2011 JEFFERSON PROPERTY ASSESSMENT STUDY

September 15, 2011

Mr. Mike Mauer Director of Research Legislative Council Room 029, State Capitol Building , Colorado 80203

RE: Final Report for the 2011 Colorado Property Assessment Study

Dear Mr. Mauer:

Wildrose Appraisal Inc.-Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2011 Colorado Property Assessment Study.

These reports are the result of two analyses: A procedural audit and a statistical audit.

The procedural audit examines all classes of property. It specifically looks at how the assessor develops economic areas, confirms and qualifies sales, develops time adjustments and performs periodic physical property inspections. The audit reviews the procedures for determining subdivision absorption and subdivision discounting. Valuation methodology is examined for residential properties and commercial properties. Procedures are reviewed for producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and lands producing, producing coal mines, producing earth and stone products, severed mineral interests, and non- producing patented mining claims.

Statistical audits are performed on vacant land, residential properties, commercial/industrial properties and agricultural land. A statistical analysis is performed for personal property compliance on the eleven largest counties: Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Pueblo and Weld. The remaining counties receive a personal property procedural study.

Wildrose Appraisal Inc. – Audit Division appreciates the opportunity to be of service to the State of Colorado. Please contact us with any questions or concerns.

Harry J. Fuller Project Manager Wildrose Appraisal Inc. – Audit Division

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

Introduction ...... 3 Regional/Historical Sketch of Jefferson County ...... 4 Ratio Analysis...... 6 Random Deed Analysis ...... 7 Time Trending Verification...... 8 Sold/Unsold Analysis ...... 9 Agricultural Land Study ...... 11 Agricultural Land ...... 11 Agricultural Outbuildings ...... 12 Sales Verification...... 13 Economic Area Review and Evaluation ...... 14 Natural Resources ...... 15 Earth and Stone Products ...... 15 Vacant Land...... 16 Possessory Interest Properties ...... 17 Personal Property Audit...... 18 Wildrose Auditor Staff...... 20 Appendices...... 21

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 2

I NTRODUCTION

The procedural analysis includes all classes of property and specifically looks at how the assessor develops economic areas, confirms and

qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments. The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) The audit also examines the procedures for reviews assessments for conformance to the 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

applying correctly the constitutional and Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land, statutory provisions, compliance requirements residential properties, commercial industrial of the State Board of Equalization, and the properties, agricultural land, and personal manuals 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 2011 and is pleased to subject to the property tax. report its findings for Jefferson County in the

following report. The property assessment audit conducts a two- part analysis: A procedural analysis and a statistical analysis.

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 3

R EGIONAL/HISTORICAL S KETCH OF J EFFERSON C OUNTY

Regional Information Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Jefferson 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

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 4

Historical Information Jefferson County has a population of county seat of Jefferson County. Robert approximately 534,543 people with 692.41 Williamson Steele, Governor of the Provisional people per square mile, according to the U.S. Government of the Territory of Jefferson from Census Bureau's 2010 census data. This 1859 to 1861, built his home in the county at represents a 1.42 percent change from the Mount Vernon and later at Apex. 2000 Census. The Jefferson Territory never received federal Jefferson County is one of the seventeen sanction, but during his last week in office, original territorial counties. On August 25, President signed an act which 1855, the Territorial Legislature organized the Territory of Colorado on created Arapahoe County to govern the entire February 28, 1861. That November 1, the new western portion of the territory. The county Colorado General Assembly organized the 17 was named for the Arapaho Nation of Native original counties of Colorado, including a new Americans that lived in the region. Jefferson County. In 1908, the southern tip of Jefferson County was transferred to Park In July 1858, gold was discovered along the County, reducing Jefferson County to its South Platte River in Arapahoe County (in present length of 54 miles. Several annexations present day Englewood). This discovery by the City & County of Denver and the 2001 precipitated the Pike's Peak Gold Rush. Many consolidation of the City & County of residents of the mining region felt disconnected Broomfield removed eastern portions of the from the remote territorial governments of county. Kansas and Nebraska, so they voted to form their own Territory of Jefferson on October A major employer in Jefferson County is the 24, 1959. The following month, the Jefferson large Coors Brewing Company in Golden. Territorial Legislature organized 12 counties Also, the state-supported Colorado School of for the new territory, including Jefferson Mines is located in Jefferson County, offering County. Jefferson County was named for the programs in mining and engineering. The namesake of the Jefferson Territory, Thomas county seat is Golden and the most populous Jefferson, the principal author of the city is Lakewood. Declaration of Independence and the nation's (www.wikipedia.org) third president. Golden City served as the

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 5

R ATIO A NALYSIS

Methodology latter measures, but were counseled if there All significant classes of properties were were anomalies noted during our analysis. 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 which was typically defined as the 18-month coded as either “Q” or “C.” The ratio analysis period between January 2009 and June 2010. included all sales. The data was trimmed for Counties with less than 30 sales typically counties with obvious outliers using IAAO extended the sale period back up to 5 years standards for data analysis. In every case, we prior to June 30, 2010 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 per county. For commercial sales, the total pass the audit if more than 5% of the sales were number analyzed was allowed, in some cases, “lost” because of trimming. For the largest 11 to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity counties, the residential ratio statistics were 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 Unweighted Coefficient of Property Class Median Ratio Dispersion Commercial/Industrial Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99 Condominium Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99 Single Family Between .95-1.05 Less than 15.99 Vacant Land Between .95-1.05 Less than 20.99

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 6

The results for Jefferson County are:

Jefferson County Ratio Grid Number of Unweighted Price Coefficient Qualified Median Related of Time Trend Property Class Sales Ratio Differential Dispersion Analysis Commercial/Industrial 129 0.968 1.115 18 Compliant Condominium N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Single Family 9,357 0.983 1.018 8.8 Compliant Vacant Land 205 0.997 1.204 16.6 Compliant

After applying the above described with SBOE, DPT, and Colorado State Statute methodologies, it is concluded from the sales valuation guidelines. ratios that Jefferson County is in compliance Recommendations None Random Deed Analysis

An additional analysis was performed as part of Conclusions the Ratio Analysis. Ten randomly selected deeds with documentary fees were obtained After comparing the list of randomly selected from the Clerk and Recorder. These deeds deeds with the Assessor’s database, Jefferson were for sales that occurred from January 1, County has accurately transferred sales data 2009 through June 30, 2010. These sales from the recorded deeds to the qualified or were then checked for inclusion on the unqualified database. Assessor’s qualified or unqualified database. Recommendations None

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 7

T IME T RENDING V ERIFICATION 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 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 Jefferson 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. the sale ratios for each class across the Jefferson County has also satisfactorily applied appropriate sale period. To be specific, if a the results of their time trending analysis to county has considered and adjusted correctly arrive at the 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

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 8

S OLD/UNSOLD A NALYSIS Methodology was at least 1% of the total population of unsold properties and excluded any sale Jefferson 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 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 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. 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 consistency. method, the final step was to perform a multi- variate mass appraisal model that developed 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 properties analysis comparing the 2010 and 2011 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 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 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 was to select the unsold sample. This sample

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 9

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 Jefferson County is reasonably treating its sold and unsold properties in the same manner.

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 10

A GRICULTURAL L AND S TUDY

Acres By Subclass Value By Subclass

Agricultural Land

County records were reviewed to determine and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax major land categories such as irrigated farm, Administrator (PTA), were applied properly. dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other (See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3 lands. In addition, county records were Chapter 5.) reviewed in order to determine if: Aerial Conclusions photographs are available and are being used; soil conservation guidelines have been used to An analysis of the agricultural land data classify lands based on productivity; crop indicates an acceptable appraisal of this rotations have been documented; typical property type. Directives, commodity prices commodities and yields have been determined; and expenses provided by the PTA were orchard lands have been properly classified and properly applied. County yields compared valued; expenses reflect a ten year average and favorably to those published by Colorado are typical landlord expenses; grazing lands Agricultural Statistics. Expenses used by the have been properly classified and valued; the county were allowable expenses and were in an number of acres in each class and subclass have acceptable range. Grazing lands carrying been determined; the capitalization rate was capacities were in an acceptable range. The properly applied. Also, documentation was data analyzed resulted in the following ratios: 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

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 11

Jefferson County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid Number County County WRA Abstract Of Value Assessed Total Code Land Class Acres Per Acre Total Value Value Ratio 4117 Flood 1,678 202.00 339,101 336,619 1.01 4127 Dry Farm 218 19.00 4,226 4,179 1.01 4137 Meadow Hay 2,286 48.00 109,833 109,833 1.00 4147 Grazing 58,522 13.00 766,748 766,748 1.00 4177 Forest 14,093 16.00 219,250 219,250 1.00 Total/Avg 76,797 19.00 1,439,157 1,436,629 1.00

Recommendations None

Agricultural Outbuildings

Methodology Conclusions Data was collected and reviewed to determine Jefferson County has substantially complied if the guidelines found in the Assessor’s with the procedures provided by the Division Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.74 of Property Taxation for the valuation of through 5.77 were being followed. agricultural outbuildings. Recommendations None

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 12

S ALES V ERIFICATION

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 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 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 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 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 lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and verifying sales. appraisals shall reflect due consideration of the degree of comparability of sales, including the extent WRA reviewed the sales verification of similarities and dissimilarities among properties procedures in 2011 for Jefferson 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 price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 45 included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true sales listed as unqualified. or typical sales price during the period specified in section 39-1-104 (10.2). Sales of personal property All but four 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 Four sales had insufficient documentation. not be included in any such sample. Conclusions

(b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be Jefferson County appears to be doing an coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as adequate job of verifying their sales. There are screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103, no recommendations. C.R.S.) Recommendations None

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 13

E CONOMIC A REA R EVIEW AND E VALUATION

Methodology adequately identified homogeneous economic Jefferson County has submitted a written areas comprised of smaller neighborhoods. narrative describing the economic areas that Each economic area defined is equally subject make up the county’s market areas. Jefferson to a set of economic forces that impact the County has also submitted a map illustrating value of the properties within that geographic these areas. Each of these narratives have been area and this has been adequately addressed. read and analyzed for logic and appraisal Each economic area defined adequately sensibility. The maps were also compared to delineates an area that will give “similar values the narrative for consistency between the for similar properties in similar areas.” written description and the map. Recommendations Conclusions None After review and analysis, it has been determined that Jefferson County has

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 14

N ATURAL R ESOURCES Earth and Stone Products

Methodology variables: life and tonnage. The operator Under the guidelines of the Assessor’s determines these since there is no other means Reference Library (ARL), Volume 3, Natural to obtain production data through any state or Resource Valuation Procedures, the income private agency. approach was applied to determine value for Conclusions production of earth and stone products. The The County has applied the correct formulas number of tons was multiplied by an economic and state guidelines to earth and stone royalty rate determined by the Division of production. Property Taxation to determine income. The income was multiplied by a recommended Recommendations Hoskold factor to determine the actual value. None The Hoskold factor is determined by the life of the reserves or the lease. Value is based on two

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 15

V ACANT L AND

Subdivision Discounting Subdivisions were reviewed in 2011 in developed using the summation method. Jefferson County. The review showed that Subdivision land with structures was appraised subdivisions were discounted pursuant to the at full market value. Colorado Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 Conclusions (14). Discounting procedures were applied to all subdivisions where less than 80 percent of Jefferson County has implemented proper all sites were sold using the present worth procedures to adequately estimate absorption method. The market approach was applied periods, discount rates, and lot values for 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

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 16

P OSSESSORY I NTEREST P ROPERTIES 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 Jefferson County has implemented a discovery government-owned property or the right to the process to place possessory interest properties occupancy and use of any benefit in on the roll. They have also correctly and government-owned property that has been consistently applied the correct procedures and granted under lease, permit, license, valuation methods in the valuation of concession, contract, or other agreement. possessory interest properties. Recommendations Jefferson County has been reviewed for their None procedures and adherence to guidelines when assessing and valuing agricultural and

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 17

P ERSONAL P ROPERTY A UDIT

Jefferson County was studied for its procedural compliance with the personal property Jefferson County is compliant with the assessment outlined in the Assessor’s Reference guidelines set forth in ARL Volume 5 regarding Library (ARL) Volume 5, and in the State discovery procedures, using the following Board of Equalization (SBOE) requirements for methods to discover personal property the assessment of personal property. The accounts in the county: SBOE requires that counties use ARL Volume 5, including current discovery, classification,  Personal Observation, Physical documentation procedures, current economic Canvassing or Word of Mouth lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation table, and level of value adjustment factor The county uses the Division of Property table. Taxation (DPT) recommended classification and documentation procedures. The DPT’s The personal property audit standards narrative recommended cost factor tables, depreciation must be in place and current. A listing of tables and level of value adjustment factor businesses that have been audited by the tables are also used. assessor within the twelve-month period reflected in the plan is given to the auditor. Jefferson County submitted their personal The audited businesses must be in conformity property written audit plan and was current for with those described in the plan. the 2011 valuation period. The number and listing of businesses audited was also submitted Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from and was in conformance with the written audit the personal property accounts that have been plan. The following audit triggers were used physically inspected. The minimum assessment by the county to select accounts to be audited: sample is one percent or ten schedules, whichever is greater, and the maximum  Businesses in a selected area assessment audit sample is 100 schedules.  Accounts with obvious discrepancies  Incomplete or inconsistent declarations For the counties having over 100,000  Accounts with omitted property population, WRA selected a sample of all  Non-filing Accounts - Best Information personal property schedules to determine Available whether the assessor is correctly applying the provisions of law and manuals of the Property Jefferson County’s median ratio is 1.00. This is Tax Administrator in arriving at the assessment in compliance with the State Board of levels of such property. This sample was Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements selected from the personal property schedules which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD audited by the assessor. In no event was the requirements. sample selected by the contractor less than 30 schedules. The counties to be included in this study are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Conclusions Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Jefferson County has employed adequate Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received discovery, classification, documentation, a procedural study. valuation, and auditing procedures for their

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 18

personal property assessment and is in Recommendations statistical compliance with SBOE requirements. None

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 19

W ILDROSE A UDITOR S TAFF

Harry J. Fuller, Audit Project Manager

Suzanne Howard, Audit Administrative Manager

Steve Kane, Audit Statistician/Field Analyst

Carl W. Ross, Agricultural/Natural Resource Analyst

J. Andrew Rodriguez, Field Analyst

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 20

A PPENDICES

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 21

STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR JEFFERSON COUNTY 2011

I. OVERVIEW

Jefferson County is an urban county located along Colorado’s Front Range. The county has a total of 204,480 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor’s office in 2011. The following provides a breakdown of property classes for this county:

The vacant land class of properties was dominated by residential land. Residential lots (coded 100 and 1100) accounted for 74% of all vacant land parcels.

For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 90% of all residential properties.

Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 3% of all such properties in this county.

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 22

II. DATA FILES

The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2011 Colorado Property Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Jefferson Assessor’s Office in May 2011. The data included all 5 property record files as specified by the Auditor.

III. RESIDENTIAL SALES RESULTS

The following steps were taken to analyze the residential sales:

1. All sales 18,869 2. Qualified sales 13,165 3. Improved sales 12,750 4. Select residential sales only 12,532 5. Sales between January 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010 9,357

The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 23

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:

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 24

NOTE: Extreme values were trimmed for above graph for descriptive purposes

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 24-month sale period for any residual market trending and broken down by economic area, as follows:

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 25

There was no residual market trending present in the sale ratio data for any of the economic areas. While one economic area had a statistically significant result, the magnitude of this trend was not significant and we therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately addressed market trending in the valuation of residential properties.

Sold/Unsold Analysis

In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the median actual value per square foot for 2011 between each group. The data was analyzed both as a whole and broken down by economic area, as follows:

Median Mean Group N Val/SF Val/Sf Unsold 176,161 $146 $154 Sold 9,354 $147 $153

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 26

Median Mean ECONAREA Group N Val/ SF Val/SF 1 Unsold 26,028 $134.13 $139.31 Sold 1,417 $135.00 $140.97 2 Unsold 38,620 $148.69 $149.70 Sold 1,857 $148.66 $149.47 3 Unsold 39,518 $141.91 $145.29 Sold 2,042 $141.41 $143.85 4 Unsold 37,651 $139.20 $145.81 Sold 2,368 $140.56 $146.06 5 Unsold 5,435 $166.52 $174.17 Sold 427 $157.80 $166.00 6 Unsold 8,114 $179.10 $186.53 Sold 467 $183.44 $187.37 7 Unsold 1,154 $173.85 $185.71 Sold 44 $166.41 $173.08 8 Unsold 8,841 $201.73 $215.06 Sold 383 $197.14 $205.73 9 Unsold 9,301 $186.92 $193.87 Sold 349 $192.05 $194.55

The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent manner.

IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS

1. All sales 18,869 2. Qualified sales 13,165 3. Improved sales 12,750 4. Select commercial/industrial sales only 213 5. Sales between January 1, 2007 and June 30, 2008 129

The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:

Median 0.968 Price Related Differential 1.115 Coefficient of Dispersion .180

The above table indicates that the Jefferson County commercial/industrial sale ratios were in compliance with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution further:

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 27

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 28

Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis

The assessor did apply market trend adjustments to commercial/industrial dataset. The 2011 commercial/industrial sales were analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 24 month sale period with the following results:

Coefficientsa Model Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 1 (Constant) .909 .100 9.079 .000 SalePeriod .010 .006 .103 1.504 .134 a. Dependent Variable: salesratio

There was no residual market trending present in the commercial sale ratios. We concluded that the assessor has adequately considered market trending adjustments as part of the commercial/industrial valuation.

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 29

Sold/Unsold Analysis

We compared the median change in actual value between 2010 and 2011 for commercial and industrial properties by subdivision to determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as follows:

Median Mean Group No. Props Chg Val Chg Val Unsold 5,227 .9540 .9955 Sold 210 1.0270 1.1650

The above results indicated that sold and unsold commercial/industrial properties were valued consistently.

V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS

The following steps were taken to analyze the vacant land sales:

1. All sales 18,869 2. Qualified sales 13,165 3. Vacant land sales 206 4. Residential & commercial/ind vacant land sales 205 4. Sales between July 2008 and June 2010 205

The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows:

Median 0.997 Price Related Differential 1.204 Coefficient of Dispersion .166

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:

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 30

The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state mandated limits. No sales were trimmed.

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 31

Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis

We next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 24-month sale period, with the following results:

Coefficientsa Model Standardized Unstandardized Coefficients Coefficients B Std. Error Beta t Sig. 1 (Constant) 1.052 .019 55.122 .000 VSalePeriod -.003 .002 -.168 -2.293 .023 a. Dependent Variable: SalesRatio

The above analysis indicated that while there is a marginal statistical trend, the magnitude of that trend was not significant (at 0.3% per month). We therefore concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties.

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 32

Sold/Unsold Analysis

In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the median change in value for 2010 and 2011 between each group, as follows:

Subdivno Group No. Median Mean TOTAL Unsold 10,852 0.9890 0.9277 Sold 169 0.837 0.8843

Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently.

V. AGRICULTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ANALYSIS

Based on the parameters of the state audit analysis, this county was exempt from this analysis for 2011.

VI. CONCLUSIONS

Based on this 2011 audit statistical analysis, residential, commercial/industrial and vacant land properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines.

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 33

STATISTICAL ABSTRACT Residential

Commercial

Vacant Land

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 34

Residential Median Ratio Stratification

Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count Percent SPRec LT $25K 3 .0% $25K to $50K 49 .5% $50K to $100K 379 4.1% $100K to $150K 1103 11.8% $150K to $200K 1937 20.7% $200K to $300K 3387 36.2% $300K to $500K 1875 20.0% $500K to $750K 476 5.1% $750K to $1,000K 89 1.0% Over $1,000K 59 .6% Overall 9357 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 9357 Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered LT $25K 1.009 1.002 .047 7.6% $25K to $50K 1.065 1.006 .131 17.3% $50K to $100K 1.000 .998 .101 13.7% $100K to $150K 1.000 1.000 .096 15.4% $150K to $200K 1.006 1.001 .089 11.6% $200K to $300K .971 1.000 .079 10.5% $300K to $500K .973 .999 .085 11.5% $500K to $750K .981 1.000 .092 12.2% $750K to $1,000K .939 1.001 .111 14.4% Over $1,000K .919 1.048 .153 20.5% Overall .983 1.018 .088 12.2%

Subclass Case Processing Summary Count Percent abstrimp 1212 8265 88.3% 1215 55 .6% 1220 25 .3% 1225 13 .1% 1230 995 10.6% 2212 1 .0% 2215 1 .0% 2220 1 .0% 2235 1 .0% Overall 9357 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 9357

2011 Jefferson County Property Assessment Study – Page 35

Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered 1212 .984 1.011 .088 12.2% 1215 .976 1.008 .091 12.0% 1220 1.021 1.006 .064 8.5% 1225 .896 1.063 .159 27.1% 1230 .980 1.007 .083 11.8% 2212 .553 1.000 .000 .% 2215 .669 1.000 .000 .% 2220 1.204 1.000 .000 .% 2235 .975 1.000 .000 .% Overall .983 1.018 .088 12.2%

Age Case Processing Summary Count Percent AgeRec Over 100 47 .5% 75 to 100 110 1.2% 50 to 75 1170 12.5% 25 to 50 4629 49.5% 5 to 25 2543 27.2% 5 or Newer 858 9.2% Overall 9357 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 9357

Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered Over 100 .887 1.061 .155 19.9% 75 to 100 .889 1.032 .156 20.5% 50 to 75 .966 1.019 .111 14.5% 25 to 50 .983 1.009 .087 11.7% 5 to 25 .986 1.000 .075 10.2% 5 or Newer .998 1.086 .084 14.9% Overall .983 1.018 .088 12.2%

Improved Area Case Processing Summary Count Percent ImpSFRec .00 3 .0% LE 500 sf 17 .2% 500 to 1,000 sf 1191 12.7% 1,000 to 1,500 sf 3375 36.1% 1,500 to 2,000 sf 2404 25.7% 2,000 to 3,000 sf 1860 19.9% 3,000 sf or Higher 507 5.4% Overall 9357 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 9357

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 36

Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered .00 .982 1.037 .179 28.2% LE 500 sf .964 1.052 .116 17.3% 500 to 1,000 sf .970 1.016 .099 13.3% 1,000 to 1,500 sf .980 1.011 .085 11.5% 1,500 to 2,000 sf .985 1.011 .085 12.9% 2,000 to 3,000 sf .991 1.012 .084 11.3% 3,000 sf or Higher .999 1.075 .099 13.6% Overall .983 1.018 .088 12.2%

Quality Case Processing Summary Count Percent quality 0 2 .0% 1 39 .4% 2 1510 16.1% 3 6007 64.2% 4 1610 17.2% 5 184 2.0% 6 4 .0% Overall 9356 100.0% Excluded 1 Total 9357

Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered 0 1.095 1.004 .011 1.6% 1 .942 1.031 .135 16.7% 2 .972 1.011 .096 13.1% 3 .982 1.006 .086 11.6% 4 .993 1.047 .081 13.2% 5 .997 1.032 .118 15.6% 6 1.004 1.003 .052 6.3% Overall .983 1.018 .088 12.2%

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 37

Commercial Median Ratio Stratification

Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count Percent SPRec $25K to $50K 1 .8% $50K to $100K 18 14.0% $100K to $150K 9 7.0% $150K to $200K 4 3.1% $200K to $300K 20 15.5% $300K to $500K 17 13.2% $500K to $750K 19 14.7% $750K to $1,000K 8 6.2% Over $1,000K 33 25.6% Overall 129 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 129

Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered $25K to $50K 2.383 1.000 .000 .% $50K to $100K 1.184 1.018 .247 28.7% $100K to $150K 1.018 .993 .112 14.7% $150K to $200K 1.067 1.000 .102 17.7% $200K to $300K .965 1.001 .205 44.1% $300K to $500K .972 1.014 .152 25.8% $500K to $750K .947 1.002 .108 16.8% $750K to $1,000K .961 1.000 .151 26.4% Over $1,000K .925 1.006 .134 18.7% Overall .968 1.115 .180 31.0%

Subclass Case Processing Summary Count Percent abstrimp 0 1 .8% 2212 27 20.9% 2215 1 .8% 2220 18 14.0% 2230 17 13.2% 2235 21 16.3% 2245 10 7.8% 3215 1 .8% 3230 33 25.6% Overall 129 100.0% Excluded 0 Total 129

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 38

Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Group Coefficient of Price Related Coefficient of Variation Median Differential Dispersion Median Centered 0 .447 1.000 .000 .% 2212 .880 1.028 .177 26.3% 2215 1.050 1.000 .000 .% 2220 .987 1.208 .192 43.8% 2230 .940 1.112 .166 28.4% 2235 .980 .974 .106 16.3% 2245 .958 1.022 .075 15.1% 3215 .973 1.000 .000 .% 3230 1.032 1.143 .211 33.9% Overall .968 1.115 .180 31.0%

Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 39

2011 Statistical Report: JEFFERSON COUNTY Page 40