The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20111618.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE, IN PART, PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - FRYE FARM INVESTMENTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 11th day of July, 2011, at which meeting there were present the following members: Chair Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Commissioners Sean P. Conway, William F. Garcia, David E. Long, and Douglas Rademacher, and WHEREAS, notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County, with said Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, being present, and taxpayer, Frye Farm Investments, LLC, being present and represented by Leonard Wiest, owner, and Michael Sampson, agent, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the attached petition, and is fully advised in relation thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Board concurs with the recommendation of the Assessor and the petition be and hereby is, approved, in part, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows: CORRECTION TO ASSESSED ABATEMENT TAX VALUATION OR REFUND YEAR $0.00 $0.00 2008 $24,943.08 $2,822.34 2009 $24,943.08 $2,906.66 2010 Q . R \A K\ 2011-1618 '1 - - I I AS0078 TAX ABATEMENT PETITION - FRYE FARM INVESTMENTS, LLC PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 11th day of July, A.D., 2011. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLO DO ATTEST: ± E ®�� Z auh (.L ,__ AYE ` •-rbara Kirkmeyer, C air Weld County Clerk to the B.�ad a ' Y .. hGLt (NAY) �,.BY: � an P. Cjway, Pro-Tem ., ,`''(I ! t (AYE) Deputy Clerk to the Board it = rci APPROVED AS TO FORM: t (NAY) nai A ,1 D 'd E. Long �+ qs,6.CountyAttorney ( Cj1/(,.YE) uglas R emacher Date of signature: 7,9/// 2011-1618 AS0078 ,5SCSScK Cap9 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County:Weld Date'Received c2O10 --/0O (Use Assessor's or Commissioners'Date Stamp) Section I: Petitioner, please complete Section I only. LEMED Date: September 1st 2010 Month Day Year DEC 2 9 2010 Petitioner's Name: Frye Farm Investments LLC. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR GREELEY, COLORADO Petitioner's Mailing Address: 1625 Pelican Lakes Point Suite 201 Windsor Colorado 80550 City or Town State Zip Code SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Various/See attached Sheets Parcels in Section 33/Township 06/Range 67 of Weld County Cob. PISa59.. g-- Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year(s) 2008 and 2009 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Please see attached pages for explanations and request for review and refunds associated with the questioned parcels. ✓ ,y Petitioner's estimate of value: § 4653 ( 2008 )and $4653 ( 2009 ) Value Year Value Year Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes. I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree, that this petition, together with any accompanying exhibits or statements, has been prepared or examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, is true, comet, and complete. t"' 't`-' /L .--f.--; c Daytime Phone Number F?/4-' ) 1-`r)6-- j 7,' By��Petitioner's Sig two Q l c� � Daytime Phone Number(/pQJD ) SIC / I D Agent's Signature 'Letter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted by an agent If the board of county commissioners, pursuant to section 39-10-114(1),or the property tax administrator, pursuant to section 39-2-116, denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes in whole or in part,the petitioner may appeal to the board of assessment appeals pursuant to the provisions of section 39-2-125 within thirty days of the entry of any such decision,§39-10-114.5(1), C.R.S. Section II: Assessor's Recommendation (For c Assessor's Use Only) Tax Year -0i- ear v(( O O Tax Year D oo /Q Actual Assessed Tax Actual Assessed Tax Original &ricor7 r1 .33 0 r133,31 a g' 104.7 3 a aC1O 931 1 ,9,4 corrected S9,1 uU `7 '7 S' 3O 133.3 / 19 7 15 5 >13 y(o Pia /o1'-! '9.(co Abate/Refund C o O ' (Q d cl a '-i g q 3.og of O aa,3 Li SAssessor recommends approval as outlined above. No protest was filed for the year(s): or (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.) ❑Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s): Assessor ignature 15-DPT-AR No.920-66/06 2011-1618 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County:WELD Date Received 070 1/— 0/0 (Use Asse'ssor�s-or Commissioners' Date Stamp) Section I: Petitioner, please complete Section I only. 1: Date: February 28 2011 Month Day Year MAR 2011 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Petitioner's Name: Trollco - Fry LLC Farm Investments C]REFLEY COLORADO Petitioner s Mailing Address: 1625 Pelican Lakes Point- Suite 201 Windsor Colorado 80550 City or Town State Zip Code SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Various- Please see Attached Parcels located in sect. 33/Twnshp. 6/Range 67 of Weld County Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the above property for the property tax year 2010 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe why the taxes have been levied erroneously or illegally, whether due to erroneous valuation, irregularity in levying, clerical error, or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Attached pages are included for explanation of the requested taxes and refunds or adjusted taxes due based on the information related to the questioned parcels. Please note that there was a previous request for these same parcels filed for years 2009 and 2008; obviously any value reductions which might have been applied to 2009 (and accepted) by the owners agent, are also requested for 2010, since nothing changed in the intervening year. Petitioner's estimate of value: $4650.00 (2010 ) Value Year I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree, that this petition, together with any accompanying exhibits or statements, has been prepared or examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, is true, correct, and complete. Daytime Phone Number ( Petitioner's Signature By7t1 ^/ r -Z ca / Daytime Phone Number ( 970 ) 590-1940 Agent's Signatue `Letter of agency must be attached when petition Is submitted by an agent If the Board of County Commissioners,pursuant to§39-10-114(1), C.R.S., or the Property Tax Administrator, pursuant to§39-2-116, C.R.S., denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes in whole or in part,the Petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant to the provisions of§39-2-125, C.R.S., within thirty days of the entry of any such decision,§39-10-114.5(1), C.R.S. Section II: Assessor's Recommendation (For Assessor's Use Only) Tax Year r)O1 O Actual Assessed Tax Original a?Hui-7 gaago g5 a3 Corrected to --ic-)5 5134cP.Ra (Du)nBIa57 Abate/Refund (0 act a ai-Ri13.og �QOID.�0(D Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. If the request for abatement is based upon the grounds of overvaluation, no abatement or refund of taxes shall be made if an objection or protest to such valuation has been filed and a Notice of Determination has been mailed to the taxpayer,§39-10-114(1)(a)(l)(D), C.R.S. Tax year: Protest? ❑ No ❑ Yes (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.) ❑ Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s): C]2 ffy%/ Assessors o pur's S 15-DPT-AR No. 920-66/11 AppeaUAbatement for Frye Farm Investments for 2008—2009 & 2010 To Whom It Concerns: We would like to open the dialog early in addressing the points which the owners feel are questionable and would appear to bring issue to the valuation of the parcels in question and why they feel that way. First; the Abstract Code shown as 4117 on several of the parcels being questioned;the Abstract Code(by statute) is reserved for agricultural lands in Colorado and more specifically used for Flood Irrigated - agricultural land. While there is no question that the lands in dispute are indeed agricultural,there are questions about how these parcels are currently valued through the assessment process; the first of which is Abstract Code/4117. The parcels in question (are not irrigated but dry and has been for several years)they had water and an irrigation system at one time but has been reverted to dry farm status for the past several cycles. The USE of this land has remained agricultural and does to this day, so the real issue is the classifications of the various parcels and they appear incorrectly abstracted for current and past assessment periods. The majority of these lands are not being farmed due to slope and nearly impossible terrain, so actually it is far more related to a code of 4167, which is Waste Land. The land which is farmed is Dry Land and as such should be 4127; anything other than these two Abstract Codes is, the owners believe, incorrect. We feel the attached photos clearly show this to be the case and physical viewing of the parcels in question should alleviate any remaining doubts. Secondly; there is a question of the land use as currently assigned, the owners of the parcels(in question) feel that they are all agricultural and not residential; there have been no changes in usage for any of the parcels for many years. They feel that the filing of plats for a potential future use is not grounds to change these to residential, and in fact by abstract code (at least)the Assessor has not done this; however they have altered the perception of use by calling all of these parcels residential...which we feel, they are not. Are there plans that direction in the future?Probably, but the use of land (in the state) continues to be the determinant method of ad-valorem valuation, at least until further notice. That being the case, the parcels are agricultural and they should be left as such, with the proper codes attached to address the real value and use of each parcel. According to the owners, they were told that they are being valued as agricultural, but split amongst all the parcels, so that the final total value is no different than a value which would be assigned a single larger agricultural parcel. This appears to be an error at this time or possibly, a communication problem. Even flood irrigated land would be no more than about $550 per acre for the best anywhere in Weld County, and the subjects properties are valued at well in excess of$345,000 for 140 acres, the majority of which is being classified as flood irrigated land. Simple math determines this to be a value of nearly$2500 per acre, the vast majority of the subject's land is un-productive waste land. These values therefore appear as being wrong, at least on the surface. There is no other actual fanned land anywhere in this state valued at anywhere close to this level....none that we could find.....zero....zip. Where they feel this land should be valued as Dry Farm first and Waste Land second they feel they are being dinged at a rate in excess of 45 times that which is being assessed & classified as Dry Farm Land,just 1 mile south of the subjects. There appears to be no pragmatic or reasonable explanation for this and as such we are asking a review to address something that needs to be corrected and fixed, for the assessment to be correct. Appealed Property List: A. 080733346001 thru 080733346034 1rOiY" 7O>E3 This includes 34 parcels as shown by the Weld Assessors Office on the current web site. These parcels are shown in varying sizes from .1772 acres to .2319 and all are valued for 2009-2010 at$7,560 each, or a total of$257,040 for the 6.811 combined acres. The values for these same parcels, in 2007-2008, were at an even higher level of$9,850 each or$334,900 total. Keeping in mind that this land was agricultural for preceding years (prior to being platted)and has continued as agricultural since, valuing at anything above dry farm or waste land value for any of the years in question would seem a reach at best. The owners feel that the correct values for these parcels (as a whole) could be as low as$37.94 for the entire 6.811 acres if placed as waste land,which from an agricultural perspective they are, (computed at $5.57 per acre). The current values certainly appear to be so extreme that an example is easily seen in parcel R5359608, which is lot 2 of the 34 described above. This parcel is valued at$7560 and (as stated)that is less than the previous value period; current values break down to a level of$.90 per sq. ft. or$39,204 per acre. Does this compute?Not in the eyes of the owners it doesn't. This is classified as agricultural land by abstract code and even incorrectly coded as 4117, how could it be anywhere close to this value?Logically it can't. **We are requesting the 34 lots/6.811 acres be reduced to a total of$38.00 and re- abstracted as waste land(coded 4167)for both 2008 and 2009; additionally we will be requesting the same reduction for 2010 at the proper time. B. 080733347003/R5362908 c U -hl a' S QLJ T N 0 ti This is a 60 acre parcel that lies on the hillside directly below the 34 parcels discussed above; it is also valued as Irrigated Land/4117 (incorrectly) and should be re-classified as waste land(code 4167)too. There is no irrigation to this parcel and even if it had water available it would be impossible to irrigate and crop this parcel in anything resembling an agricultural product. **We are requesting this parcel be reduced to waste land value for both 2008 and 2009 which would result in values of$335 for the entire parcel of 60 acres at$5.57 per acre as used on other similar parcels associated with farm operations in the near area to the subjects.Additionally we will be requesting this same reduction for 2010 at the appropriate time. C. Various parcels as indicated below: J a.R5358808 P?i ' 10'A b.R5358908 " �c.R5359008 IL V'd.R5359408 e.R5363008 f.R5363108 g.R5363208 h.R5359208 Combined these parcels represent acreages that are being Dry Farmed and are in Wheat production currently, as they have been for several years. These, once again, are shown as being irrigated parcels, they are not irrigated and getting water to any of them is not possible since the old irrigation ditch system has been abandoned and water to this area no longer exists. Therefore the parcels in question should be valued as dry land(code 4127) and not at the irrigated levels as they are currently. Additionally several of these parcels have waste land associated with them and that portion of those parcels should be reduced even further to reflect this non productive use. Based on recently viewed similar parcels of dry farm wheat, associated with operations south and west of the subjects, we are requesting a reduction of value from those currently indicated to the more reasonable and accurate level of approximately $65.00 per acre, depending on the soils composition for the subjects shown. Currently these dry farmed parcels are valued from $3222 to $450 per acre and all ranges in between, there appears no rime-nor-reason to the various values for parcels lying side by side and used exactly in the same way. Amounts for each parcel are shown below as related to our requested values for this abatement. a.R5358808-2.34 ac. /.34 waste= $130+$1.90=$131.90 b.R5358908-3.84 ac. /.84 waste= $195 +$4.78=$199.68 c.R5359008-4.88 ac. / 1.88 waste=$195+$10.47=$205.47 d.R5359408-4.86 ac. / 1.75 waste= $202.15+$9.75 =$211.90 e.R5363008-6.65 ac. /.75 roads inc. =$432.25 f.R5363108-28.8 ac. /.75 roads inc. =$1872 g.R5363208-4.8 ac. =$312 h.R5359208- 14.07 ac. =$914.55 **Therefore the combined values for the parcels shown above should total approximately $4279.75 when considering waste and dry land values at$5.57 and$65 respectively. If these values are not exact it is because we do not have access to the exact land types and corresponding production figures associated with the subjects agricultural profiles. However is should be quite close to the final values sought, after adjustments are made accordingly. Currently these combined values are in excess of $54,000.Additionally requests for similar reductions to the 2010 values will be processed in the proper time frame. Abatement Value Summery: We are seeking these reductions for 2008 and 2009 with this abatement form; another form representing the tax year of 2010 is also being prepared to reflect the same amounts as those requested here, but for a single year. We have no doubts that the agricultural classification is the correct one, but the abstract codes are incorrect by every indication related to the State of Colorado Statutes regarding agriculturally producing land. The property owners have followed all the requirements necessary to secure this land as agricultural and the Assessor's abstracts enforce this completely, however they fervently oppose the classifications on all of the parcels shown in sections A& B above as being anything other than dry farm or waste land. Additionally we dispute the classification of the remainder as being irrigated land; it simply is not, even though it is clearly being farmed as required for that status within statute guidelines. We respectfully request that this issue be addressed and corrected by the responsible parties involved. We are fully prepared to pursue this matter to higher levels if necessary but would prefer otherwise. Respectfully; Michael Sampson/Agent for owners of Frye Farms Investments t_ I c i - N `7n .�r 3 -. r • �� 1 I -Cy/yG,tr 1.4----= '- 4,rte, % vk I sJ, o .;" 4. r•r A - • �.. N ` n . . ,a . ` 14 . r , r I J� C O r 4` SKY'SLNDDR i.--, • _ 0 toll IL c43 iD it CD Pi U'11bs, ,0- CI - /,•,y\ y�•r • ; • it rXI:I • 'ti; i , : 3301,4° a. !I CC �-'I ' II 0. I tilt r A I . -1%16 ILO •I••• I II A el , 1.1e� ll Ili • I I ' I I I I I icr I kir N 0 ,, 1 I 1 I I`{ 0 I O , a Olg ~ Q P' J O II Ua II . c if I 0 _r ...—.—II U �.„—•.--_ I a G 4d i 1 ' as......N . r flilliglilli:\ AIL 4 r :SI . \ ' l'Sil. . eliti I -hi. . ... / . r. % I a r —r• .iiiilliki41.41/4. ' . Ip! . . • • r 0 . 4. a*1/4' I b.4 Ibis teTed-?: • 'J�� / r f w l :J l It :I- ,..• �`. . i." , ♦ . rt jf > . . _ t. 4; to Y" •� ₹ i �,, Kr f - t 4., - CI a gr, E C 0 . . , , 4� ` * • c 4-1 S. 1. lit 44-1- _ !- _ - ,L 9 f . �. J• �. . . , - , ' ' - ,4.„• . ar 1 .7•••• • 111,1!511141S. . - 13a/ ! 6 z . / . ... 4Yly • y •• A - w ' • • a., , I.' ..t• ', ' . ...:. a iiikild-A• stIllt3/4 lftip. Willa.. N- i✓C ._. ) -. j, "y 3 a • _ rY •-. r r.. it 4R. .4.126 We I :.y . : le. t. f .r� Y. , LZ a •-„,..... 5. Y. "( rr ' \ . . rr\r t�il t.i .4 • ' t{ • :: rI Yr/, frit-2. rf �, c,;i If` .• b-t * . ~ .4.4.4.4 +r 1•'t �' 1• i. 5 S - , , r r I •�- �3 J Y^Id r :�`.. i - - q t• .t lc r . A. el. , kf L r. t *Y �... rte . { R _ ♦ -.9,0.N' t.. >� '1:,+ - - I • r t- 't t<`. f - t• t.4 . ,. ? 1 -.,i]+"t r - 0� i °•' <t,. r t fa • SIi sr;�[. 'Y 1'(1� { Y t. '.N f fir. ,b r F , r r f"471.-` w. _ 1 "q t •!SIfv, 1 t..Y 1 5 • \^-5� ! \ .ii •' 5 A 'r �-1 •( 1:O -^'4. fY - : 6-1.--- is fs y. :75: of- 11r f ••••••0;.% • . 1 • i ` .i 1" r�. . , r,t•,{y7 ti r . >r'i' • 1. 1 1a' �, 'tit• r .•y ry* ' J RI .J,; ra :, , -:.`� • L ri�Q1-•*itr'. 7 '{ +1,r• • _`}.4 4- .jt't_•• —; , •r. r. •• J. 1: ••••1/4. -" 1'A'1. .� ; , •r • • •�r � .1 r - t.1- �L .. .f i :.1{r" ,- .ti ',car-z " - . [• 3er:7 ... r. .. S y[ ' �_ •i 1:r� f -1,!',,A. i •' ke). r. tri•• •.%•••., 14I Ai; '� ' •♦I a,L^• * • if is,,, Y .\rrf(.. (.thr..�1 f �. 'rl. 4 t �C Y _ eve...* _ .6. 1 a -�a Ai`I • `C`i, •+ 11,11t) r �I%-%"'--• r•lY W'•{I � '!•,� ft • rr• < j)1/ 3• �Ir• : 4 • N7- .`"?4•*- is T•i �� h ,r 5(�/' • f • r (Sr] /CFO fdS • r. r,5 . ' 1 ,�..,p . ` If" I •',' —1. - ice. .+•. Ii 5 Ilk ' Ho ,. . _- r 4•` d ntt• l r J.,• . .. ,1,.).-, ,is aJ':r J!L •at P' r El . td•2. , I•• • •' t • r • 77 • r r 7wY • -.4' ___kkk • • • I 1 � ��7. �.t It n j e Vi t � • { rI r .4♦ 'rti ly I Mh Y' . •' • • • •+ • fYT r.1f- x ,;.s{'1l r'11 M. '^'i`J•''�1 ) +itb r� • / 1 •r.r 2 r I. ♦r -• r ..1.•:••;r 'a . `0 . ('• . • .d' • ,v. . �•.' .. ,., .., •4 ,a3 'Y t 1 c ri • -: a, ' •.� lc:( .�'y t rd + { t 1 1gy R) •rr?r < r. ,s y14, . q\..\b.. Y a ' 1+ - _ r a & y lOIL a in es: _ r r ( W Nil-M . i iY'. Mt1 iV , , r ! - f 1. tilanilie r. 1 7 . ._ . ._ __ •�. _r' ' .. - - S r. 4 . - . I- i •J • Ili: . ''.' • /' v --, J '- ' r //- • r _ • • ' . / . . >, 0 - --'- . ; ' 1 f • _ . , / s .. , r - ---11.6 alLeioolk, Naglanitri se-at. ti Y S " - Any. •a44 t nrair ...,d --..,....=.q , • < I.• • 41'f K'Imo; • . * . ,, Y. • `f, y a1 r 4 • 1 • �f .,..< 7 lrs Fx. E, . ,, . '11 ,f�. . I I-• • +— i ( r� 2:1;‘`... .- Ir. I : • If - - .. r .4.7. . J Ifr -lb .ti "• •fi • t it J -• ° j° 4 .J �"� �. l2 �1. . ! 4 '- $. , ,_ _ - - ,� • = v '. ' -4 . - • al: ♦ r. 1 _ ` ,two - -•• •��• .._ • /z•Z.,i6.• • r • elf0' '' n. 14.-- ' t•�i�1.. , ...:Lt . may_ 1 � - •A[[1�I�I h r • r- • — f . ham:, • f a i a • 1 .at - 7:TAimpir• r .}y •• ) i .IG '� 1 ant.: } r_ •it I - 1 3 , . • S�ri,t ., t .+ ., .1 J ii a � - - ..,... r, . • . 4 - ' - 4 • • .... .,,..„2,„ . ...,..„ ,, . . . _ , ,.•,, ..• 4" - • . -• -',".. . . ,t r. r x may. J.al . •� �►' ' // 1 • - • • 1 L- -ati Yt :, __ r _ - - - - a.• - ' -� ' v i t. ere ,-a�-...q� - r is • • • • 1 f - Y 1 • �':.• l • • I-...4.-. o A':n ♦ + 1 , .• _r. • ,.....••• • > fir'" f : r , - ' t f. A- - • 4 l G-1 / ••••‘.t h " r ff • l} ( ^ ` ,VVi T - 4 •f'ty� IS t 1 11 1 `l •. �t '1•!-. VI •r'1 If�Y •Y l �' <r -I• • •\M ir' r'•� � t .Y A. ♦ r/}1. }r r♦ •.t: - „/^ TZ ♦' l.' - - 4. Alt•�- � . . .,• tit • i •' ,' 4. , , y.r • yt. . Illit }iiiitatik /7 . '- iltltl3' eau:- 1« - 4Air •w" :. • r ac. L 10:.,-,,,L40:‘,c„Y . . carve vs .• .- - P: y .Y w �: LILT. tom: • _ • ..g' .4 gel Lf ` 111 �X � i hf�i. r•yt.,' ' - - . ...t.....1 • • : :y+ • • r41 M. ;•� • 1 1• •'1►r -• L I r ti•a w J.,•', .. S {..a / ? • ., nl, *9- �•,n [t i_ t •i�'7� • .N • — -1,..J. , _ .i• n- - +.. A'f' ar ♦ j• r t' Y•� ` _ ,,, cA , �• , ..{ :. 't 1 • 'f • r� -m • �� _ 1 . - ♦ �•, t� ,.. +• t1 I. ♦} .*� ICA'. • � 1-.t••ti # _ v \ Q' i I _ l .' _ .. _ r -t •tom• • R p • a� f • y f • ,, • , 0,w• . . zrr .N4. •1+, • ' `� \• •t - /•' a •�' • • t-. 6-' d d car .� , i • \1 1 - • 4 ••�.y yr y r '•4-' it . .4 . r t . .: A } - 'p �y 34•a4\ _xi � L' ,i :, t . ' ' � • - t a'iT_ Y `.Y` 4 ! ^I -a • I •K� <' • cif ., , 'CMS. �`�. _+S�,. ` .f •.� i .'-.S rq • i -'Rw ••♦ �w '•�t • r 'tii ,` �li.L.. .. y !► Y •5y A ?l,- / .ate ,�. - ."644• r • • a , l,+.? a •r r . F y *714 .4 !. F {� t L . 9ySt y.r•.• . Pt �' �1' r ry1� i� � r �y ti•.� r r; �i'� , ' `t. � • + i • 1. • . L ' n .i it• it i ,.�, • .Ili \ ♦ 1 • L a '�,y• .A..., \ t / •y •� ' .!`• r r .V.. l.. I' \ ♦ fr. ,• 't a Jim. .j /r 33 k. r Valuation Services Agreement for Property Tax Consulting Purposes The undersigned parties, including the owners or company agent of the owners("OWNERS")herby retain th firm of Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors,to represent the property Owners as their Authorized Age for all matters associated with Property Taxes as shown in the list of accounts below: Property Acct. Numbers: (list all accounts that you wish us to represent or indicate by legal name) An attached document can also be used as an addendum to this agreement if so noted. 2. ` ehc.to if Bfsh.� P,�rA //C 3. tk. t a..,._+� �14-ie s'CA Etc P /, // C- 4. WwTYN cMS- /1 fYi 5. 7c. Faert, r`tecsr c.._ Cf Y 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Owners hereby engage the aforementioned firm of Mountains 2 Desert to provide property tax consulting services in an effort to help them better understand and control their tax liabilities for current,future and pa year's of taxes;through a full and comprehensive review of all the accounts and company assets associated with the list of properties that are shown above or otherwise attached to and therefore becoming part of this agreement. This agreement shall be in effect upon signing and remain so through 2010 and subsequent years going forward thereafter, on an bi-annual basis,effective January 1u of 2011 or until further written notice(By th "Owners") is received by this firm. Written notice must be 30 days prior to any resending of this agreemen between the signing parties. "Owners" further agree to adequately compensate Mountains 2 Desert for "verifiable"work already done(or in progress)at the time notice of termination of this agreement is made. This compensation must be based upon validated data from Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors provi that the request for payment is justified. This may include proof that values in intervening years(such as 2012)were also affected by work done in previous years. Compensation for the"Valuation Services" is based upon one or more methods of calculation, as outlined in the "contract section"of this agreement or< spelled out in a separate document between the signing parties of this agreement. Since compensation for this work can be negotiated in several ways,to account for services rendered, it is c practice to add an additional contract to the base agreement which spells out any financial obligations as th( relate to each individual client and each assignment individually. We are not performing an Appraisal Practice within the framework of this agreement and as such want it clearly understood by all parties involved that we are therefore working outside the rules of USPAP(as presented in AO-21 &FAQ 218)an as required when otherwise performing appraisal practices. We are not providing nor implying, in any fashion,this work is an appraisal practice or more exactly an appraisal. Agency Agreement-page 2 This agreement in no way imparts any conclusions as to current or actual"Appraised"value (for the property in question)by our firm or any of its employees. If an Appraisal is required,that will be discussed with the owners and an additional agreement(based on fee only) will be pursued further at that juncture. This agreement serves only as a framework within which the"Owners"and Mountains Desert have engaged in business for the specific reason of advising on the taxes in question for the • specific properties, and as set forth in this document. Any other construed valuation conclusions relate to this agreement are purely speculative and therefore implied by persons outside of the Mountains 2 Desert firm and have no basis in fact from our perspective. This fine, in no way, has any intentions a misrepresenting ourselves or our intended assignment The signers and users of this document acknowledge in the signing of the agreement that we are operating entirely upon the premise that a parties involved realize this is not intended to be considered an appraisal assignment in any fashion As a point in fact the principals of Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors do acknowledge that they are acting in an advisory position for the clients signing this document and that we are working for a fi based upon the savings of taxes,which may result from this work.Any necessity for a more formal report that would constitute work as an"appraisal"will be discussed with the"owners"and proceed from there with a independent third party entity with the proper credentials to perform the necessary work at that point. Further if,at some point in the future,the"owners"request this firm do appraisal work on their behalf it will be from an entirely independent perspective with no regard to this agreemi or any findings which may arise from this agreement and fully within the proper USPAP guidelines a: set forth at the time of that report. For the compensation described above Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors agrees to provide the following services: . Full review of the appraisal methodology of the local taxing authority . Fully analyze the existing assessment data and subsequent values both current and historic . File all necessary renditions and notices as required by statute by the proper dates indicated if require . Full professional presentation to the proper governing bodies both by written and verbal means . Complete negotiations at all levels from Assessor to State Boards or Courts as required per the proce . Keep clients fully informed of the property situation as it progresses through the entire process Mountains 2 Desert is hereby authorized to execute any and all necessary discovery related to the appealed properties on behalf of the"owners"(as indicated by this agreement) including direct contac with the proper authorities(Assessor's Office etc.) in charge of all related documents which affect the valuation of the disputed properties. This agreement gives Mountains 2 Desert the full authority to ace on behalf of the sign es in regards to any and all matters associated with the properties that are attach to this agreement and until such time as it is terminated as by the terms of this document. Additionall; the"owners"agree to provide all pertinent and reasonably requested data related to the properties tha are a part of this agreement in a timely manner so as to not jeopardize our abilities to do the job for which we were hired. Agency Agreement—page 3 • **Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors does not,in any fashion,make any guaranty as to appeal results rising from this agreement. Although we work very diligently to be successful,WI can't always secure results that you or we would like. /a -7O Own name orproperlyautho�gnt of the"owners" Date of Signature g (Signature indicates agreement to this document) Phone Number Fax Number S7>fr(9/4) ichael F. Sampson Date Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors/www.mountains2desert.com 2543 Sunset Lane Crreeley, Colorado 1-970-590-1940 Email address: michael'mountains2desert.com "Results Oriented Professionals Driven to Solve your Valuation Problems" ABATEMENT ADDENDUM to Valuation Services Agreement entered into May 2010 This addendum to the original document is entered into as consideration for any and all abatements which might be negotiated on behalf of the clients as indicated on the original agreement between the shown parties signing this addendum. This addendum is for the single reason of extending the original agreement to include years prior to those listed on the original agreement. This was necessary to make certain that the parties listed in that agreement also agree that the provisions within the original agreement are extended to include prior years that might become an issue in the filing of any Abatement Documents related to earlier issues of valuation and administrative errors or disagreements with the Assessor's Office. This addendum expands the agreement to include all those years from 2007 to 2010 and beyond or until it is terminated as agreed to in the document; with regards to issues of abatement for all the properties associated with that original agreement(please refer to the first page of that agreement). This changes nothing related to the original document except for those years that would become an issue arising from prior Assessments as related to the properties already covered in that agreement. The signing of this addendum simply extends the original provisions to include earlier years than originally determined. Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors and Michael Sampson in arrordance with that original agreement simply want to make perfectly clear that they also have the permission and agreement with the owners to pursue further work towards correcting any additional errors,omissions or valuation problems that might have been in force prior to the original agreement signed earlier in 2010. With the signatures below all parties acknowledge this Abatement Addendum as being an extension of the original agreement and that the signing parties also agree that any and all discussions and resulting changes,related to earlier assessments,are now a part of the original Valuation Services Agreement. / Owners r7ame or properly authorized agent of the"owners" Date of Signature (Signature indicates agreement with this addendum) Phone Number Fax Number 'fvfi had F. Sampson/Mouitains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors to Signature "Results Oriented Professionals Driven to Solve your Valuation Needs" 8 ob '"' ',V,Q J�:x6T9 SC,`:.a 6de � •.:49;Wf V a O538;5' 9'" ®6 Cti6684;06 A‘)..8 6 a \ LCO O 6 a6\\68-Vi, ,-r 6 6066 *..�..,r�E6'' A 6 f .�.._✓-c° ° � `\V`'6 C.±, K6?'�. e ° e —�_��'.D 6 Do ,,�, oe e -'7.818';-4,; ep ® e , a 1� E{ 6 6661Ail8pNFY 6. .,80 f °t8 A�a',8.'6 8 6 66 <6 e e•e°66.”F6 OO 6 06® 66- y.' 6 6°6® WQQ6 66 F66 \ X661 6 ,f/6e 6 6 O 6 e ®° ./6 6 6 a x 6; o • 6 J/b ,D5 AV\ b F6a 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6.•x '6 (T 'B' 8.1'6.,.�\ S46 ,6,'.6� (6 ® ..r.:,_v �.- TT r� ^-�' a •8.6/ 6 6 6 °6 . •/ ° ° ° ® r _ 5,�QBY_a A®6 eae 6 e a 6oe��,.6�� 3 / ® 8"` e; 6 6-.6 6 ° e e ° +. y f • a a o � e F 6e I.i e. :,..;.0,—;-:‘,4' ° u '� 6 6 e 6 808„,10,1„,00 17 6 6d 4/6 0 6 6 f �I e. 6 0 0 ° a•r,� x+ 6 /`, \R , i? 1A• <1 •.061 { 66 ° ° b F ° @ ® o O d"\ "t ,;,'A,�'I e L•di t 6 6 6 ® f 6 6 6 88.&66°;86,„,,,,,," 6 d' 6 „6a o f c >x0.8..28.818-8,-o I , 6 �. ° a �• �b�,°" Be oe 6 f 6 "'s. '�E • [[.------r-.44688'N‘•,°6 —66 66 6,8861 ^,�6 6 e e 6 6 A �. 6 °„ +t :ti 't T 6e e e e �° 06 e6,- :1c\ 6 �''°°;4�"'r�°a6 A>, 6 .;�"�6'6O1 e f�s"6 ' M1•'�'.�\'a\ / Gl C bap 'i 6 i f ..-.. /il S 6 6��F 6 � o °e f d py a - ' 86 e066 \P 6 f e ° 6 61 6tw66\,\66°'1 6. f 6 t L y' ,. . \` d dNe la ��• + 4 � 6 _ 606{ ▪8 t `6 , g 6S �`• 66'. rt t ire sY 5a+' 6 a 6 Tj �' A �a h 0 }�`x } 3.. 1 �' 6 �)6 / 5 ® i3 wft` A' t ,s C 6 " 6" sm.. I., n: v v a xA a '*a ''' 11 c,IP 20;Y a88, 6 i .'t 2 —v"�'x'gt x N. 6 4.7„..w.,..„-- - 4 4vn a c /y— '� 5 1■1 I^1 • c 0 6 '' i cm l- m go Q N = e 6 .,,,;elf) o CO it _ \ 6 6 LLJ • O Z+w 8 t U e N A a 6 N \ \ 8 , 8 0 „„:„,,,,,„,/6„--"--\<,„ , \ 1 cis \jr.::, ,- ‘,, twee N d M �~-� / CO O ' CO 0 ase CO M el elM �,<� 7\\ , ! 4- 0 N C . . O CO CO M 0 0 0 ``�� i Co in, c i / o CO oCD o CD in 0 .7....7. '\\� I�- ;J "MM' .. o o \ r CO J o 0 0 \ 5 / O d N N \' o . . M M i / CD 03 00 f ctl elco oCD 7 C N � CI 1NOM ........ boCD O IL L r N N C M M O N p 4 O o p _ p o o o N 5 O O W <0 c\ W 2 (n � 0 \ N a CD Et N Clin o r t CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE: (970) 336-7215, EXT. 4226 18 6 1 - 2 ( I I FAX: (970) 352-0242 915 10TH STREET TI P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 i .1 WEL ©._,.-COUNTY June 13, 2011 FRYE FARM INVESTMENTS LLC ATTN: LEONARD WIEST 1625 PELICAN LAKES POINT STE 201 WINDSOR CO 80550 RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER Various Parcels Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petition for abatement or refund of taxes on the property described as: Parcels in Section 33/Township 06/Range 67 of Weld County Colorado. The meeting is scheduled for July 11, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., in the First Floor Meeting Room, Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. The Assessor is recommending that the Board deny the 2008, petition, and approve in part the 2009 and 2010, petitions. You are not required to be present at this hearing; however, this is your opportunity to have your position heard, especially if your position is opposed to the Assessor's recommendation. If you intend to submit any documentation in support of your position for this hearing, all such documentation must be submitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board and to the Weld County Assessor's Office at least seven calendar days prior to the meeting date in order for it to be considered at the scheduled hearing. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 336-7215, Extension 4226. Sincerely, (� Tonga Disney Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Assessor Mountain 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors Attn: Michael Sampson 2543 Sunset Ln Greeley CO 80631 SOUTH HILL SUBDIVISION ABATEMENT An abatement was received for the South Hill Subdivision in Windsor, CO. The abatement is for tax years 2008, 2009, and 2010. South Hill Subdivision was platted in 2008 and was a combination of residential and agricultural land. The platting of the area to a subdivision was to create a combination of residential, multi-family, and commercial lots. The subdivision was platted in 2008. The subdivision is not currently developed. The 2008 abatement included several parcels that were protested in 2008, and an adjustment in value was given. No further action was taken on the protest. Due to this 2008 protest, the abatement for the parcels previously protested was withdrawn by the agent. The 2008 abatement also included four parcels (R5359208, R5363008, R5363108, and R5363208)that were being valued as flood irrigated. Upon review of the area, it is agreed the parcels are not flood irrigated and should be changed to dry farm. The new classification and values have been stipulated with the agent. One additional parcel (R5362908), which is an unbuildable tract within the subdivision, is also included on the 2008, 2009 and 2010 abatements. Upon review of the area, it is not currently being used as agricultural, is unbuildable, and sits on the side of hill below the platted residential lots of the South Hill Subdivision. This parcel is currently valued at$450 per acre which is consistent with all outlots and tracts in subdivisions across Weld County. The request for abatement of this parcel is denied. The 2009 and 2010 abatements include eight parcels (R5359208, R5363008, R5363108, R5363208, R5358808, R5358908, R5359008, and R5359408) that were being valued as flood irrigated. Upon review of the area it is agreed the parcels are not flood irrigated and should be changed to dry farm. The new classification and values have been stipulated with the agent. Also included on the 2009 and 2010 abatements are 34 individual parcels platted for residential use. The parcels sit at the top of a slope with a view over the Water Valley Subdivision. The parcels are currently not developed. Directly to the west of the platted lots sits the parcels currently being used as dry farm. These 34 parcels are not currently being used in any agricultural activity or being restored through conservation practices. The parcels currently are covered with natural weed growth and a dirt road. Therefore,the current use of the land is vacant raw land. Raw land is land that is currently not being used as agricultural, not developed, and is buildable. The 34 parcels total 6.83 acres and are currently valued at$7,560 per lot. Upon review of 2007 and 2008 raw land sales in the area a new value of$5,022 per lot is indicated. Several sales of land were reviewed around the subject area with the closest and most similar being chosen for support of a conservative$25,000 per acre value of raw land. Comparable 1 (R4390206) is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the subject property directly outside of Windsor. It is a 5 acre parcel, and sold on 11/9/2007 for$217,000 or$43,400 per acre. Comparable 2 (R4516106) is approximately 8.22 miles northeast of the subject property. It is an 8.04 acre parcel, and sold on 11/5/2007 for$176,000 or$21,891 per acre. Comparable 3 (R0025089) is approximately 2.25 miles northwest of the subject property also in Windsor. It is a 10 acre parcel, and sold on 03/23/2007 for $265,000 or$26,500 per acre. In review, the only accounts still in question are the 34 buildable residential lots along with the unbuildable tract (R5362908) that encompasses the steep hillside below the residential lots. The petition for abatement of R5362908 for 2008, 2009, and 2010 should be denied and left at a value of$450 per acre as an unbuildable tract. The petition for abatement for the 34 residential lots for 2009 and 2010 should be approved and their value lowered to$5,022 per lot, which represents the value of vacant raw land. Iar —.. . I 1 _ r6 I N I x co L(� IIIn .,. CC Ui c) J c m `� U C� U N Q j•��J 3 I c y C _c �./ L. Q t� `/ Y U UO d _a1 0 i 'D I -- — Z -- c`�Jiro •..— J .. S tea. o. S ea co • _ — e 3 `� � I? " 0 [:i Z LI UJ LL 11:Yom. �y` , p T • "Ir'�4r Y� f, 4,1": T8 f, .. ♦ of 17, 4 4'C,14., 0 fit.tr .r f • ICI I tit: • • Q t S' G, tJ iX • ri . • '.`• 1: - { 'l 'I�QEI[rr�'r • •44 •rr �•' .. �• `1 �;/ :1 l ;�`� •1. f • t �jr T Y,r.�, s` „,,.. 6.) • vn. • w•r< /f, Styr f y^� {�`� ' �� CT yy M j .rw . •.... ., :v ..,. .., , ,..., 73 ./2. • .• P irt��//�� ,, ♦' .{1loiz �'� :.` / 'tom 1 N . �` ;. {. . . 0 foil � ' I • • -� "'4w�r. SKY:SfEN0 0R ; y 4 Q • i ' , , 'JP.• 44: ..r.:11/4 rr;1 •r�} r' may. /�T. • ,r 94 988 U C y° ` J -rc141% t Y♦•",,, ,q -,..„,..!,/4≤ - • i "•F �f •�{ 4 " li tr t:.^' ti." •1• S+ Wni S-4 ' .r y� rf. n aa. •' 1 L ,51 is +J fir' f a}r ^ o /L� *. , '1 ' ' t� °' it '' as t•" v V-. 1irtili+ JH'#‘ 4.. • r4',..4.- c N yi�jrl • JJ` 1A-4** . :i ' i...,i,,``S'71`�`Jc' LL .c'. F • ,��+g� �1•y�1 �.it o 1 CO 4 ff Yr +Ilia t� N • .0 . l'''' \ • , -0 . ,,. , \ .14 O .' . f....(--.--::::7":, ,Ft , , '''s .$ ' ' -.,. ....,..ij, arg /�, Q �\ • rfs }ri.♦♦ .4•r•• µ V. - u r3<`7i-i '� ihrl, C t9 ll� )1“":‘'':t ,t �y4„,, \�,' • J 11 �,1 /<.� .`� 9. r f ] .� �'l "'1 }}�l��I1,•. ,'- coC E w ♦'F.4 't>.• , 5 'f "overn.n.,. ,ra, .y ;rill/ 7 IA y{ • , ": ' ,..!;1".4,g•`/A.J 3; C fn =Ns V •^ \` -,_ --\ r • t. Y #.,. Lv ' Yt Lit: '4,1 ..r ,4 �! ..t il. 1 ..- C r ( '� 'v" J Y� i�lQr'I ( a o w"N ‘t ao / '•'w 7 •..'. y i a by7' al'1 w 1�' , S} $ 0 a ~ f• INS u,sk I - o � ^ r,_fr. s .)); - I• i,..o• ,. i' ;, Ta) L V N.• .r �� 11 r ycn Q 41, co VI ff > Nf/. \ C 1f /1L� r/r J r A ....„..0.4„..0\„Ad t ' it c f"a„,„,7/0 /0.\\\ ,,, .C.1 ti 1 ♦ � Y �tYT , 0t;l T CO ��py s 5 r - -'8 . r' I ! ! O /. �.••j�.1•• Inlh,.+f lw r I " rrx'�I`r ;., 4- VV'� 9- ,l\ I i 9 E , L M- L_ ! ...... - - .t1 F ! HI CD ! M c 3 ! co X 1 C O ' a) O °' C z t. ! O I ED C° o Uz ! _ J c a o o ti Z a w z -J W w '' = ° Z W Z a U U H 3 D w z gal J U Z ', ! U 0 E pO IT- 02z O 7 � Z W W CCZ � (n } � 5 o W Qe W CC WQ � F- ^f ! C C L y C Y -O -a ,C .J H h- OI = O O ZO Z h 0 WW W W O Z Z C Q 2 U' 0 Y C I- Z U F W CC Q 0 .i Z arV1K� �' .` J aJ CD W �' Q Q Q' > O Q Jet 001— < UJ J O W W Q O O W J W O W JFJ W S Z_ /�� v O*(9 :EtasO S U < c0 m m O W W W LL LL W O C7 O C7 2 -) Y Y J J J 2 a Z Z Z n. d 0 I- F- 3 z ? L. .2 _d W � °' �° � DDD ® DD ® DDDD ® DD ® D ® r DDDii D ,- iimaCi0DD0 ■ ---L_ I i LO to In gt `� l N L I Ea i I I z o / -. N l O O Nr �y — d a V Q. RS C - ti > CD 1.1 \ C.) J U r • C J' 03 a L f a�i� a �? i 1 (. ) 4 I — —� I - L •� O 2 I ° Y a) i ' - — c 2 Q7 O ti di U r dio _� aS O a _—_._ .. - E C U I w O �p U Co a) a) Z U �, _00 CI)en EcQ t-- } a C O 43)U EM o /cc O ^ O LL 1 'y Y C as ,Si a' E O Co C Ono Imegi C CO❑ (n ii Eco WE 2am C 7 00 . .N CL i*. co r O o n.0 e 405 o. o aZ co cc co � cc • L. O D " Q U C — Z'... ,_O cn 0 CO W p O ai hi ' CO U _ ,c % C C) ES,�. �.• O I- L 15 { '4111 ir • t 03 / 17 / 2011 • . • 03117 / 2011 • ' ' /Ts nir ys, ( • M > : i' I{ I ?P ,1)1 I n,, :• � fij 17V �.: ri _Ay/ 5,4�Y}�,k /y ��I C j�r I+� 11 I: 1 S11 I�' H. /.4a r.' { r 14��rj� r 'rfi'�.i! �('� } y 1 �a � � H r r•(4 I tT 'Ic I. Jr r< r I r U3 / 11 / 2U1I 2008 Assessor's Recommendation R5362908 Actual Assessed Tax DENY This is an unbuildable tract currently Original 27007.00 7830.00 733.31 valued at $450 per acre. It is not being Corrected 27007.00 7830.00 733.31 used as part of any agricultural endeavor. Abate/Refund 0.00 0.00 0.00 2009 Abatements Assessor's Recommendation R5362908 Actual Assessed Tax DENY This is an unbuildable tract currently Original 27007.00 7830.00 886.06 valued at$450 per acre. It is not being Corrected 27007.00 7830.00 886.06 used as part of any agricultural endeavor. Abate/Refund 0.00 0.00 0.00 The 34 lots listed below were previously valued at a flood irrigated/residential allocated value. As there has been no agricultural endeavor on these lots for several years, they should be valued as raw land. The first breakdown listed below is per individual lot. The second breakdown is the total of all 34 lots. R5359508 R5360408 R5361308 R5362108 R5359608 R5360508 R5361408 R5362208 R5359708 R5360608 R5361508 R5362308 R5359808 R5360708 R5361608 R5362408 R5359908 R5360808 R5361708 R5362508 R5360008 R5360908 R5361808 R5362608 R5360108 R5361008 R5361908 R5362708 R5360208 R5361108 R5362008 R5362808 R5360308 R5361208 Actual Assessed Tax Flood Irrigated / residential allocated Original 7560.00 2190.00 247.82 value to residential Raw Land Corrected 5022.00 1456.38 164.81 Abate/Refund 2538.00 733.62 .83.01 Actual Assessed Tax Flood Irrigated / residential allocated Original 257040.00 74460.00 8425.88 value to residential Raw Land Corrected 170748.00 49516.92 5603.54 Abate/Refund 86292.00 24943.08 2822.34 2010 Abatements Assessor's Recommendation R5362908 Actual Assessed Tax DENY This is an unbuildable tract currently Original 27007.00 7830.00 912.43 valued at $450 per acre. It is not being Corrected 27007.00 7830.00 912.43 used as part of any agricultural endeavor. Abate/Refund 0.00 0.00 0.00 The 34 lots listed below were previously valued at a flood irrigated/residential allocated value. As there has been no agricultural endeavor on these lots for several years, they should be valued as raw land. The first breakdown listed below is per individual lot. The second breakdown is the total of all 34 lots. R5359508 R5360408 R5361308 R5362108 R5359608 R5360508 R5361408 R5362208 R5359708 R5360608 R5361508 R5362308 R5359808 R5360708 R5361608 R5362408 R5359908 R5360808 R5361708 R5362508 R5360008 R5360908 R5361808 R5362608 R5360108 R5361008 R5361908 R5362708 R5360208 R5361108 R5362008 R5362808 R5360308 R5361208 Actual Assessed Tax Flood Irrigated/ residential allocated Original 7560.00 2190.00 255.20 value to residential Raw Land Corrected 5022.00 1456.38 169.71 Abate/Refund 2538.00 733.62 85.49 Actual Assessed Tax Flood Irrigated/ residential allocated Original 257040.00 74460.00 8676.80 value to residential Raw Land Corrected 170748.00 49516.92 5770.14 Abate/Refund 86292.00 24943.08 2906.66 (I" Q CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE: (970) 336-7215, Ext. 4225 FAX: 42 10T STREET 915 10TH STREET P.O. BOX 758 ' GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 O COLORADO July 20, 2011 FRYE FARM INVESTMENTS LLC ATTN: LEONARD WIEST 1625 PELICAN LAKES POINT STE 201 WINDSOR CO 80550 RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER Various Parcels Dear Property Owner: On July 11, 2011, the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition for abatement or refund of taxes for the 2008 petition and denied same. Pursuant to Section 39-2-125(f), C.R.S., you have the right to appeal this decision to the State Board of Assessment Appeals within thirty days. You may obtain the appropriate forms and instructions from: Board of Assessment Appeals, Department of Local Affairs, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-866-5880 In preparation for appealing to the State Board of Assessment Appeals you may also go to the following state link to obtain any further information you may need to proceed, http://www.dola.state.co.us/baa/index.htm Very truly yours, JOTIArk., Tonya Disney L�JT Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Assessor Mountain 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors Attn: Michael Sampson 2543 Sunset Lane Greeley CO 80631 PETITION TO STATE BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS For Office Use°M 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Phone: (303)866-5880 Denver, Colorado 80203 Fax: (303)866-4485 Docket No. Fee: Y N CheddCredi Card tf Date: 08/22/2011 P F Property owner. Frye Farm Investments LLC Subject Property: Rural agricultural parcel broken into several pieces Street Address City Schedule Number(s): R5359508+several additional parcels Attach separate sheet if necessary ❑Board of Equalization Appeals the decision of the Weld County Board of Commissioners Dated:07/20/2011 County O State Property Tax Administrator This Appeal concerns: °Valuation 0 Refund/Abatement O Exemption ❑State Assessed Tax Year. 2009/2010 The subject property is currently classified as: ❑Agricultural ❑Commercial °Exempt ❑Industrial °Mixed Use ❑Natural Resources ❑Oil&Gas ID Personal °Possessory ❑Producing °Residential ❑State Assessed Vacant Land Interest Mines Actual Value assigned to subject property: $284,047 Petitioner's estimate of value: $4,653 Estimated time for Petitioner to present the appeal: minutes or 1 hours. Not less than 30 minutes. Board will allow equal time to County or Property Tax Administrator. Appearance: 0 Petitioner will be present at the hearing °Petitioner will appear by telephone Petitioner will be represented by an agent Petitioner is responsible for calling the Board at gin°5800 o Petitioner will be represented by an attorney on the scheduled dab and time of hearing(Mountain lime Zone) 0 Petitioner would like to appear by video conference Petitioner neat canal the Board at 3IXi866-5880 at least 20 days In advance of the scheduled hearing to confirm availability of video conference equipment If the property owner is an entity,it must appear under the representation of an attorney licensed in Colorado except as follows. A dosely held entity may be represented by an officer of the entity as long as the amount in controversy does not exceed$10,000,exclusive of costs.interest or statutory penalties. A closely held entity can have no more than three owners. See Section 13-1-127,C.R.S. A closely held entity that will be represented by an officer of the entity must provide a letter to the Board with this petition stating that it has no more than three owners and that the tax amount at Issue does not exceed$10,000.A bust filing a petition after 12/31/2010 must be represented by an attorney and must pay a$101.25 filing fee. Filing Fee: q None Petitioner is appearing pro se(self-represented)and has not filed more than two Petitions with the Board of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30). ❑ $ 33.75 Petitioner is appearing pro se(self-represented)and has filed more than two Petitions with the Board of Assessment Appeals during this fiscal year(July 1 —June 30). $101.25 Petitioner will be represented by an agent or by an attorney. In the space below,please explain why you disagree with the value assigned to the subject property Owners contest the decision of the Assessors Office and County Board based on the assertion that the parcels are no longer associated with agriculture because they have been platted for future development. We contend that use has always been agricultural and that has not changed. (781.1w).24,...)1 e0. : tiP,UM Z of l I 2 2 del( g- alp- II ' A-5 °078 Required attachments to this form: 0 Assessor's or Property Tax Administrator's Notice of Valuation or Notice of Denial O Decision of County Board of Equalization, County Board of Commissioners or Property Tax Administrator Attachments required under certain circumstances: O A notarized Letter of Authorization If an agent will be representing Petitioner D A list of names, last known addresses and telephone numbers of co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property if applicable. Certificate of Service I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed,faxed or hand delivered to: O Board of Equalization Weld County OBoard of Commissioners county 0 State Property Tax Administrator at the following address: 915 10th Street/ P. O. Box 758 in Greeley, Colorado 80632 on 08/22/2011 Date 1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed,faxed or hand delivered to all co-owners or parties directly interested in the subject property on 08/22/2011 . Date I hereby certify that four(4) true and correct copies of the foregoing Petition to the State Board of Assessment Appeals and attachments were mailed or hand delivered to the Board of Assessment Appeals at 1313 Sherman Street Room 315, Denver, CO 80203 on 08/22/2011 Date (One copy may be faxed to the Board but the original and two additional copies must be mailed or hand dekvered) Petitioner's Mailing Address is Required Even if Petitioner is Reoresented by An Agent or Attorney (Der C.R.S. 394-109) Signature of/gent EL or Adam ja Signature of Petitioner Michael F. Sampson Frye Farm Investments Printed Name Printed Name 2543 Sunset Lane 1625 Pelican Lakes Point- Suite 201 Mailing Address Mailing Address Greeley, Colorado 80634 Windsor, Colorado 80550 City,State,Zip Code City, State,Zip Code Telephone: 970-590-1940 Telephone: 970-686-5828 Daytime number E-Mail: cvett1972@aol.com E-Mail: Iwiest@watervaliey.com Attorney Reg. No.: It is the Petitioner's responsibility to notify the BAA of any change of address. Petitioners are strongly encouraged to read the Instructions and Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals prior to completing this Petition Form. The Instructions and Rules are available on the Web at vninv.dola.Colorado.gov/baa or may be requested by phone at 303-866-5880. 6 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE: (970)336-7215, Ext 4225 (tilt FAX: 10T STREET 91510TH STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 i • COLORADO July 20, 2011 FRYE FARM INVESTMENTS LLC ATTN: LEONARD WlEST 1625 PELICAN LAKES POINT STE 201 WINDSOR CO 80550 ._w RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER Various Parcels Dear Property Owner: On July 11, 2011, the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition for abatement or refund of taxes for the 2008 petition and denied same. Pursuant to Section 39-2-125(f), C.R.S., you have the right to appeal this decision to the State Board of Assessment Appeals within thirty days. You may obtain the appropriate forms and instructions from: Board of Assessment Appeals, Department of Local Affairs, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: 303-866-5880 In preparation for appealing to the State Board of Assessment Appeals you may also go to the following state link to obtain any further information you may need to proceed, htto://www.dola.state.co.us/baaiindex.htm Very truly yours, Snit— igb`O' , Benesre .eo. u,s . Tonya Disney fill 4 oneeery Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Assessor Mountain 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors Attn: Michael Sampson 2543 Sunset Lane Greeley CO 80631 Q3 - q•• o- y !Os 3 a I r •� r• 7 ',--•:-\`' �kili31 ti t"=a n • r g r ; s - m� rl = _ g ' F7 „, g am= Y t 6i € a \.., <J. - . - : r F ,�" •�. 13'1 i �t/ J C / .T ?� 1� �. ''. /� J "^ - _ a. .z,„--1' J - -44-242-,-_-_,r,----1 ;' ' I^ pp 13c3; f- a• f1 If 5- aad lo- . y •pyc .._ig-o •: c' I. a 1 • ii a 1 cX Z. Z C i 1£_ S I t• I 1 1 II-- _ I • SOUTH HILL SUBDIVISION ABATEMENT An abatement was received for the South Hill Subdivision in Windsor,CO. The abatement is for tax years 2008,2009,and 2010. South Hill Subdivision was platted in 2008 and was a combination of residential and agricultural land. The platting of the area to a subdivision was to create a combination of residential,multi-family,and commercial lots. The subdivision was platted in 2008. The subdivision is not currently developed. The 2008 abatement included several parcels that were protested in 2008,and an adjustment in value was given. No further action was taken on the protest. Due to this 2008 protest,the abatement for the parcels previously protested was withdrawn by the agent. The 2008 abatement also included four parcels(R5359208,R5363008, R5363108,and 85363208)that were being valued as flood irrigated. Upon review of the area,it is agreed the parcels are not flood irrigated and should be changed to dry farm.The new classification and values have been stipulated • with the agent. One additional parcel(R5362908),which is an unbuildable tract within the subdivision,is also included on the 2008,2009 and 2010 abatements. Upon review of the area,it is not currently being used as agricultural,is unbuildable,and sits on the side of hill below the platted residential lots of the South Hill Subdivision. This parcel is currently valued at$450 per acre which is consistent with all outlots and Y tracts in subdivisions across Weld County. The request fcr abatement of this parcel is denied. The 2009 and 2010 abatements include eight parcels(R5359208,R5363008,85363108,R5363208, R5358808, R5358908, R5359008,and 85359408)that were being valued as flood irrigated. Upon review of the area it is agreed the parcels are not flood irrigated and should be changed to dry farm.The new classification and values have been stipulated with the agent. Also included on the 2009 and 2010 abatements are 34 individual parcels platted for residential use. The parcels sit at the top of a slope with a view over the Water Valley Subdivision. The.aarceis are currently not developed. Directly to the west of the platted lots sits the parcels currentlbeing used as . -- dry farm. These 34 parcels are not currently being used in any agricultural activity or being restored through conservation practices. The parcels currently are covered with natural weed growth and a dirt road. Therefore,the current use of the land is vacant raw land. Raw land is land that is currently not being used as agricultural,not developed,and is buildable. The 34 parcels total 6.83 acres and are currently valued at$7,560 per lot. Upon review of 2007 and 2008 raw land sales in the area a new value of$5,022 per lot is indicated. Several sales of land were reviewed around the subject area with the closest and most similar being chosen for support of a conservative$25,000 per acre value of raw land. Comparable 1(R4390206) is approximately 4.5 miles northeast of the subject property directly outside of Windsor. It is a 5 acre parcel,and sold on 11/9/2007 for$217,000 or$43,400 per acre. Comparable 2(R4516106)is Appeal/Abatement for Frye Farm Investments for 2008—2009& 2010 To Whom It Concerns: We would like to open the dialog early in addressing the points which the owners feel are questionable and would appear to bring issue to the valuation of the parcels in question and why they feel that way. First;the Abstract Code shown as 4117 on several of the parcels being questioned;the Abstract Code(by statute)is reserved for agricultural lands in Colorado and more specifically used for Flood Irrigated-agricultural land. While there is no question that the lands in dispute are indeed agricultural,there are questions about how these parcels are currently valued through the assessment process;the first of which is Abstract Code/4117.The parcels in question(are not irrigated but dry and has been for several years)they had water and an irrigation system at one time but has been reverted to dry farm status for the past several cycles. The USE of this land has remained agricultural and does to this day, so the real issue is the classifications of the various parcels and they appear incorrectly abstracted for current and past assessment periods. The majority of these lands are not being farmed due to slope and nearly impossible terrain,so actually it is far more related to a code of 4167,which is Waste Land.The land which is farmed is Dry Land and as such should be 4127;anything other than these two Abstract Codes is,the owners believe,incorrect. We feel the attached photos clearly show this to be the case and physical viewing of the parcels in question should alleviate any remaining doubts. Secondly;there is a question of the land use as currently assigned,the owners of the parcels(in question)feel that they are all agricultural and not residential;there have been no changes in usage for any of the parcels for many years. They feel that the filing of plats for a potential future use is not grounds to change these to residential, and in fact by abstract code(at least)the Assessor has not done this;however they have altered the perception of use by calling all of these parcels residential...which we feel,they are not. Are there plans that direction in the future?Probably,but the use of land(in the state) continues to be the determinant method of ad-valorem valuation,at least until further notice. That being the case,the parcels are agricultural and they should be left as such, with the prover codes attached to address the real value and use of each parcel. According to the owners,they were told that they are being valued as agricultural,but split amongst all the parcels,so that the final total value is no different than a value which would be assigned a single larger agricultural parcel.This appears to be an error at this time or possibly,a communication problem. Even flood irrigated land would be no more than about$550 per acre for the best anywhere in Weld County,and the subjects properties are valued at well in excess of$345,000 for 140 acres,the majority of which is being classified as flood irrigated land. Simple math determines this to be a value of nearly$2500 per acre, the vast majority of the subject's land is un-productive waste land. These values therefore appear as being wrong,at least on the surface.There is no other actual farmed land anywhere in this state valued at anywhere close to this level....none that we could find.....zero....zip. Where they feel this land should be valued as Dry Farm first and Waste Land second they feel they are being dinged at a rate in excess of 45 times that which is being assessed&classified as Dry Farm Land,just 1 mile south of the subjects. There appears to be no pragmatic or reasonable explanation for this and as such we are asking a review to address something that needs to be corrected and fixed,for the assessment to be correct. Valuation Services Agreement for Property Tax Consulting Purposes The undersigned parties,including the owners or company agent of the owners("OWNERS")herby retain ti firm of Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors,to represent the property Owners as their Authorized Age for all matters associated with Property Taxes as shown in the list of accounts below: Property Acct.Numbers: (list all accounts that you wish us to represent or indicate by legal name) An attached document can also be used as an addendum to this agreement if so noted. 1. •/'o/% o 2. f'e icaa f Lrrsrras #' A //G 3. 14c rte_ 4-dies go P 11 °- 4. 4Trr fJn// l;'.t/ // t s. r y -?....... rL' esr WC 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. Owners hereby engage the aforementioned firm of Mountains 2 Desert to provide property tax consulting services in an effort to help them better understand and control their tax liabilities for current,femme and pa year's of taxes;through a null and comprehensive review of all the accounts and company assets associated with the list of properties that are shown above or otherwise attached to and therefore becoming part of thi: agreement This agreement shall be in effect upon signing and remain so through 2010 and subsequent years going forward thereafter,on an bi-annual basis,effective January 1`c of 2011 or until further written notice(By t6 "Owners")is received by this finn.Written notice must be 30 days prior to any resending of this agreemex between the signing parties."Owners"further agree to adequately compensate Mountains 2 Desert for "verifiable"work already done(or in progress)at the time notice of termination of this agreement is made. This compensation must be based upon validated data from Mountains 2 Desert Real Fatate Advisors provi that the request for payment is justified.This may include proof that values in intervening years(such as 2012)were also affected by work done in previous years.Compensation for the"Valuation Services"is based upon one or more methods of calculation,as outlined in the "contact section"of this agreement or u spelled out in a separate document between the signing parties of this agreement. Since compensation for this work can be negotiated in several ways,to account for services rendered,it is e practice to add an additional contract to the base agreement which spells out any financial obligations as thi relate to each individual client and each assignment individually.We are not performing an Appraisal Practice within the framework of this agreement and as such want it clearly understood by all parties involved that we are therefore working outside the rules of USPAP(as presented in AO-21 &FAQ 218)an as required when otherwise performing appraisal practices.We are not providing nor implying,in any fashion,this work is an appraisal practice or more exactly an appraisal. Agency Agreement-page 2 This agreement in no way imparts any conclusions as to current or actual"Appraised"value(for the property in question)by our firm or any of its employees.If an Appraisal is required,that will be discussed with the owners and an additional agreement(based on fee only)will be pursued further at that juncture.This agreement serves only as a framework within which the"Owners"and Mountains Desert have engaged in business for the specific reason of advising on the taxes in question for the specific properties,and as set forth in this document Any other construed valuation conclusions relatA to this agreement are purely speculative and therefore implied by persons outside of the Mountains 2 Desert firm and have no basis in fact from our perspective. This firm,in no way,has any intentions c misrepresenting ourselves or our intended assignment The signers and users of this document acknowledge in the signing of die agreement that we are operating entirely upon the premise that a parties hn>,olved realize this is not intended to be considered an appraisal assignment is any fashion As a point in fact the principals of Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors do acknowledge that the, are acting in an advisory position for the clients signing this document and that we are working for a I based upon the savings of taxes,which may result from this work.Any necessity for a more formal report that would constitute work as an"appraisal"will be discussed with the"owners"and proceed from there with a independent third party entity with the proper credentials to perform the necessary work at that point Further if,at some point in the future,the"owners"request this firm do appraisal work on their behalf it will be from an entirely independent perspective with no regard to this agreem or any findings which may arise from this agreement and frilly within the proper USPAP guidelines a set forth at the time of that report For the compensation described above Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors agrees to provide Au following services: .Full review of the appraisal methodology of the local taxing authority .Fully analyze the existing assessment data and subsequent values both current and historic .File all necessary renditions and notices as requited by statute by the proper dates indicated if requir .Full professional presentation to the proper governing bodies both by written and verbal means .Complete negotiations at all levels from Assessor to State Boards or Courts as required per the pros . Keep clients fully informed of the property situation as it progresses through the entire process Mountains 2 Desert is hereby authorized to execute any and all necessary discovery related to the appealed properties on behalf of the"owners"(as indicated by this agreement)including direct contai with the proper authorities(Assessor's Office etc.)in charge of all related documents which affect the valuation of the disputed properties. This agreement gives Mountains 2 Desert the full authority to ac on behalf of the signers in regards to any and all matters associated with the properties that are attach to this agreement and until such time as it is terminated as by the terms of this document Additionall the"owners"agree to provide all pertinent and reasonably requested data related to the properties the are a part of this agreement in a timely manner so as to not jeopardize our abilities to do the job for which we were hired. Agency Agreement—pa€ **Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors does not,in any fashion,make any guaranty as ti appeal results rising from this agreement. Although we work very diligently to be successful, can't always secure results that you or we would lice. Own name or properly autho of the"owners" Date of Signatur � (Signature indicates agreement to this document) Phone Number Fax Number M —y� 7c S/yOi� chael F. Sampson Date / Mountains 2 Desert Real Estate Advisors I www.mountains2desert.com 2543 Sunset Lane Greeley, Colorado 1-970-590-1940 Email address: michaelnmountains2desert.com "Results Oriented Professionals Driven to Solve your Valuation Problems" RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE, IN PART, PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES - FRYE FARM INVESTMENTS, LLC WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 11th day of July, 2011, at which meeting there were present the following members: Chair Barbara Kirkmeyer, and Commissioners Sean P. Conway, William F. Garcia, David E. Long,and Douglas Rademacher, and WHEREAS, notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County, with said Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, being present, and taxpayer, Frye Farm Investments, LLC, being present and represented by Leonard Wiest, owner, and Michael Sampson, agent, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the attached petition, and is fully advised in relation thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Board concurs with the recommendation of the Assessor and the petition be and hereby is, approved, in part, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows: CORRECTION TO ASSESSED ABATEMENT TAX VALUATION OR REFUND YEAR $0.00 $0.00 2008 $24,943.08 $2,822.34 2009 $24,943.08 $2,906.66 2010 C . YSR , Wppp . 2011-1618 - II AS0078 /15Sc 5ce CaP9 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County.W ld Ds-9, Co (Use Assessors a mi Co oers'Date! Stamp) t.5 p a Section 1: Petitioner,please complete Section only. RECEIVED Date: September met 2010 Month Day Year DEC 2 9 2010 Petitioner's Name:f ye Fenn Investments LLC. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR f4REELEY,COLORADO Pektiers Mailing Address:1625 Pelican takes Poi t Suite 201 on Windsor Colorado 60550 Gay or Tow State - Zip Cade SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADORESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY Various/See attached Sheets Pamis in Section 33/Township 06/Range 67 d Weld CNA.Colo. RS359 5o el-- Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for properly tax year(s)2008 and 2009 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax. Math additional sheets if necessary.) Please see attached pages for explanations and request for review and refunds associated with the questioned percale. 4,-- Petitioner's estimate of value: $4653 (2008 1 and $4653 (2009 ) Vets Yew Valve Year Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate tams. I declare,under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this petition,together with any accompanying ehotits or statements,has been prepared examined by me,and to the best of my knowledge,information and bare((,is n i1"n-44—,1(/, -a✓n�wV Daytime Phone Number 0/t-' 1 ("C‘: 5 `'� By l� J'97j�-• v/ Daytime Phone Number 1Z'o 598—1Y70 Agwfs slpr.aea� 'Lanes O'Malley west be aawJrd Nov Pathan 4 ala.rr'by an agent if the board of county commissioners,pursuant to section 39-10-114(1),or the property tax administrator, pursuant to section 392-716,denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes In whole or Si part,the petitioner may appeal to the board of assessment appeal pursuant to the provisions of section 382-126 within thirty days of the entry of any such'I—" n,§39.10114.6(1),C.R.S. Section ti: Assessor's Recommendation .�v�(Far Amason Use Orly) Tax Mar C30Cg Ta Year s;„cc9 &MeIto tcttalh Amato 1!Q snows 31007 1830 733.31 a84°L{-7 8a,0-40 9311,44 r�r..ew ,1'1OO7 '18'3O 133.3! 197755 5734loPi Aeltatetud C) O O gL.aga a4(ILI3.00 asaaay Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. No protest was filed for the year(s): or pa pratwwa nip plane at a ropy ea the NOD-) ❑Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s): CSI I5'OPT,AR No.920-66106 2011-1618 • PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County:WELD e.�lWi► ptO//—o/� f.. -- _ Cami ids'Dale Stamp) Section I. Petitioner,please complete Section I only. Li., 13 P ,: SR E C E i V E D Date: February 28 2011MAR 0 3 2011 Month Day Year `Fr WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Petitioner's Name: Trollco-Fry Farm Investments LLC CIRFELEY COLORADO Petitioner's Mailing Address: 1625 Pelican Lakes Point-Suite 201 Windsor Colorado 80550 City a Town Slab ZIp Code SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBERS) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. 19So '1' Various-Please see Attached Parcels located in sect.33/Twnshp.6/Range 67 of Weld County Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the above property for the properly tax year 2010 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe why the taxes have been levied erroneously or illegally,whether due to erroneous valuation,irregularity in levying, clerical error,or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Attached pages are Included for explanation of the requested taxes and refunds or adjusted taxes due based on the information related to the questioned parcels.Please note that there was a previous request for these same parcels tiled for years 2009 and 2008;obviously any value reductions which might have been applied to 2009 (and accepted)by the owners agent,are also requested for 2010,since nothing changed in the intervening year. Petitioner's estimate of value: $4650.00 20( 10 ) Value Year I declare,under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this petition,together with any accompanying exhibits or statements,has been prepared or examined by me,and to the best of my knowledge,information,and belief,is true,correct,and complete. Daytime Phone Numbers Peusa.ra sqnee.e By c��'J \ Daytime Phone Numbers 970 ) 590-1940 Agent's signature tatter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted by an agent If the Board of County Commissioners,pursuant to§39-10-114(1),C.RS.,or the Property Tax Administrator,pasuaate§39-2-118,C.RS., denies the pealon for refund or abatement of taus in whole or in pert,the Petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant to the prwafas of§39-2-125,C.R.S.,within tidy days of the entry of any such decision.§39-10-114.5(1),C.R.S. Section it Assessor's Recommendation (Far AessoVs the Orly) Ts Year r)nI&WM Sat Original aiNOH 1 Saago na3 Corrected I4-rm5 cri3-lle.ga (nw'a57 Ar.r.,Rmwa %raga _a49u afro f3N Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. Ifthe request for abatement is based agar the grounds of oservalrtlm,no abatement or refund of lams shall be made ifan ot>ledan or protest to such v luato n has been Med and a Nolte of Determination has been mailed to the 0umayer,§39-16114(i)(axlxo),C.RS, Tax year: Probed? CI No ID Yes (a a protest was Med,pleas MYdh a copy of she NOD.) D Assessor recommends denial for the following neason(s►: (2742illepreglasesor's 15-DPT-AR No.920{66111 Hello