HomeMy WebLinkAbout20173235.tiffRECEIVED
2 0 17
WELD COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
SEP 1 5 2017
WELD COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
•
r lmO n t C ct ti"o rl S
q/oO/�-1
WILD'S 'E
APPRAISAL INom PORATFU
Audit Division
cc* GSRCD14C)
rev
2017-3235
WILD
:1l'PR.,1S il_ I\& I,RI%)kU l:l)
Audit Division
September 15, 2017
Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2017 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2017 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.
IbutAarva,
Harry J. Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc.
Audit Division
WILD' • E
\I'rk_11-.u1. 1 M t )1tfl)RA-1 F=U
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 1 7
Producing Oil and Gas 17
Vacant Land 18
Possessory Interest Properties 19
Personal Property Audit 20
Wildrose Auditor Staff 22
Appendices 23
20 l 7 W'''eld County Property Assessment Study Page
lipr AYI'R.II:. it_ I \t ORPO1t1'1 U)
WILD ` • E
Audit Division
INTRODUCTION
do
dos ora ,
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 2017 and is pleased to
report its findings for Weld County in the
following report.
2017 \'`'eld County Property Assessment Study Page 3
likAI'rR.\IS N.L. I\t c ilt Mk VI I
WILD' E
Audit Division
REGIONAL/HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
Regional Information
Weld County is located in the Front Range
region of Colorado. The Colorado Front
Range is a colloquial geographic term for the
populated areas of the State that are just east
of the foothills of the Front Range. It includes
MOFFAT
41
RIO BLANCO
52
Craig •
Sim _
Meeker
•
RO UTT
54
•
Steamboat Spgs
GARFIELD
23 Glenwood Spgs
•
Walden
•
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
Pueblo, and Weld counties.
JACKSON
29
GRAND
25 •
Hot Sulphur
springs
Eagle
•
EAG L E
19
•
MESA
39
Grand Junction
DELTA
15
• Delta
Dove Creek
• DOLORES 6
.Ilverton
17 SAN JUAN
Montrose
•
M0NTROSE
43
OURAY
46 •
Le
PITKIN • Fairplay
43 Aspen LAKE •
33 PARK
SUMMI
59 •Br
LARIMER
35 •
Ft. Collins
7
BOULDER
Boulder
GIU' IN
4
avrgetow
CLEAR GREEK
1O
kenridge
GUNNISON CHAFFEE
26 8
• Gunnison Salida •
SAN MICUEL Dorm HINSDALE
• Lake Cityr,
67 Telluride 27
Cortez
•
• Durango
MONTEZUMA LA PLATA
34
42
Creede
MINERAL
40
III _
47
Golder.
•
JEFF EPSON
30
•
Greeley
WELD
62
OMFIELD
80
LOGAN
39
Sterling
MORGAN
44
Fort Morgan
ADAMS
DENVER
16
3
ARAPAH OE
Akron
•
WASHINGTON
61
Jule5rurg
SE $GW ICK
Holyoke
48 •
PHILLIPS
Wray
•
YUMA
63
Castle Rock
•
DOUG LAS
18
k Iowa 20
• ELSERT
SAC U ACH E
55 Saguache
.
TELLER
a Colorado Spgs
•
Cripple E L PASO
Caei21
FREMONT.
22 canon City
Hugo
•
LINCOLN
37
•
Burlington
KIT CARSON
32
Cheyenne
CH EYENNE •ells
9
WestcI/tie
�CUSTER
14
Del Norte
RIO GRANDE
53
Pagosa Spgs
ARCH U LETA
4
A LAMOSA
Alamosa
CON EJOS
11
•Cone}os
COSTILLA
1?
San Luis
Pueblo
•
PUEBLO
51
Trinidad
•
CROWLEY
13 Ora"
La Junta •
OTERO
46
LAS ANIMAS
36
Eads
•
KIOWA
31
Las Animas
•
BENT
6
Lamar
•
PROW ERS
50
Springfield
•
BACA
5
2017 \Veld County Pnpuny Assessment Study Page 4
WILD' • E
All R IzU_ I\ttJKPt)H\7II)
Audit Division
Historical Information
Weld County had an estimated population of
approximately 294,932 people with 74.0
people per square mile, according to the U.S.
Census Bureau's 2016 estimated census data.
This represents a 16.7 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. wilkipedia. org)
?O17 \Veld (()u111V Property .Asse"n1cnt Stuck Pairs 5
I
ilik.1.1111(111:•‘1 INt i,l(Polt\11U
WILD ' • 'E
Audit Division
RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodology
All significant classes of property were
analyzed. Sales were collected for each
property class over the eighteen month period
from January 1, 2015 through June 20, 2016.
Property classes with less than thirty sales had
the sales period extended in six month
increments up to an additional forty-two
months. If this extended sales period did not
produce the minimum thirty qualified sales, the
Audit performed supplemental appraisals to
reach the minimum.
Although it was required that we examine the
median and coefficient of dispersion for all
counties, we also calculated the weighted mean
and price -related differential for each class of
property. Counties were not passed or failed
by these latter measures, but were counseled if
there were anomalies noted during our
analysis. Qualified sales were based on the
qualification code used by each county, which
were typically coded as either "Q" or "C." The
ratio analysis included all sales. The data was
trimmed for counties with obvious outliers
using 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
2017 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 6
WILD • • E
AI'PR.\I \I_ IM1.)KI%)K.\7LID
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
206
N/A
10,787
433
Unweighted
Median
Ratio
0.981
N/A
0.972
1.000
Price
Related
Differential
0.993
N/A
1.007
1.016
Coefficient
of
Dispersion
8.7
N/A
6.5
10.7
Time Trend
Analysis
Compliant
N/A
Compliant
Compliant
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOTITASR
Price Related
Group Median Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
0 .972
2 .968
3 .979
'4 .969
.953
.978
.966
.961
.972
99 .973
Overall .972
1.004
1.006
1.004
1.007
1.019
1.009
1.011
1.012
1.006
1.004
1.007
.057
.057
.061
.063
.111
.088
.127
.079
.070
.044
.065
NOTE: Econ Area 99 = Condominiums
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
2017 Weld County Property .Assessment Study Page 7
WILD
:1PPR.\IS U.. 1\t t)RrORVI I'II►
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
2017 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 8
S' :il'1'R.Vr 11_ IN( tilwoRA 1 I i'
WILD' • 'E
Audit Division
SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodology
Weld County was tested for the equal
treatment of sold and unsold properties to
ensure that "sales chasing" has not occurred.
The auditors employed a multi -step process to
determine if sold and unsold properties were
valued in a consistent manner.
We test the hypothesis that the assessor has
valued unsold properties consistent with what
is observed with the sold properties based on
several units of comparison and tests. The
units of comparison include the actual value per
square foot and the change in value from the
previous base year period to the current base
year. The first test compares the actual value
per square foot between sold and unsold
properties by class. The median and mean
value per square foot is compared and tested
for any significant difference. This is tested
using non -parametric methods, such as the
Mann -Whitney test for differences in the
distributions or medians between sold and
unsold groups. It is also examined graphically
and from an appraisal perspective. Data can be
stratified based on location and subclass. The
second test compares the difference in the
median change in value from the previous base
year to the current base year between sold and
unsold properties by class. The same
combination of non -parametric and appraisal
testing is used as with the first test. A third test
employing a valuation model testing a
sold/unsold binary variable while controlling
for property attributes such as location, size,
age and other attributes. The model
determines if the sold/unsold variable is
statistically and empirically significant. If all
three tests indicate a significant difference
between sold and unsold properties for a given
class, the Auditor may meet with the county to
determine if sale chasing is actually occurring,
or if there are other explanations for the
observed difference.
If the unsold properties have a higher median
value per square foot than the sold properties,
or if the median change in value is greater for
the unsold properties than the sold properties,
the analysis is stopped and the county is
concluded to be in compliance with sold and
unsold guidelines. All sold and unsold
properties in a given class are first tested,
although properties with extreme unit values
or percent changes can be trimmed to stabilize
the analysis. The median is the primary
comparison metric, although the mean can also
be used as a comparison metric if the
distribution supports that type of measure of
central tendency.
The first test (unit value method) is applied to
both residential and commercial /industrial sold
and unsold properties. The second test is
applied to sold and unsold vacant land
properties. The second test (change in value
method) is also applied to residential or
commercial sold and unsold properties if the
first test results in a significant difference
observed and/or tested between sold and
unsold properties. The third test (valuation
modeling) is used in instances where the results
from the first two tests indicate a significant
difference between sold and unsold properties.
It can also be used when the number of sold
and unsold properties is so large that the non -
parametric testing is indicating a false rejection
of the hypothesis that there is no difference
between the sold and unsold property values.
These tests were supported by both tabular and
graphics presentations, along with written
documentation explaining the methodology
used.
201 7 \Veld County Property ..Nsse"munt Study Page ��
file° iI'PK.V,l!_ I\cORPO VIII)
WILD' • E
Audit Division
Sold / Unsold Results
Property Class
Commercial/Industrial
Condominium
Single Family
Vacant Land
Results
Compliant
N/A
Compliant
Compliant
Conclusions
After applying the above described
methodologies, it is concluded that Weld
County is reasonably treating its sold and
unsold properties in the same manner.
Recommendations
None
2017 \Veld County Property Assessment Study Page 1 O
WILD ' 'E
Al'PRA1s U.. IN( tli{1't lK \ ill)
Audit Division
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Grazi
50.19%
Acres By Subclass
Waste
2.80
Sprinkler
6.26%
Flood
10.80%
Dry Farm
29.26%
Meadow Hay
0.69%
70.000.000
60.000,000
50,000.000
40.000,000
30.000,000
20,000.000
10,000,000
0
Value BySubclass
A\
to
0
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
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:
2017 \Veld County Property Assessment "tudl) Patzc 1 l
OlkAI'I'R.\Iti U_ IN( ( )RI OIt\l LI►
WILDE
Audit Division
Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Abstract
Code
4107
4117
4127
4137
4147
4167
Total/Avg
Land Class
Sprinkler
Flood
Dry Farm
Meadow Hay
Grazing
Waste
Number
Of
Acres
120,545
207,981
563,463
13,194
966,333
53,982
1,925,498
County County
Value Assessed
Per Acre Total Value
245.53
307.46
42.24
46.74
6.60
2.22
29, 597, 347
63,946,370
23,799,788
616,750
6,377,596
119,940
64.64 124,457,791
WRA
Total
Value
27,564,881
62,417,203
22,671,648
616,750
6,377,596
119,940
119,768,018
Ratio
1.07
1.02
1.05
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.04
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 substantially complied with
the procedures provided by the Division of
Property Taxation for the valuation of
agricultural outbuildings.
Recommendations
None
201 7 \Veld County Property Assessment Study Page 12
illkAl'l`K.klaii_ IN( URfl1R%II.l►
WILD' • E
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 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
?O17 Weld U)ulltV Prc)l)CrtV 2V,m.ussment Study Page 1 3
filik:VPIlltAIr U. IN( uRPOItIL I IA)
WILD • • E
Audit Division
SALES VERIFICATION
According to Colorado Revised Statutes:
A representative body of sales is required when
considering the market approach to appraisal.
(8) In any case in which sales prices of comparable
properties within any class or subclass are utilized
when considering the market approach to appraisal in
the determination of actual value of any taxable
property, the following limitations and conditions
shall apply:
(a)(I) Use of the market approach shall require a
representative body of sales, including sales by a
lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and
appraisals shall reflect due consideration of the
degree of comparability of sales, including the extent
of similarities and dissimilarities among properties
that are compared for assessment purposes. In order
to obtain a reasonable sample and to reduce sudden
price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be
included in the sample that reasonably r lect 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 ver f ed by the assessor. (39-1-103,
C.R.S.)
The assessor is required to use sales of real property
only in the valuation process.
(8)(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only
those sales which have been determined on an
individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real
property only or which have been adjusted on an
individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real
property only. (39-1-103, C.R.S.)
Part of the Property Assessment Study is the
sales verification analysis. WRA has used the
above -cited statutes as a guide in our study of
the county's procedures and practices for
verifying sales.
WRA reviewed the sales verification
procedures in 2017 for Weld County. This
study was conducted by checking selected sales
from the master sales list for the current
valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 56
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 $ 500, 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.
When less than 50 percent of sales are
qualified in any of the three property
classes (residential, commercial, and
vacant land), the contractor analyzed
the reasons for disqualifying sales in
any subclass that constitutes at least 20
percent of the class, either by number
of properties or by value, from the
prior year. The contractor has
2017 \Veld County Property A`scs nicnt Study Page 14
filkAPPRAISAL I NCORPtntATE:E'+
WILD' E
Audit Division
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
conducted further analysis to
determine if the sales included in that
code have been assigned appropriately.
If 50 percent or more of the sales are
qualified, the contractor has reviewed a
statistically significant sample of
unqualified sales, excluding sales that
were disqualified for obvious reasons.
Weld County did not qualify for in-
depth subclass analysis.
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
2017 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 15
IlkAPPR.%1: U.. I Nil c11{11O1O.1 FE'
WILDE
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
2017 Weld County Property :\ssessment Studs' Page 16
lik; I I'K.\lS.11_ l\t t,HPORA1 El)
WILD' • 'E
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
Methodolog y
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
2017 `Veld (County Property Assessment Study PaLc 17
WILD' • E
:A}'PR.U' lt.. I \Ct )R Pt )Itl7 In
Audit Division
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2017 in Weld
County. The review showed that subdivisions
were discounted pursuant to the Colorado
Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 (14).
Discounting procedures were applied to all
subdivisions where less than 80 percent of all
sites were sold using the present worth
method. The market approach was applied
where 80 percent or more of the subdivision
sites were sold. An absorption period was
estimated for each subdivision that was
discounted. An appropriate discount rate was
developed using the summation method.
Subdivision land with structures was appraised
at full market value.
Conclusions
Weld County has implemented proper
procedures to adequately estimate absorption
periods, discount rates, and lot values for
qualifying subdivisions.
Recommendations
None
201 7 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 1S
WILD' • 'E
APPItAISut_ IN(t)R1%f tkl u
Audit Division
POSSESSORY INTEREST
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
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
'017 `'V cld County Propel -1\
\"c`snieilt Study Page 19
01, :1JPR.Ui-ia. 1Mu Rfl)H.A1 u
WILD' • E
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 2017 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
2017 Weld County Property Assessment Study Pate 20
WILD' • E
APPRAISAL IN( tRIc1R_k I I:U
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
2017 \'Fuld County PrOJ)Crty Assessnient Study Page. 21
WILD' • E
:A1'PR.1N \l_ I \t`t)ftf't)1t17 El)
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
2017 W'i'eld County Property Assesment Study Page 2
Olk:1!'rR.\1:‘lt_ INcc;RINIR TEA)
WILD ' • 'E
Audit Division
APPENDICES
•
2017 Weld County Property :\sse"mcut Study Page 23
likArru\I'U I\(iIHN'H\lth
Audit Division
`'VILDROSE
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
FOR WELD COUNTY
2017
I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
129,186 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2017. The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
4.9
C
0
U
100,000 -
80,000 -
60,000 -
40,000 -
20,000 -
Real Property Class Distribution
1 11472 1
81336
4899
31479
i
Vacant Land Res Imp Commllnd Imp Other
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 78.0% of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92.4% of all residential
properties.
Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in
comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 3.8% of all such properties in this
county.
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2017 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2017. The data
included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor.
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24
WILDROSE
.1PP.t% . : 1•.c uP!'IP i! l
Audit Division
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
There were 10,787 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:
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ECONAREA 0 924 8.6%
2 3121 29.1%
3 2828 26.3%
4 715 67%
5 100 0.9%
................. .
6 1937 18.0%
7 45 0.4%
8 121 1.1%
9 350 3.3%
99 600 5.6%
Overall 10741 100.0%
Excluded 46
Total 10787
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
0 .972 1.004 .057
2 .968 1.006 .057
3 .979 1.004 .061
4 .969 1.007 .063
5 .953 1.019 .111
6 .978 1.009 .088
7 .966 1.011 .127
8 .961 1.012 .079
9 .972 1.006 .070
99 .973 1.004 .044
Overall .972 1.007 .065
NOTE: Econ Area 99 = 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:
2017 Statistical Report: A\ ELD COUNTY Page 25
U
C
v
3
a.
v
I-
4,000-
3,000-
2,000-
1,000-
4.00
3.00
O
in 2.00
R
40
lik; ITR\I-\i IM t>kh>k.\II I>
WILDRCSE
Audit Division
I
0.00 1.00 2.00 3.00 4.00
salesratio
I I I
Mean = .98
Std. Dev. _ .103
N = 10,787
1.00
0.00
•
•
•
•
•
1 _
•
Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
1 I
1
1
1
I
$0
$10,000,000
$20,000,000
TASP
$30,000,000
$40,000,000
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:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 26
99 1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
W1LDROSE
Audit Division
Coefficient?
ECONAREA Model
2
3
1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
(Constant)
Unstandardized Coefficients
B Std. Error
. 971 .017
Standardized
Coefficients
Beta
t
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
. 000 .002 _
. 983 .006
. 000 .001
. 966 .003
-.017
55.580
-.115
Sig.
. 000
.909
-.007
167.619
-.216
374.255
. 000
.829
. 000
SalePeriod .000
1
(Constant) .979
.000
.003
. 019
1.042 .298
.000
304.397
SalePeriod
. 000 .000
. 016
(Constant)
. 981
. 007
SalePeriod
. 000
. 001
-.014
1 (Constant)
1
1.008
. 032
1
SalePeriod -.003 _
(Constant)
SalePeriod
(Constant)
1.002
.003
.007
-.086
.845
140.862
-.371
31.310
. 398
. 000
. 711
. 000
-.854 .395
153.350 .000
-.001 _
1.039
. 001
-.021
SalePeriod
8 1 (Constant)
SalePeriod
1 (Constant)
-.005
1.006
-.005
. 987
SalePeriod -.001
. 983
-.001
. 046
. 005
. 028
. 003
. 010
. 001
. 005
. 001
-.942
-.161
-.151
-.062
-.060
. 346
22.381
- 1.070
36.150
- 1.663
97.780
-1.163
183.208
- 1.460
. 000
. 291
. 000
. 099
. 000
. 246
. 000
. 145
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 2017 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows:
Report
VALSF
sold I '! Median Mean
0 69,920
1 10,787
$166
$170
$199
$172
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 27
4
WILDROSE
.il'ru UrU ��1 upr'JRUI I>
Audit Division
Report
VALSF
ECONAREA sold N Median Mean
0
2
3
4
UNSOLD 5,668 $178 $188
SOLD 924 $181 $181
UNSOLD 19,037 $172 $183
SOLD 3,121 $172 $176
UNSOLD 14,312 $174 $228
SOLD 2,828 $175 $182
UNSOLD 5,723 $152 $190
SOLD 715 $164 $166
5
6
7
8
9
99
UNSOLD 1,234 $130 $130
SOLD 100 $164 $158
UNSOLD 16,755 $157 $219
SOLD 1,937 $165 $161
UNSOLD 796 $77 $362
SOLD 45 $99 $114
UNSOLD 619 $131 $178
SOLD 121 $147 $151
UNSOLD 2,281 $169 $161
SOLD 350 $184 $178
UNSOLD 3,325 $133 $133
SOLD 600 $142 $144
We also examined the overall median and mean change in actual value for taxable years 2016 and 2017
for residential sold and unsold properties, as follows:
Report
DIFF
sold N Median Mean
0 67,083 1.26 1.29
1 9,952 1.27 1.28
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 28
likNI PH 1h a I", i Ik IN ili%II I'
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig . Decision
Independent -
The distribution of DIFF is the sam Samples
across categories of sold. �l a n n -
Whitney U
Test
Retain the
.984 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.
IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
There were 206 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
0.981
Price Related
Differential
0.993
Coefficient of
Dispersion
8.7
The above table indicates that the Weld County commercial/industrial land sale ratios were in
compliance with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio
distribution further:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 29
WILDROSE
1ri•a 11 -\t 1.i (WI, 1if I'
Audit Division
80 —
60 —
0
C
a!
40 —
as
LL
1.0
1
1 .4
Mean = .97
Std. Dev. _ .144
N = 206
NO
1
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
salesratio
1.4-
12-
1.0
0.6-
0.4-
0.4 -
0.2-
0.2 -
0.0-
0.0 -
)ic Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio
x
x
u
x
Xx
xx
x
x
x
x
i
i I I 1 ► F r
$5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000
TASP
$0
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 30
ilk
Audit Division
WILDROSE
lrruv-\I hi. LIPP,INN,itu
Commercial /Industrial Market Trend Analysis
The 206 commercial /industrial sales were next analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 -month
sale period with the following results:
Coefficient?
Model
1 (Constant) .971 .020 48.997 .000
SalePeriod .000 .002 -.013 -.192 .848
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
1.4-'
1.2-
1.0
O
is 0.8-
U,
•
up
0.6-
0.4 -
0.2 -
0.0 -
+ Commercial Market Trend Analysis-
♦ +
.} + +
♦ + + t
+ t
+
.. ..p. ..... .....M.. .. . . ;.. S..S. . . S..:k.............. a
f + +
$ * i ,T, t * $ t : *
$ + ++ + +$
+ +
I
0
I
5
I
10
SalePeriod
1
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 commercial/industrial
land valuation.
Sold/Unsold Analysis
We compared the median actual value per square foot for 2017 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:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
VVILDROSE
I tkh 'RN I I !)
Audit Division
Report
VALSF
ABSTRIMP sold
N Median
Mean
2212
2220
2230
UNSOLD
SOLD
2235
UNSOLD
SOLD
UNSOLD
2245
3215
Total
SOLD
UNSOLD
SOLD
UNSOLD
SOLD
UNSOLD
SOLD
UNSOLD
SOLD
647 $72
32 $110
359 $99
16 $116
979 $100
41 $140
846 545
25 $70
828 $87
61 $89
282 $61
8 $80
3,941 $75
183 $90
$2,233
$123
$194
$122
$45,362
$24,114
$5,027
$69
$119
$98
$19,916
$79
$14,182
$5,480
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis
Test Sig. Decision
Independent -
The distribution of VALSF istheSamples
1 same across categories of sold. hAh-
111fhi ntn ey U
Test
Reject the
.000 null
hypothesis.
Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .O5.
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 2O16 and 2O17 for
sold and unsold commercial properties in Weld County, as follows:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 32
•.\I'PH V -V IMil}ti.ik'III'
Audit Division
WILDROSE
Report
DIFF
ABSTRIMP sold Median Mean
2212 UNSOLD 646 1.10 1.19
SOLD 32 1.50 1.64
2220 UNSOLD 356 1.09 22.12
SOLD 16 1.24 1.40
2230 UNSOLD 979 1.10 10.24
SOLD 41 1.43 1.76
2235 UNSOLD 836 1.12 12.19
SOLD 25 1.24 1.54
2245 UNSOLD 824 1.13 1.19
SOLD 61 1.22 1.37
3215 UNSOLD 277 1.10 39.46
SOLD 8 1.59 1.71
Total UNSOLD 3918 1.11 10.41
SOLD 183 1.29 1.54
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis
Test Sig. Decision
Independent -
The distribution of DIFF is the sam Samples
1 across categories of sold. Mann -
9 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
actual value as the predicted variable. A total of 4,126 commercial/industrial properties were analyzed.
commercial/industrial property subclasses included the following:
2017 Statistical Report: WE:LD COUNTY Page 33
WILDROSE
:NhPk \1^ k1 I\(-nN1Y>H 3 i 1 1>
Audit Division
ABSTRIMP
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2212 680 16.5 16.5 16.5
2220 375 9.1 9.1 25.6
2230 1021 24.7 24.7 50.3
2235 871 21.1 21.1 71.4
2245 889 21.5 21.5 93.0
3215 _ _ 290 7.0 7.0 100.0
Total 4126 100.0 100.0
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 that 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 .762a
2 .764D
3 /66
4 .766D
. 580 .580
. 584 .584
. 586 .586
. 587 .587
5 .767e .588 .587
1355501.458
1349441.636
1345960.515
1344481.993
1343539.483
a. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA
b. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, T2235
c. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, T2235, T2245
d. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, T2235, T2245, T2220
e. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, T2235, T2245, T2220, AGE
The following coefficients were included in the model at Step 5:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 34
WILDRQSE
\PIN \1-11 Is.t I WNI,,N id I I,
Audit Division
5 (Constant)
LIVEAR EA
T2235
T2245
T2220
AGE
316687.862
49.110
- 357162.989
- 229258.258
231058.321
-285.936
32294.099
.654
54706.321
54946.506
75765.750
109.781
. 757
-.070
-.045
. 032
-.026
9.806
75.089
- 6.529
-4.172
3.050
- 2.605
. 000
. 000
.000
. 000
.002
. 009
a. Dependent Variable: CURRTOT
The model at Step 5 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 2017.
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
There were 433 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
1.016
Coefficient of
Dispersion
10.7
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:
0.0
0.5
1.5
1.0
salesratio
2.0
Mean = .99
Std. Dev. = .176
N = 433
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 35
WILDROSE
:iP1•H\I3/41I l'+ n1+h+H\1I U
Audit Division
to
U,
2.0
1.5
0.5
0.0
x
Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
5c
x
x
x
x
x
x
Y » Y
1 I
$0
$500,000
I
I I I
$1,000,000 $1,500,000
TASP
$2,000,000
I
$2,500,000
The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the 433 vacant land dataset using the 18 -month sale period, with the following
results:
Coefficient?
Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
Model B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1.014 .014 72.100 .000
SalePeriod -.004 .002 -.110 -2.308 .021
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2017 Statistical Report: MID COUNTY Page 36
WILDROSE
1P1'k\I-\! I\, I WIN 1•
Audit Division
2.0-
1.5 -
to
in 1.0
4,1
rs
U,
0.5-
0.0 -
+
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis
+ t
II 0 a s • ••$•• •iis •t•t eilifillillialle555501
I Ii
0
5
I
10
SalePeriod
1
15
i
I
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 2017 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 t J Median Mean
0 6,865 1.17 1.21
1 383 1.26 1.30
We also compared sold and unsold changes in value by subdivision with at least 6 sales, as follows:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 37
WILDROSE
tIUH)14\iti
Audit Division
Report
DIFF
SUBNO sold N Median Mean
UNSOLD 555 1.24 1.22
SOLD 16 _ 1.34 1.37
2528 UNSOLD 1 1.78 1.78
SOLD 3 1.83 1.80
w
2925 UNSOLD 80 1.80 1.78
SOLD 6 1.80 1.80
3124 UNSOLD 10 _ 1.88 1.88
SOLD 6 1.88 1.88
3210 UNSOLD142 1.30 1.30
SOLD 6 1.28 1.28
3372 UNSOLD 208 1.33 1.33
SOLD 27 1.25 1.25
3390 UNSOLD 6 1.28 1.24
SOLD 7 1.28 1.28
3605 UNSOLD 3 1.11 _ 1.07
SOLD 8 1.06 1.06
4017 UNSOLD 20 1.50 1.50
SOLD 6 1.50 1.50
4035 UNSOLD 8 1.94 1.73
SOLD 6 1.94 1.67
4203 UNSOLD 10 1.37 1.37
SOLD 21 1.37 1.37 _
4396 UNSOLD 24 1.03 1.10
SOLD 15 1.20 1.18
4584 UNSOLD 38 1.29 1.28
SOLD 6 1.29 1.29
4765 UNSOLD 14 1.65 1.65
SOLD 6 1.65 1.61
4815 UNSOLD 4 1.22 1.22
_ SOLD 9 1.22 1.22
4919 UNSOLD 2 1.52 1.52
SOLD 7 1.52 1.52
6045 UNSOLD _ 6 1.04 1.04
SOLD 21 1.04 1.04
Total UNSOLD _ 1131 1.30 1.31
SOLD 176 1.28 1.33
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 2017 median improved value per square foot for this group and
compared it to the 2017 median improved value per square foot for residential single family
improvements in Weld County.
The following indicates that both groups were valued in essentially the same manner:
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 38
WI LDROSE
1rrx.I ! 1,,IWI, I
Audit Division
Report
IMPVALSF
ABSTRIMP
11 Median Mean
1212
4277
73,783 $139 $137
1,134 $128 $134
ABSTRIMP
VII. Conclusions
Based on this 2017 audit statistical analysis, residential and vacant land properties were found to be in
compliance with state guidelines.
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 39
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT
Residential
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
95% Confidence Interval for
Weighted Mean
95% Confidence Interval for Median
C
iD
n'
2
(C
C
'1'
a'
C
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
C
Cv
T.
a'
2
C
O
CD
'L
a
a
Lower Bound
C
cv
Q
W
CC
Q
O
U
W
O ►� f� r en r CD t` a1 O v
v is , In CO cc a CO f 4 1- 1+ `e7
O O O O O r O r O O O
tc� w O Q f` a) O r (-J CO Q
O O O O O r O r r O O
O O O O O O O O O O O
v (rl f- r CO tO to v C4 N CO
Co CO to CO N- a) o) c') f� OO n
a) o) a) at O s a) o a) a) 0
r
to Cn O C') to in O O r r co
't r` to N. to (ten O v CO (0
a) 0) CA 0) a) o) 0 a) 0 0) 0
tci CD en f` CJ to r` f- Cl r C )
to f` to h- f.- to CO OO tc-1
a) O a) a) to O) a1 O O1 of O1
v 1n r Cl f` to d v to r4 to
N: in 1n in 'a to kr; to tri in 'a
O Of 0 01 01 01 0) a1 01 Cr) 0)
O N- O CV el 'a f'') C4 CJ CO N.-
r-- f- CO N. O1 CO ger N.
O1 O1 O1 O CD 0) O1 O 01 O a)
r
O O) to ti e CJ f 1n to C')
to CO to f- to Cn f• d a CO f�
O) a) a) O1 a) rn rn rn 0) a) rn
ri Cl co a) a) en m to r Cl cn
tO f- to f` tD to F- tO (O f-
rn 0) 0) 0) rn rn a) a) a) 0 a1
DD CO ri to to in en to in co r+
Co co f- co co r O 1n CO CO CO
a1 O 0 O1 0 O O O O a) O
r r r
r to O CO r f") O
1n f� to f` f• tc) O) fl 'e to N. -
a) a) rn O1 CI) O1 O) O a) a)
O Cl a1 Cl O) v co co en f` re -
co to OD r` CO a1 0) (O
01 0) O a1 a) a) 0f 0) 01 a) 0)
O
N
K
In
tO
ti
m
C)
Of 0)
to
C
N
N
cv
T
n
V
to
v
44
N
C
O
u
m
ci
ca
a,
c_
a,
u
C
ti
V
C
O
V
a'
L
O
y
at
V
a,
v
a,
a
N
t1)
t
r
C
Cv
'C
a+
4-
cv
a)
a,
.O
cv
E
a1
d
a+
a
RI
I-
a,
O
u
Cv
4-
r
v
cv
a,
'C
H
N
C
r
a
E
N
N
ca
C
O
D
n
C
cv
r
O
L
ro
u
2
N
P3
a1
L
RI
y
d
u
a1
ro
H
distribution for the ratios.
Commercial Land
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
O
Ca
z
'1'
r
C
C
I1'
V
C
O
`)
to
a)
95% Confidence Interval for
C
(O
a'
2
V
4-
L
n+
95% Confidence Interval for Median
C
Ca
a'
5
O
r
C
'1+
u
C
n+
O
U
C
O_
N
n• '
a
N
a
v
a -
C
a,
t
C
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
V
c
cv
v' 2a+
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
C
(C
V
a'
2
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
C
ca
a'
2
S
a)
r
r+
CO
O
cn
rn
O)
O
rn
O)
O
O)
a)
en
to
rn
r
Ca
0)
OD
CO
O)
CO
v
0)
CD
40
O
evel may be greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming
CD
a
cv
5-
a►
>
O
u
4-
u
ci
a)
C
F --
go
N
cv
C
O
5
a
r
N
C
cv
r
O
'C
a)
u
Ca
L
to
0.1
v
t.=.
H
WELD COUNTY
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND I TASP
Coefficient of
nterval for
95% Confidence
95% Confidence Interval for
C
0
Weighted Mean
95% Confidence Interval for Median
C
C
a'
a)
a?
r
C
a+
G C
C O
� N
C.; a)
E
a) N
O 0
a
Price Related
2
C
a'
0
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
V
- C
Ch
t �
y 2
a,
a
A m
- a)
r a1
V >
< 0
a
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
C
rt
T_.
•1'
2
Upper Bound
Lower Bound
C
m
s
co
r --
t• --
to
r
0
0
LC1
rn
r-
0
0
O
O
0
0
0
RP"'
IC,
O
O
r
CO
CO
rn
may be greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming
a)
a)
n�
O
V
To
4-
r
V
a'
F-
N
C
0
fa
E
D
N
N
ca
C
0
.Q
$
C
(O
O
z
r_yy
u
N
co
ro
L
cal
as
a+
a)
ro
Cod
•'•
Itrs
oft
r
a
r
N
I
I
I
4
I
I
I
I
1IlkAPPRJUs,u_ I%fl)RN)R.V1 E I)
WILD ' E
Audit Division
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 9
$25K to $50K 6
$50K to $100K 55
$100K to $150K 430
$150K to $200K 1302
$200K to $300K 4386
$300K to $500K
0.1%
0.1%
0.5%
4.0%
12.1%
40.7%
$500K to $750K
$750K to $1,000K
Over $1,000K
4007 37.1%
501 4.6%
59 0.5%
32 0.3%
Overall _
Excluded
Total
10787 100.0%
0
10787
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
LT $25K
$25K to $50K
$50K to $100K
Median
.919
1.860
1.232
$100K to $150K 1.016
$150K to $200K .977
$200K to $300K .972
$300K to $500K .970
$500K to $750K .952
$750K to $1,000K .926
Over $1,000K .968
Overall .972
Price Related
Differential
. 802
1.017
1.017
1.002
1.001
1.000
1.001
1.002
1.000
. 996
1.007
Coefficient of
Dispersion
. 357
.251
.270
. 103
.072
. 056
. 056
. 086
. 110
. 151
.065
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
98.9%
38.4%
34.8%
16.1%
10.6%
8.0%
7.9%
11.5%
15.0%
25.2%
10.6%
2017 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 42
I
I
•WILDRCSE
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 1212 10029 93.0%
1214 2 0.0%
1214 2 0.0%
1215 113 1.0%
1217 1 0.0%
1220 25 0.2%
1222 2 0.0%
1222 1 0.0%
1224 1 0.0%
0.0%
5.6%
1225 5
1230 600
1712 2
1714 1
1721 1
1724 1 0.0%
2212 1 0.0%
Overall
0.0%
0.0% _
0.0%
10787 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 10787
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
1212 .972 1.008 .065 10.6%
1214 .925 .999 .050 7.0%
1214 1.067 1.002 .081 11.4% _
1215 .989 1.010 .097 13.6%
1217 _ _ 1.169 1.000 .000
1220 1.011 1.044 .139 27.0%
1222 1.093 1.000 .020
1222 1.270 1.000 .000
1224 1.041 1.000 _ .000
1225 1.038 1.181 .196
1230 .973 1.004 .044
1712_ 1.064 1.006 .103
1714 .917 1.000 .000
1721 _____ .999 1.000 .000
1724 .937 1.000 .000
2212 .. .930 1.000 .000
Overall .972 1.007 .065
2.9%
45.6%
6.9%
14.6%
10.6%
2017 Statistical Report: `\ I:I D COUNTY Page 43
I
4
4
I
WILD ' O. E
Amman. !fit tutlriR.\1ti)
Audit Division
. 967
1.054
1.025
. 173
. 121
31.3%
18.1%
. 967
2,000 to 3,000
3,000 sf or Higher
Overall
Excluded
Total
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
AgeRec
Over 100
75 to 100
277 2.6%
285 2.6%
50 to 75
25 to 50
5 to 25
5 or Newer
Overall
Excluded
680
1346
4922
3277
10787
6.3%
12.5%
45.6%
30.4%
100.0%
0
Total
10787
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group
Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
Over 100 .985
75 to 100
50 to 75
25 to 50 .964
5to25 .972
5 or Newer .977
Overall .972
1.013
1.001
1.004
1.006
1.007
. 095
. 084
. 054
14.4%
12.5%
8.1%
. 052
.065
7.1%
10.6%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
ImpSFRec LE 500 sf 14
500 to 1,000 sf 844
1,000 to 1,500 sf
1,500 to 2,000 sf
Count
Percent
3573
3370
0.1 % _
7.8%
33.1%
31.2%
0 sf 2389 _ 22.1%
597 5.5%
10787 100.0%
0
10787
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 44
likVVILDICSE
.\I'l'k11> \I I".( (lb!' 'kl it I)
Audit Division
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
1,000 to 1,500 sf
1,500 to 2,000 sf _
2,000 to 3,000 sf
3,000 sf or Higher
Overall
. 914
. 952
. 972
.973
.968
1.026
1.007
1.006
. 978 1.006
. 977 1.002
. 972
1.007
.201
. 106
. 060
. 055
. 063
. 097
. 065
38.4%
19.9%
9.6%
8.3%
9.1%
14.0%
10.6%
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
QUALITY 1
Overall _
Excluded
Total
2
115
2483
23.0%
3 7379 68.4%
4 743 6.9%
5 54 0.5%
6 13 0.1%
10787 100.0%
0
10787
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Median
Price Related Coefficient of
Differential Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
1 .961
2 .967
3 .973
4 .982
5 .967
6 .947
Overall .972
1.051 _
1.013
1.004
1.010
1.007
1.003
1.007
. 211
. 084
. 055
. 076 _
. 091
.093
. 065
37.9%
13.9%
8.2%
9.9%
13.2%
16.2%
10.6%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
CONDITION 1
2
3
4
Overall
Excluded
Total
10
33
10715
29
10787
0
10787
0.1%
0.3%
99.3% _
0.3%
100.0%
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 45
VVILDROSE
�.rle\I a 1\, ';j�,
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Group Median Differential Dispersion
1 1.655 1.518 .459
2 1.005 1.020 .177
MINSINIMIONINIS
3 .972 1.006 .064
4 .978 1.052 .105
Overall .972 1.007 .065
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
58.3%
23.3%
9.9%
17.0%
10.6%
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 3 1.5%
$25K to $50K 3 1.5%
$50K to $100K 25 12.1%
$100K to $150K 24 11.7%
$150K to $200K 24 11.7%
$200K to $300K 39 18.9%
$300K to $500K 29 14.1%
$500K to $750K 20 9.7%
$750K to $1,000K 6 2.9%
Over $1,000K 16.0_ %
Overall 100.0%
Excluded
33
206
0
Total
206
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Median
LT $25K 1.031
$25K to $50K 1.056
$50K to $100K .958
$100K to_$150K .979
$150K to $200K .993
$200K to $300K .982
$300K to $500K .947
$500K to $750K 1.000 _
$750K to $1,000K .965
Over $1,000K .970
Overall .981
Price Related
Differential
. 998
1.005
. 996
. 998
1.000
1.004
. 998
Coefficient of
Dispersion
. 019
. 058
. 109
. 079
. 078
. 113
.096
1.000
. 999
. 998
. 993
. 093
.037
. 045
.087
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
10.7%
11.3%
20.5%
20.0%
14.8%
4.6%
7.3%
14.8%
2017 Statistic al Report: V1'LLD COUNTY
Page 46
WILDROSE
iIPN‘I,%t IM It 1IU
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 0 3 1.5%
1212 1 0.5%
1215 1 0.5%
1721 1 0.5%
1981 1 0.5%
2212 32 15.5%
2215 3
1.5%
2220 16 7.8%
2221 2
2225 3
2228 3 _
2229 1
2230 38
2235 24
2245 61
2723 2 _
3212 2
3215 8
9229 1
1.0%
18.4%
11.7%
29.6%
1.0%
1.0%
3.9%
0.5%
9249 1 0.5%
9259 1 0.5%
9279 1 0.5%
Overall
Excluded
Total
206 100.0%
0
206
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47
WILDRCSE
M1MUSid IsiUKJM1 A1Et)
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Median
0
1212
1215
. 166
. 906 _
1.206
Price Related
Differential
1.475
1.000
1.000
Coefficient of
Dispersion
. 726
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
142.0%
. 000
. 000
1721
1981 .960
2212
2215
2220
2221
2225
1.454
1.000
. 000
.976
. 930
. 997
. 813
1.117
2228 .985
2229 _
2230
2235
2245
2723
3212
3215 .967
9229 1.250
9249 .554
9259 1.009
9279 .962
Overall .981
. 970
. 976
. 955
.988
. 795
. 998
1.000
1.007
1.013
1.006
1.132
. 965
. 998
1.000
. 979
. 985
1.000
.878
1.043
. 988
1.000
1.000
1.000
1.000
. 993
. 000
.061 _
. 032
. 069
.220
. 055
. 049
9.3%
5.4%
12.0%
31.0% _
8.4%
9.3%
. 000
.062
. 099
. 073
. 187
. 074
. 031
. 000
.000
. 000
. 000
. 087
8.8%
15.3%
9.7%
26.5%
10.5%
3.5%
14.8%
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AgeRec 0
Over 100
75 to 100
50 to 75
25 to 50
5to25
5 or Newer
3
12
13
25
53
89
11
1.5%
5.8%
6.3%
12.1%
25.7%
43.2%
Overall
Excluded
Total
206
0
5.3%
100.0%
206
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
WILDICSE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient of
Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
0 .166
Over 100 .983
75 to 100 .991
1.475
1.010
. 999
. 726
142.0%
. 045
. 060
8.2% _
8.6%
50 to 75 .974
1.032
. 074
25 to 50 .988
5 to 25 .983
5 or Newer .897
.........................
Overall .981
1.033
. 990
. 931
. 993
. 097
068
. 082
. 087
10.8%
15.5%
9.9%
9.8%
14.8%
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ImpSFRec 0
Overall
Excluded
3
LE 500 sf 6
500 to 1,000 sf
1,000 to 1,500 sf
1,500 to 2,000 sf
2,000 to 3,000 sf
27
25
16
1.5%
2.9%
7.8%
40
3,000 sf or Higher 89
19.4%
43.2%
206 100.0%
0
Total
206
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 .928
1,000 to 1,500 sf .973
.166
1.012
1.475 _
1.031
1,500 to 2,000 sf .962
2,000 to 3,000 sf .986
3,000 sf or Higher .986
Overall .981
1.015
1.008
1.013
1.002
1.016
.993
. 726
. 041
. 097
. 062
072
. 065
. 083
. 087
142.0%
5.0%
12.1%
8.2%
9.7%
9.1%
13.9%
14.8%
2017 Statistic al Ruport: WELD COUNTY Pa e 49
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
QUALITY 3 1.5%
1 10 4.9%
WILDROSE
\PI'N IU\iI I
Audit Division
2 13 63%
3 147 71.4%
4 32 15.5%
5 1 0.5%
Overall 206 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 206
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.166 1.475 .726 142.0%
1 .996 1.001 _ .103 19.7%
2 1.000 1.031 .047 6.8%
3 .968 .996 .080 12.0%
4 1.000 .982 .062 9.6%
5 .980 1.000 .000
Overall .981 .993 .087 14.8%
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION 3 1.5%
2 3 1.5%
3 198 96.1%
4 2 1.0%
Overall 206 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 206
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Coefficient of
Price Related Coefficient of Variation
Group Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered
.166 1.475 .726 142.0%
2 .990 1.007 .078 12.2%
3 .982 1.000 .078 11.9%
4 .976 1.014 .016 2.2%
Overall .981 .993 .087 14.8%
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 50
WILDROSE
: prktl-\t INA tU,!'wIL1I1,
Audit Division
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec Rec LT $25K
Overall
Excluded
Total
24
5.5%
$25K to $50K 114
$50K to $100K 170
$100K to $150K
$150K to $200K
26.3%
39.3%
$200K to $300K
$300K to $500K
$500K to $750K
34
32
28
15
8
7.9%
7.4%
6.5%
3.5%
$750K to $1,000K 3
1.8%
0.7%
Over $1,000K 5
1.2%
433
100.0%
0
433
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND / TASP
Group
Median
Price Related Coefficient of
Differential Dispersion
Coefficient of
Variation
Median Centered
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
1.000 1.010
1.000 1.004
.982 1.007
. 925
. 995
1.004
.994
. 987
Overall
1.002
1.015
1.000
1.006
. 998
. 168
. 103
. 095
. 177
30.0%
17.2%
14.4%
29.0%
.089
13.5%
1.003
1.003
. 999
1.003
1.004
. 101
. 090
. 045
. 235
. 017
1.016
107
17.2%
12.3%
6.5%
36.7%
2.8%
17.6%
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 51
WILD' O+E
ArttkL�_u_ 1MT4r0k%1LU
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count
Percent
ABSTRLND
100.00 120
200.00 23
300.00 6
400.00 1
520.00 1
27.7%
5.3%
t4%
0.2%
0.2%
540.00
550.00
1
1
1112.00
1115.00
254
0.2%
0.2%
58.7%
1
0.2%
2112.00
2115.00
2120.00
2130.00
2135.00
3112.00
3125.00
9169.00
4
1
1
8
6
0.9%
1
0.2%
0.2%
1.8%
1.4%
0.2%
3
1
0.7%
0.2%
Overall
Excluded
Total
433
0
433
100..0%
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND / TASP
Group Median
Price Related
Differential
Coefficient
Dispersion
Coefficient of
of Variation
Median Centered
1.017
100.00 .972
200.00 1.002
300.00 .998
400.00 .992
520.00 .386
540.00 .694
1.022
. 981
1.000
1.000
. 138
. 075
.050
. 000 _
.000
20.6%
12.3%
7.4%
1.000
. 000
550.00
1112.00
1115.00
2112.00
2115.00
2120.00
. 544
1.000
. 748
1.026
1.000
1.980
1.000
1.036
. 000
. 093
15.6% _
1.000
. 987
1.000
1.000
.000
.030
. 000
. 000
5.0%
2130.00 1.006
2135.00 .991
3112.00 1.079
3125.00 .996
9169.00 1.249
Overall 1.000
. 987
. 965
1.000
1.009
1.000
1.016
. 059 _
. 109
. 000
. 049
. 000
8.6%
16.7%
7.4%
. 107
17.6%
2017 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY
Page 52
Hello