HomeMy WebLinkAbout20142926.tiff I
I
I RECEIVED
I SEP 16 2014
cc WELD COUNTY
2 0 1 4 COMMISSIONERS
WELD COUNTY
PROPERTY ASSESSMENT
I STUDY
1 1 -- ,, ,
e.:. -,,s* ut
lY ilfrill, �� 3 , p .
. r---, • 1 — � I ,....„ ..1 _
�' ,Z-• '1.
e ,-,.T
. �1 -men,+ ---= 4
o F,I , . WIN r _,A. -a,* ,,Aiir . ._,,. ,,,,,Ar, . _ _Pri .1 _
. , _,...
,,_ tdri. '
rrillb74 will4- Foram- '
I . Er' z*.r ,...
• J sewrirw1 ;3Y
lir
'm4, _.' a.•# j 0 , a i I t: ' ;, x
I , tin_ • '"'• - Pli
IWILDKOSE
i ; .�,u11
Audit Division
I
2014-2926
I 9 - ,?.2-0?0l4 919
1
IlkWILD 'O.E
ArriodAAL I.coOL►awnTA
Audit Division
s -4 • 1
'
S�ptetnber 1 i'5, 2014
Mr. Mike Mauer
Director of Research
Colorado Legislative Council
Room 029, State Capitol Building
Denver, Colorado 80203
RE: Final Report for the 2014 Colorado Property Assessment Study '
Dear Mr. Mauer:
Wildrose Appraisal Inc.-Audit Division ispleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2014 Colorado
PP P
Property Assessment Study.
These pr
ocedural Y reports are the result of two anal A 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 4d Oka
Harry J. Fuller I
Project Manager
Wildrose Appraisal Inc. —Audit Division
WILDROSE
' 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 1 1
Agricultural Land 1 1
Agricultural Outbuildings 12
Agricultural Land Under Improvements 12
Sales Verification 13
' Economic Area Review and Evaluation 14
Natural Resources 1S
' Earth and Stone Products I S
Producing Oil and Gas 1}
Vacant Land 16
Possessory Interest Properties 17
Personal Property Audit 18
Wildrose Auditor Staff 20
' Appendices 21
1
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 2
I
ilkWILDRC�SE
APPRUILU.IWORFORATED
Audit Division I
INTRODUCTION
I
I
E Sell The procedural analysis includes all classes of
Ocinrrin
� property and specifically looks at how the I
assessor develops economic areas, confirms and
The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments. I
reviews The audit also examines the procedures for
assessments for conformance to the
adequately discovering, classifying and valuing
Constitution. The SBOE will order
agricultural outbuildings, discovering
revaluations for counties whose valuations do I
not reflect the proper valuation period level of subdivision build out and subdivision
discounting procedures. Valuation
value.
methodology for vacant land, improved I
The statutory basis for the audit is found in residential properties and commercial
C.R.S. 39-1-104(16)(a)(b)and(c). properties is examined. Procedures for
producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and I
The legislative council sets forth two criteria lands producing, producing coal mines,
producing earth and stone products, severed
that are the focus of the audit group: mineral interests and non-producing patented I
To determine whether each county assessor is mining claims are also reviewed.
applying correctly the constitutional and I
statutory provisions, compliance requirements Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land,
residential properties, commercial industrial
of the State Board of Equalization, and the
manuals properties, agricultural land, and personal
published by the State Property Tax
Administrator to arrive at the actual value of property. The statistical study results are I
compared with State Board of Equalization
each class of property.
compliance requirements and the manuals
published by the State Property Tax I
To determine if each assessor is applying
Administrator.
correctly the provisions of law to the actual
values when arriving at valuations for I
assessment of all locally valued properties Wildrose Audit has completed the Property
Assessment Study for 2014 and is pleased to
subject to the property tax. report its findings for Weld County in the
following report. I
The property assessment audit conducts a two-
part analysis: A procedural analysis and a
statistical analysis. I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study —Page 3 I
WILDRSE
N\N\I I\{,INNIN\1111
Audit Division
I REGIONAL / HISTORICAL SKETCH OF
WELD COUNTY
tAdams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield,
Regional Information
Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer,
I
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
I populated areas of the State that are just east
of the foothills of the Front Range. It includes
I .. Orli . • • , it ;
t 3 ••"d yP/iii.I
it
•
R,• ••-- ^ •r alii. ft-41..* ,3 ,, ,i i
I P l ',
1-; ..,I. ,.,,sr - ,TT ',It
111.
Ind ,"ii i,i'tit,p,, f,.1., I'I
,iu, [ i,�rL. _.
is
1 1-
1
I
T e O
•
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study - Page 4
1
IlkWILDROSE
Animus_IWORPONATVD
Audit Division I
Historical Information
Weld County has a population of The county seat is Greeley which began as the I
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 I
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 I
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 I
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 I
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 I
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 I
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. Vrain established Fort St. Vrain; Fort Colorado trading post. The Greeley I
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 I
Theatre of the Rockies is one of America's
premier college dramatic organizations.
(www.co.weld.co.us, www.wikipedia.org) I
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 5 I
WI I,DROSE
IAudit Division
0
i RATIO ANALYSIS
Methodology latter measures, but were counseled if there
I All significant classes of properties were were anomalies noted during our analysis.
Qualified sales were based on the qualification
analyzed. Sales were collected for each
property class over the appropriate sale period, code used by each county, which were typically
I which was typically defined as the 18-month coded as either "Q" or "C." The ratio analysis
included all sales. The data was trimmed for
period between January 2011 and June 2012.
Counties with less than 30 sales typically
counties with obvious outliers using IAAO
I
extended the sale period back up to 5 years standards for data analysis. In every case, we
examined the loss in data from trimming to
prior to June 30, 2012 in 6-month increments.
there were still fewer than 30 sales,
supplemental appraisals were performed and ensure that only true outliers were excluded.
Ill
Any county with a significant portion of sales
treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for all excluded by this trimming method was
I
counties using this method totaled at least 30
per county. For commercial sales, the total examined further. No county was allowed to
pass the audit if'more than S/o of the sales were
"lost" because of trimming. For the largest 11
number analyzed was allowed, in some cases,
I to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity issues for counties requiring vacant land counties, the residential ratio statistics were
broken down by economic area as well.
analysis or condominium analysis. Although it Conclusions
I 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:
I
related differential for each class of property.
Counties were not passed or failed by these
IALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID
Unweighted Coefficient of
Property Class Median Ratio Dispersion
I
Commercial/Industrial Between-95-1.05 Less than 20.99
Condominium Between.95-1.05 Less than 15.99
I Single Family Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99
Vacant Land Between .95-1.05 Lcss than 20.99
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 6
IlkWILDRaSE
+1W'll.\IAM.r\CnRM0.
Audit Division I
The results for Weld County are:
Weld County Ratio Grid I
Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient I
Qualified Median Related of Time Trend
Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis
Commercial/Industrial 165 1.000 1.031 8.2 Compliant I
Condominium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Single Family 5,608 0.977 1.019 10.3 Compliant.
Vacant Land 352 1.000 1.044 13.3 Compliant I
Ratio Slatislics for Cl1RRTOT I TASP I
Group Price Related Coefficient of
median Differential Dispersion
0 979 1013 088 I
976 1015 090
3 977 1011 076
4 991 1026 .124 I
5 970 1 008 .141
6 976 1 031 .159
7 974 1 015 .157 I
8 964 1 011 .127
9 975 1 018 .104 I
Condo 982 1016 093
Overall 977 1 019 103
I
After applying the above described SBOE, DPT, and Colorado State Statute I
methodologies, it is concluded from the sales valuation guidelines.
ratios that Weld County is in compliance with Recommendations
None I
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page 7 t
«-II.DISE
Is, Msi 111•
Audit Division
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION
Methodology trending adequately, and a further examination
is warranted. This validation methodology also
While we recommend that counties use the considers the number of sales and the length of
' inverted ratio regression analysis method to account for market (time) trending, some the sale period. Counties with few sales across
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
I
I
I
' 2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study -- Page ₹3
I
Willk ILDROSE
Audit Division I
SOLD / UNSOLD ANALYSIS
Methodology
was at least 1% of the total population of
unsold properties and excluded any sale
Weld County was tested for the equal properties. The unsold sample was filtered '
treatment of sold and unsold properties to based on the attributes of the sold dataset to
ensure that "sales chasing" has not occurred. closely correlate both groups. The ratio
The auditors employed a multi-step process to analysis was then performed on the unsold I
determine if sold and unsold properties were properties and stratified. The median and
valued in a consistent manner. mean ratio distribution was then compared
between the sold and unsold group. A non- '
All qualified residential and commercial class parametric test such as the Mann-Whitney test
properties were examined using the unit value for differences between independent samples
method, where the actual value per square foot was undertaken to determine whether any I
was compared between sold and unsold observed differential was significant. If this test
properties. A class was considered qualified if determined that the unsold properties were
it met the criteria for the ratio analysis. The treated in a manner similar to the sold
median value per square foot for both groups properties, it was concluded that no further
was compared from an appraisal and statistical testing was warranted and that the county was
perspective. If no significant difference was in compliance. I
indicated, then we concluded that no further
testing was warranted and that the county was If a class or sub class of property was
in compliance in terms of sold/unsold determined to be significantly different by this I
consistency. method, the final step was to perform a multi-
variate mass appraisal model that developed I
If either residential or commercial differences ratio statistics from the sold properties that
were significant using the unit value method, or were then applied to the unsold sample. This
if data limitations made the comparison invalid, test compared the measures of central tendency
then the next step was to perform a ratio and confidence intervals for the sold propertiesI
analysis comparing the 2012 and 2014 actual with the unsold property sample. If this
values for each qualified class of property. All comparison was also determined to be
qualified vacant land classes were tested using significantly different, then the conclusion was I
this method. The sale property ratios were that the county had treated the unsold
arrayed using a range of 0.8 to 1.5, which properties in a different manner than sold I
theoretically excluded changes between years
properties.
that were due to other unrelated changes in the
property. These ratios were also stratified at These tests were supported by both tabular and
the appropriate level of analysis. Once the chart presentations, along with saved sold and
percent change was determined for each unsold sample files.
appropriate class and sub-class, the next step I
was to select the unsold sample. This sample
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 9 I
WILDROSE
.\I'1'M\1.11 ICI�MtKfN\111
Audit Division
Sold/Unsold Results
' Property Class Results
Commercial/Industrial Compliant
' Condominium N/A
Compliant
Family
Vacant Land Compliant
' Conclusions Recommendations
' After applying the above described None
methodologies, it is concluded that Weld
County is reasonably treating its sold and
Iunsold properties in the same manner.
I
1
1
1
' 2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page 10
I
ilkWILDRCISE
Audit Division I
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY
I
-
Acres By Subclass Value By Subclass
VW* 60,000,000 I
aax
t Flood 50,000,000 1
ttso:
40,000,000 iiiim___
{ 30,000,000 I
M1
4, t + , 20,000,000'Il* , ,
ryas ER Frm 10000000
I
48 64% 28.23x.
Sprinkler Flood Dry Farm Meadow Grazing Waste I
M•adow Hal Hay
I
Agricultural Land
I
County records were reviewed to determine (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3
major land categories such as irrigated farm, Chapter 5.) I
dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other Conclusions
lands. In addition, 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 I
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
rotations have been documented; typical properly applied. County yields compared I
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 I
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: I
been determined; the capitalization rate was
properly applied. Also, documentation was I
required for the valuation methods used and
any locally developed yields, carrying
capacities, and expenses. Records were also I
checked to ensure that the commodity prices
and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax
Administrator (PTA), were applied properly. I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page 11 I
WILDRO5E
AI'/'F', 1s.1rN1"t rN 111 I.
IAudit Division
I Weld County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid
Number County County WRA
Abstract Of Value Assessed Total
I
Code Land Class Acres Per Acre Total Value Value
171.00 18,359,681 18,501,359 Ratio
4107 Sprinkler 107,506 0.99
4117 Flood 232,225 226.00 52,493,528 52,829,152 0.99
1 4127 Dry Farm 564,344 22.00 12,213,013 12,229,551 1.00
4137 Meadow Hav 14,321 44.00 629,070 629,070 1.00
' 4147 Grazing 970,231 6.00 5,418,170 5,418,170 1.00
4167 Waste 105,893 2.00 184,844 184,844 1.00
Total/Avg 1,994,520 45.00 89,298,307 89,792,146 0.99
I
Recommendations
I None
Agricultural Outbuildings
I
I Methodology Conclusions
Data was collected and reviewed to determine Weld County has substantially complied with
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's the procedures provided by the Division of
I
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.74 Property Taxation for the valuation of
through 5.77 were being followed. agricultural outbuildings.
I Recommendations
None
IAgricultural Land Linder Improvements
I
Methodology Property Taxation for the valuation of land
I . under residential improvements that may or
Data was collected and reviewed to determine may not be integral to an agricultural
if the guidelines found in the Assessor's operation.
I
Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.19
and 5.20 were being followed. Recommendations
None
I Conclusions
Weld County has substantially complied with
the procedures provided by the Division of
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 12
1
ilkWILDRaSE
a .L I.cmrc,a
Audit Division I
SALES VERIFICATION
According to Colorado Revised Statutes: The assessor is required to use sales of real property
only in the valuation process.
A representative body of sales is required when I
considering the market approach to appraisal. (8)(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only
those sales which have been determined on an
(8) In any case in which sales prices of comparable individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real I
properties within any class or subclass are utilized property only or which have been adjusted on an
when considering the market approach to appraisal in individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real I
the determination of actual value of any taxable property only. (39-1-103, C.R.S.)
property, the following limitations and conditions
shall apply: Part of the Property Assessment Study is the I
sales verification analysis. WRA has used the
(a)(I) Use of the market approach shall require a above-cited statutes as a guide in our study of
representative body of sales, including sales by a the county's procedures and practices for I
lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and verifying sales.
appraisals shall r lect due consideration of the
degree of comparability of sales, including the extent WRA reviewed the sales verification I
of
similarities and dissimilarities among properties procedures in 2014 for Weld County. This
that are compared for assessment purposes. In order study was conducted by checking selected sales
to obtain a reasonable sample and to reduce sudden from the master sales list for the current I
price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 60
included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true sales listed as unqualified.
or typical sales price during the period spec f ed in I
section 39-1-104 (10.2). Sales of personal property All but two of the sales selected in the sample
exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 39-3- gave reasons that were clear and supportable.
102, 39-3-103, and 39-3-119 to 39-3-122 shall Two sales had insufficient reason for I
not be included in any such sample. disqualification.
Conclusions
(b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be I
coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as Weld County appears to be doing a good job of
screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103, verifying their sales. There are no
C.R.S.)
recommendations. I
Recommendations
None
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 13 I
WAl•IllILDR�SE
Audit Division
ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW AND
1
EVALUATION
' Methodology v identified homogeneous economic areas
comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each
Weld County has submitted a written narrative
describing the economic areas that make up the economic area defined is equally subject to a set
county's market areas. Weld County has also of economic forces that impact the value of the
properties within that geographic area and this
submitted a map illustrating these areas. Each
' has been adequately addressed. Each economic
of these narratives have been read and analyzed
area defined adequately delineates an area that
for logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps
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
1
' 2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 14
I
lakWILD ROSE
Audit Division I
NATURAL RESOURCES
Actual value determined-when. I
Earth and Stone Products (2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds
and lands producing oil or gas shall be I
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
Resource Valuation Procedures, the income and lands.
approach was applied to determine value for I
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 I
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 I
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 I
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 I
Conclusions any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or
any agency thereof, or any political subdivision
The County has applied the correct formulas I
and state guidelines to earth and stone of the state as royalty during the preceding
calendar year;
production. (b) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the
Recommendations same field area for oil or gas transported from I
None the premises which is not sold during the
preceding calendar year, after excluding the I
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 u
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. I
Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources Conclusions
STATUTORY REFERENCES The county applied approved appraisal I
procedures in the valuation of oil and gas.
Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifies that
producing oil or gas leaseholds and lands are Recommendations
valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S. None I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 15 1
1
01 K I RK�E
�I'I'V•.. I ...M Iv•N 1111
' Audit Division
VACANT LAND
1
Subdivision Discounting
1 Subdivisions were reviewed in 2014 in Weld rate per year calculated for the plat, the
County. The review showed that subdivisions absorption period was left unchanged.
were discounted pursuant to the Colorado Conclusions
1 Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 (14) and
by applying the recommended methodology in Weld County has implemented proper
ARL Vol 3, Chap 4. Subdivision Discounting in procedures to adequately estimate absorption
the intervening year was accomplished by reducing the absorption period b periods, discount rates, and lot values for
byone year. qualifying subdivisions.
Recommendations
I
In instances where the number of sales within None
an approved plat was less than the absorption
1
i
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page I6
WILDROSE
:%rrRutn.LL I.c,*Pc*1 If.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
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.
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
concession, contract, or other agreement. possessory interest properties. '
Recommendations
Weld County has been reviewed for their None
procedures and adherence to guidelines when ,
assessing and valuing agricultural and
I
1
1
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study—Page 17
WILDROSE
IAudit Division
0
PERSONAL PROPERTY AtIDIT
IWeld County was studied for its procedural
compliance with the personal property Weld County is compliant with the guidelines
I
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
I
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
I
table. Development Contacts
• Local Telephone Directories,
The personal property audit standards narrative Newspapers or Other Local
Imust 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
I
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.
I The county uses the Division of Property
Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from Taxation (DPT) recommended classification
I 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
I 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 population, WRA selected a sample of all property written audit plan and was current for
the 2014 valuation period. The number and
personal property schedules to determine listing of businesses audited was also submitted
I 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:
I 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
Isample 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
I
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
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 18
I
ipW.ILDRO6E
Audit Division I
• Non-filing Accounts - Best Information which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD
Available requirements. I
• Accounts close to the $7,000 actual
value exemption status Conclusions
• Accounts protested with substantial Weld County has employed adequate I
disagreement discovery, classification, documentation,
valuation, and auditing procedures for their I
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 I
Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements Recommendations
None
I
I
1
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page 19 I
API'I)'} �� SSE
I� IfINN�N\t{I
Audit Division
WILDROSE AUDITOR STAFF
1
1
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
' 2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study — Page 20
Wilk A ILDROSE
Audit Division I
APPENDICES
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Weld County Property Assessment Study— Page 21 I
WILDROSIF.
Audit Division
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT
' FOR WELD COUNTY
2014
' I. OVERVIEW
Weld County is an urban county located along Colorado's Front Range. The county has a total of
1 125,251 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county'assessor's office in 2014. The
following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:
80.000-
IReal Ptupcity Cia�s Distribution
60,000-
II
J
' tj 40,000-
74,795
20,000-
32,296
' 13.625
4,535
0 -
' Vacant Land Res Imp Comm-lnd Imp Other
PIP*
' The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and
1112) accounted for 80.4%of all vacant land parcels.
' For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 92.0%of all residential
properties.
' Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in
comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 3.6%of all such properties in this
county.
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 22
WILDRQQE
Audit Division
II.DATA FILES
The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2014 Colorado Property
Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Weld Assessor's Office in April 2014. The data
included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor. ,
III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS
There were 5,608 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period prior to June 30,
2012. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
1
1
1
1
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 23
I
dik W lLDRa,1
Audit Division
ICase Processing Summary
ICountECONAREA 0 Percent
571 10.2%
2 1658 29.6%
I 3 1415 25.3%
4 328 5 9%
70 1.2%
Is
6 1099 19 6%
7 25 4%
' 8 27 5%
9 167 3 0%
Condo 241 4.3%
IOverall 5601 100 0%
Excluded 0
Total 5601
I Group Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP
Price Related Coefficient of
Median Differential Dispersion
I
0 .979 1.013 .088
2 976 1015 090
3 .977 1 011 .076
I4 991 1 026 .124
5 970 1008 141
I
6 976 1 031 159
7 974 1.015 .157
8 964 1 01 1 127
I9 .975 1 018 .104
Condo .982 1 016 093
I
Overall .977 1 019 103
the above ratio statistics were in compliance with the standards set forth by the Colorado State Board
of Equalization (SBOE) fir the overall residential sales. The following graphs describe further the sales
' ratio distribution for these properties:
III
I
I
2014 Stati>tical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 24
ilkWILDRO6E
Audit Division
1200— Mess-t 00
Sid Der .0148
N•5,601
1.000-
800-
14.
V ,
C
•
r 600-
u_
400-
0
0 DO 050 100 150 '00 :50
salesratio
2.50 Residential Sale Price by Sales Ratio
2.00 1 '
t
1.50
•
•
J1•
M •
•
N • •
1.00
• • •
0.50
0.00
SO 51,000,000 52,000,000 53,000.000 54,000,000 S5,000.000
TASP
The above graphs indicate that the distribution of the sale ratios was within state mandated limits. '
Residential Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the residential dataset using the 18-month sale period for any residual market
trending and broken down by economic area, as follows:
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 25
«'ILllROSli
Audit Division
I
I
Coefficientsa
ECONAREA Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
I
B Std Error Beta t Sig
0 1 (Constant) 977 009 112 622 000
SalePeriod 002 001 082 1 953 _051
I 2 1 (Constant) 976 006 177 185 000
SalePeriod 002 001 093 3 817 000
3 1 (Constant) 967 005 204 763 .000
I
SalePeriod .001 131 4 948 000
4 1 (Constant) 976 019 52170 000
SalePeriod 004 .002 .106 1 928 055
I 5 1 (Constant) 945 040 23 446 000
SalePeriod 005 004 151 1 257 213
6 1 (Constant) 956 012 80159 000
I
SalePeriod 007 001 174 5 856 000
7 1 (Constant) 985 .074 13 241 000
SalePeriod -.002 008 -040 - 191 850
I 8 1 (Constant) 907 054 16 889 000
SalePeriod 001 006 044 222 826
9 1 (Constant) 966 023 42 940 000
I SalePenod 002 .002 068 881 380
Condo 1 (Constant) 986 015 66 953 .000
SalePeriod 003 001 127 1977 049
,.' a Dependent Variable salesratio
I There was no residual market trending present in the sale ratio data for any of the economic areas.
While four economic areas had statistically significant results, the magnitude of each trend was not
significant: we therefi>re concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the
Ivaluation of residential properties.
I
I
I
I
I0111 -'i,nlistical Rcpi)r1: %VIM(.()11NI'i• I'ag 26
fib WILDR06E I
Audit Division
I 1
Sold/Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the I
median actual value per square foot for 2014 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a
whole and broken down by economic area, as follows: I
Median Mean
Group
SPSF SPSF I
Unsold 68,513 $101 $101
Sold 5,595 s110 1 o S 11 1
Median Mean I
ECONAREA Group N SPSF SPSF
'
0 Unsold 5,402 S112 $l 13 I
Sold 570 S115 $115
? Unsold 18,346 - $116 $117 I
Sold 1,655 $122 $124
3 Unsold 13,535 $114 811S
•
Sold 1,415 $118 $120 I
1 Unsold 5,588 $76 S77
Sold 327 $87 S88
5 Unsold 1,248 $65 \70
Sold 70 579 $81
6 Unsold 17,185 $87 $85
Sold 1,098 $93 $90 I
7 Unsold 751 $48 $62
Sold 25 557 $64 I
8 Unsold 607 $60 $66
Sold 27 $67 $73
9 Unsold 2,255 $106 $102 I
Sold 167 5116 s110
Condo Unsold 3,596 $80 s77
Sold 241 $84 $88 I
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent
manner. I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 27 I
WILDROSE
Audit Division
IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS
There were 165 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period prior to June 30,
2012. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median 1.000
Price Related Differential 1.031
1 Coefficient of Dispersion .082
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:
5a mean•1 01
Sid 0ev •a 127
N•165
' 40
T
30
Q
U-
=0
1 10
U 0
salesratio
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 28
WILDRCSE I
m�u .....,,,.
Audit Division
Commercial Sale Price by Sales Ratio I
15- X
x x
)11
1.25- Ixx I
x
7�` x I
x
1• ' ~ ~x ell
x
wx
'" Aix
1
xx x
>s x
0.75- x x
S x
I
X
0.5- I
I
i I I I r
SO 52,500,000 55,000,000 17500.000 110,000,000 112500,000 I
TASP
Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis I
The 165 commercial/industrial sales were next analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 month
sale period with the following results: I
Coefficients'
Model Standardized I
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant 1.016 016 61.770 .000
SalePeriod -.001 .002 -.037 -.479 633
a.Dependent Variable:salesratio
I
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 29 I
IWILDRO`W
lik
Audit Division
I
Commercial Market Trend Analysis
'Sr +
+ .4-
+ +
+ +
$� + +
+ + + + +
? +
+ 4. + + + + + +
I1flt.!. .! !
+
05-I T r 1 7 1
0 5 10 15 20
SalePoriod
IThere was no residual market trending p resent in the commercial sale ratios. We concluded that the
assessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the vacant land valuation.
ISold/Unsold Analysis
IWe compared the median actual value per square foot for 2014 between sold and unsold groups to
determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as follows:
I Group No. Props Median Mean
Val/SF Val/SF
Unsold 4,064 558 S75
ISold 164 565 S77
The above results indicated that sold and unsold vacant land properties were valued consistently.
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 30
WILDIIO6E
Audit Division
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS
There were 352 qualified residential sales that occurred in the 18 month sale period prior to June 30,
2012. The sales ratio analysis results were as follows:
Median 1.000
Price Related Differential 1.044
Coefficient of Dispersion .13 3 '
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:
150- Mew r103
Std Der -0 239
N-352
i
100^ '
•
J
Cr J
50-
1 0 05 1 15 2 25
SalfasRatlo
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 31
IWILDROSE
Audit Division
1
2.5- Vacant Land Sale Price by Sales Ratio
I x
2- x
I aw
I
0 1.5-
A Alt
ce x
x<
•
a
N
1 ppe x M ~ X X
x x
I
0.5- )
1
0-
r r r I I I
SO $500,000 $1,000,000 (1,500,000 $2,000,000 $2,500,000 $3,000,000
VTASP
I The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state
mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.
IVacant Land Market Trend Analysis
We next analyzed the 352 vacant land dataset using the 18-month sale period, with the following
I
results:
ICoeflicientsa
Model Standardized
Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients
I
B Std Error Beta t Sig.
1 (Constant) 1 055 021 49 244 000
VSalePeriod - 004 002 - 083 -1 561 119
Ia. Dependent Variable SalesRatio
I
I
I
I
2(114 Statistical Report: WELD COLIN FY Page 32
W ILDROSE I
Audit Division
0
25-
Vacant Land Sales Market Trend Analysis I
+
+
+ + + I
+ +
* + + +
+ + *
015, + + + + I
r" $ *
+ + + + + + + +
4 T + y+1-•••It+1•t•t•*-1—$4.3•t—rt•f•t•+ * + # + + + i
+ • + + + + $ * * + +
+ I
05- + +
0- 1
1 1 T 1 1
0 5 10 15 20
VSal.Poriod I
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. I
Sold/Unsold Analysis
In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the I
median change in value from 2012 to 2014 between each group. We stratified the vacant land
properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall I
comparison results:
Subdivno Group No. Median >�., ..:: I
1 0 1;11.. Unsold 9.919 0.9649 0.9051
Sold 327 0.7692 0.8542
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently. I
V. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS I
The final statistical verification concerned the assigned actual values for agricultural residential
improvements. We compared the 2014 median improved value per square foot for this group and I
compared it to the 2014 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:
I
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 33 I
0 \VI1.1)1 Q E
Audit Division
IDescriptives
ABSTRIMP Statistic Std Error
I ImpVaISF SFR Mean $388 55 $24 003
95%Confidence Interval for Lower Bound 5341 50
Mean Upper Bound 5435.60
I
5%,Trimmed Mean $83 02
Median CID
Variance 3.966E7
I Std Deviation 56.297 514
Minimum SO
Maximum 5375 825
IRange 5375.825
Interquartile Range 536
Skewness 24 451 009
IKurtosis 716 421 019
Ag Mean 5708 67 $236 511
Res 95%Confidence Interval for Lower Bound $244 65
I
Mean Upper Bound 51.172 70
5%Trimmed Mean S82 25
I Median
Variance 6.623E7
Std Deviation 58,138 167
I Minimum 50
Maximum 5159,198
Range $159 198
I nterquartile
Range $51
14
Skewness 727 .071
Kurtosis 233 956 142
I
VI. CONCLUSIONS
IBased on this 2014 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial and vacant land properties were
found to he in compliance with state guidelines.
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 34
I
I u,
0.0
Sc c c ga �4 H E
o8 wm — w e �f m
- - - € m m
I $g e n etr m n r x> ^ U> U k
Si c8 ," n o ., m ;r R m U $
tb =i Ea = LE: C
V' V * SD O 4, 8
mw C O
r a oI € m o €
a` � o ew a a A
pa oG n
�o 2
<°E b z o 0
t iw c `c fp t - o
I
It
- o 0 0 o 0 o c o o b C'ii c it o
M.-
ti. a c
fifi�
` _ 5...
v c o g 0 O
I
'OW_
a _ ' Q ^ m a ' E c o m _
J is
2 � � -.7. � m
m �2t 6 m Eo a
S I to m o� 7
^i i ° °'� £ cm u
0 op v a so maaI ; a s €d m 5
_ m
b Sa ai € s .� m
�; m' O; m c m
a £ „ c
S 4
N J A
J
0
p o. a m m m w m a a a C. a g Z
S S $ ppp5 _as a ..
W C �+ I O �ii. I
G 3 e • ! aa � # � rE u D
I Q"c I zAffi' xma ; sgeIg € A * .-
. E m [Sl
a g p nx •fix : = a- a T.
I t i ii - Dig ! 1 4g
I : E ; : ; : t
a.
`0,�1
q v a Fj U c g ....
3 a c S ocr
m T C
e O
k � av & oaolS2 $ s 1 g I e ^1
J 5
▪ m
I Q v_c a a a w -
o g e s 2 0 _
g E Z I E' Z n t m o
m ▪ m do a Ei me n
l f• 1 i C eZ ce fiob_n
J b n a _ €� j p 4'O �.y ti
C e
m a m O P G U m Z C "�./ m ' ��
U co ^ - -- - F e ro d 3 `�
r r t_
06 •L ;IA n'" m a
pL'� ' erg
� o U a CIA .1 C dsi
V V q ^ m C
•3JJJ ►�1 ^ e �y.
\'VILL'IE
�I'I'k�I-�I I ���klr�k 1;1 I
IAudit Division
IResidential Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
ICase Processing Summary
Count Percent
ISPRec LT$25K 7 1%
$25K to$50K 83 1.5%
$50K to$100K 631 11.3%
I $100K to$150K 1259 22.5%
$150K to$200K 1 397 24.9%
I $200K to$300K 1533 27 4%
$300K to$500K 615 11.0%
$500K to$750K 64 1 1%
I $750K to$1,000K 7 1%
Over$t,000K 5 .1%
Overall 5601 100.0%
I
Excluded 0
Total 5601
IRatio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
Group Coefficient of
I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LT$25K 1 340 961 .217 I 27 2%
I $25K to$50K 1.217 1 001 .194 24 5%
$50K to$100K 1 066 1 006 162 20.9%
I $100K to$150K 981 1 001 .1 1 7 15.6%
$150K to $200K 982 1 000 082 11 7%
$200K to$300K 968 1 001 072 9 8%
I $300K to$500K 949 1 001 076 10 4%
8500K to 8750K 934 1 001 097 14 1%
$750K to$1,000K 820 997 088 116%
I
Over$1,000K 911 978 083 12.0%
Overall 977 1 019 .103 15.2%
I
I
I
20I4 Weld County Property Assessment Study Page 36
WILDROSE I
Audit Division
Subclass
Case Processing Summary I
Count Percent
ABSTRIMP 0 1 .0%
600 2 .0% I
1212 5262 93.9%
1214 2 .0%
1214 1 .0% ,
1215 62 1.1%
1220 24 .4%
1225 1 .0% I
1230 241 4.3%
1880 1 0% I
1979 1 .0%
2212 1 0%
9250 2 0% I
Overall 5601 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 5601 I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP
Group Coefficient of I
variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
0 .440 1.000 .000 .% I
600 .806 1.219 .389 55.0%
1212 .978 1.019 .103 15.2% I
1214 .967 .998 .060 8.4%
1214 .763 1.000 .000 .%
1 215 .950 1.018 .127 17.3% I
1220 1.004 1.042 .126 22.7%
1225 1.000 1.000 .000 .%
1230 .982 1.016 .093 13 1' , I
1880 1.900 1.000 .000 .%
1979 .622 1.000 .000 .%
2212 .878 1 000 .000 .% I
9250 1.038 1.006 .027 3.8%
Overall .977 1.019 .103 15.2% I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 37 I
Mk \VILDI E
Plikur Audit Division
I
Age
Case Processing Summary
I
Count Percent
AgeRec 00 1 0%
I Over 100 133 2.4%
75 to 100 134 2 4%
50 to 75 327 5 8%
I25 to 50 865 15.4%
5 to 25 2900 51 8%
I Overall 5 or Newer 1241 22 2%
5601 100.0%
Excluded 0
I
Total 5601
I Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT f TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
I Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
.00 .440 1.000 .000 .%
I Over 100 .970 1.055 210 28.3%
75 to 100 972 1 039 209 28.8%
50 to 75 976 1.038 169 22.8%
I25 to 50 .978 1 027 147 20.6%
5 to 25 .981 1 016 092 12.5%
I 5 or Newer 972 1 005 058 8.3%
Overall 977 1 019 103 15.2%
I
I
I
t2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Patio 38
WILDRCE
Audit Division
Improved Area I
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent I
ImpSFRec .00 1 .0%
LE500sf 3 .1% I
500 to 1,000 sf 494 8.8%
1,000 to 1,500 sf 1953 34.9% t
1,500 to 2,000 sf 1643 29.3%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 1163 20.8%
3,000 sf or Higher 344 6.1% 1
Overall 5601 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 5601 I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median I
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
.00 .440 1.000 .000 .%
LE 500 sf 1.057 .961 .159 28.5% I
500 to 1,000 sf .956 1.047 .182 24.2%
1,000 to 1,500 sf .977 1.018 .106 15.4% I
1,500 to 2,000 sf .983 1.014 .085 12.7%
2,000 to 3,000 sf .974 1.013 .088 12.5%
3,000 sf or Higher .970 1.024 .118 18.4% I
Overall 977 1.019 .103 15.2%
I
I
I I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 39 I
\VILI)i SE
Audit Division
IImprovement Quality
Case Processing Summary
ICount Percent
QUALITY 1 0%
1 57 1.0%
2 1516 271%
3 3598 64 2%
I4 386 6.9%
5 33 6%
I 6 10 2%
Overall 5601 100.0%
Excluded 0
I
Total 5601 -
I Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT 1 TASP
Group Coefficient of
Variation
I Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
440 1 000 000 .%
Ii 964 1.043 233 32.8%
2 975 1 033 152 21.2%
3 979 1.013 .083 11.7%
I4 975 1.017 088 12.5%
5 968 1 009 075 11.3%
I 6 1 005 1 032 135 17.0%
Overall 977 1.019 .103 15.2%
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 40
di WILDRosE I
Audit Division I
Improvement Condition I
Case Processing Summary
y I
Count Percent
CONDITION 1 .0%
1 15 .3% I
2 37 .7%
3 5537 98.9% I
4 11 .2%
Overall 5601 100.0%
Excluded 0 I
Total 5601
Rano Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
.440 1.000 .000 .% I
1 .995 .968 .208 34.7%
2 1.147 1.035 .180 25.6% I
3 .977 1.018 .102 14.9%
4 1.008 1.051 .140 19.9%
Overall .977 1.019 .103 15.2% I
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 41 I
IWILDI E
0 Audit Division
ICommercial Median Ratio Stratification
Sale Price
I
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT$25K 4 2.4%
$25Kto$50K 3 1.8%
$50Kto$1 00K 45 27 3%
I $100K to$150K 22 13.3%
$150K to$200K 10 6.1%
I $200K to$300K 17 10 3%
$300K t0$500K 12 7.3%
$500K to$750K 17 10.3%
I $750K to$1,000K 11 6.7%
Over$1.000K 24 14.5%
Overall 165 100.0%
'
Excluded 0
Total 165
I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT i TASP
Group Coefficient of
I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
I LT$25K 1 004 985 099 16 5%
$25Kto$50K 1 357 978 122 213%
$50K to$100K 1 011 1 000 068 9.2% I
I
$100K to$150K 1 012 992 090 12 9%
$150K to$200K 1 003 1 002 132 21 9%
$200K to$300K 995 1 002 061 8.6%
I $300K to$500K 1.004 1 000 043 6 9%
$500K to$750K 998 1 003 056 8.5%
I $750K to$1,000K 1 013 1 001 079 12.4%
Over$1.000K 959 983 088 15 9%
Overall 1 000 1 031 082 12 7%
I, 1
I
I
t2(114 Statistical Relx,rl: WELD C)UNTI Page 42
I
WILDRO6E
Plikir Audit Division I
Subclass I
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent I
ABSTRIMP 1212 1 6%
2108 1 6% I
2122 1 6%
2212 28 17.0%
2215 1 6% I
2220 12 7 3%
2224 2 1.2% I
2225 2 1.2%
2228 3 1.8%
2229 1 6% I
2230 33 20.0%
2231 1 6% I
2233 2 1 2%
2235 10 6.1%
2245 51 30 9% I
2723 1 6%
2725 1 .6% I
3212 2 1 2%
3215 10 61%
9249 1 6% 1
9259 1 6%
Overall 165 100 0% I
Excluded 0
Total 165
I
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report:WELD COUNTY Page 43 I
1 ,
" P! . I;I 11 .Audit Division
I
F
IRatio Statistics for CURRTOT i TASP
Group Coefficient of I
Variation
I Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1212 1 034 1000 000 .%
I2108 1120 1 000 000 .%
2122 735 1.000 .000 %
I 2212 1 008 1 113 103 16.7%
2215 1 000 1 000 000 %
2220 1.012 1.043 067 10.5%
I2224 968 995 017 2.4%
2225 986 1 004 029 4 1%
I 2228 .991 1 006 .011 1 9%
2229 923 1 000 000 %
2230 988 1 038 066 10.8%
1 2231 968 1 000 000 .%
2233 993 1 000 005 .8%
I
2235 996 906 104 18 2%
2245 1.012 1.000 .089 1 2 5%
2723 1176 1000 000 %
I2725 938 1 000 000 .%
3212 951 953 .052 7 3%
I
3215 972 982 056 8 4%
9249 1 277 1 000 000 %
9259 1.008 1 000 000 .%
IOverall 1 000 1 031 082 12.7%
I
I
I
I
2011 Statistical Report: %V III) COUNTY rage 4-4
I
Mk WILL R E
Audit Division
Age I
Case Processing Summary I
C ount Percent
AgeRec Over 100 10 6.1%
75 to 100 8 4.8% I
50 to 75 13 7.9%
25 to 50 28 17.0%
5 to 25 82 49.7% Ill
5 or Newer 24 14.5%
Overall 165 100.0% I
Excluded 0
Total ` 165 I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT/TASP
Group Coefficient of I
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median I
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
Over 100 1.009 1.000 .038 5.5%
75 to 100 1.024 1.031 088 14.8% I
50 to 75 .968 1.039 .040 5.9%
25 to 50 1.001 1.016 .067 10.6%
5 to 25 1.004 1.046 .091 14.4% I
5 or Newer .978 .981 .096 12.7%
Overall 1.000 1.031 082 12.7%
I
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 45
IlkWILDR&51:
Audit Division
IImproved Area
Case Processing Summary
ICount Percent
ImpSFRec LE 500 sf 3 1 8%
I 500 to 1,000 sf 21 12.7%
1,000 to 1,500 sf 23 13.9%
1,500 to 2,000 sf 16 9.7%
I
2,000 to 3,000 sf 19 11.5%
3,000 sf or Higher 83 50.3%
I Overall 165 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 165
I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
I Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
ILE500sf 1003 1 016 018 37%
500 to 1,000 sf 1 007 1 014 .107 14.9%
I 1,000 to 1,500 sf 1 007 991 075 11.3%
1,500 to 2,000 sf 1 006 1 012 077 11.7%
2,000 to 3,000 sf 987 1 009 073 13.6%
I3,000 sf or Higher 998 1 034 .082 13.1%
Overall 1 000 1 031 082 12.7%
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Si iiki cal Rcl)lirt: MID COUNTY Page 46
WILDRQSE
Audit Division
Improvement Quality I
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent I
QUALITY 2 1.2%
1 7 4.2% I
2 12 7.3%
3 119 72.1%
' 4 25 15.2% I
Overall 165 100.0%
Excluded 0 I
Total 165
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation I
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
.971 .984 ' .021 3.0%
1 .985 .977 .061 10.5% I
2 1.037 .923 .119 17.4%
3 1.000 1.025 .077 11.5% I
4 1.008 1.062 .091 15.6%
Overall 1.000 1.031 .082 12.7%
I
I
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 47 I
,'[L1)R
I ,
• \ 1•:
Audit Division
IImprovement Condition
I Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
CONDITION _ 5 3 0%
II .„ 158 95.8%
4 2 1 2%
I Overall 165 100 0%
Excluded 0
Total 165
I
Ratio Statistics for CURRTOT I TASP
I
Group Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
U Median Differential Dispersion Centered
1 001 989 126 21.5%
1 000 1 031 081 12.5%
I4 988 1.008 024 3.4%
Overall 1 000 1 031 082 12.7%
I
, I
I ,
, 1
I
II
I
I1.11.1,si;ii i,i ii al Report: WELD COUNTY l',)<!4' .i8
YVILDROSE
Audit Division
1
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification I
Sale Price
Case Processing Summary
Count Percent
SPRec LT 525K 75 21.3% I
i25K to S50K 137 38.9%
550K to 5100K 83 23.6%
$100K to$150K 24 6.8% I
5150K to 5200K 10 2.8%
5200K to 5300K 7 2.0% I
5300K to 5500K 8 2.3%
$500K to$750K 4 1.1%
5750K to 51,000K 1 .3% I
Over$1,000K 3 .9%
Overall 352 100.0%
Excluded 0 I
Total 352
Rtatio Statistics for CURRLND'WASP I
Group Coefficient of
Variation I
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
LT i25K 1 020 1.025 201 34.5%
525K to 550K 1.000 1.007 124 21.0% I
550K to 5100K 1 000 1 006 102 20.6%
$100K to 5150K .937 .990 .130 18.0% I
$150K to 5200K .997 1.002 122 17.2%
5200K to 5300K .933 1 003 089 14.0%
HOOK to 5500K .994 1 001 055 9.1% I
$500K to 5750K .989 999 016 2.2%
5750K to 51,000K 1.000 1 000 000 .%
Over 51,000K .967 1.001 .012 2.4% I
Overall 1.000 1.044 133 24.0%
I
I
I
2014 Statistical Report: WELD COUNTY Page 49 I
• \V 11.1)1 D 1.
Audit Division
ISubclass
Case Processing Summary
1 _ount Percent
ABSTRLND 100 78 22 2%
I
200 12 3 4%
300 5 1 4%
400 4 1 1%
I 520 1 3%
1112 238 67 6%
2112 7 20%
II 2120 1 3%
2130 2 6%
I 2135 2 6%
3115 1 3%
9179 1 3%
I Overall 352 100.0%
Excluded 0
Total 352
I
Ratio Statistics for CURRLND i VTASP
I riup
Coefficient of
Variation
Price Related Coefficient of Median
Median Differential Dispersion Centered
iii 1011 1092 191 331%
200 999 982 091 13 9%
300 944 964 132 20 4%
I400 999 1 027 134 26 7%
520 1 377 1 000 000 .%
I
1112 1000 1.025 119 212%
2112 1 000 1 009 023 4 0%
2120 786 1 000 000 %
I
2130 983 1 010 017 2 4%
2135 892 989 085 12.0%
3115 929 1 000 000 .%
I
9179 997 1 000 000 %
Overall 1 000 1 044 133 24 0"k,
I
1
I
2014 Statistical Report: WEI.D COUNTY l'age 50
Hello