HomeMy WebLinkAbout20222698.tiff2 0 2 2
WELD COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
C o1stt4un; Go`'t-;on S
°/26/22
cc. AS R (DK)
q/22/22
tiVILDIZOSE
\ITN \t- \I I `.' (11•fl)ktTE[l
Audit Division
2022-2698
WILDROSE
AMAMI. ',COMMUTED
Audit Division
September 15, 2022
Ms. Natalie Mullis
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2022 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Ms. Mullis:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2022 Colorado
Property Assessment Study.
These reports are the result of two analyses: A procedural audit and a statistical audit.
The procedural audit examines all classes of property. It specifically looks at how the assessor develops
economic areas, confirms and qualifies sales, develops time adjustments and performs periodic physical
property inspections. The audit reviews the procedures for determining subdivision absorption and
subdivision discounting. Valuation methodology is examined for residential properties and commercial
properties. Procedures are reviewed for producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and lands producing,
producing coal mines, producing earth and stone products, severed mineral interests, and non -
producing patented mining claims.
Statistical audits are performed on vacant land, residential properties, commercial/industrial properties
and agricultural land. A statistical analysis is performed for personal property compliance on the eleven
largest counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa,
Pueblo and Weld. The remaining counties receive a personal property procedural study.
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. — Audit Division appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the State of
Colorado. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.
Harry J. Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. — Audit Division
WILDROSE
101I, APPRAM,i!_ heORPORATIT.
Audit Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Regional/Historical Sketch of Weld County 4
Ratio Analysis 6
Time Trending Verification 8
Sold/Unsold Analysis 9
Agricultural Land Study 11
Agricultural Land 11
Agricultural Outbuildings 12
Agricultural Land Under Improvements 13
Sales Verification 14
Economic Area Review and Evaluation 16
Natural Resources 17
Earth and Stone Products 17
Producing Oil and Gas 17
Vacant Land 18
Possessory Interest Properties 19
Personal Property Audit 20
Wildrose Auditor Staff 22
Appendices 2 3
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 2
WILD
APPR )Ki:)K.%TFt)
Audit Division
INTRODUCTION
Colo o
The State Board of Equalization (SBOE)
reviews assessments for conformance to the
Constitution. The SBOE will order
revaluations for counties whose valuations do
not reflect the proper valuation period level of
value.
The statutory basis for the audit is found in
C.R.S. 39-1-104 (16)(a)(b) and (c).
The legislative council sets forth two criteria
that are the focus of the audit group:
To determine whether each county assessor is
applying correctly the constitutional and
statutory provisions, compliance requirements
of the State Board of Equalization, and the
manuals published by the State Property Tax
Administrator to arrive at the actual value of
each class of property.
To determine if each assessor is applying
correctly the provisions of law to the actual
values when arriving at valuations for
assessment of all locally valued properties
subject to the property tax.
The property assessment audit conducts a two-
part analysis: A procedural analysis and a
statistical analysis.
The procedural analysis includes all classes of
property and specifically looks at how the
assessor develops economic areas, confirms and
qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments.
The audit also examines the procedures for
adequately discovering, classifying and valuing
agricultural outbuildings, discovering
subdivision build -out and subdivision
discounting procedures. Valuation
methodology for vacant land, improved
residential properties and commercial
properties is examined. Procedures for
producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and
lands producing, producing coal mines,
producing earth and stone products, severed
mineral interests and non -producing patented
mining claims are also reviewed.
Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land,
residential properties, commercial/industrial
properties, agricultural land, and personal
property. The statistical study results are
compared with State Board of Equalization
compliance requirements and the manuals
published by the State Property Tax
Administrator.
Wildrose Audit has completed the Property
Assessment Study for 2022 and is pleased to
report its findings for Weld County in the
following report.
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 3
WILD
APPRAISAL I %CORPORA rtl►
Audit Division
REGIONAL/HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
Regional Information
Weld County is located in the Front Range
region of Colorado. The Colorado Front
Range is a colloquial geographic term for the
populated areas of the State that are just east
of the foothills of the Front Range. It includes
MOFFAT
41
RIO BLANCO
52
•
M ESA
39
Craig •
Meeker
•
ROUTT
54
•
Steamboat Spgs
GARFIELD 23 Glenwood Spgs
Grand Junction
DELTA
15
• Delta
•
Montrose
•
M0NTROSE
43
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
Pueblo, and Weld counties.
Walden
•
JACKSON
29
GRAND
25
Hot Suyrhu
vpring5
Eagle
.
EAGLE
19
PITKIN •
49 Aspen
Le vllc
LAKE
33
SUMMI
59 'sr
LARIMER
35 •
Ft. Collins
T
BOULDER
•
Boulder
G.& IY
4
w$ret
CLEAR CREEK
10
kenridge
Fairplay
•
PARK
47
GUNNISON CHAFFEE
26 8
• Gunnison Salida
SAN hi1GUEL
57 Tellurid•
e
Dove Creek
• DOLORES
17
llverton
SAN JUAN
Cortez
.
• Durango
MONTEZUMA LA PLATA
42 34
CU RAY
46 •
Ourve HIINSDALE
Lake City
27 •
Creede
MINERAL
40 DelNorte
RIO GRANDE
53
Golder.•
JEFFERSON
30
WELD
62
•
Greeley
MORGAN
44
Fort Morgan
LOGAN
8
• 3Sterling
Jularurg
SEDGW ICK
Holyoke
48•
PHILLIPS
•
OMfEL D
88
ADAMS
1
DENVER 3
16 ARAPAH OE
Akron
•
WASHINGTON
61
Wray
.
YUMA
63
Castle Rock
.
DOUGLAS
18
h Iowa 28
• ELBERT
SAC U ACH E
55 Saguache
•
TELLER
60 Colorado Spgs
• EL PASO
Cripple
Creek 21
FREMONT.
22 Canon City
Westclifte
•CUSTER
14
1
Pagosa Spgs
.
ARCHULETA
LETA
4
A LAMOSA
2
d/am2osa
CON EJOS
11
• Conejos
Hugo
LINCOLN
37
.
Burlington
KIT CARSON
32
Cheyenne
CHEYENNi:e1/s
9
Pueblo
.
PUEBLO
51
Trinidad
•
CROWLEY
13 ;rcAva
La Junta •
OTERO
46
Eads
•
KIOWA
31
Las Animas
•
BENT
6
Lamar
PROW ERS
50
LAS ANIMAS
36
Springfield
•
RAGA
5
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 4
WILDROSE
AnntAn»..L hcnaniwreu
Audit Division
Historical Information
Weld County has approximately 3,987.2
square miles and an estimated population of
approximately 324,492 people, according to
the U.S. Census Bureau's 2020 estimated
census data. This represents a 28.3 percent
change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2019.
Weld County covers an area of 4,004 square
miles in north central Colorado. It is bordered
on the north by Wyoming and Nebraska and on
the south by the Denver metropolitan area.
The third largest county in Colorado, Weld
County has an area greater than that of Rhode
Island, Delaware and the District of Columbia
combined.
Major Stephen H. Long made an expedition to
the area now known as Weld County in 1821.
In 1835 a government expedition came through
the general area; the next year a member of
that party, Lt. Lancaster Lupton, returned to
establish a trading post located just north of the
present town of Fort Lupton. In 1837 Colonel
Ceran St. Vrain established Fort St. Vrain; Fort
Vasquez was built south of Platteville about
1840. The latter was rebuilt in the 1930's by
the State Historical Society.
The county seat is Greeley which began as the
Union Colony, which was founded in 1869 as
an experimental utopian community of "high
moral standards" by Nathan C. Meeker, a
newspaper reporter from New York City.
Meeker purchased a site at the confluence of
the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers
(that included the area of Lathamvan Overland
Trail station), halfway between Cheyenne and
Denver along the tracks of the Denver Pacific
Railroad formerly known as the "Island Grove
Ranch." The name Union Colony was later
changed to Greeley in honor of Horace
Greeley, who was Meeker's editor at the New
York Tribune, and popularized the phrase "Go
West, young man."
Weld County's cultural assets include
Centennial Village, an authentic recreation of
pioneer life on the Colorado plains. The
Meeker Museum in Greeley is a national
historic site. Fort Vasquez in southern Weld
County has an exciting history as an early
Colorado trading post. The Greeley
Philharmonic Orchestra is one of the oldest
symphony orchestra west of the Mississippi.
The University of Northern Colorado's Little
Theatre of the Rockies is one of America's
premier college dramatic organizations.
(www.co.weld.co.us, www.wikipedia.ow)
2022 Weld County Property Asseeeoo of Stud} Page
WILDROSE
Audit Division
RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodology
All significant classes of property were
analyzed. Sales were collected for each
property class over the eighteen month period
from January 1, 2019 through June 30th, 2020.
Property classes with less than thirty sales had
the sales period extended in six month
increments up to an additional forty-two
months. If this extended sales period did not
produce the minimum thirty qualified sales, the
Audit performed supplemental appraisals to
reach the minimum.
Although it was required that we examine the
median and coefficient of dispersion for all
counties, we also calculated the weighted mean
and price -related differential for each class of
property. Counties were not passed or failed
by these latter measures, but were counseled if
there were anomalies noted during our
analysis. Qualified sales were based on the
qualification code used by each county, which
were typically coded as either "Q" or "C." The
ratio analysis included all sales. The data was
trimmed for counties with obvious outliers
using IAA() standards for data analysis. In
every case, we examined the loss in data from
trimming to ensure that only true outliers were
excluded. Any county with a significant
portion of sales excluded by this trimming
method was examined further. No county was
allowed to pass the audit if more than 5% of
the sales were "lost" because of trimming.
All sixty-four counties were examined for
compliance on the economic area level. Where
there were sufficient sales data, the
neighborhood and subdivision levels were
tested for compliance. Although counties are
determined to be in or out of compliance at the
class level, non -compliant economic areas,
neighborhoods and subdivisions (where
applicable) were discussed with the Assessor.
Data on the individual economic areas,
neighborhoods and subdivisions are
found in the STATISTICAL APPENDIX.
Conclusions
For this final analysis report, the minimum
acceptable statistical standards allowed by the
State Board of Equalization are:
ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Property Class
Commercial /Industrial
Condominium
Single Family
Vacant Land
Unweighted Coefficient of
Median Ratio Dispersion
Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99
Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99
Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99
Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 6
fifeWILDRCSE
. APPRAML IscoaroRATFD
Audit Division
The results for Weld County are:
Weld County Ratio Grid
Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient
Qualified Median Related of Time Trend
Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
Commercial/Industrial 216 0.993 1.007 6.4 Compliant
Single Family 11,461 0.971 1.005 4.9 Compliant
Vacant Land 215 1.000 1.010 10 Compliant
After applying the above described
methodologies, it is concluded from the sales
ratios that Weld County is in compliance with
SBOE, DPT, and Colorado State Statute
valuation guidelines.
Recommendations
None
O' ? `Veld County Property Asses,n:cnt Study . Plc 7
WILDROSE
Audit Division
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION
Methodology
While we recommend that counties use the
inverted ratio regression analysis method to
account for market (time) trending, some
counties have used other IAAO-approved
methods, such as the weighted monthly median
approach. We are not auditing the methods
used, but rather the results of the methods
used. Given this range of methodologies used
to account for market trending, see concluded
that the best validation method was to examine
the sale ratios for each class across the
appropriate sale period. To be specific, if a
county has considered and adjusted correctly
for market trending, then the sale ratios should
remain stable (i.e. flat) across the sale period.
If a residual market trend is detected, then the
county may or may not have addressed market
trending adequately, and a further examination
is warranted. This validation method also
considers the number of sales and the length of
the sale period. Counties with few sales across
the sale period were carefully examined to
determine if the statistical results were valid.
Conclusions
After verification and analysis, it has been
determined that Weld County has complied
with the statutory requirements to analyze the
effects of time on value in their county. Weld
County has also satisfactorily applied the results
of their time trending analysis to arrive at the
time adjusted sales price (TASP).
Recommendations
None
20?, Weld County Property Asse smeut Study Page 8
WILDROSE
Audit Division
SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodology
Weld County was tested for the equal
treatment of sold and unsold properties to
ensure that "sales chasing" has not occurred.
The auditors employed a multi -step process to
determine if sold and unsold properties were
valued in a consistent manner.
We test the hypothesis that the assessor has
valued unsold properties consistent with what
is observed with the sold properties based on
several units of comparison and tests. The
units of comparison include the actual value per
square foot and the change in value from the
previous base year period to the current base
year. The first test compares the actual value
per square foot between sold and unsold
properties by class. The median and mean
value per square foot is compared and tested
for any significant difference. This is tested
using non -parametric methods, such as the
Mann -Whitney test for differences in the
distributions or medians between sold and
unsold groups. It is also examined graphically
and from an appraisal perspective. Data can be
stratified based on location and subclass. The
second test compares the difference in the
median change in value from the previous base
year to the current base year between sold and
unsold properties by class. The same
combination of non -parametric and appraisal
testing is used as with the first test. A third test
employing a valuation model testing a
sold/unsold binary variable while controlling
for property attributes such as location, size,
age and other attributes. The model
determines if the sold/unsold variable is
statistically and empirically significant. If all
three tests indicate a significant difference
between sold and unsold properties for a given
class, the Auditor may meet with the county to
determine if sale chasing is actually occurring,
or if there are other explanations for the
observed difference.
If the unsold properties have a higher median
value per square foot than the sold properties,
or if the median change in value is greater for
the unsold properties than the sold properties,
the analysis is stopped and the county is
concluded to be in compliance with sold and
unsold guidelines. All sold and unsold
properties in a given class are first tested,
although properties with extreme unit values
or percent changes can be trimmed to stabilize
the analysis. The median is the primary
comparison metric, although the mean can also
be used as a comparison metric if the
distribution supports that type of measure of
central tendency.
The first test (unit value method) is applied to
both residential and commercial/industrial sold
and unsold properties. The second test is
applied to sold and unsold vacant land
properties. The second test (change in value
method) is also applied to residential or
commercial sold and unsold properties if the
first test results in a significant difference
observed and/or tested between sold and
unsold properties. The third test (valuation
modeling) is used in instances where the results
from the first two tests indicate a significant
difference between sold and unsold properties.
It can also be used when the number of sold
and unsold properties is so large that the non -
parametric testing is indicating a false rejection
of the hypothesis that there is no difference
between the sold and unsold property values.
These tests were supported by both tabular and
graphics presentations, along with written
documentation explaining the methodology
used.
2022 \Veld County Properly .�sse;:ment Stud- Page 9
WILDROSE
ArrwAIau,l.roanOwAreu
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
Property Class
Commercial /Industrial
Single Family
Vacant Land
Results
Compliant
Compliant
Compliant
Conclusions
After applying the above described
methodologies, it is concluded that Weld
County is reasonably treating its sold and
unsold properties in the same manner.
Recommendations
None
2022 Weld County Property Assessment .Study Page 10
WILD ' O. E
N. PPP N►- \t l\n,Rlti'►k \TFp
Audit Division
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Acres By Subclass
Waste
8 94%
Gray
48 49%
Sprinkle
8.85%
Flood
38%
Dry Farm
27 98%
leaaaar Hay
058%
60 000 000
50 000 000
40 000 000
30 000 000
20 000 000
10 000 000
0
Value By Subclass
O
a
Agricultural Land
County records were reviewed to determine
major land categories such as irrigated farm,
dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other
lands. In addition, county records were
reviewed in order to determine if: Aerial
photographs are available and are being used;
soil conservation guidelines have been used to
classify lands based on productivity; crop
rotations have been documented; typical
commodities and yields have been determined;
orchard lands have been properly classified and
valued; expenses reflect a ten year average and
are typical landlord expenses; grazing lands
have been properly classified and valued; the
number of acres in each class and subclass have
been determined; the capitalization rate was
properly applied. Also, documentation was
required for the valuation methods used and
any locally developed yields, carrying
capacities, and expenses. Records were also
checked to ensure that the commodity prices
and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), were applied properly.
(See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3
Chapter 5.)
Conclusions
An analysis of the agricultural land data
indicates an acceptable appraisal of this
property type. Directives, commodity prices
and expenses provided by the PTA were
properly applied. County yields compared
favorably to those published by Colorado
Agricultural Statistics. Expenses used by the
county were allowable expenses and were in an
acceptable range. Grazing lands carrying
capacities were in an acceptable range. The
data analyzed resulted in the following ratios:
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 11
WILDROSE
APreAmAthcoaresumEn
Audit Division
Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Abstract
Code Land Class
4107 Sprinkler
4117 Flood
4127 Dry Farm
4137 Meadow Hay
4147 Grazing
4167 Waste
Total/Avg
Number County County WRA
Of Value Assessed Total
Acres Per Acre Total Value Value Ratio
142,328 183.75 26,152,810 26,093,144 1.00
176,455 242.92 42,863,937 43,513,854 0.99
553,083 35.18 19,456,033 19,129,320 1.02
11,595 41.19 477,576 477,576 1.00
1,045,509 6.55 6,851,302 6,851,302 1.00
13,112 2.20 28,864 28,864 1.00
1,989,366 48.22 95,934,611 96,198,149 1.00
Recommendations
None
Agricultural Outbuildings
Methodology
Data was collected and reviewed to determine
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.74
through 5.77 were being followed.
Conclusions
Weld County has complied with the
procedures provided by the Division of
Property Taxation for the valuation of
agricultural outbuildings.
Recommendations
None
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 12
S R WILDE
1rvh.ro
Audit Division
Agricultural Land Under Improvements
Methodology
Data was collected and reviewed to determine
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.19
and 5.20 were being followed.
Conclusions
Weld County has used the following methods
to discover land under a residential
improvement on a farm or ranch that is
determined to be not integral under 39-1-102,
C.R.S.:
Questionnaires
Field Inspections
Phone Interviews
In -Person Interviews with
Owners/Tenants
Written Correspondence other than
Questionnaire
Personal Knowledge of Occupants at
Assessment Date
Weld County has used the following methods
to discover the land area under a residential
improvement that is determined to be not
integral under 39-1-102, C.R.S.:
• Property Record Card Analysis
• Field Inspections
• Phone Interviews
• In -Person Interviews with
Owners/Tenants
Written Correspondence other than
Questionnaire
Personal Knowledge of Occupants at
Assessment Date
Aerial Photography/Pictometry
Weld County has complied with the
procedures provided by the Division of
Property Taxation for the valuation of land
under residential improvements that may or
may not be integral to an agricultural
operation.
Recommendations
None
7O,7 Weld County Property Assessment Study Pa`e 1 I
WILDROSE
tiPPR\Li.V_ (\/1/RIM1)R\7EU
Audit Division
SALES VERIFICATION
According to Colorado Revised Statutes:
A representative body of sales is required when
considering the market approach to appraisal.
(8) In any case in which sales prices of comparable
properties within any class or subclass are utilized
when considering the market approach to appraisal in
the determination of actual value of any taxable
property, the following limitations and conditions
shall apply:
(a)(I) Use of the market approach shall require a
representative body of sales, including sales by a
lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and
appraisals shall reflect due consideration of the
degree of comparability of sales, including the extent
of similarities and dissimilarities among properties
that are compared for assessment purposes. In order
to obtain a reasonable sample and to reduce sudden
price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be
included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true
or typical sales price during the period specified in
section 39-1-104 (10.2). Sales of personal property
exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 39-3-
102, 39-3-103, and 39-3-119 to 39-3-122 shall
not be included in any such sample.
(b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be
coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as
screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103,
C.R.S.)
The assessor is required to use sales of real property
only in the valuation process.
(8)(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only
those sales which have been determined on an
individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real
property only or which have been adjusted on an
individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real
property only. (39-1-103, C.R.S.)
Part of the Property Assessment Study is the
sales verification analysis. WRA has used the
above -cited statutes as a guide in our study of
the county's procedures and practices for
verifying sales.
WRA reviewed the sales verification
procedures in 2022 for Weld County. This
study was conducted by checking selected sales
from the master sales list for the current
valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 60
sales listed as unqualified.
All of the sales in the unqualified sales sample
had reasons that were clear and supportable.
For residential, commercial, and vacant land
sales with considerations over $100,000, the
contractor has examined and reported the ratio
of qualified sales to total sales by class and
performed the following analyses of unqualified
sales:
The contractor has examined the
manner in which sales have been
classified as qualified or unqualified,
including a listing of each step in the
sales verification process, any
adjustment procedures, and the county
official responsible for making the final
decision on qualification.
The contractor has reviewed with the
assessor any analysis indicating that
sales data are inadequate, fail to reflect
typical properties, or have been
disqualified for insufficient cause. In
addition, the contractor has reviewed
the disqualified sales by assigned code.
If there appears to be any inconsistency
in the coding, the contractor has
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 14
Conclusions
Weld County appears to be doing an adequate
job of verifying their sales. WRA agreed with
IkeWILDROSE
Arran l\CMPOR ren
Audit Division
conducted further analysis to the county's reason for disqualifying each of the
determine if the sales included in that sales selected in the sample. There are no
code have been assigned appropriately. recommendations or suggestions.
Recommendations
None
2022 \V'ek1 County Property As,e,.'c cnt study Pa<`c_ [ 3
WILDROSE
e,PPR\IesAL I<CINIR)R\TFA
Audit Division
ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW AND
EVALUATION
Methodology
Weld County has submitted a written narrative
describing the economic areas that make up the
county's market areas. Weld County has also
submitted a map illustrating these areas. Each
of these narratives have been read and analyzed
for logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps
were also compared to the narrative for
consistency between the written description
and the map.
Conclusions
After review and analysis, it has been
determined that Weld County has adequately
identified homogeneous economic areas
comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each
economic area defined is equally subject to a set
of economic forces that impact the value of the
properties within that geographic area and this
has been adequately addressed. Each economic
area defined adequately delineates an area that
will give "similar values for similar properties
in similar areas."
Recommendations
None
20?? Weld County Propc rty Assessment Study Paae 16
WILDROSE
:\rrrt.vMu. INCORPORATED
Audit Division
NATURAL RESOURCES
Earth and Stone Products
Methodology
Under the guidelines of the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income
approach was applied to determine value for
production of earth and stone products. The
number of tons was multiplied by an economic
royalty rate determined by the Division of
Property Taxation to determine income. The
income was multiplied by a recommended
Hoskold factor to determine the actual value.
The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of
the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two
variables: life and tonnage. The operator
determines these since there is no other means
to obtain production data through any state or
private agency.
Conclusions
The County has applied the correct formulas
and state guidelines to earth and stone
production.
Recommendations
None
Producing Oil and Gas
Methodology
Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3,
Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources
STATUTORY REFERENCES
Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifies that
producing oil or gas leaseholds and lands are
valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S.
Actual value determined - when.
(2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds
and lands producing oil or gas shall be
determined as provided in article 7 of this title.
§ 39-1-103, C.R.S.
Article 7 covers the listing, valuation, and
assessment of producing oil and gas leaseholds
and lands.
Valuation:
Valuation for assessment.
(1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
section, on the basis of the information
contained in such statement, the assessor shall
value such oil and gas leaseholds and lands for
assessment, as real property, at an amount
equal to eighty-seven and one-half percent of:
(a) The selling price of the oil or gas sold there
from during the preceding calendar year, after
excluding the selling price of all oil or gas
delivered to the United States government or
any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or
any agency thereof, or any political subdivision
of the state as royalty during the preceding
calendar year;
(b) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the
same field area for oil or gas transported from
the premises which is not sold during the
preceding calendar year, after excluding the
selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the
United States government or any agency
thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency
thereof, or any political subdivision of the state
as royalty during the preceding calendar year.
§ 39-7-102, C.R.S.
Conclusions
The county applied approved appraisal
procedures in the valuation of oil and gas.
Recommendations
None
2022 2 e 1 d Cho::::: Property .2,:e:,o cut Study Pao: 17
WILDROSE
APPRUW.iL I\CVRR)NATED
Audit Division
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2022 in Weld
County. The review showed that subdivisions
were discounted pursuant to the Colorado
Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 (14) and
by applying the recommended methodology in
ARL Vol 3, Chap 4. Subdivision Discounting in
the intervening year can be accomplished by
reducing the absorption period by one year.
In instances where the number of sales within
an approved plat was less than the absorption
rate per year calculated for the plat, the
absorption period was left unchanged.
Conclusions
Weld County has implemented proper
procedures to adequately estimate absorption
periods, discount rates, and lot values for
qualifying subdivisions.
Recommendations
None
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 18
OfpWILDROSE
, :1Pi•RAISLL. ��ClMM1KiTED
Audit Division
POSSESSORY INTEREST PROPERTIES
Possessory Interest
Possessory interest property discovery and
valuation is described in the Assessor's
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 section 7
in accordance with the requirements of
Chapter 39-1-103 (17)(a) (II) C.R.S.
Possessory Interest is defined by the Property
Tax Administrator's Publication ARL Volume
3, Chapter 7: A private property interest in
government -owned property or the right to the
occupancy and use of any benefit in
government -owned property that has been
granted under lease, permit, license,
concession, contract, or other agreement.
Weld County has been reviewed for their
procedures and adherence to guidelines when
assessing and valuing agricultural and
commercial possessory interest properties.
The county has also been queried as to their
confidence that the possessory interest
properties have been discovered and placed on
the tax rolls.
Conclusions
Weld County has implemented a discovery
process to place possessory interest properties
on the roll. They have also correctly and
consistently applied the correct procedures and
valuation methods in the valuation of
possessory interest properties.
Recommendations
None
'O22. Weld Counts Proper, 0::essment Study _ Pa`e 19
4111, WILDROSE
Audit Division
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT
Weld County was studied for its procedural
compliance with the personal property
assessment outlined in the Assessor's Reference
Library (ARL) Volume 5, and in the State
Board of Equalization (SBOE) requirements for
the assessment of personal property. The
SBOE requires that counties use ARL Volume
5, including current discovery, classification,
documentation procedures, current economic
lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation
table, and level of value adjustment factor
table.
The personal property audit standards narrative
must be in place and current. A listing of
businesses that have been audited by the
assessor within the twelve-month period
reflected in the plan is given to the auditor.
The audited businesses must be in conformity
with those described in the plan.
Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from
the personal property accounts that have been
physically inspected. The minimum assessment
sample is one percent or ten schedules,
whichever is greater, and the maximum
assessment audit sample is 100 schedules.
For the counties having over 100,000
population, WRA selected a sample of all
personal property schedules to determine
whether the assessor is correctly applying the
provisions of law and manuals of the Property
Tax Administrator in arriving at the assessment
levels of such property. This sample was
selected from the personal property schedules
audited by the assessor. In no event was the
sample selected by the contractor less than 30
schedules. The counties to be included in this
study are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver,
Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa,
Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received
a procedural study.
Weld County is compliant with the guidelines
set forth in ARL Volume 5 regarding discovery
procedures, using the following methods to
discover personal property accounts in the
county:
Public Record Documents
MLS Listing and/or Sold Books
Chamber of Commerce/Economic
Development Contacts
Local Telephone Directories,
Newspapers or Other Local
Publications
Personal Observation, Physical
Canvassing or Word of Mouth
Questionnaires, Letters and/or Phone
Calls to Buyer, Seller and/or Realtor
The county uses the Division of Property
Taxation (DPT) recommended classification
and documentation procedures. The DPT's
recommended cost factor tables, depreciation
tables and level of value adjustment factor
tables are also used.
Weld County submitted their personal
property written audit plan and was current for
the 2022 valuation period. The number and
listing of businesses audited was also submitted
and was in conformance with the written audit
plan. The following audit triggers were used
by the county to select accounts to be audited:
•
•
Businesses in a selected area
Accounts with obvious discrepancies
New businesses filing for the first time
Accounts with greater than 10%
change
Incomplete or inconsistent declarations
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Studv— Page 20
WILDROSE
.�PP0.\ LY.U. I \l1NtPOR\Tti O
Audit Division
Businesses with no deletions or
additions for 2 or more years
Non -filing Accounts - Best Information
Available
Accounts close to the $50,000 actual
value exemption status
Accounts protested with substantial
disagreement
Weld County's median ratio is 1.00. This is
in compliance with the State Board of
Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements
which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD
requirements.
Conclusions
Weld County has employed adequate
discovery, classification, documentation,
valuation, and auditing procedures for their
personal property assessment and is in
statistical compliance with SBOE requirements.
Recommendations
None
?U? ) \Feld County Property Assessment Study Page 21
'Op WILDROSE
Audit Division
WILDROSE AUDITOR STAFF
Harry J. Fuller, Audit Project Manager
Suzanne Howard, Audit Administrative Manager
Steve Kane, Audit Statistician
Carl W. Ross, Agricultural/Natural Resource Analyst
J. Andrew Rodriguez, Field Analyst
?0?? Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 22
APPENDICES
2,122 Weld County Property Assessment Stndv - Paffe ? 3
WILD
: mm.1,u 1\.-.WIt,WAnln
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
FOR WELD COUNTY
2022
I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
150,907 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2022. The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
100,000
80,000
60,000
0
U
40,000
20,000
.4
0
Real P
15267
operty Clas
97131
s Distribution
Vacant Land
1 5730
32779
Res Imp Comm/Ind Imp Other
type
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 83.7% of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 93.4% of all residential
properties.
Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in
comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 3.9% of all such properties in this
county.
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2022 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in May 2022. The data
included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor.
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page
WILDRCSE
Audit Division
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
There were 11,461 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period ending June 30,
2020. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
0.971
1.005
4.9
Based on the Audit questionnaire filled out by the assessor (see below), the following geographic levels
were used by the assessor to value residential, commercial and vacant land properties:
Economic Area
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ECONAREA 0 697 .7.2%
2 3763 b9.1%
Overall
Excluded
Tota l
3 2421 ,25.2%
635 ?,6.6%
46 10.5%
6 1393
9 201
99 462
114.5%
2.1%
4.8%
9618
100.0%
0
9618
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Group N Median Differential Dispersion
0 697 .974 1.002 .037
2 3763 .970 1.003 043
3 2421 .970 1.005 .047
4 635 .982 ,1.002 039
5 46 .962 :1.017 1.076
6 1393 .972 :1.004 9.061
9 2101
99 462__ .971 :1.003 1.036
Overall 9618
.973 `1.005 1.044
.972 1.005 .046
Neighborhoods with at least 35 sales
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Group N Median Differential Dispersion
71 87 .972 1.007 .052
72 61 .971 1.000 .030
78` 39 .964 1.000 .031
79 38 .974 1.000 .035
81 48 s964 1.001 .042
83 67 .964 999 039
171 132 .972 1.000 .038
174 ;225 L978 11.002 1.031
2002 44 ?.963 11.002 ,.044
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 25
i ILDR�SE
Audit Division
2005 81
2006 47
2007
2011
2013
2016
2018
2019
2020
2021
2060
2061
2100
2101
2102
2103 5
58
133
175
180 .975 _
35 .968`._ _
246 .966
449 .979
410 .970
52 .967
48 .965
54
38
2105 44
68
2106
1.000 .044
970 1.004 .048
976 1.022 100
.973 1.009 059
1.005 .052
1.001 .028
1.003 052
1.004 038
1.003 .036
1 004 .039
.998 .076
1.001 034
.966 1.001 .047
.967 1.001 .033
;.969 1.000 .034
972 1.000
.983
2107 99
2108 45
2110 99
2111 198
2112 82 '
2115 36
2117 67
2118 59
2120 70
2121 62
2122 236
2151 91
2152 124
2155 97
2252 39
2657 40
2690 47_
3000 40
3003 56
3004 122
3008 444
3012 75
3013 138
3017 154
3024
3025
3026 151
83
229
3027 46
3030 138
3031 62
3032 135
3034 225
3037 130
3038 140
3122 53
4000 154
4002 93
4004 202
4102 85
.967
.972
.971
.969
.959 1.002
Mme.
.964 1.005
968 1.001
.990 1.001
969 1.000
.967 1.0
.978 1.
974 1.002
.971 1
.966
.965
:098700
1.003
.968
.977
967
972
.980
.964 1001
958 iM1007
975 1.016
968 1.000
968 1.001
.947 1.002
972 1.000
981 1.000
.964 1.000
970 1.002
975 m_ 1.004
969 1.001 _
.970 1:001
.960 1.006
.984 1.001
.986 1.001
986 1.002
968 1.001
1.002
1.001
.999
1.001
1.007
'1.002
1.003
.999
:1.001
.050
.065
.036
.041
.039
.056
.054
.067
.045
.050
030
.036
.027
.039
.074
.051
.022
.043
.033
.027
059
.040
068
.060
.022
.039
053
.038
.049
044
.044
.040
.034
028
.025
.040
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY 'age 26
WILD' O,E
\sera I�rcwl,.+nn
Audit Division
4103 62
966 1.005 .063
4105 39 .100
5001 46 .076
6003 46 .965 1.001 .057
6021 66 .956 1.003 .053
6025 71 .964 1.004 .058
6027 74 .968 .040
6029 75 .969 1.000 .045
6030 75 .965 .998 .085
6031 133 .967 1.003 .057
6033 73 .990 1.022 .107
6034 163 .966 1.005 .070
6035 1.001 .036
6037 110 .976 .083
6038 1.003 .058
6045 58 .979 1.022 .098
6050 40 .965 .055
6062 .040
9010 62 1.004 .049
9014 52 .977 .049
9040 87 .976 1.003 .036
9999 460 .970 1.003 .035
Overall 9618 .972 1.005 .046
.971 1.011
962 1.017
145 .972
105 .969
161 .984
.967
1.003
1.004
1.004
1.001
1.006
NOTE: NBHD 9999 = Condominiums
The above ratio statistics were in compliance with the standards set forth by the Colorado State Board
of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall residential sales. The following graphs describe further the sales
ratio distribution for these properties:
V
C
4)
C'
L
LL
2.500
2,000
U
Sales Ratio Distribution
1
.00 .50
salesratio
Mean = .97
Std. Dev. _ .
071
N = 11,481
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 27
WILD'O.E
:%PPR % Ul 1St C*POR.\ n 1U
Audit Division
PRD Analysis
1.50
1.00
.50
! I.
•
•
••
•
•• • •
00 1• • •
••
• • •
• _•• • • ••
•
•
•
• •
j ••
•
•
•
• •
•
•
• •
!•
•
its • •
•
• •
• I
•
•
••
gic
•
IMP
•
•
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000
TIMEADJPRICE
NOTE: Sales over $2,500,000 excluded for graphic clarity
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of the sale ratios was within state mandated limits.
Subclass 1212 PRD Analysis
We next analyzed residential properties identified as 1112 using the state abstract code system. These
include single family residences, town homes and purged manufactured homes. The following indicates
the distribution of sales ratios across the sale price spectrum:
1.50
.50
1212 SALES
•
w
•
•
• %
S
PRD Analysis
'•
•
•
•
•
•
1•
•
•
•
•
•
•#
•
•
•
i
•
•••
•
•
N A
•
a -
•
•
•
N
•.
•
• •�%•
•
• • •
•
•
• • •• •
•
•
•
• •
•
• •
• _•
•
•
•
50 $500,000 $1,000,000 $1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000
TIMEADJPRICE
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
WILDIE
Audit Division
The Price -Related Differential (PRD) for 1212 sales is 1.005, which is within IAA() standards for the
PRD. We also performed a regression analysis between the sales ratio and the assessor's current value
to further test for regressivity or progressivity in the residential sales valuation, as follows:
Coefficients'
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta
1 (Constant) .967 .002
Sig.
439.744 .000
CURRTOT .0000000189 .000 1033 3.500 <.001
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
The slope of the line at 0.0000000189 indicates that there is virtually no slope in the regression line,
which indicates that sales ratios are similar across the entire sale price array. This indicates no
regressivity or progressivity in the residential values assigned by the assessor.
We also stratified the sales ratio analysis by the sale price range, as follows:
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $300K 1709 15.7%
$300K to $400K 5127 47.0%
$400K to $500K 2396 [21.9%
$500K to $600K 963 (8.8%
$600K to $750K 502 4.6%
$750K to $1000K 166 1.5%
$1000K to $2000K 54 0.5%
Over $2000K 2 0.0%
Overall 10919 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 10919
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
LT $300K .975 1.003 .067
$300K to $400K .975 1.000 .038
$400K to $500K 968 1.000 .046
$500K to $600K 963 1.000 057
$600K to $750K .949 1.000 .070
$750K to $1000K 919 1.000 .092
$1000K to $2000K .918 .999 _ .123
Over $2000K .846 1.003 .061
Overall .972 1.005 .049
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion =Median Centered
"10.5%
15.,3% .
6.6%
i7.5%
z9.4%
'11.5%
16.1%
8.6%
:`.7.3%
The above table indicates no regressivity in the sales ratios across sale price categories.
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 29
FJILD1 E
Audit division
Residential Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the residential dataset using the 18 -month sale period for any residual market
trending and broken down by economic area, as follows:
Coefficientsa
ECONAREA Model
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients 'Coefficients
B Std. Error !Beta
Sig.
.000
.315
0
6
7
99
(Constant) .972
SalePeriod .000
Constant) .969
SalePeriod _000
(Constant) 973
SalePeriod 000
(Constant) .977
SalePeriod .000
(Constant) .982 .018
SalePeriod -.001 1.002
(Constant) .978 1.005
SalePeriod .000 ".000
.003
278.317
.000 .033
002
1.005
'514.140
.000
1.002
;.000
x.006
'.001
(Constant) .858
SalePeriod .008
x.027
-.018
,'"x.028
-.043
1.023
.055
_.005 " 1254
(Constant) .932 i.032
SalePeriod .003 0.003 .131
(Constant) 967 ,.T ;.008 l
_SalePeriod .000 '.001 ).027
(Constant) .965 .005
SalePeriod - .001 '.001 1.077
001
6
1.756
417.292
-.967
168.209
.794
54.054
-.451
.52
1.658 09
1
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
There was no residual market trending present in the sale ratio data for any of the economic ,areas; we.
therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the valuation of
residential properties.
Sold/Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the
median actual value per square foot for 2022 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows:
Report
VALSF
sold N
Median Mean
UNSOLD 84627
SOLD 11460
$214 $214
$212 $217
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 30
WILD15 3SE
Audit Division
Report
VALSF
ECONAREA sold N
00 UNSOLD 6601 $227 $225 _
SOLD 914 $226 $225 _
2.00 UNSOLD 24877 $216 $218
SOLD 4197 $211 $216
3.00 UNSOLD 19119 $210 $218
Median Mean
4.00
5.00
6.00
SOLD 2883 $211 $218
UNSOLD 6655
SOLD 808 ;:$202 $208
UNSOLD 1659
SOLD 114
UNSOLD 1728
SOLD 1610
$200 $204
$187
7.00 OLD 817 $117 $12
.m.
0 33 $139 $15
8.00
9.00
99.00
UNSOLD 726 $174 $177 _
SOLD 65 ;$198 '$192
UNSOLD 2881 $217 $210 _
SOLD 376 $225
UNSOLD 3737 $182
SOLD 419 $185
$220
$171
$189
NOTE: Econ Area 99 = Condominiums
Please note that economic areas with significant differences based on the actual value per square foot
comparison were also tested using the percent change in value method; in each case, those economic
areas showed no significant difference between sold and unsold residential properties using this second
method.
We also stratified this analysis by residential neighborhoods with at least 35 sales, as follows:
Report
VALSF
NDHD sold N
0071 UNSOLD `s656 x$245 $242
SOLD
0072 UNSOLD
SOLO
0083 UNSOLD
SOLD 67 $177 $181
0171 UNSOLD 818 $252 $246
SOLD132 =$232 $$33
0174 UNSOLD 881 $230
SOLD 225 $227
2005 UNSOLD 832 $254
SOLD 81 ?$262
2007 UNSOLD 652 x$261
SOLD 58 $269
UNSOLD 585 $220
SOLO 133 $238
UNSOLD
SOLD`
2016 UNSOLD
SOLD 180
$244 $244
$224 $225
$214 $220
$172 $178
2013
Median Mean
$225
$248
$255
$260
$262
$234
$250
$216 $220
5 $233 $229
:$182 $182
$173 $181
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
tr: \VILBRgSE
Audit Division
2019 UNSOLD 664 $227 $228
SOLD 246 $240 $238
2020 UNSOLD 748 $202 $205
SOLD 449 $196 $199
2021 UNSOLD 869 $197 $201
SOLD 410 $194 $203
2060 UNSOLD 524 $229 $225
SOLD 62 _ Y $225 $224
2100 UNSOLD 712 $216 $214
SOLD 54 $218_._w.. $216 _..
2102 UNSOLD 557 $233 $230
SOLD 55 $240 $232
2103 UNSOLD 510 $197 $205
SOLD 55 $194 $206
2106 UNSOLD 251 $213 $215
SOLD 68 $226 $222
2107 UNS_OLD 705 $209 $211
SOLD 99 $217 $220
2110 UNSOLD 1025 $222- $222
SOLD 99 $229 $227
2111 UNSOLD 2346 $224 $223
SOLD 198 $210 $216
2112 UNSOLD 904 $193 $194
SOLD 82 $192 $195
2117 UNSOLD 199 $196 $200
SOLD 67 $198 $207
2118 UNSOLD 467 $221 $220
SOLD 59 $5238 $230
2120 UNSOLD 512 $218 $215
SOLD 70 $221 $217
2121 UNSOLD 331 $247 $249
SOLD 62 $271 $266
2122 UNSOLD 190 $197 $204
SOLD 236 $190 $199
2151 UNSOLD 716 $230 $228
SOLD 91 $227 $227
2152 UNSOLD 422 $192 $205
SOLD 124 $205 $214
2155 UNSOLD 114 $160 $176
SOLD 97 $155 $173
3003 UNSOLD 324 $199 $202
SOLD 56 �.�m. $204 $199
3004 UNSOLD 124 $210 $211
SOLD 122 $198 $199
3008 UNSOLD 820 $204 _ $213
SOLD 444 $207 $219
3012 UNSOLD 566 $205 $212
SOLD 75 $208 $214
3013 UNSOLD 1315 - $219 $229
SOLD 138 $221 $239
3017 UNSOLD 367 $224 $224
SOLD 154 $225 $226
3024 UNSOLD 340 $210 $214
SOLD 83 $208 $218
3025 UNSOLD 842 $224 _ $230
SOLD 229 $200 $199
3026 UNSOLD 1357 $213 $215
2622 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 32
•
Audit Division
SOLD 151 $203 $212
3030 UNSOLD 670 $195 $201
SOLD 138 $193 $201
3031 UNSOLD 579 $269 $264
SOLD 62.._ �._ $260 $268
3032 UNSOLD 704 $206 $209
SOLD 135 $204 $207
3034 UNSOLD 407 $202 $216
SOLD 225 $201 $216
3037 UNSOLD 942 $198 $202
SOLD 130 $202 $209
3038 UNSOLD 1155 $201 ®. $203
SOLD 140 $208 $211
3122 UNSOLD 298 $212 $220
SOLD 53 $212 $218
4000 UNSOLD 457 $191 $195
SOLD 154 $184 $183
4002 UNSOLD 408 $204 $207
SOLD
93 $205 $210
4004 UNSOLD 571 $179 $187
SOLD 202 $183 U195
4102 UNSOLD 265 $193 $193
SOLD 85 $196 $193
4103 UNSOLD 592 $254 $256
SOLD 62 - $258 $259
6021 UNSOLD 732 $249 $244
SOLD 66 $248 $247 _ n�
6025 UNSOLD 823 $217 $216
SOLD 71 $208 $214
6027 UNSOLD 395 $229 $226
SOLD 74 $239 $232
6029 UNSOLD 987 $238 - $233
SOLD 75 $247 $243
6030 UNSOLD 772 $214 $216
SOLD 75 $223 $223
6031 UNSOLD 1737 $225 $221
SOLD 133 $229 -_ $222 76033 UNSOLD 737 $230 $230
SOLD 73 $257 $246
6034 UNSOLD 1416 $242 $235
SOLD 163 $248 $240
6035 UNSOLD 1283 $244 $234
SOLD 145 m_ $231 $228
6037 UNSOLD 1345 $222 $221
SOLD 110 $228 $228
6038 UNSOLD 1267 $241 $228
SOLD 105 $265 $252
6045 UNSOLD 794 $255 $250
s_.
SOLD 58 $261 $256
6062 UNSOLD 936 $242 $240
SOLD 161 $237 $240
9010 UNSOLD 582 $224 ;$221
SOLD 6, 2,
$224~ ._,�,.�...
4..
9014 UNSOLD 115
SOLD 52 $227 $
9040 UNSOLD 164 $216 $215
SOLD 87 $236 $227
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 33
WILDROOE
APPRNI§1
Audit Division
9999 UNSOLD 3907 $179 $172
SOLD 460 $183 $185
NOTE: Econ Area 9999 = Condominiums
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner.
IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
There were 216 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period ending June 30,
2020. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
0.993
Price Related
Differential
1.007
Coefficient of Dispersion
6.4
The above table indicates that the Weld County vacant land sale ratios were in compliance with the
SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution further:
120
100
SC
a60
f
a0
20
0 0.0
0.5
r
S
salesratio
2.0
Mean = .99
Std. Dev. _ .122
N=216
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 34
WILD • 'E
'i PPR;I* NM 'I 1-n
Audit Division
2.0
1.5
0
1.0
0.5
0.0
x
x
Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio
a
w
$0 $5,000,000
$10,000,000 $15,000,000
TASP
$20,000,000
$25,000,000
Commercial /Industrial Market Trend Analysis
The commercial /industrial sales were next analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 -month sale
period with the following results:
Coefficientsa
Model
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod -.001
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
Unstandardized Coefficients
B Std. Error
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
.995
. 016
2.0
13
0
1.0
I
05
00
. 002
-.040
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
art in* s aat• art is lit l•rrrttate •**to I •r sasaasn.nnal
3
+
0
5
10
SalePeriod
15
20
t
Sig.
62.707 <.001
-.590 .556
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNT
WILDROSE
Audit Division
There was no residual market trending present in the commercial sale ratios. We concluded that the
assessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the vacant land valuation.
Sold/Unsold Analysis
We compared the median change in value between valuation year 2018 and valuation year 2020
between sold and unsold groups to determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as
follows:
Report
DIFF
sold N Median Mean
UNSOLD 5052 1.05 1.10
SOLD 196 1.15 ;1.21
Based on the number of subclasses for commercial and industrial properties, we chose only major
subclasses with at least 10 sales for this analysis: i.e. those with improved abstract codes of 2212, 2220,
2230, 2235, 2245, and 3215. The following analysis was then performed:
Report
DIFF
ABSTRIMP RIMP sold N 'Median ;Mean
2212.00 UNSOLD 685 1.02 X1.08
SOLD 31 1.23 1.25
2220.00 UNSOLD 354 1.01 11.08
SOLD 18 1.07 11..18
2230.00 UNSOLD 959 1.05 ;1.10
SOLD 32 1.16
2235.00 UNSOLD 998 1.08 ,1.14
SOLD 19 1.23 ;1.30
2245.00 UNSOLD 989 :1.06 1.10
SOLD 67 ,1.16 1.18.
We have consulted with the assessor concerning the significant difference observed for several
commercial subclasses.
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
There were 215 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period ending June 30,
2020. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
1.000
Price Related Differential
1.010
Coefficient of Dispersion
10.0
The above ratio statistics were in compliance overall with the standards set forth by the Colorado State
Board of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall vacant land sales. The following graphs describe further
the sales ratio distribution for all of these properties:
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 36
60
C40
7
20
WILD O.E
APYR \C;.►t. I\I fRPOR1Tf 1►
Audit Division
12
salesratio
14 1 1.8
Mean = .98
Std. Dev. _ .152
N=215
1.8
I
1.6
1.4
1.0
Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
$1,000,000 T $1,250,000
x
X x x
xX xx
xX sicx
x
xx
x
x
x x
$0 $250,000 ' $500,000 ' $750,000
TASP
x
The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 37
WILD
APPRrf*1( hcoarl Afln
Audit Division
Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 18 -month sale period, with the following results:
Coefficientsa
Model
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
. 961
. 003
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
1.8
1.6
14
O 1.2
0.8
0.6
. 018
52.003
. 002 .088 1.292
+
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis
+ +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ + + + + + + + +
+ t1.
# + + 11 +
# +
+ T A.
+
t++ +++ + + +
+ +
*
5
10
SalePeriod
15
<.001
.198
The above analysis indicated that no significant market trending was present in the vacant land sale data.
We concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties.
Sold /Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the
median change in actual value for valuation year 2018 and valuation year 2020 between each group.
We stratified the vacant land properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following
results present the overall comparison results:
Report
DIFF
sold N
Median Mean
UNSOLD 6181 1.00 .92
SOLD 196 1.13 1.17
We also compared sold and unsold changes in value by subdivision with at least 6 sales, as follows:
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 3S
VILDROSE
Audit Division
Report
DIFF
SUBDIVNO sold N
Median Mean
2528 UNSOLD 25 1.12
SOLD 17 1.13
2925 UNSOLD 14 1.30
SOLD 5
3372 UNSOLD 3
SOLD
5192 UNSOLD
SOLD 5
6903 UNSOLD 9
SOLD 6
6924 UNSOLD 25
SOLD 5
7039 UNSOLD 10
SOLD 10
9
1
1.11 _
1.31 _
1.20
1.30
SS .36 _
1.08 .93 _
1.00 .95 _
1.06_....__..97___ _
46 .50 _
96 .80 ...
1.00 1.00
1.40 1.40
1.00 _.72
1.00 1.07
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Based on this 2022 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial/industrial and vacant land
properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 39
WILDROSE
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT `TASP
ECONAREA Mean
95% ConfidencMeae Interval for
n
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
al
Weighted Price Related • Coefcientof
Lower Bound Upper Bound Median • Lower Bound Upper Bound • Coverage Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion Mean Centered
Coefficient of
Variation
95% Confidence Interval for Medlan
Actu
5
6
:975
.972
.971
.982
.976
.981
.928 .
.961
.971
.972 .979 .974 .971 .977
.970 .974 .970 .969 .972
.969 .974 _971 .969 _
.976 .987 ti^ .979 .976
.954 .997 .969 .957
.977 .986 .972 .969
.872 .985 .958 .883
.929 .993 .975 .941
.963 .978 .970 .966
.972
.984
,985 .
.975 .977 .973 , .982 , 1.004 .063 9,4%
.842 .966 1.027 .124 17.2%
.956 .930 .982 1.005 .082 • E 13.4%
:969 , .961 .977 , 1.002 .049 ' - 7.3%
99 .972 .967 .978 .971 .968 .974 95.5% .970 + .966 .974 1.003 .036 6.196
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level maybe greater than the specified level. Other confidence Intervals are constructed by assuming a Normal
distribution fo rthe ratios.
Commercial Land
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound
.973 .969 ; .977 , 1.002 .041 5.7%
.968 • .966 .971 1.004 • .044 6.3%
.966 .963 , .969 • 1.005 .049 7.0%
.977 .971 .983 1.005 .048 8.0%
.987 ' .943 .991 1.009 .077 11,7%
1.000
.988
.975
95.6%
95.2%
95.2%
95.1%
95.1%
95.1%
96.5%
95.4%
95.6%
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT /TASP
95% Confidence Interval for Median
Actual
Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage
Weighted
Maan
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
Coefficientof
Variation
PriceRelated CoeitcientoT
Lower Bound Upper Bountl Differential Dispersion . Mean Centered
.987 .971 , 1.004 .993 .986 .998 95.2% .980 .954 1.006 1.007 .064 12.3%
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming a
Normal distribution torthe ratios.
Vacant Land
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND ; TASP
95% Confidence Interval for Medlan
Actual
Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage
Weighted
Mean
95% Confidence Intervalfor
Weighted Mean
Coeffffcienf of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of
Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion Mean Centered
.981 .961 1.002 1.000 .979 1.000 95.9% .972 , .948 .995 , 1.010 .1O0 15.5%
The confidence Interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level maybe greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming a
Normal distribution for the ratios.
2022 Statistical. Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 40
1466.5O 740
1553.00 1.096
2220.00 .886
2227.50 .981
2235.00 1.060
9240.00 .921
Overall .971
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABS T RIMP 1212.00 10915 95.2%
1213.50 3
1214.00 2
1215.00 83
1220.00 25
1224.29 1
1225.00 6
1230.00 419
1235.00
1466.50
1553.00
2220.00
2227.50
2235.00
9240.00
Overall
Excluded
Total
0.0%
0.0%
0.7%
0.2%
0.0%
9.1%
3.7%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
11461 100.0%
11461
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1.005 .049 7.3%
14.4%
1212.00 .972
1213.50 .931 1.051
1214.00 1.116 1.009
1215.00 970 .999
1220.00 .980 1.004
1224.29 .959 1.000
1225.00 1.000 1 006
1230.00 970 1.002
1235.00 1.222 1.000
0
0
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.005 049 7.3%
14.7%
'13.7%
8.8%
8.4%
6.0%
104
080
055
000
042
.034
000
000
000
.000
000
000
2022 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 41
��ILDRC�SE
Audit Division
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AgeRec Over 100 289 2.5%
75 to 100 185 1.6%
50 to 75 609 5.3%
25 to 50 1283 11.2%
5 to 25 4305 37.6%
5 or Newer 4790 41.8%
Overall 11461 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 11461
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
Over 100 985 1.014 . .104 15.4%
75 to 100 946 1.002 .092 13.4%
50 to 75 .969 1.009 075 11.0%
25 to 50 .968 1.003 `:060 8.7%
5 to 25 .969 1.003 3.045 6.5%
5 or Newer .975 1.005 1.040 5.7%
Overall .971 1.005 ;.049 7.3%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ImpSFRec LE 500 sf 13 0.1%
500 to 1,000 sf 638 5.6%
1,000 to 1,500 sf 3338 29.1%
1,500 to 2,000 sf 3909 34.1%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 2924 ;25.5%
3,000 sf or Higher 639 5.6%
Overall 11461 100.0%
Excluded., 0
Tota I 11461
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LEr 500 sf .974 1.020 .197 26.2%
500 to 1,000 sf .950 1.007 .067 10.0%
1,000 to 1,500 sf .972 1.003 .044 6.9%
1,500 to 2,000 sf .971 1.003 .043 6.2%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .975 1.004 .049 7.0%
3,000 sf or Higher .967 1.005 .083 ' 11.6%
Overall .971 1.005 .049 7.3%
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 42
JILD19 E
Audit Division
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count
QUALITY
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Percent
17.4%
77.2%
3.9%
0.5%
0.1%
Group Median
1.274 1.000
.967
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
.000
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
2
4 ..
Overa
110
.065
1.004 .043
1.010 .072
0.014 .083
1.030 .109
1.005 .049
•
:15.0%
110.2%
,6.1%
'9.6%
11.9%
;19.8%
7.3%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count
CONDITION 1
Overall
Excluded„
Total
Percent
0.0%
3 0.0%
2 27 0.2%
11423 99.71
4. 0.1%
461 ;100.0%
11461
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1.274 1.000 .000
2
.009 .919 ..228 4
1.044 .158
971 1.005 .048 7.2%
1.002 .048 6.4%
Overall 971 1.005 .049 7.3%
2022 Statistical Report WELD COUNTY Page 43
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 3 1.4%
$50K to $100K 8 3.7%
$100K to $150K 22 10.2% 0.
$150K to $200K 25 11.6%
$200K to $300K 27 12.5%
$300K to $500K 43 19.9%
$500K to $750K 22
$750K to $1,000K
Over $1,000K
Overall
Excluded
Total
1
10.2%
6.9%
51 23.6%
216 100.0%
6
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LT $25K 1.056 1.128 .300 58.1%
$50K to $100K 1.005 1.011 .115 19.4%
$100K to $150K .986 1.002 .067 10.4%
$150K to $200K .985 1.000 .055 8.6%
$200K to 0300K
$300K to $500K .987 .998 .061 12.7%
$500K to $750K .996 1.000 .052 7.5%
$750K to $1,000K .999 .999 .035 6.1%
Over $1,000K .993 1.000 .063 11.8%
Overall .993 1.007 .064 12.3%
1.007 .998 .053 7 0%
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 1212.00 2
1220.00 1
1712.00 1
2183.85 1
2212 00 31
2215 00"1
2220.00 19
2223.50 1
2223.75 !1
2227.50 M1
2230.0O 35
2232 00 1
2232.50 1
2233.00 1
2235.00 24
2245.00 74
2556.67 1
2725.00 1
0.9%
0,%0
0.5%5
0.5%
14.4%
0.5%
8.8%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
16.2%
0.5%
0.5%
0.5%
11.1%
34.3%
0.5%
0.5%
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 44
WILD
Audit DivisionE
Overall
Excluded
Total
2779.44 1 0
1 0
2917.40
3212.00 2 0.9%
3215.00
3225.00 ...1 0.5%
9239.00 1 0.5%
9249.00
9259.00 2 0.9%0
9279.00 2 0.9%
216 100.0%
0
216
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1212.00 .867 1.031 .289 ;40.8%
1220.00 754 1.000 .000 .
1712.00 1.064 1.000 .000 s.
2183.85 1.000 1.000 000
2212.00 995 1.001 049 0.5%
2215.00 .616 1000 .000
2220.00 999 1.048 079 02.4%
2223.50 982 1.000 .000
2223.75 968 1.000 000
2227.50 .950 1.000 000
2230.00 .998 .989 .067 111.3%
2232.00 984 1.000 000
2232.50 .975 1.000 .000.
2233.00 993 1.000 000
2235.00 .997 1.079 .062 j11.9%
2245.00 .986 1.014 058 8.4%
2556.67 1.067 1.000 .000
2725.00 1.000 1.000 .000
2779 44 1.000 1.000 .000
2917.40 987 1.000 000
3212.00 991 1.000 000 0.0%
3215.00 990 1.008 .032 4.5%
3225 00 452 1.000 .000
9239.00 1 243 1.000 .000
9249.00 1.000 1.000 000
9259.00 1.002 1.007 039 5.5%
9279.00 1.017 .971 036 5.2%
Overall .993 1.007 .064 ;12.3%
2022 Statistical Report: VELD COUNTY
Page 45
��'ILDROSE
Audit Division
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AgeRec Over 100 15 6.9%
75 to 100 8 3.7%
50 to 75 19 - 8.8%
25 to 50 39 18.1%
5 to 25 94 43.5%
5 or Newer 41 19.0%
Overall 216
Excluded 0
Total 216
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
Over 100 .974 .994 .055 10.9%
75 to 100 .961 .996 .054 9.8%
51691901 .1 25.9%
251050 .5 993 %3435 5.7%
5 to 25 .996 .991 :.062 11.2%
5 or Newer .996 1.024 1.066 110.3%
Overall .993 1.007 ,.064 12.3 A
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
impSFRec LE 500 sf 6
500 to 1,000 sf 19 _
1,000 to 1,500 sf 38 _
1,500 to 2,000sf 19
2,000 to 3,000 sf 34 15.7%
3,000 slot Higher 100 46.3%0
0
Overall
Excluded 2166
100.0%
Total
2.8%
8.8%
216
8.8%
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LE 500 sf .999 1.119 .177 29.1%
500 to 1,000 sf .986 1.055 .111 24.1%
1,000 to 1,500 sf .989 1.020 .054 s7.8%
1,500 to 2,000 sf .954 1.018 .065 11.6%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .998 1.006 .042 6.8%
3,000 sf or Higher .998 1.013 .058 10.7%
Overall .993 1.007 .064 12.3%
2922 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 46
WII.I�R�SE
Audit Division
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
QUALITY 1 5 2.3%
2 15 6.9%
3 159 73.6%
4 37 17.1%
Overall 216
Excluded 0
Total 216
:100.0%
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1 .998 1.171 .205 46.3%
2 .985 1.000 .031 4.0%
3 .995 1.013 .063 11.1%
4 .986 .980... .062 10.4%
Overall .993 1.007 :.064 12.3%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION 2 6 2.8%
Overall
ued
TotalExcld".
3 209
4 X0 1 .5%
216 ;100.0%
216
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
2 .989 .991 .015 2.1 %
3 994 1.009 .064 12.3%
4 .667 1.000 .000
Overall .993 1.007 .064 12.3%
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47
T1L11% E
Audit Division
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 7 3.3%.
$25K to $50K 15 17.0%
$50K to $100K
$100K to $150K
$150Kto $200K
$2C0K to $3001
$300K io $500i< 18 '8.4%
$5006 to $7506 8 3.7% Trt
$750K to $1000K 3 .1.4%
Over $1 000K 3 ;1.4%
Overall 215 1100.0%
Excluded 0
Total
73
51
21
.34.0%,
;.23.7%:
0.8%
7.4%
215
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND / TASP
Group
LT $25K 1.083 .987
$25K to $506 1.000 .993
$506#o $100K 1.000 1.004
$1006 to $150K .942
$150K to $2006 1000 .996__
$2006 to $300K 1 000 1.006
$300K to $5006 .948 1.009
$500K to $750K .944 1.001
$750K to $1,000K 1.000 1.002
Over $1,000K 1.000 1.001
Overall 1.000 1.010
Median
'Coefficient of
Price Related "Coefficient of Variation
Differential Dispersion Median Centered
'.070
158
1.069
.094
8.7%
24.3%
12.0%
1.003
12.8%
;19.4% _
x1.5.2%
125.2%
6.1%
X5.6%.
!3.0%
;15.3%
4.163
1046
1.027
x.020
'.100
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
APSTRLND 100.00 39 _
200.00 19 8.8%
300.00 4 1.9%
520.00 1 0.5%
540.0a `;1 10.5%
550.00
1112.00 125 58.1%
112500.;1
2112.00 "3
2115.00 1
2120.00 ''6
2130.00 7
295.00 7
18.1%
0.5%
0.5%
1.4%
0.5%
3.3%
3.3%
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 48
�, ��ILllI2OSE
Audit Division
Overall 215 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 215
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND / TASP
Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered
100.00 .949 1.042 .144 20.4%
200.00 .991 .975 .200 27.3% _
300.00 .984 1.010 .137 21.1% _
520.00 1.036 1.000 .000
540.00 .949 1.000 .000
550.00 .950 1.000 .000 _.
1112.00 1.000 1.002 .078 12.1%
1125.00 966 1.000 .000
2112.00 1.049 .997 .057 01.1%
2115.00 .921 1.000 .000 g.
2120.00 .984 1.026 .047 6.6%
2130.00 .923 1.004 .105 15.8%
2135.00 1.000 1.009 .045 7.1%
Overall 1.000 1.010 .100 15.3%
2022 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 49
Hello