HomeMy WebLinkAbout20101113 BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Docket No.: 51954
STATE OF COLORADO
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, Colorado 80203
Petitioner: AMY /4so
RICHARD A. AND GRACEANN C. STEWART,
v.
Respondent:
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.
ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on April 19,2010,Karen
E. Hart and MaryKay Kelley presiding. Richard A. Stewart appeared pro so for Petitioners.
Respondent was represented by Cyndy Giauque, Esq. Petitioners are protesting the 2009 actual
value of the subject property.
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
Subject property is described as follows:
E2E2SW4 25-2-68 (County Road 16, Frederick, Colorado)
(Weld County Schedule No. R5638486)
The subject is 40 acres of vacant land within the town limits of Frederick in southwest Weld
County east of the northern Interstate 25 corridor. •
Classification is not at issue in this hearing, agricultural use was discussed but vacant
residential classification is not contested.
Respondent assigned an actual value of$275,000.00 for tax year 2009. Petitioners are
requesting a value of$75,000.00.
Mr. Stewart testified that the subject parcel is of interest to an investment company,has been
approved for subdivision use, and that aplat for 121 building sites has been filed. $1,200,000.00 is
required in escrow for development costs.
2010-1113
51954
�j 1
(iw /450079
vi rw �, mTcv a 5 a ao((7
Mr. Stewart further testified that there are hundreds of abandoned coal mines beneath the
surface, dating from the 1940's and 1950's. Also, prairie dogs are prevalent.
Mr.Stewart compared the assessed values of two land parcels: Dacono Investment Company
(457 vacant acres)and Sharon McDonald Trust(40 acres with 8,370 square feet of improvements).
He understands that the Board will give little weight to these assessed values, but was unable to
obtain any sales data for comparison.
Mr. Stewart commented on Respondent's sales: Sale 1 is located in Mead, a more active
community than Frederick and nearer larger cities; Sales 2 and 3 sold for their water rights,making
them unlike the subject parcel, which has no water rights.
Petitioners questioned Respondent's adjustments for water shares,saying conversations with
neighboring farmers suggest$25,000.00 to $45,000.00 per share.
Petitioners'requested value of$75,000.00 is based on the contention that the subject property
is worth four times the assigned value of the Dacono Investment 457-acre parcel($42.68 per acre or
$19,505.00) rounded.
Respondent presented an indicated value of$440,000.00 for the subject property based on the
market approach. The witness presented three comparable sales ranging in sales price from
$350,000.00 to$570,000.00 and in size from 35 acres to 40.58 acres. After adjustments were made
for water rights associated with Sales 2 and 3,the sales ranged from$338,297.50 to$498,497.50 or
from$8,457.00 to $12,284.00 per acre. The witness concluded toward the higher end of the range at
$11,000.00 per acre because of the subject's proximity to downtown Frederick and Firestone and the
associated amenities.
Respondent's witness made no adjustment to Sale 1,which, like the subject parcel, had no
water rights. Sales 2 and 3 each carried adjustments of$71,502.50 for shares of water rights. The
sources of these adjustments were verbal and web-based data from New Consolidated Lower
Boulder Reservoir and Northern Colorado Water Conservancy District.
Respondent's witness declined use of a $350,000.00 sale adjacent to the subject parcel
because of its December 2004 sale date outside the base period. The Board notes that although this
sale occurred prior to the 18-month base period ending June 30, 2008, it did occur within the
extended five year data collection period beginning July 1, 2003.
Petitioners did not present sufficient probative evidence and testimony to prove that the
subject property was incorrectly valued for tax year 2009.
Respondent provided the only sales data for comparison to the subject. The Board is
concerned, however, by lack of specific sales data regarding water shares and is not convinced that
Respondent's water rights adjustments are market based. The Board finds that the lower end of
Respondent's adjusted sales prices at $8,457.00 per acre(totaling$338,280.00 when applied to the
5/954
2
subject's 40 acres) and the December 2004 sale at $350,000.00 are better indications of market
value, which is recalculated at $340,000.00.
The Board's recalculation of Respondent's indicated value results in a value higher than the
assigned value of$275,000.00.
ORDER:
The petition is denied.
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 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).
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.
51954
3
DATED and MAILED this 13th day of May 2010.
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
\gri , e LtotAir
Karen E. Hart
May
`
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of
the Board of Assessment Appeals.
Heather Flanne
of coy
o
qP;
co:
stis SEAL
51954
4
Hello