HomeMy WebLinkAbout20202868.tiff2 0 2 O
WELD COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
Co Ntftun;cot7vnS
09/2 /20
WILD' • E
.\1'1'14 ‘1s 1l ��� l►FtF'clk �2 F.[>
Audit Division
cc: wsR(4K)
o°I /16 /20
2020-2868
WILDROSE
APPRAISAL IACORPOR%TED
Audit Division
September 15, 2020
Ms. Natalie Mullis
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2020 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Ms. Mullis:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2020 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.
1'1
Harry J. Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. — Audit Division
WILD • ' .E
APPRMSAI.. hcoRp avrtsr
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
2020 \Veld County Property esalnen[ Studv Page 2
ft WILD ' $ E
APPRAISAL IMCOI POAATEI)
Pkir Audit Division
INTRODUCTION
It
olo
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 2020 and is pleased to
report its findings for Weld County in the
following report.
2021) \Veld County Property \ :,cssinetit Slndv—
WILD E
APPRAISAL_ INCORPORATED
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
I
MOFFAT
41
RIO BLANCO
52
•
MESA
39
RO UTT
Craig • f 54
•
Steamboat Spgs
Meeker
•
GARFIELD
23 Glenwood Spgs
Grand Junction
DELTA
15
• Delta
Montrose
•
M0NTROSE
43
•
i
OU RAY
Walden
•
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
Pueblo, and Weld counties.
JACKSON
29
Eagle
•
EAGLE
19
PITKIN •
49 Aspen
ti
GRAND
25
Hot Sulphur
cpri»gs
LARIMER
35 •
Ft. Collins
7
BOULDER
•
Boulder
SW' IN
4
cursetow
CLEAR GREEK
SUMMI 1O
59 *BP kenridge
Le Wilt
LAKE
33
Fairplay
• PARK
47
GUNNISON CHAFFEE
• Gunnison Salida •
4c •
SAN MIGUEL Ouray HINSDALE
Lake City
27
Dove Creek
• DOL0RES
17
X57 Telluride
iWetton
SAN JUAN
Cortez
•
• Durango
MONTEZUMA LA PLATA
34
42
•
Creede
MINERAL
40 Del Norte
RIO G RA N DE
53
Golden
•
JEFFERSON
30
•
WELD
62
•
Greeley
MORGAN
44
Fort Morgan
LOGAN
38
•
Ster/ng
Julurg
SEDGWICK
CK
Holyoke
48•
PHILUPS
OMFIR D
80
ADAMS
DENVER 3
16 ARAPAH OE
Akron
•
WASHINGTON
61
Wray
•
YUMA
63
Castle Rock
•
DOUGLAS
18
hiowa 2®
• ELBERT
SAC UACHE
55 Saguache
•
TELLER
60 Colorado Spgs
L•
Cripple
'Creek
FREMONT•
22 Canon City
EL PASO
21
Hugo
LINCOLN
37
•
Burlington 1
KIT CARSON
32
Cheyenne
CH EVENNE •ells
9
Westc title
•CUSTER
14
Z _
Pagosa Spgs
AR CH U LETA lit \
4
A LAMOSA
2
41am0sa
CON EJOS
11
•Conejos
COSTILLA
12
•
San Luis
Pueblo
•
PUEBLO
51
HUERFANO
20 •
Walsenburg
Trinidad
•
CROWLEY
13 Qrdway
La Junta •
OTERO
46
Eads
•
KIOWA
31
Las Animas
•
BENT
6
Lamar
•
PROW ERS
50
LAS ANIMAS
36
Springfield
•
BACA
5
20.11) Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 4
OpWILD 'O.E
, arrausu. INCORPORATED
Audit Division
Historical Information
Weld County had an estimated population of
approximately 294,932 people with 73.97
people per square mile, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2016 estimated census data.
This represents a 16.65 percent change from
April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2016.
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 Latham, an 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.org)
2020 Weld County 0n)1)crtv Esc ii ent Stud- Pate
WILD'O,k
:�PP8M3.iL I\RMPORIT r
Audit Division
RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodolow
All significant classes of properties were
analyzed. Sales were collected for each
property class over the appropriate sale period,
which was typically defined as the 18 -month
period between January 1, 2017 and June 30,
2018. Counties with less than 30 sales typically
extended the sale period back up to 5 years
prior to June 30, 2018 in 6 -month increments.
If there were still fewer than 30 sales,
supplemental appraisals were performed and
treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for all
counties using this method totaled at least 30
per county. For commercial sales, the total
number analyzed was allowed, in some cases,
to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity
issues for counties requiring vacant land
analysis or condominium analysis. 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 IAAO
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. For the largest 11
counties, the residential ratio statistics were
broken down by economic area as well.
Conclusions
For this final analysis report, the minimum
acceptable statistical standards allowed by the
State Board of Equalization are:
ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Property Class
Commercial /Industrial
Condominium
Single Family
Vacant Land
Unweighted
Median Ratio
Between .95-1.05
Between .95-1.05
Between .95-1.05
Between .95-1.05
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Less than 20.99
Less than 15.99
Less than 15.99
Less than 20.99
2020 \Veld County Property Assessment Shiny — PaQc 6
IlkWILDRC�SE
Avvwusu_ 1\C[NtF'OR\rED
Audit Division
The results for Weld County are:
Weld County Ratio Grid
Property Class
Commercial /Industrial
Condominium
Single Family
Vacant Land
Number of
Qualified
Sales
290
N/A
10,875
Unweighted
Median
Ratio
1.000
N/A
0.972
353 0.989
Price Coefficient
Related of Time Trend
Differential Dispersion Analysis
1.025 8.2 Compliant
N/A N/A N/A
1.006 5.6 Compliant
1.014 12.8 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
2020 \Veld (A univ Property Asscs anent Study Pal;c 7
Oftp WILDRQSE
AmILDa .s
TED
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, we 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
2020 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Pale 8
IlikWDR( )SE
APPRAILL N\CORPORATEI)
Audit Division
SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodoloav
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.
2020 \Feld County Property Assessment Study Page 9
ilkWILD ' O. E
Avr�w.vaL i\CORPoRAreo
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
Property Class
Commercial /Industrial
Condominium
Single Family
Vacant Land
Results
Compliant
N/A
Compliant
Compliant
Conclusions
Recommendations
After applying the above described None
methodologies, it is concluded that Weld
County is reasonably treating its sold and
unsold properties in the same manner.
2020 Weld. County Property Assessment Study — Page 10
E
1\ccHPO t.VTLI
Audit Division
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Acres By Subclass
r
Waste
4.23%
Grail n
49.71%
SPri ntFi
8.50%
Flood
10.18%
Mead wr Hay
0.63%
Dry Farm
28.77%
60,000,000
50,000,000
40.000,000
30,000,000
20,000,000
10,000,000
0
Value By Subclass
/°o
et?
aDy ��9
ay
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:
2020 Weld. County Property Assessment study -- Page 11
IlkWILD' O.E
Arrwuau.. INCoemeAren
Audit Division
Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Number County County WRA
Abstract Of Value Assessed Total
Code Land Class Acres Per Acre Total Value Value Ratio
4107 Sprinkler 126,457 204.68 25,883,669 25,590,164 1.01
4117 Flood 197,686 262.74 51,939,915 51,996,530 1.00
4127 Dry Farm 559,765 36.97 20,695,400 20,470,463 1.01
4137 Meadow Hay 12,167 45.50 553,654 553,654 1.00
4147 Grazing 967,149 6.95 6,723,365 6,723,365 1.00
4167 Waste 82,397 2.39 196,583 196,583 1.00
Total/Avg 1,945,621 54.48 105,992,587 105,530,759 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
2020 Weld County Property A :;essnient Study Page 12
OltWILDROSE
APP L4.U_ I\COR{4NWTFD
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
2020 \Veld County Property 1 :•tc,•ntent Study Pti�,e 13
fpWILD • O. E
, APPRAISAL. INCORPORATED
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)(1) 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 r fect 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 r fect 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 r fect 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 2020 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
2020 \Veld County Propt:riy A sessnicnt Study — Pa(2.3t 14
ilkWIL IS ATE
:�w�IL l�miemnareo
Audit Division
conducted further analysis to
determine if the sales included in that
code have been assigned appropriately.
Conclusions
Weld County appears to be doing a good job of
verifying their sales. WRA agreed with the
county's reason for disqualifying each of the
sales selected in the sample. There are no
recommendations or suggestions.
Recommendations
None
2020 Weld County Property 1 ,cssincnt Study Pa;2,c 15
OWILD I SE
p Awi IML IX \ EPt)1 kThn
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
2020 \Veld Count- Property Assessment Study - Page I6
WILDROSE
APPRAISAL 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
2020 \ cld County Propc:rtv 1 . cssn,cnt Study Paac 17
WILDROSE
APPRAISAL I\(TMlPO&ATFb
Audit Division
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2020 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
2020 \Feld County Property A 'essment Study - Pate 18
flikWILD' 1E
AFruAIFSAL, L .Co pORATE )
Audit Division
POSSESSORY INTERE
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
ST PROPERTIES
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
2020 \VAI Counts Property A,zes,niont Study Paize 19
fikWILD'O�E
:1PPRAIS.iL\l\MI'DR;TED
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 2020 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
• Accounts with omitted property
• Same business type or use
2020 Weld Conn[y Property A cssment Study-- Paac 2O
figlir t1WDROsPPRNN,.ILL NCOR.PORNI E
E Audit Division
• Businesses with no deletions or
additions for 2 or more years
• Non -filing Accounts - Best Information
Available
• Accounts close to the $7,700 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
2020 \Veld County Property 1 tewuent Study— Pa ze 21
IlkWILD 'O.E
APPILUSALNCORPORATFD
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
?02(') \V%eld County Property Assessment. Stuck Pd OS 22
WILD' .E
Op Arr RAIs.4. l NccxernuXW en
Audit Division
APPENDICES
2) \Vrld County Property
\ s�cs:snneut Study Page 23
� ILDRO E
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
FOR WELD COUNTY
2020
I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
141,440 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2020. The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 84.7% of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92.9% o 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.
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:
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Geo Area
Residential
Comm/Ind
Vacant Land
Economic Area
V
V
V
Neighborhood
V
N
V
Subdivision
V
N
V
Codes
V=Valid Geographic Level - used for modeling
N = Not used as Geographic Level for modeling
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2020 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2020. The data
included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor.
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
There were 10,875 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period ending June 30,
2018. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
0.972
Price Related Differential
1.006
Coefficient of Dispersion
5.6
We next stratified the sale ratio analysis by economic area and neighborhood. The minimum count for
the neighborhood stratification is 20 sales. The following are the results of this stratification analysis:
Economic Area
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ECONAREA .00 1021 9.4%
2.00 3450 €31.8%
3.00 2673 ;24.7%
Overall
Excluded
Total
4.00 772
5.00 136
6.00 1769
7.1%
1.3%
16.3%
7.00 47 . 0.4% _
8.00 54 p.5%.. _
9.00 372 _ 3.4% _
99.00 544 5.0% .0% _
10838 100.0%
37
10875
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 25
2006 .971
2007 .962
Op WILDROSE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
.00 .975 1.001 .047
2.00 .973 1.005 .050
3.00 .969 1.004 .051
4,00 .979 1.006 .052
5.00 _ ' .:.963 1.014 .109
6.00 `.970 1.011 .082
7.00 .970 1.012 .114
8.00 .952 1.013 .085
9.00 .973 1.007 .055
99.00 .968 .999 .042
Overall .972 1.006 .056
NOTE: Econ Area 99 = Condominiums
Neighborhoods with at least 25 sales
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
71 .976 1.002 .040
72 .968 1.001 .031
75 .982 1.000 .109
77 .975 1.004 .055
78 .979 1.000 .029
79 .980 1.004 .040
81 .970 1.000 .034
83 .975 1.000 .039
171 .968 1.002 .047
173 .993 1.004sµN�� .069
174 .981
1.001
.039
177 .962
1.004
.073
2002 .973 1.002
2003 .968 1.007 .074
2005 .973 1.002 .051
1.003
.040
.039
1.003 .071
2011 °'.980
2013 .974 1.005
2016 .979 1.002 .037
2018 .971
2019 .973
2020
1.016 .069
.047
1.011
.062
1.008
.049
.984
1.002
.028
2060
.975
2061 .971
2100 .965
2101 .984 1.003
1.005
1.001
.067
.043
1.003
.048
2102 .961
2103 .965
1.003
.048
.051
.999
.042
2105 .964 1.005
2106 .971 1.002
2107 .993 1.003
.067
.040
.043
2108 .964 1.002
2110 .973 1.005 _
2111 .957 1.002
.043
.050
.052
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 26
WOp ILDROSE
Audit Division
2112 .967 1.004
2115 " .972 1.004
2111 .966 1.001
2118 .973
2120 `, `.982
2121 .958 1.008 .064
2124. .977 1.001 .035
1.002 .043
1.003 .043
.059
.036
.035
1.000 .032
1.007 .052
2125 .969
2151 `; =:.=.970
2152 .981
225!' .977
26.57
3000
3001
1.000 .018
1.007 .080
.979
.977
1.002
1.003
.030
.044
.088
.036
3004 .977 1.001 .029
301 8
3003 .968
301O,x.
3012 .972
3013 .972
3014 '..971
3017 .952
3024 .962 1.001
3025 .979 1.001
3026 ' ' .966 1.001
3027 .963 1.002
3030 °'_973 1.001
3031 .967 _m. .996 .074
3032 ' ' _977 1.001 .044
3033 ' .978 1.002 .046
3034 .969 1.004 .051
3037 .974 1.000 .038
3038', .961 1.000 .044
3042 .974 1.002 .052
3055 ,,,.968 998���� .055
3057 .978 1.000 .023
3058 .965 1.006 .047
3122 .965 1.000 .032
3664 ` .952 1.002 .034
4000 ' -- .977 1.000 ._.._� .026
4002 .975 1.001 .028 _m
4004 .984 1.000 .033
4102
4103 .974 1.003 .053
.993 1.001 .055
966
1.008
1.003
1.000
1.001
1.007
1.000
.054
.101
.038
.038
.061
.045
.063
.031
.049
.047
.042
.039
410?
4105"
4123
5001'
5009 .961 1.006 .086 _
50133"- ".966 1.009 .093
6021. .966 1.001 .059
6023 .964 1.004 .088
6025 , "� .966 1.014 .100
6027 .971 1.015 .066
6029 .974 1.004 .064
6030 .970 1.003 .080
.975 1.000 .042
1.011
.981 1.024 .128
.977 1.009 .048
.975 1.010 .092
202(1 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 27
WILD
Okir :%P lh u Imosr*, tm
Audit Division
6031 .966 1.002 .050
6032 .964 1.024 .079
6033 .999 1.029 .136
6034 .971 1.008 .084
6035 .968 1.004 .059
6037 .964 1.013 .118
6038 .974 1.002 .078
6045 .952 1.071 .124
6050 .961 1.016 .080
6051 .984 1.002 .030
6062 .975 1.002 .050
6207 .969 .990 .132
7004 .993 1.013 .147
9007 .976 1.009 .054
9008 .978 1.002 .044
9009 .968 1.022 .101
9010 .971 1.005 .048
9014 .983 1.004 .038
9046 .954 .996 .068
9999 .968 .999 .042
Overall .972 1.006 .053
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:
Sales Ratio Distribution
4.000
3,000
>1
v
C
0
3
al 2,000
L
1,000
0
.00
.50
1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00
salesratio
Mean = 97
Std. Dev. =
088
N = 10.875
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 28
3.00
2.50
2.00
0
1.50
U)
1.00
. 50
. 00
WILD ' O. E
iPPR bbl\l. 1N('M141N.11111
Audit Division
PRD Analysis
• •
•
•
•
a•
ti
•
• •
4
1
• •
•
• ••
••
•
•
•
•
• •
•• •••
•
�• .•
j•
•
•
• •
•
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000
TIMEADJPRICE
NOTE: Sales over $2,000,000 excluded for graphic clarity
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of the sale ratios was within state mandated limits.
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:
Coefficient?
ECONAREA Model
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
.00 1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
Unstandardized Coefficients
B Std. Error
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
. 973 .033
29.704
. 001 .003
. 038
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
__:SalePeriod
. 982 .004
. 222
Sig.
. 000
. 826
258.374 .000
-.001 .000
-.046
-1.461
. 969 .002
453.438
. 144
. 000 .000
. 019
1.141
. 967 .003
370.948
. 000 .000
. 019
. 995
. 000
. 254
. 000
. 981 .006
151.245
-2.530E-5 .001
. 959 .029
-.001
. 320
. 000
-.039 .969
32.571 .000
. 004 .003
. 121
1.413
(Constant)
SalePeriod
(Constant)
SalePeriod .005
. 989 .006
. 160
171.473 .000
. 000 .001
-.013
-.542
. 935 .040
.004 .206
. 588
23.558 .000
1.410 .165
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
i'<1gc )9
9
9.00
(Constant}
Opp WILDROSE
Audit Division
.985
SatePeriod -.001
(Constant) .973
.005
184.991 .000
.008
.001
-.074
122.967 .000
-1.419 .157
99.00
SatePeriod -.001
.001
-.045
-1.045 .296
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 2020 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows:
Report
VALSF
sold N
UNSOLD 78212
SOLD'. 10874 $202
Median Mean
$199
$197
$203
Report
VALSF
ECONAREA sold N
Median Mean
UNSOLD 6203 $210.25 $208.79
SOLD 1021 $210.25 $209.17
UNSOLD 22647 $202.83 $202.30
SOLD 3450 $205.18 $205.92
UNSOLD 16942 $196.67 $201.75
SOLD
UNSOLD 6357 $184.50 $185.85
SOLD 772 $187.75 $192.24
UNSOLD 1278
SOLD 136
UNSOLD 17005
SOLD 1768
UNSOLD 797
SOLD 47
UNSOLD 710 $149.07
SOLD 54 $166.78 $166.25
UNSOLD 2589 $205.90 $196.71
SOLD 372 $213.31 $204.32
2673 $198.69 $205.71
$163.07 $167.24
$199.73 $197.26
$206.88 $200.14
$212.19 $208.16
$93.99 $106.28
$131.01 $130.65
$149.75
99 UNSOLD 3427 $174.05 $165.10
SOLD 544 $176.60 $180.53
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
2020 Statistical Report: VELD COUNTY Page 30
Op %)111-1?.. 6E
Audit Division
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 30 sales, as follows:
Report
VALSF
NBHD sold N Median Mean
71 UNSOLD 560 $227 $224
SOLD 103 $223
72 UNSOLD 321
$217
$209
$207
$208
$206
$255 $249
$244 $253
$233 $228
$234 $224
SOLD ' 56
75 UNSOLD, 399
SOLD 34
77 UNSOLD
323
SOLD 42
UNSOLD 239 $199 $203
SOLD 39
78
$194 $196
79 UNSOLD 329 $169 $177
SOLD 43
$173 $180
81 UNSOLD 331 $207 $204
SOLD ' 51 $204 $202
UNSOLD 632
83
$165 $170
$169 $172
SOLD 94
171 UNSOLD 814 $228 $224
SOLD 109 $236 $229
174 UNSOLD 480 $200 $198
SOLD 209 . $209 $204
177 UNSOLD 260 $233 $224
SOLD
30 $248 $237
2002 UNSOLD 615 $225 $223
SOLD 38 $215 $216
2003 UNSOLD 412 $246 $243
SOLD 35 $220
$245
2005 UNSOLD 821
SOLD 85
2006 UNSOLD 356
SOLD 50
2007 UNSOLD
644
SOLD 56
$243 $237
$245 $239
$211 $213
$211 $214
$228
$234
$204 $212
$197
$228
$237
2011 UNSOLD 451
SOLD 135
$206
2013 UNSOLD 581 $199 $204
SOLD 175 $207 $210
2016 UNSOLD - 301�xF $171 _ $170
SOLD 159 $172 $172
2018 UNSOLD 9 $227 $218
SOLD 122 $191 $192
2019 UNSOLD 14 $185 $194
SOLD 100 $200 _ $208
2020 UNSOLD 3 $156 $163
SOLD 46 _.�. $180 $179
2060 UNSOLD 498 $223 $215
SOLD 65 $229 $223
2061 UNSOLD 280 $215 $205
SOLD 87 $217 $210
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
WOp ILDfORVII
I20SE
Audit Division
2100 UNSOLD 697 $193 $192
SOLD 67 $198 $201
UNSOLD 382 $220 $218
SOLD 46 $224 $219
2102 UNSOLD 527 $211 $209
SOLD 82 $212 $207
2103 UNSOLD 502 $178 $182
SOLD 61 $183 $186
2105 UNSOLD 497
$193 $195
SOLD 51 $205 $210
2106 UNSOLD '' 179 $198 $201
SOLD 66 $210 $207
2107 UNSOLD 656 $200 $200
SOLD 122 $197 $199
2108 UNSOLD 307 $194 $200
SOLD 38 $208 $201
2110 UNSOLD 994 $210 $210
SOLD 116 $213 $211
2111 UNSOLD 2330 $204 $204
SOLD 212 $215 $210
12 UNSOLD, 906
$180 $181
SOLD 78 $181
UNSOLD 210 $214 $214
SOLD 31 $216 $213
$184
2115
2117 UNSOLD 126 $176 $178
SOLD 33 $189 $188
18 UNSOLD 457 $214 $212
SOLD 69 $213 $207
UNSOLD
SOLD 92 $205 $204
2121 UNSOLD 278
SOLD 46 $231 $232
2120
486 $200 $199
$229
$230
2124 UNSOLD 101 $195 $197
SOLD 42 $188 $196
2125 UNSOLD 204 $209 $206
SOLD 31 $218 $211
UNSOLD 582 $220 $216
SOLD 89 $221 $219
2151
2152 UNSOLD 110
SOLD 95
2657 UNSOLD 148 $208 $210
SOLD 46 $212 $214
3000 UNSOLD ' 239
$218 $203
$184 $198
$179 $183
SOLD , 83 $199 $191
3003 UNSOLD 285
SOLD 95
$194
$196
$193
$196
3004 UNSOLD 18 $233 $228
SOLD 34
3008 UNSOLD 276 $184 $191
SOLD 202 $183 $188
$186 $187
3012 UNSOLD " 583 $196 $202
SOLD 56 $198 $200
3013 UNSOLD 1258
SOLD
3017 UNSOLD 149 $192 $190
SOLD 105 $198 $198
3024 UNSOLD 256 $189
$203
$195
168 $199 $209
$195
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 12
LL3
W* Art• ILDItOSE
Audit Division
46 $183 $192
528 $235 $232
180 $208 $222
1343 $200 $204
162 $199 $202
326 $209 $209
60 $215 $213
346 $177 $185
102 $177 $184
558 $253 $249
54 $255 $248
312 $204 $212
43 $205 $214
989 $182 $189
179 $186 $192
14 $194 $206
48 $197 $218
634 $188 $194
$198 $203
$193 $195
$189 $194
$193 $200
$190 $198
$197 $207
124
954
117
333
50
205
32
ISO D : 186
$194 $205
$182 $189
$189 $196
$205 $212
$211 $215
$222 $222
$218 $222
$188 $195
$173 $170
$189 $191
$189 $191
$169 $179
$181 $182
2 UNSOLD 283
4000
4002
4
OLD 68
SOE,D 141
31
OLD' 284
127
SOLID 413
DLO 88
484
177
4102•. . f1N,$OL13: 177 $189 $188
4
RLF 48 $176 $180
602 $234 $235
46 $242 $243
79 $228 $221
40 $225 $223
729 $227 $219
55 $232 $223
347 $168 $176
47 $201 $195
4
OL,
49
6
6i
NSOLC
t? ,': 363 $222 $215
37 $224 $217
722
69
OW 812 $200 $201
76 $200 $206
$225 $220
$227 $221
OLD`: 334 $225 $221
$226 $224
6029 UNSOLD 946 $229 $224
SOLD ' -116 $241
w_$234
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 33
W* APP ILDROSE
Audit Division
767 $195 $197
6
78
1720 $208 $202
150 $204 $203
728 $188 $186
71
$209 $208
$198 $192
0
PN
L
S
ALE X142 $197 $201
1428 $223 $216
157 $227 $223
1284 $213 $206
1300 $190 $189
132 $195 $196
1230 $216 $203
0
D 124 $229 $223
OLD 765 $217 $211
D 80 $226 $218
X582 $219 $209
39 $219 $218
142 $203 $205
COL
52 $199 $198
-825 $225 $220
166
$222 $221
6207. 599 $136 $147
OLD 35 $129 $142
NSOLD 177 $233 $226
Lo 36 $215 $210
$198
$198
tSOLD 395
LD 37
SOLD 524 $209 $206
$202
$204
OLD 79 $213 $208
9014 UNSOLD " 4 $178 $187
LLD; 53 $209 $201
9046 UNSOLD. 281 $197 $196
LD 30 $220 $201
9999 UNSOLD. 3394
$174 $165
O 533 $177 $182
NOTE: Econ Area 9999 = Condominiums
We also examined the overall median and mean change in actual value for taxable years 2018 and 2020
for residential sold and unsold properties, as follows:
Report
DIFF
sold N Median Mean
UNSOLD, 72472 1.2124 1.2256
SOLD " 9995 1.1930 1.2064
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner.
IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
There were 290 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period ending June 30,
2018. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
2020 Statistical Report: l ElD COUNTY Page 34
WILD ' O. E
APPk%tl)1 1\d l4tI )k\lii)
Audit Division
Median
1.000
Price Related
Differential
1.025
Coefficient of
Dispersion
8.2
The above table indicates that the Weld County commercial/industrial sale ratios were in compliance
with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution
further:
1
100
0
a
•
75
CT
ID
LI-
50
-,5
2.5
2.0
1.5
0
R
L
v,
v
In
1.0
0.5
0.0
0 00 05 10 w 15
T
1
I
t
salesratio
Mean = 1.02
Std. Dev. = .164
N = 290
Commercial
x
Sale
Price by Sales
Ratio
vx
x
x
x
'St x
x x
,. w
x
..
x
*
x x
x
M
x
M
x
x
)K x
so
$2,000,000 . $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000
tasp
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 35
WILDROSE
• ' E
Audit Division
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:
Coefficients'
Model
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.004 54.727 .000
SalePeriod .002 .002 .046 .784 .434
.018
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
0
A
a
2.5
2.0
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
+ + +
+ + +
1.5 +
+ + + � ++ +
1.0 Rai f i .. ■a / • f e •. ■e i• e / /4. lle !� .........u..11.
0.5
0.0
s
10
1s z0
SalePeriod
There was no residual market trending present in the commercial sale ratios. We concluded that the
assessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the commercial /industrial
valuation.
Sold /Unsold Analysis
We compared the median actual value per square foot for 2020 between sold and unsold groups to
determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently. 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:
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 36
00, WILDRSE
Audit Division
Report
VALSF
ABSTRIMP sold N Median Mean
2212.00 UNSOLD 673 $95 $132
SOLD 34 $110 $166
2220.00 UNSOLD 385 $120 $135
SOLD 33 $140 $142
2230.00 UNSOLD 766 $105 $161
SOLD 38 $158 $220
2235.00 UNSOLD 1001 $55 $68
SOLD 37 $75 $82
2245.00 UNSOLD 983 $105 $109
SOLD 112 $120 $124
3215.00 UNSOLD 221 $70 $73
SOLD 8 $96 $99
Given that there was a statistically significant difference using the non -parametric Mann Whitney U
test, we next compared the percent change in actual value between taxable years 2018 and 2020 for
sold and unsold commercial properties in Weld County, as follows:
Report
DIFF
ABSTRIMP sold N Median Mean
2212.00 UNSOLD 616 1.2493 1.3007
SOLD 30 1.4226 1.4244_
2220.00 UNSOLD 341 1.1325 1.2115
SOLD
30 1.3957
1.3862
2230.00 UNSOLD 681 1.1531 1.2298
SOLD ' 29 1.3210 1.3667
2235.00 UNSOLD 829 1.2029 1.2516
SOLD 28 1.2377 1.3135
2245.00 UNSOLD 866 1.1765 1.1938
SOLD 77 1.2529 1.3565 _
3215.00 UNSOLD
SOLD
203 1.2308 1.2777
7 1.3908
1.4409
Given that both of these comparisons indicated a statistical difference between sold and unsold
commercial/industrial properties, we next developed an econometric model that used the assessor's
actual value as the predicted variable. A total of 3,62-1 commercial/industrial properties were analyzed.
Commercial/industrial property subclasses included the following:
ABSTRIMP
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2212.00 646 17.3 17.3
2220.00 371 9.9 9.9
2230.00 710
2235.00
19.0 19.0
17.3
27.2
46.2
857
2245.00 943
3215.00 210
22.9 22.9
25.2 25.2
5.6 5.6
Total
3737
100.0 100.0
69.1
94.4
100.0
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 37
WILD
\a,.xa-+.t I'.cMilt Irk ,vo
Audit Division
We developed a stepwise regression model to test whether sold and unsold properties were valued
differently by the assessor.
To do this, we included a binary variable for sold /unsold status. For the model, sold properties were
coded "1" and unsold properties were coded "0." Other variables tested included improved area, age,
economic area, and commercial/industrial subclass. The dependent variable is the 2020 current value.
The stepwise regression analysis adds variables to the model based on their contributory strength, as
measured by their t or p values (depending on the test). Due to the number of sales, we used a p value
of 0.02 as the tolerance threshold. At each step, a variable is added, and variables already in the model
are re-evaluated to determine if they should remain in the model. After it is determined that adding
additional variables will not improve the model's predicative or explanatory power, the process stops.
Variables not included at this point are determined to not be significant. In this analysis, our primary
focus was the sold/unsold variable previously described.
After 7 iterations, the following results were generated by the model:
Model Summary
Model R
1
2
3
4
5
6
Adjusted R
R Square Square
. 775a .600 .600
. 786b
. 7944
. 796d
. 618
. 631
.634
.618
. 631
. 634
Std. Error of the
Estimate
. 797e .636 .635
. 7981 .637 .637
7 .799g .638 .637
1281979.112
1252500.714
1231937.939
1226833.682
1223896.613
1221396.698
1220413.133
a. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA
b. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2
c. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, EA3
d. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, EA3, v2235
e. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, EA3, v2235, age
f. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, EA3, v2235, age, v2245
g. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, EA3, v2235, age, v2245
v2230
The following coefficients were included in the model at Step 7:
7 (Constant)
LIVEAR EA
EA2
EA3
v2235
age
v2245
v2230
443598.707
47.400
821252.651
625508.591
- 397118.562
-2155.965
-276515.730
- 153036.098
46428.455
.638
66158.604
65589.812
55301.928
405.413
58211.669
57781.797
. 745
. 131
. 099
-.082
-.054
-.059
-.030
9.554
74.46
12.413
9.537
- 7.181
- 5.318
- 4.750
- 2.649
. 000
. 000
. 000
. 000
. 000
. 000
. 000
. 008
a. Dependent Variable: currtot
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 38
WILD • • tiE
APf`A %!';t 1'N< (w1,14% I F h
Audit Division
The model at Step 7 did not include the Sold /Unsold variable, indicating that it did not make a
significant difference in the model whether the properties were sold or unsold. Based on this finding,
we concluded that the assessor valued sold and unsold commercial properties consistently in 2020.
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
There were 353 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period ending June 30,
2018. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
0.989
Price Related
Differential
1.014
Coefficient of
Dispersion
12.8
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:
C
•
3
CT
10
salesratio
Mean = .97
Std. Dev. = .197
N= 353
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 39
2.0
1.5
0
4.1
IV
1.0
0
R
1.
0.5
0.0
r
I
$0
listX
WILDRC, E
�AP:'ROt %1 I'ri*IMIp\11I1
Audit Division
Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
x
XX
x X
x
x
X
x
X
$500,000
x
$1,000,000
tasp
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 18 -month sale period, with the following results:
Coefficient?
Model
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .986 .018 55.474 .000
SalePeriod -.003 .002 -.068 -1.279 .202
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 40
2.0
1.5
Ts
IA
0.5
0.0
O' .APrw % Ns IN. .or Rme 11111
WILD ' O. E
Audit Division
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis
+
4'+
+ +
+ + T + + + + +
+ + + + + + t at +
*
+ * + + + 4. 4
nstatillattatintaint4 i i
+er+$++ + t + + +
+
+ #++$++ ++ ++++
+ ♦ $ + * + + +
++ +
+
+
+
0
5
1
10
SalePeriod
15
20
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 taxable years 2018 and 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 4587
SOLD 290
1.0829
1.1818
1.0798
1.1918
We also compared sold and unsold changes in value by subdivision with at least 6 sales, as follows:
Report
DIFF
subdivno first 1 sold
2528
2925
3062
3372
4396
UNSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
N
52
15
24
8
3
9
7
10
8
Median Mean
. 8923
. 9511
1.1111
1.1111
1.2466
1.2466
1.3000
1.3000
1.0000
. 8977
. 9397
1.1065
1.1111
1.1644
1.2466
1.3000
1.3000
1.1402
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY ['.iuy I
WILDROSE
Audit Division
4
84
D
OLD
11
12
1.0818 1.1456
1.2931 1.1853
1.2931 1.2931
20 1.4000 1.2600
L,
' 9 1.4000 1.4000
1.1143 1.0762
6 1.1143 1.1143
1.0000 1.0000
1.3571 1.3571
23 1.0000 1.1174
1.3000 1.4706
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.
V. CONCLUSIONS
Based on this 2020 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial and vacant land properties were
found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
21)20 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 42
W ILDRQSE
Audit Division
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential
Ratio Statistics for currtot 1 tasp
ECONAREA Mean
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean
95% Confidence Interval for Median
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
Coefficient of
Variation
Actual Weighted Price Related Coefficient of Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion Centered
.979 .940 1.019 .953 .931 .971 95.3% .973 .935 1.010 1.007 .075 12.0%
.977 .973 .981 .975 .971 .978 ..-95.5% .976 .972 .980 1.001 .047 6.8%
.971 .969 .973 .973 .971 .975 95.4% .966 .963 .969 1.005 .050 7.2%
.969 .966 .972 .969 .967 .972 95.2% .965 .962 .968 1.004 .051 7.3%
.980 .974 987 .979 .974 .982 95.2% .974 .988 .980 1.006 .052 9-6%
.993 .959 1.026 .963 .932 .988 95.2% .979 .953 1.006 1.014 .109 19.9%
.00 .986 .980 .992 .970 .966 .974 95.4% .976 .967 .984 1.011 .082 1 3.1 %
7.00 .982 .938 1.025 .970 .947 1.003 96.0% .970 922 1.018 1.012 .114 15.1%
9.00 .964 .933 .995 .952 .929 .977 96.0% .951 .922 .981 1.013 .085 11.7%
9.00 976 967 .985 .973 .966 .978 95.7% .969 .961 .976 1.007 .055 9.0%
99.00 .968 .962 .973 .968 .965 .972 95.6% .969 .964 .973 .999 .042 6.6%
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 for the ratios.
Commercial Land
Ratio Statistics for currtot I tasp
95% Confidence Interval for 95% Confidence Interval for Coefficient of
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Median Weighted Mean Variation
Actual Weighted Price Related Coefficient of Mean
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion Centered
1.016 .997 1.035 1.000 .997 1.000 96.0% .991 .975 1.007 1.025 .082 16.1%
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.
Vacant Land
Ratio Statistics for currind l tasp
95% Confidence Interval for 95% Confidence Interval for Coefficient of
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Median Weighted Mean Variation
Actual Weighted Price Related Coefficient of Mean
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion Centered
.988 .947 .988 .989 .973 .998 95.7% .955 .917 .992 1.014 .128 20.3%
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be greaterthan the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming
a Normal distribution for the ratios.
2020 Statistical Report: WITD COUNTY Page 43
WILD • +E
APPRAISAL 1\CORPORAFED
Audit Division
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group
LT SK_ .836 1.023 .180
25K to; 50K, 1.006 .958 .262
$50K to $100K 1.060 1.013 .243
$1 :OK to $150K` 1.140 1.004 .200
$1 OK $20OK, 1.004 1.001 .108
$? OK to $ 00K 970 1.001
$300K to $50010 ` 974 1.000
500K.to,750K' .944 1.001
$750K to $1`,000K.929 1.001
Over ,$fi,000K .967 .985
Overall .972
Percent
Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
1.006
.061
.044
24.5%
40.2%
48.1%
27.9%
15.4%
9.5%
6.3%
.070
.086
.091
9.5%
10.7%
12.6%
.056
9.1%
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AtiSTRIMP 00 1 0.0%
1212.00 10138 93.2%
2
0.0%
4,00. ' "`2
5.00 ,122
16.00 .1 0.0%
17.5£I 2
220.00 38
221.75 1 0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
1.1%
0.0%
0.3%
223,75
1224.29
1224.44 1 0.0%
1225.00 9 0.1%
1230.00 544 5.0% _
0.0%
2020 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Pie -+4
Overall
Excluded
f* WILDRO5E
Audit Division
1553.00. 1 0.0%
1894.00 2 0.0%
1979.25 ` 1 0.0%
2212.00 2
2220.00 2
9210.00 1
9250.00 1
9270.00 _ 2
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
0.0%
Overall
Excluded 0
10875
100.0%
Total
10875
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.00 .593 1.000 .000
1212.00 .972 1.006 .056
1213.50 1.105 1.025 .213
1214.00 1.021 .997 .029
1215,00 .960 1.019
1216.00 .798 1.000 .000
1217.50 .981 1.000 .023 3.3%
1220.00 .963 .995
1221.75 .708 1.000 .000
1223.75 1.037 1.000 .000
1224.29 1.154
1224.44 .904
.100
9.0%
30.1%
4.0%
15.1%
.096 13.4%
1.000 .000
1.000 .000
1225.00 1.002 1.026
1230.00 . .968
.055 7.8%
.999 .042 6.6%
1553.00 .981 1.000 .000
1894.00 1.111 .945 .279
1979,25 .805 1.000 .000
2212.00 ' .981
2220.00 .825
9210.00 1.869
9250.00 .947
9270.00; .785
Overall .972
1.002 .029
.983 .080
39.5%
4.1%
11.4%
1.000 .000
1.000 .000
.865 .177 25.1%
1.006 .056
9.1%
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AgeRec .00 1 0.0%
Over 100 252 2.3%
75 to 100 253 2.3%
50 to 75 652 6.0%
25 to 50 1179 10.8%
5to25 4335 39.9%.
5 or Newer < 4203 38.6%
10875 100.0%
0
Total 10875
2020 Statistical Report: %VELD COUNTY Page 45
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.593 1.000 .000
ve
.971
1.028
.132 21.5%
.116 17.3% _
.089 12.7%
.959
1.027
.965 1.008
x.966
1.001
.073 12.1%
.968
1.003 .051
7.9%
.979
1.007 .044
6.3%
".972 1.006 .056 9.1%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count
10875
10875
0
Iota
Percent
100.0%
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group
Median
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.00 .593 1.000 .000 _
LE 500f-.872 .946 .195 24.6%
1'to.1,"000 sf '� .952 1.013 .088 15.3%
)00;tO 1,500 sf .971 1.005 .055 9.4%
500 to 200 sf'r ' .973 1.005 .048 7.1%
.9
3,000 sf far
Overall
•
978 1.005 .051 7.5%
.966 1.007 .081 12.3%
.972 1.006 .056 9.1%
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 46
WILDRC6E
Audit Division
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
Total
10875
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.593 1.000 .000
.959 1.039 .146 22.8%
2 .966 1.010 .081 13.3%
3 .973 1.004 .047 7.0%
4 .976 1.008 .066 8.9%
5 .972 1.011 .079 12.9%
6 .989 1.010 .072 10.3%
Overall .972 1.006 .056 9.1%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION 1
0.0%
7 0.1%
2 27 0.2%
3 10826 99.5%
4 14 0.1%
Overall
Excluded
10875 100.0%
0
Total
10875
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.593 1.000
1.017 1.073
2 .950
1.017
.000
.233
.177
3 .972
4 .997
Overall .972
1.006
1.029
1.006
.056
.089
.056
36.1%0
22.5%
9.0%
12.5%
9.1%
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47
Subclass
E^.
WILDROSE
Op .APYNidLL. hroaroxynn
Audit Division
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
6 2.1%
4 1.4%
8.3%
57 19.7%
31 10.7%
33 11.4%
33 11.4%
26 9.0%
25
8.6%
00K `51 17.6%
''290 100.0%
0
290
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1.018 .984 .132 25.7%
1.057 .988 .220 33.4%
1.022 1.007 .130 22.4%
1.000 1.002
.082 16.0%
1.000 1.001
.994 .997
.059 11.9%
.070 13.8%
.997 .998
.076 14.1%
.997 .990
.150 30.4%
1.000 1.003
994 1.000
.047 8.9%
.046 6.4%
1.000 1.025
.082 16.5%
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
3 1.0%
2 00 ,; 1 0.3%
1 0.3%
2,0£}, :34 _
4 1.4%
33 11.4%
1
2 0.7%
2 QC1' . ``'2 0.7%
1 0.3%
41 14.1%
2 0.7%
39 13.4%
4 0J ,,-°`, °112 38.6%
11.7%
2a
00
0.3%
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 48
WILDROSE
NCONIVIA 11111
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Price Related
Group Median Differential
0.7%
2.8%
1.0%
0.3%
100.0%
Coefficient of
Dispersion
.096
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
.221 1.120
1.002 1.000
.000
15.9%
1.130 1.000
.000
1.000 1.008
.959 .979
.045
.107
8.2%
14.3%
2:
1.000 .998
.987 1.000
2;
2:
.103
.000
24.0%
•
1.307 1.215
.987 .994
.249
35.2%
.013
7.k 1.000 1.000
.000
1.9%
22 00 " '.992 1.031
.065
9.8%
1.033 .982
.041
.999 1.058
.085
5.8%
16.4%
1.000 1.014
1.256 1.151
.072
.996 .999
.215
12.3%
30.4%
.026
1.108 1.047
9279.
0+ e'rall 1.000 1.025
.999
1.000
.045
4.0%0
7.2%
.000
.082
16.5%
Age
Case Processing Summary
2020 Statistical Report: 1Y'ELI) COUNTY Page 49
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.221 1.120 .096 15.9%
1.001 1.022 .078 12.3%
993
.934
.100 24.7%
1.000
1.015 .045
7.7%
.999 1.034 .071
13.2%
1.000 1.033 .082 16.2%
1.000 1.032 .066 11.2%
1.000 1.025 .082 16.5%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
290
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group
Median
Count Percent
1.0%
4.1%
14.5%
15.2%
10.7%
10.3%
Price Related
Differential
.997
1.000
.056
44.1%
100.0%
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
15.9%
17.9%
9.8%
999
1.033
.077
16.3%
'10.9%
.998
1.020
.079
1.000 1.030
.080 14.4%
X.999 1.024 .073 15.5%
1.000 1.025 .082 16.5%
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
Ovei
Excluded' 0
4 1.4%
18 6.2%
2 18 6.2%
194 66.9%
56 19.3%
290 100.0%
290
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 50
10, WILDROSE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.229 1.670 1.189 256.8%
1.000 1.089 .086 15.4%
2 " - 1.009 1.033 .063 12.4%
3 .997 1.025 .079 15.8%
4 1.000 1.026 .054 9.2%
Overall 1.000 1.025 .082 16.5%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION
Overall
3 1.0%
0.3%
4 1.4%
3 282 97.2%
290 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 290
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.221 1.120 .096 15.9%
1.168 1.000 .00O
2 1.043 1.022 .111 17.5%
3 1.000 1.030 .073 14.4%
Overall, : 1.000 1.025 .082 16.5%
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 16 4.5%
25k to $50K,' :; 23 6.5%
50K to $100K 162 45.9%
$100K to $150K 49 13.9%
$150K to $200K ` 28 7.9%
$200K to $300K 19 5.4%
$300K to $500K 24 6.8%
$500K to $750K 11 3.1%
$750Kto$1000K 14 4.0%
Over $1,000K 7 2.0%
353 100.0%
Overall
Excluded 0
Total 353
2020 Statistical Report: Will) COUNTY Page 51
LDROSE
WID,1
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currind / tasp
Group Median
LT $25K
$25K to $50K
$50K to $100K .999
$100K to $150K ` .981
$150K to $200K; .959
$200K to $300K .920
$300K to $500K .890
$500K to $750K .971
$750K to $1,000K .952
Over $1,000K .998
Overall .989
Price Related Coefficient of
Differential Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
1.004 .997
.180
28.1%
1.020 1.000
1.001
1.000
.097
.087
.173
14.4%
15.1%
23.9%
1.000
.157
21.9%
1.010
.165
26.9%
1.003
.213
31.2%
.995
.994
.084
.190
13.0%
31.2%
1.019
1.014
.085
.128
13.1%
20.0%
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRLND 100.00 " 58
16.4%
200.00 16
300.00 3
520.00 1
550.00 2
1112.00 224
1115.00 3
1120.00 1
1125.00 4
1135.00 2
4.5%
0.8%
0.3%
0.6%
63.5%
0.8%
0.3%
1.1%
0.6%
2112.00
2120.00
2130.00 12
2135.00 12
7
2.0%
1.7%
3.4%
3.4%
3115.00 1
4147.00 1
0.3%
0.3%
Overall
Excluded
353
0
Total
353
100.0%
2020 Statistical Report: WELL) COUNTY Page 52
10, ILDRO,SE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for currind / tasp
Group
Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
.988
.976
.993 _
.811
.819
.993
.719
.611
11 500 °1.400
.900
2'112, .982
1 00 ( .991
.928
2 35.00 .999
1.006
.986
1.140
1.014
.981
1.000
1.000
1.014
.305
.111
.133
.184
.099
.111
.000
.000
.128
10.7%
17.6%
34.6%
35.5%
15.7%
21.0%
29.9%
13.8%
16.5%
20.0%
2020 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 53
Hello