HomeMy WebLinkAbout20153008.tiff RECEIVED
SEP 1 4 2015
4•:r •�'+ -
.. e,..' ' WELD COUNTY
I Itr •; COMMISSIONERS
2015
WELD COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
STUDY
:1 a �°"'II
r 'ha T •,.� 7i _ire ti
. . . I I. J
,s
a sx,:b3e:il..„3.
'., ' .
•
• • •� _' j l/. !it ;Ptbn; -"�,rajµ: • `'
+ c
a E r,x. ,r„ ,I
!
w. _ _ s1
d • adlie a ..77 - ••• std• ,r_ .. ..
... .
. . 4, • . .• . .
,i, a., .: •
_
t
mom ,•
/
' 0 • it if• • t it
' ' -" • aatitsi 4. -
, i ti : ,
lit ' ;i i :may '•-
� 1 • 'sIt
- + I r ,
, -�e� i • . . ;e,4, I ,
igit
7. P i.if
il er, 1 ‘ .
. .IIIVII':',..4 I'' 4.-; 4r-- i 0 „
re
a.
•/ • - _ .• .- - A 'IL • II
I "• r. .. .T" -
•ti'jan Or if s_ • ( _ 0; •'.' /
WILDIE
AI'Pk0l.\l IN( tiNrim\tt:i,
Audit Division
Conithudiond
--020/5" C e • AsL g 1t{ 2015-3008
WILDIGSE
AlPH tiw. IN(ult1 111%)i.0
Audit Division
September 15 , 2015
I
Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research "
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029 , State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2015 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2015 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.
1111 41 41Ar
Harry J . Fuller
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. -- Audit Division
WILD ' • E
API'H.%I$AI. INCORIVItA1 F.l1
Audit Division
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction 3
Regional/Historical Sketch of Weld County 4
Ratio Analysis 6
Time Trending Verification 8
Sold/Unsold Analysis 9
Agricultural Land Study 11
Agricultural Land 11
Agricultural Outbuildings 12
Agricultural Land Under Improvements 13
Sales Verification 14
Economic Area Review and Evaluation 16
Natural Resources 17
Earth and Stone Products 17
Producing Oil and Gas 17
Vacant Land 18
Possessory Interest Properties 19
Personal Property Audit 20
Wildrose Auditor Staff 22
Appendices 2 3
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 2
WILD ,E
lipic ;\I'1'H,ItAl I I.)It l411t11 ED
Audit Division
INTRODUCTION
•
II NM 0
The procedural analysis includes all classes of
Iorado. property and specifically looks at how the
assessor develops economic areas, confirms and
The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments.
reviews assessments for conformance to the The audit also examines the procedures for
adequately discovering, classifying and valuing
Constitution. The SBOE will order
agricultural outbuildings, discovering
revaluations for counties whose valuations do
subdivision build-out and subdivision
not reflect the proper valuation period level of
discounting procedures . Valuation
value.
methodology for vacant land, improved
residential properties and commercial
The statutory basis for the audit is found in
properties is examined. Procedures for
C.R. S. 39- 1 - 104 (16)(a)(b) and (c). producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and
lands producing, producing coal mines,
The legislative council sets forth two criteria
producing earth and stone products, severed
that are the focus of the audit group:
mineral interests and non-producing patented
mining claims are also reviewed.
To determine whether each county assessor is
annlvincT correctly thr, rnnstitiitinnal anal
1 1�d� Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land,
statutory provisions, compliance requirements
residential properties, commercial industrial
of the State Board of Equalization, and the
manuals properties, agricultural land, and personal
published by the State Property Tax
property. The statistical study results are
Administrator to arrive at the actual value of
compared with State Board of Equalization
each class of property.
compliance requirements and the manuals
published by the State Property Tax
To determine if each assessor is applying Administrator.
correctly the provisions of law to the actual
values when arriving at valuations for
Wildrose Audit has completed the Property
assessment of all locally valued properties
Assessment Study for 2015 and is pleased to
subject to the property tax. report its findings for Weld County in the
following report.
The property assessment audit conducts a two-
part analysis: A procedural analysis and a
statistical analysis.
201 5 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 3
IlkWILD • ' E
APPlt\I,:NM IN•ORrOlt\iiu
• Audit Division
REGIONAL / HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
Rcoional Information Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
Weld County is located in the Front Range Pueblo, and Weld counties.
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
if
Julefwrp
vv.., SEQ¢W ICxC
LOGAN Saa
Holyoke
MOFFAT
.J_ ROUTT t JACKSON uRF WELD S!erlmng PHILLIPS
41 Craig • 64 \ 20 3S •
Ft Co .,s Si
Steamboat Spgs • 16
`e - GeHley MO!GAN Aron
Meeker 7 44 Wray
• CRANE) BOULO Fort Morgan •
RIO tlLANCO 26 • • YUMA
/,,„Sylphw +•ulcer .p ' °
52 l 60 ADAM 63it
Eggk `a"'gs 4� Golder. � 1 WASHINGTONill
—.,-._I • rcwgekm • 61
���•� CLESUEEf .(WM 3
tits„ 16 ARAPAHOE
- _1_ _ 3
—
� � I
"'` i awe Rati MOW?s .r , •
. — • • 20 Burlington
DOUGLAS FLIRT Hugo
r • it KIT CARSON
32 ti
A_ } 1+ Muff LINCOLN Cheyenne
L _ f. _ 60 Colorado SP9s 31 ells
r r [^ CHEYENNE.
•t, L►.--T-> L`S.'a -'•' Ct k EL PASO 9
I - / ��.• IelHA 21
r _ - w . • t a
w I . ' -- A .fads
.;r .i I MONT.
'. T.
w I KIOWA
. ' r ;2 J 2 cano»C�ty Pueblo CROWLEY 31
• • 13 C4 iNYy
• White Las Animas
_ ... -•r•• PUEBLO Cemar
i r I, i I 14 La Junta •
e _•} cusTER 51
� �::- is 'I z ` _
O BENT MOWERS
•Dov { ='..` .. 1 : . E E OT 6 5� t
45
yf �r :Pe- E HUERFANO _
1 xt .
W?lacenbu p Springfield
•
_ t. ) iic - .....�__.. .r..-__- ....._.... •
4.
—_ -'. .. - r 3TIl1A Trinidad LAS ANIMAS BAG
rU!I0NAI 12 • 36 6
. w.
) _ 4)- - - •
r
1
)
201 5 \-Velcl County Properiv Assessment Study Page 4
WILD • E
A Mt II,U. IN(ultl'okA I I U
Audit Division
Historical Information
Weld County has a population of The county seat is Greeley which began as the
approximately 252, 825 people with 63 . 32 Union Colony, which was founded in 1869 as
people per square mile, according to the U. S. an experimental utopian community of "high
Census Bureau's 2010 census data. This moral standards" by Nathan C. Meeker, a •
represents a 39 .73 percent change from the newspaper reporter from New York City.
2000 Census. Meeker purchased a site at the confluence of
the Cache la Poudre and South Platte Rivers
Weld County covers an area of 4,004 square (that included the area of Latham, an Overland
miles in north central Colorado. It is bordered Trail station), halfway between Cheyenne and
on the north by Wyoming and Nebraska and on Denver along the tracks of the Denver Pacific
the south by the Denver metropolitan area. Railroad formerly known as the " Island Grove
The third largest county in Colorado, Weld Ranch. " The name Union Colony was later
County has an area greater than that of Rhode changed to Greeley in honor of Horace
Island, Delaware and the District of Columbia Greeley, who was Meeker's editor at the New
combined. York Tribune, and popularized the phrase " Go
West, young man. "
Major Stephen H. Long made an expedition to
the area now known as Weld County in 1821 . Weld County's cultural assets include
In 1835 a government expedition came through Centennial Village, an authentic recreation of
the general area; the next year a member of pioneer life on the Colorado plains. The
that party, Lt. Lancaster Lupton, returned to Meeker Museum in Greeley is a national
establish a trading post located just north of the historic site. Fort Vasquez in southern Weld
present town of Fort Lupton. In 1837 Colonel County has an exciting history as an early
Ceran St. V rain established tort St. Vrain; Port Colorado trading post. I he Greeley
Vasquez was built south of Platteville about Philharmonic Orchestra is one of the oldest
1840. The latter was rebuilt in the 1930's by symphony orchestra west of the Mississippi.
the State Historical Society. The University of Northern Colorado's Little
Theatre of the Rockies is one of America's
premier college dramatic organizations.
(www.co. weld.co.us, www.wikipedia.ord)
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Stuck Page 5
10kWILDROSE
AIPH11-u Ix«n<iolc\u:I)
Audit Division
RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodology latter measures, but were counseled if there
were anomalies noted during our analysis .
All significant classes of properties were
analyzed. Sales were collected for each Qualified sales were based on the qualification
property class over the appropriate sale period,
code used by each county, which were typically
Pro p y ppro p p coded as either "Q" or "C." The ratio analysis
which was typically defined as the 18-month
period between January 2011 and June 2012 . included all sales. The data was trimmed for
Counties with less than 30 sales typically counties with obvious outliers using IAAO
standards for data analysis. In every case, we
extended the sale period back up to 5 years
prior to June 30, 2012 in 6-month increments. examined the loss in data from trimming to
If there were still fewer than 30 sales,
ensure that only true outliers were excluded.
supplemental appraisals were performed and Any county with a significant portion of sales
treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for all excluded by this trimming method was
counties using this method totaled at least 30 examined further. No county was allowed to
pass the audit if more than 5% of the sales were
per county. For commercial sales, the total
"lost" because of trimming. For the largest 11
number analyzed was allowed, in some cases,
counties, the residential ratio statistics were
to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity
issues for counties requiring vacant land broken down by economic area as well.
analysis or condominium analysis. Although it Conclusions
was required that we examine the median and For this final analysis report, the minimum
coefficient of dispersion for all counties, we acceptable statistical standards allowed by the
also calculated the weighted mean and price- State Board of Equalization are:
related differential for each class of property.
Counties were not passed or failed by these
ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Llnweighted Coefficient of
Property Class Median Ratio Dispersion
Commercial / Industrial Between .95- 1 .05 Less than 20.99
Condominium Between .9S- 1 .05 Less than 15.99
Single Family Between .95- 1 .05 Less than 15.99
Vacant Land Between .95- 1 .05 Less than 20.99
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 6
OrWILDRQSE
AIM 11+.AL INt'l)1P(HL17(:I,
Audit Division
The results for Weld County arc:
Weld County Ratio Grid
Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient •
Qualified Median Related of Time Trend
Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
Commercial/ Industrial 232 0.995 1 .027 10.6 Compliant
Condominium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Single Family 8,554 0.974 1 .011 8. 1 Compliant
Vacant Land 385 0.988 1 .072 15.9 Compliant
Ratio Statistics tot CURRTOT /TASP
Group Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
0 .976 1 005 .067
2 974 1 006 076
3 972 1 007 071
4 970 1 024 102
5 980 1032 153
6 .974 1 026 107
7 970 1 .003 152
8 975 1 019 142
9 980 1 018 .084
99 .974 1 .006 057
I Overall 1 974 1 .011 081 I
NOTE: Eton Area 99 = Condominiums
After applying the above described SBOE, DPT, and Colorado State Statute
methodologies, it is concluded from the sales valuation guidelines.
ratios that Weld County is in compliance with Recommendations
None
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 7
.. :, : WILD ROSE
.,
Are•u%i,ti Ixtuui•Oic ir.0
Audit Division
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION
Methodology trending adequately, and a further examination
is warranted. This validation method also
While we recommend that counties use the considers the number of sales and the length of
inverted ratio regression analysis method to the sale period. Counties with few sales across
account for market (time) trending, some the sale period were carefully examined to
counties have used other IAAO-approved determine if the statistical results were valid.
methods, such as the weighted monthly median
approach. We are not auditing the methods Conclusions
used, but rather the results of the methods After verification and analysis, it has been
used. Given this range of methodologies used determined that Weld County has complied
to account for market trending, we concluded with the statutory requirements to analyze the
that the best validation method was to examine effects of time on value in their county. Weld
the sale ratios for each class across the County has also satisfactorily applied the results
appropriate sale period. To be specific, if a of their time trending analysis to arrive at the
county has considered and adjusted correctly time adjusted sales price (TASP).
for market trending, then the sale ratios should Recommendations
remain stable (i.e. flat) across the sale period.
If a residual market trend is detected, then the None
county may or may not have addressed market
201 5 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 8
0 WILDICSE
:\17'R\!S U 1St a1A'On\7 :r
Audit Division
SOLD / UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodology or if there arc other explanations for the
observed difference.
Weld County was tested for the equal
treatment of sold and unsold properties to If the unsold properties have a higher median . I
ensure that "sales chasing" has not occurred.
value per square foot than the sold properties,
The auditors employed a multi-step process to
or if the median change in value is greater for
determine if sold and unsold properties were r
the unsold properties than the sold properties,
valued in a consistent manner. the analysis is stopped and the county is
concluded to be in compliance with sold and
We test the hypothesis that the assessor has unsold guidelines. All sold and unsold
valued unsold properties consistent with what properties in a given class are first tested,
is observed with the sold properties based on although properties with extreme unit values
several units of comparison and tests. The or percent changes can be trimmed to stabilize
units of comparison include the actual value per the analysis. The median is the primary
square foot and the change in value from the comparison metric, although the mean can also
previous base year period to the current base be used as a comparison metric if the
year. The first test compares the actual value distribution supports that type of measure of
per square foot between sold and unsold central tendency.
properties by class. The median and mean
value per square foot is compared and tested The first test (unit value method) is applied to
for any significant difference. This is tested both residential and commercial/industrial sold
using non-parametric methods, such as the and unsold properties. The second test is
Mann-Whitney test for differences in the 77 7 and 7 7
ni-Nniind +n von'd ITr1Qnld N•'l rant InTl r,
distributions or medians between sold and -rr -V - - --- �-
properties. The second test (change in value
unsold groups. It is also examined graphically method) is also applied to residential or
and from an appraisal perspective. Data can be commercial sold and unsold properties if the
stratified based on location and subclass. The first test results in a significant difference
second test compares the difference in the observed and/or tested between sold and
median change in value from the previous base unsold properties. The third test (valuation
year to the current base year between sold and modeling) is used in instances where the results
unsold properties by class. The same from the first two tests indicate a significant
combination of non-parametric and appraisal difference between sold and unsold properties.
testing is used as with the first test. A third test It can also be used when the number of sold
employing a valuation model testing a and unsold properties is so large that the non-
sold/unsold binary variable while controlling parametric testing is indicating a false rejection
for property attributes such as location, size, of the hypothesis that there is no difference
age and other attributes. The model
between the sold and unsold property values.
determines if the sold/unsold variable is
statistically and empirically significant. If all These tests were supported by both tabular and
three tests indicate a significant difference graphics presentations, along with written
between sold and unsold properties for a given
documentation explaining the methodology
class, the Auditor may meet with the county to used.
determine if sale chasing is actually occurring,
201 S Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 9
,� WILD ` ' E
APPRAISAL INCORPORATED
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
Property Class Results
Commercial/Industrial Compliant
Condominium N/A
Single Family Compliant
Vacant Land 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 mariner.
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 10
WILD ' • E
AI'I'R\I'-\L IXCu1(I'tIt\lI.Ik
Audit Division
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
Acres By Subclass Value By Subclass
Waste Sprinkler •
5. 59% R 38% 70,000.000
/ 60.000.000 - - -
IPP r. Flood
11 82% 50,000,000
40,000,000 r
.
. 4
,_.
to
30,000,000
I. t P t i 20,000,000
C.. i it, , . t , 10,000.000 --
Goy Farm 0 Grazing j1 } 28 20% r -T i
48 52% • , tr A>O 0,,, Zj Cr Lj.4O teadav Hey yd-1,
1%
Agricultural Land
County records were reviewed to determine (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3
major land categories such as irrigated farm , Chapter S .)
dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other Conclusions
7 1 � 1•
ianus. in aucuiion, county records were
reviewed in order to determine if: Aerial An analysis of the agricultural land data
photographs are available and are being used; indicates an acceptable appraisal of this
soil conservation guidelines have been used to property type. Directives, commodity prices
classify lands based on productivity; crop and expenses provided by the PTA were
properly applied. County yields compared
rotations have been documented; typical
commodities and yields have been determined; favorably to those published by Colorado
orchard lands have been properly classified and Agricultural Statistics. Expenses used by the
valued; expenses reflect a ten year average and county were allowable expenses and were in an
are typical landlord expenses; grazing lands acceptable range. Grazing lands carrying
have been properly classified and valued; the capacities were in an acceptable range. The
number of acres in each class and subclass have data analyzed resulted in the following ratios:
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.
201 5 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 11
WH- ti�,> LDROSE
: rrk%r,u Ivcuia1c,itt1r.0
• Audit Division
Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Number County County WRA
Abstract Of Value Assessed Total
Code Land Class Acres Per Acre Total Value Value Ratio
4107 Sprinkler 107,506 216.34 23,258,271 23,233,771 1 .00
4117 Hood 232,225 271 .85 63, 129,800 62,329,579 1 .01
4127 Dry Farm 563,608 31 .08 17,514, 184 17,572,009 1 .00
4137 Meadow flay 13,632 45. 38 618,613 618,613 1 .00
4147 Grazing 969,638 6. 12 5,930,915 5,930,915 1 .00
4167 Waste 111 ,768 1 .99 222,027 222,027 1 .00
'Total/Avg 1,998,377 55.38 110,673,810 109,906,913 1 .01
Recommendations
None
Agricultural Outbuildings
Methodology Property Taxation for the valuation of
agricultural outbuildings.
Data was collected and reviewed to determine
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's Recommendations
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 , pages 5 .74 None
through 5 .77 were being followed.
Conclusions
Weld County has substantially complied with
the procedures provided by the Division of
201 5 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 12
\'VILD ' E
\t rn VS U. IXfllUMMA I cu
Audit Division
Agricultural Land Under Improvements
•
Methodology Weld County has used the following methods
to discover the land area under a residential
Data was collected and reviewed to determine improvement that is determined to be not
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's integral under 39- 1 - 102, C.R. S. :
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 , pages 5 . 19
and 5 .20 were being followed. • Property Record Card Analysis
• Field Inspections
Conclusions
• Phone Interviews
Weld County has used the following methods • In-Person Interviews with
to discover land under a residential
Owners/Tenants
improvement on a farm or ranch that is
determined to be not integral under 39- 1 - 102, • Written Correspondence other than
Questionnaire
C.R. S. :
• Personal Knowledge of Occupants at
• Questionnaires Assessment Date
• Field Inspections
• Aerial Photography/Pictometry
• Phone Interviews Weld County has substantially complied with
• In-Person Interviews with the procedures provided by the Division of
Owners/'Tenants Property Taxation for the valuation of land
• Written Correspondence other than under residential improvements that may or
Questionnaire may not he integral to an agricultural
• Personal Knowledge of Occupants at operation.
Assessment Date Recommendations
None
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Stuck Page 13
WILDROSE
AI'YH11^1t. I.\{SIHI\3I(\lI:U
Audit Division
SALES VERIFICATION
According to Colorado Revised Statutes:
Part of the Property Assessment Study is the
A representative body of sales is required when sales verification analysis. WRA has used the
considering the market approach to appraisal. above-cited statutes as a guide in our study of
the county's procedures and practices for
(8) In any case in which sales prices of comparable verifying sales.
properties within any class or subclass are utilized
when considering the market approach to appraisal in WRA reviewed the sales verification
the determination of actual value of any taxable procedures in 2015 for Weld County. This
property, the following limitations and conditions study was conducted by checking selected sales
shall apply: from the master sales list for the current
valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 60
(a)(1) Use of the market approach shall require a sales listed as unqualified.
representative body cf sales, including sales by a
lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and All of the sales in the unqualified sales sample
appraisals shall reflect due consideration of the had reasons that were clear and supportable.
degree of comparability of sales, including the extent
of similarities and dissimilarities among properties For residential, commercial, and vacant land
that are compared for assessment purposes. In order sales with considerations over $ 500, the
to obtain a reasonable sample and to reduce sudden contractor has examined and reported the ratio
price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be of qualified sales to total sales by class and
included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true performed the following analyses of unqualified
or typical sales price during the period specified in sales:
section 39-1 - 104 (10.2). Sales of personal property
exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 39-3- The contractor has examined the
102, 39-3- 103, and 39-3-119 to 39-3-122 shall manner in which sales have been
not be included in any such sample. classified as qualified or unqualified,
including a listing of each step in the
(b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be sales verification process, any
coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as adjustment procedures, and the county
screened and verified by the assessor. (39- 1 - 103, official responsible for making the final
C.R. S.) decision on qualification.
The assessor is required to use sales of real property When less than 50 percent of sales are
only in the valuation process. qualified in any of the three property
classes (residential, commercial, and
(8)(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only vacant land), the contractor analyzed
those sales which have been determined on an the reasons for disqualifying sales in
individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real any subclass that constitutes at least 20
property only or which have been adjusted on an percent of the class, either by number
individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real of properties or by value, from the
property only. (39-1 - 103, C.R. S.) prior year. The contractor has
201 7 We]c1 County Property Assessment Stuck — Page 14
11lkWILDIC E
:VI'%\ism. INothy vk\7 CU
Audit Division
reviewed with the assessor any analysis unqualified sales, excluding sales that
indicating that sales data are were disqualified for obvious reasons.
inadequate, fail to reflect typical
properties, or have been disqualified Weld County did not qualify for in-
for insufficient cause. In addition, the depth subclass analysis.
contractor has reviewed the 111
disqualified sales by assigned code. If Conclusions
there appears to be any inconsistency
Weld County appears to be doing an excellent
in the coding, the contractor has
conducted further analysis to job of verifying their sales. WRA agreed with
determine if the sales included in that the county's reason for disqualifying each of the
code have been assigned appropriately. sales selected in the sample. There are no
recommendations or suggestions.
If 50 percent or more of the sales are Recommendations
qualified, the contractor has reviewed a None
statistically significant sample of
2015 Welcl Count' Property Assessment Study - Page 15
WILD ` • E
Or APPRAISAL INCORPORATED
Audit Division
ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW AND
EVALUATION
Methodology identified homogeneous economic areas
Weld County has submitted a written narrative comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each
describing the economic areas that make up the economic area defined is equally subject to a set
market areas. Weld County has also
of economic forces that impact the value of the
county's
properties within that geographic area and this
submitted a map illustrating these areas. Each
of these narratives have been read and analyzed has been adequately addressed. Each economic
for logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps area defined adequately delineates an area that
will give "similar values for similar properties
were also compared to the narrative for
in similar areas."
consistency between the written description
and the map. Recommendations
Conclusions None
After review and analysis, it has been
determined that Weld County has adequately
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 16
IlktiVILDROSE
AMR IN(010•012A1
Audit Division
NATURAL RESOURCES
Actual value determined - when.
Earth and Stone Products (2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds
and lands producing oil or gas shall be • u
determined as provided in article 7 of this title.
Methodology
§ 39-1 -103, C.R.S.
Under the guidelines of the Assessor's Article 7 covers the listing, valuation, and
Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural assessment of producing oil and gas leaseholds VI
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income and lands.
approach was applied to determine value for
production of earth and stone products. The Valuation:
number of tons was multiplied by an economic Valuation for assessment.
royalty rate determined by the Division of (1 ) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this
Property Taxation to determine income. The section, on the basis of the information
income was multiplied by a recommended contained in such statement, the assessor shall
Hoskold factor to determine the actual value. value such oil and gas leaseholds and lands for
The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of assessment, as real property, at an amount
the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two equal to eighty-seven and one-half percent of:
variables: life and tonnage. The operator (a) The selling price of the oil or gas sold there
determines these since there is no other means from during the preceding calendar year, after
to obtain production data through any state or excluding the selling price of all oil or gas
private agency. delivered to the United States government or
Conclusions any agency thereof, the state? of Colorado or
111•r rl(y en",-.lr }h,lt-.'�ilt ''l^ -lll:/•r -3 €' U4-4,--- 1 nl IL/14ln nl/l l9
The County has applied the correct formulas ~") -,5 S£ ) ---- — p1 .t ---V. i_P.A t.... . .V.-/,i
and state guidelines to earth and stone
of the state as royalty during the preceding
production. calendar year;
(b) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the
Recommendations same field area for oil or gas transported from
None the premises which is not sold during the
preceding calendar year, after excluding the
selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the
Producing Oil and Gas United States government or any agency
thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency
thereof, or any political subdivision of the state
Methodology as royalty during the preceding calendar year.
Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 , § 39-7-102, C.R.S.
Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources Conclusions
STATUTORY REFERENCES The county applied approved appraisal
procedures in the valuation of oil and gas.
Section § 39- 1 - 103 , C.R. S. , specifies that
producing oil or gas leaseholds and lands arc Recommendations
valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S. None
201 5 Weld County Property Assessment Stuck - Page 17
• ' WILD ' • E
, APPRAISAL I\(Y)RN)ILA1 ED
Audit Division
VACANT LAND
Subdivision Discounting
Subdivisions were reviewed in 2015 in Weld developed using the summation method.
County. The review showed that subdivisions Subdivision land with structures was appraised
were discounted pursuant to the Colorado at full market value.
Revised Statutes in Article 39-1 - 103 (14). Conclusions
Discounting procedures were applied to all
subdivisions where less than 80 percent of all Weld County has implemented proper
sites were sold using the present worth procedures to adequately estimate absorption
periods, discount rates, and lot values for
method. The market approach was applied
where 80 percent or more of the subdivision qualifying subdivisions.
sites were sold. An absorption period was Recommendations
estimated for each subdivision that was None
discounted. An appropriate discount rate was
201S Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 18
IlkWILD ' • E
:\I'PR Ui:\l. IRct)RPoJt\TI.0
Audit Division
POSSESSORY INTEREST PROPERTIES
Possessory Interest
Possessory interest property discovery and commercial possessory interest properties.
valuation is described in the Assessor's The county has also been queried as to their • j
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 section 7 confidence that the possessory interest
in accordance with the requirements of properties have been discovered and placed on
Chapter 39- 1 - 103 (17)(a) (II) C. R.S. the tax rolls. ea
Possessory Interest is defined by the Property Conclusions
Tax Administrator' s Publication ARL Volume
3 , Chapter 7: A private property interest in Weld County has implemented a discovery
process to place possessory interest properties
government-owned property or the right to the
on the roll . They have also correctly and
occupancy and use of any benefit in
consistently applied the correct procedures and
government-owned property that has been
granted under lease, permit, license, valuation methods in the valuation of
possessory interest properties.
concession, contract, or other agreement.
Recommendations
Weld County has been reviewed for their None
procedures and adherence to guidelines when
assessing and valuing agricultural and
20 1 5 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 19
WILDROSE
Or .\I'I'R%Is 1t INC ultIY11t17 t I)
Audit Division
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT
Weld County was studied for its procedural
compliance with the personal property Weld County is compliant with the guidelines
assessment outlined in the Assessor' s Reference set forth in ARL Volume 5 regarding discovery
Library (ARL) Volume 5 , and in the State procedures, using the following methods to
Board of Equalization (SBOE) requirements for discover personal property accounts in the
the assessment of personal property. The county:
SBOE requires that counties use ARL Volume
5 , including current discovery, classification, • Public Record Documents
documentation procedures, current economic • MLS Listing and/or Sold Books
lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation • Chamber of Commerce/Economic
table, and level of value adjustment factor
Development Contacts
table.
• Local Telephone Directories,
The personal property audit standards narrative Newspapers or Other Local
must be in place and current. A listing of Publications
businesses that have been audited by the • Personal Observation, Physical
assessor within the twelve-month period Canvassing or Word of Mouth
reflected in the plan is given to the auditor . • Questionnaires, Letters and/or Phone
The audited businesses must be in conformity Calls to Buyer, Seller and/or Realtor
with those described in the plan.
The county uses the Division of Property
Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from Taxation (DPT) recommended classification
the personal property accounts that have been and documentation procedures. The DPT' s
physically inspected. The minimum assessment recommended cost factor tables, depreciation
sample is one percent or ten schedules, tables and level of value adjustment factor
whichever is greater, and the maximum tables are also used.
assessment audit sample is 100 schedules.
Weld County submitted their personal
For the counties having over 100,000 property written audit plan and was current for
population, WRA selected a sample of all the 2015 valuation period. The number and
personal property schedules to determine listing of businesses audited was also submitted
whether the assessor is correctly applying the and was in conformance with the written audit
provisions of law and manuals of the Property plan. The following audit triggers were used
Tax Administrator in arriving at the assessment by the county to select accounts to be audited:
levels of such property. This sample was
selected from the personal property schedules • Businesses in a selected area
audited by the assessor. In no event was the • Accounts with obvious discrepancies
sample selected by the contractor less than 30 • New businesses filing for the first time
schedules. The counties to be included in this • Incomplete or inconsistent declarations
study are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, • Accounts with omitted property
Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, • Same business type or use
Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received • Businesses with no deletions or
a procedural study.
additions for 2 or more years
2015 Weld C int \ Prohcm /\sses�n1cut Siucly Page 20
0 WILD • E
AMA 11+.11_ INCl)KI%)ICA1!:1)
Audit Division
• Non-filing Accounts - Best Information which range from .90 to 1 . 10 with no COD
Available requirements.
• Accounts close to the $7,300 actual Conclusions
value exemption status Weld County has employed adequate
• Accounts protested with substantial discovery, classification, documentation, •
disagreement valuation, and auditing procedures for their
personal property assessment and is in
Weld County's median ratio is 1 .00. This is statistical compliance with SBOE requirements.
in compliance with the State Board of
Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements Recommendations
None
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 21
<4�t WILD ' • E
APPRAISAL_ INCORPORATED
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
2015 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page 22
WILDROSE
IXf11111'OIUl C.I1
Audit Division
APPENDICES
•
201S Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 23
Ole \'VILDRQVE
Arrnti<,i 1"um„wain
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
FOR WELD COUNTY
2015
I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
125,951 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor's office in 2015 . The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
80,000
Real Property Class Distribution
60,000 —
a+
C
7
(j 40,000 — 76,217
20,000 —
31,875
13,194
1 4,665
0 r r r I
Vacant Land Res Imp Comm/Ind Imp Other
type
The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 80. 1% of all vacant land parcels.
For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92 . 2% 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.
20B Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24
0WROSE
\Ira�iILD'AI h.uaw.asn
Audit Division
II. DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2015 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld County Assessor' s Office in April 2015 .
The data included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor. S
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
There were 8 ,554 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18-month sale period prior to June 30, r
2014. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
20l 5 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 25
WILDROSI✓
Audit Division
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ECONAREA 0 1054 12.3%
2 2460 28.8%
3 2177 25.5%
4 428 5.0%
5 93 1 .1 %
6 1528 17.9%
7 50 .6%
8 29 .3%
9 295 3.4%
99 440 5.1 %
Overall 8554 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 8554
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT J TASP
Group Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
0 .976 1 .005 .067
2 974 1 .006 076
3 .972 1 .007 .071
4 .970 1 .024 102
5 .980 1 .032 . 153
6 974 1 .026 107
7 .970 1 .003 . 152
8 .975 1 .019 . 142
9 .980 1 .018 .084
99 .974 1 .006 .057
Overall .974 1 .011 .081
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:
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 26
110. WILDRQSE
A I'I'R\i511.I\t Y IN I+I H\1 I I.
Audit Division
2,500 - Mean = 099
Std. Dev. = 012
N ■ 8,554
2,000 -,
• I
1 ,500_ DI
C
0 P r
O
a. ,
0
6.
11.
1 ,000 - il
iii ~
500 - it
0
9, !
0.00 0.50 1.00 1 .50 2.00 2 50
salesratio
2.50 -
• Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
•
•
7nn -.
t
a 1.50 - •
z-
a
N •
V
Ti
N
1.00 -
r •
•
0.50 •
•
0.00
T —T T T T • I T T
h N or M M M
o N o a a a a
ns
o p p $ § $ s
g § g § g g g
TASP
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of the sale ratios was within state mandated limits.
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 27
VVILDI2E
N,e.ry P���iu+�pui
Audit Division
Residential Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the residential dataset using the 18-month sale period for any residual market
trending and broken down by economic area, as follows:
Coefficientsa
ECONAREA Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig,
0 1 (Constant) .981 .006 174.675 .000
SalePeriod .001 001 056 1 .814 .070
2 1 (Constant) .974 004 246.735 000
SalePeriod .001 000 .063 3 131 002
3 1 (Constant) 969 004 239.988 .000
SalePeriod .001 000 .070 3 251 001
4 1 (Constant) .962 013 72.403 .000
SalePeriod .003 001 .092 1 .916 .056
5 1 (Constant) .939 042 22.267 000
SalePeriod 008 004 176 1 .730 087
6 1 (Constant) 985 007 136.547 000
SalePeriod 001 001 043 1 666 096
7 1 (Constant) .930 055 16.825 000
SalePeriod .006 006 154 1 .080 286
8 1 (Constant) 923 061 15.038 000
SalePeriod .008 006 .242 1 .294 207
9 1 (Constant) .971 016 61 .309 000
SalePeriod 002 002 075 1 .280 201
99 1 (Constant) .954 008 119.999 .000
SalePeriod .005 001 248 5.350 .000
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
significantly; we therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the
valuation of residential properties.
201 S Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 28
dis WILDROSE
irr Audit Division
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 2015 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows: •
: Median Mean
Group N
SPSF SPSF
Unsold 67,231 $ 129 $ 129 "
Sold 8 ,553 $ 137 $ 139
ECONAREA I Group N Median Mean
SPSF SPSF
0 Unsold 5 , 180 $ 144. 26 $ 142 .68
Sold 1 ,054 $ 139. 32 $ 141 .51
2 Unsold 18 ,024 $ 141 .06 $ 141 .69
Sold 2,459 $ 146.77 $ 148 .05
3 Unsold 13,356 $ 138 .34 $ 139.75
Sold 2 , 177 $ 144.20 $ 151 .27
4 Unsold 5 ,538 $ 108 .54 $ 104.60
Sold 428 $ 119.78 $ 122 .49
5 Unsold 1 ,236 $91 .78 $94. 87
Sold 93 $ 114.09 $ 109.05
6 Unsold 16,884 $ 117.80 $ 114.44
Sold 1 ,528 $ 125 .67 $ 123 .28
7 Unsold 728 $65 . 28 $74.52
Sold SO $74.46 $92 . 25
8 Unsold 611 $76.91 $81 .88
Sold 29 $99.40 $98 .27
9 Unsold 2 , 190 $ 139 . 14 $ 133 .28
Sold 295 $ 149.84 $ 144.42
Condo Unsold 3,316 $99.09 $94.90
Sold 434 $ 105 . 13 $ 108 . 14
Given the difference in values for some of the economic areas, we also examined the median and mean
change in value from 2014 to 2015 , both overall and by economic area, for residential sold and unsold
properties, as follows:
No. Median Mean
Group Sales Chg Val Chg Val
Unsold 65 ,807 1 .25 1 .27
Sold 8, 113 1 .25 1 .28
1
201 S Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 29
sk, iIH IIaun>r.,un:1uxu,v Ivr Audit Division
Median Mean
ECONAREA Group No. Sales
Chg Val Chg Val
0 Unsold 5 ,040 1 . 23 1 . 27
Sold 956 1 . 23 1 .27
2 Unsold 17,673 1 . 21 1 . 21
Sold 2,347 1 . 22 1 . 23
3 Unsold 12,967 1 .22 1 .22
Sold 2 ,016 1 . 25 1 .26
4 Unsold 5,447 1 . 36 1 . 36
Sold 420 1 .42 1 .41
5 Unsold 1 ,223 1 .41 1 .36
Sold 90 1 .42 1 .41
6 Unsold 16,667 1 .34 1 .36
Sold 1 ,499 1 .35 1 . 36
7 Unsold 663 1 . 14 1 .21
Sold 48 1 . 14 1 . 16
8 Unsold 603 1 .21 1 .29
Sold 26 1 .25 1 .26
9 Unsold 2,062 1 .27 1 . 33
Sold 274 1 .27 1 .30
Condo Unsold 3,300 1 . 18 1 .23
Sold 431 1 .20 1 .24
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner.
IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
There were 232 qualified commercial/industrial sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period prior
to June 30, 2014. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median 0.995
Price Related Differential 1 .027
Coefficient of Dispersion 10.6
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:
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 30
0 V4'ILDi .'E
Arrx.�i-.,i.Pi:�xi.�xu n
Audit Division
Mean = 1 04
120- SW Dev = 0 266
Ng 232
100-
80- •
CI
G .
V
7
Q
to GO .
IL
40-
20-
0 — --
0 05 1 15 2 25 3
salesratlo
3 x Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio
'Sc
2.5 -
. x
2 -
a
o • x
w 1.5 - x
on +
1 ,or x x
xx
x x
x
0
I - I
SO $5,000,000 $10,000,000 $15,000,000 $20,000,000
TASP
Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis
The 232 commercial/industrial sales were next analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 month
sale period with the following results:
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
W2QS\n•s a-IL�i hDIn EnavH ui •
Audit Division
Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 995 .031 32. 194 .000
SalePeriod .005 .003 .103 1 .564 .119
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
3 -
Commercial Market Trend Analysis +
+ +
25-
is
+ + +
o is
I
4/1 1S -
• +
R + + t
N + + + + +
+ + + + t + +
1 -�ulI .4fl .� tintSI f lit.tarsilU4j. I*II* I
TI tTtT +
+ + + + +
05- $
0-
0 5 10 15 20
SalePorlod
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 2015 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:
Median Mean
Group No. Props
Val/SF Val/SF
Unsold 3, 323 $61 $80
Sold 200 $75 $89
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 32
fikWILDI .'E
Arra�inu.h�r+air�aa�h
Audit Division
Sub Median Mean
Class Group No. Props Val/SF Val/SF
2212 Unsold 615 $60.00 $86.52
Sold 33 $92.63 $ 108 .25
2220 Unsold 346 $80.00 $93 .53
Sold 19 $ 100.00 $ 120.98 • I
2230 Unsold 727 $70.00 $ 104.02
Sold 41 $78 .67 $ 118 .03
I r
2235 Unsold 604 $40.00 $49. 11
Sold 36 $42 .51 $48 .41
2245 Unsold 816 $73 .04 $79. 30
Sold 61 $75 .00 $76.02
3215 Unsold 1 215 $50.00 $50.76
Sold 10 $76.50 $74.66
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
Independent-
The distribution of VaISF is the Samples Reject the
1 of sold. Mann- 000 null
same across categories
Whitney U hypothesis.
Test
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 compared the percent change in value between 2014 and 2015 for sold and unsold
commercial properties in Weld County, as follows:
Median Mean
Group N Chg Val Chg Val
Unsold 3, 566 1 .000 1 .022
Sold 178 1 .058 1 . 117
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 33
'Kt
:�I'1'K\II.DI�\I ��.UHh'K IP
Audit Division
Hypothesis Test Summary
Null Hypothesis Test Sig. Decision
Independent-
The distribution of DIFF is the same Samples Reject the
I of sold. Mann- .000 null
across categories
Whitney U hypothesis.
Test
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 3, 253 commercial/industrial properties were analyzed.
Commercial/industrial property subclasses included the following:
ABSTRIMP
Cumulative
Frequency Percent Valid Percent Percent
Valid 2212 648 18.4 18.4 18.4
2220 365 10.4 10.4 28.8
2230 768 21 .8 21 .8 50.6
2235 640 18.2 18.2 68.7
2245 877 24.9 24.9 93.6
3215 225 6.4 6.4 100.0
Total 3523 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 8 iterations, the following results were generated by the model:
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 34
\I'IV\tr\I ICI VI..k V1P
Audit Division
Model Summary
Model Adjusted R SW. Error of
R R Square Square the Estimate
1 .885a 783 782 875134 228
2 .888b .788 788 864061 240
3 .889c 791 791 857779.900
4 891d 794 794 852561 .381 I
5 .893e 797 796 846876 026
6 893f 797 797 845225 860
7 8939 798 798 843570 397 e
8 894" 799 .798 842772.676
a Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA
b Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2
c. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2, T2235
d Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2, T2235, T3215
e. Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2, T2235, T3215,
ECON3
I Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2, T2235, T3215,
ECON3, AGE
g Predictors: (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2, T2235, T3215,
ECON3, AGE, ECON4
h Predictors (Constant), LIVEAREA, ECON2, 12235, T3215,
ECON3, AGE, ECON4, T2220
The following coefficients were included in the model at Step 8 :
8 (Constant) 61225.988 21575.336 2.838 005
LIVEAREA 60.972 .546 .886 111 .610 .000
r."_.-.ti In ' ''n" a nn7 � r� � � n n-•n n n . nnn
CL0LJINL 4LULMJ.2G 4.JU I 1 . 1 I G .Uf 3 9.L 14 .UUU
T2235 -313730.708 37969.989 -.064 -8.263 .000
T3215 -497881 .757 62536.326 -.065 -7.961 .000
ECON3 328846.023 47059. 294 .056 6.988 .000
AGE -1093.551 258.827 -.032 -4.225 .000
ECON4 217895.371 58742.967 .029 3.709 .000
T2220 134141 .404 48475.653 .022 2.767 .006
a. Dependent Variable: CURRTOT
The model at Step 8 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 residential properties consistently in 2015 .
2O15 Statistical Report: WELT) COUNTY Page 35
4
I.YI �I :I?
:11'INN•11 �\l ukP�N 111U
Audit Division
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
There were 385 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 0.988
: 1 .072
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion 15.9
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:
80- rviean = 1 00
Sid Dev = 0 23
— N ■ 385
60-
u
c
4,
3
40-
al
1st
- 40
20 -
ailitt0 r - llikas1—s--t--"I
T
0 05 15
salesraflo
2015 Statistical Report: WM) COUNTY Page 36
0 W:\i re�bILvDn1
l. iuiau�nb
Audit Division
2 Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
x
x
x
• x
ittxx x
x x . I
x
- qyax
es
in 1 , •• a x x A
r.
4 ii xx x x
i x x
Is x x x
w It x x
xxAt
0.5- X*xx x x x N
X
0-
1 1 T 1 /-®
$0 $500,000 $1,000,000 $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 385 vacant land dataset using the 18-month sale period, with the following
results:
Coefficientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
I
1 (Constant) 993 I 019 53.402 .000
vSalePeriod .000 002 .010 .192 .848
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 37
OkVIVILDRE
\I 1'k 11.11 I�.OWvk 1111.
Audit Division
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis
+
+ +
+ + + + + +
15- + + $ + + +
+ + + + + * +
. $ + + + + + a + + $ +
a + + t 41 + t +
1 T tintiself•t••••;••*•
N ♦ i4 + 4 *$ + + T t ♦ +
+
+ + + + + +
05- * + + +
ili
0-
0 5 10 15 20
vSalePeriod
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 2015 between each group. We stratified the vacant land
properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall
comparison results:
Subdivno Group No. Median Mean
TOTAL Unsold 7,673 1 .00 1 .07
Sold 261 1 . 11 1 . 11
We also compared sold and unsold changes in value by reported neighborhoods, as follows:
NBHD sold N Median Mean
171 Unsold 3 1 .6667 1 .4444
Sold 6 1 .6667 1 .7056
Total 9 1 .6667 1 .6185
174 Unsold 1 1 .3333 1 .3333
Sold 2 1 .2990 1 .2990
Total 3 1 .3333 1 .3105
901 Unsold 9 1 .0000 1 .0234
Sold 2 1 .2105 1 .2105
Total 11 1 .0000 1 .0574
201S Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 38
0 VVILDIOSI✓
, Audit Division
911 Unsold 11 1 .1667 1 . 1561
Sold 4 1 .1667 1 . 1875
Total 15 1 .1667 1 .1645
2011 Unsold 6 1 .5111 1 .4741
Sold 8 1 .6664 1 .5738
Total 14 1 .5111 1 .5311
2201 Unsold 1 1 .0000 1 .0000 • I
Sold 2 1 .2271 1 .2271
Total 3 1 . 1208 1 . 1514
2901 Unsold 12 '1 .0000 .8941
Sold 3 1 .0256 1 .0752
Total 15 1 .0000 .9303
2903 Unsold 7 1 .0000 1 .0017
Sold 4 1 .1875 1 . 1875
Total 11 1 .0000 1 .0692
3001 Unsold 8 .9615 .9339
Sold 2 .9183 .9183
Total 10 .9615 ,9308
3026 Unsold 2 1 .1667 1 . 1667
Sold 3 1 .0000 1 .0000
Total 5 1 .0000 1 .0667
3033 Unsold 3 1 .4000 1 .5815
Sold 8 1 .2687 1 .2117
Total 11 1 .2687 1 .3126
3801 Unsold 6 1 . 1192 1 .1765
Sold 2 1 .5476 1 .5476
Total 8 1 . 1429 1 .2692
3905 Unsold 20 1 .0000 .9555
grid c 1 .n000 I nnntZ
Total 25 1 .0000 .9645
3911 Unsold 2 1 .0000 1 .0000
Sold 3 1 .0000 1 .0000
Total 5 1 .0000 1 .0000
6903 Unsold 77 1 .0000 1 .0000
Sold 2 .7367 .7367
Total 79 1 .0000 .9933
6905 Unsold 19 1 .0000 1 .0060
Sold 2 .8125 .8125
Total 21 1 .0000 .9876
6915 Unsold 1 1 .0000 1 .0000
Sold 2 1 . 1930 1 .1930
Total 3 1 .0526 1 .1287
9010 Unsold 13 1 .2000 1 . 1906
Sold 4 1 .0779 1 .0779
Total 17 1 .2000 1 . 1641
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.
2015 Statistical Report: WELL) COUNTY Page 39
0 WILDRCSE
Audit Division
V. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS
The final statistical verification concerned the assigned actual values for agricultural residential
improvements. We compared the 2015 median improved value per square foot for this group and
compared it to the 2015 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:
Descriptives
ABSTRIMP Statistic Std. Error
ImpVaISF SFR Mean $106.44 $5.222
95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound $96.20
Mean Upper Bound $116.67
5% Trimmed Mean $97.07
Median $99.08
Variance 461460.515
Std. Deviation $679.309
Minimum $0
Maximum $67,990
Range $67,990
Interquartile Range $36
Skewness 84.4125 .019
Kurtosis 7649.672 .038
Ag Mean $105.93 $2.704
Res 95% Confidence Interval for Lower Bound $100.63
Mean Upper Bound $111.24
5% Trimmed Mean $99.28
Median 595.86
Variance 8487.296
Std Deviation $92.127
Minimum $0
Maximum $2,142
Range $2,142
Interquartile Range $61
Skewness 11.682 .072
Kurtosis 225.700 .143
VI. CONCLUSIONS
Based on this 2015 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial and vacant land properties were
found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 40
0
aQ to 'it
C c a C CO
o be tR rF 2R +>Q ?ft 2R aR ea zF o c a C CU w 0 M' C!1
C. C D or m M A .- O 0) M 0) C O N /C7 u (O N IT
o e a, O O O tt) C- in al m v a) d m mw N E W N N w co a
S
O 03
ar
CO
co
Z a '- 0)
to a) O c r() J
.- A 0 or CO A N or V r- _C i.- O r
0 c CO A A O r{') O In V CO )/") O c O2 a) O a
CO a O a a a c O N .Ud O
n i V' 01 d ` c e a U
ua) to UO O yN 2
o0) _ a � N
cn b o,tn m 0� to
00 D O m o
co
♦' .a C-4
CU
0 N rO A .0 N a M 0) 00 CO cr a?(p A C
aa )—a o 0 0 (V C N 0 0 a. VI A Cl) 0
(6� O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c a) N C C � 0
a o mY a) 03 c
t � w my � v a)
�t ° a) w -p a
D. " C O a d co 0
a o i
0 0)
a O M A M M 4 o A v a c L
_
c a) co A I-. O co •a no m co, C 0 al C if')
O J O al O O O Ol o o a) a' ar a O L O J O O
r
ettrr
fo m — .- C 0 -I O S (a 0 al
`1 C y V ♦.. 0 r a Q>1
fL (1 C Ili co } �O. R d
c m 121
�� a o m Q. -o ca a cu
- D
ca, c CO) a o) ua f.)
CU w _
o C m • CO m Co A O M 01 tP cal in0.
C 04 c A A CO V Ms N N 0 in A C N ' a) V L a 0) U)
(0 sr,
Co 61 Co O O) 6. T a) M 0) 00 D a O C CO L
O" L (O N Cal J CO N
cn
C N J (S) tD O}� O �-
)Jt I a co o 0 c O m c
�' CO
O-- m c bR a`r a
-4 ill a) aQ a) .C 0)
- 0 a)a)
in) 0) y J (o
n. 01 iti n A O 0 o ` CO m J (O O
0 an is m a) a) a) m a) a) CO S 2 a a) C'1
°' c o) V) N n
O y c CO a) a Q)
T.;I IA a o a y = c
c A t- � c .- m of aa)) E
a, 01 ai to r
0 cuM g CU C
o rR tR rR aQ aQ r$ aQ aQ eQ aQ a 0) z
I a) N tl e, N A N O Cl
—�J � T al in 01 CD a c a v� a� c CU
w' V `°
W= C 2 g Ecri aR 0) g _ 0
w la Q) co I/J (O t0 O Ai C 175
03 03 CA
C J ` m :1/2,„
j (o 0O 1.a
mgr �� ,Si� '> ≥ Yom+
A- is C ry 1, Y. Iti N o CO CO O A E C QU to
0) O
CO
N Cu c to A (� r- to - 4 a) r--
Z. 1... NI OS g a)
a Us a CT rn CO CT o Cr) Cr o to o 4 8 c .�
it Q St y m o ~ o a o to ;.+
J c a`> m c a c o c _
y a a) Z J rn o o o C
` ) c m 3
r
ilk Co
c ErrC ) m a
CU a)
C v 01 C0m M O1 al N c a) J C a N (�
c f� r. t0 N N CO CO N A A 0 0 a o a) a N
gt a a m rn 01 rn ar m a 0) rn n d a CO a D to —
m to E a c o r
c o -
wir cr. co o U -
J no U c a
o rn •„.'.
o ?R c CT) .c rn m u)
1.5 rn m (n a r;+
a to A 1+ r- to A 0 wit O rr11l m - co y a ' c r./)
a) al a, a, 0) 01 al 01 a) 01 £ >^
13 m 3 c• 0 m In
a, o 0 0 _.
I
t 0 0
tv 1/40 c CO .� �I
D ill m y m ' M tO O Jen 0) 5 C co S f0 C1
._ c a) Co co a) e O M rO O C1 O is �` a a
o O. O/ en 0 0 0 O C) V :a lA a CU w
O a, a) M o
To m M D .1..
i
y
co et w to
a " c
f"I c tz m a a)
a c Do c c o o0
V 4.C d C �O 7 O CO O 0 r CO
D C
'O M O N CO CO CO al 00 N O I-. o ,- .-
00 t7 Co c
.G c CO CO r. rO 11') co c-4 f— co in f0 C t N
10 a a a)
≤ a
0 N ca
o
al te
O.
CU 0
Cn N C13 (U QIC J � � 7 yM
0) E ITS U fD • 03
G1 Q] e•.. CU
a. � al w o a� a [h .L..
'lee C
Ciiis c o A A .
J to o`
(T a O M or in co a) Cl 0) c O co O O
a C m m CO aD O O CO Co CO m p ►..1 0 0 f6~- U CO
c
ge ell op a. 01 0) 0) OCT 01 0 0 0, t(`0 1�..1S 0 m alp C it ?R Ql C 45
o
en
)�.I a)E •f y in
O J u ri• zi ii�il J C Ul
C O $, C N ii
,v L5
�i 6 o c v a to a m
CD
0 �..1
LHN O N M < h tO r+ m Q) as cm E4:2 C m o C 0 m aa)) 0 `
l •...r O Pnit V 5 a) a
U O (d O at Z
fif (/) ) L v' C a Z V '- t6
.: , > WILDROSE
' :\mit\I-U. IXcuIL1 t.\1I:L
Audit Division
Residential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 6 .1 %
$25K to $50K 22 .3%
$50Kto $100K 285 3.3%
$100K to $150K 1041 12 2%
$150K to $200K 1858 21 .7%
$200K to $300K 3200 37.4%
$300K to $500K 1912 22.4%
$500K to $750K 188 2 2%
$750K to $1 ,000K 29 .3%
Over $1 ,000K 13 .2%
Overall 8554 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 8554
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LT $25K I 1 .055 1 .016 1 .202 29.5%
$25K to $50K 1 .263 1 .018 .248 34,8%
$50K to $1001< 1 .065 1 .002 .161 22.0%
$100K to $150K .987 1 .001 .110 15.4%
$150K to $200K 977 1 .000 .081 11 .8%
$200K to $300K 975 1 000 .064 9.2%
$300K to $500K 960 1 .001 069 9.4%
$500K to $750K .924 1 .001 .098 13.6%
$750K to $1 ,000K .916 .997 .137 17.6%
Over $1 ,000K .935 .992 .133 19.4%
Overall .974 1 .011 .081 I 12.3%
201 5 Weld County Property Assessment Stuck' Page 42
WILDIO3E
.\I'I'M.V'u.I't UHty Ik'I LL:
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 1212 7949 92.9%
1213 1 .0%
1214 1 .0%
1214 2 .0%
1214 1 .0%
1215 108 1 .3%
1216 2 .0%
1217 1 .0%
1218 1 .0%
1220 33 .4%
1223 1 .0%
1225 14 .2%
1230 434 5.1 %
1979 1 .0%
2235 1 .0%
2746 3 .0%
9240 1 .0%
Overall 8554 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 8554
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page• 43
WILDI2SE
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1212 .974 1 .010 .082 12.4%
1213 1 .227 1 .000 .000 %
1214 1 .553 1 .000 .000 %
1214 .995 .997 .073 10.3%
1214 1 .651 1 .000 .000 %
1215 . 993 1 .010 .101 13.3%
1216 .868 1 .004 .013 1 .8%
1217 .990 1 .000 .000 %
1218 .976 1 .000 .000 %
1220 .973 1 .017 .098 15.2%
1223 .881 1 .000 .000 %
1225 .853 .971 .157 19.8%
1230 .974 1 .006 .054 9.6%
1979 .632 1 .000 .000 %
2235 1 .027 1 .000 .000 %
2746 .948 .976 .055 10.3%
9240 1 .182 1 .000 .000 %
Overall .974 1 .011 .081 12.3%
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 44
46. �11lILDRQ;�P
:1rrk :.n hruH:+w ::n
Audit Division
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent • M
AgeRec Over 100 188 2.2%
75 to 100 196 2 3%
50 to 75 579 6.8%
25 to 50 1201 14 .0%
5 to 25 4375 51 .1 %
5 or Newer 2015 23.6%
Overall 8554 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 8554
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
Over 100 976 1 034 .176 24. 4 %
75 to 100 967 1 .031 171 23. 5%
rn ♦ _ -,r n-,n A niln . n., . n . n.
:ask) LU fU t3fL t .Vl9 . I33 19. 1 iV
25 to 50 976 1 .025 .108 16.0%
5 to 25 979 1 .007 .070 10.0%
5 or Newer 963 1 004 .055 7. 7%
Overall 974 1 .011 .081 12.3%
MI5 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 45
at 1`'II.I)I , , :,T
Audit Division
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count : Percent
ImpSFRec LE 500 sf 8 I .1 %
500 to 1 ,000 sf 683 ' 8.0%
1 ,000 to 1 ,500 sf 2873 33.6%
1 ,500 to 2,000 sf 2642 30.9%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 1833 21 .4%
3,000 sf or Higher 515 6.0%
Overall 8554 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 8554
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
•
LE 500 sf .895 1 518 I 392 51 .3%
500 to 1 ,000 sf .958 1 024 131 19.6%
1 ,000 to 1 ,500 sf .975 1 009 078 11 .9%
1 ,500 to 2,000 sf .975 1 .009 070 10.5%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .976 1 .009 074 10.7%
3,000 sf or Higher 973 1 019 106 15.4%
Overall .974 1 011 I .081 12.3%
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 46
lipVER • .'E
.\I'Ix Vr\I I\I�IxIPk V l b
Audit Division
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent •
I.
QUALITY 1 175 2.0%
2 2111 24.7%
3 5646 66.0%
4 574 6.7%
5 40 .5%
6 7 .1 %
Overall 8553 100.0%
Excluded 1
'
Total 8554
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1 .954 1 1 .018 .176 23.0%
2 .975 1 018 .109 16.5%
3 .974 1 008 .067 9.9%
4 .972 1 .010 .083 11 ,2%
5 .990 1 .012 .088 11 .5%
6 1 .054 1 .018 .091 12,1 %
Overall .974 1 .011 .081 12.3%
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47
Audit Division
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION 1 9 .1 %
2 78 .9%
3 8451 98 8%
4 15 . 2%
Overall 8553 100.0%
Excluded 1
I Total 8554
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1 1 .046 1 .012 203 25.8%
2 .991 1 .064 163 25.3%
3 .974 1 .011 080 12.1 %
4 .962 .977 078 11 .7%
Overall .974 1 .011 081 12.3%
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 48
0 WILDI C .'E
:\rrr.a:V I.(ukHtlt\IIU
Audit Division
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary • I
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 10 4.3%
$25K to $50K 6 2.6% r
$50K to $100K 33 14.2%
$100K to $150K 41 17.7%
$150K to $200K 17 7.3%
$200K to $300K 27 11 .6%
$300K to $500K 31 13 4%
$500K to $750K 21 9 1 %
$750K to $1 ,000K ' 12 5 2% •
Over $1 ,000K 34 14.7%
Overall 232 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 232
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP
Group Coefficient of
variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
nnedian Uinerentiai Dispersion Centered
LT $25K 1 038 975 207 . 51 .2%
$25K to $50K 1 249 1 027 394 50 7%
$50K to $100K 998 1 001 .071 10.4%
$100K to $150K .984 992 .097 19.8%
$150K to $200K .990 1 014 150 41 .5%
$200K to $300K .999 1 .005 .060 11 .1 %
$300K to $500K .989 990 108 26.3%
$500K to $750K 1 007 1 013 123 42.7%
$750K to $1 ,000K 994 998 .036 8.9%
Over $1 ,000K .988 991 066 12.9%
Overall .995 1 027 106 27 1 %
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 49
WILDRQSE
11-7 Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 1718 1 .4%
2212 36 15.5%
2215 3 1 .3%
2220 19 8.2%
2221 2 .9%
2223 1 .4%
2225 2 .9%
2228 5 2.2%
2230 41 17.7%
2233 2 .9%
2235 37 15.9%
2245 61 26.3%
2718 1 .4%
2725 1 .4%
2901 1 .4%
2966 1 .4%
3049 1 .4%
3050 1 .4%
3212 4 1 .7%
3215 10 4.3%
9259 1 .4%
9279 1 .4%
Overall 232 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 232
•
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 50
41, \)rILDI ,
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median .
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1718 r .982 1 .000 I .000 .%
2212 .990 1 .022 .084 18.1 %
2215 .977 .978 .049 10.3% "
2220 .981 1 .075 .128 38.9%
2221 .752 .985 .231 32.7%
2223 1 .281 1 .000 .000 .%
2225 1 .149 1 .132 _130 18.4%
2228 1 .019 .865 .145 24.3%
2230 .998 1 .114 .172 47.1 %
2233 1 .020 1 .010 .015 2.1 %
2235 .998 .997 .035 8.5%
2245 .984 1 .001 . 131 23.4%
2718 1 .000 1 .000 .000 %
2725 1 .047 1 .000 .000 %
2901 .961 1 .000 .000 .%
2966 1 .000 1 .000 .000 96
fln . n .4 nr a + nnn � ��
3044 I .2 4 1 .uuu .uuu . 7b
3050 1 .091 1 .000 .000 %
3212 .997 .997 .020 4.1 %
3215 1 .000 1 .011 .018 3.5%
9259 .992 1 .000 .000 %
9279 .960 1 .000 .000 %
Overall .995 1 .027 106 27.1 %
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Y Page 51
0 WILDIC E
A Itk11+U hi V41'.klll 1.
Audit Division
Age
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
AgeRec Over 100 7 3.0%
75 to 100 19 8.2%
50 to 75 23 9.9%
25 to 50 62 26.7%
5 t 25 114 49.1 %
5 or Newer 7 3.0%
Overall 232 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 232
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
Over 100 1 .000 1 .019 h .052 7.5%
75 to 100 .976 1 134 .213 51 .3%
50 to 75 1 .003 1 .054 .050 7.8%
25 to 50 .998 1 019 076 22.4%
5 to 25 .993 1 .017 089 18.5%
5 or Newer .984 879 .600 95.8%
Overall .995 1 .027 .106 27.1 %
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 52
dik WILDROSE
pr AI k\la.l I\I'0111vk\ll l'
Audit Division
Improved Area
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent • I
ImpSFRec LE 500 sf 8 3.4%
500 to 1 ,000 sf 19 8.2%
1 ,000 to 1 ,500 sf 19 8.2% ,n
1 ,500 to 2,000 sf 23 9.9%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 36 15.5%
3,000 sf or Higher 127 54.7%
Overall 232 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 232
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LE 500 sf I .995 .991 055 I 9.6%
500 to 1 ,000 sf .975 1 .004 082 11 .4%
1 ,000 to 1 ,500 sf .982 1 031 154 24.9%
1 ,500 to 2,000 sf .990 1 .045 100 28.7%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .999 1 .067 156 35.8%
3,000 sf or Higher .995 1 .028 .093 27.0%
Overall .995 1 .027 106 27.1 %
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 53
WILDROSE
Audit Division
Improvement Quality
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
QUALITY 1 12 5.2%
2 23 9.9%
3 165 71 .1 %
4 31 13.4%
5 1 .4%
Overall 232 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 232
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT ! TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1 - .988 1 .140 .190 50.4%
2 .990 1 .047 . 103 16.1 %
3 .998 1 .014 .085 21 .7%
4 .984 1 .080 .183 44.7%
5 1 .244 1 .000 .000 %
Overall .995 1 .027 .106 27.1 %
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 54
WILDI .'E
:�I9'IL �C/URHI S U
Pwr Audit Division
Improvement Condition
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent •
CONDITION 2 10 4.3%
3 220 94.8%
4 2 .9%
Overall 232 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 232
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT / TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
2 .989 .951 120 17.2%
3 .995 1 .028 .106 27.6%
4 1 .008 1 .013 120 16.9%
Overall .995 1 .027 106 27.1 %
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 55
is xY.u-p.e.!
Audit Division
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT $25K 45 11 .7%
$25K to $50K 120 31 .2%
$50K to $100K 91 23.6%
$100K to $150K 47 12.2%
$150Kto $200K 26 6.8%
$200K to $300K 20 5.2%
$300K to $500K 23 6.0%
$500K to $750K 6 1 6%
$750K to $1 ,000K 1 .3%
Over $1 ,000K 6 1 .6%
Overall 385 100 0%
Excluded 0
Total 385
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND f VT ASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LT $25K 1 .111 1 .000 .193 26.3%
$25K to $50K 1 .001 1 .000 .145 21 .4%
$50K to $100K .947 1 006 146 20.4%
$100K to $150K .944 1 .001 .159 24.4%
$150K to $200K 1 .012 1 .003 _121 18.5%
$200K to $300K .932 1 .006 .146 25.0%
$300K to $500K .918 1 012 .147 19.6%
$500K to $750K .820 1 .000 .256 30.4%
$750K to $1 ,000K .702 1 .000 .000 %
Over $1 ,000K .922 .984 .074 8.7%
Overall 988 1 .072 .159 23.3%
2015 Statistical Report: WELD C'OUN'TY Page 56
WILD. II.
\rrk. L l�uuu�naui
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent • i
ABSTRLND 100 170 44.2%
200 14 3.6%
300 7 1 .8% .�
400 4 1 .0%
520 4 1 .0%
530 2 .5%
540 1 .3%
550 1 .3%
1112 149 38.7%
2112 10 2.6%
2120 4 1 .0%
2130 9 2.3%
2135 6 1 .6%
3115 2 .5%
9140 1 .3%
9159 1 .3%
Overall 385 100 0%
Excluded 0
Total 385
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 57
be W l l .1 )10Sk
Audit Division
Ratio Statistics for CURRI_ND IVTASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
100 I .995 1 .078 1 .153 23.0%
200 1 .007 1 .222 .278 35.8%
300 .900 1 .080 .179 26.8%
400 1 .010 .987 .077 16.1 %
520 .812 1 .009 .233 27.4%
530 .852 1 .108 .424 60.0%
540 1 .646 1 .000 .000 %
550 .984 1 .000 .000 %
1112 .986 1 .039 .138 20.5%
2112 .968 1 .067 .176 24,7%
2120 1 .327 .999 .080 11 .3%
2130 .934 .988 . 107 16,2%
2135 .959 1 .037 .198 32.4%
3115 .694 .887 .332 46.9%
9140 .602 1 .000 .000 %
9159 1 .229 1 .000 .000 %
Overall .988 4 1 .072 4 .159 23.3%
2015 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 58
Hello