2010 DENVER COUNTY PROPERTY ASSESSMENT STUDY
September 15, 2010 Mr. Mike Mauer Director of Research Colorado Legislative Council Room 029, State Capitol Building Denver, Colorado 80203 RE:
Final Report for the 2010 Colorado Property Assessment Study
Dear Mr. Mauer: Wildrose Appraisal Inc.-Audit Division is pleased to submit the Final Reports for the 2010 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 nonproducing 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
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Introduction ............................................................................................3 Regional/Historical Sketch of Denver County ...................................................4 Ratio Analysis...........................................................................................7 Random Deed Analysis ......................................................................................... 9 Time Trending Verification ........................................................................ 10 Sold/Unsold Analysis ............................................................................... 11 Agricultural Land Study ............................................................................ 13 Agricultural Land ............................................................................................. 13 Agricultural Outbuildings ................................................................................... 15 Sales Verification..................................................................................... 16 Economic Area Review and Evaluation .......................................................... 17 Natural Resources ................................................................................... 18 Producing Oil and Gas Procedures.......................................................................... 18 Vacant Land........................................................................................... 19 Possessory Interest Properties ..................................................................... 20 Personal Property Audit ............................................................................ 21 Wildrose Auditor Staff.............................................................................. 23 Appendices............................................................................................ 24
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 2
INTRODUCTION
The State Board of Equalization (SBOE) reviews assessments for conformance to the Constitution. The SBOE will order revaluations for counties whose valuations do not reflect the proper valuation period level of value. The statutory basis for the audit is found in C.R.S. 39-1-104 (16)(a)(b) and (c). The legislative council sets forth two criteria that are the focus of the audit group: To determine whether each county assessor is applying correctly the constitutional and statutory provisions, compliance requirements of the State Board of Equalization, and the manuals published by the State Property Tax Administrator to arrive at the actual value of each class of property. To determine if each assessor is applying correctly the provisions of law to the actual values when arriving at valuations for assessment of all locally valued properties subject to the property tax. The property assessment audit conducts a twopart analysis: A procedural analysis and a statistical analysis.
The procedural analysis includes all classes of property and specifically looks at how the assessor develops economic areas, confirms and qualifies sales, and develops time adjustments. The audit also examines the procedures for adequately discovering, classifying and valuing agricultural outbuildings, discovering subdivision build-out and subdivision discounting procedures. Valuation methodology for vacant land, improved residential properties and commercial properties is examined. Procedures for producing mines, oil and gas leaseholds and lands producing, producing coal mines, producing earth and stone products, severed mineral interests and non-producing patented mining claims are also reviewed. Statistical analysis is performed on vacant land, residential properties, commercial industrial properties, agricultural land, and personal property. The statistical study results are compared with State Board of Equalization compliance requirements and the manuals published by the State Property Tax Administrator. Wildrose Audit has completed the Property Assessment Study for 2010 and is pleased to report its findings for Denver County in the following report.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 3
REGIONAL/HISTORICAL SKETCH DENVER COUNTY Regional Information Denver County is located in the Front Range region of Colorado. The Colorado Front Range is a colloquial geographic term for the populated areas of the State that are just east of the foothills of the Front Range. It includes
OF
Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Pueblo, and Weld counties.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 4
Historical Information
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 5
Denver County has a population of approximately 610,345 people with 3,625.1 people per square mile, according to the U.S. Census Bureau's 2009 estimated population data. Denver is the capital and the most populous city of the state of Colorado. Denver is a consolidated city-county located in the South Platte River Valley on the High Plains just east of the Front Range of the Rocky Mountains. Denver City was founded in November 1858 as a mining town during the Pikes Peak Gold Rush in western Kansas Territory. That summer, a group of gold prospectors from Lawrence, Kansas, arrived and established Montana City on the banks of the South Platte River. This was the first settlement in what was later to become the city of Denver. The site faded quickly, however, and was abandoned in favor of Auraria (named after the gold-mining town of Auraria, Georgia) and St. Charles City by the summer of 1859. The Montana City site is now Grant-Frontier Park and includes mining equipment and a log cabin replica. On November 22, 1858, General William Larimer, a land speculator from eastern Kansas, placed cottonwood logs to stake a claim on the hill overlooking the confluence of the South Platte River and Cherry Creek, across the creek from the existing mining settlement of Auraria. Larimer named the town site Denver City to curry favor with Kansas Territorial Governor James W. Denver. Larimer hoped that the town's name would help make it the county seat of Arapaho County, but ironically Governor Denver had already resigned from office. The location was accessible to existing trails and was across the South Platte River from the site of seasonal encampments of the
Cheyenne and Arapaho. The site of these first towns is now the site of Confluence Park in downtown Denver. Larimer, along with associates in the St. Charles City Land Company, sold parcels in the town to merchants and miners, with the intention of creating a major city that would cater to new emigrants. Denver City was a frontier town, with an economy based on servicing local miners with gambling, saloons, livestock and goods trading. In the early years, land parcels were often traded for grubstakes or gambled away by miners in Auraria. The Colorado Territory was created on February 28, 1861. Arapahoe County was formed on November 1, 1861 and Denver City was incorporated on November 7, 1861. Denver City served as the Arapahoe County Seat from 1861 until consolidation in 1902. In 1865, Denver City became the Territorial Capital and became the State Capital when Colorado was admitted to the Union. In 1901 the Colorado General Assembly voted to split Arapahoe County into three parts: a new consolidated City and County of Denver, a new Adams County, and the remainder of the Arapahoe County to be renamed South Arapahoe County. A ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court, subsequent legislation, and a referendum delayed the creation of the City and County of Denver until November 15, 1902. Denver has hosted the Democratic National Convention twice, during the years of 1908 and again in 2008, taking the opportunity to promote the city's status on the national, political, and socioeconomic stage. (Wikipedia.org)
RATIO ANALYSIS Methodology All significant classes of properties were analyzed. Sales were collected for each property class over the appropriate sale period, which was typically defined as the 18-month period between January 2007 and June 2008. Counties with less than 30 sales typically extended the sale period back up to 5 years prior to June 30, 2008 in 6-month increments. If there were still fewer than 30 sales, supplemental appraisals were performed and treated as proxy sales. Residential sales for all counties using this method totaled at least 30 per county. For commercial sales, the total number analyzed was allowed, in some cases, to fall below 30. There were no sale quantity issues for counties requiring vacant land analysis or condominium analysis. Although it was required that we examine the median and coefficient of dispersion for all counties, we also calculated the weighted mean and pricerelated differential for each class of property. Counties were not passed or failed by these
latter measures, but were counseled if there were anomalies noted during our analysis. Qualified sales were based on the qualification code used by each county, which were typically coded as either “Q” or “C.” The ratio analysis included all sales. The data was trimmed for counties with obvious outliers using IAAO standards for data analysis. In every case, we examined the loss in data from trimming to ensure that only true outliers were excluded. Any county with a significant portion of sales excluded by this trimming method was examined further. No county was allowed to pass the audit if more than 5% of the sales were “lost” because of trimming. For the largest 11 counties, the residential ratio statistics were broken down by economic area as well.
Conclusions For this final analysis report, the minimum acceptable statistical standards allowed by the State Board of Equalization are:
ALLOWABLE STANDARDS RATIO GRID Unweighted Median Ratio
Coefficient of 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
Property Class
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 7
The results for Denver County are: Denver County Ratio Grid Property Class Commercial/Industrial
Number of Unweighted Price Qualified Median Related Sales Ratio Differential 438
0.975
1.147
Coefficient of Dispersion
Time Trend Analysis
11.6
Compliant
Condominium
3,953
1.000
1.008
4.9
Compliant
Single Family
8,785
1.001
1.005
5.1
Compliant
105
0.961
1.066
12.8
Compliant
Vacant Land
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 8
After applying the above described methodologies, it is concluded from the sales ratios that Denver County is in compliance
with SBOE, DPT, and Colorado State Statute valuation guidelines.
Recommendations None
Random Deed Analysis An additional analysis was performed as part of the Ratio Analysis. Ten randomly selected deeds with documentary fees were obtained from the Clerk and Recorder. These deeds were for sales that occurred from January 1, 2007 through June 30, 2008. These sales were then checked for inclusion on the Assessor’s qualified or unqualified database.
Conclusions After comparing the list of randomly selected deeds with the Assessor’s database, Denver County has accurately transferred sales data from the recorded deeds to the qualified or unqualified database.
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 9
TIME TRENDING VERIFICATION Methodology While we recommend that counties use the inverted ratio regression analysis method to account for market (time) trending, some counties have used other IAAO-approved methods, such as the weighted monthly median approach. We are not auditing the methods used, but rather the results of the methods used. Given this range of methodologies used to account for market trending, we concluded that the best validation method was to examine the sale ratios for each class across the appropriate sale period. To be specific, if a county has considered and adjusted correctly for market trending, then the sale ratios should remain stable (i.e. flat) across the sale period. If a residual market trend is detected, then the county may or may not have addressed market
trending adequately, and a further examination is warranted. This validation methodology also considers the number of sales and the length of the sale period. Counties with few sales across the sale period were carefully examined to determine if the statistical results were valid.
Conclusions After verification and analysis, it has been determined that Denver County has complied with the statutory requirements to analyze the effects of time on value in their county. Denver County has also satisfactorily applied the results of their time trending analysis to arrive at the time adjusted sales price (TASP).
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 10
SOLD/UNSOLD ANALYSIS Methodology Denver County was tested for the equal treatment of sold and unsold properties to ensure that “sales chasing” has not occurred. The auditors employed a multi-step process to determine if sold and unsold properties were valued in a consistent manner. All qualified residential and commercial class properties were examined using the unit value method, where the actual value per square foot was compared between sold and unsold properties. A class was considered qualified if it met the criteria for the ratio analysis. The median value per square foot for both groups was compared from an appraisal and statistical perspective. If no significant difference was indicated, then we concluded that no further testing was warranted and that the county was in compliance in terms of sold/unsold consistency. If either residential or commercial differences were significant using the unit value method, or if data limitations made the comparison invalid, then the next step was to perform a ratio analysis comparing the 2009 and 2010 actual values for each qualified class of property. All qualified vacant land classes were tested using this method. The sale property ratios were arrayed using a range of 0.8 to 1.5, which theoretically excluded changes between years that were due to other unrelated changes in the property. These ratios were also stratified at the appropriate level of analysis. Once the percent change was determined for each appropriate class and sub-class, the next step was to select the unsold sample. This sample
was at least 1% of the total population of unsold properties and excluded any sale properties. The unsold sample was filtered based on the attributes of the sold dataset to closely correlate both groups. The ratio analysis was then performed on the unsold properties and stratified. The median and mean ratio distribution was then compared between the sold and unsold group. A nonparametric test such as the Mann-Whitney test for differences between independent samples was undertaken to determine whether any observed differential was significant. If this test determined that the unsold properties were treated in a manner similar to the sold properties, it was concluded that no further testing was warranted and that the county was in compliance. If a class or sub-class of property was determined to be significantly different by this method, the final step was to perform a multivariate mass appraisal model that developed ratio statistics from the sold properties that were then applied to the unsold sample. This test compared the measures of central tendency and confidence intervals for the sold properties with the unsold property sample. If this comparison was also determined to be significantly different, then the conclusion was that the county had treated the unsold properties in a different manner than sold properties. These tests were supported by both tabular and chart presentations, along with saved sold and unsold sample files.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 11
Sold/Unsold Results Property Class Commercial/Industrial
Results Compliant
Condominium
Compliant
Single Family
Compliant
Vacant Land
Compliant
Conclusions
Recommendations
After applying the above described methodologies, it is concluded that Denver County is reasonably treating its sold and unsold properties in the same manner.
None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 12
AGRICULTURAL LAND STUDY Acres By Subclass
Value By Subclass
Agricultural Land County records were reviewed to determine major land categories such as irrigated farm, dry farm, meadow hay, grazing and other lands. In addition, county records were reviewed in order to determine if: Aerial photographs are available and are being used; soil conservation guidelines have been used to classify lands based on productivity; crop rotations have been documented; typical commodities and yields have been determined; orchard lands have been properly classified and valued; expenses reflect a ten year average and are typical landlord expenses; grazing lands have been properly classified and valued; the number of acres in each class and subclass have been determined; the capitalization rate was properly applied. Also, documentation was required for the valuation methods used and any locally developed yields, carrying capacities, and expenses. Records were also checked to ensure that the commodity prices and expenses, furnished by the Property Tax Administrator (PTA), were applied properly.
(See Assessor Reference Library Volume 3 Chapter 5.)
Conclusions An analysis of the agricultural land data indicates an acceptable appraisal of this property type. Directives, commodity prices and expenses provided by the PTA were properly applied. County yields compared favorably to those published by Colorado Agricultural Statistics. Expenses used by the county were allowable expenses and were in an acceptable range. Grazing lands carrying capacities were in an acceptable range. The data analyzed resulted in the following ratios:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 13
Denver County Agricultural Land Ratio Grid Abstract Code
Land Class
4127
Dry Farm
Total/Avg
Number Of Acres 1,424 1,424
County County Value Assessed Per Acre Total Value 40,165 28.21 28.21
40,165
WRA Total Value 40,165
Ratio 1.00
40,165
1.00
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 14
Agricultural Outbuildings
Methodology
Conclusions
Data was collected and reviewed to determine if the guidelines found in the Assessor’s Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, pages 5.74 through 5.77 were being followed.
Denver County has substantially complied with the procedures provided by the Division of Property Taxation for the valuation of agricultural outbuildings.
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 15
SALES VERIFICATION According to Colorado Revised Statutes: A representative body of sales is required when considering the market approach to appraisal. (8) In any case in which sales prices of comparable properties within any class or subclass are utilized when considering the market approach to appraisal in the determination of actual value of any taxable property, the following limitations and conditions shall apply: (a)(I) Use of the market approach shall require a representative body of sales, including sales by a lender or government, sufficient to set a pattern, and appraisals shall reflect due consideration of the degree of comparability of sales, including the extent of similarities and dissimilarities among properties that are compared for assessment purposes. In order to obtain a reasonable sample and to reduce sudden price changes or fluctuations, all sales shall be included in the sample that reasonably reflect a true or typical sales price during the period specified in section 39-1-104 (10.2). Sales of personal property exempt pursuant to the provisions of sections 39-3102, 39-3-103, and 39-3-119 to 39-3-122 shall not be included in any such sample. (b) Each such sale included in the sample shall be coded to indicate a typical, negotiated sale, as screened and verified by the assessor. (39-1-103, C.R.S.)
The assessor is required to use sales of real property only in the valuation process. (8)(f) Such true and typical sales shall include only those sales which have been determined on an individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real property only or which have been adjusted on an individual basis to reflect the selling price of the real property only. (39-1-103, C.R.S.) Part of the Property Assessment Study is the sales verification analysis. WRA has used the above-cited statutes as a guide in our study of the county’s procedures and practices for verifying sales. WRA reviewed the sales verification procedures in 2010 for Denver County. This study was conducted by checking selected sales from the master sales list for the Jan 1, 2007 June 30, 2008 valuation period. Specifically WRA selected 45 sales listed as unqualified. All but six of the sales selected in the sample gave reasons that were clear and supportable. Six sales had insufficient documentation.
Conclusions Denver County appears to be doing an adequate job of verifying their sales. There are no recommendations.
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 16
ECONOMIC AREA REVIEW EVALUATION Methodology Denver County has submitted a written narrative describing the economic areas that make up the county’s market areas. Denver County has also submitted a map illustrating these areas. Each of these narratives have been read and analyzed for logic and appraisal sensibility. The maps were also compared to the narrative for consistency between the written description and the map.
Conclusions
AND
identified homogeneous economic areas comprised of smaller neighborhoods. Each economic area defined is equally subject to a set of economic forces that impact the value of the properties within that geographic area and this has been adequately addressed. Each economic area defined adequately delineates an area that will give “similar values for similar properties in similar areas.”
Recommendations None
After review and analysis, it has been determined that Denver County has adequately
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 17
NATURAL RESOURCES Producing Oil and Gas Procedures Methodology Assessors Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3, Chapter 6: Valuation of Natural Resources STATUTORY REFERENCES Section § 39-1-103, C.R.S., specifies that producing oil or gas leaseholds and lands are valued according to article 7 of title 39, C.R.S. Actual value determined - when. (2) The valuation for assessment of leaseholds and lands producing oil or gas shall be determined as provided in article 7 of this title. § 39-1-103, C.R.S. Article 7 covers the listing, valuation, and assessment of producing oil and gas leaseholds and lands. Valuation: Valuation for assessment. (1) Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, on the basis of the information contained in such statement, the assessor shall value such oil and gas leaseholds and lands for
assessment, as real property, at an amount equal to eighty-seven and one-half percent of: (a) The selling price of the oil or gas sold there from during the preceding calendar year, after excluding the selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the United States government or any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency thereof, or any political subdivision of the state as royalty during the preceding calendar year; (b) The selling price of oil or gas sold in the same field area for oil or gas transported from the premises which is not sold during the preceding calendar year, after excluding the selling price of all oil or gas delivered to the United States government or any agency thereof, the state of Colorado or any agency thereof, or any political subdivision of the state as royalty during the preceding calendar year. § 39-7-102, C.R.S.
Conclusions The county applied approved appraisal procedures in the valuation of oil and gas.
Recommendations None 0
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 18
VACANT LAND Subdivision Discounting Subdivisions were reviewed in 2010 in Denver County. The review showed that subdivisions were discounted pursuant to the Colorado Revised Statutes in Article 39-1-103 (14) and by applying the recommended methodology in ARL Vol 3, Chap 4. Subdivision Discounting in the intervening year was accomplished by reducing the absorption period by one year. In instances where the number of sales within an approved plat was less than the absorption rate
per year calculated for the plat, the absorption period was left unchanged.
Conclusions Denver County has implemented proper procedures to adequately estimate absorption periods, discount rates, and lot values for qualifying subdivisions.
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 19
POSSESSORY INTEREST PROPERTIES Possessory Interest Possessory interest property discovery and valuation is described in the Assessor’s Reference Library (ARL) Volume 3 section 7 in accordance with the requirements of Chapter 39-1-103 (17)(a) (II) C.R.S. Possessory Interest is defined by the Property Tax Administrator’s Publication ARL Volume 3, Chapter 7: A private property interest in government-owned property or the right to the occupancy and use of any benefit in government-owned property that has been granted under lease, permit, license, concession, contract, or other agreement. Denver County has been reviewed for their procedures and adherence to guidelines when assessing and valuing agricultural and
commercial possessory interest properties. The county has also been queried as to their confidence that the possessory interest properties have been discovered and placed on the tax rolls.
Conclusions Denver County has implemented a discovery process to place possessory interest properties on the roll. They have also correctly and consistently applied the correct procedures and valuation methods in the valuation of possessory interest properties.
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 20
PERSONAL PROPERTY AUDIT Denver County was studied for its procedural compliance with the personal property assessment outlined in the Assessor’s Reference Library (ARL) Volume 5, and in the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) requirements for the assessment of personal property. The SBOE requires that counties use ARL Volume 5, including current discovery, classification, documentation procedures, current economic lives table, cost factor tables, depreciation table, and level of value adjustment factor table. The personal property audit standards narrative must be in place and current. A listing of businesses that have been audited by the assessor within the twelve-month period reflected in the plan is given to the auditor. The audited businesses must be in conformity with those described in the plan. Aggregate ratio will be determined solely from the personal property accounts that have been physically inspected. The minimum assessment sample is one percent or ten schedules, whichever is greater, and the maximum assessment audit sample is 100 schedules. For the counties having over 100,000 population, WRA selected a sample of all personal property schedules to determine whether the assessor is correctly applying the provisions of law and manuals of the Property Tax Administrator in arriving at the assessment levels of such property. This sample was selected from the personal property schedules audited by the assessor. In no event was the sample selected by the contractor less than 30 schedules. The counties to be included in this study are Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Denver, Douglas, El Paso, Jefferson, Larimer, Mesa, Pueblo, and Weld. All other counties received a procedural study.
Denver County is compliant with the guidelines set forth in ARL Volume 5 regarding discovery procedures, using the following methods to discover personal property accounts in the county:
Public Record Documents Chamber of Commerce/Economic Development Contacts Local Telephone Directories, Newspapers or Other Local Publications Personal Observation, Physical Canvassing or Word of Mouth
The county uses the Division of Property Taxation (DPT) recommended classification and documentation procedures. The DPT’s recommended cost factor tables, depreciation tables and level of value adjustment factor tables are also used. Denver County submitted their personal property written audit plan and was current for the 2010 valuation period. The number and listing of businesses audited was also submitted and was in conformance with the written audit plan. The following audit triggers were used by the county to select accounts to be audited:
Businesses in a selected area Accounts with obvious discrepancies New businesses filing for the first time Accounts with greater than 10% change Incomplete or inconsistent declarations Accounts with omitted property Same business type or use Businesses with no deletions or additions for 2 or more years
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 21
Non-filing Accounts - Best Information Available Accounts close to the $4,000 actual value exemption status Lowest or highest quartile of value per square foot Accounts protested with substantial disagreement Repeat non-filers Accounts with significant problems or questionable data
Denver County’s median ratio is 1.00. This is
in compliance with the State Board of Equalization (SBOE) compliance requirements which range from .90 to 1.10 with no COD requirements.
Conclusions Denver County has employed adequate discovery, classification, documentation, valuation, and auditing procedures for their personal property assessment and is in statistical compliance with SBOE requirements.
Recommendations None
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 22
WILDROSE AUDITOR STAFF 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
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 23
APPENDICES
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 24
STATISTICAL COMPLIANCE REPORT FOR DENVER COUNTY 2010 I. OVERVIEW Denver County is an urban county located along Colorado’s Front Range. The county has a total of 218,257 real property parcels, according to data submitted by the county assessor’s office in 2010. 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) accounted for 55% of all vacant land parcels. For residential improved properties, single family properties accounted for 66% of all residential properties, while condominiums accounted for 24.5% of all residential properties. We broke down our residential analysis by both economic area and residential subclass. Commercial and industrial properties represented a much smaller proportion of property classes in comparison. Commercial/industrial properties accounted for 5% of all such properties in this county.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 25
II. DATA FILES The following sales analyses were based on the requirements of the 2010 Colorado Property Assessment Study. Information was provided by the Denver Assessor’s Office in April 2010. 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 2. Qualified sales 3. Improved sales 4. Select residential sales only
24,534 14,938 14,826 14,466
The sales ratio analysis results were as follows: SINGLE FAMILY Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp N = 8,785 Group
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
1.00
1.001
1.005
.051
2.00
1.003
1.009
.072
3.00
1.004
1.006
.047
4.00
1.000
1.007
.051
5.00
1.001
1.019
.087
6.00
1.004
1.008
.064
7.00
1.002
1.008
.069
8.00
1.003
1.010
.079
9.00
1.005
1.011
.080
10.00
1.000
1.000
.049
11.00
1.003
1.013
.079
12.00
1.000
1.003
.059
13.00
1.000
1.019
.099
14.00
1.000
1.009
.063
15.00
1.000
1.015
.087
16.00
1.002
1.010
.080
17.00
1.001
1.029
.111
18.00
1.000
1.007
.050
19.00
1.000
1.001
.036
20.00
.998
1.006
.050
21.00
1.000
1.005
.041
22.00
1.002
1.014
.089
23.00
1.003
1.002
.037
24.00
.999
1.001
.032
25.00
.999
1.006
.059
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 26
26.00
1.005
1.016
.086
27.00
1.000
1.003
.041
28.00
1.000
1.001
.039
29.00
1.000
1.005
.047
30.00
1.000
1.007
.070
31.00
1.000
1.006
.064
Overall
1.001
1.005
.051
ROWHOUSE/TOWN HOMES Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp N =1,498 Group
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
51.00
1.000
1.011
.046
53.00
1.000
1.006
.054
54.00
.999
1.004
.042
55.00
1.000
1.009
.085
56.00
1.000
1.011
.057
Overall
1.000
1.020
.074
DUPLEX/TRIPLEX Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp N = 97 Group
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
Overall
.984
1.010
.075
MULTI-FAM UNITS 4-8 Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp N = 37 Group
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
Overall
.985
1.032
.076
MULTI-FAM UNITS 9 AND UP Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp N = 96 Group
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
Overall
1.000
1.024
.072
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 27
CONDOMINIUM Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp N = 3,953 Group
Median
Price Related Differential
Coefficient of Dispersion
38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 Overall
1.000 1.000 .995 .998 1.000 1.000 1.001 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.004 .998 1.000
1.002 1.002 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.005 1.001 1.003 1.002 1.014 1.010 1.007 1.008
.038 .035 .068 .057 .045 .045 .044 .033 .038 .050 .075 .060 .049
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:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 28
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 subclass and economic area, as follows:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 29
SINGLE FAMILY ANALYSIS Coefficientsa
econarea 1
Model 1
2
1
3
1
4
1
5
1
6
1
7
1
8
1
9
1
10
1
11
1
12
1
13
1
14
1
15
1
16
1
17
1
18
1
19
1
20
1
22
1
23
1
24
1
25
1
26
1
27
1
28
1
29
1
30
1
31
1
(Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error .997 .005 .001 .001 1.013 .008 -.001 .001 1.030 .009 -.003 .001 1.025 .017 -.001 .002 1.088 .016 -.007 .002 .998 .007 .001 .001 1.018 .011 -.001 .001 1.027 .023 .000 .002 1.013 .017 .001 .002 1.039 .015 -.002 .001 1.005 .016 -4.7E-005 .002 1.024 .019 -.001 .002 1.050 .043 .001 .004 1.000 .014 .002 .001 1.101 .030 -.007 .003 1.027 .015 -.002 .002 1.096 .039 -.002 .004 1.065 .035 -.006 .003 1.004 .006 .000 .001 1.007 .014 -.001 .001 .995 .004 .000 .000 1.033 .011 -.002 .001 1.009 .006 -.001 .001 1.007 .006 .000 .001 1.010 .017 .001 .002 1.044 .034 .002 .003 1.002 .009 .000 .001 1.006 .008 .000 .001 1.016 .011 -.001 .001 1.028 .014 -.001 .002
Standardized Coefficients Beta .041 -.054 -.218 -.026 -.196 .055 -.041 -.008 .045 -.125 -.002 -.019 .012 .068 -.146 -.090 -.033 -.133 -.034 -.056 .018 -.110 -.061 -.016 .042 .028 .025 -.041 -.062 -.048
t 186.286 .977 127.740 -1.225 115.035 -3.000 60.939 -.449 67.289 -3.944 134.946 1.183 89.178 -.707 45.120 -.138 57.961 .694 70.137 -1.651 63.991 -.030 54.558 -.302 24.325 .219 69.846 1.289 37.143 -2.209 67.928 -1.285 28.156 -.524 30.770 -1.769 168.281 -.599 69.919 -.662 236.274 .473 94.943 -2.102 179.002 -1.045 173.554 -.239 59.584 .668 30.800 .474 115.246 .343 125.980 -.521 91.977 -.767 72.059 -.710
Sig. .000 .329 .000 .221 .000 .003 .000 .654 .000 .000 .000 .237 .000 .480 .000 .890 .000 .488 .000 .100 .000 .976 .000 .763 .000 .827 .000 .198 .000 .028 .000 .200 .000 .601 .000 .079 .000 .550 .000 .509 .000 .636 .000 .036 .000 .297 .000 .811 .000 .504 .000 .636 .000 .732 .000 .603 .000 .445 .000 .478
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 30
ROWHOUSE/TOWN HOME ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Model 1
(Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.013 .009 .000 .001
Standardized Coefficients Beta -.013
t 112.292 -.501
Sig. .000 .616
t 43.316 -1.995
Sig. .000 .049
t 25.027 .820
Sig. .000 .418
t 25.027 .820
Sig. .000 .418
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
DUPLEX/TRIPLEX ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Model 1
(Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error 1.042 .024 -.005 .002
Standardized Coefficients Beta -.200
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio MULTI-FAM UNITS 4-8 ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Model 1
(Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error .962 .038 .003 .004
Standardized Coefficients Beta .137
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
MULTI-FAM UNITS 9 AND UP ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
Model 1
(Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error .962 .038 .003 .004
Standardized Coefficients Beta .137
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 31
CONDOMINIUM ANALYSIS
Coefficientsa
econarea 38
Model 1
39
1
40
1
41
1
42
1
43
1
44
1
45
1
46
1
47
1
48
1
49
1
(Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod (Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error .996 .007 7.81E-005 .001 .994 .008 .001 .001 1.004 .011 -.003 .001 1.006 .008 -.001 .001 1.030 .007 -.002 .001 1.008 .006 -.001 .001 1.003 .006 .000 .001 1.002 .005 7.75E-005 .000 1.002 .009 .000 .001 .993 .010 .000 .001 1.021 .016 -.001 .002 .987 .010 .000 .001
Standardized Coefficients Beta .008 .078 -.175 -.062 -.182 -.057 .020 .008 -.036 .033 -.049 -.014
t 149.151 .122 130.104 1.032 93.393 -3.265 126.922 -1.465 145.169 -3.432 157.086 -1.156 162.289 .454 222.420 .164 107.358 -.460 97.629 .467 62.375 -.703 97.654 -.267
Sig. .000 .903 .000 .303 .000 .001 .000 .143 .000 .001 .000 .248 .000 .650 .000 .870 .000 .646 .000 .641 .000 .483 .000 .790
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
The above indicates that market trending was insignificant from either a statistical or a relative magnitude perspective for each subclass and economic area. Based on this analysis, we concluded that Denver County adequately addressed market trending. Sold/Unsold Analysis In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold residential properties, we compared the median change in actual value between 2008 and 2010 for sold and unsold groups. The data was analyzed both as a whole and broken down by subclass, as follows:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 32
Abstrimp 1112.00 1114.00 1115.00 1120.00 1125.00 1130.00 Total
Group Unsold Sold Unsold Sold Unsold Sold Unsold Sold Unsold Sold Unsold Sold Unsold Sold
N 119,300 8,782 9,247 1,498 3,956 97 965 37 1,255 96 39,619 3,950 174,357 14,460
Median .97 1.00 .99 1.02 .90 .94 .86 .90 .99 .98 .98 1.01 .97 1.01
Mean .97 1.02 1.55 1.85 .90 .96 .89 .98 1.14 1.01 1.13 1.28 1.04 1.18
The above results indicate that sold and unsold residential properties were valued in a consistent manner. IV. COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL SALE RESULTS 1. All sales 2. Qualified sales 3. Improved sales 4. Select commercial/industrial sales only
24,534 14,938 14,826 438
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows: Median Price Related Differential Coefficient of Dispersion
0.975 1.047 .116
The above table indicates that the Denver County commercial sale ratios were in compliance with the SBOE standards. The following histogram and scatter plot describe the sales ratio distribution further:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 33
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 34
Commercial/Industrial Market Trend Analysis The assessor did apply market trend adjustments to the vacant land dataset. The 328 vacant land sales were analyzed, examining the sale ratios across the 18 month sale period with the following results: Coefficientsa
Model 1
(Constant) SalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error .957 .018 -9.8E-005 .002
Standardized Coefficients Beta -.003
t 53.952 -.057
Sig. .000 .954
a. Dependent Variable: salesratio
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 35
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 land valuation. Sold/Unsold Analysis We compared the median change in actual value between 2008 and 2010 for vacant land properties to determine if sold and unsold properties were valued consistently, as follows: Group Unsold Sold
N 8,616 326
Median $115 $125
Mean $137 $140
The above results indicated that sold and unsold vacant land properties were valued consistently.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 36
V. VACANT LAND SALE RESULTS The following steps were taken to analyze the vacant land sales: 1. All sales 2. Qualified sales 3. Vacant land sales 4. Residential & commercial/ind vacant land sales
24,534 14,938 119 105
The sales ratio analysis was analyzed as follows: Median Price Related Differential Coefficient of Dispersion
0.961 1.066 .128
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:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 37
The above histogram indicates that the distribution of the vacant land sale ratios was within state mandated limits. No sales were trimmed. Vacant Land Market Trend Analysis We next analyzed the vacant land dataset using the 18-month sale period, with the following results: Coefficientsa
Model 1
(Constant) VSalePeriod
Unstandardized Coefficients B Std. Error .960 .040 -.002 .004
Standardized Coefficients Beta -.054
t 23.722 -.545
Sig. .000 .587
a. Dependent Variable: Salesratio
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 38
The above analysis indicated that no significant market trending was present in the vacant land sale data. We concluded that the assessor has adequately dealt with market trending for vacant land properties. Sold/Unsold Analysis In terms of the valuation consistency between sold and unsold vacant land properties, we compared the median change in value for 2008 and 2010 between each group. We stratified the vacant land properties by subdivision and found overall consistency. The following results present the overall comparison results:
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 39
Report DIFF nbhd 101
226
231
232
233
253
526
Total
sold 0 1 Total 0 1 Total 0 1 Total 0 1 Total 0 1 Total 0 1 Total 0 1 Total 0 1 Total
N 432 7 439 20 3 23 46 3 49 99 13 112 71 5 76 11 4 15 10 7 17 689 42 731
Median 1.11 1.09 1.11 1.00 1.37 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.62 1.71 1.67 1.25 1.48 1.25 1.21 1.55 1.44 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.11 1.41 1.11
Mean 1.09 1.15 1.09 1.12 1.29 1.14 .95 1.00 .96 1.55 1.71 1.57 1.20 1.59 1.23 1.29 1.55 1.36 1.00 1.10 1.04 1.16 1.41 1.17
Overall, we concluded that the county assessor valued sold and unsold vacant properties consistently. V. Conclusions Based on this 2010 audit statistical analysis, residential and vacant land properties were found to be in compliance with state guidelines.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 40
STATISTICAL ABSTRACT Residential Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Median 95% Confidence Interval for Median
1.010 1.008
Lower Bound Upper Bound
1.013 1.000 1.000 1.000 95.1% 1.002 .998 1.006 1.008 .060 14.1%
Lower Bound Upper Bound Actual Coverage
Weighted Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Weighted Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Price Related Differential Coefficient of Dispersion Coefficient of Variation
Mean Centered
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming a Normal distribution for the ratios.
Commercial Land Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Median 95% Confidence Interval for Median
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Lower Bound Upper Bound Actual Coverage
Weighted Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Weighted Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Price Related Differential Coefficient of Dispersion Coefficient of Variation
Mean Centered
.956 .939 .974 .975 .952 .990 95.9% .914 .885 .942 1.047 .116 16.7%
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming a Normal distribution for the ratios.
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 41
Vacant Land Ratio Statistics for currlnd / VTASP Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Mean Median 95% Confidence Interval for Median
.940 .904
Lower Bound Upper Bound
.976 .961 .911 .979 96.9% .882 .824 .939 1.066 .128 19.8%
Lower Bound Upper Bound Actual Coverage
Weighted Mean 95% Confidence Interval for Weighted Mean
Lower Bound Upper Bound
Price Related Differential Coefficient of Dispersion Coefficient of Variation
Mean Centered
The confidence interval for the median is constructed without any distribution assumptions. The actual coverage level may be greater than the specified level. Other confidence intervals are constructed by assuming a Normal distribution for the ratios.
Residential Median Ratio Stratification Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count SPRec
Overall Excluded Total
LT $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K to $200K $200K to $300K $300K to $500K $500K to $750K $750K to $1,000K Over $1,000K
1 21 733 2372 2095 3512 3556 1304 431 441 14466 0 14466
Percent .0% .1% 5.1% 16.4% 14.5% 24.3% 24.6% 9.0% 3.0% 3.0% 100.0%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 42
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group LT $25K $25K to $50K $50K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K to $200K $200K to $300K $300K to $500K $500K to $750K $750K to $1,000K Over $1,000K Overall
Median 1.002 1.067 1.037 1.005 1.000 1.000 .999 .997 1.000 .997 1.000
Price Related Differential 1.000 1.005 1.000 1.001 .999 1.000 .999 1.001 1.000 1.005 1.008
Coefficient of Dispersion .000 .210 .083 .063 .058 .063 .055 .051 .045 .051 .060
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered . 39.5% 12.7% 9.4% 10.8% 19.3% 14.2% 12.8% 8.3% 7.8% 14.3%
Subclass Case Processing Summary PredUse
Overall Excluded Total
1112 1114 1115 1120 1125 1130
Count 8785 1498 97 37 96 3953 14466 0 14466
Percent 60.7% 10.4% .7% .3% .7% 27.3% 100.0%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 43
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group 1112 1114 1115 1120 1125 1130 Overall
Median 1.000 1.000 .984 .985 1.000 1.000 1.000
Price Related Differential 1.006 1.009 1.010 1.032 1.024 1.008 1.008
Coefficient of Dispersion .064 .061 .075 .076 .072 .049 .060
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered 15.8% 18.1% 12.8% 12.0% 10.0% 7.6% 14.3%
Age Case Processing Summary Count AgeRec
0 Over 100 75 to 100 50 to 75 25 to 50 5 to 25 5 or Newer
Overall Excluded Total
2 1606 1945 2998 2912 2451 2552 14466 0 14466
Percent .0% 11.1% 13.4% 20.7% 20.1% 16.9% 17.6% 100.0%
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group 0 Over 100 75 to 100 50 to 75 25 to 50 5 to 25 5 or Newer Overall
Median .946 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Price Related Differential .999 1.006 1.006 1.005 1.012 1.004 1.021 1.008
Coefficient of Dispersion .023 .062 .059 .061 .054 .052 .074 .060
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered 3.3% 10.9% 11.6% 10.2% 8.5% 7.2% 26.8% 14.3%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 44
Improved Area Case Processing Summary Count ImpSFRec
0 LE 500 sf 500 to 1,000 sf 1,000 to 1,500 sf 1,500 to 2,000 sf 2,000 to 3,000 sf 3,000 sf or Higher
2 112 4021 4974 2785 1722 850 14466 0 14466
Overall Excluded Total
Percent .0% .8% 27.8% 34.4% 19.3% 11.9% 5.9% 100.0%
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group 0 LE 500 sf 500 to 1,000 sf 1,000 to 1,500 sf 1,500 to 2,000 sf 2,000 to 3,000 sf 3,000 sf or Higher Overall
Median .946 1.005 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Price Related Differential .999 1.017 1.007 1.006 1.006 1.013 1.072 1.008
Coefficient of Dispersion .023 .069 .059 .054 .051 .061 .126 .060
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered 3.3% 10.5% 9.7% 8.1% 8.1% 16.7% 43.0% 14.3%
Quality Case Processing Summary Count Qual
Overall Excluded Total
1 2 3 4 5 7
4 953 3601 9771 54 81 14464 2 14466
Percent .0% 6.6% 24.9% 67.6% .4% .6% 100.0%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 45
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group 1 2 3 4 5 7 Overall
Median .971 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.002 1.000 1.000
Price Related Differential 1.085 1.036 1.008 1.008 1.031 1.044 1.008
Coefficient of Dispersion .109 .083 .056 .059 .110 .103 .060
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered 19.6% 30.7% 17.0% 9.4% 18.6% 38.8% 14.3%
Commercial Median Ratio Stratification Sale Price Case Processing Summary Count SPRec
Overall Excluded Total
$25K to $50K $50K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K to $200K $200K to $300K $300K to $500K $500K to $750K $750K to $1,000K Over $1,000K
1 3 3 19 37 81 50 34 100 328 0 328
Percent .3% .9% .9% 5.8% 11.3% 24.7% 15.2% 10.4% 30.5% 100.0%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 46
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group $25K to $50K $50K to $100K $100K to $150K $150K to $200K $200K to $300K $300K to $500K $500K to $750K $750K to $1,000K Over $1,000K Overall
Median .964 .989 .960 1.000 .982 1.000 .959 .903 .945 .975
Price Related Differential 1.000 1.012 1.002 .999 .997 1.002 1.002 .993 1.027 1.047
Coefficient of Dispersion .000 .075 .013 .078 .112 .111 .120 .201 .098 .116
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered . 13.5% 2.4% 12.8% 14.7% 15.5% 17.6% 27.2% 13.6% 16.5%
Subclass Case Processing Summary PredUse
Overall Excluded Total
2112 2115 2120 2130 2135 2150 2230 3115
Count 35 1 68 40 104 1 73 6 328 0 328
Percent 10.7% .3% 20.7% 12.2% 31.7% .3% 22.3% 1.8% 100.0%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 47
Ratio Statistics for currtot / tasp
Group 2112 2115 2120 2130 2135 2150 2230 3115 Overall
Median .947 1.062 .969 .935 .982 1.218 .975 1.055 .975
Price Related Differential 1.035 1.000 1.069 1.051 1.011 1.000 1.021 1.016 1.047
Coefficient of Dispersion .136 .000 .107 .175 .110 .000 .090 .069 .116
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered 19.0% . 15.2% 23.7% 15.4% . 14.3% 9.8% 16.5%
Vacant Land Median Ratio Stratification Ratio Statistics for currlnd / VTASP
Group 100 101 200 300 400 510 1112 1120 1125 1130 2120 2125 2130 2135 2140 9139 9179 Overall
Median .985 1.257 .970 1.000 1.452 .925 .863 .841 .973 1.242 .906 1.193 .949 .983 .899 .790 .913 .961
Price Related Differential 1.045 1.068 1.009 1.017 1.000 3.544 1.056 1.000 1.014 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.026 .953 1.034 1.000 1.000 1.066
Coefficient of Dispersion .186 .276 .049 .048 .000 .369 .124 .000 .055 .000 .000 .000 .091 .083 .045 .000 .000 .128
Coefficient of Variation Median Centered 24.2% 39.1% 8.4% 6.9% . 61.8% 15.0% . 7.8% . . . 11.9% 13.0% 6.3% . . 19.5%
2010 Denver County Property Assessment Study – Page 48
