The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20062193.tiff RESOLUTION RE: APPROVE PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES HONG SUN AND SUNG KULL KIM 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 9th day of August,2006,at which meeting there were present the following members: Chair M. J. Geile, and Commissioners William H. Jerke, David E. Long, and Robert D. Masden, with Commissioner Glenn Vaad being excused, and WHEREAS,notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County,and said Assessor, Stan Sessions, being represented by Mike Sampson, and taxpayer Hong Sun and Sung Kull Kim, not being present, and WHEREAS,the Board of County Commissioners have carefully considered the attached petition, and are 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, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows: CORRECTION TO ASSESSED ABATEMENT TAX VALUATION OR REFUND YEAR $88,450.00 $7,851.00 2004 $71,010.00 $5,908.00 2005 2006-2193 00 : 45 /0- AS0063 TAX ABATEMENT PETITION - HONG SUN AND SUNG KULL KIM PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was,on motion duly made and seconded,adopted by the following vote on the 9th day of August, A.D., 2006. IE BOARD • - COUNTY COMMISSIONERS f J WELD • NTY, COLORADO ATTEST: 10,,,,4 < ;'J�?I1/49 M. J. ile, Chair Weld County Clerk to th •!t �►,b ! ,� \►j� E David E. Long, Pro-Tem BY: ULe �a Dep Clerk t the Board "^ - Willi . Jerk 1 1 "PfED AS T Robert D. M s en unty Attorney EXCUSED Glenn Vaad Date of signature: 2� 2006-2193 AS0063 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES Please submit in duplicate copies and answer all questions. Weld County Name Date Received Use Assessor's or It Commissioners'Date Stamp PETITIONER:Complete Section Ion this side only t C e _ AUF Section I: y Date: May 18 2006 JUN 0 2 Month Day Year JU y2006 Petitioner's Name: Kim,Hong Sun 8 Sung Kull et al Petitioner's mailing address: 600 31st St. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Evans CO 80620 Greeley, Colorado City or Town State Zip Code SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY R3882186 800 31st St. Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year(s) 2004 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax. (The petitioner's estimate of actual value must be included.) Attach additional sheets if necessary. Classification Protest. Please see attached"Appeal of Real Property Valuation", Classification 2004 Petitioner's estimate of actual value$ p ri`se St ( )and $ ( ) Value Year Value Year Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes associated with a reduction in value. I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this petition,together with any accompanying exhibits or statements,has been examined by me,and to the best of my knowledge,information and belief,is true,correct and complete. Daytime Phone Number J ) P liti Signature r 303 368-0500 By Daytime Phone Number) ) Agent's lgna re, PCX, �s�l bo;O:rift r'rc(ervy f�nv NejJ:,cLI' Letter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted. Every petition for abatement or refund filed pursuant to section 39-10-114,C.R.S.,shall be acted upon pursuant to the provisions of this section by the board of county commissioners or the assessor,as appropriate,within six months of the date of filing such petition. 39-1-113(1.7),C.R.S. Section II: As son's Use Only milt Levy 98O 70/ Tax Year 260y Tax Year Assessed Value ji Tax Assessed Value Tax Original lz/O1//y j 1/8 660 Corrected 7 44in &�/ � Abate/Refund * /JD $?..43.57 y *Past See 4n#>e11 /9oilP*t/uo►I f�eS% t ::; z:'i =�5a0,388 X 796% r-3);u' 74'5 (FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY) RESOLUTION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Resolution No. Section I: In accordance with 39-1-113(1.5),C.R.S.,the commissioners of County authorize t eiTassessor to review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition for abatement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel,or lot of land or per schedule of personal property. The assessor and petitioner mutually agree to an assessed value and tax abatement/refund of: Tax Year Tax Year Assessed Value Tax Assessed Value Tax Original Corrected Abate/Refund PLEASE NOTE:THE TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCRUED INTEREST,PENALTIES,AND FEES ASSOCIATED WITH LATE AND/OR DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS,IF APPLICABLE. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR COUNTY TREASURER FOR FULL PAYMENT INFORMATION. Petitioners Signature Date Assessors or Deputy Assessors Signature Date If Section I is not complete and/or if petition is for more than$1,000,Section II must be completed. Submit an original petition and a copy to the Division of Property Taxation. Section II: Assessor's recommendation: tpproved or 0 Approved in part$ o protest filed in or (If a protest was filed/42a] ase attach a copy of NOD.) Denied for the following reason(s)-� RelnnmeS . orez/.9L — ?knife n 1Ti9e4e✓ c✓ an-) cao ��sesso s or ut ssesso �gnaWre Section III: WHEREAS,The County Commissioners of County,State of Colorado,at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on / / ,at which meeting there were present the following mo day yr members: with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County and Assessor (being present/not present)and Name petitioner (being present/not present),and WHEREAS,The said Name County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition,and are fully advised in relation thereto, NOW BE IT RESOLVED,That the Board(agrees/does not agree)with the recommendation of the assessor and the petition be(approved/denied)and an abatement/refund be(approved/denied)for property tax year(s) and . The taxes to be abated/refunded for property tax year are$ which represents an assessed value of$ and the taxes to be abated/refunded for property tax year are$ which represents an assessed value of$ Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners'Signature County Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the aforementioned county,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County at ,this day of Time Date Month Year County Clerk's or Deputy County Clerk's Signature ACTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR6 Denver,Colorado, / / — o Month Day Year The action. the Board of County Commissioners,relative to the within petition,is hereby -r ved; Approved in part$ ; 7 Denied for the following rea (s): ecret A signature Property Tax [rattles Sig ature WSP • G , WBABPiE,FOimPEV Agent: PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS, INC. 3090 South Jamaica Court, Suite 200 Aurora, Colorado 80014 TEL: (303)368-0500; FAX: (303)368-0573 Petition To: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Subject: APPEAL OF REAL PROPERTY VALUATION Tax Year: 2004 County: Weld Schedule Number: R3882186 PTA# 3038 Property Address: 800 31st St. Property Owner: Kim, Hong Sun & Sung Kull et al Inclusions: _ Photograph(s) of Subject Property Correlation and Conclusions Income Approach Market Approach Cost Approach X Salient Facts Report Date: 5/18/2006 Effective Date: 6/30/02 PETITIONER'S FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE: •• ASSESSOR'S VALUE: •* ** Please see the Salient Fact Sheet. Addendum to abatement; The attached abatement requests a reduction in assessed values, and subsequently tax dollars paid, because of a change in the abstract code for a portion of the subject property. This reduction is from a full commercially abstracted property to a split between commercial and residential based upon recent court decisions which allow for a motel/hotel facility to claim a percentage (%) of their property is residential if the people using their rooms are renting them for extended periods of time, instead of night to night. The court case involved in this decision is attached, and the supporting data necessary to determine the correct% of residential is held in the Assessor's records. This supporting data is sales tax receipts for subsequent years relative to each year for which the reduction is being requested. After review of the court rulings and accompanying sales tax receipts filed with the state of Colorado, we feel the abatement is justified and support the change in abstracts to account for residential as a partial use of the property. The overall value will remain the same, since this is not a protest of value. The abatement clearly states it is for a change in the abstract code, to account for the residential component, and nothing further. The result becomes that, even thought the value will not change, the taxes levied against the subject property will be reduced based upon a change in assessment level from 29%to 7.96%, relating to the portion that is now residential. The amounts that this represents are shown below: For 2004 the requested percentage (%) of the property that should be residential is; 57.75% For 2005 the requested percentage (%) of the property that should be residential is; 45.02% These were rounded to 58% and 45% respectfully for ease of calculations. The sales tax receipts to support this request are considered accurate and justified, to the best of our knowledge, and limitations of verification, therefore we suggest the abatements be approved at the requested levels of change. Michael Sampson/appraiser Property Address: 800 31st St. PTA # 3038 SALIENT FACTS It is requested that 57.75% of actual value be assessed at the residential rate based upon a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision that allows certain hotel or motel occupancies characterized as long-term or "extended stay"to be classified as residential use for purposes of assessing property Tax (39-1-103(9) C.R.S.). In order to qualify for long-term or "extended stay" status, a room must have been leased or rented for thirty(30) consecutive days or more during the last calendar year by the same person or business entity. Please see the attached, signed form from the property owner that shows the amount of revenue that was derived from stays of 30 days or longer. FROM :RBUGreeley 6�V FAX NO. :970330r11429f � May. 16 2006 07:27PM P2 _. i _. •_•-_ crass venue 30-O4LRevenuL__N January /I. t/.f / /. z6�' ...._.... - February nil i /--Si7 70b - March 2p. 757 /l, U H April y-- -- — -1511 'I /1-- ° r— MS, 913‘.-1 1 z� : g- - Q. z 1- .„ _ June _ je, 720. i _/o i I d� _ _ Jury 5‘,7,4in 1<, Z55- � August A 4es.-i /� 7/b 4, ._ SeptamCer _._.. 7 /J /. 5(#t<T i - -- October _ r(), 4O, I /,.-4; .T .- November �3 Og$. /3,.s---7, - December -23/27i /2. fe?Z.j— • Signature; 2003 Gross Revenue 30-Day Revenue January $ 17,761 $ 11,265 February $ 22,616 $ 15,900 March $ 28,959 $ 19,658 April $ 27,837 $ 18,051 May $ 34,636 $ 21,598 June $ 34,780 $ 18,304 July $ 36,786 $ 16,735 August $ 30,645 $ 12,916 September $ 27,593 $ 19,446 October $ 30,300 $ 15,795 November $ 23,088 $ 13,579 December $ 23,927 $ 12,472 TOTAL $ 338,928 $ 195,719 % 30 Day Stays 57.75% FROM :PEUGreeley FPX NO. :9703301429 May. 10 2005 03:39PM P3 • r.�p...J v... .��..��..,...... eae.nauo oaue 3090 S.Jamaica Ct.,Suite 204 FAX(303)368.45^,3 Aurora,Colorado*0014 CONSULTANT- AGENCY AGREEMENT _a Corporation Property Owner: Kim, Hon Sun &Sung Kull&Sune.Soo —a Partnership X as Individuals County: Weld a Treat • 1'I Property Address 12,388218(, 800 3:"St. Evans • The undersigned hereby appoints and authorises Prcpetty Tax Advisors,Inc.as its Agent and Consultant in the preparation and execution of a real estate valuation appeal(s)onbehalf of the undersigned in regard to the above enumerated prcperty(les)foe the assessment year 2065 and foe the prior two yeas. The undersigned AntherauthorizesPropertyTaxAdvisors,Inc.,asAgentofdie undenigned.to execute and cause to be filed en behalf of the underaigned,Mete name of the undersigned,arty and all documents rolattug to an appeal of the subject pcopertya(tas)valuations). This agreement is:executed this /0 day of /14/ ,20± BY: • PrintNone; uc!4 Ka LL K/ l� Tide: C e.ON&R. ( ) at Corporation,your title;(or) Owste:,General Partite:, Tcicpltonc\6.. 0 33? ..2.9.17z Lassee,Property Manager,powaofAttotnne,Trustes,ete.) Fax Nu: ,.7a 33a - i 44 5' Rae. l/0 E0/Z2F/d 8OSIACri tier J.r.u.s„, Page 2 of 5 %ttlaw.. 972 P.2d 1057 Page I 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) Fi hotel; rather, where ro er p p ty was partially put to Colorado Court of Appeals, residential use and partially put to commercial hotel Div. IV. use, a mixed-use classification and allocation was E.R. SOUTHTECH,LTD., Petitioner-Appellee, appropriate. West's C.R.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § and 3(1)(b); West's C.R.S.A. §§ 39-1-102(5.5, 14.5), The Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals, 39-1- Appellee, 103(9), (9)(a). v. ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF 12] Taxation X2699(7) EQUALIZATION,Respondent-Appellant. 371k2699(7)Most Cited Cases No. 97CA0991. (Formerly 37Ik493.8) Ultimate determination as to the appropriate June 25, 1998. classification of property for property tax purposes As Modified on Denial of Rehearing involves mixed issues of law and fact, and thus, Aug. 20, 1998. under the applicable standard of review, the classification determination of Board of Assessment Certiorari Denied March 15, 1999. Appeals (BAA) must be sustained if it has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) determined substantial evidence in the record as a whole. West's the allocation of residential and commercial use of C.R.S.A. § 24-4-106(7), (11)(e). rental property, and county board of equalization (BOE) appealed. The Court of Appeals, Ruland, J., [3] Taxation€ '2478 held that: (1) rental property providing both 371k2478 Most Cited Cases short-term and long-term accommodations was not (Formerly 371k338) required to be classified as entirely commercial for Primary factor to be considered in determining the property tax purposes, based on its use as a hotel, proper classification for property tax purposes is the and a mixed-use classification and allocation was actual use of the property on the relevant appropriate, and (2) rental use of a certain assessment date. percentage of the units for extended stays of 30 days or more constituted a residential use, for [4] Statutes X219(4) property tax classification purposes. 361k219(4)Most Cited Cases Interpretations of statutes by the agencies charged Affirmed. with their administration must be given appropriate deference by court unless those interpretations are West Headnotes clearly in error. [1] Taxation€2478 [5( Taxation X2478 371k2478 Most Cited Cases 371k2478 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 371k338) (Formerly 371k338) Rental property providing both short-term and Rental use of a certain percentage of the units in long-term accommodations was not required to be rental complex for extended stays of 30 days or classified as entirely commercial as a matter of law more, as shown by sales tax records, constituted a for property tax purposes, based on its use as a residential use, for property tax classification ©2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB9-9C... 6/15/2006 Page 3 of 5 972 P.2d 1057 Page 2 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) purposes. West's C.R.S.A. §§ 39-26-102(11), In its appeal to the BAA, taxpayer requested 39-26-104(1)(f), 39-26-114(1)(a)(VI). modification of the value allocated to the residential and commercial components of the mixed use 161 Taxation C=2699(8) classification. In support of its request, taxpayer 371k2699(8)Most Cited Cases presented evidence derived from its records (Formerly 371k493.8) showing the breakdown over a period of several Appropriate allocation percentages to be assigned years between the short-term occupancy of its units to the residential and commercial uses of property of under 30 days and longer-term stays of 30 days for property tax purposes was a question of fact for or more. The latter use was characterized as the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) to decide, apartment-type residential use. based on its evaluation of the evidence presented, and thus where the BAA's factual determination in Based on this methodology, taxpayer's expert this regard was supported by competent and testified that there had been a clear trend toward substantial evidence in the record as a whole; its 50% residential use and 50% commercial hotel use, ruling would not be disturbed on review. and that a 50-50 allocation would be appropriate. *1058 Downey & Knickrehm, P.C., Thomas E. Downey, Jr., Henry J. Rickelman, Denver, for In contrast, the BOE argued at the BAA hearing Petitioner-Appellee. that the property should be classified as 100% commercial based on its use as a hotel. Although No Appearance for Appellee The Colorado Board the BOE had assigned a mixed-use classification to of Assessment Appeals. the property for several preceding years, its expert testified that, in his view, this classification was Arapahoe County Attorney's Office, Kathryn L. improper. Rather, based on his interpretation of Schroeder, County Attorney, Ronald A. Carl, various statutory provisions, the BOE's expert Assistant County Attorney, Littleton, for opined that the subject property should be classified Respondent-Appellant. • entirely as commercial because its predominant use was as a hotel. Opinion by Judge RULAND. Following the hearing, the BAA ordered the BOE In this real estate tax case, respondent, the to adjust the 1995 allocation of value to 50% Arapahoe County Board of Equalization (BOE), residential use and 50% commercial use. The appeals from an order of the Board of Assessment BAA rejected the BOE's legal position that the Appeals (BAA) determining the allocation of partial use of the subject property as a hotel residential and commercial use for the 1995 tax precluded any residential use allocation. Rather, year on property owned by petitioner, E.R. the BAA concluded that a mixed-use classification Southtech, Ltd. (taxpayer). We affirm. between residential and commercial was both permissible and appropriate and that taxpayer's The subject property is a rental complex consisting 50-50 allocation was supported by the evidence of 10 separate buildings, each containing 12 presented. housing units. The units are used to provide both short-term and long-term accommodations. For the I. 1995 tax year, the BOE valued the property at [1] The BOE first contends that the BAA erred in $4,142,342. That value has not been challenged. failing to classify the property as entirely commercial as a matter of law based on its use as a The BOE also assigned a mixed-use classification hotel. We are not persuaded. to the property, with 21% of the value allocated to residential use and 79% of the value allocated to *1059 [2] The ultimate determination as to the commercial use. appropriate classification of property for property ©2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB 9-9C... 6/15/2006 Page 4 of 5 • 972 P.2d 1057 Page 3 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) tax purposes involves mixed issues of law and commercial hotel use, a mixed-use classification fact. Thus, under the applicable standard of review, and allocation is appropriate. the BAA's classification determination must be sustained if it has a reasonable basis in law and is [3] As further support for this conclusion, we note supported by substantial evidence in the record as a that the primary factor to be considered in whole. See §§24-4-106(7) & 24-4-106(11)(e), determining the proper classification for property C.R.S.1997; Board of Assessment Appeals v. tax purposes is the actual use of the property on the AM/FM International, 940 P.2d 338(Colo.1997). relevant assessment date. See Mission Viejo Co. v. Douglas County Board of Equalization, 881 P.2d Under the provisions of the Colorado Constitution, 462 (Colo.App.1994); Gyurman v. Weld County "residential real property" is valued for assessment Board of Equalization, 851 P.2d 307 for property tax purposes at a lower rate than (Colo.App.1993); see also 2 Assessors Reference commercial property, but these provisions Librmy §VI at 6.1 (revised 8-95). specifically state that residential real property "shall not include hotels and motels." Colo. Const. art. X, We find further support for the BAA's §3(1)(b). Similarly, the term "residential real determination that a mixed use classification was property" is defined in the statutory scheme appropriate in the reference manuals published by governing property taxation as meaning "residential the Property Tax Administrator (PTA). Based on § land and residential improvements," but it "does not 39-1-103(9), the PTA's manuals provide, in include hotels and motels." Section pertinent part, that: "[i]f a residential use exists 39-1-102(14.5), C.R.S.1997. within a commercial property, the residential use must be abstracted as residential at the prevailing For property tax purposes, the term "hotels and residential percentage," and that the commercial use motels" is statutorily defined, in pertinent part, as or uses can only be determined "[o]nce the meaning "establishments which are primarily residential use has been separated." 2 Assessors engaged in providing lodging ... and which are Reference Library § VI at 6.16 (revised 8-95) predominantly used on an overnight or weekly (emphasis in original). basis."Section 39-1-102(5.5), C.R.S.1997. [4] In this context, we note that the interpretations Under the foregoing provisions, it is undisputed of these statutes by the PTA and the BAA, as that, to the extent the property was used as a agencies charged with their administration, must be "hotel," it cannot be classified as residential given appropriate deference by this court unless property as a matter of law. those interpretations are clearly in error. See El Paso County Board of Equalization v. Craddock, However, as noted by the BAA, the referenced 850 P.2d 702 (Colo.1993); Mission Viejo Co. v. provisions do not address the issue of mixed uses of Douglas County Board of Equalization, supra. We property, which is addressed in § 39-1-103(9), find no such error here. C.R.S.1997. Under § 39-1-103(9)(a), C.R.S.1997, if a particular improvement "is used as a residential Finally, and contrary to the BOE's contention, we dwelling unit and is also used for any other view the holding in Manor Vail Condominium purpose," the statute requires that "each portion" of Assn v. Board of Equalization, 956 P.2d 654 the property must be "allocated to the appropriate (Colo.App.1998) as consistent with the result classes" and valued accordingly for property tax reached here. There, a division of this court upheld purposes. the commercial classification of a condominium association restaurant and a residential classification Hence, contrary to the BOE's argument, we agree for the condominium units, thus approving a with the BAA that if, as here, property is partially mixed-use classification within the same property. put to residential use and partially put to To the extent that the opinion refers to a ©2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt.Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB 9-9C... 6/15/2006 Page 5 of 5 972 P.2d 1057 Page 4 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) classification for residential use as requiring that classification determination will not be disturbed on use to be predominant, we view the statement as review. See §§ 24-4-106(7) & 24-4-106(11)(e); dictum. Board of Assessment Appeals v. AM/FM International, supra. *1060 II. [5] We also perceive no error in the BAA's implicit III. determination that the longer-term rental use of a To the extent that the BOE also challenges the certain percentage of the units for extended stays of BAA's 50-50 allocation between the residential and 30 days or more constituted a residential use. commercial uses,we reject this contention as well. In this regard, we note that apartments are [6] In our view, the determination as to the classified as residential property for property tax appropriate allocation percentages to be assigned to purposes. See 2 Assessors Reference Library §VI the residential and commercial uses of the property at 6.11- 6.13 (revised 8-95); see also Jensen v. City was a question of fact for the BAA to decide, based & County of Denver, 806 P.2d 381, 385 (Colo.1991) on its evaluation of the evidence presented. (under property tax scheme, "[a]partments and Because the BAA's factual determination in this boarding/rooming houses used on a long term basis regard is supported by competent and substantial do not come within the definitions of hotel and evidence in the record as a whole, its ruling will not motel and properly are included within the be disturbed on review. See §§ 24-4-106(7) & definition of residential property"). 24-4-106(11)(e); Gyurman v. Weld County Board of Equalization, supra. Further, the distinction between rentals of accommodations for less than 30 days or for 30 We have also considered and find unpersuasive the days or more is recognized for sales tax purposes. BOE's remaining contentions of error. As a result, under the sales tax scheme, the amounts paid for rooms or accommodations are subject to Order affirmed. sales tax unless the rental period extends for 30 or more consecutive days, in which case the rental CASEBOLT and ROY,JJ., concur. paid is exempt from sales tax. See §§ 39-26-102(11), 39-26-104(1)(f), & 972 P.2d1057,98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 39-26-I14(1)(a)(VI), C.R.S.1997; Department of Revenue Regulations 26-104.1(f) & END OF DOCUMENT 26-114.1(a)(VI), 1 Code Colo. Reg. 201-4. Here, taxpayer's sales tax records formed the basis for its evidentiary presentation to the BAA showing the mixed use breakdown of the property between the hotel-type commercial uses consisting of stays of under 30 days and the apartment-type residential uses consisting of stays of 30 days or more. Accordingly, we conclude that the BAA's ruling assigning a mixed-use classification to the subject property based on the breakdown between stays of less than 30 days and stays of 30 days or more is supported by the evidentiary record and has a reasonable basis in law. See § 39-1-103(9). Thus, under the applicable standard of review, the BAA's ©2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB9-9C... 6/15/2006 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES Please submit in duplicate copies and answer all questions. Weld County Name Date Received Use Assessors or RECEIVED Date Stamp PETITIONER: Complete Section Ion this side only I a,ECEIVED Section I: Date: May 18 2006 Month Day Year JUN 0 2 2006 Petitioner's Name: Kim.Hong Sun 8 Sung Kull et al Petitioner's mailing address: 80031st St. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR Evans co 80820 Greeley, Colorado City or Town State Zip Code SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY R3882186 800 31st St. Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year(s) 2005 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax. (The petitioner's estimate of actual value must be included.) Attach additional sheets if necessary. Classification Protest. Please see attached"Appeal of Real Property Valuation". G osscation 2005 Petitioner's estimate of actual value$ ( ) -•-r.c r ( )and $ Value Year Value Year Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes associated with a reduction in value. I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this petition,together with any accompanying exhibits or statements,has been examined by me,and to the best of my knowledge,information and belief,is true,correct and complete. nDaytime Phone Number; ntt s Signature By ha4A.O A Daytime Phone Number s303)368-0500 Agen g ure• n {-%ar,-isb I- ;+a`:: ;c,wr: I __bb c 4-Q Tt,C L Letter of agency must be attached when petition is submitted. Every petition for abatement or refund filed pursuant to section 39-10-114,C.R.S.,shall be acted upon pursuant to the provisions of this section by the board of county commissioners or the assessor,as appropriate,within six months of the date of filing such petition. 39-1-113(1.7),C.R.S. Section II: Assessor's Use Only Ma Levy 83.203 Tax Year Q Tax Year sessed Valaluee�t Tax ��rrr Assessed Value Tax y Original 2/7 5O i A 77 /'`Corrected 4/tS IR/'21 /888 Abate/Refund 07/. 6/0 (5 9893 See /x'77/44 z z n/CL4.r. rn. 2 Res ` no,coo €yY% 37500 X 7. flS 24S6S' �/y0/90 am7 �5cd� �SS7 � `//2, Sco X .2`190 � //� 2 ,6' S� (FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY) RESOLUTION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Resolution No. Section I: In accordance with 39-1-113(1.5),C.R.S.,the commissioners of County authorize ehhe assessor to review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition for abatement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract,parcel,or lot of land or per schedule of personal property. The assessor and petitioner mutually agree to an assessed value and tax abatement/refund of: Tax Year Tax Year Assessed Value Tax Assessed Value Tax Original Corrected Abate/Refund PLEASE NOTE:THE TOTAL TAX AMOUNT DOES NOT INCLUDE ACCRUED INTEREST,PENALTIES,AND FEES ASSOCIATED WITH LATE AND/OR DELINQUENT TAX PAYMENTS,IF APPLICABLE. PLEASE CONTACT YOUR COUNTY TREASURER FOR FULL PAYMENT INFORMATION. Petitioners Signature Date Assessors or Deputy Assessors Signature Date If Section I is not complete and/or if petition is for more than$1,000,Section II must be completed. Submit an original petition and a copy to the Division of Property Taxation. Section II: Assessor's recommendation: pproved or D Approved in part$ No rotest filed in or �s./ (If�a protest was filed, lease attach a copy of NOD.) 7 C Denied for the follow�ing reason(s): SAW/2eg)s�S ca/�G �y�n e S� �, e� C /,4s447e 1. �� 41sessora or putt' saessors ign re Section III: WHEREAS,The Co my Commissioners of County,State of Colorado,at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on / / ,at which meeting there were present the following mo day yr members: with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County and Assessor (being present/not present)and Name petitioner (being presenUnot present),and WHEREAS,The said Name County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition,and are fully advised in relation thereto, NOW BE IT RESOLVED,That the Board(agrees/does not agree)with the recommendation of the assessor and the petition be(approved/denied)and an abatement/refund be(approved/denied)for property tax year(s) and . The taxes to be abated/refunded for property tax year are$ which represents an assessed value of$ and the taxes to be abated/refunded for property tax year are$ which represents an assessed value of$ Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners'Signature I, County Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the aforementioned county,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County • at ,this day of Time Date Month Year County Clerk's or Deputy County Clerk's Signature ACTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR Denver,Colorado, //yam O Month D y Year The ac'•. . the Board of County Commissioners,relative to the within petition,is hereby roved. a Approved in part$ ;7 Denied for the following7spn(s): lr ec . s Sig -tu / PropertyT istralors 9 na G WSRI ABATE, R- Agent: PROPERTY TAX ADVISORS, INC. 3090 South Jamaica Court, Suite 200 Aurora, Colorado 80014 TEL: (303)368-0500; FAX: (303)368-0573 Petition To: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Subject: APPEAL OF REAL PROPERTY VALUATION Tax Year: 2005 County: Weld Schedule Number R3882186 PTA# 3038 Property Address: 800 31st St. Property Owner: Kim, Hong Sun & Sung Kull et al Inclusions: _ Photograph(s) of Subject Property Correlation and Conclusions Income Approach Market Approach Cost Approach X Salient Facts Report Date: 5/18/2006 Effective Date: 6/30/04 PETITIONER'S FINAL ESTIMATE OF VALUE: ** ASSESSOR'S VALUE: ** ** Please see the Salient Fact Sheet. • Addendum to abatement; The attached abatement requests a reduction in assessed values, and subsequently tax dollars paid, because of a change in the abstract code for a portion of the subject property. This reduction is from a full commercially abstracted property to a split between commercial and residential based upon recent court decisions which allow for a motel/hotel facility to claim a percentage (%) of their property is residential if the people using their rooms are renting them for extended periods of time, instead of night to night. The court case involved in this decision is attached, and the supporting data necessary to determine the correct % of residential is held in the Assessor's records. This supporting data is sales tax receipts for subsequent years relative to each year for which the reduction is being requested. After review of the court rulings and accompanying sales tax receipts filed with the state of Colorado, we feel the abatement is justified and support the change in abstracts to account for residential as a partial use of the property. The overall value will remain the same, since this is not a protest of value. The abatement clearly states it is for a change in the abstract code, to account for the residential component, and nothing further. The result becomes that, even thought the value will not change, the taxes levied against the subject property will be reduced based upon a change in assessment level from 29% to 7.96%, relating to the portion that is now residential. The amounts that this represents are shown below: For 2004 the requested percentage (%) of the property that should be residential is; 57.75% For 2005 the requested percentage (%) of the property that should be residential is; 45.02% These were rounded to 58% and 45% respectfully for ease of calculations. The sales tax receipts to support this request are considered accurate and justified, to the best of our knowledge, and limitations of verification, therefore we suggest the abatements be approved at the requested levels of change. Michael Sampson/appraiser Property Address: 800 31st St. PTA # 3038 SALIENT FACTS It is requested that 45.02% of actual value be assessed at the residential rate based upon a recent Colorado Court of Appeals decision that allows certain hotel or motel occupancies characterized as long-term or "extended stay" to be classified as residential use for purposes of assessing property Tax (39-1-103(9) C.R.S.). In order to qualify for long-term or "extended stay" status, a room must have been leased or rented for thirty(30) consecutive days or more during the last calendar year by the same person or business entity. Please see the attached, signed form from the property owner that shows the amount of revenue that was derived from stays of 30 days or longer. 2004 Gross Revenue 30-Day Revenue January $ 21,296 $ 13,307 February $ 27,468 $ 18,789 March $ 23,033 $ 13,892 April $ 22,695 $ 5,715 May $ 26,475 $ 12,151 June $ 32,621 $ 13,143 July $ 32,928 $ 10,514 August $ 37,959 $ 16,194 September $ 29,232 $ 13,929 October $ 23,661 $ 7,671 November $ 18,262 $ 8,620 December $ 13,204 $ 5,119 TOTAL $ 308,834 $ 139,044 % 30 Day Stays 45.02% FROM :ABUGreeley FAX NO. :9703301429 May. 15 2006 07:27PM P3 05/16/20AS 09:22 3033680572 PROPERTY 1A;( ALVLSUR PAGE 03/94 20b4 , _.-..�ii /orris RevenueL 130-GayBeYSLw g____!____ • _-__...__.. ry Zi . / y 41 ^ March *3 °73, ' (3,O (Z- 7 zz. 4 .z,^, 1 ._._ April � 7�� --I ._..._-.-.. .. /2./S7 June ?',4f atir' ! L _37.9 r1, lye !— _^ September ...... . 021,.232, —_. /3. l October )3,1g/ r! 71471 J November .-� _________ December a-1O(4 �; 57//1 I-- Signature: _ la„..„...:___ __ FROM :REUGreeley FAX NO. :9703301429 May. 10 200E 03:39FM PE 3090 S.Jamaica Ct.,Suite 204 FAX(303)368-073 Aurora,Aurora,Colorado 40424 CONSULTANT- AGENCY AGREEMENT _a Corporation Property Owner: Kim, Hong Sun &Sang Kull&Snng, oo a Partnership X as Irdivzdua}S County: W a Trust Property Address R3882184 800 31'Stuns • The undersigned hereby appoints and and prizes PropertyTax Advisors,Inc.as its Agent and Consultant it the preparation and execution of a real estate valuation appeal(s)ort behalf oft*undersigned in regard to the above enumerated property(les)for the assonant year 2006 and for the prior two yeas, The uadersigzred rirther authorizes?ropertyTax Advisors,Inc.,as Agent of the undenipted,to execute and cause to be filed on behalf of the undersigned,is dtc name of the undersigned,any and all documents relating to w-e appeal of the subject propnriy's(ms)•valuation(sS, This agreement is:execute('this /0 day of J / 4y , 20_ BY: ,1 Print Name: ,‘41A/4 /eat-4- g/ J-{ Title: d e°rl�/Z ) (12'Corporation, your tine; (or) Ownz;, Genera)Farber:, N6 Telephone .:f7 pa 33/ )+7Z /C) O.,,,, Lasser.;Property lti.ntget,Powcr ofAnorocv,Tames,etc.) 3617-,6 e Fax No,: yip 33v - • R:v. !/06 £3/7.2 39Vd 805I AMY !eci Arens, , Page 2 of 5 \ttlaw. 972 P.2d 1057 Page 1 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) H hotel; rather, where property was partially put to Colorado Court of Appeals, residential use and partially put to commercial hotel Div. IV. use, a mixed-use classification and allocation was E.R. SOUTHTECH, LTD.,Petitioner-Appellee, appropriate. West's C.R.S.A. Const. Art. 10, § and 3(1)(b); West's C.R.S.A. §§ 39-1-102(5.5, 14.5), The Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals, 39-1- Appellee, 103(9), (9)(a). v. ARAPAHOE COUNTY BOARD OF 121 Taxation O2699(7) EQUALIZATION,Respondent-Appellant. 371k2699(7)Most Cited Cases No. 97CA0991. (Formerly 371k493.8) Ultimate determination as to the appropriate June 25, 1998. classification of property for property tax purposes As Modified on Denial of Rehearing involves mixed issues of law and fact, and thus, Aug. 20, 1998. under the applicable standard of review, the classification determination of Board of Assessment Certiorari Denied March 15, 1999. Appeals (BAA) must be sustained if it has a reasonable basis in law and is supported by Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) determined substantial evidence in the record as a whole. West's the allocation of residential and commercial use of C.R.S.A. §24-4-106(7),(11)(e). rental property, and county board of equalization (BOE) appealed. The Court of Appeals, Ruland, J., 131 Taxation€2478 held that: (1) rental property providing both 371k2478 Most Cited Cases short-term and long-term accommodations was not (Formerly 371k338) required to be classified as entirely commercial for Primary factor to be considered in determining the property tax purposes, based on its use as a hotel, proper classification for property tax purposes is the and a mixed-use classification and allocation was actual use of the property on the relevant appropriate, and (2) rental use of a certain assessment date. percentage of the units for extended stays of 30 days or more constituted a residential use, for 141 Statutes X219(4) property tax classification purposes. 361k219(4)Most Cited Cases Interpretations of statutes by the agencies charged Affirmed. with their administration must be given appropriate deference by court unless those interpretations are West Headnotes clearly in error. 111 Taxation €2478 151 Taxation€=2478 37Ik2478 Most Cited Cases 371k2478 Most Cited Cases (Formerly 371k338) (Formerly 371k338) Rental property providing both short-term and Rental use of a certain percentage of the units in long-term accommodations was not required to be rental complex for extended stays of 30 days or classified as entirely commercial as a matter of law more, as shown by sales tax records, constituted a for property tax purposes, based on its use as a residential use, for property tax classification CO 2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB9-9C... 6/15/2006 Page 3 of 5 972 P.2d 1057 Page 2 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) purposes. West's C.R.S.A. §§ 39-26-102(11), In its appeal to the BAA, taxpayer requested 39-26-104(1)(f), 39-26-114(1)(a)(VI). modification of the value allocated to the residential and commercial components of the mixed use [6] Taxation X2699(8) classification. In support of its request, taxpayer 371k2699(8)Most Cited Cases presented evidence derived from its records (Formerly 371k493.8) showing the breakdown over a period of several Appropriate allocation percentages to be assigned years between the short-term occupancy of its units to the residential and commercial uses of property of under 30 days and longer-term stays of 30 days for property tax purposes was a question of fact for or more. The latter use was characterized as the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) to decide, apartment-type residential use. based on its evaluation of the evidence presented, and thus where the BAA's factual determination in Based on this methodology, taxpayer's expert this regard was supported by competent and testified that there had been a clear trend toward substantial evidence in the record as a whole, its 50% residential use and 50% commercial hotel use, ruling would not be disturbed on review. and that a 50-50 allocation would be appropriate. *1058 Downey & Knickrehm, P.C., Thomas E. Downey, Jr., Henry J. Rickelman, Denver, for In contrast, the BOE argued at the BAA hearing Petitioner-Appellee. that the property should be classified as 100% commercial based on its use as a hotel. Although No Appearance for Appellee The Colorado Board the BOE had assigned a mixed-use classification to of Assessment Appeals. the property for several preceding years, its expert testified that, in his view, this classification was Arapahoe County Attorney's Office, Kathryn L. improper. Rather, based on his interpretation of Schroeder, County Attorney, Ronald A. Carl, various statutory provisions, the BOE's expert Assistant County Attorney, Littleton, for opined that the subject property should be classified Respondent-Appellant. entirely as commercial because its predominant use was as a hotel. Opinion by Judge RULAND. Following the hearing, the BAA ordered the BOE In this real estate tax case, respondent, the to adjust the 1995 allocation of value to 50% Arapahoe County Board of Equalization (BOE), residential use and 50% commercial use. The appeals from an order of the Board of Assessment BAA rejected the BOE's legal position that the Appeals (BAA) determining the allocation of partial use of the subject property as a hotel residential and commercial use for the 1995 tax precluded any residential use allocation. Rather, year on property owned by petitioner, E.R. the BAA concluded that a mixed-use classification Southtech, Ltd. (taxpayer). We affirm, between residential and commercial was both permissible and appropriate and that taxpayer's The subject property is a rental complex consisting 50-50 allocation was supported by the evidence of 10 separate buildings, each containing 12 presented. housing units. The units are used to provide both short-term and long-term accommodations. For the I, 1995 tax year, the BOE valued the property at [1] The BOE first contends that the BAA erred in $4,142,342. That value has not been challenged. failing to classify the property as entirely commercial as a matter of law based on its use as a The BOE also assigned a mixed-use classification hotel. We are not persuaded. to the property, with 21% of the value allocated to residential use and 79% of the value allocated to *1059 [2] The ultimate determination as to the commercial use, appropriate classification of property for property ©2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig.U.S. Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB9-9C... 6/15/2006 Page 4 of 5 972 P.2d 1057 Page 3 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) tax purposes involves mixed issues of law and commercial hotel use, a mixed-use classification fact. Thus, under the applicable standard of review, and allocation is appropriate. the BAA's classification determination must be sustained if it has a reasonable basis in law and is [3] As further support for this conclusion, we note supported by substantial evidence in the record as a that the primary factor to be considered in whole. See §§24-4-106(7) & 24-4-106(11)(e), determining the proper classification for property C.R.S.1997; Board of Assessment Appeals v. tax purposes is the actual use of the property on the AM/FM International, 940 P.2d 338(Colo.1997). relevant assessment date. See Mission Viejo Co. v. Douglas County Board of Equalization, 881 P.2d Under the provisions of the Colorado Constitution, 462 (Colo.App.1994); Gyurman v. Weld County "residential real property" is valued for assessment Board of Equalization, 851 P.2d 307 for property tax purposes at a lower rate than (Colo.App.1993); see also 2 Assessors Reference commercial property, but these provisions Library§VI at 6.1 (revised 8-95). specifically state that residential real property "shall not include hotels and motels." Colo. Const. art. X, We find further support for the BAA's §3(1)(b). Similarly, the term "residential real determination that a mixed use classification was property" is defined in the statutory scheme appropriate in the reference manuals published by governing property taxation as meaning "residential the Property Tax Administrator (PTA). Based on § land and residential improvements," but it "does not 39-1-103(9), the PTA's manuals provide, in include hotels and motels." Section pertinent part, that: "[i]f a residential use exists 39-1-102(14.5), C.R.S.1997. within a commercial property, the residential use must be abstracted as residential at the prevailing For property tax purposes, the term "hotels and residential percentage," and that the commercial use motels" is statutorily defined, in pertinent part, as or uses can only be determined "[o]nce the meaning "establishments which are primarily residential use has been separated." 2 Assessors engaged in providing lodging ... and which are Reference Library § VI at 6.16 (revised 8-95) predominantly used on an overnight or weekly (emphasis in original). basis."Section 39-1-102(5.5),C.R.S.1997. [4] In this context, we note that the interpretations Under the foregoing provisions, it is undisputed of these statutes by -the PTA and the BAA, as that, to the extent the property was used as a agencies charged with their administration, must be "hotel," it cannot be classified as residential given appropriate deference by this court unless property as a matter of law. those interpretations are clearly in error. See El Paso County Board of Equalization v. Craddock, However, as noted by the BAA, the referenced 850 P.2d 702 (Colo.1993); Mission Viejo Co. v. provisions do not address the issue of mixed uses of Douglas County Board of Equalization, supra. We property, which is addressed in § 39-1-103(9), find no such error here. C.R.S.1997. Under § 39-1-103(9)(a), C.R.S.1997, if a particular improvement "is used as a residential Finally, and contrary to the BOE's contention, we dwelling unit and is also used for any other view the holding in Manor Vail Condominium purpose," the statute requires that "each portion" of Ass'n v. Board of Equalization, 956 P.2d 654 the property must be "allocated to the appropriate (Colo.App.1998) as consistent with the result classes" and valued accordingly for property tax reached here. There, a division of this court upheld purposes. the commercial classification of a condominium association restaurant and a residential classification Hence, contrary to the BOE's argument, we agree for the condominium units, thus approving a with the BAA that if, as here, property is partially mixed-use classification within the same property. put to residential use and partially put to To the extent that the opinion refers to a ©2006 Thomson/West.No Claim to Orig. U.S.Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E 1 D-0FEA-4BB 9-9C... 6/15/2006 Page 5 of 5 972 P.2d 1057 Page 4 972 P.2d 1057, 98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 (Cite as: 972 P.2d 1057) classification for residential use as requiring that classification determination will not be disturbed on use to be predominant, we view the statement as review. See §§ 24-4-106(7) & 24-4-106(11)(e); dictum. Board of Assessment Appeals v. AM/FM International, supra. *1060 II. [5] We also perceive no error in the BAA's implicit III. determination that the longer-term rental use of a To the extent that the BOE also challenges the certain percentage of the units for extended stays of BAA's 50-50 allocation between the residential and 30 days or more constituted a residential use. commercial uses, we reject this contention as well. In this regard, we note that apartments are [6] In our view, the determination as to the classified as residential property for property tax appropriate allocation percentages to be assigned to purposes. See 2 Assessors Reference Library §VI the residential and commercial uses of the property at 6.11- 6.13 (revised 8-95); see also Jensen v. City was a question of fact for the BAA to decide, based & County of Denver, 806 P.2d 381, 385 (Colo.1991) on its evaluation of the evidence presented. (under property tax scheme, "[a]partments and Because the BAA's factual determination in this boarding/rooming houses used on a long term basis regard is supported by competent and substantial do not come within the definitions of hotel and evidence in the record as a whole, its ruling will not motel and properly are included within the be disturbed on review. See §§ 24-4-106(7) & definition of residential property"). 24-4-106(11)(e); Gyurman v. Weld County Board of Equalization, supra. Further, the distinction between rentals of accommodations for less than 30 days or for 30 We have also considered and find unpersuasive the days or more is recognized for sales tax purposes. BOE's remaining contentions of error. As a result, under the sales tax scheme, the amounts paid for rooms or accommodations are subject to Order affirmed. sales tax unless the rental period extends for 30 or more consecutive days, in which case the rental CASEBOLT and ROY,JJ.,concur. paid is exempt from sales tax. See §§ 39-26-102(11), 39-26-104(1)(f), & 972 P.2d 1057,98 CJ C.A.R. 3564 39-26-114(1)(a)(VI), C.R.S.1997; Department of Revenue Regulations 26-104.1(f) & END OF DOCUMENT 26-114.1(a)(VI), 1 Code Colo.Reg. 201-4. Here, taxpayer's sales tax records formed the basis for its evidentiary presentation to the BAA showing the mixed use breakdown of the property between the hotel-type commercial uses consisting of stays of under 30 days and the apartment-type residential uses consisting of stays of 30 days or more. Accordingly, we conclude that the BAA's ruling assigning a mixed-use classification to the subject property based on the breakdown between stays of less than 30 days and stays of 30 days or more is supported by the evidentiary record and has a reasonable basis in law. See § 39-1-103(9). Thus, under the applicable standard of review, the BAA's ©2006 Thomson/West. No Claim to Orig.U.S.Govt. Works. http://web2.westlaw.com/print/printstream.aspx?utid=%257b6EEA2E I D-0FEA-4BB9-9C... 6/15/2006 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970) 336-7215, EXT. 4225 FAX: (970) 352-0242 P.O. BOX 758 111 ' GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 C. COLORADO July 19, 2006 Hong Sun and Sung Kull Kim 800 31st Street Evans, CO 80620 RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER R3882186 (for 2004 and 2005) Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petitions for abatement or refund of taxes on the property described as: 800 31st Street. The meeting is scheduled for August 9, 2006, 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 approve your 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 Esther Gesick at (970) 336-7215, extension 4226. Sincerely, Esther E. Gesick Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Assessor Dariush Bozorgpour Property Tax Advisors, Inc. 3090 South Jamaica Court, Suite 200 Aurora, CO 80014 2006-2193 Hello