The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20132110August 8, 2013 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT 4226 FAX (970) 352-0242 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY CO 80632 MABURY VILLAGE C/Q WALGREEN CO REAL ESTATE PROP TAX PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD, IL 60015 RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 2013, WELD COUNTY COLORADO APPROVAL OF STIPULATION BETWEEN PETITIONER AND ASSESSOR ACCOUNT NO.: R2941404 Dear Petitioner: Qn August 01, 2013, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County Colorado convened and acting as the Board of Equalization, pursuant to G.R.S. Section 39-8-101 et seq., considered your request to approve and adopt a valuation of your property arrived at by a Stipulation between you and the Weld County Assessor, for the year 2013. The Board of Equalization found that the evidence presented at the hearing supported the stipulated value placed upon the above -described property as set forth below. Such evidence indicated the value was reasonable, equitable, and derived according to the methodologies, percentages, figures and formulas dictated by law. ACTUAL VALUE AS STIPULATED VALUE DETERMINED BY ASSESSOR APPROVED BY BOARD $4,067,138.00 $2,225,136.00 The above `Stipulated Value' is the value which will be used in the calculation of your property taxes for 2013. This value is not appealable. If you have questions concerning the above information, please call me at (970) 336-7215, Ext. 4226. Vp truly yours, Esther E. Gesick, Deputy Clerk Weld County Board of County Commissioners Cc: Christopher Woodruff, Weld County Assessor STERLING PROPERTY TAX SPECIALISTS INC 950 S CHERRY ST SUITE 320 DENVER, CO 80246 W.7I8kski 2013-2110 AS0085 COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION WELD COUNTY Single County Schedule Number R2941404 STIPULATION (As To Tax Year_2013_ Actual Value) RE PETITION OF : NAME: MABURY VILLAGE ADDRESS: 3700 10th St Greeley CO Petitioner (s) and the Weld County Assessor hereby enter into this Stipulation regarding the tax year 2013 valuation of the subject property, and jointly move the Board of Equalization to enter its order based on this Stipulation. Petitioner (s) and Assessor agree and stipulate as follows: 1. The property subject to this Stipulation is described as: L2 BANK OF CHOICE CENTER MINOR 2. The subject property is classified as Commercial property. 3. The County Assessor originally assigned the following actual value to the subject property for the tax year 2013: Total $4,067,138.00 4. After further review and negotiation, Petitioner (s) and Weld County Assessor agree to the following tax year 2013 actual value for the subject property: Total $2,225,136.00 5. The valuation, as established above, shall be binding only with respect to tax year 2013. 6. Brief narrative as to why the reduction was made: Value of goodwill established by BAA decision. 7. Both parties agree that: ®The hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization on 7/30/2013 at 11:00 AM be vacated. ❑A hearing has not yet been scheduled before the Board of Equalization. R2941404 1 2013-2110 ATED s 23 day of July, 2013. Peti oner(s) o ' Agent or Attorney I, i;kCe -5 Assiant) Coun y Attorney for Respondent, Weld County Board of Commissioners Address: Address: Cin CSi- . 1150 "O" Street Sic, 3-7.% P.O. Box 758 �tiCy 8-412-'1(z)Greeley, CO 80632 Y Telephone: 3a3 -'1S"1 ^88c -s Telephone:(970) 336-7235 Docket Number n/a Stip-1.Frm C. my Ass = ssbr Address: 1400 N.17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (970) 353-3845 ext. 3697 R2941404 2 NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Christopher M. Woodruff Weld County Assessor 1400 N 17th Ave Greeley, CO 80631 ACCOUNT NO. TAX YEAR TAX AREA :, LEGAL DESCRIPTION/ PHYSICAL LOCATION R2941404 2013 0600 GR BOCCM L2 BANK OF CHOICE CENTER MINOR 3700 10 ST GREELEY, CO PROPERTY OWNER MABURY VILLAGE C/0 WALGREEN CO REAL ESTATE PROP TAX PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD, IL 60015 PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ASSESSOR'S VALUATION ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW ACTUAL VALUE AFTER REVIEW COMMERCIAL 4,067,138 4,067,138 TOTAL. $4,067,138 $4,067,138 The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest. The Assessor's determination of value after review is based on the following: CM05 - The law requires that all of 2011 and the first 6 months of 2012 data be used to establish current values. We have considered all (3) three approaches to value in arriving at your current valuation. We have denied your appeal based upon this data. If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration, § 39-8-106(1)(a), C.R.S. The deadline for filing real property appeals is July 15. The Assessor establishes property values. The local taxing authorities (county, school district, city, fire protection, and other special districts) set mill levies. The mill levy requested by each taxing authority is based on a projected budget and the property tax revenue required to adequately fund the services it provides to its taxpayers. The local taxing authorities hold budget hearings in the fall. If you are concerned about mill levies, we recommend that you attend these budget hearings. Please refer to last year's tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of the local taxing authorities. Date of Notice: 6/27/2013 Telephone: (970) 353-3845 Fax: (970) 304-6433 Office Hours: 8:00 AM - 5:00 PM Please refer to the reverse side of this notice for additional information. STERLING PROPERTY TAX SPECIALISTS INC 950 S CHERRY ST SUITE 320 DENVER, CO 80246 RECEIVED JUL I l 2013 COMMISSIONERS 15-DPT-AR PR 207-08/13 R2941404 16612 APPEAL PROCEDURES County Board of Equalization Hearings will be held from July 1 through August 5 at 1400 N 17 AVE. To appeal the Assessor's decision, complete the Petition to the County Board of Equalization shown below, and mail or deliver a copy of both sides of this form to: Weld County Board of Equalization 1150 O Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, CO 80631 Telephone: (970) 356-4000 ext, 4225 To preserve your appeal rights, your Petition to the County Board of Equalization must be postmarked or delivered on or before July 15 for real property — after such date, your right to appeal is lost. You may be required to prove that you filed a timely appeal; therefore, we recommend that all correspondence be mailed with proof of mailing. You will be notified of the date and time scheduled for your hearing. The County Board of Equalization must mail a written decision to you within five business days following the date of the decision. The County Board of Equalization must conclude hearings and render decisions by August 5, § 39-8-107(2), C.R.S. If you do not receive a decision from the County Board of Equalization and you wish to continue your appeal, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 12, § 39-2-125(1)(e), C.R.S. If you are dissatisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision and you wish to continue your appeal, you must appeal within 30 days of the date of the County Board's written decision to ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals District Court 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Contact the District Court in the County Denver, CO 80203 where the property is located. See your (303) 866-5880 local telephone book for the address and www.dela.colorado.gov/baa telephone number. Binding Arbitration For a list of arbitrators, contact the County Commissioners at the address listed for the County Board of Equalization. If the date for filing any report, schedule, claim, tax return, statement, remittance, or other document falls upon a Saturday, Sunday, or legal holiday, it shall be deemed to have been timely filed if filed on the next business day, § 39-1-120(3), C.R.S. PETITION TO COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION What is your estimate of the property's value as of June 30, 2012? (Your opinion of value in terms of a specific dollar amount is required for real property pursuant to § 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S.) $ 71 Zt:6, 10O What is the basis for your estimate of value or your reason for requesting a review? (Please attach additional sheets as necessary and any supporting documentation, i.e., comparable sales, rent roll, original installed cost, appraisal, etc.) (p'j Set: 4&0tf . I ATTESTATION I, the undersigned owner or agent"4 of the property identified above, affirm that the statements contained her ' and on any attar menu hereto are true and complete. 863-7q7—amS 7�8/l3 Sig gnat//ure / 9 Telephone Number Dat irjGf0eifQs:)t'P i✓fq �S CoW( Email 234 Attach letter of authorization signed by property owner. Address 15-DPT-AR PR 207-08/13 R2941404 16612 PROPERTY TAX SPECIALISTS. INC. May 15, 2013 Mr. Christopher M. Woodruff Weld County Assessor 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 RE: Walgreens located in Weld County. See Schedule Numbers set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and made an integral part hereof (the "Property") Dear Assessor: 95o S. Cherry Street Suite 320 Denver, CO 80246 303.757.8865 fax 303.757.7691 www.sterlingpts.com The undersigned, Sterling Property Tax Specialists, Inc., represents the single tenant user of the Property for the purpose of protesting the 2013 Notices of Valuation of all Walgreens set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto. A copy of the Letter of Authorization is attached hereto and made an integral part hereof. Only the schedule numbers set forth on Exhibit A are being protested hereunder. The Property consists of seven "build -to -suit" freestanding Walgreens Drug Stores ranging in size between 13,000 square feet to 15,000 square feet. Properties of this type have built-in obsolescence because they were built and designed to meet the needs of a specific single user, rather than the needs of a variety of users. This also limits the Properties' market potential and when compared with other 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet properties with mass market potential, the subject Properties' values are overstated. The typical retail property utilizes street level window exposure for marketing of merchandise; however the windows in the subject Properties are three to four feet above street level. Therefore, the Properties' flexibility to other users as a conversion retail property also limits the market value of the subject Properties. Most generic retail spaces in the 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet range have a larger number of potential tenants. This is not true for the subject Properties due to the unique design and size specifications for this particular single user. The square foot size range does not fit the needs of other single tenant users in the market place. The space is either too large or too small, which limits its market potential. The general layout of the Properties also presents complications for any potential typical retail user. Set within the center of a one to two acre land parcel, the parking layout is designed to accommodate only a single tenant, with only one ideal entrance to the building. A property of this size is too large for the typical single -tenant retailer. The space would better accommodate two smaller users. This parking layout, as well as the single entrance potential, creates an inflexible design for a multi -tenant use. Additionally, there is only one loading area. In order for Walgreens located in Weld County Page 2 the Properties to be marketable to the typical retail user, substantial renovations would have to be implemented at an uneconomical cost. The Assessor's current values are examples of use value and investment value, rather than market value. The Assessor's Property values reflect the subjective relationship between investors and investments, and the value a specific property has for a specific user. The Property is subject to "build -to -suit" arrangements that include the following: 1. The percentage of development cost is pre -arranged (rent -to -cost ratio). 2. The lease is never negotiated on the open market. 3. The developer acts as a construction and financing arm of the user. The Assessor, for calendar year 2013, has substantially increased the value of each of these Walgreens stores from approximately $276 per square foot to $335 per square foot. Certainly nothing has changed in the marketplace from the previous base year and based on the information set forth below, Petitioner contends the Assessor has erroneously increased the market value of the real estate involved in these seven parcels. Therefore, we have performed a market derived triple net income approach relative to a retail user of this size. We believe the income approach set out below applicable to these seven Walgreens stores reflects the high -end range of the Properties' values. Attached hereto as Exhibit B is a portion of the CoStar report for mid -year 2012. The rental rate, mostly for multi -tenant retail space, ranges from $10.79 per square foot to $12.71 per square foot for the Longmont retail; North outlying retail; and Northeast retail. We have utilized a $15 per square foot market rental rate and also utilized an 8% vacancy allowance for this base period. As these are based on triple net rents, we have allocated 5% for operating expenses. We have also used an overall capitalization rate of 8.75%. Attached hereto as Exhibit C is a recent Board of Assessment Appeals decision relating to a 14,490 square foot Walgreens store built in 2002. As reflected in the decision of the Board of Assessment Appeals relating to this 2002 Walgreens, the Board applied a market rent of $15 per square foot for the base period of June 30, 2010. The concluded value of $152 per square foot is similar to the requested values set forth below by Petitioner for its 2013 Walgreens store values. The Arapahoe County Board of Equalization has appealed this case to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The appeal is based on the legal issue of valuation of this property based on a specific user only and not based upon the general market value of the real estate as a general retail property. The Board of Assessment Appeals as trier of fact rejected the Board of Equalization's argument and did not acknowledge that the value should be based on a sale - leaseback value. We believe Weld County generally does not follow specific user approach based on non -market sale -leaseback transactions, therefore, we believe the Board of Assessment Appeals, as trier of fact, correctly interpreted the valuation of these types of properties. Walgreens located in Weld County Page 3 Our income approach for each of these seven Walgreens is as follows: Potential Gross Income Vacancy (8%) Effective Gross Income Operating Expenses (5%) Net Operating Income Capitalization Rate Property Value $ 15.00 per square foot S 1.20 per square foot $ 13.80 per square foot $ 0.69 per square foot S 13.11 per square foot 8.75% $ 151 per square foot (rounded) Petitioner is aware of only two Weld county sales of larger retail parcels not involving the sales - leaseback transactions reflecting above market rental rates that occurred in Weld County during the base period. One was a 10,402 square foot building at 2733 8`h Avenue in Greeley which sold on January 3, 2011, for $52.54 per square foot. The second is an auto dealership with 18,714 square feet of improvements, but on substantially larger land square footage, which sold on May 11, 2011 for $98.05 per square foot. This was located at 1015 Champion Drive in Windsor, Colorado. As reflected in the decisions of the Board of Assessment Appeals, non -arms length sales of Walgreens stores need such major adjustments that the Walgreens sales do not reflect market value of the real estate. The requested value of $151 per square foot is substantially higher than the two sales and in line with previous valuations set by Weld County for the subject parcels. Based upon the foregoing, Petitioner hereby requests the Assessor adjust the value for the Property for calendar year 2013 for the seven parcels to $151 per square foot. Petitioner's requested value for each parcel is set forth on Exhibit A attached hereto and made an integral part hereof. All information contained herein should be considered confidential and not available to any third parties. Sincerely, STERLING PROPERTY TAX SPECIALISTS, INC. By: Barry J. Goldstein, President LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION June 3, 2013 Sterling Property Tax Specialists, Inc. 950 South Cherry Street, Suite 320 Denver, Colorado 80246 RE: 2013 and 2014 Property Tax Assessment Matters Gentlemen: The undersigned, as owner(s) of property located in Weld County, Colorado, at 1480 Main Street, and more particularly described on Assessor's Notice of Valuation, Schedule No(s). R2569303 hereby authorizes Sterling Property Tax Specialists, Inc. and Barry J. Goldstein, Esq., to act as agent on my behalf regarding all 2013 and 2014 property tax assessment matters, and obtain any and all documents relating thereto and file any protests necessary. This Authorization shall be effective as of the date set forth above. MCR Farnsworth, LLC By: Printed Title: V. Telephone: 847-527-4418 There's a way" LETTER OF AUTHORIZATION April 19, 2013 Sterling Property Tax Specialists, Inc. 950 South Cherry Street, Suite 320 Denver, Colorado 80246 RE: 2013 and 2014 Property Tax Assessment Matters Gentlemen: The undersigned, as owner, or Lessee entitled to protest the valuation of the Property under our lease, located in Weld County, Colorado, at See Attached, and more particularly described on Assessor's Notice of Valuation, Schedule No(s). See Attached hereby authorizes Sterling Property Tax Specialists, Inc, and Barry J. Goldstein, Esq., to act as agent on my behalf regarding all 2013 and 2014 property tax assessment matters, and obtain any and all documents relating thereto and file any protests necessary. This Authorization shall be effective as of the date set forth above. WALGREEN COMPANY By: Anna Pelts, Real Estate Tax Administrator Telephone: 847-527-4418 Walgreen Co. • 300 Wilmot Road • Deerfield, IL 60015 www.walgreens.com Weld County 2013/2014 1641 23rd Ave 83919505 1641 23rd Ave P3919605 1480 Main Street P2569303 3700 35th Avenue P.2682304 3700 W 10th Street R2941404 5962 Firestone Blvd R3846705 2600 11th Ave R4696707 NEC of Mountain View & Hwy 7 86775936 490 Erie Parkway R5341708 Walgreen Co. • 300 Wilmot Road • Deerfield, IL 60015 www.walgreens.com Property Address Walgreens Protested Parcels Weld County 2013 Petitioner's Exhibit A Schedule Value (a $151 per sq. Numbers Square Footage ft. (rounded) 1641 23 Ave. 3700 35 Ave. 1480 Main St. 3700 10 St. 5962 Firestone Blvd. 2600 11th Ave. 490 Eire Parkway R3919605 R2682304 R2569303 R2941404 R3846705 R4696707 R5341708 14,406 $2,175,300 14,744 $2.226.300 14,488 $2,187,700 14,736 $2,225,100 14,739 $2,225,600 13,625 $2,057,400 14,409 $2,175,800 Mir. -le RETAIL IVIARKET GENERAL RETAIL MARKET STATISTICS Aurora Rel 36E 3166,915 155,754 155754 Boulder Ret 320 3509,132 143,73E 159,414 Central Ret 1,763 1'_ 050,967 371.037 371,037 38.920 Colorado 81/Cherry Ck het 206 1,791,546 Downtown Ret 262 4,102,939 61,639 /.... 61,6639 1.5% (12_.691/ ... 0 0 $1940 Longmont Ret 341 2,946,650 133072 ...137468 47% (5,900) 0 0 ._$171 North Outlying ket _.. 135 917,670 26,645 26,846 '_9% (14,601) 0 0... 310,75 Northeast ket 711 5,201,726 261843 273,820 5.3% 45,693 17722. 15066 $11.85 Northern Colorado Ret 1,573 12 741 564 1,016809 1,019,509 80% (4,935) 0 400 ..$10.49 Northwest Ret 652 5,72_9,32 421,579 462,164 5.5 (11.435) 3390 5,700 $11.97 South Ref406 5560.543 122.663 125 649 '_.3 (24,336) 0 211,838 $14.84 -ut ' 4,314 0 0 $15.77 Southeast Outlying Ret 209 1,3E2,074 38,978 40 278 '.9 uth-----'—"' 0 0 318.13 Southeast Ret 323 4,205,580 275,182 277 162 6.5 ( 7,743) 2Southwest Outlying Ret 87 50'_,107 24,348 24,348 4E _^ __—fi>�^ R_ 0_^_ _ „_14^B ' Southwest Ret 196 2.247,573 62,371 62,371 2.8% (1,736) 0 0 514.36 Wert .__..._� .. Ret 1438 9,0'604_3 577,083 - 595,263 66% (36,617) ', ?.949 9,536 $ .53 36,920 4.1% 45% 3.1% 281 0 1,831 2,134 11,660 0 COSTM Mid -Year 2012 44 763 11,467 1,624 11,900 $11.63 $20.36 314.87 ¶2_3.88 seerzc case, weemve. MALL MARKET STATISTICS Mid -Year 2012 Aurora Ret 1,084,483 0 0 00 0 0 0! $0.00 __.— Ret _ Boulder Ret 1 716,230 12 413 25,513 3.6% 7,747 0 0 .. _ —.,_.. -. _. 0 0 , $X35 Central Ret 1 724,622 9,508 9,508 1.3% 6 797 Colorado BI/Cnerry Ck Ret 1 1,177,400 0 0 0.0% 0 0 0 $0.00 ., __. _ ._._.. _, D6w. - wRet Ret 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 Longmont Ret 1 462.653 81886 81,886 177 0 0 0 52000 North Outlying Ret 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $0.00 Northeast Ret 1 1,146615 136,184 136,184 tt 996 5'_90 0 0 32.2.50 Northern Colorado Ret 4 2 792,678 238,714 238,714 8 5% 9 690 0 0 520,73 Nortnwest Ret 3 2,626,250 418,569 418,569 17.9%= (145,698) 0 25 000 511 00 Soutn Ret 3 '_,906 650 115,700 117,195 4 0% 28 123 0 0 530 80 Southeast Outlying Ret 1 202,683 4999 4999 „_. 75% 0 0 0 819.36 Soutneat Ret 1 1 437,081 05 303 95,303 6 6% 3_.973 0 0 $0.00 Southwest Outlying Ret 0 0 0 0 00% 0 0..._. 0 $0.00 Southwest Ret 1 1 453 079.. 219,580 219,580 14 8% _. (27 687) 0 0 511.42 West ket 2 2_,313910 2.533 23,696 1.0% 1,000 0 0 520.50 Totals 21 I 19,074.534' 1,335,389 I 1,371,147 I 7.2%I (110.970)1 0 I 25,000' 521.27 seance Carly heoely0 ©2011 COSTAR GROUP, INC. THE COSTAR RETAIL REPORT 9 Sri) mad 6 Co BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEAL S, STATE OF COLORADO 1313 Sheunan Street, Room 315 Denver, Colorado 80203 Petitioner: OBE AURORA LLC, Respondent: ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION. Docket Nos.: 60205 d: 60966 E PETITIONER'S EXHIBIT C ORDER TEES MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on October 15, 201?, Diane M. DeVries and Brooke B. Leer presiding. Petitioner was represented by Kendra L. Goldstein, Esq. Respondent was represented by George Rosenberg, Esq. Petitioner is protesting the 2011 actual value of the subject propery. The actual value conclusion for 2011 will also be applied for the 2012 tax_ year. The testimony and exhibits presented at the hearing of Dockets 60196, 60960; 60202 and 60968 on September 24, 2012 are incorporated as evidence herein. Subject property is described as follows: 18620 East I1iff Avenue, City of Aurora, Arapahos County, CO Arapahoe County Schedule No, 1975-27-2-18-001 The subject property is a free -sty -ding, single -tenant, concrete and masonry retail building. It is leased by Walgreens. The building has one level, contains 14,490 square feet, and uas built in 2002. Petitioner is requesting an actual value of $2,130,000 for the subject property for tax years 2011 and 2012. Respondent assigned a value of $3,158,000: This value is the maximum value determined by Respondent at the County Board of Ecnalization. Respondent's appraisal presented at the hearing had a higher value conclusion of $3,300,000. The Board h; addressed the differences in the valuation procedures used by Petitioner and Respondent and selected the 60205 d 60966 method of analysis that the Board finds to he the mom appropriate for ad valorem purposes for the subject's property type. Petitioner's expert witness, Christopher N. Baker, MAI and Certified General Appraiser, appraised the subject property with a June 30, 2010 valuation date. He appraised the fee simple estate applying all three approaches to value. He concluded the highest and best use of the subject as continued current retail -related use. Petitioner's appraiser presented the income capitalization approach and used rental data from two former Walgreens stores offered for lease at $15.00 (Comparable 1) and $16.00 (Comparable 2) per square foot, one located on Parker Road in Aurora and the other in west Denver on Colfax. The other rental data presented (specifically, Comparables 3 and 4) were south and east of the subject but in relatively similar areas to the subject. The base rental rates were $13.50 and $14.00 per square foot for national credit tenants. On page 40 of Petitioner's report there is a table containing specific rent information for national credit tenants. The better comparable rents to the subject from this table are ones built between 2003 and 2008, in the 12,000 to 20,000 square foot range and in Aurora. The base rents, applying these parameters, range from $12.00 to $18.00 per square foot, rounded. Petitioner applied a market rent of $15.00 per square foot to the subject building. The Board concludes the market rent applied at $15.00 per square foot is reasonable based on the market rents referred to in Aurora. Petitioner applied a vacancy rate at 8%. Some minimal deductions for managemnt and replacement reserves are appropriate as applied. Petitioner's witness also presented the sales comparison approach to value the subject Three retail sales used were in different areas than the subject and ranged from $136.17 to $174.75 per square foot. Two listings were presented, one of a former Walgreens and the other of an Office Depot store, ranging from $151.41 to $159.95 per square foot. After adjustments were made, the sales/listings ranged from $136.17 to $157.28. Although outside of the subject area, Comparables 3, 4 and 5 are located in similar areas and have demographics comparable to the subject. The Board concludes that the value range applied by Petitioner's appraiser to the subject by the sales comparison approach at $140.00 to $145.00 is low and will be compared to the income capital;7ation approach conclusions. Petitioner's appraiser also prepared a cost approach to value the subject but indicated it was not weighted in the conclusion of value. Respondent's appraiser and expert witness, Gary J. Mycoc _, Certified General Appraiser and an employee of the Arapahoe County Assessor's Office, appraised the fee simple estate of the subject property with an effective appraisal date of June 30, 2010. The appraiser applied all three approaches to value the subject property. Mr. Mycock's conclusion of the highest and best use of the subject property is a free standing retail drug store. In the analysis presented, the data used in general was reflective of the value for a Walgreens store, based primarily on data from other Walgreens facilities. The actual rental data from other Walgreens stores was applied in the income capitalization approach with adjustments. The sales of other operating Walgreens facilities were used, with the above market rents in place 66205 d 60966 at the time of sale, and adjustments were applied to reflect a fee simple interest rather than the leased fee interest. Respondent's valuation presumes that the subject property will likely continue as a drugstore and the data from other data used value with he ubjjust pes, that reflect the fee simple interest should be the primary rty. Respondent's appraiser prepared a cost approach and suggested it had some validity in concluding a final value estimate because of the relatively recent year of construction in 2002 and because about 50% of the value was in the land. The Board concludes that the adjustments to the Walgreens sales and rents for a leased fee interest should be significant enough to be reflective of what other well -located retail facilities are being sold and rented for in the open riarket. The subject location caters to a national credit retail user. Sales and leases of drugstores to other drugstore users in the subject area would be the ideal data to use in the valuation of the subject; no such sales is or a leases �we re presented for the Board's consideration. The testimony of Ms. a reens employee and witness for Petitioner, indicated that drugstores generally do not sell or lease to other drugstore users in Colorado. She testified that most sales and lease agreemens involving Walareens facilities restrict sales to a similar user. The Board concludes that the market for the subject, if available in the open market for sale or lease as of June 30, 2010, would be to a single tenant retail user, which is reflective of the exdsung use. Some adaptations may be necessary to the subject to attract a different user. Sales - and rental data from other free-standing retail facilities in the subject area would be the most helpful in valuing the fee simple interest of the subject. Such sales are necessary to use in adjusting the above market lease in place to a market rent. The Walgreens lease is based on the cost to build and represents a leased fee interest. The rents from other good quality facilities in similar areas would be appropriate to use to estivate market rent and derive a fee simple interest for the subject. The adjustments applied to the sales, rents and costs in Respondent's appraisal report retail not sufficient enough to be reflective of what the general user would be willing to pay for the subject property. The Board finds that the conclusion of $3,300,000 from Respondent's appraisal report overstates the fee simple market value of the subject for the 2011 and 2012 valuation years. The Board has placed the most weight in valuing the subject property for ad valorem purposes on the data presented in Petitioner's appraisal report. The rental data specifically is generally reflective of the subject location and surrounding demographics in the area. The market rental data for the Aurora and Southeast areas from the CBRE report suggests an average asking rental rate in Aurora (subject area) for the second quarter of 2010 of $13.58 per square foot and in the Southeast area of $16.27 per square foot. The vacancy percentage in Aurora is L.5% for this time period. The Board concludes that the rental rate at $15.00 is reasonable for the subject with a vacancy rate of 7%; slightly less than the 8% applied by Petitioner. 60205 E 60966 3 • The Board considered and read both articles presented at the September 24, 2012 hearing, Petitioner's Exhibit C, and Respondent's Exhibit 1, Addendum F. The Board also accepted Petitioner's data related to equalization in valuation, however no testimony was allowed concerning it. The Board had indicated to both parties, that the Board would determine what weight would be given to the data. The Board concluded that sufficient information was provided to reach the decision of a fee simple value for the subject and no weight was given to the equalization data. The Board concluded that the highest and best use of the subject property, if exposed on the open market, with a willing buyer and seller, would be to develop the property with a free standing retail building that is attractive to a national credit tenant. The most important factors in valuing the property are the market data in the subject area, actual rents and sales. To -estimate a fee simple market value of the subject property as of June. 30, 2010, the Board applied the following values using the income capitalization approach: Market rent- $15 Vacancy rate- 7% Management fee- 3% Reserves- $.10 per sgii re foot Capitalization rate- S.5%-9.0% The data above suggested a value range of $149.00 to $158.00 per sgn9re foot for the subject property. The sales data range presented by Petitioner's appraiser in the sales comparison approach was from $140.00 to $145.00 per square foot which the Board concluded was low. The Board concludes a subject value based on the parameters from the income capitalization approach at $152.00 per square foot. This value applied to the subject's 14,490 Square feet indicates a fee simple market value of $?,?02,480. ORDER: - Respondent is ordered to reduce the 2011 and 2012 actual value of "toe subject property to $2,202,480. The Arapahoe County Assessor's Office is directed to change their records accord Maly. APPEAL: If the decision of the Board is against Petitioner, Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of Section 244-106(11), C.R.S. (commenced by the filing of a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals within forty-fve days after the date of the service of the final order entered). 6020.5 d 60966 4 If the decision of the Board is against Respondent, Respondent, upon the recommendation of the Board that it either is a matter of statewide concern or has resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of Section 24-4-106(11), C.R.S. (commenced by the filing of a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals within forty-five days after the date of the service of the final order entered). In addition, if the decision of the Board is against Respondent, Respondent may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review of alleged procedural errors or errors of law within thirty days of such decision when Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by the Board. If the Board does not recommend its decision to be a matter of statewide concern or to have resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, Respondent may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review of such questions within thirty days of such decision. Section 39-8-108(2), C.R.S. DATED and MATT 'VD this 21st day of November, 2012. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of the dec. the d of Assessment Appeal Mills Ch & to 60205 d 60956 5 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS k&(vi)'r) w F /D-0-2 /rcVries Brooke B. Lee: PLACE STICKER AT F OF ENVELOPE TO ME RIGHT OF THE BOURN ADOBOURNRESS, FOLD AT OOTTEO LINE CERTIFIED MAILTM U\\'i4111'11III1!11Viil'i11IN PROPERTY TAX SPECIALISTS. INC. 95o S. Cherry Street Suite 320 Denver, CO 80246 Weld County Board of Equalization c/o Weld County Assessor 1400 N. 17th Avenue Greeley, CO 80631 sZi VMTED STATES Ro aL SERVICE 1000 i 11111 80631 D RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED I'NI I'll' thin illurt illrilll,lli'�UI�li U.S. POSTAGE PAID DENVER. CD 80246 JUL 15.'13 AMOUNT $7.17 00075155-10 July 22, 2013 MABURY VILLAGE C/O WALGREEN CO REAL ESTATE PROP TAX PO BOX 1159 DEERFIELD, IL 60015 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT 4226 FAX (970) 352-0242 WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY CO 80632 Account No.: R2941404 Dear Petitioner(s): The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of July 30, 2013, at or about the hour of 11:00 AM, to hold a hearing on your valuation for assessment. This hearing will be held at the Weld County Administration Building, Assembly Room, 1150 O Street, Greeley, Colorado. You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence in support of your petition. The Weld County Assessor or his designee will be present. The Board will make its decision on the basis of the record made at the aforementioned hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 2013, and mailed to you on or before August 12, 2013. Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, most cases shall be limited to 10 minutes. Also due to volume, cases cannot be rescheduled. It is imperative that you provide evidence to support your position. This may include evidence that similar homes in your area are valued less than yours or you are being assessed on improvements you do not have. Please note: The fact that your valuation has increased cannot be your sole basis of appeal. Without documented evidence as indicated above, the Board will have no choice but to deny your appeal. If you wish to obtain the data supporting the Assessor's valuation of your property, please submit a written request directly to the Assessor's Office by fax (970) 304-6433, or if you have questions, call (970) 353-3845. Upon receipt of your written request, the Assessor will notify you of the estimated cost of providing such information. Payment must be made prior to the Assessor providing such information, at which time the Assessor will make the data available within three (3) working days, subject to any confidentiality requirements. AS0085 MABURY VILLAGE - R2941404 Page 2 Please advise me if you decide not to keep your appointment as scheduled. If you need any additional information, please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Christopher Woodruff, Assessor STERLING PROPERTY TAX SPECIALISTS INC 950 S CHERRY ST SUITE 320 DENVER, CO 80246 AS0085 Hello