The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20052244.tiff RESOLUTION RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,2005,WELD COUNTY, COLORADO-ADJUST VALUE IN PART PETITION OF: KGF INC DBA/ FRITZLERS CORN MAZE 15630 HWY 256 LASALLE, CO 80645 DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: ACCOUNT #: P3021605 PARCEL #: 105722000010 - 17159-A PT NE4 22 4 66 SITUS: 15630 256 HWY WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, convened as the Board of Equalization for the purpose of adjusting, equalizing, raising or lowering the assessment and valuation of real and personal property within Weld County, fixed and made by the County Assessor for the year 2005, and WHEREAS, said petition has been heard before the County Assessor and due Notice of Determination thereon has been given to the taxpayer(s), and WHEREAS, the taxpayer(s) presented a petition of appeal of the County Assessor's valuation for the year 2005, claiming that the property described in such petition was assessed too high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and WHEREAS, said petitioner being present, and WHEREAS,the Board has made its findings on the evidence,testimony and remonstrances and is now fully informed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, acting as the Board of Equalization, that the evidence presented at the hearing supported, in part, the value placed upon the property by the petitioner. The assessment and valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, adjusted as follows: ACTUAL VALUE AS DETERMINED ADJUSTED BY ASSESSOR ACTUAL VALUE Land $ 0 $ 0 Improvements OR Personal Property 197,424 89,300 TOTAL $ 197,424 $ 89,300 2005-2244 AS0061 C A ,9g* OF VD -Orr- RE: BOE - KGF INC Page 2 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that a denial of a petition, in whole or in part, by the Board of Equalization may be appealed by selecting one of the following three options; however,said appeal must be filed within thirty (30) days of this resolution: 1. Board of Assessment Appeals: You have the right to appeal the County Board of Equalization's(CBOE's)decision to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA). Such hearing is the final hearing at which testimony, exhibits, or any other evidence may be introduced. If the decision of the BAA is further appealed to the Court of Appeals, only the record created at the BAA hearing shall be the basis for the Court's decision. No new evidence can be introduced at the Court of Appeals. (Section 39-8-108(10), C.R.S.) Appeals to the BAA must be made on forms furnished by the BAA, and such appeals should be mailed or delivered within thirty (30) days of denial by the CBOE to: Board of Assessment Appeals 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 866-5880 Fees: A taxpayer representing himself is not charged for the first two appeals to the Board of Assessment Appeals; however, a taxpayer being represented by an agent or an attorney must submit a fee of$101.25 per appeal. OR 2. District Court: You have the right to appeal the CBOE's decision to the District Court of the county wherein your property is located. New testimony, exhibits or any other evidence may be introduced at the District Court hearing. For filing requirements, please contact your attorney or the Clerk of the District Court. Further appeal of the District Court's decision is made to the Court of Appeals for a review of the record. (Section 39-8-108(1), C.R.S.) OR 3. Binding Arbitration: You have the right to submit your case to arbitration. If you choose this option the arbitrator's decision is final and your right to appeal your current valuation ends. (Section 39-8-108.5, C.R.S.) Selecting the Arbitrator: In order to pursue arbitration, you must notify the CBOE of your intent. You and the CBOE select an arbitrator from the official list of qualified people. If you cannot agree on an arbitrator,the District Court of the county in which the property is located will make the selection. 2005-2244 AS0061 RE: BOE - KGF INC Page 3 Arbitration Hearing Procedure: Arbitration hearings are held within sixty days from the date the arbitrator is selected. Both you and the CBOE are entitled to participate. The hearings are informal. The arbitrator has the authority to issue subpoenas for witnesses, books, records, documents and other evidence. He also has the power to administer oaths, and all questions of law and fact shall be determined by him. The arbitration hearing may be confidential and closed to the public, upon mutual agreement. The arbitrator's written decision must be delivered to both parties personally or by registered mail within ten (10) days of the hearing. Such decision is final and not subject to review. Fees and Expenses: The arbitrator's fees and expenses are agreed upon by you and the OBOE. In the case of residential real property, such fees and expenses cannot exceed$150.00 per case. The arbitrator's fees and expenses, not including counsel fees, are to be paid as provided in the decision. The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 4th day of August, A.D., 2005. onons.,„.„ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ._ ��'//" WELD COUNTY, COLORADO o .T: � I/S�itt. iy William H. ke, Chair w MK( ounty Clerk to the Board .r I ‘•�/ �� 4-11HIL� ./�C�/l� M. ile, Pr. Tem Deputy Clerk t the Board D- .'•. Long APPROVED AS TO FORM: Mas.7 stant ounty Attorney 2/1./ Glenn Vaad Date of signature: I/�l/a6'LS; 2005-2244 AS0061 WELD COUNTY STANLEY F. SESSIONS COUNTY ASSESSOR CHRISTOPHER WOODRUFF, DEPUTY ASSESSOR APPRAISAL REPORT OF PERSONAL PROPERTY FOR County Board of Equalization KGF INC PETITIONER Vs. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR'S OFFICE RESPONDENT Schedule Number: P3021605 Log Number: 4461 Date: August 4, 2005 Time: 11:30AM Board: BOARD PREPARED BY APPRAISERS NAME RAELENE ANDERSON 7/28/05 Signature Date ASSESSOR'S OFFICE STAFF APPRAISER 1 COST APPROACH Location of the subject property is: Street Address 15630 256 HWY City City Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statutes the cost approach of Personal Property listed on the above mentioned property is attached, along with a copy of the declaration and/or correspondence from the petitioner. Also included is a copy of the 2005 Personal Property Tables distributed by The Division of Property Taxation, and approved by the Statutory Advisory Committee. NARRATIVE The property in question is personal property associated with the corn maze located at 15630 State Highway 256, LaSalle, CO 80645. This is a seasonal commercial business that operates a limited period of time each year. Their web site lists their hours of operation for 2005 as they are open September 3 thru September 30, 2005 on weekends only. Starting October 1, until October 31, they are open everyday except Monday and Tuesday The value of$197,424 was arrived at by using the IRS tax depreciation scheduled submitted with the taxpayers 2005 Personal Property Declaration Schedule on April 15, 2005. The actual value was determined using all of the assets reported, the year they were purchased and the cost reported on the depreciation schedule. The appropriate tables mandated by the Division of Property Tax, were applied to arrive at the actual value. When Mr. Fritzler protested his value he raised the question that his property is agricultural and should be exempt. I provided him with a copy of page 2.20 from the Assessors Reference Library Volume 5 (ARL) that states "Only equipment which is used to plant, grow, or harvest an agricultural product, raise or breed livestock, or those agricultural items which are primarily tied to the business operation are exempt. While it is true that the petitioner does have a farm, and does grow agriculture products, none of these items are being valued for personal property. Mr. Fritzler also states that his business is only open for 30 days, however he is still required to file a personal property declaration as stated in 39-5-104.5 C.R.S. The equipment is valued for the entire year. If equipment is brought in after the assessment date of January 1 and removed prior to the assessment date, they are still liable for the entire tax obligation 39-5-110, and 39-5-110(2) C.R.S. COST APPROACH VALUE 197,424 2 MARKET APPROACH Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute the Assessor has considered the Market Approach to value on Personal Property. Due to the insufficient information for the market of personal property, the Weld County Assessor has not utilized the Market Approach. INCOME APPROACH Pursuant to Colorado Revised Statute the Assessor has considered the Income Approach to value on Personal Property. Due to the insufficient information for the income on Personal Property, the Weld County Assessor has not utilized the Income Approach. 3 CONCLUSION The subject property has been classified as Personal Property for property tax purposes. Personal Property values shall be determined by appropriate consideration of the Cost Approach, Market Approach, and Income Approach to value. {39-1-103)(5)(a) CRS} The Assessor has considered the three approaches to value for the subject property. It is the petitioner's responsibility to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate that the Assessor's value is incorrect. After consideration of the three approaches, it is the Weld County Assessor's request that the value of $197,424 be affirmed for the tax year 2005. FINAL VALUE 197,424 4 WA ns a t ONFIiEti I1 U • ,t'kiF' Itit ;4l PAD „►tr.-ai:AT'harm ►arti:¢.rlrp mm:, 1\M- .1R3' I ,...•,i•x.stwlst inF►tl n+1llt.1►ftuk wr!+, nY1.4.:.,,b1, n.inron 111.441• r,•a1641.JI15a- DU?.0A Tr MIMI It 14.41 e113 0rrec a This Dew wa.rxvr,w,•a•(,ria.rt. n.111 F+ - . -, t►'.tCr1M•► Il tstitkifs.' __ •• r i4.: ,rr.ro•4 4 nori 1+A1:..� ;I !7,, r in +... i4. j I elm Ai N4 I•: 1.4 ____ ..4 i.I..rlr •..1.:: w#+114,4 ( •!03141! 0101 3EIM 105T3i10.*1* 1,4=11 1 _• _. ,, S ♦ hs tt.0.0,M�l•i, .. ,C.s+/r 111..rllA'.s— L • . 'I•'7 ` ,,#Si'l't u! gawk Mgt 010 X;,• T Ix. 3rlT39 414allr7< MI Il MAIM,' 1 Ir.Ci$111i4S • ( r 1diALLOr C4 Mali • nit iron id IIy+glues..0 11112relrlr#n.n.<nuhrre. ti:Infriu) •. #S.l.. •++ 44.4.4 ..s.41 Lied:ai•�iwr►r•IKlr 1 • • 314311 iii 441! tUNNZY ASEIESSOA 32331-la Pit M(11 27 • Ai 11111 .ryr Clolarad¢r .. . j ₹�� , i•,rn I111ip - N.. . -• •Y'. ftt'•lr e.,I r. • .1•.•.+- • .N'. .• II.• I ,•4..•4•11+c A, '.: .• . •... . •n.,.1•I .. . .. ;4.,µ-. - ..l.:1. I if fj..fl•.,,.*.r..a,. . 1 .. .. • .,•:l. ••. Ina!lilt.1 , • .. --,_�. r lief e*W---• •_stT•#at--,*rh#rali 4.4.4.4..-....TP.Til` ........ .'„_ .�.__-}`11C*4►-----1 i I ,‘'' "1_ .-''"-I "Ir-1,s••-=,tea---------4. irm.Irirl'-V._._._-_---.€-_,v,G1--—r...3. i i:Ii:AI.i.4.....•--',.41 x-~421 ►1 r - --1 -.r-- .-j.—.__-__.1__ ?-.•d..,{ i 1 �tiji:VA� - • -•+•r.. Y. 'Z4C'-- :.. 1 11 i • • • 1 1 Iv Nil 414;111 414 1 1°Ri3'Rtiiii a_k Ncli.! i__S"1 ----- t114+iittilEty+ar'tl lT tr si IKi I ..�I•...•• .:I -F.... .y. .• • _4.4.34.•�-4'•.ci.-Fly►..l l.. ♦ `.,. -_.,r.... _ "'" .R.. --t---- .._l•Y.L J i.!l 4.-- . . . • ..-•• a.�.. •.. • 4.4.4.4..••4.i ;.-,;:.—.."::'!'.1';'.' .71 �I•• -.r,■ •1,11.4;.• '. /` rte. ,..n if{... �'. ,, } s• oil) r� ! .,. --,10,.........$.'14/0.1 L � ,f� —....r�. AP34.l+•1'n.•+. . , $rt•00.J-4•`-1) ...,q on r,v. J .i�l,j,. 441.• f• `•A.... f 1 • I S , I 1 MadIO: CONFIDENTIAL ASSESSMENT DATE wed County Assrsor ' '.: BUSINESS PERSONAL.PROPERT" JANUARY I 1-IM?N174;Are sirixky.CCalajl DECLARATION SCHEDULE Phn'e(9701,553-334 l'att 1970)30-34)473 Page 2 -.tvit assrssrnlitgi s wddcm ns '005 .\SSESSoR S USE ONI.Y PLEASE READ INSTR!JCTIONON +i : :[;;vr;i) REVERSE SIDE iFFORCPROCEEDING 1 '.::-:V"'(.ETFU - —�~-- SIGN AND RETURN THIS COPY LAT(:ir::_iNG FEE YES s`'i::i J NAME KGB Lnc. MAILING 15630 State Hwy 256 La Sall: . CO 806.45 .4UURESS S'I RFI:T ,_.'rY . .._. ---- STATE. . . .. -- ZIP CODE P!N NUMBER -'A CODE !?.\CODE ?ARcEL NI AMER P3021605 0108 25136 105722000010 E.L'NLICENSEI)MOBILE EQUIPMENT Do am list licensed vehicles,mobile equipment with SivIM license plates,rental decals,or z-tabs, O Check here and complete this section if there is any unlicensed mobile equipment at this location. Item i Description Inchw µx:ing Model or Grly '+err^aryual C:aeek nor or I:een for earn Your Unu4a1 Year in:aa I.)No + :Icon: Imcuitc:l Cost I LIT:e r O:.Sett I c1New r:.s.d CNe+r I::Used F.GENERAL LEDGER Ix).ror list v-Isc::u.vE.%It s.u..nCes. DO NOT l.:S7r mstt.r roulrslrNT tr.o,t'%I:.xrssr..'I.s1ES,rtVITAt.nrc.tt..Olt z::uis , rl)nrinsi.srlalled rugsdots•) FI:RNITi:R' Ii \l:�v::\F7': i '.Pl'i:\'Ir::L1 I '.i: Ci)h:PW:1:. S I -, ,S ! AL. ( :ima . ! "}1P.I.i.F.t;':IP ....,.... ... t OTHER I .. 1 _ 3.u_\NCc ;.aNu:\aY:.2144 59962 ! l n111.ANCc JANUARY;.::.t)3 i 223829 1 G. DEPRECIATION: [f you file a Form 4562 or 4562-A with the IRS.piease provide a copy of your comele;ed ;RS Form with an itemized listing of all personal property including the description and cod.:of eazh item. Note that all personal property tha:is expensed should be included in your listing. In addition,attach a copy of rite'atest detaiied Depreciation Schedule from your financial records. II.LEASED,LOANED,OR RENTED PROPERTY(FURNITURE'.SIGNS.is".-i_;DFCI.ARF:I'RL::'ET2:": uViNED BY t)TIIERS HERE. ❑If yen panessed any leased,lowed.or rented machinery.equipment.furniture.signs,rending machines,ere.on January Isl.Check here. List below_showing awr.er s twee.address,and telephone number.property description.inc. If my of the leased equl',mlem Iii:cd is apuslreed on your books and-Crude.please check The horn at the beEnnning of lie line eotrespmlt:inn with the name of the Lesstx. -I , OwncyiLessor's Name..,1Jdress.Ta:e.No. Description including ModeliSerior Cost of Lease :.else munbee rnn Ilot r-lel Annual S Humber F eml .. I r)1f purchase tie nrmnterance options arc inclutkd to!9e tont animal$-:n!r..-own:.ter•.e,t.:ere :;:',:ra 6 rnith.`.rid.: I. UBL'LA txrio!t nos itriti'IS St iticra'TO.1t:>rr -I.LI.n.nMrt It.nfWn✓p...t.in 14..n..Nd 4une.:1y AY Ward*.wt.,..1•,45 un.,tonIN.•in n r.n.t•r....I IWW,I,\r•••••......1 hi nor ann.tern.'4•I✓nit.rwM.r..jnl.q,..,,..,i.,.i t.cikl..n•!.n4,•ni.... .,+r'1,0Nd.nt.t.4M...rr..4 pr...n...win M',n.M no-.r-•v..r ...r..n. '..n.M i.11th t....i ...x•. 45..••n.rnr,i.4 .1 Mi.•rn:ha,...-..rn.....Irtn.0 .....n .•••t:,r.d A.....•..tots rrrntii.Jt nail Mal n,nanetlw 4tgd mote Mwa.lea...M,.te.wr..u Y.art.,w..lim,,........,,, ..0 •ln-1 t:-1'•R.r. ",` 1 ! SIGNATURE n►OWNER OR AC ENT ' V.� f I'-SI)IIt Veto%' t:7 1.Q Q a7- t%N n, / _ �C Pr-0871i �y} G�f•--mac—' — N.(>IEOEOw,tER —. . _ — —:,tr'-...9 /.SC) NS\,,rFE:..Pr-O s71i757 . — 1 -75 Y I'RINT\AAIE OF PERSON SIGNING C�P), t-Yi 7a.Leg -ruf)\E\:.it:Alt (.X 2.2i f Pu.:,)sb:('O\IYI.F.TE,Sit:\,\\:)'tF.'°I r`•'':':in: %.cl:.lt)It it:.OR REHIul-: tl'IM.l<.'!ttta h.;$;i1\E:•r)1'\ :. it' :!1't:dl:(:i)Iln. T- CL a) N a _;I .-ri,c, C'.00cc•• L -+.......yvrll:.v,a—a^'r%-rf1-17.11 r. i-.1 '. -tr,:C74. •r..[v.=�tOCrl rV-t?ri r-.a`•t.'r..x—".r.• t -t !��1 C, •-I-.--- . r J_ 1' ..-..r.0Dr-O re' •r',...at^ .'1^ `. T. W I.1'i r 1 •r.rh'r ••'r.� :,.1t—r,C. I.I-•' ^ .T .i.— — ^ NZJ .r-a=t=_ :,-:/: 1.IM.f ,..r•.V.i -�.M, -I _. r m'Y -l�•.G ter:,I -. - ri ri: -- - - - fa 0 I L) �� -I: I o _ CJ • r Iv.'!. rr..._�I'......N; -V.r.-r-1 V. r.`.. -II ('N r.YC,rl%ry nn . V 'r•x'r7-•O.O•C-- -'1: +CC, I•-f•C ri .-w- -rC'!. ` 1.OD.1 - = 1.•r i Qg111 V:rti - 1. Y.✓. - .: '• ---t CC O+D O:Y.Y. r._ --r. ' • 1 (n mQt! 2c r.-.:7e�.YI-C V.s'.Is -r• X-Y OC 4.•..% .•. -C-`I. .1l. 1,1 VI— —r1 u. -'rl—r. r. .r ..,r'. _7771 — — r:, i—;I U i i .1 .•1: 'l ri'r., c' e'C.-t'•rr.r..v.- .,'-.1 r.- 2.:,-'.- NT'C.r•Irlr: ..1 •O fl�flrw 0[-n--:,_v,r:/`-'r r.»-:r.U•+•.� F. 'i: .'rt-OSC t•: .` •r d•f IL1 Cam-.—G r•1 r• v..I'•n. J'J -T' Y.•-.it:'-C prI 01•.r. r•. '.1" jN 4...r-.GO" nr.1.r•—eC.t5 V.r•i tti O-- Y-- c-- -let '0 H 'ij o0OPOO.G-fnN•n...v. .-.PP.•.f�v'..-..C —wN•+O .D �:()gl o-i-. --ry — - .4x q riv. c p1 CC CG O.T-t' ,,„.C.Gv,.-.1'--r--`D,—.,..lr•,.. d Illlf �CCGCsS nr•IODr ,,,,—.. �..,—.Ot�PR,bY.,-...n a oa- .�odoc oo� `••..-1 r•.nD .pNO.-rvmoOv'.C'- 0+-MCG • 'CM N-t--Tt rA N Nl N NGG P.G eon v.Cs N) r•oo r.O.(j a04 Nr•1•rIN,(.c... —O.—G•—rird•Grrlrnrn OG ICN: ri ri K Nrri ••• — N i41 -VI u Q�ca%coo_GOcac:occcCg.4•Fpwrs-._9ocos;l•.c x I`7 C...:.i C:C.::::7:7.Zi Ir.>:-7.Z.;:-..:-..:i.7:''= ===7„ ..:.T.::7.'::..•.;:. C 7.:C'.:.. 7-I ' .:: l cI C �1 LU a, 1 s .�,C•O C.C.CO=OQ O.?OCCC.� T �QGc OCLU C'1 I (p r..�.7.ClOOC4;O-OGOJ�: C.��OGOCna..i;.OOC•C+ C,; N»' . COO."I.QOocc5cCCGGOCL`:it.56c•CCOO.^OCG.i� U _ p it a �� (n l I O I •'w r• rr.co•n _ FK _ _ _ `^y`r: ;i G;$48P_E , ,''N .ltf .r 1- %%-•- - • v..nCCX_I rl W V ri:. 'I—rf OCV.� Y.,,� �;%1,v-v `r.—ir.r. .r•:x f —I r FU •.r:r Z.— Z r'.rl ,ti FF rll OCC -•7a 'll I NIl o III ' .0! m'2)•=' 2-OC1m rL`^J'L`'S."^. Ct 0131 l L e irieliIC.ItINs/rl'•rif:r;C!f!r'.tlr.▪ .r r;rlrl^I'Ie,r•rlr.r; ' C Ll I( 'O z :.C.Z.O.:. CC=C.==.3 C.C C=C•:.)C7 P C C.:C.C� `a• xJ r,t�nnnl�nl-c-( nr....;n �nr.4.3 3-..:nnnl::•-v. O lL. Ha V 1 Q �- .9 5 .t•i-r a.glrlrVr-,r•:rr.rnr•;rr.^,INrlr(NrINNNrI--- O 0�I Qe � o�e.occ,ago-c.oPoc�coon$Qco ''(II�1 —C'IN(•irl r1 rl N•rrni O^['L'S'..1 •IZ.:��',IC....—.•:•.C' DU -:_<j:d= 7.77 . J?C✓r..cc, ▪.tx Xecl..i.Y .RC90h it I `, 'f. 1 J r Y . Ir c Y . p O i l v !. -VI 1-. n :J - - n .--e.' N 1 , < .I N z-____ 'r - L] ..:L '.1: ,-.0 .e, •r.4d=*- -'3-.-, G o ..4- a. • , -c _� 11 v �,-...+/ • - LL O LLj aV � ��i-rx r % Y,_a^ Cp 7p�'cf000�< p -:/.•� wr ''-11x11 -N..r/ ».%L �JNN�Y. .G w. V 1 Y op LL • 1 c; . * In VV aIp m pp faaf�!! N 0 N 0 U)m N 0 M V m V A N W n W M N r s O W IMO O N W IW^ O OWI C+l N. W gidrIcomy- Ocon- orie4e4t- onimmeral- T- min .twan- FA N V piov-N M W .- O I-N r r N N N r N N 0 A r A T- r w- N r W r N N 0 11 ■ 11 11 11 II N 11 11 U 11 II 11 U 11 U 11 N M 11 II 11 11 II U U 11 N 11 11 II W •" M iq i eq es o x i a e- e e 4040 e t e e e e e e e \ \` el-z B. QC N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W co 0. W ppaW p p N ta N W Moo W 0IhN W VrN0 W MW'f M.- W W OOINAM W AN V NN N HI W W �NNM)NN Nr ON 01A V ' W Or Nm- Olq V W MIOI W NO M Q y (10O o IO0 W )` ar MN W OIM 0 N r MWI m r.N O r M A M n A W V A Y I m m t 7 N V NV V W V N M N V N b 0 U U II II II N N U II II 11 U 11 11 U II N 11 11 U N 11 U 11 11 11 U N II N II MM N :4010:CWCCCeee eeeeeCeeeeeeee C 404040 a Q' aaa W WOWIOWIOWIAOim W W paaaW Waaaaa W OWl WNOaoo, OWa a *NN C N r M W M W W W W NN NM A in W 4 C hNOWRW WMN W W OSNW W A W V I0ONA W WrOV Nrr 2 O a WNW YIOIr PINlmOaANO W V N1- YN1rrOIIDO Iy .- M0 V OI r W V A a A W yy W M A N N A V 0) W N A O O W N h r O W O W W w W A W 0•V 0 N r V U)A W W W W W N r M N r W r W N M A O W N W 0 u N r V W r N V r M A M M A W V OI N W W M N W N V W V r M N V N m E U U 11 II 11 11 N 11 11 11 11 N 11 H 11 II 11 II 11 IC 11 II II II 11 it ■ IC II N 11 aee4040eeee eeeeeeeeee 40eee eeeeee 4040 e M -oWWSMWSSSWCWWCWAWOWCNNNNNArAAAC* WWC Ni N V in A O I. 1N p• p my V W A W W M W laO gI an a C « Mr V a - N VOYN V IOn WW O V,IWN000 *MW Mdl W IO0 rm MIWOM % ��pa 11 11 11 11 N U 11 II II 11 11 II II 11 1UNf11 II II II 11 II II 11 11 II 11 II N 11 II U 11 V 1 A eeee eeeeeoeeeeee 404010104040 eeneeeea ce ~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r. o V p yy LL 1 V M4NNW)A NSONrN w W r � ,. b W MNOr. O W IOIOCOONO 0 I. O N W W W r V W N M W N V M W M O r 00 M A W W r W N W M W W W r 00 Q I'I A 0 0 r N V r M V W W W M N M r N M m o m o N W 1_ Z Zy 6 2 2 2 Z 2 Z Z Z Z Z 2 Z 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 2 Z 2 Z Z 2 2 0 a a nQQQaQQQQQQQQQaQaQQQaQQQaQQaQQQQ O an m 0 8 K C a W W 0 0 0 0 W O 0 0 O W O 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 W 0 0 0 0 0 03 o JM0 0 8 0 z 2' J 4• 0000000000000000000000000000000 N OQ 0 LL m a b 0 Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N g 20r _7 C � 0000000000000000000000000000N000000 0 N WT N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 O E V A 0 z < a z to W 0 K W zCFy > w o in y W�.d W M ry O �0 S K 20 J o Q20 W~�7�QQ7 W a NO y2 �Ij ZKi-20F NOO (7rt W o c 00 S�iii, > N) O x 3 oma W re zw=yDOF- NNWW 0OQm � rii J yIZZwZ 00w aNr 0OWOOVW0D mea — gnoev) oucuzYpOSVZQV200;20re00t0 ZZUKJce0Y o N. rON : wit5oWO0OQx QIuwi OKQOJzOQW0000QQ O QQaOrawmaxo2I-Qw -JrnmW3u.000KUFNrax et 9 —e(O) W - , ..." .0., ..n.0. ..., ".. . . ,00 , -0 0 J e �Qoytj�j 11 1 §8gn§SO888888888888888gg88888800a F- o Q 0.4W 40000000000000000000000000000000 000000000000000 0 0000000000 0 NOTICE OF DENIAL OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR 1400 NORTH 17th AVE 17159-A PT NE4 22 4 66 SITUS : 15630 )REFLEY.CO.35 e tt PHONE I � �� (970)351 EXT.3650 256 HWY www.cww.co.weld.co.us COLORADO -WLiRA OWNER: KGF INC KGF INC LOG 4461 DEA/ FRITZLERS CORN MAZE PARCEL 105722000010 15630 HWY 256 ACCOUNT P3021605 LASALLE, CO 80645 YEAR 2005:' LII The appraised value of property is based on the appropriate consideration of the approaches to value required by law. The Assessor ha determined that your property should be included in the following categor(ies): • If your concern k the amount of your property tax,local taxing authorities(county,city,fire protection,and other special districts)hold budget hearings iu the fall. Please refer to your tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of these districts,and plan to attend these budget hearings. The Assessor has carefully studied all available information,giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest,and has determined the valuation(s)assigned to your property. The reasons for this determination of value are: No change has been made to the valuation of this property. Colorado law requires us to send this notice of denial for all properties on which we do not adjust the value. PETITIONER'S ASSESSOR'S VALUATION PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ESTIMATE ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW AFTER REVIEW PERSONAL PROP 197424 197424 • • TOTALS S S 197424 b 197424 APPEAL.DEADLINES: REAL PROPERTY--R.-1.Y 15,PERSONAL PROPERTY-.JULY 2t). if you disagree with the Assessor's decision,you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration. §39-R- I(t6(I)(a),C.R.S. Please see the hack of this form for detailed information on filing your appeal: 06/27/2005 By: Stanley F. Sessions DATE WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE e&1m-6PJ) I disagree with the assessor's valuation because of several reasons. 1. We are a family farm. All income earned from the corn maze is used to pay off the farm loan. Without the maze there would be no family farm,the banks would have foreclosed years ago. So the maze is directly responsible for the planting and harvesting of the crops. 2. We are open only 30 some days a year; we do not generate income but only for a very short time. 3. Attached is a current appraisal from Terry Wiedeman of Kreps & Wiedeman. 4. Distortions who 1 bought the Inflatables from agree with Terry's values. They have a new never used inflatable returned and have been unable to sell it at half off. 1:41 WIEDEMAN AUCTIONEERS & REAL ESTATE, INC. July 8, 2005 Glen Fritzler Fritzler's Corn Maze 15630 Hwy. 256 LaSalle, CO 80645 RE: Personal Property Appraisal Dear Glen: In accordance with your request, I herewith enclose the appraisal of the personal property you own as itemized herein. Therefore, it is my opinion that the current fair market value is: $49,300.00 Also enclosed please find the definition of Fair Market Value and my qualifications. If you should have any questions regarding this valuation, please give me a call. My office phone is 970-356-3943. Sincerely, KREPS WIEDEMAN AUCTIONEERS & REAL ESTATE, INC. 4/fradt" Td L. Wiedeman Appraiser enc. tlw/pw 2221 2nd Avenue• Greeley, CO 80631 • (970)356-3943 • Fax(970)356-8344 www.k-wauctions.com Personal Property Appraisal FRITZLER CORN MAZE Arcade Game — -- S 500.00 — — Animatronics 1 3,000.00 Pitch Black 10,000.00 Giant ' 20,000.00 Ticket Shed 250.00 Pedal Carts 600.00 Fog System L 1,200_00 Light Fixtures Rockin'Granny .......400.00 10.00 Hanging Vampire 200.00 Shake& Bake 1,150.00 Machine Gun Sound 75.00 Tent 2,000.00 Air Compressor , 300.00 - --- ------ Badge _---._.._. - ----- — 125.00 Lawn Mower -_- 300.00 Signage 1,500.00 Props&Costumes _ _1,750.00 Farm House 200.00 Wood Barn 800.00 Flag Pole —_.._.._.__ — 600.00 Air Compressor 175.00 concession Shed 800.00 Cannon Targets 150.00 Refrigerators 200.00 Cam Cannons -- — 125.00 Ticket Shed —" 300.00 Sound System _— : ! 150.00 Tortured Body L 500,00 Maze Bridge —__- i L150.00 Hay Ride Trailer 700.00 Total Appraised Value — --------_._._--• I$ 49,300.00 DEFINITION OF VALUE Market Value as taken from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, AIREA, is defined as the most probable price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimuli. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: {a} buyer and seller are typically motivated. {b} both parties are well informed, are well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interest. {c} a reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market. {d} payment is made in cash or its equivalent. {e} financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at a specified date and typical of the property type in its locale. {f} the price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs or credits accrued in the transaction. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER Terry L. Wiedeman 13434 Weld County Road 42 Platteville, CO 80651 (970) 737-2298 Member: Greeley Board of Realtors, Inc. National&State Association of Realtors • American Society of Farm Equipment Appraisers National & State Association of Auctioneers • Background: Over 25 years involvement with the agriculture industry which includes: Licensed Realtor in the State of Colorado since 1976. Co-Owner of Kreps Wiedeman Auctioneers & Real Estate, Inc. since 1983, specializing in the marketing of farms, ranches and rural acreages, farm equipment auctions and appraisals of real estate and personal property. Graduate of Western College of Auctioneering. Actively engaged in the farm equipment auction business since 1972. Certified farm equipment appraiser with American Society of Farm Equipment Appraisers. License#0970. Has done appraisals for various lenders, individuals, estates, government agencies, etc. O 0 f c `E t O 03 r O O C .• O.+-' N 00 0 N C O 0 it � +L 0 0 O ,C ; ,C L O \IN , O C E +• �CO '0C0L 000 . H 0V C 0 > +r ≥ CL ca app 0a ."'� C_ 000.- C }, LOGS .•-•O � � O it •- 0 � Q.0W >+ C CN � w3O >i 3CLL 0L10 O-01001 C ow N 'G 0000 L CCD 0L O C tpL00 'ppDy ` N L. 0,+• 0 EtL '- Ci• ._ O LXr— O _ e. Fsa moc3 H00 .D ar tit i ISM seta ,.. C e , _ fit ._, .. , . AL ,C y y. r; - III �,. N v.s v`" , 1i I , ...ciii. Yf r %% (1) lik L O • al me 13 W + C W CO d•— Q - ._� I!at ...a w. a�.. li _ \ lu C O ~ (D � � , W i nn Lea L O M IL O13C O O V Z w O .Q .•O d - r I P1 s ci smc -4=4M1 ores MAC' SEARCH • RAIATION © _... R STORE 2884IN88C1t WMIOAOS ARIAOE THE CREATURE $98500,00 MALE THE GIANT $103000.00 • • - CHILD The Skull $ 5900.00 SIGN LAW .,.•Sa...n i....... The Clown $ 5'900.00 's • ! a • NTEW CART t a_3 Ramast I!" nit IM 17 �I :i,.4a:1j:ltif e7.� NF, Current:85° Erg,,*.-7- , `. MyrtleBeachOnline !79 Subscriber Services C� .Com Complete Forecast GO i Welcome Guest Search -J Recent News Archives Web for Sign Up I Sign In I Member Benefits O Jobs Back to Home Entertainment O Cars t j/ O Real Estateear / (r P r� !! ( 1' j f 1 sr�' O Apartments J--,. J.� J -- F� . -,Jj_/. O Local Shopping • Find Sales& Deals • Shop Local Stores =• email this Tlr print this a] reprint or license this O All Classifieds Posted on Thu, May. 26, 2005 O Personals MYRTLE BEACH I EN1REPRENEURs BRING News ATTR At;TION TO MAF_!. R E L A r 'd t AONTEN Sports Inflatable giant does double Entertainment duty • Arts • Celebrities ttlon:+ iu • t )iii "'""'d .41)1 • Comics&Games • Events • Horoscopes 4 ' • Movies - • Music He's 140 feet long, 80 feet wide and 26 feet r • Nightlife high, a 7,000-pound Gulliver who's stretched • Restaurants out at Coastal Grand Myrtle Beach mall until "kiteI • Television June 12, making Lilliputians out of shoppers • Visitors Guider _.r while educating kids by day and scaring SM. Business teens by night. t8r .�� Living ' - A..,.,.. .. ._.. __ Opinion Meet the Fallen Giant,an inflatable Scott Carlson, an employee of GPT Enterprises of Chicago, attraction that travels the and has works Tuesday to assemble the head of the inflatable Fallen e country ONLINE EXTRAS y Giant at Coastal Grand Myrtle Beach mall. The setup is an Visitors Guide prompted its owners to quit their day jobs as educational tour and haunted house. RANDALL HILL/The Sun Myrtle Beach Golf they chase after a little piece of the News American dream: their own entrepreneurial NIE business. Weddings& Engagements Discussion Boards "I think I was born to do this,"said Tony Relken, who with his brother-in-law, Pete Koklamanis, have created the Fallen Giant Story Telling Tour and the Fallen Giant's Internal Nightmare Haunted Event Maps&Directions . Yellow Pages Creating haunted events started as a hobby for the two men, who were introduced to haunted house 18 The Sun News 105/26/2005 I Inflatable giant does double duty Newspaper Ads attractions by their father-in-law, Gene Luptak RSS Headlines SITE SERVICES "He started us out about nine years ago in the haunted business, running a haunted house the last nine years in Chicago,"Koklamanis said. 'We took an investment from that business to open a second attraction,the Archives Fallen Giant." Contact Us Advertise The Fallen Giant was launched in August, a character of their own creation custom-built and designed by a California company that creates giant inflatables. Fallen Giant's price tag,with electrical components included, runs as high as$180,000. Additional costs include the Giants truck,trailers, props and about a dozen employees. "Our initial investment was probably$300,000,"Koklamanis said. "In operating the Giant in the next 10 months,we should hopefully recoup that.We're very aggressive in trying to pay off our capital investment." Koklamanis and Relken,who are based in Kenosha,Ws., hope to make additional investments as the Giant becomes more profitable. Those could be in other businesses, such as restaurants or real estate, Koklamanis said. The Fallen Giant was a leap of faith for both men,who left their professions to hit the road, Giant in tow. Relken, 42, a former warehouse manager, and Koklamanis, 36, a chemist who called it quits on a$70,000-a- year position with a pharmaceutical company, say they're pursuing their dream of being entrepreneurs. 'This is about being on your own, self-motivation,"Koklamanis said. 'We made our fate in this, not all the red tape and corporate bureaucracy." Both men enjoy interacting with the paying customers who line up for a chance to step into the Giants cavernous body,filled with inflatable body parts that form a 7,0W-square-foot maze. "Its bringing entertainment, laughter and joy into someone's life,"Relken said. The Fallen Giant exhibits are choreographed to special lighting, sound effects and a script. Koklamanis said about 75 percent of the exhibits employees are hired from the local area,with some acting required of guides who take participants through the Giants spacious innards for sights and sounds that amaze by day and terrify by night. The daytime exhibit, called the Fallen Giants Story Telling Tour, is geared toward children ages 3 through 12, while the Fallen Giants Internal Nightmare is for ages 12 and older. "Is it real?'asked 5-year-old Adam Benjamin on Tuesday, as he and his twin brother, Austin, touched a mini- replica of the Fallen Giant inside Coastal Grand mall. 19 The Sun News 105/26/2005 I Inflatable giant does double duty Stacie Dickerson, the mall's marketing director,said the exhibit brings entertainment to the mall and increase≤ appeal for shoppers. "I think it appeals to families and to teens, which is a strong part of our shopper base,"Dickerson said. Koklamanis and Relken are hoping to franchise the Fallen Giant exhibit and to mentor a few partners who will help them keep the giant on the road. 'The traveling portion of the job is fun, but staying away from our families is a little trying,"Koklamanis said. Myrtle Beach is the first S.C. stop for the Fallen Giant,which currently is touring malls owned by CBL& Associates Properties Inc. Koklamanis and Relken paid$5,000 to lease the space at Coastal Grand. "Doing your own business is not easier than working for someone else,"Koklamanis said. "It's a tough discipline. I could drop this and go back to$65,000, $75,000 a year. But what have I got to lose? For the most part, I am really enjoying this." Opinions of the Colorado Supreme Court for the past twelve months are available to the public and can be accessed through the Court's homepage at http://www.courts.state.co.us/supct/supctcaseannctsindex.htm and are posted on the Colorado Bar Association homepage at www.cobar.org. ADVANCE SHEET HEADNOTE June 23,2003 No.02SC415,Welby Gardens v.Adams County Board of Equalization;Board of Assessment Appeals: Property Taxation—Agricultural Land—Farm—Greenhouses On certiorari review from the court of appeals,taxpayer challenges the court of appeals' reversal of the Board of Assessment Appeals classification of its greenhouse properties. The Board of Assessment Appeals concluded that the taxpayer's property met the statutory definition of a farm,and therefore should be classified as agricultural land. The court of appeals reversed,holding that the property did not qualify as a farm and thus should not be classified as agricultural. The supreme court affirms. First,the court examines the plain language of the statutory definition of a farm and concludes it is clear and unambiguous. Pursuant to statute,a farm is a parcel of land which produces agricultural products that"originate from the land's productivity." The court holds that this phrase requires some connection,or nexus,between the agricultural product and the land on which that product is 20 produced. In this case,where the plants were grown in a fully enclosed,climate-controlled building and never touched the soil of the subject land,the court holds that the required connection was lacking. The court further examines the substantial legislative history of the statute and finds that no uniform legislative intent was evident which would compel a departure from a plain language interpretation of the statute. Finally,the court concludes that the fact that the legislature has not amended the statute in light of contrary interpretations by the court of appeals does not provide any convincing evidence of legislative intent. 21 SUPREME COURT, STATE OF COLORADO Case No. 02SC415 Two East 14th Avenue Denver,Colorado 80203 Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals Court of Appeals Case No.OICA0307 Petitioner: WELBY GARDENS, v. Respondents: ADAMS COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION;BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, STATE OF COLORADO. JUDGMENT AFFIRMED EN BANC JUNE 23,2003 William A. McLain Denver,Colorado Attorney for Petitioner James D. Robinson,Adams County Attorney Jennifer Wascak Leslie,Assistant County Attorney Brighton,Colorado Attorneys for Respondent Adams County Board of Equalization Ken Salazar,Attorney General John D.Baird,First Assistant Attorney General State Services Section Denver,Colorado Attorneys for Respondent Board of Assessment Appeals JUSTICE RICE delivered the Opinion of the Court. JUSTICE KOURLIS dissents,CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE HOBBS join in the dissent. 22 Petitioner,Welby Gardens,appeals the court of appeals reversal of the Board of Assessment Appeals(BAA)classification of its greenhouse properties. Well/Gardens Co. v.Adams County Bd. of Equalization,56 P.3d 1121 (Cob. App.2002). The BAA concluded that Petitioner's greenhouse met the statutory definition of a"farm"and therefore should be classified as agricultural land. The court of appeals reversed,concluding that the definition had not been satisfied and therefore Petitioner's land should not be classified as agricultural. We granted certiorari and now hold that Petitioner's greenhouse properties do not meet the statutory definition of a"farm." The court of appeals opinion is affirmed. I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY Petitioner,Welby Gardens,disputes the 1999 property tax classification of its greenhouse properties. The issue for our review is whether the property,which has been classified as"all other agricultural"property, should have been classified as agricultural land.' There are three parcels of land at issue. Two parcels and a portion of the third are covered by numerous greenhouse buildings. The greenhouses provide a filly-enclosed,climate-controlled environment for the cultivation of various vegetables, flowers,and fruiting plant starts. None of the plants are grown in the soil of the land itself,but rather are grown in containers which sit on top of the ground. Typically,the soil in the containers is purchased from outside sources; it is not derived from the property. In fact,Petitioner concedes that the growth of the plants does not in any way depend on the location of the greenhouses on that particular piece of property. All the factors which typically affect the productivity of agricultural land,including temperature,humidity,and soil quality, are completely regulated and controlled in the greenhouse environment. For tax year 1999,the Adams County assessor classified the three parcels of land as residential and"all other agricultural property." Petitioner,arguing that the land should have been classified as agricultural,appealed to the Adams County Board of Equalization. The Board affirmed the assessor's determination. Next,Petitioner appealed to the state Board of Assessment Appeals. The BAA disagreed with the county's position and held that the land located under the greenhouses should be classified as agricultural.2 On appeal,the court of appeals reversed the BAA and held that the greenhouse land was properly classified as"all other agricultural property." We granted certiorari to resolve the question of whether greenhouse property may be classified as agricultural land. II. ANALYSIS In Colorado,owners of agricultural land receive favorable tax treatment. While other types of land are valued using one of three appraisal methods,the cost approach,the market approach,and the income approach, the value of agricultural land is determined "solely by consideration of the earning or productive capacity"of the land. Cob. Const. art X, § 3(1)(a). In addition,agricultural 1 The classification of "all other agricultural property" is used to describe all agriculture-related property which does not meet the statutory definition of agricultural land. See § 39-1-102 (1 . 6) (b) , 11 C.R. S. (2002) . 23 equipment,at least to the extent it is classified as personal property and not fixtures,is exempt from taxation. Colo. Const. art X, § 3(1)(c); see also Del Mesa Farms v.Bd. of Equalization,956 P.2d 661 (Colo.App. 1998)(discussing the distinction between agricultural personal property and fixtures). Thus,the combination of these two provisions—the favorable valuation on the land itself and the tax exempt status of agricultural equipment—results in a far lower tax burden on owners of agricultural land. The question before this court is whether Petitioner's land should be classified as agricultural. "Agricultural land"is defined, in relevant part,as a"parcel of land...that was used the previous two years and presently is used as a farm or ranch...." § 39-1- 102(1.6)(a)(I), 11 C.R.S. (2002). A"farm,"in turn,is defined as a"parcel of land which is used to produce agricultural products that originate from the land's productivity for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit." § 39-1-102(3.5) 11 C.R.S. (2002). Hence,our task is to determine whether Petitioner's property qualifies as a"farm." There is no dispute that Petitioner's property meets at least part of the definition of a farm. First,Petitioner's products are undoubtedly"agricultural products"as that term is defined in the statute. See§ 39-1-102O.1), 11 C.R.S. (2002)(agricultural products include,among other things,plant products in a"raw or unprocessed state"produced through the science of horticulture). In addition, the primary purpose of the greenhouse facility is to obtain a monetary profit. Therefore,only one phrase of the"farm"definition requires our attention: whether the plants produced in the greenhouse"originate from the land's productivity." § 39-1-102(3.5), 11 C.R.S. (2002). Petitioner argues that the phrase,"originate from the land's productivity"should be construed broadly. Because the land provides a location for the greenhouse buildings,the products grown within the buildings"originate from the land's productivity." On the other hand,Respondent contends that a plain language interpretation of the phrase,"originate from the land's productivity,"requires some connection or nexus between the agricultural products grown at the site and the soil itself. We hold that the plain language of the statute requires some nexus between the agricultural product produced on the land and the land itself. The mere placement of a building on the land is not a sufficient connection to satisfy this statutory mandate. To inform our opinion,we first consider the plain language of the statute and hold that the phrase,"originate from the land's productivity," requires some connection,or nexus,between the agricultural product and the land such that the agricultural product arises from the land's productivity. The placement of a building on the land,by itself, is insufficient to furnish this connection. We further explore the substantial legislative history regarding the passage of this statute but uncover nothing which compels us to deviate from the plain language of the statute. Finally,we decline Petitioner's 2 A retail center which occupies less than an acre of land was classified by the assessor as commercial property. The BAA affirmed this classification and the parties did not raise this issue on appeal . 24 invitation to infer intent based on legislative inaction. The court of appeals'decision is affirmed.3 A. Plain Language In any statutory interpretation,our task is to determine and give effect to the intent of the General Assembly. James E. Freemyer,P.C. v. Indus.Claim Appeals Office,32 P.3d 564(Cob. App. 2000). A tax statute is no different than any other statute;it must be construed as a whole in order to give consistent,harmonious,and sensible effect to all of its parts. Bell&Pollock,P.C.v.City of Littleton,910 P.2d 69(Cob.App. 1995). In construing a statute, interpretations that render statutory provisions superfluous should be avoided. Indus.Claim Appeals Office v.Orth,965 P.2d 1246, 1254(Cob. 1998). The statutory language"originate from the land's productivity"is clear and unambiguous. In order to qualify as a farm,there must be some connection between the agricultural product and the productivity of the land which is being valued. Specifically,the connection is that the agricultural product must"originate"from the land's productivity. "Originate"has a commonly understood definition,namely,to"give rise to." Websters Third New International Dictionary 1592 (1986). Thus,the land's productivity must give rise to the agricultural product. The question,therefore, is whether the placement of a building on the land,by itself,provides a sufficient connection such that the land may be said to have"given rise to"the plants grown within the building. We believe it does not. Were we to hold that the placement of a building is sufficient connection,the phrase"originate from the land's productivity"would have essentially no meaning. If these plants—which are grown in a fully enclosed,climate-controlled building and never touch the soil of the subject land—satisfy this requirement,we cannot envision any plant product that would not. We need not,however,attempt to decipher the meaning of the phrase,"originate from the land's productivity,"in all possible circumstances. The facts which are necessary to satisfy this statutory requirement will inevitably fluctuate based upon the specific type of agricultural operation at issue. This case requires nothing more than to determine whether a building,by itself,provides sufficient connection to the land to satisfy the statute. We conclude it does not. We leave the precise contours of the phrase open to future interpretation by the Division of Property Taxation,the courts,and perhaps,to further guidance from the legislature. Since the General Assembly included the requirement that the products must"originate from the land's productivity,"the phrase must have some meaning. We hold that the phrase,"originate from the land's productivity,"requires some connection,or nexus, 3 There is some confusion regarding the scope of the court of appeals' opinion. The court of appeals reversed the BAA' s order only with regard to the specific issue that was appealed, namely, whether Petitioner' s greenhouse land qualified as agricultural land. The court' s opinion did not disturb the other findings and conclusions of the BAA. Specifically, the BAA classified a fifteen-acre parcel which is actively farmed by a third party lessee of Petitioner, and a three-acre test field which is operated by Petitioner, as agricultural land. The BAA also adopted the 25 between the agricultural product and the land such that the agricultural product arises from the land's productivity. This nexus must be more substantial than merely providing a location for the placement of a structure in which agricultural products are produced. B. Legislative History Since we have concluded that the plain language of the statute is clear,we need not consider other interpretive aids. See City of Westminster v. Dogan Constr.Co.,930 P.2d 585 (Cob. 1997)(where a statute is unambiguous,there is no need to resort to a consideration of legislative history). Nonetheless,because of the quantity of legislative discussion surrounding the passage of this statute,we explore the legislative history and conclude that our plain language interpretation is consistent with the legislative intent. Senate Bill 6,enacted by the General Assembly in 1983,created the definitions we interpret today. The original bill,as introduced in the Senate,defined a farm narrowly to ensure,at least in part,the exclusion of a greenhouse operation from the meaning of the term: "Farm"means a parcel of land the soil of which is tilled and cultivated for the primary purpose of raising,harvesting, and selling crops or for the primary purpose of feeding,breeding,and selling livestock or livestock products and which parcel of land is in a natural environment and is subject to the elements of nature. S.B.6, 54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Cob. 1983)(original bill as introduced in the Senate).4 However,the Senate Finance Committee,concerned that the phrase,"subject to the elements of nature,"would inappropriately exclude legitimate agricultural pursuits,amended the definition of a"farm"to broaden its coverage: "Farm"means a parcel of land which is used for the primary purpose of growing,raising,and harvesting agricultural products for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit. S.B. 6, 54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess.(Cob. 1983)(referred to the Senate Committee of the Whole on Mar.3, 1983). In addition, the definition of"agricultural products"was significantly expanded to include all the sort of products grown inside greenhouses: "Agricultural and livestock products"means plant or animal products in a raw or unprocessed state and owned by the grower or producer thereof which are derived from the science and art of farming,ranching,agriculture,horticulture, floriculture,animal husbandry,or forestry. Id. Thus,when the bill was referred to the full Senate,it was clearly the intent of the finance committee that a greenhouse would qualify as a farm. cost approach to value the improvements on the land. These conclusions, Adams County concedes, were not disturbed by the court of appeals' opinion. 4 Frank Miles, a representative of the citizen' s committee which assisted in drafting the legislation, testified before the Senate Finance Committee that the phrase "subject to the elements of nature" was intended to exclude a greenhouse or similar operation from being classified as a farm. Hearing on S .B. 6 Before the Senate Finance Comm. , 54th Gen. Assemb. , 1st Reg. Sess. (Feb. 10, 1983) . 26 During debate before the Senate,the definitions were amended to exclude a typical greenhouse, in which flowers or other non- food products were grown,from being classified as agricultural land. Specifically,the definition of"agricultural products"was changed to exclude flowering and ornamental plants grown in a structure:5 "Agricultural and livestock products"means plant or animal products in a raw or unprocessed state and owned by the grower or producer thereof which are derived from the science and art of agriculture defined as farming,ranching, animal husbandry,and horticulture not to include flowering or ornamental plants grown in a structure. See S.B. 6,54th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. 1983)(passed by the Senate on Mar. 25, 1983). Thus,as the bill existed upon passage by the Senate,a greenhouse qualified as a farm only to the extent it did not produce"flowering or ornamental plants." As the bill made its way through the House of Representatives,the greenhouse issue again triggered significant debate. The House Finance Committee amended the definition of a"farm"by inserting the word"tilled": "Farm"means a parcel of land which is tilled for the primary purpose of growing,planting,and harvesting agricultural products for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit. See Hearing on S.B. 6 Before the House Finance Comm.,54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (April 18, 1983). In addition,a new definition of"agricultural products"was created: "Agricultural and livestock products"means plant or animal products in a raw or unprocessed state which are derived from the science and art of agriculture. "Agriculture",for the purposes of this subsection(1.1),means farming, ranching,animal husbandry,and horticulture. Id. The Property Tax Administrator,Mary Ann Maurer,explained that the purpose of the changed definitions was to ensure that retail greenhouse operations would not qualify as agricultural land because"they do not plant. All they do is grow and sell." Id. (statement of Mary Ann Maurer). The committee unanimously approved the amended definitions and the bill was sent the full House where it was passed without any relevant changes. Therefore,as the bill existed upon passage by the House,a greenhouse operation did not qualify as a farm unless the soil under the greenhouse was itself tilled and planted. Because the two versions of the bill differed,a conference committee was created to fashion a compromise. The committee quickly focused on the primary difference between the House and Senate versions of the bill,namely,that the House version required that a"farm"be a parcel of land which is"tilled,"while the Senate version only required that the land be"used." The committee members were split,with four members favoring the House version and two favoring the Senate version. A motion to adopt the broad Senate definition was rejected four to two,but the two who opposed the House defmition refused to allow the bill to proceed with the 5 This amendment was the second one proposed to address the greenhouse issue . Earlier, Senator Stewart proposed an amendment which would have re- inserted the original definition of a "farm" to include only those properties which are "subject to the elements of the natural climate. " Debate on S.B. 6 before the Senate, 54th Gen. Assemb. , 1st Reg. Sess . (Mar. 25, 1983) (statement of Sen. Stewart) . He stated that one of the purposes of the amendment was to exclude greenhouses from being classified as a farm. Id. The amendment was defeated on a voice vote . 27 word"tilled"in the definition. See Hearing on S.B. 6 Before the Conference Comm., 54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983). Finally,after considerable discussion and debate,an amendment was proposed to remove the word"tilled"and to insert the requirement that the product"originate from the land's productivity."6 The committee adopted the amendment by a vote of four to two and then unanimously voted to report the bill to both houses.' The committee's new definition of"farm"read: "Farm"means a parcel of land which is used to produce agricultural products that originate from the land's productivity for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit. See S.B. 6,54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Cob. 1983)(First Report of the Conference Committee). Later that day,both the House and the Senate adopted the conference committee report and enacted the bill. In the House, Representative Heim,one of the three House members of the conference committee,explained that the new definition of a"farm," required"a direct nexus...between something that is grown or raised,and the land on which it is grown and raised." Debate on S.B. 6 Before the House of Representatives, 54th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983)(statement of Rep. Heim). Following Representative Heim's remarks,the House adopted the conference committee report and passed the bill by a vote of 62-3. In the Senate,the disagreement in the conference committee quickly became evident. Senator Beatty,one of the senators on the conference committee,stated that the"farm"definition crafted by the conference committee was a broad one. In his view,"every agricultural product originates in some form from the land's productivity." Debate on S.B. 6 Before the Senate,54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983)(statement of Senator Beatty). On the other hand, Senator Stewart,another senator who served on the conference committee,argued that the definition of"farm"was intended to be read narrowly. He claimed that the language in the definition of"farm"referred to"the productivity of the soil itself,or the land itself,and not of improvements thereon." Debate on S.B. 6 Before the Senate,54th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983)(statement of Senator Stewart). Without further clarification, the Senate adopted the conference committee report and passed the bill. While we cannot discern any uniform legislative intent based solely on these proceedings,we do gain two significant insights. First,we note that a broad definition of the term"farm,"which would require nothing more than the"use"of the parcel of land to 6 Notably, the members first suggested that the phrase read "originate from land' s productivity. " Hearing on S .B. 6 Before the Conference Comm. , 54th Gen. Assemb. , 1st Reg. Sess . (May 17, 1983) . To make clear that the product must be tied specifically to the parcel of land being valued, the members changed the requirement to "originate from the land' s productivity. " Id. (emphasis added) . ' Senator Beatty and Senator Powers, the two members of the committee who favored a broad definition of a farm, voted against the addition of the phrase "originate from the land' s productivity. " Once the phrase was added, however, the two men voted to report the bill to both houses . 28 produce agricultural products,was explicitly considered,and rejected,by the conference committee. Thus,the phrase"originate from the land's productivity"must mean something more than the mere surface use of the land. Second,the focus of the inquiry is on that particular land's productivity,not the productivity of land in general. A member of the conference committee first suggested that the definition of"farm"be amended by adding the phrase,"originate from land's productivity." Hearing on S.B. 6 Before the Conference Committee,54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983). After some discussion,this phrase was amended by adding the article"the,"thus clarifying that the focus should be on that particular parcel,not the productivity of land in general. Our review of this legislative history does not provide any convincing evidence that the General Assembly intended a greenhouse to qualify as a farm. To the extent any indication of legislative intent can be derived from this examination of the legislative history,it supports a plain language interpretation that the statute requires some nexus between the agricultural product and the productivity of the subject land. C. Legislative Inaction Petitioner finally contends that the court of appeals and the Division of Property Taxation have both adopted a broad interpretation of the term"farm"which would include greenhouses. Petitioner then argues that since the General Assembly has not amended the statute to explicitly adopt a narrower interpretation of the term,we should infer that,despite the plain language of the statute,the General Assembly has implicitly approved a broader interpretation of the statute by its failure to amend the statute. We disagrees Petitioner places heavy reliance on the court of appeals' decision in Morning Fresh Farms,Inc.v. Weld County Bd. of Equalization,794 P.2d 1073 (Colo.App. 1990)and the legislature's failure to amend the statute thereafter. In that case,Morning Fresh Fares argued that its egg production facilities were an agricultural use. The facilities,built on forty acres of a larger 800-acre farm, were entirely self-contained and provided an environment in which none of the hens ever touched the ground. Only a small amount of the feed for the hens was grown on the farm. Nonetheless, the court of appeals concluded that the parcel should be classified as a farm. Id. at 1074. Tracking the language of the definitions of a"farm"and"agricultural product,"the court noted that eggs are an"animal product"in a"raw or unprocessed state"and that they were sold for a monetary profit. Id. Hence,it concluded that the land under the egg production facilities was agricultural land. Initially,we note that of the many sources we may consult to discern legislative intent,reliance on legislative inaction is particularly risky. The reasons for enacting,or not enacting,legislation are too numerous to tally. This case is unlike previous situations in which we have held that the absence of legislative amendment may be evidence of intent. Where this court has provided an interpretation of a statute and the General Assembly subsequently amends the statute without changing the previously construed portion,we presume that the legislature agrees with the interpretation provided by this court. See People v. Swain,959 P.2d 426,430-431 (Colo. 1998)("[T]he legislature is presumed,by virtue of its action in amending a previously construed statute without changing the portion that was construed,to have accepted and ratified the prior judicial construction."). Here,this court has never interpreted the meaning of a "farm"in this context and the legislature has not amended the definition since its enactment in 1983. 29 Petitioner's reliance on the Morning Fresh Farms case and the legislature's failure to amend the statute thereafter is misplaced. The holding in Morning Fresh Farms was not nearly as broad as Petitioner contends in that the court did not purport to address any circumstance other than that particular egg production facility. Contrary to Petitioner's argument,the court of appeals did not simply disregard the requirement that the agricultural product"originate from the land's productivity,"but rather,it specifically concluded that under the facts of that case,the eggs"emanate from the productivity of this farm's land."9 Id. at 1075. "Emanate"is a synonym for "originate,"the word used in the statute. See Rogets II:The New Thesaurus 316(1980). Thus,there is nothing inconsistent between the Morning Fresh Farms holding and our plain language understanding of the statute. To the extent Morning Fresh Farms can be read as holding that the mere presence of a building,without more,provides sufficient connection to meet the requirement that the product "originate from the land's productivity,"we decline to follow it. Given the limited scope of the court's decision,we would not expect the legislature to amend the statute one way or another in response. Three subsequent court of appeals cases applied the Morning Fresh Farms decision to similar egg production facilities. See Del Mesa Farms v. Bacus,No.99CA0527(Cob.App.Feb.24,2000);Del Mesa Farms v.Hall,No.98CA1611 (Colo.App.Aug. 12, 1999);Del Mesa Farms v.Bd.of Equalization,956 P.2d 661 (Colo. App. 1998)(collectively,"Del Mesa Farms cases"). In each case, the court concluded that the egg production facilities met the statutory definition of a farm. Once again,we do not assign any significance to the fact that the legislature did not subsequently amend the statute in response to these cases. First,we note that two of the cases on which Petitioner relies were not selected for publication and therefore have no value as precedent. See C.A.R. 35(f). It is not surprising that the General Assembly did not amend the statute in response to these two cases. In the only reported case,Del Mesa Farms v. Montrose County Board of Equalization,956 P.2d 661 (Cob.App. 1998),the issue was limited to whether the taxpayer's egg production equipment should be classified as personal property or fixtures. The court did not analyze the meaning of a farm other than to simply cite Morning Fresh Farms for the proposition that egg production facilities may qualify as a farm. Id. at 663. Because of the limited scope of the opinion,the lack of legislative response is not extraordinary.10 In addition to the court of appeals decisions,Petitioner argues that the Division of Property Taxation has adopted a broad interpretation of the term"farm." Since the General Assembly has not amended the statute in response to this interpretation,Petitioner contends that it must approve of the Property Tax Administrator's view. Again,we disagree. 9 while the court did not discuss the specific factors which led to this conclusion, we note that the Morning Fresh egg production facility was a small part of a larger agricultural operation and a portion of the feed for the hens was grown on the farm. 10 Like Morning Fresh Farms, to the extent any of the Del Mesa Farms cases can be read to stand for the proposition that a building, without more, provides sufficient connection to meet the requirement that the product "originate from the land' s productivity, " we decline to follow them. 30 The Property Tax Administrator is required to prepare and publish a land valuation manual to assist county assessors in classifying and valuing land for property tax. See§ 39-2-109(1)(e), 11 C.R.S. (2002). Throughout the 1980s and 90s,this manual specifically listed a greenhouse among several types of property which did not meet the definition of a farm or ranch. See,e.g.,3 Assessors Reference Library: Land Valuation Manual at 5.29(rev. 1/89)("Examples of'all other agricultural property' include apiaries (bee farms),dairies,feedlots,mushroom farms,poultry farms,and greenhouses,among others."). In fact,the county assessor who performed the appraisal of Welby Gardens in 1999 was required to adhere to the manual and classify the greenhouse as"all other agricultural property." See Huddleston v. Grand County Bd.of Equalization,913 P.2d 15 (Cob. 1996)(property tax administrator's manuals are binding on county assessors). In 2000,the manual was amended to clarify that certain previously excluded properties— dairies,hog farms,and poultry farms—may be classified as a farm. 3 Assessors Reference Library: Land Valuation Manual at 5.14 to 5.17(rev. 3/00). Notably,a greenhouse continued to be classified as"all other agricultural property." Id. In 2001,the manual was again amended and this time the entire list of excluded properties, including greenhouses,was deleted. See 3 Assessors Reference Library: Land Valuation Manual at 5.15(rev. 7/01). Rather than providing a list of"all other agricultural property,"the manual now urges county assessors to consider the decisions of the court of appeals—Morning Fresh Farms and the Del Mesa Farms cases—in classifying agricultural land. Petitioner contends we should infer that the General Assembly agrees with the Property Tax Administrator's interpretation simply because the General Assembly has not chosen to amend the definition of a"farm." We are not persuaded. First,we note that the amendment to the Assessors Reference Library is very recent in that only two years have passed since the change was adopted. See Pueblo Bancorporation v. Lindoe,Inc., 63 P.3d 353, 368 (Cob.2003)(noting that four years was too short a period of time to infer intent through legislative inaction). Prior to that time,the Land Valuation Manual specifically prohibited a greenhouse from being classified as a farm. In addition,the Property Tax Administrator did not use its special expertise to provide any new insight into the meaning of a "farm." Instead,the Land Valuation Manual simply refers assessors to the four court of appeals opinions on the subject. To the extent we disagree with the court of appeals interpretation of a"farm,"that disagreement extends to the adoption of that interpretation by the Property Tax Administrator. While we may defer to an administrative agency's interpretation of a statute,we"are not bound by an agency decision that misapplies or misconstrues the law." El Paso County Bd.of Equalization v. Craddock,850 P.2d 702,704-05 (Cob. 1993). In sum,we cannot say with any certainty that the General Assembly's inaction signals its tacit approval of the premise that greenhouses should be included in the definition of a"farm." See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union,491 U.S. 164, 175,n. 1 (1989) ("It is `impossible to assert with any degree of assurance that congressional failure to act represents' affirmative congressional approval of the Court's statutory interpretation.")(quoting Johnson v.Transp. Agency,480 U.S. 616,671-672,(1987)(Scalia,J.,dissenting)). 31 Without contrary evidence of legislative intent,we are compelled to follow the plain meaning of the statute. The phrase"originate from the land's productivity"requires some nexus between the agricultural product and the land on which the product was produced. In this case,that nexus is lacking. III.CONCLUSION We hold that the products grown within Petitioner's greenhouse do not"originate from the land's productivity." As such,the land does not satisfy the statutory definition of a"farm"and consequently,does not qualify as agricultural land. The opinion of the court of appeals is affirmed. JUSTICE KOURLIS dissents,CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE HOBBS join in the dissent. 32 No.02SC415,Welbv Gardens v.Adams Co.Bd.of Equalization JUSTICE KOURLIS,dissenting: In my view,the statutory language concerning the definition of agricultural land in sections 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I)and(3.5),is ambiguous. Specifically,the statutory directive that horticultural products must"originate from the land's productivity"in order to qualify the underlying land for agricultural tax status is unclear as written. The relevant legislative history provides no definitive guidance. In the face of such an intractable ambiguity,I suggest that the court must rule in favor of the taxpayer,thus giving the land under the greenhouses the agricultural land status. Accordingly,I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion. I. Rules of Statutory Interpretation Our purpose here is to attempt to discern what the General Assembly intended and then give effect to that intent. Fanners Group,Inc. v.Williams,805 P.2d 419,422 (Cob. 1991); People v. Dist.Ct., 713 P.2d 918,921 (Cob. 1986). To fulfill that purpose, we look first to the language of the statute,and give each of the words their plain and ordinary meaning. Dist.Ct.,713 P.2d at 921. We presume that the General Assembly intended each provision of the statute to be effective and intended a just and reasonable result. § 2- 4-201(1)(6)and(c), 1 C.R.S. (2002);People v.Luther, 58 P.3d 1013, 1015 (Cob. 2002);Charnes v.Boom,766 P.2d 665,667(Cob. 1988)("[W]e must read and consider the statutory scheme as a whole to give consistent,harmonious and sensible effect to all its parts."). If a statutory provision is clear and does not conflict with other portions of the applicable statutory construct,then we need not look further than the plain language. Luther, 58 P.3d at 1015. If,however,the provision is reasonably susceptible to multiple interpretations,or if a particular interpretation would conflict with other portions of the statute,we then look to various other tools of statutory interpretation,such as legislative history,prior law,the consequences of a given construction,and the goal of the entire statutory scheme. § 2-4-203;Luther,58 P.3d at 1015. Importantly,when we are interpreting statutes that impose taxes,we construe ambiguities in those statutes against the government and in favor of the taxpayer. See Transponder Corp. v. Prop.Tax Admin.,681 P.2d 499,504(Cob. 1984);Associated Dry Goods v. City of Arvada, 197 Cob.491,496,593 P.2d 1375, 1378 (1979);City&County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Cob.41, 52, 329 P.2d 441,447(1958). 33 II. Analysis The Colorado Constitution mandates that agricultural lands are to be valued for ad valorem taxation purposes"solely by consideration of the earning or productive capacity of such lands capitalized at a rate as prescribed by law." Cob.Const. art. X, § 3(1)(a);Douglas County Bd.of Equalization v. Clarke,921 P.2d 717, 720(Cob. 1996);Boulder County Bd.of Equalization v.M.D.C. Constr. Co.,830 P.2d 975,978 (Cob. 1992). The General Assembly has enacted various provisions defming agricultural land,so as to establish the parameters for the special tax status. Specifically,the General Assembly defined"agricultural land"as: A parcel of land. . . that was used the previous two years and presently is used as a farm or ranch,as defined in subsections(3.5)and(13.5)of this section. . . ."Agricultural land"under this subparagraph(I)includes land underlying any residential improvement located on such agricultural land and also includes the land underlying other improvements if such improvements are an integral part of the farm or ranch and if such other improvements and the land area dedicated to such other improvements are typically used as an ancillary part of the operation. § 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I), 11 C.R.S. (2002). The statute defines"farm"as"a parcel of land which is used to produce agricultural products that originate from the land's productivity for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit." § 39-1-102(3.5)(emphasis added). "Agricultural products"are defined with"livestock products"and include"plant or animal products in a raw or unprocessed state that are derived from the science and art of agriculture. . . ." § 39-1-102O.1). For the purposes of that section,the legislature defined "agriculture"as"farming,ranching,animal husbandry,and horticulture." Id. Hence,to determine this land's status,we must discern whether the land can be classified as a"farm"under the statutory definition. The Majority agrees that the land under Welby Gardens'greenhouses is used to produce agricultural products for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit,thereby satisfying part of the operative definition of"farm". Maj. op.at 4. However,the Majority concludes,with reference to the plain language of the statute,that the greenhouses fail to satisfy the balance of the test because there is an insufficient nexus between the agricultural product grown in the greenhouses and the land itself. Maj.op at 5. I believe the phrase"originate from the land's productivity"is inherently ambiguous and could refer to the productivity of that particular land or the productivity of land more generally. Accordingly,I would look to additional interpretive aids in order to ascertain the intent of the language in sections 39-1-102(1.6)(a)(I)and(3.5). Maddeningly,even after looking to those interpretive aids,I suggest that the answer is still not apparent. Hence,in the end, I would conclude that because ambiguity should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer,because the court of appeals has consistently held that similar operations constitute agricultural land,and because the Division of Property Taxation for the State of Colorado has amended the Assessors Reference Libraries,Land Valuation Manual,to reflect the decisions of the court of appeals,the land under Welby Gardens' greenhouses constitutes"agricultural land,"and is eligible for taxation as agricultural property. A.Ambiguity 34 Determining that a statutory provision is ambiguous only requires that the language is reasonably susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation. Grant v.People,48 P.3d 543, 548 (Cob.2002). The phrase`originate from the land's productivity" certainly meets this requirement. First,the statute,on its face, is unclear as to whether the product must originate from that land's productivity or whether it would be sufficient that the product came from some land's productivity. Second,even if the product must originate from that particular land,it is still possible to construe the statute such that growth of the product in the greenhouse would be sufficient. Indisputably,the plants in the greenhouse"grow"while they are in the greenhouse,and could,thus,"originate from the land's productivity." The term"productivity"certainly can encompass something more than growing from the soil of that piece of property. The phrase is,quite simply,confusing,leaving us questioning to what degree,if any,the agricultural product needs to be connected to the land on which it is produced. B.Case Law and Administrative Interpretation Judicial precedent affords the phrase a broad and loose meaning. First,in Morning Fresh Farms,Inc.v.Weld County Board of Equalization,794 P.2d 1073, 1074(Cob.App. 1990),the court of appeals considered whether a 40-acre parcel of an 800-acre farm, which accommodated numerous chicken houses used to produce eggs for profit,met the statutory definition of a farm. The chickens housed in the egg production facility were primarily fed feed bought from outside sources, although a small portion of the feed came from the farm operations. Id. Other than that bit of feed,the chicken operation was completely self-contained and the chickens never touched the ground. Id. The Board of Assessment Appeals concluded that the land did not fall within the definition of a farm and the court of appeals reversed that decision. Id. The court found that the statute in no way excluded self-contained portions of farmland, within which livestock were sustained without feeding off the ground itself. Id. While not using the exact statutory phrase at issue here, the court concluded that"eggs,as agricultural products,emanate from the productivity of this farm's land." Id. at 1074-75; see also Del Mesa Farms v. Bd.of Equalization,956 P.2d 661, 663 (Cob.App. 1998)(citing Morning Fresh Farms to state that certain property used in egg production operation constituted agricultural equipment). This court has given credence to an administrative interpretation of a statute when the statute is subject to differing reasonable interpretations,and when the issue comes within the agency's special expertise. See Cob. State Pers. Bd.v.Dep't of Corr.,988 P.2d 1147, 1150(Cob. 1999)("[W]e will defer to the agency's construction when the statute may be given more than one reasonable interpretation and the agency has employed its expertise to select a particular interpretation.");Huddleston v. Grand County Bd. of Equalization,913 P.2d 15, 17(Cob. 1996)("Judicial deference is appropriate when the statute before the court is subject to different reasonable interpretations and the issue comes within the administrative agency's special expertise.") Here,the Property Tax Administrator,who is charged with overseeing the state property tax valuation system,has addressed this issue in her Assessor's 35 Reference Library manuals. She cites Morning Fresh Farms,Del Mesa Farms and two other unpublished court of appeals' opinions' for the proposition that: "Based on the language in the above court cases,it is proper to classify parcels that produce agricultural products through`farming,ranching,animal husbandry and horticulture' as agricultural." 3 Assessors Reference Library: Land Valuation Manual at 5.16-5.17 (rev. 7/01). She does not require any particular nexus to the land on which the agricultural products are being grown. The Majority has declined to follow Morning Fresh Farms and its progeny. While this court is not bound by decisions of the court of appeals or by the interpretations provided by the Property Tax Administrator,we should nonetheless be wary of overruling the sole appellate construction of a statute that has been in place for over ten years and that has been incorporated into the state-wide administrative standards without a compelling reason to do so. See Kern v. Gebhardt,746 P.2d 1340, 1345 (Colo. 1987)(following the principles of stare decisis to rely on a court of appeals decision that had been the only appellate construction of the statute for the previous ten years). The principle of reliance upon precedent,or stare decisis,promotes uniformity,certainty,and stability in the law. Id.; Smith v. Dist.Ct.,907 P.2d 611, 612 (Colo. 1995). Under the stare decisis doctrine,courts should follow an established rule of law,"unless clearly convinced that the rule was originally erroneous or is no longer sound because of changing conditions and that more good than harm will come from departing from precedent." People v.Blehm,983 P.2d 779,788 (Colo. 1999). The decision in Morning Fresh Farms has been in place since 1990. Other divisions of the court have followed that decision, and no division of the court of appeals has held to the contrary. Furthermore,the Property Tax Administrator has relied on the holdings of the court of appeals,as have landowners. The court,in Morning Fresh Farms,did note that a small portion of the chicken feed was grown on the farm land;however,the court did not then tie that fact to the conclusion that the chicken operation"emanate[s] from the productivity of this farm's land." Morning Fresh Farms,794 P.2d at 1074-75. Furthermore,the cases following the reasoning of Morning Fresh Farms have not relied on a small bit of feed to hold that the agricultural products"originate from the land's productivity." I am not persuaded that the greenhouses at issue here are distinguishable from the chicken operations in the Morning Fresh Farms line of cases,as in either situation the taxpayer is growing an agricultural product on the land. Further,I am not of the 11 Del Mesa Farms v. Hall, 98CA1611, slip op. at 4 (Colo. App. Aug. 12, 1999) (finding that eggs and replacement laying hens originate from the productive use of the land "in the sense that there were no replacement laying hens until Del Mesa Farms, through animal husbandry, raised them on the land, and no eggs until Del Mesa Farms, again through animal husbandry, created the environment on the land for them to be laid" ) ; Del Mesa Farms v. Bacus, 99CA0527, slip op. at 5 (Colo. App. Feb. 24, 2000) (holding that animal husbandry operations were included in the definition of farm, even if the animals do not touch the ground, graze on the land, or feed from crops grown on the land, and holding that land used to support buildings used in the production of agricultural products is a productive use of the land) . 36 view that the courts of appeals' decisions are clearly erroneous,or that any conditions have changed that would warrant departure from that precedent. C.Legislative History The legislative history surrounding the enactment of section 39-1-102, Senate Bill 6,merely confirms my conclusion that the provision is ambiguous—it does not dispositively resolve that ambiguity. As the Majority points out,the Senate and the House clearly had differing points of view on the issue. Upon passage in the Senate,the definition of"farm"included land"which is used for the primary purpose of growing,raising,and harvesting agricultural products for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit." S.B. 6, 54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (Colo. 1983)(passed the Senate Mar.28, 1983)(emphasis added). The Majority agrees that under this definition,the land underlying greenhouses,except those growing flowering or ornamental plants,would clearly qualify for the favorable tax treatment allotted to agricultural lands. Maj.op. at 11. The House,however, inserted the word"tilled"into the definition of a farm with the express intent of excluding retail greenhouse operations. Under the House definition,a farm meant"a parcel of land which is tilled for the primary purpose of growing,planting,and harvesting agricultural products for the primary purpose of obtaining a monetary profit." Id. (emphasis added)(passed the House May 4, 1983). The Conference Committee charged with arriving at a Bill acceptable to both Houses debated this precise point at some length. Members of the Senate delegation made a motion to revert back to the broader"used"language,but that motion failed. Senator Beatty and Senator Powers,however,would not allow the provision to go forward with the"tilled"definition and they urged a more expansive definition. Receiving guidance from other states' definitions,the Conference Committee arrived at the language"originate from the land's productivity." Representative Reeves explained that this language would require a tie to the parcel of land. Hearing on S.B. 6 Before Conference Committee,54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983)(statement of Rep.Reeves). While voting against the amendment,both Senator Beatty and Senator Powers voted to report the bill to both Houses,with the reservation that they viewed the language as encompassing something more than actually growing from the soil. For instance,Senator Powers expressed his view that"livestock and livestock products are produced from the land's productivity." Id. (statement of Sen. Powers). Under this logic, agricultural products need not come directly from the soil. Senator Beatty expressed concern that the legislative history would indeed reflect two legislative intents—presumably,one that included such uses as greenhouses,and one that did not. Id. (statement of Sen. Beatty). Subject to the tenuous compromise reached at Conference,the Bill proceeded to the House and Senate floors. The continued disagreement about what would be included in the new definition of farm became apparent. As the Majority points out,Representative Heim explained to the House that the new definition reflected the intention"that there is a direct nexus required between something that is grown and raised,and the land on which it is grown and raised." Debate on S.B. 6 before the House of Representatives,54th Gen. Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983)(statement of Rep.Heim). In the Senate, Senator Beatty explained that the new definition was 37 broader than that originally adopted by the House and that"every agricultural product originates in some form from the land's productivity." Debate on S.B. 6 before the Senate, 54th Gen.Assemb., 1st Reg. Sess. (May 17, 1983)(statement of Sen. Beatty). This interpretation met opposition from Senator Stewart,who insisted that the new language still required that"whatever that agricultural product is,it must have come from the productivity of the soil,of the land which is agricultural land;not from the productivity of the building or improvement that might be put on it." Id. (statement of Sen. Stewart). The lack of a uniform legislative intent is painfully clear from these proceedings. We do not know whether the legislature as a whole intended that the phrase"originate from the land's productivity"include only products that are grown from the soil,or whether it intended it to include agricultural products in general—irrespective of their direct connection to that land. D. Ambiguity resolved in favor of the taxpayer Due to the ambiguity in the statute and the lack of guidance by the legislature,I suggest that we must rule in favor of the taxpayer. See Transponder Corp. v. Prop.Tax Admin.,681 P.2d 499, 504(Colo. 1984);Associated Dry Goods v. City of Arvada, 197 Cob.491,496,593 P.2d 1375, 1378 (1979);City&County of Denver v. Sweet, 138 Colo.41,52,329 P.2d 441,447(1958). This view is buttressed by the fact that the Division of Property Taxation Assessors' Reference Library guidelines would support such a conclusion,as would the court of appeals'precedent on point. The General Assembly,which is charged with knowledge of applicable case law,chose not to amend the statute to achieve a different result. See Vaughan v. McMinn,945 P.2d 404,409(Colo. 1997)(noting that the legislature is presumed to know of judicial precedent in an area of law when it legislates in that area). III. Conclusion Notably,while the Majority concludes that the statute is not ambiguous,it does not define the term or provide guidance as to what"originate from the land's productivity"means. It does hold that there must be some connection between the agricultural product produced and the land itself and that building a greenhouse on the land is insufficient. Maj. op. at 7. I question what connection is needed and how close that connection must be. For instance,would it be enough if several,or even one,of the containers in the greenhouse contained soil from the ground beneath it? Does it matter whether the plants in the greenhouse remain there and grow there for a period of time or are just briefly warehoused for sale? I do note that the definition of agricultural under section 39-1-102(1.1),provides that"agricultural"includes"farming, ranching,animal husbandry,and horticulture." Under the Majority's position,the production of animal products through animal husbandry may not be susceptible to the agricultural land classification unless the animals are in some way fed from products grown on that land. I find no statutory support for that conclusion. Until the General Assembly resolves this confusion, it is my view that we should afford the taxpayer the benefit of the"tie", continue to follow the reasoning of the court of appeals and the Property Tax Administrator,and rule in favor of the taxpayer,Welby Gardens. For these reasons,I respectfully dissent from the Majority opinion. 38 I am authorized to state that CHIEF JUSTICE MULLARKEY and JUSTICE HOBBS join in this dissent. 39 y Colorado Department of Local Affairs r,% Executive Director, Michael L. Beasley V17 4 R DIVISION OF PROPERTY TAXATION t !. Mary E. Huddleston °''' Property Tax Administrator t.h7b Bill Owens Governor TO: All County Assessors FROM: Mary E. Huddleston SUBJECT: 2005 Personal Property Table Adjustments DATE: February 18, 2005 MEMORANDUM On February 15, 2005, the Division held an open review meeting with county assessor representatives, industry representatives, and other concerned parties to discuss the draft copy of the 2005 Personal Property Table adjustments. At the meeting there were no substantial disagreements with the proposed changes. The county representatives did not note any issues with the content of the changes, but they did express concerns related to the timing, the additional costs to the counties, and additional administrative hassles that may result during the implementation of the proposed changes for the 2005 tax year. Some counties noted that they did not feel that they would be able to implement the changes for the 2005 tax year. Mary noted that if there were specific counties that were not able to implement the changes for the 2005 tax year, she would talk to the State Board on the counties behalf to explain the situation. This does not mean that the counties are removed from the requirement to implement the changes for the 2005 tax year, it indicates that those counties that are not able to implement the changes will have to make the changes through the appeals and/or abatement process for the 2005 tax year. Any assessors in the counties that are not able to make the recommended changes need to send an email to Mary explaining which of the proposed changes they will not be able to implement for the 2005 tax year and why. The changes will be recommended by the Division for approval at the March 17, Statutory Advisory Committee (SAC) meeting. Officially the changes will be approved 30 days after the SAC approval, as long as the State Board of Equalization does not disagree with the proposed changes. Since there was not a disagreement with the content of the changes, counties should begin incorporating the changes into their systems immediately. If there are any questions, contact Kenneth Beazer at (303) 866-2790. KLB/klb G:\DPT-GRP\ASCOM\PP FACTORS 2005 PP FACTORS\2005 PERSONAL PROPERTY TABLE ADJUSTMENTS 2-18-05.DOC 1313 Sherman, Room 419, Denver, CO 80203,(303)866-2371 TDD(303)866-5300 FAX(303)866-4000 E-Mail marv.huddlestonaastate.co.us 4.1 CHAPTER 4 PERSONAL PROPERTY TABLES The personal property tables chapter contains the replacement cost factors, economic life estimates, and percent good tables that are provided to assist county assessors in valuing personal property by the cost approach. The level of value adjustment factors are provided pursuant to § 39-1-104(12.3), C.R.S., and must be used to factor current actual values of personal property to the level of value in effect for real property. The tables and factors published here are subject to verification in the marketplace. All cost approach value estimates are based upon the factors and tables found in this section. Cost approach value estimates must be reconciled to the market and income approaches to value based upon the appraiser's opinion as to the reliability of the infonnation used to derive the value estimates from each approach. Reconciliation of the applicable approaches to value is required for the valuation of all personal property in Colorado. Actual Value Determined When. (13Xa) ...the cost approach shall establish the maximum value of property if all costs incurred in the acquisition and installation of such property are fully and completely disclosed by the property owner to the assessing officer. (c) ...However,nothing in this subsection(13)shall preclude the assessing officers from considering the market approach or income approach to the appraisal of personal property when such considerations would result in a lower value of the property and when such valuation is based on independent information obtained by the assessing officers. § 39-1-103(13), C.R.S. Counties that develop in-house trending or depreciation tables must submit them annually for approval to the Statutory Advisory Committee to the Property Tax Administrator prior to use. As the property under appraisal ages, the cost approach becomes less indicative of the property value. After fifteen years of age, the recommended valuation procedure is to measure the value of depreciated equipment directly in the marketplace,if possible. 41 4.2 COST FACTOR TABLES The replacement cost factor tables are provided to assist the assessor in the determination of replacement cost new estimates by multiplying original or historical cost of personal property by the cost price indexes published and made available through the courtesy of the Marshall Swift Publication Company. When the original cost is multiplied by the factor for the year of acquisition,the product will approximate the current cost to replace, or the Replacement Cost New(RCN), of the personal property being appraised with property having similar utility. The assessor must select the appropriate cost factor table that corresponds to the type of equipment being appraised. Thirteen tables are supplied. In many instances, the individual index tables cover more than one type of commercial or industrial property. Specific types of commercial and industrial property are found in each table. If the property to be factored can be specifically identified, the appropriate specific factor table (such as 3 for office equipment) should be applied. If the property cannot specifically be identified, the factor for the business type may be used. If property is generally useful in many types of business activities, the predominant use shall determine the cost factor code. If particular property types are not included in the table, a comparable property type cost factor table may be selected. The "average of all" (Table 1) cost factor table should be selected if the specific property type is not included in any of the cost factor tables. After selecting the appropriate cost factor table, the assessor uses the specific cost factor that corresponds to the year of acquisition of the equipment. The original cost of the equipment is then multiplied by that cost factor to arrive at the estimated current replacement cost new (RCN). Example: Property Factor Acquisition Type Number Year Cost Factor RCN Office Desks 3 1999 $1,500 1.09 $1,635 In other words, it would cost $1,635 on the current assessment date to replace office desks purchased in 1999 for$1,500. 42 4.3 INDUSTRY REFERENCE NUMBERS Types of Personal Property Included in Factor Groupings Cost Factor Table Reference Number Property Type 1 Average of All Candy and Confectionery,Creamery and 2 Dairy,Flour, Cereal and Feed, Garage, Meat Packing, Paint,Refrigeration and Rubber 3 Office Equipment,(excluding copiers), and Office Furniture 4 Retail and Wholesale Stores, Warehousing 5 Rental Furnishings, Apartments, Hotels and Motels Banks, Savings and Loans, Restaurants 6 and Lounges, and Theaters 7 Contractors' Equipment 8 Laundry& Cleaning Equipment 9 Bakery,Bottling, Canneries,and Fruit Packing Brewing and Distilling, Cement, 10 Clay Products, Glass, Metal, Logging, Metal Working,Mining and Milling Chemical, Electrical Equipment, 11 Manufacturing,Paper, Motion Pictures and Television,Printing,and Woodworking 12 All Petroleum, and Textile Computer and PC Equipment, 13* Computer-integrated Equipment, Telephone and Telecommunication Equipment,and Copiers Source: Marshall& Swift, October 2004 *Please refer to Chapter 7, Special Issues, under Classification and Valuation of Personal Computers(PCs) and Other Equipment, for more information. 43 4.4 2005 REPLACEMENT COST NEW FACTORS Cost Factor Table Reference Numbers Year Acquired I 1 2 3 4 5 6 1979 2 .04 2.03 1 .87 2.00 1 . 99 1 .91 1980 1.86 1.84 1 .73 1.85 1 .84 1 .78 1981 1 .68 1.66 1 .59 1.70 1 . 68 1 .63 1982 1.61 1.58 1 .53 1.63 1 . 62 1.58 1983 1.58 1.55 1.49 1.59 1 .59 1.54 1984 1.54 1 .51 1.45 1.54 1 .54 1.49 1985 1.52 1 . 48 1.43 1 .52 1 .51 1.47 1986 1.50 1 . 47 1.41 1 .50 1 .50 1.46 1987 1.48 1 . 45 1.39 1 .48 1.48 1.43 1988 1.42 1 . 40 1.34 1 .42 1.42 1 .38 1989 1.35 1.33 1.27 1 .35 1.35 1 .31 1990 1.31 1.29 1.24 1 .31 1.31 1 .28 1991 1.29 1.27 1 .23 1 .29 1.28 1 .26 1992 1 .27 1.25 1 .21 1 .27 1.26 1 .25 1993 1 .25 1.23 1 .20 1 .24 1.23 1 .22 1994 1 .21 1.20 1 . 17 1.19 1.19 1 . 18 1995 1 .17 1.16 1 . 13 1.16 1 . 15 1 . 15 1996 1 .15 1.14 1 . 12 1.15 1 . 13 1.14 1997 1 .13 1.12 1 . 10 1.12 1 . 11 1.12 1998 1 .12 1. 12 1.09 1.12 1 . 11 1.11 1999 1.12 1 . 11 1.09 1 .12 1 . 10 1.11 2000 1.10 1 .09 1.07 1 .09 1 .08 1.09 2001 1.09 1 .08 1.07 1 .09 1.07 1.08 2002 1.09 1 .08 1.06 1 .08 1.06 1.08 2003 1.07 1 .06 1.05 1 .06 1.05 1 .06 2004 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 Source: Marshall & Swift, October 2004 44 4.5 2005 PERSONAL PROPERTY REPLACEMENT COST NEW FACTORS Cost Factor Table Reference Numbers Year Acquired I 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1979 2.07 2.03 2 .04 2.03 1 . 96 2 .05 1.00 1980 1 .87 1.85 1 .85 1.84 1 .76 1 .85 1.00 1981 1 .68 1.68 1 . 67 1.66 1 . 60 1.65 1.00 1982 1 .59 1.61 1 . 60 1.57 1 .55 1.55 1.00 1983 1 .56 1.58 1 .58 1.55 1 .53 1.53 1.00 1984 1 .52 1.54 1 .54 1.51 1 . 48 1.50 1.00 1985 1 .51 1.51 1 .52 1.49 1 . 47 1.49 1.00 1986 1 .49 1.50 1 .51 1.48 1 . 46 1.49 1 .00 1987 1 .47 1.48 1 . 49 1.47 1 . 44 1.48 1 .00 1988 1 .43 1.42 1 . 42 1.42 1 .37 1.42 1 .00 1989 1.36 1.35 1.35 1.35 1.29 1.35 1 .00 1990 1.32 1 .31 1.31 1.31 1.27 1.32 1 .00 1991 1.29 1 .29 1.29 1.29 1.25 1.29 1 .00 1992 1.26 1 .27 1.28 1.28 1.25 1 .28 1 .00 1993 1.23 1 .25 1.25 1.26 1.24 1 .26 1.00 1994 1.20 1 .22 1.22 1.23 1.21 1 .24 1.00 1995 1.17 1 . 17 1.18 1. 19 1.15 1 .20 1.00 1996 1.15 1 . 16 1.16 1. 17 1.14 1 .17 1.00 1997 1.13 1 . 14 1.14 1. 15 1 .13 1 .15 1.00 1998 1.11 1 . 13 1. 13 1.14 1 .13 1 .14 1.00 1999 1 .11 1.13 1 . 13 1.14 1 . 13 1.13 1.00 2000 1 .09 1.11 1 . 11 1.12 1 . 11 1.12 1.00 2001 1 .08 1.10 1 . 10 1.11 1 . 10 1.10 1 .00 2002 1 .07 1.09 1 .09 1.10 1 . 10 1.09 1 .00 2003 1 .06 1.07 1 .07 1.08 1 .08 1.07 1 .00 2004 1 .00 1.00 1 .00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1 .00 Source: Marshall& Switt, October 2004 45 4.6 2005 COST INDEX - FIXTURES/LEASEHOLD IMPROVEMENTS June 30,2004 Level of Value This cost index is provided to assist the assessor in relating original or historical costs of fixtures or leasehold improvements to the real property level of value. The property may be valued using real property appraisal records for computations and should be assessed to the owner of record. When using this method of valuation, the property must be classified and abstracted as real property improvements. The factors are useful only in the cost approach when attempting to factor historical costs to the correct level of value. All cost approach value estimates must be reconciled to the sales comparison (market) and income approaches to value as with other real property improvements. The factors found in this table are for estimating replacement costs only and do not include an allowance for depreciation. Year Acquired Factor 1979 2.20 1980 2.04 1981 1.91 1982 1.85 1983 1.79 1984 1.71 1985 1.67 1986 1.66 1987 1.65 1988 1.62 1989 1.59 1990 1.54 1991 1.53 1992 1.50 1993 1.43 1994 1.37 1995 1.34 1996 1.33 1997 1.29 1998 1.27 1999 1.23 2000 1.17 2001 1.16 2002 1.13 2003 1.11 2004 1.00 Source: Marshall& Swift Co.,October 2004&Division of Property Taxation 15-AS-DPf ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 46 4.7 AVERAGE ECONOMIC LIFE ESTIMATES The average economic life estimates are provided for assistance in applying the percent good depreciation tables for each type of property being valued. The economic life recommendations are based upon the Class Life Asset Depreciation Range published by the Internal Revenue Service, Marshall and Swift Co., and other sources. Further information about the estimates may be found in I.R.S. publication 946, "How To Depreciate Property", available from the I.R.S. The economic life estimates are based on average national service lives and assume normal use and maintenance of the property. Use of the appropriate economic life estimate accounts for typical physical depreciation and functionaUtechnological obsolescence for the personal property within the valuation process. Use of economic lives that differ from those in the estimates must be documented with specific market information. Counties and taxpayers are encouraged to provide this documentation for review by the Division of Property Taxation for possible update of existing published lives. For specific types of equipment, economic life estimates were developed based on studies completed by the Division of Property Taxation. 47 4.8 PROPERTY TYPE Recommended Economic Life (years) COMMERCIAL Wholesale Trade Level Wholesale trade machinery equipment, and furnishings 9 Retail Trade Level Retail trade machinery equipment, and furnishings 9 Service Trade Level Adding machines,calculators 6 All terrain vehicles (ATVs) For addt'l info.,see Chapter 7 6 Amusement parks 12 Automated teller machines (ATMs): see Chapter 7 Computer/electronic components/portion 4* Structural housing 10 Auto repair shops 10 Bank vault doors 20 Barber and beauty shops 10 Cable television: Digital TV set-top boxes 4* Subscriber converters,other than digital 5 Test equipment 8 Origination equipment 9 Satellite receiving ground stations 9 Distribution& subscriber connection equipment 10 Headend equipment 11 Microwave systems 9 Computers—personal&accessories 3* Computers —other&stand-alone peripherals 4* Computer—integrated machinery &equipment 4 Construction equipment,general 6 Copiers and duplicators 6 Data handling equipment, except computers 6 Electronic equipment,except computers 6 Gaming: see Chapter 7 Electronic(e.g. slot machines) 5 Larger gaming personal property(e.g. tables) 10 Gas station equipment: Electronic fuel pumps 6 General 10 Double walled storage tanks 20 Hydroelectric Generators 20 Golf carts 6 Laundry and dry cleaning 10 Commercial Continued on next page * Use appropriate computer percent good table 2005. Source:Division of Property Taxation,Marshall& Swift, &I.R.S 15-AS-DPI ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 48 4.9 PROPERTY TYPE Recommended Economic Life (years) COMMERCIAL (continued) Service trade level(continued) Medical equipment: For addt'l info.see Chapter 7 3 to 10 Meter and stamp equipment 6 Office furniture 10 Pedicabs 10 Photo processing equipment(Electronic) 6 Port-a-potty 10 Radio and television broadcasting 6 Recreation and amusement 10 Restaurant and bar(all) 10 River Rafts 10 Shopping carts 5 Signs (Billboard) 20 Signs (other)by typical business life Snow cats: For addt'l info.see Chapter 7 Heavy use(e.g. snowgrooming operations) 6 Moderate use(e.g.transportation operations) 10 Storage tanks: Single wall(e.g. above ground propane tanks) 10 Double walled(e.g. below ground fuel tanks) 20 Telecommunication machinery and equipment 4 Theater 10 Telecommunication towers 20 Typewriters 6 Vending machines 10 Video machines (arcade) 6 RESIDENTIAL/COMMERCIAL Residential rental furnishings 10 Apartment, hotel and motel furnishings 10 NATURAL RESOURCES Mining Metallic and Nonmetallic Mining, quarrying,& milling equipment 10 Petroleum and Natural Gas Exploration,drilling 6 Production(Excluding pipelines) 14 Marketing, retail 9 Refining 16 Timber Logging 6 Sawmills,permanent 10 Sawmills,portable 6 * Use appropriate computer percent good table 2005. Source:Division of Property Taxation Marshall&Swi/t &LRS. 15-AS-DPT ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 49 4.10 PROPERTY TYPE Recommended Economic Life (years) INDUSTRIAL Manufacturing Trade Level Aerospace 10 Apparel and fabricated textiles 9 Bakeries and Confectionery 12 Brewery 12 Canneries and frozen food 12 Cement manufacture 20 Cereal, flour, grain and mill products 17 Chemicals and related products 10 Clay and gypsum products 15 Concrete manufacture 15 Dairy products manufacturing 12 Electrical equipment manufacturing 10 Electronic equipment manufacturing 6 Fabricated metal products 12 Special tools 3 Food and beverage production 12 Special handling devices 4 Forklifts • 10 Glass and glass product 14 Special tools 3 Jewelry 12 Lumber, wood products and furniture 10 Machinery (not otherwise listed in this section) 10 Meat packing 12 Motion picture and television production 12 Paint and varnish 10 Plastics and plastic products 11 Special tools 3 Printing and publishing 11 Professional and scientific instruments 10 Paperboard and pulp 10 Rubber products 14 Special tools 4 Semi-conductor manufacturing: General 5 Research and development 3 Test equipment 5 Wafer fabrication 3 Soft drink bottling 12 Steel and related products 15 Stone products 15 Sugar and sugar products 18 Source: Division of Property Taxation,Marshall& Swift, &I.R.S. 15-AS-DPI ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 50 4.11 PERCENT GOOD TABLE The personal property percent good table is provided to assist the assessor in estimating the replacement cost new less normal depreciation (RCNLD). The column headings represent the average service life expectancy of the personal property being appraised. Each column contains the percent good factor for a specified age in the life of the property. Percent good tables measure the value remaining in personal property. Depreciation tables measure the loss in value at a specified age. The factor shown in the columns of the percent good table represents the percentage of RCN remaining at a specified age. The general percent good tables are built upon the following assumptions: 1. Iowa State Univ. property retirement&depreciation studies 2. A specified rate of return 3. Average condition and usage of typical property The general percent good table is generic in nature. It was designed to be generally useful for the majority of personal property. It is not specific to any particular industry or type of personal property. The table was designed to account for normal physical depreciation. Use of the table with the appropriate economic life estimate accounts for typical physical depreciation and functional/technological obsolescence for the personal property within the valuation process. Additional functional/technological and/or economic obsolescence may also exist. If documented to exist, additional functional and economic obsolescence must be measured in the marketplace either using the market approach or rent loss methods. In addition, any adjustments to the percent good due to the condition of the subject property must be defensible and documented. The minimum percent good shown for each of the columns is useful as a guide to residual value. It is not absolute and must be reconciled with market information for similar types of property in order to be valid. If the market shows that the actual value of personal property is lower than the value arrived at by using the minimum percent good, the use of the minimum percent good should be rejected in favor of the lower value. The actual value of the personal property must be determined as long as the property is still in use. If the cost-calculated value is lower than the market and/or income approach, when the personal property reaches its minimum percent good, the assessor should review the original cost, all assigned factors, the physical condition of the property, and other pertinent contributors to value. If these are correct, the assessor must use the cost approach value as the actual value of the property pursuant to § 39-1-103(13Xa), C.R.S. As the personal property under appraisal ages, the cost approach becomes less indicative of the property value. After fifteen years of age, the recommended valuation procedure is to measure the value of depreciated equipment directly in the marketplace,if possible. To use the table, the assessor must determine the economic life and the age of the subject property. The percent good may be determined by moving across the columns until the one specified for the economic life is reached and then down this column to the point that reflects the effective age of the property. 15-AS-DPr ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 51 4.12 Example: Property Economic Percent Type Life Age RCN Good RCNLD Office Desks 10 years 6 years $1,635 53% $ 867 The assessor must also consider functional and economic obsolescence, abnormal physical condition, or other factors that might affect the value of the equipment. The assessor should also consider the frequency and extent of maintenance to the property. Extensive maintenance or reconditioning of the property may extend the economic life of the property just as a lack of maintenance may shorten the economic life. DEPRECIATED VALUE FLOOR In the year in which the personal property has reached its minimum percent good, the applicable Replacement Cost New (RCN) trending factor in use at that time is "frozen" and the Level of Value (LOV) adjustment factor is "frozen"at 1.0. For the assessment years that follow, the RCNLD value does not change until the personal property is pennanently taken out of service. An exception to this rule applies when the property has been reconditioned to extend its remaining economic life. Even though the personal property has been permanently taken out of service, but has not been scrapped or sold, it still has value. However, additional functional and/or economic obsolescence may exist. It is possible that the market or income approach may indicate a lower value than the personal property's minimum percent good. In addition, as property ages, the use of original installed cost multiplied by trending factors may not yield reasonable RCN values. Any RCNLD estimate should be crosschecked with sales comparison (market) and income information sources, if possible,and the appropriate value used. VALUATION OF USED PERSONAL PROPERTY The valuation of used personal property requires that a decision be made concerning the remaining economic life of the property. If the personal property's elapsed age from its actual year of manufacture, or estimated effective year of manufacture, is equal to or greater than the number of years in which the personal property would have reached its fully depreciated value floor, then the price paid for the personal property is to be treated as RCNLD and "frozen" at that value. RCN trending and percent good factors will not be applied to the frozen value. The LOV adjustment factor is "frozen"at 1.0 and will remain 1.0 until the property is taken out of service, sold, or retired. An exception to this rule applies when the personal property is reconditioned to extend its remaining economic life. Then the reconditioned property is treated as new personal property and the formerly frozen value is treated as acquisition cost that is subject to depreciation over a complete economic life of the personal property. Even though personal property has been permanently taken out of service, but has not been scrapped or sold, it still has value. However, additional functional and/or economic obsolescence may exist. 15-As-Dr ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 52 4.13 If the elapsed age from the year of manufacture, or estimated effective year of manufacture, is less than the number of years when the personal property would have reached its depreciated value floor, as evidenced in its recommended economic life from the preceding tables, then the property is treated as new personal property and the owner's acquisition cost is subject to depreciation over the complete economic life as would be used for new personal property. However,the resulting value should be compared to the sales comparison (market) value for the personal property, if possible. GENERAL PERCENT GOOD TABLE FOR 2005 AVERAGE ECONOMIC LIFE IN YEARS 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 1 68 77 82 86 88 90 92 93 94 95 95 96 96 97 97 97 98 98 2 39 54 64 71 76 80 83 85 87 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 95 96 3 17 34 47 57 64 70 74 78 80 83 85 87 88 90 91 92 92 93 4 15 18 31 42 51 59 65 69 73 77 80 82 84 86 87 88 90 91 5 15 19 31 40 49 55 61 66 70 74 77 79 81 83 85 86 88 6 15 20 29 38 46 53 59 63 67 71 74 77 79 81 83 85 7 15 21 30 38 45 51 57 62 66 69 72 75 78 80 82 8 15 22 30 37 44 50 55 60 64 68 71 74 76 78 9 15 23 30 36 43 49 54 59 63 66 70 73 75 10 15 23 30 37 42 48 53 58 61 65 69 72 • 11 15 24 30 37 43 48 53 56 61 65 68 W 12 20 25 30 37 43 48 51 56 61 64 w 13 15 22 26 33 37 42 46 52 57 60 14 15 23 27 33 39 42 48 52 56 ✓ 15 18 22 28 34 39 44 48 52 W IL ▪ 16 15 20 23 29 34 39 44 48 y 17 15 22 24 30 35 40 44 18 15 24 26 31 36 40 19 20 21 27 32 36 20 15 18 23 28 33 21 17 20 25 29 22 15 16 22 26 23 15 19 24 24 15 21 25 19 26 15 Source: Division of Property Taxation 15-AS-DPI ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 53 4.14 The following table has been developed for Personal Computers(PCs) and Accessories: Percent Good Table 2005 Average Economic Life Age 3 EFF 1 44 2 23 A 3 13 G 4 7 E Source: Division of Property Taxation The following table has been developed for Other Computer Equipment Including Computer Peripherals: Percent Good Table 2005 Average Economic Life Age 4 EFF 1 50 2 36 A 3 22 G 4 13 E 5 7 Source: Division of Property Taxation For personal property classified as Computer-integrated Machinery and Equipment, a four (4) year economic life is assigned. The four (4) year life depreciation table found in the General Percent Good Table in this section should be used. If you have questions concerning personal computers (PCs) and accessories, other computer equipment including stand-alone computer peripherals, or computer-integrated machinery and equipment, please refer to Chapter 7, Special Issues, under Classjcation and Valuation of Personal Computers(PCs) and Other Equipment. 54 4.15 The following table has been developed for Copiers: Percent Good Table 2005 Average Economic Life Age 6 EFF 1 54 2 46 A 3 36 G 4 32 E 5 29 6 26 7 20 Source: Division of Property Taxation Copiers have a six(6) year economic life and should be "frozen"in the seventh year at the 20 percent good. In the seventh year the LOV adjustment factor is "frozen" at 1.0 and will remain 1.0 until the personal property is taken out of service, sold, or retired. 15-AS-DPT ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 55 4.16 LEVEL OF VALUE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS The following table contains the indexes for adjusting current actual value o: property to the level of value in effect for real property as spec § 39-1-104(12.3XaXI), C.R.S. The procedure involves the multiplication of tl actual value estimate by the appropriate factor for the type of property being valu personal property reaches its fully depreciated value floor the actual value determined and frozen. The LOV adjustment factor is "frozen" at 1.0 and will r until the property is taken out of service, sold,or retired. Example: Current 6/30/04 Property Factor Actual Rollback Level Type Number Value Factor of Value Office Desks 3 $ 867 0.98 $850 PERSONAL PROPERTY ADJUSTMENT FACTOR FOR 2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR June 30,2004 Level of Value Factor Table Reference Number Rollback Factor 1 0.98 2 0.98 3 0.98 4 0.98 5 0.98 6 0.98 7 0.98 • 8 0.97 9 0.97 10 0.97 11 0.97 12 0.98 13 1.00 Source: Division of Property Taxation and Marshall & Swift 15-AS-DPI ARL VOL 5 2-89 Rev 3-05 56 NOTICE OF DENIAL OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR N • 1400 ORTH 17th AVE. Cl(141176 17159-A PT NE4 22 4 66 SITUS : 1563O LEY,CO 0631 256 HWY PHONE(970)353-3845,EXT.3650 www.co.weld.co.us WilBe OWNER: KGF INC COLORADO • KGF INC LOG 4461 DBA/ FRITZLERS CORN MAZE PARCEL 105722000010 15630 HWY 256 ACCOUNT P3021605 LASALLE, CO 80645 YEAR 2005 171 _ .i The appraised value of property is based on the appropriate consideration of the approaches to value required by law. The Assessor has determined that your property should be included in the following category(ics): If your concern is the amount of your property tax,local taxing authorities(county,city,fire protection,and other special districts)hold budget hearings in the fall. Please refer to your tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of these districts,and plan to attend these budget hearings. The Assessor has carefully studied all available information,giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest,and has determined the valuation(s)assigned to your property. The reasons for this determination of value are: No change has been made to the valuation of this property. Colorado law requires us to send this notice of denial for all properties on which we do not ad:ust the value . PETITIONER' S • ASSESSOR'S VALUATION PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION ESTIMATE OF VALUE ACTUAL VALUE ACTUAL VALUE PRIOR TO REVIEW AFTER REVIEW PERSONAL PROP 197424 197424 TOTALS S $ 197424 197424 APPEAL DEADLINES: REAL PROPERTY-JULY 15,PERSONAL PROPERTY-JULY 20. If you disagree with the Assessor's decision,you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration. §39-8- 106(1)(a),C.R.S. Please see the back of this form for detailed information on filing your appeal: By: Stanley F. Sessions 06/27/2005 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR DATE ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE PR-207-87/03 YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE ASSESSOR' S DECISION The County Board of Equalization will sit to hear appeals beginning July I and continuing through August 5 for real property (land and buildings) and personal property (furnishings, machinery, and equipment). § 39-8-104 and § 39- 8-107(2), C.R.S. APPEAL PROCEDURES: If you choose to appeal the Assessor' s decision, mail or deliver one copy of this completed form to the County Board of Equalization. To preserve your right to appeal, your appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE JULY 15 FOR REAL PROPERTY, AND JULY 20 FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY. WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970)356-4000 Ext. 4225 NOTIFICATION OF HEARING: You will be notified of the time and place set for the hearing of your appeal. COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION' S DETERMINATION: The County Board of Equalization must make a decision on your appeal and mail you a determination within five business days of that decision. The County Board must conclude its hearings and render decisions by August 5. TAXPAYER RIGHTS FOR FURTHER APPEALS: If you are not satisfied with the County Board of Equalization' s decision you must file within thirty days of the County Board of Equalization' s written decision with ONE of the following: Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA): Contact the BAA at 1313 Sherman, Room 315, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303)866-5880. www.dola.colorado.gov/baa District Court: 9th Avenue and 9th Street, P.O. Box C Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4520 Arbitration: WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION 915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758 Greeley, Colorado 80632 Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4225 If you do not receive a determination from the County Board of Equalization, you must file an appeal with the Board of Assessment Appeals by September 12. TO PRESERVE YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MUST PROVE YOU HAVE FILED A TIMELY APPEAL; THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAILED WITH PROOF OF MAILING. PETITION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION In the space below, please explain why you disagree with the Assessor' s valuation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH § 39-8-106(1.5), C.R.S., IF YOUR APPEAL INVOLVES REAL PROPERTY, YOU MUST STATE YOUR OPINION OF VALUE IN TERMS OF A SPECIFIC DOLLAR AMOUNT. Attach additional documents as necessary. flocked l . / l e 4 ocked re? beS SIUNA 1 UkE OF PE I I I IUNkdt DA; PR-207-87/03 I disagree with the assessor's valuation because of several reasons. 1. We are a family farm. All income earned from the corn maze is used to pay off the farm loan. Without the maze there would be no family farm, the banks would have foreclosed years ago. So the maze is directly responsible for the planting and harvesting of the crops. 2. We are open only 30 some days a year; we do not generate income but only for a very short time. 3. Attached is a current appraisal from Terry Wiedeman of Kreps & Wiedeman. 4. Distortions who I bought the Inflatables from agree with Terry's values. They have a new never used inflatable returned and have been unable to sell it at half off. WIEDEMAN AUCTIONEERS & REAL ESTATE, INC. July 8, 2005 Glen Fritzler Fritzler's Corn Maze 15630 Hwy. 256 LaSalle, CO 80645 RE: Personal Property Appraisal Dear Glen: In accordance with your request, I herewith enclose the appraisal of the personal property you own as itemized herein. Therefore, it is my opinion that the current fair market value is: $49,300.00 Also enclosed please find the definition of Fair Market Value and my qualifications. If you should have any questions regarding this valuation, please give me a call. My office phone is 970-356-3943. Sincerely, KREPS WIEDEMAN AUCTIONEERS & REAL ESTATE, INC. T Wiedeman Appraiser enc. tlw/jlw 2221 2nd Avenue • Greeley, CO 80631 • (970)356-3943 • Fax (970) 356-8344 www.k-wauctions.com Personal Property Appraisal - FRITZLER CORN MAZE Arcade Game _ $ 500.00 Animatronics 3,000.00 Pitch Black _ 10,000.00 Giant 20,000.00 Ticket Shed 250.00 Pedal Carts s 600.00 — Fog System , 1,200.00 4ght Fixtures 400.00 Rockin' Granny 1,100.00 — Hanging Vampire 200.00 Shake & Bake 1,150.00 Machine Gun Sound _ _ 75.00 — Tent 2,000.00 Air Compressor 1 300.00 Bridge I 125.00 Lawn Mower 300.00 Signage 1,500.00 Props & Costumes ll 1,750.00 Farm House 200.00 Wood Barn _ . 800.00 — Flag Pole • _600.00 Air Compressor _ 175.00 Concession Shed 800.00 — Cannon Targets _ —_ 150.00 Refrigerators I 200.00 Corn Cannons 125.00 — Ticket Shed I 300.00 Sound System _ 150.00 Tortured Body _ 500.00 Maze Bridge 150.00 Hay Ride Trailer 700.00 Total Appraised Value 1$] 49,300.00 DEFINITION OF VALUE Market Value as taken from the Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, AIREA, is defined as the most probable price in terms of money which a property will bring in a competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a fair sale, buyer and seller each acting prudently, knowledgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue stimuli. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale of a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer under conditions whereby: {a} buyer and seller are typically motivated. {b} both parties are well informed, are well advised, and each acting in what they consider their own best interest. {c} a reasonable time is allowed for exposure on the open market. {d} payment is made in cash or its equivalent. {e} financing, if any, is on terms generally available in the community at a specified date and typical of the property type in its locale. {f} the price represents a normal consideration for the property sold unaffected by special financing amounts and/or terms, services, fees, costs or credits accrued in the transaction. QUALIFICATIONS OF THE APPRAISER Terry L. Wiedeman 13434 Weld County Road 42 _ Platteville, CO 80651 (970) 737-2298 Member: Greeley Board of Realtors, Inc. National & State Association of Realtors American Society of Farm Equipment Appraisers National & State Association of Auctioneers Background: Over 25 years involvement with the agriculture industry which includes: Licensed Realtor in the State of Colorado since 1976. Co-Owner of Kreps Wiedeman Auctioneers & Real Estate, Inc. since 1983, specializing in the marketing of farms, ranches and rural acreages, farm equipment auctions and appraisals of real estate and personal property. _ Graduate of Western College of Auctioneering. Actively engaged in the farm equipment auction business since 1972. Certified farm equipment appraiser with American Society of Farm Equipment Appraisers. License # 0970. Has done appraisals for various lenders, individuals, estates, government agencies, etc. CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE (970)356-4000 EXT 4217 FAX: (970) 352-0242.co.us WEBSITE: www.co.weld.co.us (it 915 10TH STREET 111111DP.O. BOX 758 C GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 COLORADO July 19, 2005 KGF INC DBA/ FRITZLERS CORN MAZE 15630 HWY 256 LASALLE CO 80645 Parcel No.: 105722000010 Account No.: P3021605 Dear Petitioner(s): The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of August 4, 2005, at or about the hour of 11:30 AM,to hold a hearing on your valuation for assessment. This hearing will be held at the Weld County Department of Planning Services, Conference Room, 918 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado. You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence in support of your petition. The Weld County Assessor or his designee will be present. The Board will make its decision on the basis of the record made at the aforementioned hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 2005, and mailed to you on or before August 12, 2005. Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, all cases shall be limited to 15 minutes. Also due to volume, cases cannot be rescheduled. It is imperative that you provide evidence to support your position. This may include evidence that similar homes in your area are valued less than yours or you are being assessed on improvements you do not have. Please note: The fact that your valuation has increased cannot be your sole basis of appeal. Without documented evidence as indicated above, the Board will have no choice but to deny your appeal. If you wish to obtain the data supporting the Assessor's valuation of your property, please request it directly from the Assessor's Office by fax (970) 304-6433, or by calling (970) 353-3845. Upon receipt of your request, the Assessor will notify you of the estimated cost of providing such information. Payment must be made prior to the Assessor providing such information. KGF INC - P3021605 Page 2 Please advise me if you decide not to keep your appointment as scheduled. If you need any additional information, please call me at your convenience. Very truly yours, BOARD OF EQUALIZATION Donald D. Warden Clerk to the Board cc: Stanley Sessions, Assessor Hello