The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20162909.tifflee 2016 WELD COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSMENT STUDY CcD'nrflOfliC 0.*1oCyS of q fQOtCo WILDROSE A14'14%1411 ��(nIdIK13t111II Audit Division Cc = OtSCSCOK) 9f1gI0t' lCD 2016-2909 WILD • sE A �1\Utliltt141111) Audit Division September 15, 2016 Mr. Mike Mauer Director of Research Colorado l .egislative Council Room 029, State Capitol Building Denver, Colorado 80203 RE: Final Report for the 2O16 Colorado Property Assessment Study Dear Mr. Mauer: Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2016 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 Procedures ra r Al i t, ill, a 1 A ,a r.s '.JJJ rti.,o rrvv, yir:,c err. J. Vi ��. r. r1r tarn i>t rat r+R m�r�.-.c 'J ter+ rtnc Caen r-. c ^En t t� c tern nrmrt t...l Vt.l�t I,14J. 1 1 V��...�il.il t.�J UL 4 1 4 V iL CV le.. V, iVl {Jl V V.bi�rJ.il 111.ValW VL. tAli�l. 5%AJ 1{.+iaV V+aviv..l %MVP. tutatiJ 4t1 tr.-na.al15) producing coal mines, producing earth 1 and stone products, severed mineral interests, ) and non - producing patented mining claims. Statistical audits are performed on vacant land, residential properties, commercial/industrial properties and agricultural land. A statistical analysis is performed for personal property compliance on the eleven largest counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Pueblo and Weld. The remaining counties receive a personal property procedural study. Wildrose Appraisal Inc. — Audit Division appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the State of Colorado. Please contact us with any questions or concerns. Harry J. Fuller Project Manager Wildrose Appraisal Inc. — Audit. Division WILDROSE \vrt v xi I.' i,i•q-.Nlit. 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 1 2 Agricultural Land Under Improvements 13 Sales Verification 14 Economic Area Review and Evaluation 16 Natural Resources 17 Earth and Stone Products 17 Producing Oil and Gas 17 Vacant Land 18 Possessory Interest Properties 19 Personal Property Audit 20 Wildrose Auditor Staff 22 Appendices 13 2016 Weld Couuh Properh Assessment Stuck. Page 2 WILDROSE 11114titt� Audit Division INTRODUCTION Colorado 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 i' the State n_ __._7 1' Equalization, 1 .i_.. of 111e Sta a Uodl tl o1 E qualizatioll, 411'.l file 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 Valuation discounting 4T II 1 1lleltlolll ology tof vi3L�lllEMU, "lip' uveil 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, procedures. Statistical 1 land, analysis is performed 1131 vacant allll, residential properties, commercial/industrial properties, agricultural land, and personal property. The statistical study results arc 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 2016 and is pleased to report its findings for Weld County in the following report. 2016 1Vi'Id Count\ Propertl s e sni 'nt Sttldl Page 3 WILDROSE Ai 1•k 11?'.1 I \t U1s1•o1s ‘It U Audit Division REGIONAL/ HISTORICAL SKETCH OF WELD COUNTY Regional information Weld County is located in the Front Range region of Colorado. The Colorado Front Range is a colloquial geographic term for the populated areas of the State that are just east of the foothills of the Front Range. it includes i • M ESA 39 MOFFAT 41 RIO BLANCO 52 GARFIELD 23 r;Mnwand :cpU.s Walden • RoUlT 54 • Steamboat Spgs Craig • Meeker • Grand Junction DELTA 16 • Delta Montrose • MoNTkasE 43 sAN MIGUEL 6 i TdJltrri4,> Dove Creek • DOLORES Cortez • MONTEZUMA 42 CU RAY 46 Out • Eagle EAGLE 19 f.N PITKIN • 49 Aspen GUNNISON 26 Cm MRO.0 HINsDALE Lake Lay 27 • Creede MINERAL1 _ 40 JACKSON 29 GRAND 26 tat Sulphur Rungs lr4• . LAKE 33 Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Pueblo, and Weld counties. LARIMER 36 • Ft. Collins esxsekvn to E. 0ik 9i1MMJT. 69 'pr . A Fairplay PARK 47 CHAFFEE Salida SAC UACHE Argosy Spgs • ARCH U LETA 4 53 Sagnache Del,Norte RIO G RAN DE 53 CON EJOS 11C4nr1 US Golden • AI IMO WELD 62 • Greeley 030111.b 80 DENVER 1.6 CJStVO !met, • DOUGLAS 10 Ti WI It 60 Colorado Spas • MORGAN 44 Fort Morgan ADAMS 3 ARAPAHOE k)owa 2U • ELBERT Cnµaln EL PASO c:e t 21 FREMONT• 22 Carron Guy Wesh; ate OAT ER 14 COSTILLA 10 San Luis Pueblo • FUEBLO 51 HUERFANO 26 • Wafsenburg Trinidad • LOGAN 36 SYerlrng Akron • WASHINGTON 61 Hugo LINCOLN 37 CRCWLEY 13 cizo11•ay Le Junta • OTERO 46 LAS ANIMAS 36 Juhislvrrg S[I2.t'WICK Holyoke PHILLIPS Wray • YUMA 63 • Burlington KIT rARSON 32 Cheyenne CHEYENNEy:ens 9 Eads • KIOWA 31 Las Anhoes • BENT 6 emar PROW ERS 50 Springfield . BACA 5 2016 Weld Collnt\ Pi -open\ Assessment Stuck Page 4 WILD . • SE �1'17t 11�t1 I Nt oRI•VIC { I1 IP Audit Division Historical Information Weld County had an estimated population of approximately 277,670 people with 63.4 people per square mile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2014 estimated census data. This represents a 9.8 percent change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2014. 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 comnineu. 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 Ceram SL. V rail. a tal)11siieu Font Si. Y! ii!!lj F t 1, 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 r 1 'r •1 1 1 1 .1 1 u n I ark. 1 I-1uul&e, 2LIIC1 1)Ul)U12i! 1"LCl1 use pin 4NC Sill 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 r 1 1 1c- T7. _ r�--- _1_-- )lUL WallL! di -1111g post. Inc LJ1 ecicy 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.mikipedia.or'g) 7(116 Weld County RNvvvert\ A sessment Stud\ 1'aQc 5 WILD sE X11'69 N-11 1L. tmpoln7t 1. Audit Division .Methodology All significant classes analyzed. Sales were collected for each property class over the appropriate sale period, which was typically defined as the 18 -month period between January 2013 and June 2014. Counties with less than 30 sales typically extended the sale period back up to 5 years prior to June 30, 2014 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 die 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 RATIO ANALYSIS of properties were 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 Tamil) Vacant Land Unweighted Median Ratio Between .95-1.05 Between .95-1.05 Between .95- (.05 Between .95-1.05 Coefficient of Dispersion Less than 20.99 Less than 15.99 Less than (5.99 Less than 20.99 2016 \.Veld County Propert\ Asst.'sincnt `'tudy Pace 6 WILL O t.E Audit Division The results for Weld County are: Weld County Ratio Grid Property Class Commercial/industrial Condominium Single Family Vacant- 1.and Number of Qualified Sales 222 N/A 8,531 587 Unweighted Median Ratio 0.994 N/A 0.974 0.988 Price Related Differential 1.024 N/A 1.011 1.069 Coefficient of Dispersion 10.1 N/A 8.1 15 Time Trend Analysis Compliant N/A Compliant Compliant Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Group Median 0 .977 2 .974 3 .971 4 969 5 980 6 .974 7 .967 8 .974 9 .980 Overall .974 Price Related Coefficient of Differential Dispersion 1.006 1.006 1.007 1.023 1.029 1.026 .991 1.018 1.017 1.011 065 074 070 099 145 106 .148 144 083 081 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 2016 Weld Count % Properly Assessment Study Page 7 WILDI E 11 1`k 11? ll I%. (lti'(t1('U f I) Audit Division TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION Al ethO(1O1O` V 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 J 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 he 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 ! r 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 r 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 (TA SP) . Recommendations None 2016 t-t`cicl Count) Property .tssessmcn1 Stud\ Pa`e 8 WiLDI :\f•hH 11- tl 1St ut I'nIc ti I! 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 root and the change m 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 mot_ t\ • t_ i11Gt11Vt11 15 ii15lJ dt11111CU LV 1 C:+ittC11Licit t}1 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. 2016 \•l'elcl t'citintl 1'rohtlrt\ Assessment Stuck PaQv 9 ti WILDE A l'Ilt 11+.1L INC{)RPUMU7 ED Audit Division Sold/Unsold Results Property Class Commercial /Industrial Condominium Single Family Vacant Land Results Compliant N/A Compliant Compliant Conclusions Recommendations After applying the above described None methodologies, it is concluded that Weld County is reasonably treating its sold and unsold properties in the same manner. 20(6 Weld County Property Assessment Study Pa2sc 10 i' lrrrr•;i-u 1.\;sarcca:;n L' Audit Division AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY Acres By Subclass Sprinkler 5 3B% Grazing 48 FI Dad 11 e2%1 Cry Farm 28.2D% leatio •Hay 1% 70 000.000 60 000 000 50 000,000 40 000 000 30 000 000 20 000 000 10 000,000 0 Value BY Subclass l G Q- �r "2f (c, G„ Qi. S 7 Agricultural Land County records were reviewed to determine major land categories such as irrigated farm, dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other sand;;. In addition, count'', records reviewed in order to determine if: Aerial photographs are available and arc 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. St•. ere (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3 Chapter S . ) Conclusions An analysis of the agricultural land 1111111.CAL1..7 ass acceptable U/Jr raiOC4 Vi 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 ]ands carrying capacities were in an acceptable range. 'l'he data analyzed resulted in the following ratios: data th; 0s. LILL )016 \V'elcl (_'aunt\ Properi\ Assmerit 'Mule)\ Pa (,:c. ] I WILDROSE API'S(s 13)bt J\( ult r.' It 511 I) Audit Division Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid Abstract Code X107 4117 X127 +137 X147 167 Total/Avg Land Class Sprinkler Hood Dry Farm Meadow Hay Grazing Waste Number Of Acres Per Acre Total Value 107,506 232,22.5 563,608 13,632 969,638 111,768 1,998,377 County Value 216.34 271.85 31.08 4.5.38 6.12 1.99 County Assessed 23,258,271 63,129,800 17,514,184 618,613 5,930,915 222,027 WRA Total Value 23,233,771 62,329,579 17, 572,009 618,613 5,930,915 222,027 55.38 110,673,810 109,906,913 Ratio 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.01 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 2016 t1'elcl Count\ Propert\ Assessment !-;tuck Page 12 WILITOSE hrruSb't1 )N 01{1.014. t:l 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, G.R.S.: • Property Record Card Analysis Y • Field Inspections • Phone Interviews • Ii -Perm„ Intern atic;s With as a a..a UVaa Inter sue. ♦ i.a Ir sa.as Owners/Tenants • VV 11LLC11 LAJ11 CbritItiCIILC t/LIIC1 wan 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 he integral to an agriniltnral operation. Recommendations None 2016 Weld {_'c punt \ Proherh rl,::,essmcni Sirid \ Page 13 WI LDROSE Attu I]ii1MPi a?sir I, 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 r lect 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 he included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true or typical sales price during the period specified in section 39-1-104 (10.2). Sales of personal property exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 39-3- 102, 39-3-103, and 39-3-119 to 39-3-122 shall not be included in any such sample. (b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be coded to indicate a typical, negotiated .sale, as screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103, C.R.S.) The assessor is required to use sales of real property only in the valuation process. (8}(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only those sales which have been determined on an individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real property only or which have been adjusted on an individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real property only. (39-1-103, C.R.S.) Part of the Property Assessment Study is the sales verification analysis. WRA has used the above -cited statutes as a guide in our study of the county's procedures and practices for verifying sales. WRA reviewed the sales verification procedures in 2016 for Weld County. This study was conducted by checking selected sales from the master sales list for the current valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 60 sales listed as unqualified. All of the sales in the unqualified sales sample had reasons that were clear and supportable. For residential, commercial, and vacant land sales with considerations over $ 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. 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 2016 Weld (_` iiiitt Propel -It Ai.,se„InCIi1. ttJd\ Page 14 WILDICSE 1114*;O.1 Audit Division conducted further analysis to county's reason for disqualifying each of the determine if the sales included in that sales selected in the sample. There are no code have been assigned appropriately, recommendations or suggestions. Recommendations None Conclusions Weld County appears to be doing a good job of verifying their sales. WRA agreed with the 2016 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 1 5 WILD ILD tint\$: U IX(turon\I<« 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 2016 Weld County Propert\ Assessment Stuck Pa2c 16 k,I !WI%W St PM. o.ti'fl'IID Audit Division NATURAL RESOURCES Earth and Stone Products Methodology Under the guidelines of the Assessor's Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural Resource Valuation Procedures, the income approach was applied to determine value for production of earth and stone products. The number of tons was multiplied by an economic royalty rate determined by the Division of Property Taxation to determine income. The income was multiplied by a recommended Hoskold factor to determine the actual value. The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two variables: life and tonnage. The operator determines these since there is no other means to obtain production data through any state or private agency. Conclusions The County has applied the correct_ formulas and state guidelines to earth and stone production. Recommendations None Producing Oil and Gas Methodology Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources STATUTORY REFERENCES Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifics 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) 'l'he 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 • , 1 1 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) 'l'he 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 casenaar 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, die state of Colorado or any agency thereof, or any political subdivision of the state as royalty during the preceding calendar year. § 39-7-10.2, C.R.S. Concl ustollss The county applied approved appraisal procedures in the valuation of oil and gas. Recommendations None 2016 Weld C'uunt\ Propert\ Asscs4�i�nt Muds I'<Zti� t_7 WILD E Mtn & INCUI MILU J:I) Audit Division VACANT LAND Subdivision Discounting Subdivisions were reviewed in 2016 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 was accomplished by reducing the absorption period by one year. In instances where the number of sales within an approved plat was less than the absorption rate per year calculated for the plat, the absorption period was left unchanged. Conclusions Weld County has implemented proper procedures to adequately estimate absorption periods, discount rates, and lot values for qualifying subdivisions. Recommendations None 2016 Weld {_'oun1 V Property Assessment Stuck Page 18 \' 1r 1LD ROS E Attic ti' \t- I Ni:>ucot; %i t u Audit Division POSSESSORY INTEREST Possessors' 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 r 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, l V111 CJJ1V11, t.UJIt.J dt.L, Of Other Qg1 CCiAIClll. 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 2016 \Velal C'oullt\ Property A:<sessilit'iit Stuck Pat 19 WILDI .'E APP\I=\l 1*• %'I I •'01•, I 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 SBOI3 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 r procedures, using the following methods to discover personal property accounts in the county: • Public Record Documents • MI,S 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 2016 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 he audited: r • 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 N)16 \VeId Coaunt\ Proherh A SCSSmcnt Stuck Page 20 WILDROSE AITN.11<\l I\t,i,IPi•I:%11 i, Audit Division • Businesses with no deletions or additions for 2 or more years • Non -filing Accounts - Best Information Available • Accounts close to the $7,300 actual value exemption status • Accounts protested with substantial disagreement Weld County's median ratio is .98. This is in compliance with the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD requirements. Conclusions Weld County has employed adequate discovery, classification, documentation, valuation, and auditing procedures for their personal property assessment and is in statistical compliance with SBOE requirements. Recommendations None 2016 Weld County Properti Assessment Stuck Page 21 Y'Y ILDROSE A rrrt.MM-11. I NCORPOk vt ro Audit Division 1�ILDROSE 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 2016 Weld ( ount\ Property Assessment Study Pane )? WILD • SE 1PII1411: \1 I,.t iUkCVK 1 I!:I Audit Division APPENDICES 2016 \-Veld {Fount% Prc)pert\ :\s:,cssrnent Stuck Page 2 3 WILD] • . :il'1'K11+51\t i`h111Y.111:1` Audit Division Vacant Land STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR WELD COUNTY 2016 I. OVERVIEW Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of 127,412 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2016. The following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county: Real Property Class Distribution 78420 4710 32045 I Res Imp Camm/nd Imp type r Other The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and 1112) accounted for 79.1% 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 3.7% of all such properties in this county. 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24 WILDR 'E fix n.0 a $'..n)Krt, VrD Audit Division II, DATA FILES The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2016 Colorado Property Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2016. The data included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor. III, RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS There were 8,531 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period prior to June 30, 2014. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows: Case Processing Summary Count Percent ECONAREA 0 1045 12.9% 2 '2458 30.4% 3 2171 26.8% 4 429 5.3% 5 91 1.1% 6 1527 18.9% 7 47 0.6% 8 28 0.3% 9 295 3.6% Overall 8091 100.0% Excluded 440 Total 8531 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Y Page 25 r WILD lLlf Tarr I L hitrxnmxu u) • Audit Division Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Price Related Coefficient of Group Median Differential Dispersion 0 .977 1.006 .065 2 .974 1.006 074 3 .971 1.007 .070 4 .969 1.023 .099 5 .980 1.029 .145 6 .974 1.026 .106 7 .967 .991 .148 8 .974 1.018 .144 9 .980 1.017 .083 Overall .974 1.011 .081 NOTE: [con Area 9 = 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: 2,000- 1:500 — al 1.000is — 500- 0 00 050 1.00 1 50 salesratio 2 00 2 50 Mean = .99 Std. Dev = 119 N - 8,531 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 26 WILDROSE I I. Audit Division 2.50 W 2.00- + Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio 3 t C 1.50- 1,00 • 030 - 0.00 - • • 4 I I ' r--1 1 Mr to i i ..l a w a 0 cj o v 0 0 = o a 0 C 0 TASP 0 0 v o v 0 O O 0 0 0 a o o 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 r trending and broken down by economic area, as follows: 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 27 WILDRCSE API N tI4M b.COR till til IN Audit Division EC©PIA,REA Model Stanciaidized Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta I Sag, 1 (Constant) .954 .007 129.954 .000 SalePeriod .005 .001 266 5.771 .000 0 1 (Constant) .978 .006 177.069 .000 SalePeriod 001 .001 066 2.124 034 2 1 (Constant) 973 .004 248.562 .000 SalePeriod .001 .000 .063 3.147 .002 3 1 (Constant) .968 .004 240.082 .000 SalePeriod .001 .000 .072 3.341 .001 4 1 (Constant) .959 .013 75.240 .000 SalePeriod .003 .001 .095 1.978 049 5 1 (Constant) 945 .046 20.654 .000 SalePeriod .006 _005 .129 1.228 223 6 1 (Constant) 984 .007 136.319 000 SalePeriod .001 .001 .046 1.786 074 7 1 (Constant) 952 .055 17.168 000 SalePerlod .003 .006 .079 .530 .599 8 1 (Constant) .918 .063 14.460 .000 SalePeriod .009 .007 .250 1.314 .200 9 1 (Constant) .973 .016 61.751 .000 SalePeriod .002 .002 063 1.080 281 a. Dependent Variable: salesratio There was no residual market trending present in the sale ratio data for any of the economic areas. While three economic areas had statistically significant results, the magnitude of each trend was not significant; 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 2016 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a whole and broken down by economic area, as follows: VALSF sold Report J Median Mean UNSOLD 69384 $128.82 $160.17 SOLD 8630 $137.26 $139.00 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY rage 28 WILDR sE ?tJ'1'K4i> 5t IM%lltl �'Ktll t7 Audit Division VALSF ECONAREA sold N Median Mean 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5,357 $144 $150 1,045 $139 $141 18,662 $141 $141 2,458 $147 $148 14;115 $139 $203 2,170 $144 $151 5,678 $109 $137 429 $120 $122 1,239 $91 $94 91 $115 $110 17,054 $117 $178 1,527 $126 $123 789 $64 $205 47 $74 $86 694 $84 $119 28 $101 $101 2,250 $139 $133 295 $150 $144 Given the difference in values for some of the economic areas, we also examined the median and mean change in value from 2014 to 2016, both overall and by economic area, for residential sold and unsold properties, as follows: RIFF sold Report N Median Mean UNSOLD 65,819 1.24 1.27 SOLD 8,092 1.25 1.28 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 29 WILDPE APrI<V 41 (\(tt1tli*p t 1{h Audit Division Report JIFF ECONAREA sold N Median Mean 0 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 5,045 1.2293 12704 948 1.2274 1.2630 17,664 1.2091 1.2095 2,343 1.2151 1.2255 12,960 1.2139 1.2126 2,014 1.2485 1.2564 5,445 1.3570 1.3614 420 1.4167 1.4041 1,220 1.4110 1.3630 88 1.3872 1.3903 16,665 1.3442 1.3543 1,497 1.3514 1.3639 717 1.1365 1.1927 45 1.1392 1.1636 604 1.2153 1.2915 25 1.2514 1.2689 2,055 1.2729 1.3244 275 1.2714 1.2994 2,330 1.2728 1.3215 The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent manner. IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS There were 222 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period prior to June 30, 2014. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows: Median 0.994 Price Related Differential 1.024 Coefficient of Dispersion 1O.1 The above table indicates that the Weld County vacant land sale ratios were in compliance with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution further: 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNT) Page 30 WILDRO6E 11'I'K\I: V i'tx,gi IOU»l• Audit Division 120 tee FAO 1J 0 —r 05 10 15 20 25 30 salesratio Mean =1 04 Std Dev. = 262 N = 222 x Commercial Sale Price by Sates Ratio X x f4 $5,000,000 $10,000,000 TASP $15,000,000 $20,000,000 Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis The 222 commercial/industrial sales were next analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 -month sale period with the following results: 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Part, 3I WILD . O 'E AltP %I t klt .PIA it Audit Division Standardizecl Unstanclardlzer.1 Coefficients Coefficients Model B Std. Error Beta t Sits. 1 (Constant) .996 .031 32.012 .000 salePeriod .006 .003 .112 1.667 .097 a. Dependent Variable: salesratio 30- 25- Is 0 1 5— + Commercial Market Trend Analysis + .� + + ♦' + + + .j+4,, + $ + y a+i� + + p—Masa as �� 1 � � a �1 1a 1 a*" �e�a f t* + + a+a T + 05— + + + t 10 SalePeriod 15 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 valuation. Sold/Unsold Analysis We compared the median actual value per square foot for 2016 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, 222O, 223O, 2235, 2245, and 3215. The following analysis was then performed: Report ..:3Iia _;le_ VALSF sold !V Median Mean UNSOLD 4,153 $60.00 $01.91 SOLD 222 $75.00 $91.62 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 32 WILD! • .'E Audit Division VALSF ABSTRIMP sold N Median Mean 2212 UNSOLD 626 $60 $96 SOLD 36 $90 $98 2220 UNSOLD 346 $80 $96 SOLD 18 $100 $114 2230 UNSOLD 752 $70 $112 SOLD 38 $78 $98 2235 UNSOLD 691 $38 $50 SOLD 37 $45 $80 2245 UNSOLD 810 $75 $81 SOLD 60 $77 $76 3215 UNSOLD 223 $47 $51 Stn t t Q V. n $60 Total UNSOLD 3.456 $62 $04 SOLD 198 $75 $89 Hypothesis Test Summary Null Hypothesis Test Sly, Decision The distribution Aof FALSE is the re, 40I I IC 01,...11/4.104.7 t.i�LO VI IL.a VI is7VIYl. Independent - Samples Mann - Whitney U Test .000 Reject the null hypothesis. Asymptotic significances are displayed. The significance level is .05. Given that there was a statistically significant difference using the non -parametric Mann Whitney U test, we next developed an econometric model that used the assessor's actual value as the predicted variable. A total of 3,654 commercial/industrial properties were analyzed. Commercial/industrial property subclasses included the following: 016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 33 �VILI7 ;'.4 11I II •I 'i �� 4RI' I I I Audit Division ABSTRIMP Cumulative Frequency Pei cent Valid Percent Percent Valid 2212 662 18.1 18.1 18.1 2220 364 10,0 10.0 28.1 2230 790 21.6 21.6 49.7 2235 728 19.9 19.9 09.6 2245 878 24.0 24.0 93,7 3210 232 6.3 6.3 100.0 Total 3654 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 an F value of 0.02. 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 1 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 8 iterations, the following results were generated by the model: 2016 Statistic•a1 Report: WELD COUNT) Yagc• H WILDIOiE 11.K\: L L. U.L.'MS L.. Audit Division tvlodel Model Summary Adjusted R Ski. Error of R R Square Square the Estimate 1 .879a .773 .773 81 6200.629 2 ..883b .780 .780 803459,547 3 .886° .784 .784 796670.648 4 .888d .788 .788 790132.856 5 .889` .791 .791 784034.572 6 .891f .795 .794 777355.605 7 .8929 .796 .795 775607.667 8 .892h .796 .796 77431 8.360 a_ Prariictnre (Cnnctant), I I\/PARPA b, Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2 C. Vrethctors: (Constant), LIVbAF <=A, EA2, P.Ub d. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, AGE, v2235 e. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, AGE, v2235, v321 5 f. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, AGE, v2235, v3215, EA3 g. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, AGE, v2235, v321 5, EA3, EA4 h. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, EA2, AGE, v2235, v321 5, EA3. E.44. v2220 The following coefficients were included in the model at Step 8: 8 (Constant) 11 3442.61 3 19739.433 5.747 .000 LIVEAREA 55.325 .493 .881 112.325 .000 EA2 428588.858 41155.893 .081 10.414 .000 AGE -1903.324 233.739 -.061 -8.143 .000 v2235 -290497.423 33084.121 -.068 -8.781 .000 v321 5 -503540.852 56646.854 -.072 -8.889 .000 EA3 345742.144 42316.370 .064 8.170 .000 EA4 211 404.782 53688.785 .030 3.938 .000 v2220 161373.777 44497.786 .028 3.627 .000 a. Dependent Variable: CURRTOT The model at Step 8 did not include the Sold/Unsold variable, indicating that it did not make a significant dif'f'erence in the model whether the properties were sold or unsold. Based on this finding, we concluded that the assessor valued sold and unsold residential properties consistently in 2016. 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COtIN I % Pace 35 WI7,DT ' C E Audit Division 00 0.5 1.0 1.5 salesratio 2.0 25 V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS There were 587 qualified vacant land sales that occurred in the 18 -month sale period prior to June 30, 2014. `l'he sales ratio analysis results were as follows: Median 0.988 Price Related Differential 1.069 Coefficient of Dispersion 15.0 The above ratio statistics were in compliance overall with the standards set forth by the Colorado State Board of Equalization (SBOE) for the overall vacant land sales. The following graphs describe further the sales ratio distribution for all of these properties: Mean = 99 Std. Day = 227 N = 567 2016 Statistical Report: WELD ('Ot.INT\ Page 36 WILDiet'E :ti reti.n 1'ct*i+'P.U1 n Audit Division 2.0 1.5 x Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio x 0.5 o.a se x Mx M so $500,000 51.000,000 $1,500.000 $2,000.000 VTASP 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 587 vacant land dataset using the 18 -month sale period, with the following results: Standardized Linstandart zed Coefficients Coefficients t�todel g SW. Error Beta t Sig. 1 (Constant) .974 .017 57.399 .000 vSaleP'eriod .002 .002 .052 1.258 .209 a. Dependent Variable: salesratio 2016 Statistical Report: WH.D COUNTY Page 37 WIL1MCSE �1 :•H ll • LI 1stIst.‘krogu 11, Audit Division :u- 15- 0 4/ 1.0 N Ub-' 00- Vacant Land Sales MprketTrend Analysis + + + 0 S 10 VSalePeriad 1 15 20 The above analysis indicated that no significant market trending was present in the vacant land sale data. We concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties. Sold/ Unsold Analysis In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the median change in value from 2014 to 2016 between each group. We stratified the vacant land t properties by neighborhood and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall comparison results: DIFF sold Report I'd Median Mean Unsold 7,495 1.00 1.08 Sold 529 1.20 1.23 We also compared sold and unsold changes in value by reported neighborhoods, as follows: 2016 Statistical Report: WILD COUNTY Page 38 W1LDI • SE Audit Division Median Mean NBHD Group NO. Props Chg Val Chg Val 171 UNSOLD 3 1.0000 1.0000 SOLD 25 1.6667 1.7040 174 UNSOLD 1 1.3333 1.3333 SOLD 11 1.2647 1.3226 901 UNSOLD 9 1.0000 1.0234 SOLD 2 1.2105 1.2105 911 UNSOLD 11 1.1667 1.1561 SOLD 4 1.1667 1.1875 2011 UNSOLD 4 1.5111 1.5258 SOLD 18 1.6177 1.5309 2115 UNSOLD 2 1.0714 1.0714 SOLD 3 1.0000 1.2464 2201 UNSOLD 1 1.0000 1.0000 SOLD 3 1.3333 1.2625 2901 UNSOLD 12 .9350 .8316 SOLD 3 1.0256 .8585 2903 UNSOLD 5 1.0000 .9857 Snl n 5 1 00th 1.1500 vvVV V �.VVVv 3001 UNSOLD 4 .9615 .9712 SOLD 13 .8750 .8883 3026 UNSOLD 1 1.3333 1.3333 SOLD 9 1.0000 1.0000 3031 UNSOLD 4 .9134 .9134 SOLD 2 1.1479 1.1479 3033 UNSOLD 1 1.2687 1.2687 SOLD 29 1.2687 1.2671 3801 UNSOLD 6 1.1129 1.1076 SOLD 3 1.0821 1.0628 3905 UNSOLD 21 1.0000 .9656 SOLD 4 .9250 .9694 UNSOLD r� .1 i .I..M i II. n..'d' 391'1 UNSOLD L I.UUUU I.VUUU SOLD 3 1.0000 1.0000 4001 UNSOLD 7 1.5333 1.5333 SOLD 2 1.5333 1.5333 4101 UNSOLD 6 1.5000 1.4405 SOLD 4 .0031 .2881 6003 UNSOLD 5 1.2500 1.1500 SOLD 2 1.1852 1.1852 6903 UNSOLD 78 1.0000 .9946 SOLD 2 .7367 .7367 6905 UNSOLD 18 1.0000 .9563 SOLD 2 .8125 .8125 6915 UNSOLD 1 1.0000 1.0000 SOLD 2 1.1930 1.1930 9010 UNSOLD 2 1.2000 1.2000 SOLD 27 1.0779 1.0232 Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently. 2016 Statistical Report; WILD ('OLIN fl Page 39 WILDIt SE 11.1'All.. knu h+icnt Audit Division V. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS The final statistical verification concerned the assigned actual values for agricultural residential improvements. We compared the 2016 median improved value per square foot for this group and compared it to the 2016 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: Report ImpVaISF ABSTRIMP tea Median Mean SFR 69809 $111 $110 Ag Res 1113 $100 $106 $400- $300- W N a ! $200 - $100- $0 I $ SPR $ A 2 Hml Ag Res VI. CONCLUSIONS Based on this 2016 audit statistical analysis, residential and vacant land properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines. 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 40 STATISTICAL ABSTRACT Residential 0 O C F. C en - •1t •- t ro 07 11.14 a c I al .y - J v 0 J CO I- C y. C CIS It ` 7. u t• C r C N C cz.7) • c C 6 py 47 L6 tit as CO C) o rj 1_• p• I>= 0- G C. O CO S• a _I Lower Bound u• a C. •Y'• 1.44 sz- n. CO CO CU C y '1 t7 I • CI 0 I_I 44.1 Cl L t0 a, a• C v C cs C •1• V C C U •0 •0 Qi Urq e" Boird Lower Bound • S. aft aft act o � NI a 0 0 0 •fl CJ IC; Vi CO •-Y r r r T CI T r e- r SO (0 b' 0 I) 4', ID CO •.t 01 Lf) CO f+ D. 07 a 0 o a co 2 O t0 CO CO tu mT) a 0 W 0 0 0 0 N CJ FI ') r O O o 0 0 o o a O I'- O CI 03 CI I- r3 CO CO a r- ri •T 0.3 CO In N- T CO 4 fr) Co a a a a a a a O O CO r r 4-) tD CT) Co It> f 5 tG tr 0 I-- I-- I- tp Mt r, •n Cd O 47 O1 O1 a 05 0) 0) 0 Os CO CO tv tv (Al tV to u• ._t •' lit I CO 0 to to in W CD N- o) a LI) 0) a a. a a as a o 't CI .0 4 0 , '.x o Q N O LC) IC) 0 0 t0 4l co to to a) 0) as a o) a s a) a a f� fri P. . N- CO Is- P- M O) fT a 0O .It 0 0 a o I+ 0 CO r 'fit 0) a o a 0 o CO ✓ r r LI) CI W I+ C') t!) a) It) 0 P- I+ n ID in 0 CO CO IN N C C I+ 4 r O) O a N. a O C In f• in In ID CO I-- O N. W T a a as a s a 0) 0) O O) yl 1+ V' In CO t 0 Cr) rI T r) C a a Co Co CO a 0 m tD 0 0) a 01 0 0/ 0 0 0 0 0 CO n a a Lower Bound O CI 0) 40 CO CD CO C') CI CD Co f+ f+ CO a Mel vats - CO I•.. a CO CO CO 0) O C') 0 0 i+ I' - c i0 W CO rte, t9 01 0) I~ 0 CO fp 0) 0) 0 01 •) 0) O) C) 01 CO a ECON.APEA C1 IN Co•4• 4-) IG N- •A ei ff 0 z U E a ro a u J w 0 U a. co W H• LL• U b 0 O V vn 0 7 flt a m 1= Z5 a N u• C m 4- 4• to a. 4) .0 CO E } pt w C4 s_ C. C. u .ice.• CO CO to .C us m 0 E n co ro C 0 A in is co C C t w t u a lfY is C9' ib I- 4) G ▪ a tl• I`'- E V C 4_ � C • O c '-• e o to .c D I i a C r. `• - 'lt �CV C I- M •1. E 1,35 at . n • U v C l7 c ro c rlt 111 U T� c '1 11 TZI c) C '1) G C) ICJ a C• • V Les U .0 la a a) va 0 O y co Co.-. 4=1 C Ill tL, ar 1: •1"• 0- T c. L11 n\ CL Cs D Diver sound .1 ro 0 co - CO o a ▪ < rl m t) z- 0 ro m IS) V C n IC C 0 `7 L' IC) co ro C, '1• C' n J C to TL Ill Upper Bcund Upper Bound Lower Bound Irk CJ 0 Y v N Cl! LL7 O C 0 C'7 0) tD co tT 0) 0) 0) of •It O 0 0) C" CJ C a N fn CO a) a a 0 0 a m N ro a, ty C CU u C a1 0 0 I'. tU L S fU > Ci a a co C 19 5 9• m t FD E m as sa co co ty 0 t� io co CO y C 0 a E 01 co CCo c 0 N C C4 G I as 0) C a rrt us 444 d - L 0 w CO Z a t] c C t• rll T, C c C' o '- o • Z l4 Vacant Land 95%Confidence Menial for Median C C c o at ` U at • Crb 0 Lower Bou-7d • C CD at a) nl CO CO u •-a' < C a rn .it C Lower Bound a C? t at ._ C. C, p" G CO CU n. .L u C G C "Co C •1` a) 0 C C) CT Lower Bound d �I 0> C Ci C C1 fA ro [0 n a) 0 U tO I - G ly co N b c - 4.1 C .tom C 0 u f1 t 4) a• 1 a N N C 'y t0 y CO al ` ol CO N I� CO E •l) w al as CO C7 a It) o co co co f•1) co oi C N Co co 0 (I) C Co 0 0 m r-• W 01 'Co n• to a so C o oes T O C /0 I N E N Q• t_ S d) II. 0 7_ 4• ▪ o C a) :fl obV C 4• 'O Cv C tv o E 101 a1 0ms- I- Co WELL) COUNTY WIL.DI ' 'E Audit Division Residential Median Ratio Stratification Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count Percent SPRec 1.T $25K 6 0.1% $25K to $50K 22 0 3% $50Kto $100K 280 13% $10014 to $150K 1041 12.2% $150K to $200K 1856 21.8% $200K to $300K 3195 37.5% $300K to $500K 1903 22.3% $500K to $750K 186 2.2% $750K to $1,000K 29 0.3% Over$1,000K 13 0.2% Overall 8531 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 8531 Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT ! TASP Coefficient of Variation Pi ice Related Coefficient of Median Stoup Median Differential Dispersion Centered LT $25K 1 055 1 016 .202 29.5% $25Kto $50K 1.271 1 018 246 33.6% $50Kto $100K 1.051 1.001 .162 23.0% $100K to $150K 987 1.001 .109 15.3% $150Kto $200K .976 1.000 079 11,6% $200K to $300K 975 1 000 .063 9.1% $300Kto $500K .960 1.001 .068 9.3% $500K to $750K 922 1.001 .089 12,2% $750K to $1,000K .916 999 .140 19.8% Over $1,000K 945 996 .133 19.4% Overall .974 1.011 .080 12.2% 2O16 `'Feld (_'aunty Property A.titiessment Study Page 42 WILDIE Audit Division Subclass Case Processing Summary Count Percent ABSTRIMP 0 1 0.0% 1212 7929 92.9% 1213 1 0.0% 1214 1 0.0% 1214 1 0.0% 1214 1 0.0% 1215 108 1.3% 1216 2 0.0% 1217 1 0.0% 1218 1 0.0% 1220 32 0.4% 1223 1 0.0% 1225 14 0.2% 1230 434 5.1% 2212 1 0.0% 2235 1 0.0% 9250 2 0.0% Overall 0531 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 8531 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNT) Page 43 WILDRQSE .il•1'N 1U 11 (\Q)NIK�klilh Audit Division Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered 0 .694 1.000 .000 1212 .974 1.010 080 12.3% 1213 1.227 1.000 .000 1214 1.059 1.000 .000 1214 1.068 1.000 .000 1214 1.093 1.000 .000 1215 .991 1.010 .099 13.4% 1216 .868 1.004 .013 1.8% 1217 .990 1.000 .000 1218 .976 1.000 .000 1220 .968 1.017 .094 13.9% 1223 .881 1.000 .000 1225 .853 .959 .142 17.4% 1230 .974 1.005 .053 8.8% 2212 .672 1.000 .000 2235 1.487 1.000 .000 9250 .944 1.000 .030 4.2% Overall .974 1.011 .080 12.2% 2016 Statistical Report: WELL) C'OLIN I'1' Page 44 WILD1.. SE Ar�•�cu..�i_ IMUKIVYUI n Audit Division Age Case Processing Summary Count Percent AgeRec .00 1 0.0% Over 100 208 2.4% 75 to 100 201 2.4% 50 to 75 610 7.2% 25 to 50 1174 13.8% 5 to 25 4530 53.1% 5 or Newer 1807 21.2% Overall 8531 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 8531 Group Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Median Differential Dispersion Centered .00 .694 1.000 .000 Over 100 .975 1.028 .185 26.8% 75 to 100 .954 1.036 165 23.9% 50 to 75 .974 1.016 .124 17.8% 25 to 50 .976 1.025 .104 15.7% 5 to 25 .979 1.007 ,068 9.7% 5 or Newer .962 1.004 .054 7.3% Overall .974 1.011 .080 12.2% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY I'agt' 45 4VILLR{SE Aixvuat luvsnitc1 Audit Division Improved Area Case Processing Summary Count Percent ImpSFRec .00 1 0.0% LE500sf 7 0.1% 500 to 1,000 sf 680 8.0% 1,000 to 1,500 sf 2868 316% 1,500 to 2,000 sf 2639 30.9% 2,000 to 3,000 sf 1813 21.3% 3,000 sf or Higher 523 6.1% Overall 8 531 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 8531 Group Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT t TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Median Differential Dispersion Centered .00 .694 1.000 .000 LE 500 sf .954 1.165 .297 38.1 % 500 to 1,000 sf .958 1.023 .129 19.1% 1,000 to 1,500 sf .974 1.009 .078 12.2% 1,500 to 2,000 sf .975 1.009 .069 10.3% 2,000 to 3,000 sf .976 1.008 .070 9.9% 3,000 sf or Higher .973 1.020 .107 16.6% Overall .974 1.011 .080 12.2% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 46 WILD ROSE lrrkv,s� I•„tnuvknru Audit Division Improvement Quality Case Processing Summary Count Percent QUALITY 1 0.0% 1 82 1.0% 2 2107 24.7% 3 5700 66.8% 4 591 6.9% 5 43 0.5% 6 7 0.1% Overall 8531 100.0% Excluded U Total 8531 Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered .694 1.000 .000 1 .928 1.050 .197 25.2% 2 .975 1.017 .108 16.5% 3 .974 1.009 .067 10.0% 4 .972 1.010 .080 11.3% 5 .983 1.015 .089 11.8% 6 .999 1.013 .074 11.8% Overall .974 1.011 .080 12.2% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47 WILDROSE :1PP1g.4.11 I CONtotttliU Audit Division Improvement Condition Case Processing Summary Count Percent CONDITIOn Overall Excluded Total 1 0.0% 6 0.1% 2 36 0.4% 3 8474 99.3% 4 14 0.2% 8531 100.0% 0 8531 Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered .694 1.000 .000 1 .931 .988 .203 30.2% 2 1.027 1.088 .196 28.7% 3 .974 1.011 .079 121% 4 .959 .975 .080 12.0% Overall .974 1.011 .080 12.2% {)!6 Statistical Report: WM) COUNTY Pare 48 ILli ,`F IkNr U�� . ,iIXI:YA it Audit Division Commercial Median Ratio Stratification Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count Percent SPRec LT $25K $25Kto $50K $50Kto 5100K $100Kto $1501< $150Kto $200K $200K to 3300K $300K to $500K $500K to $750K $750Kto $1,000K Over $1,000K Overall Excluded Total 9 5 32 41 17 26 29 '20 11 32 222 0 222 4.1% 2.3% 144% 18.5% 7.7 % 117% 131% 9.0% 5.0% 14.4% 100.0% O'oup Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Median Price Related Coefficient of Differential Dispersion Coefficient of Variation Median Centered LT $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $100K $100K to 3150K $150K to $200K $200K to 5300K $300K to $500K 5500K to $750K 5750K to $14000K Over $1,000K Overall 1 036 1.101 998 .986 .990 999 .984 1.008 .994 982 994 971 1.043 1.008 .997 1.014 1.005 .997 1.014 .998 .991 1.024 202 .388 .084 .062 150 .062 .089 134 .039 .092 .101 53 8% 58:9% 16.8% 14.0% 41.5% 11.3% 251% 43.9% 9.3% 16.7% 26.7% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 49 WILDROSE .3't'snL 11 (".ttsXz'Wilip Audit Division Subclass Case Processing Summary Count Percent ABSTRIMP 1718 1 0.5% 2212 36 16.2% 2215 3 1.4% 2220 18 8.1% 2221 2 0.9% 2223 1 0.5% 2225 1 0.5% 2228 5 2.3% 2230 38 17.1% 2233 1 0.5% 2235 37 16.7% 2245 60 27.0% 2718 1 0.5% 2725 10.5% 2901 1 0.5% 2966 1 0.5% 3050 1 0.5% 3212 3 1.4% 3215 9 4.1% 9259 1 0.5% 9279 1 0.5% Overall 222 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 222 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 50 WILDROsE .1rIRU�\I s l Ifl, eti» n Audit Division Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered 1718 .982 1.000 .000 2212 .993 1.045 .114 25.9% 2215 .977 .986 .024 5.1% 2220 .983 1.089 .122 39.5% 2221 .762 .986 .214 30.3% 2223 1.281 1.000 000 2225 1.000 1.000 .000 2228 1.019 865 145 24 3% 2230 .999 1.112 .160 46.5% 2233 1.034 1.000 .000 2235 .994 1.008 .040 9.5% 2245 .983 .995 .097 16.8% 2718 1.000 1.000 .000 2725 1.047 1,000 .000 2901 .961 1.000 .000 2966 1.000 1.000 .000 3050 1.091 1.000 .000 3212 .999 .987 .025 4.8% 3215 1.001 .997 .071 17.3% 9259 .992 1.000 .000 9279 .960 1.000 .000 Overall .994 1.024 .101 26.7% 2016 Statistical Report: WILD CODUNT% Page SI WILD• • E 41•ru 1I.al 14l d.Ml: t711� Audit Division Age Case Processing Summary Count Percent AOeRec Over 100 9 4.1% 75 to 100 16 7.2% 50 to 75 24 10.8% 25 to 50 57 25.7% 5 to 25 110 49.5% 5 or Newer 6 23% Overall 222 100.0% Excluded d Total 222 Group Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Median Differential Dispersion Centered Over 100 .990 1.019 .049 6.9% 75 to 100 ,987 1.150 ,267 58.2% 50 to 75 1.002 1.048 .053 8.0% 25 to 50 .998 1.016 .070 22.8% 5 to 25 .992 .995 .081 14.9% 5 or Newer .987 1.143 .586 103.7% Overall .994 1.024 .101 26.7% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COLIN FY Page 52 WILD103E Audit Division Improved Area Case Processing Summary Count Percent ImpSFRec 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 7 3.2% 19 6.6% 19 8.6% 23 10.4% 34 15.3% 120 54.1% 222 100.0% 0 i 2 i Group Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP Price Related Median 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 1.006 .975 .982 _990 .998 994 .994 .985 1.004 1.022 1.045 1.053 1.027 1.024 . 029 . 082 .076 .099 . 138 .102 . 101 4.2% 11.4% 12.7% 28.7% 33.3% 28.6% 26.7% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 53 WILD 'E :SI'1114%1 II I'1V44fl1N Si' P Audit Division Improvement Quality Case Processing Summary Count Percent QUALIFY 1 11 5.0% 2 18 8.1% 3 162 73.0% 4 30 13.5% 5 1 0.5% Overall 222 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 222 Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered 1 .984 1.196 .237 54.8% 2 .986 1.O49 109 22,2% 3 .996 1.013 .082 21.8% 4 .983 1.053 .145 38.8% 5 1.244 1.000 .000 Overall .994 1.024 .101 26.7% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 5.1 WILDROSE A.... 1%1MIMICS IV Audit Division Improvement Condition Case Processing Summary Count Percent CONDITIOn 2 9 4.1% 3 210 94.6% 4 3 1.4% Overall 222 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 222 Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered 2 .993 1.005 .165 31.0% 3 .994 1.023 .098 26.8% 4 1.091 .991 .074 13.4% Overall .994 1.024 .101 26.7% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page .5.5 WILD • 'E tl'1'M 11• II l\I V Nl'Ull517 1b Audit Division Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count Percent SPRec LT $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $100K $100K to 5150K $150K to $200K $200K to $300K $300K to $500K $500K to $750K $750Kto $1,O00K Over $1,000K Overall Excluded Total 65 11.1% 245 41.7% 146 24.9% 49 8..3% 27 4.6% 20 3.4% 23 3.9% 6 1.0% 1 0.2% 5 0.9% 587 100.0% 0 587 Group Ratio Statistics for CURRLND I VTASP Median Price Related Coefficient of Differential Dispersion Coefficient of Variation Median Centered LT $25K $25Kto $50K $50K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K to $200K $200Kto $300K $300Kto $500K $500Kto $750K $750Kto $1,000K Over $1,000K Overall 1.200 996 .946 944 1.016 .922 918 820 702 .877 988 .996 .998 1.005 1.003 1.003 1 .001 1012 1,000 1.000 .978 1 069 .171 .137 .134 .140 .117 104 147 n56 .000 .072 150 22.6% 22.3% 19.3% 21.3% 18.1% 17.9% 19.6% 30.4% 9.4% 23.0% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 56 WILD R • SE Audit Division Subclass Case Processing Summary Count Percent ABSTRLND 100 97 16.5% 200 10 1.7% 300 6 1.0% 400 2 0.3% 520 3 0.5% 530 2 0.3% 540 1 0.2% 550 1 0.2% 1112 424 72.2% 1115 1 0.2% 1135 4 0.7% 2112 11 1.9% 2120 4 0.7% 2130 8 1.4% 2135 6 1.0% 3115 2 0.3% 3125 2 0.3% 9140 1 0.2% 9159 1 0.2% 9179 1 0.2% Overall 507 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 587 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 57 WILDROSE Audit Division Ratio Statistics for CURRLND I VTASP Coefficient of Variation Price Related Coefficient of Median Group Median Differential Dispersion Centered 100 .999 1.098 .155 23.4% 200 1.007 1.448 .293 36.6% 300 .903 1.100 .204 29.2% 400 1.146 .930 127 18.0% 520 .968 .960 .132 23.4% 530 .852 1.108 .424 60.0% 540 1.000 1.000 .000 550 .984 1.000 .000 1112 .987 1.037 .140 22.2% 1115 ,988 1.000 .000 1135 .854 991 .190 22.3% 2112 .947 1.067 .165 23.3% 2120 1.327 .999 .080 11.3% 2130 .862 1.006 122 19.5% 2135 .959 1.057 .214 35.1% 3115 .694 .887 .332 46.9% 3125 .914 1.010 .039 5..5% 9140 .602 1.000 .000 9159 1.229 1.000 .000 9179 .968 1.000 .000 Overall .988 1.069 .150 23.0% 2016 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 58 Hello