HomeMy WebLinkAbout20183054.tiffRECEIVED
SEP 1 8 2018
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
018
WEID COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
eio\ \ 7 I 1 -1/4i1 INib.tPOR kT1 f)
44 Audit Division
mMon;Cat i o ns
9/DCO/I'
cc: c2SRCOK)
ct/DO/rir
2018-3054
WILD ' E
ttei.' r APPRAISAL INUt*Pc)R.kTED
Audit Division
September 15, 2018
Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2018 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2018 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
WILD' E
t( APPRAISAL LsaanwA1 F.D
Audit Division
TABIF OF CONTINTS
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 1 I
Agricultural Outbuildings 1 2
Agricultural Land Under Improvements 1 3
Sales Verification 14
Economic Area Review and Evaluation 16
Natural Resources 17
Earth and Stone Products 17
Producing Oil and Gas 1 7
Vacant Land 18
Possessory Interest Properties 19
Personal Property Audit 20
Wildrose Auditor Staff 2 2
Appendices 23
2018 Weld County Prnpert v Assessment \t udv Page 2
WILDROSE
es.
‘1.).K U' U 1.l (JRI'uFtk7 LU
Audit Division
INTRODUCTION
lel
Cotorado
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
discounting
methodology
residential properties and
properties is examined. Procedures
build -out and subdivision
procedures.
for vacant land,
Valuation
improved
commercial
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 2018 and is pleased to
report its findings for Weld County in the
following report.
NHS \Feld County Property Assessment Study Pact
WILD' • E
APPSAL.1NCORP IRATED
Audit Division
LW
REGIoNAL/HIsToRIcAI SKETCH OF
WrI.D 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
RO UTT
Craig • `� 54
Meeker
•
RIO BLANCO
52
GARFIELD
23
Steamboat Spgs
Glenwood Spgs
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
Pueblo, and Weld counties.
Walden
•
JACKSON
29
GRAND
•
25
Not Sulphur
springs
MESA
39
Eagle
EAG L E
19
XPI TKIN •
49 Aspen
.
DELTA
15
• Delta
Montrose
•
MO NT ROSE
43
SAN MIGUEL
CU RAY
46
Uuray
•
57 Telluride
Dove Creek
• DOL0RES
17
,Weston
SAN JUAN
Otte
•
• Durango
MONTEZUMA LA PLATA
42 34
Legdcalk
LAKE
JJ 33
LARIMER
35 •
Ft. Collins
7
BOULDER
GIL?IN
4
cui etow.
CLEAR cREFK
1O
WELD
62
•
MORGAN
44
Fort Morgan
LOG.AN
38
•
Sterling
Juiesriurg
SEDGW ICK
58
Holyoke
48•
PHILLIPS I
Boulder OMFIELD
80
Golder
kenridge
Fairplay
• PARK
47
GUNNISON ( CHAFFEE
26 8
Salida
• i.unr9son
HINSDALE
Lake City
27
Creede
MINERAL
40
JEFFENGC,N
30 1
ADAMS
1
DENVER 3
16 ARAP.AH OE
Akron
•
WASHINGTON
61
Wray
.
YUMA
63
Castle Rock
•
DO UC LAS
18
k, !r1I;'o^
•
20
ELBERT
TELLER
60 Colorado Spgs
SAC UACH E
55 Saguache
•
•
C )pple
Lt'tf
FREMONT•
22 Canon City
EL PASO
21
Hugo
•
LINCOLN
37
•
Burlington
KIT CARSON
32
Cheyenne
CHEYENNE:e/Is
9
Westtllife
•CUSTER
14
Del Norte
RIO GRANDE
63
Pagosa Spgs
ARCH U LETA
4
ALAMOSA
2
ilam2osa
CON EJOS
11
• C. onejc's
COSTILLA
12
.
San Luis
Pueblo
PUEBLO
51
H U ERFAN O
28 •
L4'a ;.enrurg
Trinidad
•
CROWLEY
13 Qrdwa
.tom
La Junta
•
OTERO
45
Eads
•
KIOWA
31
La.; 4I mirth; r
•
BENT
6
Lamar
•
PROW ERS
50
LAS ANIMAS
36
Springfield
.
BACA
5
-'( ) l S \\ vldl c ►un1V Prt ipurty :\ ess ii nt Study Page 4
WILDE
h* lUKI\)1(111.!)
Audit Division
Historical Information
Weld County had an estimated population of
approximately 294,932 people with 73.9
people per square mile, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2016 estimated census data.
This represents a 16.6 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, wtvw. wihipedia. org)
201 S Weld County Property Assessment .t uci Pa`e 5
r•=' WILD
• E
i itAisAL INCORt'oiui ED
Audit Division
RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodolog
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, 2015 and June 30,
2016. Counties with less than 30 sales typically
extended the sale period back up to 5 years
prior to June 30, 2016 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
'ummercial/Industrial
Condominium
"angle Family
\ ac'ant 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 1 5.99
Less than 20.99
201S \\.( (:( stint \ Pr(Tertv Study Page 6
0
WILD
4.� � .'1PPiutsAL INCORPORATED
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
205
N/A
10,726
Unweighted
Median
Ratio
0.980
N/A
0.972
400 1.000
Price
Related
Differential
0.998
N/A
1.007
1.023
Coefficient
of
Dispersion
8.2
N/A
6.4
11.6
Time Trend
Analysis
Compliant
N/A
Compliant
Compliant
Ratio- Statistics for CLJRRTOT ITASP
:Group
Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
4:3
.973 1.003 .054
.968 1.006
.056
;.979 1.005 .059
.063
5
,
6
;.969 1.007
1.953 1.018 .106
;.978 1.011 .088
;.968 1.005 .135
.962 1.012 .078
4
QveraII
.972 1.007 .071
:.973 1.004 .044
;.972 1.007 .064
NOTE:
Econ Area 99 = Condominiums
After applying the above described SBOE, DPT, and Colorado
methodologies, it is concluded from the sales valuation guidelines.
ratios that Weld County is in compliance with
Recommendations
None
State Statute
f
2018 Weld C'i Pry ►lperty Assessment Study Page 7
•
WILD
AN* •1. 1 t }K )R11 l F. [
Audit Division
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION
Methodol0 g "-
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
2018 \\ vie1 County' Property .-N'sessment Study Page
WILD
0 R1ISAL INCORPORATED
Audit Division
SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodoloas
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
r
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.
2018 \Velcl County Property Assessment Study Page 9
WILD' • E
:\rrku-u I\<<iRi1 K\iIID
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
Property Class
Commercial / Industrial
Condominium
�inule FarniI\
Vacant Land
Results
Compliant
N/A
Compliant
Compliant
Conclusions
Rec ommendations
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.
01Weld County cunt y Props rtv Asseessnlent Study Pa�< 10
ez...
•� WILD ' • E
>e APPR 1Ia.i1_ 1\4. tRPOR % I LI)
Audit Division
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Acres BV Subc lass
Sprinkler
6.20%
Meadow Flay.
oe9%
70.000.000
60,000,000
50,000,000
40,000,000
30.000,000
20,000.000
10,000,000
0
Value B'' subclass
x%s7
r
4
4
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
r
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:
101 S \Vcicd Gault) Property
„111utit \tudv Pail( 1 1
*us'
WILD
E
APPRAISAL. C
� ,.�..1xcORPORATED
Div
ision
Di Audit vision
Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Abstract
Code
4107
4 1 17
-1 1 2 7
41i,
4147
4167
Total/Avg
Land Class
Sprinkler
Flood
Dry Farm
Meadow Hai
Grazing
Waste
Number
Of
Acres
120,545
207,981
563,463
13,194
966,333
53,982
1,92 5,498
County County
Value Assessed
Per Acre Total Value
WRA
Total
Value
245.53 29, 597, 347 27, 564,881
307.46
42.24
46.74
6.60
2.22
64.64
63,946, 370 62,417,203
23,799,788 23,071,426
616,750
6,377,596
1 19, 940
616,750
6,377,596
119,940
124,457,791 120,167, 796
Ratio
1.07
1.02
1.03
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
Recommendations
None
Aaricultural 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.
Conc I tl`1o11s
Weld County has substantially complied with
the procedures provided by the Division of
Property Taxation for the valuation of
agricultural outbuildings.
Recommendations
None
2018 Weld County Prop( Ft\ .\.,sc -nient Stud\ Page 1 2
WILD ' • E
4- 11'it,, k .. I\k t)}('c )P VIIJ)
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
r
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 substantially 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
)01s \veld county Prop) rt\
\cs�ii ent Study Page1 3
WILD' • E
APPRAISAL I N«cPORA, r)
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 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 r lect 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 2018 for Weld County. This
study was conducted by checking selected sales
from the master sales list for the current
valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 34
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 S 500, the
contractor has examined and reported the ratio
of qualified sales to total sales by class and
r
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
`\ c]d County property As.e`s111ent Stud\ patio 14
WILD ' E
ape% APPRJUSAL 1 N C f7 F I)
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
r
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
2018 Weld County Prop( "t �- :\,•( Study Page 1;
WILD' • E
APP KAUAI.. INCORPORA1 ED
Audit Division
ECONOMIC ARE. REVIEW ADD
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
'� i \Veld Comm. Prc purl v Assessment 1tuck 1'a`s 16
r'-', WILD 'E
kapAPPRAISAL INk-oRPoRAI ED
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
Met h o d of og)
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 anv 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
O I 1 Weld Count\ P1'opert\ .Ac.'msment Study Page 17
tWILD
APPRAISAL INCY)itPt)ltVl F U
Audit Division
E
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2018 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.
Re onlniendations
None
20 I' \V cId Count s\•
Prc,!a rte :sessnie»i �tucl� Page 1
WILD • • +E
AnitAISALisCORPORA"'ED
Audit Division
POSSESSORY INTEREST
Possessory Interest
r
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
r
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
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
copsistently applied the correct procedures and
valuation methods in the valuation of
possessory interest properties.
Recommendations
None
01 \Veld County Property _-\`�essmeilt Study PaQe 19
WILD ' ' E
APPRAISAL. INCORPORATED
Audit Division
PERSON Al. 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 2018 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
2018 \'1 e cl ,qi»t Pn pert t1,cl\ Page 20
WVILD E
API* \1:-• \L INILORPO ATE[)
Audit Division
• Businesses with no deletions or
additions for 2 or more years
• Non -filing Accounts - Best Information
Available
• Accounts close to the $7,400 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 C O D
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
2018 Weld County Pn pt i-t v Assessment Study Page 21
WILD ' • E
APPRAISAL LNCORP RAl ED
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
201S \V Iii C( Jul \ Property As,,, Ucly Paul' 22
WILD' • E
.A!'I*\NU I\.URN iR\ILI►
Audit Division
.APPENDICES
2018 \Veld County Property Asses m ent t ud v Page 23
Ilk' Nutt 11'1i 1\tYwwW1'
Audit Division
WILD
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
FOR WELD COUNTY
2018
I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
132,706 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2018. The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
c
3
0
V
100,000 -
80.000 -
60,000 -
40,000 —
20,000 —
Real Property Class Distribution
12152
r
Vacant Land
83793
T
Res Imp
5074
I
Comm/lnd Imp
tYP•
31687
Other
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 80.3% of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92.5% of all residential
properties.
Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in
comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 3.8% of all such properties in this
county.
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2018 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2018. The data
included all S property record files as specified by the Auditor.
2(118 statistical Report: WIELD COUNTY Page 24
OlkWILD' O tE
A,aa to sicrw
Audit Division
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
There were 10,726 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period between
January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
0.972
Price
Related
Differential
1.007
Coefficient
of
Dispersion
6.4
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ECONAREA 0 933 8.7%
2 3106 29.1%
3 2786 26.1%
4 711 67%
5 98 0.9%
6 1934 18.1%
7 45 0.4%
8 121 1.1%
9 348 3.3%
99 598 5.6%
Overall
Excluded
Total
10680 100.0%
46
10726
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
0 .973 1.003 .054
2 .968 1.006 .056
3 .979 1.005 .059
4 .969 1.007 .063
5 .953 1.018 .106
6 .978 1.011 .088
7 .968 1.005 .135
8 .962 1.012 .078
9 .972 1.007 .071
99 .973 1.004 .044
Overall 972 1.007 .064
NOTE: Econ Area 99 = Condominiums
The above ratio statistics were in compliance with the standards set forth by the Colorado State Board
1
of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall residential sales. The following graphs describe further the sales
ratio distribution for these properties:
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUN I 1 Pagt
WILD' • E
A,,•K„ I%ostr„tP
Audit Division
6.000
2.000
Mean = 98
Std Dev = 119
N=10,726
0 T t _
000 2 O
I
4 00
salesratio
600 800
8.00-
6.00—
r5
O
4.00 —
as
ta
2.00 —
0.00 -
•
•
•
t
Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
•
T
1
I
$30,000,000 $40,000,000
$0 $10,000,000 $20,000,000
TASP
'Mc 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:
201% Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page ?f�
WILD' O.E
Ate., lu'tap sum.
Audit Division
Coefficient?
ECONAREA Model
Unstandardized Coefficients
B
Std. Error
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta t Sig.
0
2
5
7
8
9
99
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
. 971
. 000
. 979
. 000
. 966
. 000
. 979
9.680E-5
. 984
. 000
. 996
-.001
1.008
-.001
1.038
-.007
1.009
-.005
. 988
-.001
. 984
-.001
. 017 55.580 .000
. 002 -.017 -.115 .909
. 005 190.047 .000
. 001 .008 .232 .817
. 003 379.378 .000
. 000
. 021
. 003
1.167 .243
307.716 .000
. 000
. 006
. 007
.302 .763
138.526 .000
. 001 -.024 -.635 .525
. 031 31.961 .000
. 003 -.043 -.421 .675
. 009 111.447 .000
. 001 -.032 -1.411 .158
. 054 19.325 .000
005 -.184 -1.230 .225
. 028 36.626 .000
. 003 -.156 -1.722 .088
011 91.395 .000
001 -.059 -1.101 .272
. 005 182.453 .000
. 001 -.068 -1.673 .095
a. Dependent Variable: sales ratio
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 2018 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 72,521
SOLD 10,724
$166
$169
$203
$171
2018 Statistical Report: \\ LLD COUNTY
Paw 27
WILD '•a• E
Ar H-UMcMfg -W%TFt+
Audit Division
Report
VALSF
ECONAREA sold N Median Mean
0
2
UNSOLD 5,897 $179 $187
SOLD 933 $181 $181
U NSOLD 19,977 $172 $182
SOLD 3,106 $172 $176
3
UNSOLD 15,158 $174 $251
4
SOLD 2,785 $175 $181
U NSOLD _ 6.007 $151 $187
SOLD 711 $164 $165
5
U NSOLD
SOLD
1,269 $128 $129
98 $164 $157
6
7
U NSOLD 16,799 $157 $215
SOLD 1,934 $164 $161
U NSOLD 808 $77 $357
SOLD 44 $98 $108
8
9
U NSOLD 637 $126 $174 _
SOLD 121 $147 $149
U NSOLD 2.390 $170 $162
SOLD 348 $184 $178
We also examined the overall median and mean change in actual value for taxable years 2016 and 2018
for residential sold and unsold properties, as follows:
Report
DIFF
sole N Median Mean
UNSOLD 67,126 1.26 1.29
SOLD 9.896 1.27 1.28
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis
Test Sig. Decision
1
Independent -
The distribution of DIFF is the samSamples
across categories of sold. �1ann-
g Whitney U
Test
Retain the
.527 null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner.
21)18 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 28
WILD • 'F
A.g.n_ I„nen.'
Audit Division
IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
There were 205 qualified commercial/industrial sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period
between January 1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
0.980
Price Related
Differential
0.998
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:
80-
60-
1.0
C
4,
J
c 40
20
025 050
075 1.00
salesratio
i
1 25 1 50
Mean = 96
Std Dev = 133
N=205
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 29
WILD' • .E
ArPxunu IMYwf•»%nz
Audit Division
1.50
1.25
0.50
0.25 -
Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio
x
SAP
Fa* xx xx x
x
x
x
I
$0
I I I T I I j
$5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000
1
TASP
Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis
The 205 commercial /industrial sales were next analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 -month
sale period with the following results:
Coefficient?
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) .966 .018 52.287 .000
SalePeriod .000 .002 -.007 -.101 .920
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2018 Statistic al IZtport: 11 LID C'OH\ I l
Page 3()
WILD' O•E
Animism.lwastn*%1 a
Audit Division
sal.sratio
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
1 50
125-
1.00
0 75
0.50
0 25
+
+
GP 4.
♦ +
+ t
+ 4
.. ..+.. ..+. ....;'*
. .t. ..$. .4.. .. .i..t
+ * .....■........�
+
♦ $ 1
{' t t +
+
+
+
+
+
+
I T
0
I
10
SalePeriod
T
15
I
20
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 actual value per square foot for 2018 between sold and unsold groups to
determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently. Based on the amount 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
VALSF
ABSTRIMP sold N Median Mean
2212 UNSOLD 638 $70 $97
SOLD 34 $105 $120
2220 UNSOLD 386 $98 $114
SOLD 16 $120 $124
2230 UNSOLD 791 $78 $115
SOLD 35 $126 $147
2235 UNSOLD 892 $43 $51
SOLD 23 $69 $67
2245 UNSOLD 823 $87 $91 _
SOLD 61 $89 $97
3215 UNSOLD 237 $55 $57
SOLD 8 $80 $79
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
WILD' O•E
�t I ni;nr
Audit Division
Hypothesis Test Summary
1
Nul I Hypothesis Test
Sig. Decision
Independent -
The distribution of VALSF istheSamples
same across categories of sold. n -
Whitney U
Test
000
Reject the
null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .01.
Given that there was a statistically significant difference using the non -parametric Mann Whitney U
test, «-c next compared the percent change in actual value between taxable years 2016 and 2018 for
sold and unsold commercial properties in Weld County, as follows:
Report
DIFF
ABSTRIMP
sold
N Median Mean
2212
2220
2230
2235
2245
3215
UNSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
U NSOLD
SOLD
617
1.09
25
1.30
349
1.08
1.13
1.33
1.12
12
1.04
1.19
744
1.08
1.12
25
1.19
1.26
743
1.17
21
1.22
1.24
800
1.13
1.16
56
1.22
1.26
222
1.08
1.14
7
1.31
1.54
Hypothesis Test Summary
1
Null Hypothesi s
Test
Sig. Decision
Independent -
The distribution of DIFF is the same,Samples
acros`scate oriesofsold. Aann-
g Whitney U
Test
.000
•
Reject the
null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05.
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
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Pagee 32
illIlk NilitAl?kt IM1IIKPORIall)
Audit Division
WILD O.E
actual value as the predicted variable. A total of 3,621 commercial/industrial properties were analyzed.
Commercial /industrial property subclasses included the following:
ABSTRIMP
Frequency Percent
Cumulative
Valid Percent Percent
Valid
2212
2220
2230
2235
2245
3215
Total
642 17.7
361 10.0
769 21.2
764 21.1
856 23.6
229 6.3
3621 100.0
17.7
10.0
21.2
21.1
23.6
6.3
100.0
17.7
27.7
48.9
70.0
93.7
100.0
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 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 and 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 5 iterations, the following results were generated by the model:
Model Summary
Model R
Adjusted R
R Square Square
Std. Error of the
Estimate
1
2
3
4
5
6
. 753a
. 765°
771c
773°
. 774e
. 7741
. 567
. 585
. 594
. 597
. 599
. 599 .599
. 566
. 585
. 593
. 596
. 598
1170217.060
1145528.009
1133230.443
1128988.986
1126488.599
1125635.523
a. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA
b. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EC2
c. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EC2, EC3
d. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EC2, EC3, V2235
e. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EC2, EC3, V2235, AGE
f. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EC2, EC3, V2235, AGE, V2245
The following coefficients were included in the model at Step 5:
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Para 33
6 (Constant)
LIVEAR EA
EC2
EC3
V2235
AGE
V2245
WILD
E
Arrouwim 1.«rer• pyrry
Audit Division
263451 085
39.901
36146.947
.584
. 729
7.288
68.286
. 000
.000
728084.032
485480.834
61062.935
62558.472
-283039.660 48618.679
-1624.244 352.772
-128056.703
50299.927
. 133
.086
-.065
-.050
-.031
11.924
7.760
- 5.822
.000
. 000
. 000
-4.604 .000
- 2.546 .011
a. Dependent Variable: CURRTOT
The model at Step 6 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 2018.
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
There were 400 qualified vacant land sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period between January
1, 2015 and June 30, 2016. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median
1.000
Price
Related
Differential
1.023
Coefficient of Dispersion
11.6
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:
Co
C 5
1 5
_0
Mean = .98
Std Dev = 195
N=400
10
salesratio
2018 Statistic al Ruport: WELD C' !I1\ I l
Page 34
WILD' O.E
Arnu,►w i .,�
Audit Division
salesratio
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
SO
$500,000
S2,000,000
$ 1,000,000 $1,500,000
TASP
$2,500,000
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 4-00 vacant land dataset using the 18 -month sale period, with the following
results:
Coefficientsa
Model
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.004 .016
SalePeriod -.003 .002
61.762 .000
-.086
-1.718 .086
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2018 Statistical Report: VN LLD COON 11' Page 3S
salesratio
0 ArtItAmt IwnstrosekTED
Audit Division
WILD O.E
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis
S
$ + +i+ I +
$$ +
+ + +
+ t * + + * t
+ +
+
t
+ + *
+ +
.
t
„Stip t
t!:
*
5
i
10
Sai•Period
1
1
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 2016 and 2018 between each group. We stratified the
vacant land properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the
overall comparison results:
Report
DIE=
solo N Median Mean
UNSOLD 6,140 1.08 1.04
SOLD 354 1.28 1.30
We also compared sold and unsold changes in value by subdivision with at least 6 sales, as follows:
201 Statistic at Report: WELD COUNTY
es
Page 36
WILD' • ,E
VI* \I- U ki 11k1-,Hk.\ill'
Audit Division
Report
DIFF
SUBNO sold N Median Mean
2925
3124
3390
3605
4017
4035
4203
4396
4584
4765
4815
4919
6045
Total
U NSOLD 59 1.80 1.79
SOLD 6 1.80 1.80
UNSOLD 3 1.88 1.88
SOLD 6 1.88 1.88
UNSOLD 3 1.00 .76
SOLD 7 1.28 1.28
UNSOLD 2 1.06 1.06
SOLD 8 1.06 1.06
U NSOLD 6 1.50 1.50
SOLD 6 1.50 1.50
U NSOLD 5 1.94 1.78
SOLD 6 1.94 1.67
UNSOLD 6 1.37 1.37
SOLD 21 1.37 1.37
UNSOLD 19 1.03 1.07
SOLD 14 1.20 1.18
UNSOLD 15 1.29 1.25
SOLD 6 1.29 1.27
U NSOLD 6 1.65 1.65
SOLD 6 1.65 1.61
U NSOLD 1 1.22 1.22
SOLD 9 1.22 1.22
U NSOLD 1 1.52 1.52
SOLD 7 1.52 1.52
U NSOLD 5 1.04 1.04
SOLD 21 1.04 1.04
SOLD 142 1.29 1.33
Total 1441 1.00 .73
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.
VI. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS
The final statistical verification concerned the assigned actual values for agricultural residential
improvements. We compared the 2018 median improved value per square foot for this group and
compared it to the 2018 median improved value per square foot for residential single family
improvements in Weld County.
The following indicates that both groups were valued in essentially a similar manner:
Report
IMPVALSF
ABSTRIMP N Median Mean
1212 76,986 $138.85 $142.11
4277 1,190 $126.24 $133.47
201 S `tat:•tical 1Z( E,<►rt: \\ 1 l 1) (011\1 1 \
Patio' 37
lik:kfl1 I'At IM1WP!$tATI.tl
Audit Division
WILD O.E
IMPVALSF
1212
4277
ABSTRIMP
VII. CONCLUSIONS
Based on this 2018 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial /industrial and vacant land
properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
_0I s'tat i'.t is al Report: \\ LLD C. OU\ I l
IlkWILD' • E
�1rrr<►tnu iMsr'snit n
Audit Division
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I IMP
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Median
Actual
ECOt'AREA Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
Weighted Price Related Coefficient of
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion
C
.970
0
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
99
.980
969
980
.980
.984
.997
. 951
. 975
. 966
.988 .962
.950 .990
97.4%
.965
985 .973 .970 .977
971 .968 .966 .970
. 976 983 .979 976 .981
.972 4.
.954
.987
.988 .969 965 .974
1.014 .953 .932 .997
1.006 .978 .973 .983
.983 .922 1.044 .988 .945 1.020
.965
.978
.943 .987 .962 .949
.967 .989 .972 .963
.977 971 982 973 971
.979
.977
95.1%
95.4%
95.3%
95.7%
96.7%
95.2%
96.4%
.974 95.5%
95.3%
95.5%
.978
.963
.975
.973
.987
.906
.978
.953
971
973
946
.973
.959
971
967
.939
.978
.984
.927
933
.961
968
.983
.967
.978
.980
.995
.993
1.029
.974
982
978
1 005
1 003
1 006
1.005
1.007
1 018
1011
1.005
1.012
1 007
1 004
049
.054
.056
059
063
106
.088
.135
.078
.071
044
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 N
distribution for the ratios
Commercial Land
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Median
Actual
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage
Weighted
Mean
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
Price Related Coefficient or
Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential Dispersion
Coefficient of
variation
Mean
Centered
964 946 983 980 .963 .990 96 4% .966 949 .983 .998 082 13 8%
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
2018 Statt't it al Report: WI -11,D (.OLIN 1 1
Page 39
illk:tmu's V j\*,ikrtixe%11n
Audit Division
WILD' • .E
Vacant Land
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND I TASP
95% Confidence Interval for
Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Median
Actual
Mean Lower Bound Upper Bound Median Lower Bound Upper Bound Coverage
Weighted
Mean
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
Price Related
Lower Bound Upper Bound Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Mean
Centered
982
.963
1.001 1.000
.989 1.000 96.0%
.960
.931
.989
1.023
.116
19.8%
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.
2O18 "1atiti(.al I(c1)nr•t: \VII I) WHIN 1.
I'age 4()
0 WILD E
11'1`K \l - U_ I \t t!KPOk 11 ED
Audit Division
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec
Overall
Excluded
Total
LT $25K 9
$25K to $50K 5
$50K to $100K
$100K to $150K
$150K to $200K
$200K to $300K
$300K to $500K
$500K to $750K
$750K to $1.000K
Over $1.000 K
0.1%
0.0%
54 0.5%
425 4.0%
1301 12.1%
4394
3963
491 4.6%
41.0%
36.9%
54
30
10726
0
0.5%
0.3%
100.0%
10726
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
LT $25K .919
$25K to $50K 1.845
$50K to $100K 1.234
$100K to $150K 1.015
$150K to $200K .977
$200K to $300K .973
$300K to $500K .970
$500K to $750K .951
$750K to $1.000K .920
Over $1.000K .964
Overall .972
.675
1.032
1.013
1.002
1.001
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.000
.990
1.007
. 900
. 294
. 255
. 102
. 071
055
055
. 082
.099
. 134
064
271.5%
43.0%
32.6%
16.0%
10.8%
7.9%
7.8%
10.9%
13.7%
24.2%
12.3%
2018 \'\ eld (.'aunty Property .'Acmvnt Study Page 41
Opp WILD O:E
IM TIPP* UM
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 0 2 0.0%
1212 9965 92.9%
1214 2 0.0%
1214 2 0.0%
1215 115 1.1%
1217 1 0.0%
1220 25 0.2%
1222 2 0.0%
1222 1 0.0%
1224 1 0.0%
1225 5 0.0%
1230 598 5.6%
1712 2 0.0%
1721 2 0.0%
1724 1 0.0%
2212 1 0.0% _
2220 1 0.0%
Overall 10726 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 10726
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
0 .133 .960 .094 13.3%
1212 .972 1.008 .064 12.3%
1214 .925 .999 .050 7.0%
1214 .992 1.000 .011 1.6%
1215 .984 1.010 .091 13.1 %
1217 1.169 1 000 .000
1220 1.011 1.044 .139 27.0%
1222 1.026 1.002 .087 12.3 %
1222 1.270 1.000 .000
1224 1.041 1.000 .000
1225 1.038 1.181 .196 45.6%
1230 .973 1.004 .044 6.9%
1712 1.064 1.006 .103 14.6%
1721 1.063 .995 .060 8.4%
1724 .937 1.000 .000
2 212 .930 1.000 .000
2220 .730 1.000 .000
Overall .972 1 007 .064 12.3%
-;ti(aI Report: \S'E.L[) COUNTY Page 42
0 \',
LD' O%E
nitui 1- K i,
Audit Division
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
AgeRec
Overall
Excluded
0
Over 100
75 to 100
50 to 75
25 to 50
5to25
2
272
280
680
1337
4887 45.6%
0.0%
2.5%
2.6%
6.3%
12.5%
5 or Newer 3268
10726
0
Total
30.5%
100.0%
10726
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
0
Over 100
75 to 100
50 to 75
25 to 50
5to25
133
985
.968
.967
.964
972
5 or Newer .977
Overall .972
960
1.069
1.024
1.013
1.001
. 094
13.3%
1.005
1.006
1.007
. 178
. 119
. 092
.082
. 053
.052
. 064
50.5%
18.0%
13.6%
12.2%
8.0%
7.1%
12.3%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
ImpSFRec
0
LE 500 sf
500 to 1.000 sf
1.000 to 1.500 sf
1,500 to 2,000 sf
2.000 to 3.000 sf
3.000 sf or Higher
Overall
Excluded
Total
2
13
0.0%
0.1%
836
7.8%
3566
33.2%
3342
2372
595
10726
0
31.2%
22.1%
5.5%
100.0%
10726
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 43
0 WILD
Arrival. u.lmtNSP etkret)
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
0
LE 500 sf
500 to 1.000 sf
1.000 to 1.500 sf
1.500 to 2.000 sf
2.000 to 3.000 sf
3.000 sf or Higher
Overall
133
. 909
952_
. 972
. 973
. 977
.976
.972
960
990
1.031
1.007
1.006
1.007
1.004
1.007
094
168
109
059
.054
.060
.096
.064
13.3%
36.2%
30.7%
9.3%
8.2%
8.5%
14.2%
12.3%
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
QUALITY 2 0.0%
Overall
Excluded
Total
1 89 0.8%
2 2510 23.4%
3 7394 68.9%
4 665 6.2%
5 53 0.5%
6 13 0.1%
10726 100.0%
0
10726
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
.133 .960
1
2
3
4
5
6
Overall
.943
. 968
. 974
. 978
. 966
. 947
.972
1.126
1.012
1.004
1.009
1.006
1.007
1.007
094
283
083
. 054
. 069
.080 _
059
064
13.3%
85.5%
13.4%
8.1%
9.3%
11.9%
7.8%
12.3%
2018 Statistical Report: A\ E I.I) ( (HI\ 11
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count
WILD O.E
\iirr " h++www1itn
Audit Division
Percent
CONDITION
Overall
Excluded
Total
2
0.0%
1 6
2 25
3 10670
4 ___ 23
10726
0.1%
0.2%
99.5%
0.2%
100.0%
0
10726
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related
Group Median Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
1
2
3
4
Overall
133 .960
1.068 1.257
1.017
.972
.966
094
13.3%
1.042
1.007
1.037
.638
. 193
. 063
.086
81.0%
25.9%
12.0%
11.2%
.972 1.007
. 064
12.3%
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K
$25K to $50K
$50K to $100K _
$100K to $150K
$150K to $200K
$200K to $300K
$300K to $500K
$500K to $750K
$750K to $1.000K
Over $1,000K
Overall
Excluded
Total
3
3
1.5%
1.5%
24
11.7%
24
11.7%
24
11.7%
39
19.0%
28
19
6
35
205
13.7%
9.3% _
2.9%
17.1% _
100.0%
0
205
2018 Statistical Report: WW LLD COUNTY Page 4 5
WILD ' O• E
knit kisit Niro.mt
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
LT $25K 1.031 .998
. 019
$25K to $50K 1.056 1.000
$50K to $100K 963 1.003
$100K to $150K .979 .998
$150K to $200K .993 1.000
$200K to $300K .984 1.002
$300K to $500K .954 .998
$500K to $750K .991 .997
. 021
. 093
. 079
068
101
094
. 094
3.1%
4.2%
11.6%
10.7%
10.0%
18.1%
18.6%
15.2%
$750K to $1.000K .965 .999
Over $1.000K .960 .994
Overall .980 .998
.037
058
082
4.6%
10.9%
13.7%
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 1215 1 0.5%
1721 1 0.5%
1981 1 0.5%
2212 34 16.6%
2215 3 1.5%
2220 16 7.8%
2221 2 1.0%
2225 3 1.5%
2228 3 1.5%
2229 1 0.5%
2230 38 18.5%
2235 23 11.2%
2245 61 29.8%
2723 2 1.0%
3212 2 1.0%
3215 8 3.9%
9229 1 0.5%
9239 2 1.0%
9249 1 0.5%
9259 1 0.5%
9279 1 0.5%
Overall 205 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 205
2018 Statistic al Report: WELD COUNTY Page 46
WILD' O:E
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1215 1.206 1.000 .000
1721 1.234 1.000 .000
1981 .960 1.000 .000
2212 .976 1.025 .058 9.0%
2215 .925 1.014 .032 5.7%
2220 .995 .991 .063 10.7%
2221 .813 1.132 .220 31.0%
2225 1.117 .965 .055 8.4%
2228 .985 .998 .049 9.3%
2229 .970 1.000 .000
2230 .971 .987 .069 11.4%
2235 .950 .985 .103 15.7%
2245 .988 .999 .069 9.0%
2723 .795 .878 .187 26.5%
3212 .998 1.043 .074 10.5%
3215 .967 .988 .031 3.5%
9229 1.250 1.000 .000
9239 .244 .981 .096 13.6%
9249 .554 1.000 .000
9259 1.009 1.000 .000
9279 .962 1.000 .000
Overall .980 .998
.082 13.7%
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AgeRec Over 100 12 5.9% _
75 to 100 13 6.3%
50 to 75 24 11.7%
25 to 50 53 25.9%
5to25 89 43.4%
5 or Newer 14 6.8%
Overall 205 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 205
2018 Statistical Report: \'\ 11.13 COUNTY Page 47
OP APPper a I\*cip,op‘T}I,
WILD' • +E
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
Over 100
75 to 100
50 to 75
25 to 50
5to25
5 or Newer
Overall
. 987
. 991
. 980
.988
. 980
.866
980
1.008
. 999
1.034
1.024
995
. 860
998
. 041
.060
. 074
.083
. 074
. 184
082
7.8%
8.6%
11.0%
13.6%
11.1%
29.9%
13.7%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
ImpSFRec
Overall
Excluded
Total
LE 500 sf
8
500 to 1.000 sf 27
1.000 to 1,500 sf 24
1.500 to 2.000 sf 16
2.000 to 3.000 sf 41
3.000 sf or Higher 89
205
0
3.9%
13.2%
11.7%
7.8%
20.0%
43.4%
100.0%
205
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
LE 500 sf
500 to 1, 000 sf
.986
.928
1.000 to 1.5C0 sf .987
1.500 to 2.000 sf .962
2,000 to 3,000 sf .973
3,000 sf or Higher - .986
Overall .980
1.232
1.012
1.006
1.013
1.050
1.014
998
.222
092
.061
072
.075
075
.082
40.6%
11.2%
8.3%
9.7%
11.5%
12.8%
13.7%
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
QUALITY 1 11
2 12
3 150
4 31
5 1
Overall 205
Excluded 0
5.4%
5.9%
73.2%
15.1%
0.5%
100.0%
Total 205
2018 Statistic -al b';( 1.i�,rt:'WELD COUNTY
l
Page 48
IlkWILD' 4•E
APPRAISAL i.' .u, :
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related
Group Median Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
1
2
3
4
5
Overall
994 1.006
1.000 1.043
. 965 .992
1.000 1.000
. 980 _1.000
980 .998
074
.059
086
.071
000
.082
14.0%
8.4%
14.3%
12.8%
13.7%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
CONDITION 2
3
4
Overall
Excluded
Total
5
199
1
205
0
2_.4%
97.1%
0.5%
100.0%
205
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related
Group Median Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
2
3
4
Overall
1.000 1.017
. 979 .996
991 1.000
980 .998
. 095
.082
.000
. 082
14.4%
13.7%
13.7%
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
SPRec LT $25K 22
$25K to $50K 100
$50K to $100K 158
$100K to $150K 34
$150K to $200K _ 30
$200K to $300K 27
$300K to $500K 14
$500K to $750K 8
$750K to $1.000K 3
Over $1.000K 4
Overall
Excluded
Total
400
5.5%
25.0%
39.5%
8.5%
7.5%
6.8%
3.5%
2.0%
0.8%
1.0%
100.0%
0
400
201 S Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY l l Page 49
ipWILD' O•E
APf'k,L U Imnor,* ntt
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND / TASP
Group
LT $25K
$25K to $50K
$50K to $100K .988
$100K to $150K .925
Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
1.000 1.003
1.000
$150K to $200K .995
$200K to $300K
1.000
1.005
1.009
.999
1.000 1.003
. 184
. 115
. 103
. 172
079
. 102
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
33.2%
18.5%
16.4%
28.4%
12.4%
17.4%
$300K to $500K .981
$500K to $750K .987
1.012
.999
. 161
. 045
30.4%
6.5%
$750K to $1.000K
Over $1.000K
Overall
1.002
1.015
1.003
1.000
1.004
1.023
. 235
. 016
36.7%
3.0%
116
19.6%
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRLND
1125 1
100 71
17.8%
200 18
4.5%
300 5
1.3%
400 1
520 1
540 1
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
550 1
0.3%
1112 270
67.5%
0.3%
0.3%
2112 4
1.0%
2115 1
0.3%
2120 1
0.3%
2130 11
2.8%
2135 8 _
3112 1
2.0%
0.3%
Overall
Excluded
Total
3125 1 _
4147 1 _
8299 1 _
9169 1
400
0
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
0.3%
100.0%
400
'(1itati.tisRt'1n rt: LLD LOU\M
Page 50
WILDROSE
Artm►u a 1..
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND / TASP
Price Related
Group Median Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
100 .963 1.031
200 1.007 _ 1.025
300 1.001 .997
400 .992 1.000
520 .386 1.000
540 .694 1.000
550 .544 1.000
1112 1.000 1.034 _
1115 .748 1.000
1125 .546 1.000
2112 1.026 .987
2115 1.000 1.000
2120 1.980 1.000
2130 .988 .984
2135 .991 .964
3112 1.079 1.000
3125 .935 1.000
4147 .001 1.000
8299 .000
. 148
. 061
.033
.000
.000
.000
. 000
. 102
.000
. 000
.030
000
000
. 052
. 102
. 000
. 000
.000
23.3%
10.5%
5.2%
16.4%
5.0%
8.3%
14.9%
9169 1.249 1.000
Overall 1.000 1.023
. 000
. 116
19.6%
2018 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 51
Hello