all the irrigated land in the county. The remaining 50 % of the returned questionnaires were not used for the following reasons: 1. The questionnaire was returned blank. 2. The returned data did not reflect a typical crop. 3. No separation of expenses. 4. The questionnaire contained less than 5 years yield and expenses. 5. The land was cash rented with the owner not knowing anything about the average yields or expenses. A physical review was conducted on 18 randomly selected properties with notations made on the SCS soil type, class, and the productivity class that the study had generated. Copies of the appraisal records for the sampling were gathered, and the 1986 classification of the parcel was noted. The 1986 actual value that is currently carried on the appraisal card was compared with the actual value generated from the study. (See Addendum I) . STUDY FINDINGS: 1. The crop rotations used in the current established subclasses of irrigated land are inconsistent with what is typical . Also, some subclasses contain a negative value rotation, which should not exist. 2. There are currently 31 subclasses of irrigated land with Class I lands representing the highest productivity and value, and Class V lands representing the lowest productivity and value. These subclasses are inaccurate and inconsistent with the standards and classification methodology established by the Division of Property Taxation, based on the SCS data. Currently, the highest corn yield used in any rotation is 140 bushel for CII land. (See Addendum D, Supplemental #1) . Results of the study indicate that a minimum of eight classes should used with a ten year average yield as high as 150 bushel . (See Addendum E) . • 3. The results of the physical review of the 18 randomly selected properties indicate that 16 of the 18 parcels were undervalued. Of the 16 properties, 4 parcels were undervalued as much as 3200 actual value per acre. The corresponding classifications of the sample were inconsistent with the SCS classifications. (See Addendum I) . 4. The overall impact on the irrigated class of agricultural land in Weld County cannot be estimated because of the wide discrepancies in the assessors classifications currently used 1 and the lack of uniformity of assessments. 5 RECOMMENDATIONS It is recommended that a complete reappraisal of the irrigated land is performed utilizing the following: 1. The typical crops to be used for the valuation of irrigated land are corn and hay. 2. The typical landlord share of corn is 1/3, with 1/2 share for hay. 3. The water expense is based on a ratio of ditch assessments, rented water, and well water. 4. The recommended subclasses, yields, expenses and values are listed on Addendum E. 5. Further research will be necessary for determining the water expense of deep well sprinklers in the northern part of the county. 6. Procedures should be adopted to properly classify and value the irrigated and graze land (See Addendum F for sample plan) . The ARL Vol . 3 Section 4 will list further steps necessary. GRAZING LAND All information collected from the following sources was considered to determine grazing land classifications and their corresponding carrying capacities in Weld county. 1. Soil Conservation Service--Soil Conservation Service personnel provided data and explanations related to the range sites located in Weld County as well as the various soil types which occur in each of the range sites. 2. Questionnaires From Ranchers--Data collected from ranchers by Weld county employees verified the Soil Conservation Service range site carrying capacity data. 6 1 HISTORICAL DATA Grazing acreage by land classification and the carrying capacity for 1986 in Weld County is as follows: CLASSIFICATION ACREAGE CARRYING CAPACITY A VI Pasture 1,515 38 Acres B VI Pasture 8,808 46 Acres C VI Pasture 315,436 52 Acres D VI Pasture 723,313 59 Acres Total Acreage 1.049.072 The study of grazing land consisted of three phases: 1. Verified that and grazing lands were not properly classified and valued. 2. Established new classifications and general values based on the data gathered and researched during this study. 3. Utilized the published Soil Conservation Service soil survey data for a county classification system that accounts for soil productivity relative to typical management practices. STUDY FINDINGS The Weld County employees conducted fourteen interviews with ranchers covering 64,912 or 6.2% of the total grazing acres. The purpose of the interviews was to determine the grazing land carrying capacities for all areas of the county. Findings shows the acres per animal unit ranges from a low of 18 acres to a high of 79 acres. The mean and median is approximately 40 acres. (See Addendum G) . Weld County has 1,049,000 acres of taxable graze land . For 1986, approximately 723,000 acres, or 69% of the total , is classified with a carrying capacity of 59 acres/AU. No subclass has a carrying capacity lower than 38 acres/AU. A weighted mean of the carrying capacity of all the graze lands is 56.76 acres/AU. Utilizing the SCS Soil Surveys for Weld County, the average carrying capacity should be 51 acres/AU, with about 2 % of the land having a carrying capacity of 15 acres/AU. (See Addendum H) . 7 RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the results of the study, the average classification error is 5+ acres/AU. (This results in an undervaluation of grazing land of $ 390,000, or 11%.) . This is only and estimate since a substantial adjustment made on individual parcels could reflect a higher or lower overall increase of value. The Division's study indicates that the grazing land should be reappraised with the following classification and carrying capacity be used: LAND CLASSIFICATION CARRYING CAPACITY VI A 15 acres per animal unit VI C 35 acres per animal unit VI 0 45 acres per animal unit VII A 55 acres per animal unit VII C 75 acres per animal unit VIII 80 acres per animal unit The following grazing land classification list was developed by the Division for use in Weld county from the range site and related data supplied by the Soil Conservation Service, and rancher interview data gathered by the county assessor's office employees. RANGE SITE # NAME CARRYING CAPACITY CLASS 1 Badland 75 VII C 2 Loamy Plains 45 VI D 8 Loamy Slopes 45 VI D 9 Siltstone Plains 45 VI D 10 Plains Swale 45 VI D 15 Deep Sand 35 VI C 22 Choppy Sand 45 VI D 24 Sandy Plains 35 VI C 29 Sandy Meadow 15 VI A 31 Sandy Bottomland 35 VI C 34 Salt Flat 55 VII A 35 Salt Meadow 35 VI C 36 Overflow 15 VI A 37 Saline Overflow 35 VI C 38 Wet Meadow 15 VI A 39 Shallow Siltstone 55 VII A 42 Clayey Plains 55 VII A 46 Shaly Plains 75 VII C • 47 Alkaline Plains 55 VII A 56 Sandstone Breaks 75 VII C 60 Limestone Breaks 75 VII C 63 Gravel Breaks 75 VII C 64 River Bottom 45 to 75* VII C -- Waste Land 80 VIII * Physical inspection is necessary to establish the carrying capacity. ADDENDUM D TO: Dave Wheelock FROM: Judith Kahl DATE: February 24, 1987 SUBJECT: Status Report on Irrigated and Graze Land Weld County MEMORANDUM Weld County has 1,044,257 acres graze land, 23,558 acres of meadow land, 413,555 acres irrigated land and 27,670 acres of waste land. The reappraisal of this agricultural land appears to be on schedule. The target date that has been set for the completion of all phases of classification and valuation of irrigated, meadow and graze land is May 1, 1987. I believe that Weld County has made substantial progress towards their targeted date of completion of their reappraisal of irrigated, graze and meadow land. Graze and meadow hay values have been finalized using correct commodity prices and expenses. Irrigated is yet to be approved. Further documentation is needed to substantiate the sprinkler 50/50 landlord share and expenses. GENERAL SUMMARY TO DATE: STAFF & EQUIPMENT: The research on the expenses and yields, including contact with the agricultural committees and physical inspections, are being done by two permanent and two temporary land appraisers. The soil type mapping from the S.C.S. maps and the measuring of the classifications with planimeters are done by five temporary clerks and one permanent supervising clerk. Three additional planimeters have been purchased. The equipment needs are adequate. MEADOW & GRAZE LAND: Meadow and graze land values have been finalized as of February 17, 1987. Classification mapping is very near completion. The state wide classification system is being utilized. March 1 , 1987 is the projected date to start extending these acreages on the permanent property cards and the computer. Weld County developed their grazing land classification by first forming a land owner committee representing all areas of the county. Personal contact of each member by county personnel to establish acreage requirements in their particular area was completed with rainfall and type of operation being main considerations. Research of S.C.S. soils range sites data and correlation of this with land owner information was compiled. The findings indicated that range site production corresponds very closely with owner information. The carrying capacity for each soil type was calculated based on the yield as reported by the S.C.S. The soil types were grouped according to their carrying capacities into grazing classes to be used. In the formula for calculating carrying capacity, the county used 60% utilization rather than 50% utilization as taught in the ag workshop. 60% utilization was used by recommendation from Carl Ross from the study the D.P.T. previously made. All expenses furnished by the D.P.T. are being used as well as the AUM rental rate. Upon completion of the classes, the appraisers met with their local grazing committee to assure approval of all aspects of the formula. Weld County has established two separate areas of meadow hay land. One is irrigated land in which the $6 water expense is used and the other is a dry meadow area where no water expense is used. This dry meadow area is sub-irrigated and produces higher yields than the top grazing class, therefore, they have established this class under the meadow hay. The air dry matter formula to calculate the values for meadow hay land were correctly used. IRRIGATED: Irrigated land classifications have been established and will soon be presented to the assessor for approval . The state wide classification system is being utilized. All expenses have been determined with further documentation being gathered to support these expenses. The soil type mapping should begin March 1, 1987. The county is utilizing the S.C.S. soil surveys, questionnaires, and ag committee to properly classify and value irrigated land. Production areas have been established; two ditch/well areas, one regular sprinkler area and one deep well sprinkler area. Data from each area has been gathered and is being analyzed. The land appraisers along with a well rounded committee comprised of farmers from each of these areas have been utilized in establishing expenses, yields and the landlord's share. If any questions arose as to classification, one of the field appraisers would do on site inspections and determinations. Once the classes had been established, along with expenses and yields, meetings were held with the ag committee members in each production area for review, additional comments and approval of all aspects of the formula. The last committee meeting was held February 18, 1987. The input from this meeting is currently being analyzed. Upon completion, data from all areas will be examined and final approval given by the assessor. At that time the clerks will begin individual parcel classification work. This will be done utilizing the S.C.S. soils maps, aerial photos which have been parcelized, and planimeters. As with the graze land, once the classifications have been input into the computer they will be valued through a table generation. DIFFERENCES FROM THE NORM: DITCH/WELL FLOOD IRRIGATED: Throughout the irrigated land in Weld County there are approximately 54 ditch companies with numerous laterals. It is not uncommon to have three separate ditch companies supply water to one parcel , and have three other ditch companies supply water to an adjoining parcel . By working off well reports and massive amounts of information compiled by Ray Johnson, the county has made a concerted effort to separate these water values. It was determined that since this is not an individual farm appraisal , it is virtually impossible to separate each individual ditch or water area. Therefore, from their research, only two separate areas have, been determined for ditch and well flood irrigation. SPRINKLER IRRIGATED: In the sprinkler areas in Weld County it has been determined through research, questionnaires, and the ag committee that a 50/50 landlord share is predominate. From their studies the landlord is responsible for 50% of the energy cost for water and 50% of the combining cost for corn. The studies indicate that this is similar in nature to the baling expense for alfalfa which is a shared expense. The county is gathering additional documentation to support this. JAK:jk STS62FEB #(10)3 ADDENDUM E TO: Dave Wheelock FROM: Judith Kahl DATE: March 16, 1987 SUBJECT: Status Report on Irrigated and Graze Land Weld County MEMORANDUM GENERAL SUMMARY TO DATE: MEADOW AND GRAZE LAND Meadow and graze land classification has been completed. The final values have been reviewed by the assessor, the land appraisers and the graze land agricultural committee and are approved and ready for the audit team. The projected date of March 1 , 1987 to begin extending these classifications and their acreages onto the permanent property cards and the computer has been met. IRRIGATED The soil type and classification mapping has begun for irrigated land. The land appraisers are currently physically checking any farms in question plus all the established bench-mark farms. Further documentation is being gathered to support the expense of combining and seed in sprinkler irrigated corn. Summary documentation has been written and will be submitted. A Weld County map showing county line values and classifications plus all the irrigated farming areas has been supplied for the purpose of comparing bordering counties. IN CONCLUSION: The reappraisal of irrigated, meadow and graze land in Weld County is progressing according to schedule. The controversial subjects of combining and seed expenses of sprinkler irrigated corn plus the overall $30 water cost for the majority of the ditch & well irrigated area have not been resolved at this time. Further review is necessary. JAK:jk STS62MAR #(10)3 fEez-' '�/47 ADDENDUM F TO: Dave Wheelock FROM: Judith Kah DATE: April 3, 1987 SUBJECT: Updated Status Report Irrigated and Graze Land Reappraisal Weld County MEMORANDUM On April 1, 1987 I was invited to meet with the Weld County Assessor, the Weld County ag land appraisers and the ag auditor, Carl Ross to discuss the status of the irrigated and graze land reappraisal . Carl stated that he supported the Division's contention that there should be a lower water cost for an area in the southwestern portion of the county along the Larimer and Boulder county lines for ditch only supplied water. He also maintains that existing documentation will show a slightly lower yield over a ten year average for this area. This documentation will show that farming with only ditch irrigation without supplemental well water when needed will lower the yields. Carl also explained why the county line values were so different. He said that Larimer County did not classify their land according to S.C.S. sources. They chose to go by farmer interview and that their top ground, currently classified as IIA, is really an average yield that includes their IA ground. Therefore, comparisons cannot be done by yields. The final value comparisons are very close, however. He also stated that Larimer County has agreed to start the process of setting up a reclassification system according to S.C.S. for next year. All other aspects of the ag portion of the audit looked good to the auditor. He is satisfied with the documentation and feels that Weld County's irrigated and graze land is in compliance. Weld County is now in the process of changing the area in the southwestern part of the county to reflect the lower water cost in order to comply with the audit and the D.P.T. 's wishes. Jak:jk update62 #(10)3 �tv e_ / ADDENDUM G WELD COUNTY FARMLAND REAPPRAISAL STATUS REPORT TO: Mary Anne Maurer, Property Tax Administrator j LJ ,di FROM: Richard W. Keirnes, Weld County Assessor DATE: January 26, 1987 REPORTING PERIOD: Up to January 26, 1987 BUDGETING: When I took office, January 2, 1987, the county had four land appraisers , two full time and two temporary through May of 1987 and two temporary clerks working with the maps and appraisal records . On January 12, 1987, I , along with Dorothy Allen, Junior Anderson and Martha Kindsfather, met with the Weld County Commissioners and Donald Warden , Finance Director, requesting additional clerical help and three additional digital planimeters . This was approved with a total of five clerks for mapping and four for data entry. PERSONNEL: As of January 26, 1987, we have a total of five clerks working with the maps and entering class and acreage onto the appraisal records . We have two data entry clerks entering the information from the records onto the computer. Gilbert Salberg is supervising and working with the clerks on the maps and Martha Kindsfather is supervising the data entry clerks . Three field appraisers to do physical inspections. EQUIPMENT: As noted, three additional planimeters have been ordered and should be delivered by the end of January. We have at present three planimeters and have been loaned three from different organizations here in Greeley until we receive the ones that have been ordered. PROGRAMS: Attached is a list of the meetings that have been set starting January 26, 1987 through February 4, 1987. As was used for the dry farmland reappraisal we are using the ASCS aerial photos and the office aerial maps. Junior Anderson and the two temporary appraisers will be checking the areas that need physical inspection. Our first community agricultural meeting was held to-day at 10:00 A.M. . Income and expenses was reviewed with the community leaders along with the data gathered by the department in the last year from questionnaires mailed to taxpayers. This meeting was well received and they understood the process being used. LAND CLASSIFICATION: After the appraisers have compared the county aerial photos with the ASCS maps the clerks will classify the farm- land. To date approximately 50 percent of the graze land has been completed and entered on the computer. Following the conclusion of the eleven community agricultural meetings on February 4, 1987 and after attending the agricultural workshop in Fort Morgan on February - 11, 1987, we can start processing the parcels to up-date the 1987 classifications and cost for irrigated land. I have invited Dave • Wheelock to attend one of the agricultural meetings and he has notified me that he will be present on Wednesday Janury 28, 1987. OVERALL COUNTY PROGRESS AND PROJECTIONS: At present, work is flowing smoothly. I feel confident that the office is on top of the task according to the State ' s direction. We will keep you informed of our progress by the 15th of each month. I am sorry this report is getting to you at this late date. Respectfully submitted, ;. '• Richard W. Keirnes , Weld County Assessor Enclosure Page 2 1. _ _ ai.. . 1 I, , 'l J � } —� J � _ % / YJ^'tip / �7 ',.M 1/ :,7 ..J ,2/e, l� i j G , , _ .4 f':1 -- /-, i'S:�/1�,J�i i.'�,r I R�•ri^. -3?9 f":„.7 rte`1-., w -I.u_,...s ,:.- ,,, ,✓,:Z/ ///..1, . L,r1 .• ✓,,..., 7 — A., /-1 - (i .0 YJ i'la,'AA a:1,'to-e,, X111rY ,,,:5 1 • u.= d. Cam.✓ T a"Yr!,d ! 1 7: .?-).1\A. �, d, 2;] r II l I 7't -n,'.i^_ /I. /1n.i,r il:i /7/h ry'..13 r,tr-r:G. P-_,. ('r7 --:.--Ni l 1,3 ,4 1 0 / .J.1:? :J :2 �a . �Y 1 / L/ p./..77-/-7,,,,// ? /.,.....f/r ,,/".,..7 �, /i•1^. !f1 V � f P � •.:.-�(_n/,!e// ► ,'.91._ !-, ✓ J.iYJJe- ✓ .?r, j! i•�' / — / 1 /fi , fir' <' A �, NOrYn 1ro /-1 \ /7) r pi/1, / - vp. lC... (I i.) / //4 /,•1.'WI 3 (1--..-.1 / r.J A,,,) r-' 4 •,-!!»/l+ //•,'r Pan n Y"1 3 39 (2?r,n:?!; I f• Id a I 4. IJ 1/ T re ,4 �I ,_ i r I r / r.� .sr './) -,/r/ - i,• ,l /:: i• ,2 IV - I-4 ,./ .._, WELD COUNTY AGRICULTURAL COMMITTEES FOR IRRIGATED LAND KERSEY - EAST GREELEY AREA Jim Vetting Roy Rothe Paul Hoshiko Dennis Hoshiko Jack Holman Paul Ansley Jim Park AULT - EATON AREA Ken Benson Dean Severin Charles Cozzens Dave Fagerberg Ross Woods Dennis Stuehm Lynn Ottoson Leland Carlson Virgil Stewart Herman Kaiser Roland Mapelli WINDSOR - SEVERANCE AREA Jack Winter Barry Lind Harold Felte Harold Buxman Nels Nelson Kenton Brunner Don Hergert Richard Schlagel GILL AREA Jack Wells Jack Larson Lupe Carpio Olive Heidenreich SOUTHWEST AREA Leonard Rasmussen Charles Rasmussen Harry Schlagel Dave Oskarson Dwain Kirkmeyer Sekich Equipment Co. Edwin Anderson Dean Olander Herman Wagner Elmer Hergenrader Leonard Litzenberger SOUTH GREELEY AREA Bill Schaefer Clarence Carlson Russell Mosier Herman Strauch Elton Miller Kenneth Miller George Stieber Myron Martinson Bill Boulter Ted Deter PROSPECT VALLEY AREA Clem Schrant Ken Getman Bill Busch John Mitzel Joel Shoneman JOHNSTOWN AREA Bob Schlagel Walt Nygren Charlie Stroh John P Stroh Ron Walters Henry Zimmerman Walter Zimmerman Willard Markham Conrad Markham Paul Hopp Bros. Dennis Sewald DEEP WELL SPRINKLER AREA Vern Klingren Scott Teitmeir Jerry Anderson Dan LLoyd Gus Koneig Scott Tietmeyer Dennis Zited CENTRAL WELL SPRINKLER AREA Bill Frank Lawrence Hertake Bob Ehrlich Millard Bashor Duane Bashor Miller Feedlot Jim Miller Norman Mosier COKMITTEE MEMBERS / 1 75 I Arvid Deporter Bill Dichl Ore Hill Bill Bashor Doris Williams Stanley Klingensmith David E Uhl Rodney Epple Lyle Shoneman Bill Frank Gus Freeman Mike Gutterson & Co Chet & Paul Ansely Junior Stephens Norman Brown 1 ADDENDUM H WELD COUNTY FARMLAND REAPPRAISAL STATUS REPORT TO: Mary Anne Maurer, Property Tax Administrator FROM: Richard W. Keirnes, Weld County Assessor DATE: February 13, 1987 • REPORTING PERIOD: January 26, 1987 - February 12, 1987 BUDGETING: Necessary expenditures have been approved as needed, as indicated in the previous report. r PERSONNEL: On January 26, 1987 we had a total of five clerks , with the help of Gilbert Salberg as supervisor. We had to terminate two of the clerks due to their inability to do the work. We have placed Kathy Stone , Full time clerk with the temporary clerks to train and supervise. On this date we again have the five temporary clerks . We have placed Gilbert Salberg back with the field appraisers to review questionable land. We have experienced difficulty with the temporary clerks and the Diversion Program. EQUIPMENT: The three new planimeters were received January 27 , 1987 and the ones that were loaned to us have been returned. Work maps are being printed as needed. All other needed equipment is supplied as necessary . PROGRAMS: PHYSICAL INVENTORY : The four appraisers , Junior Anderson , Giioer: Salberg, Gus Freeman and Herbert Corliss are conducting field reviews on all parcels that are questionable to use . This is scheduled 5che completed by February 23 , 1987. LAND CLASSIFICATIONS: Attached are the classifications for grazing and , dry and irrigated meadow land, along with the carrying capacity and actual values. Preliminary work has been done for irrigated land , and the field review will start on February 23, 1987. The Assessor and the four appraisers attended the Agriculture Workshop - in Fort Morgan on February 11 , 1987 and were pleased with the results . OVERALL COUNTY PROGRESS AND PROJECTIONS: The field survey work is progressing. The goal was to have classifications and actual values for graze and meadow lands by February 13, 1987. Since these values have been established the tables can be entered on the computer and new values will be calculated. Respectfully submitted, • Richard W. Keirnes Weld County Assessor Enclosure 1987 GRAZING AND MEADOW CLASSIFICATIONS AND VALUES WELD COUNTY CLASS CARRYING CAPACITY ACTUAL ASSESSED DRY GRAZING VIA 15 ACRES PER A.U. $44.38 $12.87 VIB 20 ACRES PER A.U. • 32.53 9.43 VIC 35 ACRES PER A.U. 17.31 5.02 VID 45 ACRES PER A.U. 12.77 3.70 VIIA 55 ACRES PER A.U. 9.92 2.88 VIIC 75 ACRES PER A.U. 6.46 1 .87 VIIIE(WASTE) 80 ACRES PER A.U. 5.92 1 .72 DRY MEADOW IVA .8 YIELD IN TONS 113.38 32.88 IVB .63 YIELD IN TONS 88.23 25.59 IVC .36 YIELD IN TONS 48.23 13.99 IVD .28 YIELD IN TONS 36.38 10.55 IVE .21 YIELD IN TONS 26.00 7.54 IRRIGATED MEADOW VA 1 .05 YIELD IN TONS 104.53 30.31 VB .9 YIELD IN TONS 82.00 23.78 VC .64 YIELD IN TONS 43.53 12.62 VD .54 YIELD IN TONS 28.76 8.34 VE .45 YIELD IN TONS 15.38 4.46 JAK:jk GRMD62-2 a aErl' _.P 4sti-..-4 �� / VD-J.,J; rgz ` law • /cam Le r I`?,,aa-4 - _ 9) zD12U: ?7, n) S/ L-0) Ce? kt, 7O ,q�; �. .f� � ' - ��- ; _. - X111 11 .c2 S t. . .i-c.,...) _ fac t.,r-y� a� � 1D i..ti4. . .q-�� 1e .__-4 a . - — — CV// — ; r, . ._ L�'�.C o-ALL --'d-4_ tt . - . .. :1-/P,-; ��d /P .. _ /1 `- ti '/ I .r.) 1 L _ . �_iI r Q V 02 2 Pc / A.i.i H, ,4/. _ ie S -,4A _ . - y� lea ,-) o- ,, ;,-_ ` 7 ! T . iii - - - - {: A '.i L I li ;e . a eD4I--,,,. j'.-,-F � s�D �:-- ,, . ', 4, 7 , c)b; /x..)7, '2, { i c ay, = , yi ;r, , i. /\ / , ate <, II I ( � . , i. , 7 0 � r, A . ia3 r �, 7"J 7. art .� - -� - i - -1 ___1.2 O -) n a s g, • �'U I 3.9 .33 i Q • V ✓n�`C - �rnFldE ,_ Qom, ,4-i,Ltz C-c.D . . Q24 CD)D) -1-1 . _ 1 i 1✓ �7 -� - 1/ �- ' Ft_�i»� _.. J'_t :t'�: e-: \ _ _ -. _. 13) 34, S8)S?/ G(I log, i- r ) e. 1 J w V :r: trrr14411-45—\\\*4.. .._......r _.7..• „:2_7( 2- .,, t., , 1 -�z_a'__ k. 4µ . 1 _L4 t- <-t./ 1 -. -. _. l .; . ..- 4 .\,::- _s.-C _. .. ti .; : 4.I. =•'•. ..\ I1.�:, I'(/ /S. 1L, IS /91 '.to/ sl1 22/1?, -+Y., } t' '----- - \-- - - -- --- -. _ ____ 471 311 a 2, 3/ -Y 31i 4"I 9!, 4. Q q iNfr \+ .. A -J_ := ' - \ . \, ;_�..y : -; n H=) 9L) Y7142, CG,,s7, G '{/6S, bG� L 7, 7.42 • ' :, 79, 0, 9f, P2, 83/ . 71 V1 S��G - r I' 1 /I I2 24 a° ?7 3 P -C -CI) -..---7) Ia • r7 ( 1 - G.7. "2 j2)93) 9Y, 7s, 7G/ 77, - . ,l It\%i - - (✓ - - - -A •M1K; PX?G' c._ - _;r. •'3, 9) Iol Jig Zg70 7l. l_. L " C.kiI I q .3 ,1 '\. __ ' Aco : i '4/ - e. I- L : - L __O -(f'_1,r .%4c< =r• S'f, SS - Fi -2,1" 3 ,- .63 11 Cj E99r9z-(.... . r n DUI 8 ' , - , . - �. nl ADDENDUM I WELD COUNTY FARMLAND REAPPRAISAL STATUS REPORT TO: Mary Anne Maurer, Property Tax Administrator FROM: Richard W. Keirnes, Weld County Assessor MaR 'gl DATE: March 13, 1987 REPORTING PERIOD: February 12, 1987 - March 12, 1987 BUDGETING: Necessary expenditures have been approved as needed, and indicated in the previous reports. PERSONNEL: At present time we have five part time clerks, with Kathy Stone supervising. We have had several problems getting and keeping part time clerks. EQUIPMENT: All needed equipment is supplied. PROGRAMS: PHYSICAL INVENTORY: The four appraisers are conducting field reviews on irrigated land when needed. Field reviews on the irrigated parcels started March 2, 1987. LAND CLASSIFICATIONS: We have completed classifying 34 sections on aerial maps, started data entry for irrigated land on March 2, 1987. Enclosed are the work sheets for classifying irrigated land along with an Irrigated Land Valuation Summary. OVERALL COUNTY PROGRESS AND PROJECTIONS: The field survey is being con- ducted. All land tables have been entered on the computer for cal - culation when data entry is made. The data entry clerks are able to keep up with the mapping clerks on the farm land. We have had several problems with the clerks from the Diversion Program, they work on a eight week contract and when that time is up they are moved, also not being able to get individuals capable of doing the job needed. EXHIBITS: 1. Land classifications - Irrigated land 2. Weld County Irrigated Land Valuation Summary Respectfully Submitted, Richard W. Keirnes Weld County Assessor Enclosure CLASSIFICATION OF IRRIGATED SOILS FOR WELD COUNTY COUNTY CLASS MAP SYMBOL YIELD S 8 S39 511 S41 A S14 S46 150 BU. CORN 523 578 5 TON ALFALFA S31 S81 519 521 B S29 140 BU. CORN S50 4.5 TON ALFALFA S 5 S32 S 9 S40 S12 S42 S15 S47 C S20 $66 135 BU. CORN 524 579 4.25 TON ALFALFA 525 582 S30 S 1 S55 N40 S 2 S75 N41 S6 D S22 N54 125 BU. CORN 526 N77 4 TON ALFALFA S54 S7 S18 S27 N 4 S43 N29 E S44 N44 115 BU. CORN 551 N58 3.75 TON ALFALFA S72 S76 C2S.TY 1_=Ss A? SYMBOL 516 S77 N 1 N42 S28 S80 N 7 N55 S33 S83 N15 F 548 . N23 105 BU. CORN 552 N30 3.5 TON ALFALFA $67 N34 S17 $62 N17 N66 S34 $63 N21 N73 S35 $64 N24 N75 S37 565 N31 S38 S69 N36 0 S45 S70 N38 95 BU. CORN 549 S71 N46 3 TON ALFALFA S53 S73 N49 S56 N61 S60 N64 S 3 N 2 N22 N51 N72 S 4 N 3 N25 N52 N74 510 N 5 N26 N53 N76 S13 N.6 N27 N56 S36 N 8 N28 - N57 H 557 N 9 N32 N59 90 BU. CORN S58 N10 N33 N60 2.5 TON ALFALFA S59 N11 N35 N62 $61 N12 N37 N63 $68 N13 N39 N65 574 N14 N43 N67 N16 N45 N68 N18 N47 N69 N19 N48 N70 N20 N50 N71 EVII WASTE - $6.46 % , - _ . 1 I rrr_ 4 c. ! -_ - _ i � _i-c. 1 /i r-1/ /i : r - ` L/ sT• f L c"� ✓: -�--1 / -`,^ / rr 1 G 1 L2'S r r C i I LC-77 i Tiz_A it 4A I ; i g or_b. z S s. -A - -_--- Aq ___.. 71 IL__ - if{f. SI/ - -Fr - A 47- i3 Apt( Tr A ti i 7_ t A_____--- ;I s-y 1 i L A-Ii 7-7'1 - : . ' s , --.L:! LL ! it SL. Y•-1, r re.. • l -+ ilL.. „ C 1 /^4.;4,--- / w' :,,•I' 15 i! 4 Tr.._G 3_ 171 .6 40 ___ i7 f-1 ' • . I 7 ... .. .. - - - ErtAii,::::itt-.--. 4''.. ...-.....''. ' --- - .--7'......-1 .. .. • .-'-- i. g I E? 3 $ iet . 612 L . I1 6 le ZIZ 3 La, _- / it 11L__. S A 3_g 11 A_ _ 4.5 _ f (I - .. .. iI' .L _1V 6 'LIDD .. : J f -I-A— y1 8 L 4 b rte C'. l i' 15" 2-1 6 yz 6 9 ------________41 J41-- - .. __ ,Li.-3 yam ur A 70 ---- A ii - .. 16 1 a 1'5 A 72 _..r_A {i ii D B r TL 8__ _____U____________ ,__ __- G .. _ _ _ _ ________ . .r —__ -_. A__. - _._A/6' __6. . .___. 7:47__ . ___.. .- .. ...! C it9 • -A- .._. 74 A i . 23 - A ,47) A-- - , . 77 iJ_r 0 . _5 E / A 7 0 ....-/- ,A Ncr- /1 .i...t rz J.,ri77kle- . .�rr 7 ler-'r R " L . 2_ me ___23_ ill -7 e , 2 TIT a 5-7 w 8 5 .Z 6 3_2 • ---IE C3 _ _-ate 7-7 1 . j -, 3 __ A _ C_3- It/ (3 1 C 7 _ (3 y - ' ` . . . ii .i. - ' I z C3 \ V 3 - U 1 % -' - LL • W 6--- iyO mac: --G7 . z pi trt Q-_ Wig- S'," _0 I.'11)4 - -- 1.21 6 At`3 :LIZ- 8 7v ` ... - - !11.17 . _�I �� .TL-A 7h : a- ii . t3 - 4/5 6- 72-- :1.. E3 .. . ; I.L? - DZ. 6 '/L *IV A_ __ 7Y . TiZ _1.I_ iAD "T,E 6 6/r _0 . 7y. di ----' '-- --- - / !9__. '.._..-y6 ----- lir is ' 7s M �2 - -- T1 .8 +1 A 7 TIT 0 iz3 _ 11 B aZ% : B 77 T c" .727 •7: � , �' ca.) 4/.3p ADDENDUM J WELD COUNTY FARMLAND REAPPRAISAL STATUS REPORT CEPI. cricifri Air t, TO: Mary Anne Maurer, Property Tax Administrator' rto 'sx'" FROM: Richard W. Keirnes, Weld County Assessor APP (3 '81 REPORTING PERIOD: March 12, 1987 - April 10, 1987 BUDGETING: Necessary expenditures have been approved as needed. PERSONNAL: At the present time we still have Kathy Stone, supervisor, and four part time clerks to May 1, 1987. EQUIPMENT: All needed equipment has been supplied. PROGRAMS: PHYSICAL INVENTORY: The four appraisers are still doing the field review on irrigated land when needed. LAND CLASSIFICATIONS: After meeting with Dave Wheelock and Judy Kahl , from the State Tax Administrator' s office, and Carl Ross , from Hoover and Associates, State Auditor, the decision was made to correct the water cost and actual value per acre of land on the south- western portion of the county bordering Boulder and Larimer counties. The area was separated from the ditch and well cost factor and reclass- ified as ditch supplied only. This resulted in a lower water expense reducing the figure from $30.00 per acre to $17.00 per acre. This research also indicated a reduction in the yields. The top yield being reduced from 150 bushels of corn and 5 tons of hay per acre to 140 bushels of corn and 4.5 tons of hay and following down through all classes. Formula is enclosed. Tables are being up- dated on the computer. OVERALL COUNTY PROGRESS AND PROJECTIONS: Completion of classifying land on the aerial maps has been scheduled for the end of this week, April 10, 1987. We will continue to make changes from field inspections scheduled for completion by May 8, 1987. Notices of value will be run by the computer the week-end of May 16, 1987 and mailed no later than May 22, 1987. Respectfully submitted, Richard W. Keirnes Weld County Assessor Enclosure ADDENDUM K WELD COUNTY FARMLAND AND REAPPRAISALeRvw: . STATUS REPORT ^T' y Nty li '67 TO: Mary Anne Maurer, Property Tax Administrator FROM: Richard W. Keirnes , Weld County Assessor REPORTING PERIOD: April 10, 1987 - May 12, 1987 BUDGETING: Necessary expenditures were approved as needed. PERSONNEL: All part time clerks were dismissed on April 30, 1987, part time appraisers dismissed on May 1 , 1987. Kathy Stone, full time clerk, has been checking for missing appraisal records reported on our computer edit list. EQUIPMENT: All needed equipment was supplied. PROGRAMS: PHYSICAL INVENTORY: All field review was completed by May 1, 1987. LAND CLASSIFICATION: All irrigated land bordering Boulder and Larimer Counties in the southwestern portion of Weld County has been re-classified using the corrected .cater cost. All irroa.e_ farming areas in Weld County will be reined in the year 1988 to diversify the water cost throughout the county per Dave Wheelock' s recommendation. OVERALL COUNTY PROGRESS AND PROJECTIONS: As of ths date all farm land has been entered on the computer and calculated from the uodated tables for 1987 values . All N.O.V. ' s for real property are scheduled to run starting the night of May 15, 1987 and will be mailed no later than May 22, 1987. Computer listing of 1987 acres and values will be available by School District after N.O. V. ' s . • After June hearings are concluded the two full time land appraisers will start to refine the irrigated farm areas per recommendation . I do appreciate the assistance your office has given us in completing this task. Respectfully submitted; 7' / .-rC �� PLC-y Ric.Mard W. Keirnes Weld County Assessor ADDENDUM L STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD 1986 AGRICULTURAL ANALYSIS Part #1 Compliance With Statutory Requirements and Division of Property Taxation Directives 1 ) Was the 13% capitalization rate correctly applied? YES X NO Comments : 2) Did the assessor use only those crops permitted by the Division? YES NO X Comments : Beans appears in subclasses A—I , F-I , B-II , E-I , and F-III . Corn silage is being rotated in subclass F—IV. 3) Were the correct commodity prices used? YES NO X Comments : The alfalfa price used was $60 . 72 per ton . The barley price used was $2 . 66 per bu . The corn price used was $2 . 66 per bu . A meadow hay price of $59 . 93 per ton was used . 4) Was the Air Dry Matter formula used to calculate the values for Meadow Hay Land? YES NO X Comments : Meadow hay subclasses V—A , V—B , and V—C disregard the D . P.T. directive . The auditor is aware that the D . P .T is presently assisting the county with the many agricultural problems . • 5) Was the AUM rental rate used equal to $7 . 70 per acre? YES X NO Comments : ma[ p. Arnold & associates, inc. m indicates non—applicable situations . STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD 6) Was the fence and water expense used for Dry Native Range equal to $0. 32 per acre? YES X NO Comments : 7) Was the fence expense for Dry Farm Land equal to $0 . 16 per acre? YES X NO Comments : 8) Was the Alfalfa Seed expense used for Irrigated Land equal to $6 . 03 per acre? YES X NO Comments : 9) Was the landlord ' s share of the Baling expense for Irrigated Land equal to $5 . 15 per ton per acre? YES X NO Comments : 10) Was the Fence expense used for Irrigated Land equal to $0. 54 per acre? YES X NO Comments : 11 ) Was the Water expense used for Meadow Hay Land equal to $6 . 00 per acre? YES NO X Comments : Subclasses A—V and B—V utilize a water cost of $25 . 41 while in subclass C—V the water cost is $10 . 18 . max p. arnold & associates, inc. . _a . _.. ... . t . -.-,l.la c5Fii t- inn STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD 12 ) Was the Fence expense used for Meadow Hay Land equal to $0 . 54 per acre? YES X NO Comments : 13) Was the Fence expense used for Orchard Land equal to $0 . 54 per acre? YES * NO Comments : * indicates non-applicable situations . max p. arnoid & associates, inc. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD Part #2 Auditor ' s Evaluation 1 ) Were the formulas free of major mathematical errors? YES X NO Comments : • 2) Were all adverse rotations explained to the satisfaction of the auditor? YES NO X Comments : Significant adverse rotations were found in flood irrigated subclasses C—I , F-I , B-II , D-II , F-II , B-III , C-III , C-IV , and C—II . Also , surface amd pump flood subclass E-V contains an adverse rotation . 3 ) Did expenses compare favorably with those used in the 1985 assessment year? YES X NO Comments : 4) Did yields compare favorably with those used in the 1985 assessment year? YES X NO Comments : 5) Did landlord ' s share of income and expenses compare favorably with those used in the 1985 assessment year? YES X NO Comments : * indicates non-applicable situations . max p. arnald S associates, inc. STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF WELD 6) Did landlord ' s share of income and expense compare favorably with other counties in the region? YES X NO Comments : 7) Did each crop in the rotation have a positive net income? YES NO X Comments : The wheat crop in pump irrigated sprinkler subclass F—IV returns a negative amount to the landlord . 8 ) Did county average crop yields agree with yields used in the formulas? YES X NO Comments : 9) Do ten year averages appear to be in order? YES X NO Comments : 10) Were all miscellaneous expenses allowable under current law or regulation? YES NO X Comments : Meadow hav subclasses A-V , B-V , and C-V contain both baling and fertilizer expenses . indicates non-applicable situations . max p. arnold Sassociates, inc. ADDENDUMM M =QUh{_,.,, 1P �IGATED LAND OUE_T; 'NNi IFE_ PLEASE FILL OUT THIS FORM BASED ON THE TEN YEAR PERIOD 1975 THRU 1984?. THE INTENT OF THIS i,UEST I ONN, IRE IS TO DETERMINE TYPICAL FARMING PRACTICES, YIELDS, AND EXPENSES. THE INFORMATION FURNISHED IS CONFIDENTIAL AND WILL ONLY BE USED TO ESTABLISH TYPICAL YIELDS AND E-PENSES FOR MASS APPRAISAL. PLEASE COMPLETE THIS FORM FOR THE LISTED SECTION, TOWNSHIP, AND RANGE. THIS FORM MUST BE RETURNED BY JULY 4, 1985 IN ORDER TO AFFECT THIS AGRICULTURAL STUDY. 1. HOW MANY POPES OF IRRIGATED LAND ARE BEING FARMED? FLOOD ACRES SPRINKLER ACRES TOTAL Al-RES 2. WHAT TYPE OF WATER SOURCE DO YOU HAVE, DITCH WATER A. NAME OF DITCH B. NUMBER OF SHARES C. TEN YEAR AVERAGE COST PER SHARE OR D. TEN YEAR AVERAGE COST PER ACRE FOR IRRIGATION WATER__-_ E. DO YOU LEASE SUPPLEMENTAL WATER? YES __NO__ IF YES, WHAT WAS THE A!JEPAGE COST PER ACRE FOR THE TEN YEAR PERIOD? COST PER ACRE IRRIGATION WELL WATER A. WELL DEPTH _____ B. TYPE OF MOTOR ELECTRIC__ GAS __ DIESEL _- C. EFFECTIVE LIFT WHEN PUMPING WATER D. LOCATION OF WELL: SECTION____ TOWNSHIP____ RANGE E. WELL YIELD IN GALLONS PER MINUTE F. IF YOU HAVE MORE THAN ONE WELL PLEASE PUT THE INFORMATION ON PAGE THREE OF THIS FORM. COMBINATION IRRIGATION WELL AND DITCH A. IF WELL AND DITCH WATER APP USED ON THE SAME LAND PLEASE ESTIMATE THE PERCENT OF WATER SUPPLIED BY EACH SOURCE: PERCENT I.JEL_L PERCENT DITCH PAGE 1 IzPIGATED Lj'ItiD nUETIOr, 3. IF `i'OIJ HAVE INSTALLED AN IRRIGATION SPRINKLER. IN THE TEN YEAR PERIOD PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOW I NS.; INFORMATION: YEAP SPRINKLER COST PFLPTED EOIJIPMENT COST OR COMPLETE CONTRACTED CIJST 4. DOES YOUR IRRIGATION SYSTEM INCLUDE A WASTE WATER PIT FOR THE RECYCLING OF IRRIGATION WATER', YES__ NO__ 3. CONSIDERING THE TEN YEAR PERIOD WHAT ARE THE BASIC_ CROPS THAT YOU PLANT', DO NOT CONSIDER ANY CROP THAT MAKES UP LESS THAN TWENTY PERCENT OF YOUR TOTAL IPPIGA"ED ACRES. WHAT WOULD BE THE TEN YEAR AVERAGE YIELD'? WHAT IS <WOULD BE) THE LANDLORDS SHARE OF EACH CROP? CROP ACRES YIELD LANDLORDS SHARE CORN ALFALFA WHEAT BARLEY TOTAL ACRES TOTAL ACRES SHOULD EQUAL TOTAL IRRIGATED ACRES IN QUESTION ONE. IF YOU CAN FURNISH CROP YIELDS FOR EACH YEAR OF THE TEN YEAR PERIOD PLEASE PUT THE INFORMATION ON PAGE THREE OF THIS FORM. 6. WHAT WAS YOUR TEN YEAR AVERAGE FERTILIZER COST PER ACRE ( INCLUDING APPLICATION) FOR EACH CROP': CROP COST PER ACRE CORN ALFALFA WHEAT BARLEY 7. WHAT WAS YOUR TEN YEAR AVERAGE COST PEP ACRE ( INCLUDING APPLICATION) FOR ALL OTHER CHEMICALS SUCH AS I t;SECTEC I DE AND HERBICIDE? CROP COST PER ACRE CORN __________ ALFALFA WHEAT BARLEY COMPLETED BY: DATE: PRICE h, _D LAND C I IE=.T,1-414,,IFE SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION YIELDS CROP 1975 1976 1977 1978 1979 1989 1961 1922 1983 1984 CORN --__ ---- -- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ALFALFA ---- ---- ---j ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- WHEAT ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- BARLEY ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- -- ---- ---- - ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ----- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ---- ADDITIONAL WELLS IRRIGATION WELL WATER A. WELL DEPTH ___ -_-�_- B. TYPE OF MOTOR ELECTRIC __ GAS __ DIESEL __ C. EFFECTIVE LIFT WHEN PUMPING WATER __ _ _ D. LOCATION OF WELL: SECTION__ TOWNSHIP_ RANGE____ E. WELL YIELD IN GALLONS PER MINUTE IRRIGATION WELL WATER A. WELL DEPTH B. TYPE OF MOTOR ELECTRIC __ GAS -_ DIESEL _- C. EFFECTIVE LIFT WHEN PUMPING WATER D. LOCATION OF WELL: SECTION____ TOWNSHIP____ RANGE_____ E. WELL YIELD IN GALLONS PER MINUTE IRRIGATION WELL WATER A. WELL DEPTH _��_ B. TYPE OF MOTOR ELECTRIC __ GAS __ DIESEL _- C. EFFECTIVE LIFT WHEN PUMPING WATER D. LOCATION OF WELL: SECTION____ TOWNSHIP____ RANGE E. WELL YIELD IN GALLONS PER MINUTE PAGE 3 TO ALL WELD COUNTY IRRIGATED LANDOWNERS AND-OR OPERATORS: To comply with a Colorado State Board of Equalization order, we must study the valuation of all irrigated subclasses of land in Weld County. To be as fair as possible to you as a landowner, it is necessary that the following questionnaire be accurately completed and returned to this office by July 4. 1986. The returned information will be treated as confidential with only averages used for mass appraisal purposes. Constitutionally, agricultural land is valued on its earning or productive capacity. The formula used is a landlord - tenant relationship in the farming operation. The formula was derived by a state agricultural committee comprised of people involved in Colorado agriculture. Collectively, the information obtained from these questionnaires will be used to confirm or modify the average production and expense information used in the formula for each subclass of irrigated land in Weld County, The information requested should be an average of the years 1975 through 1984. Please help assure an equalized assessment of irrigated land in Weld County by completing and returning the questionnaire by July 4. 1985. H. H. Hansen Weld County Assessor • HISTORY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND VALUATION Colorado statutes prescribe that th e h actual :,aloe of agricultural lands, exclusive of building ro ._im ,.., P _m.3nts. shall be determined by consideration _,f the earning Cr, productive capacity of the land, during a r-eason.able period of time. capitalized at a rate of 13 percent. * To establish criteria for implementing the law, in 1'?79, individuals representing the agricultural community met with the Colorado Tax Commission (now called the Division of Property Taxation) and .agreed upon the following pr-ovi_ions: • a) earning or productive capacity would be determined by measuring the landlord's net •income. b) a reasonable period of time would be the current ten-.year average. These provisions were approved by the State Board of Equalization and have been used by Colorado Assessors since 1970. THE VALUATION OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS LHUD EQEMUL2 : Agricultural land is valued by the utilization of a formula. The agricultural land formula is based on the landlord's net income capitalized (converted) into an indication of value, using the rate established by law (currently 1:3':). EX%PE(_ j: Allowable expenses are those ty, P1,_al lY Palo bY a landlord. These expenses are deducted from the of the landlord. =* Certain expenses researched by the Division of Pr-opert•, Taxation are to be used in the agricu-Jltur.al land formula. * Only typical landlord expenses .are allowable -as deduction_. * Research has found that some typical landlord expenses are: Bailing; Fence; Water; Alfalfa seed; Fertilizer; Chemicals. PRODUCTIVE CAPACITY Earning or productive capacity is determined by: * Establ i lshing soil capabilities .and classifications of farm or ranch lands. * Establishing the principal commodities .and yield b':' farming areas. Commodity prices .are researched and developed on a ten-year average by the Division of Property Taxation. Currently. these prices are based or- harvest-time prices for each of the ten years researched. All county assessors are required to use these prices in valuing all agricultural land. THE VALUATION OF IRRIGATED LAND There are seven basic steps to th? valuation of irrigated land: The Assessor: 1. Determines the basic crops raised .arid the cropping practices used. 2. Establishes the ten-year a.Jera•3e yield for each crop. 3. Determines the landlord's share of each basic crop. 4. Establishes the typical landlord expenses. 5. Calculates the landlord's net income. YIELD X (COMMODITY PRICE) = TOTAL CPC e_3 INrOF•1E 'TOTAL LANDLORD'S LANDLORD'S GROSS INCOME X =HARE = GROSS INCOME LANDLORD'S / TYPICAL LANDLORD'S GROSS INCOME - LANDLORD EXPENSES = NET INCOME 6. Determines the Actual Value by: LANDLORD'S CAPITALIZATION ACTUAL NET INCOME 'AT - VALUE 7. For assessment purposes, computes the _ II ACTJAI ASSESSMENT ASSESSED UALUE X RATE 9%i = VALUE _IE Ditches, canals, flume_ and sprinkler systems owned and used by individuals for irrigating land which is owned by the same individuals, are not taxed separately from the laird so long as they are owned and used exclusively for such purposes. ADDENDUM N WELD COUNTY IRRIGATED LAND VALUATION SUMMARY A. The process of establishing costs and yields was begun by sending each owner of irrigated property a questionaire, copy enclosed, asking for this specific information. 1. Upon return receipt of these questionaires, all copies were filed by range and township. Information from these questionaires was used as guidelines. 2. The study which was conducted by State employees in June and July of 1986 was also used as a reference since they also used information from these questionaires to compile their reports. B. Land owner committees were formed consisting of 83 individuals. Eleven (11) separate committee meetings were held in places stratigraphically located over the irrigated area of the County. Copies enclosed. C. Establishing yields was accomplished by using the following sources: 1. S.C.S. detailed soil surveys. 2. Land owner questionaires. 3. Land owner committees. 4. Personal contacts with land owners by County personnel . 5. Colorado crop and livestock reporting service manuals 1975-1984. D. Classifying 83 soils in S.C.S. southern survey and 77 soils in S.C.S. northern survey was done using the S.C.S. capability types as a close guide. E. Expenses not directed by State memorandum were established in the following manner: 1. Water: The possibility of deviating from a $30.00 per acre water cost for the ditch and well area was discussed in depth. With 57 main ditch companies and small laterals too numerous to mention, which have assessment charges , the physical possibilities of separating these is enormous. Each ditch company allocates to it's users certain "rights" of water. There is, at present time, no standard of volume measurement among the 57 different companies. Also the cost per unit when established varies from $2.50 per right to over $75.00 per right. It will probably take four months of research to quantify and allocate these costs equitably among the irrigated taxpayers. On the mass appraisal basis it is the decision of the County Assessor, his staff and all of the land owner committees. that the per acre cost was as realistic as could be accomplished this year with the resources we have been allotted by the County Commissioners. Summary Addendum Irrigated Land Water Costs Upon further research an area in the south western portion of the county bordering Boulder and Larimer counties was seuerated from the Ditch and well cost factor and reclassfied as ditch supplied only. This resulted in a lower water expense reducing that figure from $30.00 per acre to $17.00 per acre. This research also indicated a reduction in the yields. The top yield being reduced from 150 bushels of corn and 5 tons of hay per acre to 140 bushels of corn and 4.5 tons of hay and following down through all classes. a. Many miles were traveled and much research was done in establish- ing six (6) separate areas where different methods of application were dominent. b. Predominent source of power to wells and sprinklers was established as electricity. c. Average well depth and production was established. d. Ten (10) year average cost of fixed well expenses was established. e. Ten (10) year average cost per acre of electricity was established. f. Ten (10) year average cost of ditch delivered water was established. 2. Fertilizer: a. Needed amounts and kinds were established. b. Ten (10) year average costs were established. 3. Chemicals (Insecticide, Herbicide) : a. Predominent chemicals used in insect and weed control were established. b. Ten (10) year average chemical and insecticide costs plus ten (10) year average application costs were established. 4. Harvest (Combine in sprinkler area) : a. Documentation of this was acquired, copies enclosed. This documentat- ion also established the 50-50 landlord-tenant relationship. Sources of information used to establish all of the above expenses are listed on the enclosed memorandum. Before final expense figures and yields were established they were reviewed in depth by the County Assessor, his staff of appraisers and presented to all of the land owner committees for their approval and/or corrections. MEMORANDUM A The herbicides, insecticides, and fertilizers that were used for cost figures were determined by contacting the area agri-businesses. They gave us cost figures, application rates and the most common chemicals used. Also we contacted the Colorado State University Extension Office to find the proper practices and rates of application, and chemicals to use. With this information tempered by our agricultural committee's input we made a determination on the chemicals and quantities to use. The list of chemicals we used should be self explanitory except for a few special cases which we will explain. In the use of herbicides for corn, bladex & banvel were figured to- gether because they are mixed together when used for the best results. Insecticide for corn was figured on one and one-third application because approximately one-third of the Weld county irrigated farmers apply two applications of insecticides because of random infestations of corn borer, grasshoppers, etc. Because there is no correlation between the class of land and the- soil nutrients present in these soils we used basic rules of thumb to establish fertilizer application rates. The rules that we used were first, that it takes one pound of actual nitrogen to produce one bushel of corn therefore; the amount of actual nitrogen used will vary directly with the yield. The second rule of thumb that was applied is that it takes twelve pounds of actual phosphate to produce one ton of alfalfa hay, realizing that the alfalfa will use only the amount of phosphate that it needs each year and it is typical to apply all of the phosphate that is needed for the life of the stand in one year. Before seeding we prorated the cost of the phosphate out over the life of the stand therefore; the cost is based on twelve pounds of actual phosphate per ton produced per year. We used only one trace mineral and this was zinc because this is a mass appraisal it is impossible to make a specific determination on trace minerals. Everyone felt this must be addressed in some manner therefore; the allowance of zinc which is the most common trace mineral to be used in Weld County. In the deep well sprinkler area there was no allowance for chemical application because upon physical inspection we found that the chemicals were being applied through the sprinkler system where in other sprinkler areas this is not being predominantly done. EXPENSES Fertilizer, Insecticide and herbicide Agri-businesses Agland Inc. 737-2406 Crop Production Center North of Gilcrest, Colorado American Fertilizer & Chemical Co. 587-4454 101 W. South First Street Johnstown, Co. Centennial Ag. Supply Co. 353-2567 24330 U. S. Hwy 34 Greeley, Co. United Agri Products 353-9831 500 18th Street Greeley, Co. Crop Air Inc 454-2939 360 Oak Ave Eaton, Co. Easton Aerial Sprayers 352-6701 23482 Weld Co. Rd 48 La Salle, Co. Low Level Dusting Co. Inc 284-7823 119 S 2nd La Salle, Co. Pine Bluff Coop Pine Bluff, Wyo. AGRICULTURAL SPECIALISTS Elmer Rothman 356-4000 Ext 4465 Extension Agent Soil Conservation Service 356-6501 Ron Miller, District Conservationist 2017 9th Strret Greeley, Co. Weld Co. Research Farm 39900 Weld Co. Rd 45 Northern Colo. Agri Business Association 454-3384 124 Oak Av Eaton, Co. RESOURCES & REFERENCES Colorado Agricultural Statistics Manuels 1975-1984 Weld County Soil Surveys Northern & Southern Surveys U.S.D.A.-S.C.S. Tech Guide Part II Greeley F.O. (Field Office) Range Site Greg Schnell Land Owners questionaires - sent to every irrigated land owner in Weld County Doon's Agricultural Reports Agricultural Committee's 11 Committee' s , containing 83 representatives. WATER EXPENSE SOURCES (WELL) 1. Energy: Pine Bluffs, R.E.A. Pine Bluffs, Wyo Fort Collins Division, R.E.A. Fort Collins, Co. Home Light & Power Co. (Public Service Co. Of Colo. ) Greeley, Co. Brighton Division, R.E.A. Brighton, Co. Fort Morgan Division, R.E.A. Fort Morgan, Co. 2. Well Drilling Lesh Well Drilling Ault, Co. R & R Well & Pump Greeley, Co. 3. Motor & Electricity Marshall & Swift Manual Lesh Well Drilling Ault, Co. R & R Well & Pump Greeley, Co. 4. Depth & Production Colorado Water Engineers Judication Manual WATER EXPENSE (DITCH) 1. Questionairs sent to each irrigated land owner 2. Land owner committee's 3. Detailed expense figures from area land owners. WELD COUNTY WATER EXPENSE SHEET - 1987 10 Year average shallow well fixed expense: Average drilling cost per ft. $63.00 Average well depth 65 feet Average well life 20 years Average well acres 100 acres $63 . 00 x 65 ' = $4095 20 years = $204 . 75 Average motor & elect. cost $8000 Average motor life 10 years $8000 - :- 10 = $800 + $204.75 = $1004.75 total cost per acre $1004.75 -: - 100 (avg well ac) = $10.05 average well cost per acre Average well cost per acre $10.05 Average energy cost per acre 9.28 Average ditch delivered water cost 8.49 Total cost per acre $27.82 Rounded to $30.00 per acre water cost for shallow well areas WELD COUNTY WATER EXPENSE SHEET - 1987 10 Year average water cost for deep well/ditch areas (Prospect Valley) Average drilling cost per foot $55.00 Average well depth 114 feet Average well life 20 years Average well acres • 100 acres $55.00 x 114 = $6270 -:- 20 = $313.50 - :- 100 = $3.14 per acre Average motor & elect. cost $8000 Average motor life 10 years $8000 -: - 10 = $800.00 - :- 100 = $8.00 per acre 24 Hrs. x 36 Hp. x .746 = 644.54 KWH (assuming 85% max efficency) 644.54 KWH x $.019026* = $12.26 per day 2.5 acre ft. - .56 acre ft. = 1.94 acre ft. to be pumped (2.5 .acre ft. State engineer's figure) ( .56 acre ft. Henrylyn Ditch) 1 .94 acre ft. x 100 well acres = 194 acre ft. -: - 4 = 48.5 days (900 GPM = 4 A. F./day) 48.5 days x $12.26 per day = $594.61 $594.61 -: - 100 well acres = $5.95 acre energy 36 Hp. x $27.74* average Hp. hookup = $998.64 $998.64 -:- 100 well acres = $9.99 acre hookup Average energy $ 5.95 Average hookup 9.99 Average well 3. 14 Average motor 8.00 Henrylyn Ditch assessment 21 .09 Total water cost per acre $48.17 Rounded to $48.00 per acre water cost for Prospect Valley area * See attached WELD COUNTY ENERGY EXPENSE DATA - 1987 Expense documentation for energy costs for Prospect Valley area DATE H.P. CHARGE/YEAR K.W.H. June 1974 $ 9.00 $.0105 Dec 1975 15.00 .0112 Dec 1976 18.50 .01508 Dec 1977 18.50 .01662 Feb 1979 20.00 .01962 Mar 1980 23.00 .0241 Mar 1981 28.50 .02734 Mar 1982 45.30 .019 Mar 1983 49.75 .0210 Mar 1984 49.80 .0258 Total $277.35 $.19026 $277.35 -:- 10 = $27.74 $.19026 -:- 10 = $.019026 WELD COUNTY SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EXPENSE SHEET - 1987 10 Year average cost for regular sprinkler areas Average drilling cost per ft. $55.00 Average well depth 125 feet Average well life 20 years Average well acres 125 acres $55.00 x 125' = $6875.00 -: - 20 = $343.75 Average sprinkler cost $30,000 Average sprinkler life 15 years $30,000 -:- 15 = $2000 Average motor & elect. cost $10,000 Average motor life 10 years $10,000 -:- 10 = $1000 $343.75 + $2000 + $1000 = $3343.75 - :- 125 well acres = $26.75 per acre Average per acre cost $26.75 Average energy cost 24.60 Total water cost $51 .35 Total regular sprinkler water cost per acre at 100% _ $51.35 WELD COUNTY SPRINKLER IRRIGATION EXPENSE SHEET - 1987 10 Year average cost for deep well sprinkler areas Average drilling cost per ft. $50.00 Average well depth 300 feet Average well life 20 years Average well acres 125 acres $50.00 x 300' _ $15,000 -: - 20 = $750.00 Average sprinkler cost $30,000 Average sprinkler life 15 years $30,000 -: - 15 = $2000 Average motor & elect. cost $10,000 Average motor life 10 years $10,000 -:- 1- = $1000 $750.00 + $2000 + $1000 = $3750.00 - .- 125 well acres = $30.00 per acre Average per acre cost $30.00 Average energy cost 45.00 Total water cost $75.00 Total deep well sprinkler cost per acre at 100% _ $75.00 WELD COUNTY EXPENSE DATA SHEET - 1987 Expenses for chemicals for corn. Herbicides Application Cost per acre Bladex 1 1/2 - 2 lbs. $ 6.75 Banvel 4 oz. 3.90 (Bladex & Banvel are used together) sub total 10.65 Sutan 12.23 - 18.36 = 15.30 Eradicane 13.15 - 20.65 = 19.90 Dual 9. 15 - 12.15 = 10.65 Total cost per acre $53.50 Total average cost per acre - $53.50 -.- 4 = $13.37 Insecticides Cost per acre . Counter $12.25 Furadan 13. 14 Lorsban 9.90 Parathion 8.60 Comite 12.25 Sigone 11 .85 Disyston 13.65 Total cost for all insecticides $81 .64 Total average cost per acre - $81.64 -:- 7 = $11.66 Average insecticide use in the county is based on 1 1/3 applications per year - 1 1/3 x $11.66 = $15.55 The application expense is based at $5.00 per acre. Expenses for chemicals for alfalfa Insecticide Cost per acre Furadan $ 7.56 Lorsban 16.50 Parathion 8.60 Total insecticide cost $35.60 Total Average cost per acre for insecticides - $35.60 -:- 3 = $11.87 Expenses for fertilizers for corn Nitrogen was based on 1 lb. N for each bushel of corn produced. 34-0-0 cost $194.10 per ton or $.09705 per lb. cost per lb. of actual nitrogen would be $.285327 21-0-0 cost $180.90 per ton or $.09045 per lb. cost per lb. of actual nitrogen would be $.430713855 Average cost of (34-0-0) and (21-0-0) would be: $.285327 + .430713855 = $.716040855 -:- 2 = $.3580204275 or $.358 per lb. Phosphate 0-45-0 cost is $228.70 per ton 0-45-0 cost is $. 11435 per lb. Average cost per lb. of actual phosphate = $.253857 Expenses for fertilizer for alfalfa Phosphate is used at a rate of 12 lbs. for each ton produced. WELDATA WELD COUNTY IRRIGA'TED s..AN:: — 1987 CODE TYPE CLASS ACTUAL ASSESSED *4111 GROUND #F1 IR "157. 29 1:L5. 51 IS 450;. 94 i 30. 77 ...R,,}_T VLL V ID 328. 8.3 S F. .:r: 1E i12. 45 90. 61 SPRINKLER IG 493. 11 143. :f'0 I Ii . 465. 45 134. 7E:; .I 424. 65 •3. :I.'.=; I K 399. 94 I 1 . 9E.t NON SUP I M 499. 15 144. 7 IN 465. 14 :.3/4,. 6`3• GROUND #2 I IAA 396. 07 1 . E:+E:• II8 365. .4 • 5 a.' l<:... 66 I IF 176. 247! 3. .. .. . • SPRIi1;aL.ER . I0 40;"x. .:',_S i 17, ' f' J I I H .367;:. 25 ;'•5 3i -...i-2.:E.-.... ..Ji _...,. :,2; . 1J -;9. 9S 9:-.1i.. 5 .%!0.\: S._JI.' ; ;;.: ;., I O 363. • a. .« rr ....... GROUND *:` t.. i}:.. 26S. ,r:l. I 11O x.19. ar, l.,..J• J8 PRSPT VL.LY II ID 131. 24 ;36. 0E.. I I IG 50. '77 4L SPRINKLER I1I6 237. 63 68. 3:. I I I H 170. 69 49. 56 I .[ 1J 172. 27 43. `.E. '[ . K. 109. 50 31 76 NON S J'.•"° 1 I I M 316. 43 `.31. 7£; IIIN 2E63. 93 r3;_. ,34 GROUND 44 I VA 154. 63 41:. 84 I VEI 140. 32 40. 6'3 PREP` VLLY I VD 4;I!. '3 11. 88 • I V E 19. 1;-- 5. 54 SPRINKLER IVi3 91. 66 26. 56 IVH 74. 91 21. 72 IVJ 6:6. 25 7. 6i NON SUP I VII 258. '01 74. 6a. I RI;c62-137 ) , ADDENDUM 0 vain. S oce t�etesi- 1 AT 13750 - be re_pPe.eitEA 0.S 'FIB_ 6ELC CCUN; RUN DATE: 06/08/87 Q �-l.L ii 1587 REAL Ud RUN TIME : 20:38 :00 aS "y am/ ELECTION: AGR ] DRY FARM LAND 11153490 • u dlp�q r .rtp,TilO�yVrittA'^ wn rrNax fk 6-i,NY:%a3 r, t,i •`f'... • ORCHARD LAND 0 FARM /RANCH RESIDENCE 38691930 ,i MANUFACTURED HCUS ING MO_E IL FOME 3102160 .o FARM /RANCH SUPPORT BUT IDING5 26650480 ALL OTHER AG. PROPERTY • 112I130 ._I *** TOTAL AGRICULTURAL 119E8EE50 2. 2. ITT h5 # ,. 37 ] a ADDENDUM P /9s7 15 OPT AD Page 5 of 16 Pages Form 101 AA 68/85 AGRICULTURAL PROPERTY WEI D County - Agricultural Real Property . Subclasses Acres Residences Land Improvements TOTAL Irrigated Land 390.167 5 34,669,180. 5 34.669, 180. [405] (4117A) (4117) Dry Farm Land 568,812 $ 11,170,380. S 11 ,170,380. [410] (4127A) (4127) Meadow Hay Land 14,351 $ 364.200. - 5 364,200. [415] (4137A) (4137) Grazing Land 1,053,564 $ 3,739,580. 5 3,739,580. [420] (4147A) (4147) Orchard Land -0- $ -0- S -0- [425] (4157A) (4157) Farm/Ranch Waste Land 19,228 5 37,230. $ 37,230. [430] ' - (4167A) (4167) Farm/Ranch Residence 4,632 $ 38,234,260. 5 38,234,260. [435] (41778) (4277) Residences Manufactured Housing 1 ,172 $ 2,949,220. $ 2,949,220, (Mobile Homes) (41788) (4279) [440] Residences Farm/Ranch Support Buildings $ 26,415,670. 5 26,415,670. [445] (4279) "All Other" 2,485 $ 959,130. 5 —0— 5 959,130. Property Pursuant (4180A) (4180) (4280) to 39-1-102(1.6), C.R.S. [450] Total Real 2,048,607 5,804 $ 50,939,700. $ 67,599,150. $ 118,538,850. All Other Personal Equipment, Furniture Property Subclasses Schedules & Machinery TOTAL $ -0- $ -0- Total Personal Property_===— ___ [470] (4410A) (4410) � $ 118,538,850. TOTAL ACRIC 1..-.:-..,1 PROPERTIES CHANGES BY COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (TOTAL NUMBER OF CHANGES 43 0100 + 26,220. 4E4117 . 4 '" 2,290. 0200 - 44,280. 4127 + 90. 1112 + 2,565,980. 1212 + 6,710,820. 1115 + 5,090. . , '''4?r- n .. ._ 1125 + 610. 4180 + 1,480. 1225 - 83,150. 4277 +1,492,010. 1120 + 7,790. 4278 - 1,320. 1220 - 21,260. 4279 - 3,210. 1135 + 340. 5110 - 59,240. 1235 - 870. 5120 + 215,980. 1140 + 1,570. 1240 - 8,580. 7410 - 57,670. 1230 - 24,650. 2112 + 50,390 2212 - 61,410. TOTAL + 10,507,110. 2115 + 14,110. 2215 - 44,770. 2120 + 14,170. 2125 + 2,640. 2225 - 3,170. 2130 + 14,570. 2230 - 83,100. 2135 - 41,090. 2235 - 61,350. 2140 + 31,830. 2240 - 19,370. 2410 - 2,500. 3112 + 180. 311.5 + ' 3,440. 3215 - 33,930. ADDENDUM 0 ov Oc Colorado Department or LOC Affairs 631 'lo', DIVISION OF PROPERTY TAXATION Mary Anne Maurer Property Tax Administrator /876 Roy Romer Governor April 15, 1987 Richard W. Keirnes Weld County Assessor 915 10th Street Greeley, CO 80631 Dear Dick; I appreciated receiving your monthly status report dated April 13. 1987. This is to confirm that you are changing the expenses allowable to the landlord for the farming area of Weld County along the Larimer/Boulder county line as a result of our meeting on March 27. 1987. I would also like to reiterate that my recommendation at the meeting was to refine the irrigated farming areas which would diversify the water cost throughout the county. This will create and ensure better uniformity and equitable assessments for irrigated farmers in Weld County. At that time, you stated this project was definitely in your plans for next year. I would appreciate receiving confirmation on this program refinement in your next monthly report. Please advise me if additional assistance is necessary to complete this task. I will ensure that one of my staff will be available. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. Since ely, i Viz' PLA e Wheelock M nager, Appraisal Standards DW:jk WTRCST62 #(10)3 s-fl NMI\ IAAO 1313 Sherman Street, 623 Centennial Building. Denver, Colorado 80203 (303) 866-2371 tear Hello