The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About861443.tiff EXCERPT FROM BOARD OF WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF APRIL 2, 1986 TAPE #86-22 RE: PETITION FOR TAX ABATEMENT FROM BEN HEDGPETH, ON BEHALF OF JBG OIL COMPANY, INC. COMMISSIONERS: Jacqueline Johnson, Chairman Gordon E. Lacy, Pro-Tem Gene R. Brantner C.W. (Bill) Kirby Frank Yamaguchi OTHERS PRESENT: Assistant County Attorney: Lee D. Morrison Director of Finance and Administration: Don Warden Weld County Assessor: Herb Hansen Assessor' s Office Employee: Vera Hoff Deputy Clerk: Debbie Campbell 861443 CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, the next item on the agenda is to reconsider a petition for tax abatement from Ben Hedgpeth, on the behalf of JBG Oil. This is continued from March 26th, and was continued because the petitioner had not received notice of the original hearing. MR. MORRISON: Well, getting situated Madam Chairman, I'd refresh the Board' s recollection that they passed a Resolution dealing with the procedures for the hearing of the petition. Paragraph 4 of that Resolution which was passed on the 19th of March, indicates the requirement that the taxpayer, in order to receive the abatement show that the tax was levied erroneously or illegally, whether that was due to irregularity in levying or clerical error. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, I would also note that on the original petition there was no recommendation from the Assessor' s Office. MR. HANSEN: That' s right. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay. Do we need to start with the petitioner, Lee? MR. MORRISON: I think we should start with the petitioner. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, I think that' s probably right. Mr. Hedgpeth? MR. HEDGPETH: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, if you'd take a microphone a little closer to you. Begin by identifying yourself and then present your case to the Board, please. -1- MR. HEDGPETH: My name is Ben Hedgpeth and I was a past owner of JBG Oil Company. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, will you present us the information that you feel we need to know concerning this petition? MR. HEDGPETH: Well, I have not been active in this company since March of 1983 , but I was still on the note at the bank for the operators of the company, and I was unaware that the taxes for 1984 had not been paid until the day prior to when I came up and paid the taxes. When I was notified that there were taxes due, I realized that there would probably be a penalty or something because they were a year overdue. But I came up the next morning to pay the taxes, and that' s when I found out that the assessment had been excessively high, and the taxes, instead of being approximately $500 , were going to be $6400 , which I went ahead and paid to keep the County from taking the wells over, but I was under the impression that I could turn in an abatement and would have a reasonable chance of getting a refund of part of this money or all of the money. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Are there questions for Mr. Hedgpeth? Mr. Hedgpeth, you had not submitted the information that was requested with regard to production to the Assessor' s Office prior to this time , is that correct? MR. HEDGPETH: Well , I understand it was not, like I said, I was not involved in the operation of the company and hadn' t been for three years and I was unaware that it was not presented. And I was unaware that the assessment form was not returned to you and corrected. And I was unaware of that until the evening before I -2- came up and paid the taxes a couple months ago. I was unaware that the taxes had not been paid. COMMISSIONER LACY: Have production records been brought up to date now with the Assessor' s Office? Where do we come up with a figure of $501 . 84? MR. HEDGPETH: Well , that' s the figure I got from the Assessor' s Office that the taxes should have been, had they been paid on time; had the assessment form been returned and corrected, that that' s what the taxes would have been. MS. HOFF: That is the figure from his enclosed sheets of what he said the total production was for the year. But nothing was filed at the time. MR. HANSEN: I might explain, I think after the Board before, on this same petition, that the declaration form was not filled out and returned to us originally, so there is no other choice but to make an assessment based on the information available and in most cases we use $75,000 as. . .and then we send them an N.O.V. , which then they have until May 24 , then they can appeal before this Board as the County Commissioners, or for me to correct it if it' s wrong. After that, then all this money is certified to the special districts , whether the school, the County and fire districts , whatever it may be. So they are dependent on that money that we certify to them as valuations. No one ever contacted on this property. So that' s why this is our normal procedure, to urge them to come in and make the correction if there is to be one. Now, this might. . . I would think if you would buy a company, you would certainly find out there is back taxes -3- owed before you purchase or--well, you didn't purchase it, you were already involved in it. MR. HEDGPETH: Yes sir. When I got out of the company, the taxes were current and I got out of the company in March of ' 83 . It was the ' 84 taxes that were not paid and, as I said, I had nothing to do with the operation of the company then, and was not able to even see this information. I had nothing to do with the operation. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Herb? MR. HEDGPETH: The only reason I paid the taxes was because I was still on the note. I was unable to get off the note at the bank on these wells, so I had to pay the taxes in order to keep the County from repossessing these wells. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Were the forms filled out prior to 1984? MR. HANSEN: No. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So he didn ' t receive forms even before ' 84 then. MS. HOFF: I don' t know for sure if anything was in ' 84 , but I know in ' 84 we did not receive any information and we did send a notice. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I guess that' s the question I would have too then, the figures for the taxes for ' 82 and ' 83 must have been based on some kind of submitted information rather than this figure of $75, 000 , because they' re much lower. MS. HOFF: The $75 ,000 was the ' 84 as to (inaudible) estimation available. -4- CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: That' s the figure that you used. Right. But, I guess I'm questioning why would ' 83 and ' 82 be a lower amount if you didn't have actual information to work from? Wouldn' t it have been. . . MS. HOFF: See, when we make a best information available assessment, we make it high to get their attention for them to come in when they get their notice. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Yes, I understand that, but Gene' s question was , what were the taxes in ' 81 , ' 82 and ' 83 based on? MS. HOFF: I don' t have that information. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Do you. . . MR. HANSEN: Probably had a rendition, because it was not an arbitrary or best information. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, Mr. Hedgpeth, did you submit. . . MR. HEDGPETH: Yes, those were submitted and I have the taxes for ' 81 , ' 82, and ' 83. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: And you filled out the proper forms so that the taxes were levied correctly then? MR. HEDGPETH: Yes sir. MR. HANSEN: Another thing that we have here, the ' 84 that we made the best information available. MR. MORRISON: In his petition, the attached information for the prior tax years in support of his assertion that it was illegally levied in ' 84 , so I guess that' s what the Board would like to know is what the explanation of the big difference is. MS. HOFF: Do you have copies--there' s copies of the tax notices attached. -5- COMMISSIONER LACY: Yes. MS. HOFF: It says 1981 , and ' 82. . . It shows what was assessed and what was paid. MR. MORRISON: I don't. . . . MS. HOFF: The 1981 notices, there was $44 ,550 leasehold, with a tax if $3 , 482. thirty something, it' s cut off. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Right, and then we also have information on 1982. MS. HOFF: Right. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: What' s that top notice above ' 82? What year is that, do you know? MS. HOFF: Above ' 82? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: That' s just the top of it. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Oh, that' s just the top of that same notice? CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Yes MS. HOFF: Yes, I just. . . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, that whole page is ' 82 then. Okay. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: And that' s a $585 . 50 figure that ' s reflected in Mr. Hedgpeth' s letter here. MS. HOFF: And then there' s also a copy of the ' 85. MR. MORRISON: Do you recall Herb, what the arbitrary valuation was in ' 81 for ' 81 taxes? -6- MR. HANSEN: It wasn't arbitrary. They submitted the correct information. The only arbitrary or best information was in ' 80? . . . MS. HOFF: ' 84. MR. HANSEN: ' 84. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: And that' s really not a best information figure. That' s a figure designed to get the attention of the taxpayer then, because best information would have been based, I presume, on previous years. MS. HOFF: We have no other information. The Oil and Gas Commission sends us a book on production, but we get it a year behind. I mean, like I just received the ' 83 . They don't have the ' 85 even published as yet that we would use for this year. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You just received ' 83 production? MS. HOFF: Yes. MR. HANSEN: See, were based on the previous year' s inventory. MS. HOFF: But they say they' re short handed there and they' re that far behind. MR. MORRISON: Well, the best information is an industry wide information. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay. MR. HANSEN: It' s what we've used for a number of years. Assuming that the individual will come right in and we' ll get the right information. -7- COMMISSIONER LACY: What you're saying, and what I 'm hearing, is that this information was sent out a year ago and that at that time, the company had the right to come in before May and. . . MR. HANSEN: After May. COMMISSIONER LACY: After May, I'm sorry. After those were sent out and come into this Board and come before the equalization hearings. MR. HANSEN: Usually they don't have to go that far. If they come in and present the facts to us , we can correct it right there before it gets on the tax roll. Once it' s on the tax roll, we cannot do that. COMMISSIONER LACY: Okay. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Mr. Hedgpeth, you made the statement that you were not involved in the operation of the business . Do you have any explanation at all why we didn't get their attention with this high notice and why they didn' t respond? MR. HEDGPETH: Yes sir. I have an explanation from the operator, as flimsy as it may sound, but knowing the man, I tend to believe him. He is not familiar with computer readouts. He' s not involved in that type of operation at all , and he saw the tax notice and he read it as $7 ,500 which was about the assessment of the prior year. And he said he didn' t contest it because it was right in line with the rest of the year. It was not until later there that he realized that it was $75 ,000 and not $7 ,500 . I realize that sounds flimsy, but knowing the man, I have a feeling that' s exactly what happened. -8- MR. HANSEN: That was not a tax notice, that was a notice of value. MR. HEDGPETH: Yes sir. When he saw the assessment form, he thought it fell in line with the previous year which the ' 83 taxes were $683 , ' 82 were $585 and the ' 85 were $725. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, so then he. . .on that notice that you send out, does it have what the taxes will be, so all it has is the value not the taxes , so I guess maybe I can understand. . . MR. HANSEN: All it does is show the value, because we don't know the levy at that time. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Right, and so you couldn't do it if you wanted to, so consequently yes, I guess I could understand why the person if he really wasn' t up to date on those things , all he had was the value, but he had no dollar amount for taxes. MR. HEDGPETH: No sir. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. MR. MORRISON: How does that explain him delaying it to the last day letting you know when taxes are due? MR. HEDGPETH: I'm sorry? MR. MORRISON: Then he didn' t let you know until the last day payment was due that taxes were due. MR. HEDGPETH: That' s exactly right. Like I said, I was not involved with the operation of the company and he came to me that afternoon, I don't recall the dates now, I'd have to look back in my notes, but saying that the taxes were due and he understood that they were going to be excessively high and that he didn't -9- have the money to pay them. And he said he wanted to know if I would go pay the taxes and we could work out the financing and everything later in order to get these off the auction board or auction block with the County. I said, yes I' ll go up in the morning and pay the taxes and get everything current and we' ll worry about the money later. And then when I got up here, I found out instead of being in the neighborhood of $500 , which I expected then to be a penalty, but I didn ' t expect a $6 ,000 penalty. MR. HANSEN: In ' 81 , the taxes were $3 ,482 , so they were quite a bit higher. MR. HEDGPETH: Yes sir, in ' 81 , the wells were freshly drilled and that was all flush production. MR. HANSEN: Yes. MR. HEDGPETH: And in 1984 , the wells were shut-in almost the total year because of high line pressure. We didn' t get to produce the wells hardly at all. The total revenue for 1984 was just a few hundred dollars above the tax assessment, it was--I've got it in here but--I can't recall it but I think it was . . .Do you have it? MR. HANSEN: (inaudible) MR. HEDGPETH: Okay. It was $6 ,690 was the total revenue on the well for 1984. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Are there other questions the Board has? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Herb , you said this has been certified to these taxing districts. That causes quite a problem doesn't it? How does that handle if we said okay, we will grant -10- this abatement. How do you handle that then? Do you have to go back to them and say, hey that the money is. . . MR. HANSEN: They will just not receive , if you abate this off, then they will not receive that proportion share of the tax money. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Of course their budgets were set upon what you had certified to them. MR. HANSEN: Exactly. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yes. MR. HANSEN: That' s what creates the problem. If it wasn't. . . and if the County, and the fire districts, all are involved. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: There' s a lot of entities out there that' s affected. MR. MORRISON: What the Board needs to consider is whether the process was done illegally or erroneously and , that doesn ' t necessarily mean that if you had the proper information back then , it would have been a different figure, but rather whether the process was done properly in order to arrive at this assessment. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: That' s the only thing we can consider then? Actually not really what happened there, but whether the due process was handled properly. MR. MORRISON: Yes , whether the process was handled properly. The point at which you should change the numbers is after the assessment is made and prior to the levy being assessed. MR. HANSEN: This process is recommended by the tax administrator. We have to make an assessment. So on best -11- MR. HANSEN: This process is recommended by the tax administrator. We have to make an assessment. So on best information, although we would readily admit we make them usually higher so that it brings them in. It gets their attention. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Is that legal? MR. HANSEN: We just don't have any other information. MR. MORRISON: Well, you don' t pick a number out of the air. It' s based on production. Is that right? MR. HANSEN: We don' t know the production. MR. MORRISON: No, no, no, no, production in the industry. MR. HANSEN: Oh, yeah. MR. MORRISON: I mean how do you are arrive at this $75 ,000 value? You take information from the Oil & Gas Commission about. . . MR. HANSEN: No. MS. HOFF: No. MR. HANSEN: We don't get that until a year later. MR. MORRISON: You take prior years information? MR. HANSEN: We take anything we can , but usually we use the information of $75 ,000 , we would, whether that' s high or low, they could have produced $100 ,000. 00 and we wouldn't know, because we have no information. MR. WARDEN: But that' s the methodology that' s recommended by the tax administrator. MR. HANSEN: Yes. MR. MORRISON: Is that number recommended? -12- MR. HANSEN: No. No number is recommended, just whatever you can, maybe just what we can come up with. . . I guess you probably (inaudible) MR. MORRISON: I'm trying to find out what you used to come up with this. MR. HANSEN: It' s just a procedural matter, one we've used for years , haven' t we, Vera. MS. HOFF: We have no information, I mean like from the Oil and Gas Commission. We can' t get this by phone. We would have to go down to their office and dig through their files , then for each, I mean take the time for each one that we had such an assessment on. MR. MORRISON: Do you have like an area or an industry type of number that you used to figure this out? MS. HOFF: No, and you couldn't go from past years because your production figures differ from year to year. I mean they could be up, they could be less. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well I think that' s evident. Yes in ' 81 to ' 82, yes. . . MS. HOFF: Approximately year to year, there' s no way you can base it on past years. - COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah. But it does make it cloudy of whether that $75,000 dollar figure is what--proper? legal? I don' t know exactly what word I want to use and that' s what we have to base our decision upon, isn't it? MR. HANSEN: Not on the figure, I don't think. On whether the administrative remedies were followed. -13- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Yeah. MR. HANSEN: Isn't that right? MR. MORRISON: Well, it' s an arbitrary assessment, but it can' t be so totally arbitrary to be meaningless. I mean, I think there needs to be some basis for determining that $75 ,000 is an appropriate assessment. As an arbitrary assessment. And what' s the maximum value you get from a well in Weld County? MS. HOFF: They vary. We have some that are a million dollars , some that are in the thousands , hundred thousands. I mean, it depends on the well and. . . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Do they have a contract with. . . I suppose there are a lot of variables in there. MS. HOFF: What price they receive for the oil or the gas. I mean you see all different values. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So, it would be hard to come up with an average isn' t it. That' s what you' re trying to say. M.S. HOFF: I don' t think you could come up with an average. MR. HANSEN: It' s been well known in Denver County certain building was arbitrarily-- well I don't know whether to use the term arbitrary, especially that information. For three years they put it and kept raising it every year, finally it got up to where it should be and then the guy turned in the information. So three years he was added another 25% . So that' s happened too. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Course , that' s not what the history of this particular case is. MR. HANSEN: No. -14- CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: And I guess. . . MR. HANSEN: But I mean that has happened. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I guess I'd like to ask Lee, to what extent can we consider the mitigating circumstances that have been presented to us, based upon the previous history of this well and the way the production was recorded? MR. MORRISON: Which, you mean the mitigating circumstances that he did turn in a rendition the previous years? CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: You mean. . .out here you say all we can consider is whether or not Herb acted appropriately in terms of giving this information. The petitioner is here saying this was a unique and unusual circumstance, and I guess my question is, can we consider that or do we only look at how it was handled from our side of the table? MR. MORRISON: Well, the statute just authorizes the abatement if it' s done wrong on our part. It doesn't provide for the consideration of the impact nor the situation of the applicant. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Would it be illegal then to grant the abatement if all procedures were followed correctly? MR. MORRISON: Well, yes. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: It would be illegal. MR. MORRISON: Well, the term illegal. . .Let' s say it' s not according to the standards if there' s no clerical error, there' s no irregularity in the process , you didn't put an assessment on this that you didn' t put on others that didn' t turn in a rendition. -15- CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, let' s ask that question because I don' t think we have. Is this value of $75 , 000 comparable to what you would do in other, or did do, in other cases? MS. HOFF: That' s the same figure that we used on all wells where they did not submit anything. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay. I have one other question and that is, why did you not make a recommendation to this Board? Generally you will do so and I guess I'm curious as to, in this case , why you did not. MR. HANSEN: I did not make a recommendation because I had doubts about it myself. It is very substantially higher, but I felt that it was the Board' s decision whether they would think I illegally or erroneously made a mistake here in doing it. I felt that was your job to make that really. If you approve it, it will go to tax administrator. If you disapprove this, it stops right here. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: You still don 't have a recommendation? MR. HANSEN: No I don' t because it' s. . .best information available is a tough thing to have to put on anyone, but if they do not follow their administrative remedies, there' s nothing else that we can do, we have to make an assessment. And I understand his position on it. MR. HEDGPETH: May I ask a question? In a case like that, why can't you go from the previous records? From your previous. . . MR. HANSEN: Because they may vary, triple or something when the production of the wells are gaining or going down. We don' t -16- know what' s happening. That' s the responsibility of the owner to tell us. MR. HEDGPETH: I wouldn't think it would be twelve times. MR. HANSEN: Well, that' s the figure that we just use. I would have to admit that. MR. MORRISON: It' s not twelve times the ' 81. MR. HEDGPETH: No , but in ' 81 , the wells were freshly drilled and that was flush production. All the wells in this County fall off rapidly and then get down to an average production after six months to a year, depending on the formation they are being produced from. A well in this County might come a Codell Niobrara. It might come in at ninety days , but after it is six months old, it' s making three or four. . .or it might come in at ninety barrels a day, but in six months, it' s making three or four barrels a day. MR. HANSEN: That' s not what happened in the Fort Lupton area though. They've been going pretty good for a number of years. MR. HEDGPETH: Well that' s true, but there are some Codell Niobrara down in there. This is not a Codell Niobrara. I'm just using that as an example. This is Sussex Channel. With a typical Sussex Channels two or three barrels a day. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: After the initial start up, and ' 81 was the new well? MR. HEDGPETH: Yes sir, after the flush production. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This well--wells is it one well? MR. HEDGPETH: It' s two wells. It actually comes into one tank battery, but it' s two wells. -17- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: It' s located where? MR. HANSEN: I know what decision you make today is going to influence a lot of them that we have made on best information. MR. HEDGPETH: The wells are located-excuse me. MR. HANSEN: They will be filed too. Because I know-- don' t we have two for sure that are waiting for this decision. MR. HEDGPETH: It' s on Road 13 and 22. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay, thank you. MR. HEDGPETH: Weld County Road 13 and 22. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So there' s others that are in the sidelines. MR. HANSEN: Yes. MS. HOFF: Yes. MS. HANSEN: It' s unfortunate that it happened, but it does happen. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Are there other questions? COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Well , I guess I really have a problem with going against the Attorney' s advice that this could possibly, I guess he wasn't that definite about being illegal , but his feeling was pretty much so, that it would be illegal if we feel the procedures were followed correctly, that there was nothing that was out of line, even though the circumstances , I can sympathize with you and understand that, but I'm not sure we can act responsibly by granting this abatement based upon your advice or your opinion, whether we want to or not. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: I guess I need to ask one more question from Herb and Vera. You indicate that this $75 ,000 figure that -18- you assigned here is one that you have assigned routinely in similar cases. MR. HANSEN: Yes. MS. HOFF: To each company that did not send in any information. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Regardless of the number of wells or is that on a per well or how is that. . . MS. HOFF: Per well. MR. HANSEN: Per well. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: So there are two wells here. Is that right? MS. HOFF: Per lease I should say. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Okay, per lease. And yet. . .what I'm having trouble with, and if that' s something that you do routinely, then I guess I'm having trouble within your statement Herb, that you aren' t comfortable with it. If that' s your routine procedure, I guess that' s where I'm getting hung up and it ' s a real hard. . . MS. HOFF: That' s normal procedure. MR. HANSEN: That' s our procedure. In this case , is what I 'm saying, I just could not make a recommendation because I don't think he was aware of it himself personally, although the company certainly was , and that he had to come up with $6 ,000 is kind of rough at the last moment. But it is our procedure and I don' t know the better one because the State recommends this to have an arbitrary-I don't say they recommend $75 , 000 , but they recommend the use of a substantial figure to prod them to come in and give -19- us the information so we can make the proper assessment from their records. And since they didn't follow up on it , there was nothing else we could do. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Lee, can we take into consideration that $75,000 figure, whether that' s a realistic or arbitrary figure? Would it be proper to ask maybe what other counties use as a figure? MR. MORRISON: I think so. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Do you have any idea what other counties might use? MR. HANSEN: No I don't. COMMISSIONER LACY: My thoughts on that are, if this a regular figure that we use at all times , I'm not so sure it makes much difference what other counties do use , whether it' s figuring out--because it' s used regularly. It' s not $75, 000 on one, and $25 ,000 on another, and $200 ,000 on another, and we' re using the same figure all the time. I have a real problem. I have some problems with what happened. I do definitely, but I also do not believe that the Assessor' s Office was erroneously or illegally doing this. This is a process that they go through all the time. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: And you never consider, I mean you just take these one year at a time, if there is. You don't consider the history if you, for example , have a company that' s never turned in one. You don' t consider that differently from a company that has regularly turned in their production records , but misses in a given year? -20- MS. HOFF: Like Mr. Hansen said, if he had a set amount for that year, like the $75 ,000 , and everyone that did not submit anything is assessed at that amount. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Regardless of what they had done previously? MS. HOFF: But I don' t know, like maybe the $75 , 000 isn't correct, but if you put too low of a figure when you send the notice, no one is going to. . .no one responded even with the $75 , 000. I mean we' re getting all the response after the tax notice went out. No one responded during that notice of value. MR. HANSEN: When it' s spelled out in dollars , it gets their attention. If it' s the value, it' s not. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Does that. . . MR. HANSEN: I might make one recommendation. If you are concerned about this , if you don' t want to make the decision today, it might be proper that you talk to Mary Anne Maurer, of the Tax Administrator, before you make your decision , because I tell you whatever you decide today, you' re going to have a lot of them like it. MR. MORRISON: Since it' s on the table I think that would have to be done in the presence of Mr. Hedgpeth and he'd be entitled to hear what went on and. . . MR. HANSEN: That would be fine. MR. MORRISON: And rebut that. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Herb, on your notice that there is a change in valuation, does it put the prior year' s valuation and -21- then this current year' s valuation. Is there any comparison on that? MS. HOFF: It puts a plus or a minus. If it was, whatever it was the previous year, and then it will say a plus if it' s increased or a minus if there is a decrease. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So then actually he should of picked up on that then. That it went up. Is it percentages or dollars? MR. HANSEN: It' s dollars. MS. HOFF: It' s assessed value. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: So the assessed value went up from the previous year would have been $5 , 800 and it went up to $75 , 000 . MR. HANSEN: Whoever read the bill thought it $7500 is what he' s told us, which could easily be , you know, someone not familiar with those N.O.V. ' s could have read it that way, and I could see that. But they went up to $75, 000 . I just made that suggestion to give everybody a fair shake on this thing. I don't know the better procedure myself, and in putting the best information on there, I don' t know of any other way we can do it. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Now the procedure is that if we deny the abatement, he has no further avenues to appeal. MR. HANSEN: That stops right here. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Okay. MR. MORRISON: Further administrative avenues. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Administrative, he then can go to courts or whatever. Is that right? Okay. -22- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: But if we do agree to the abatement. . . MR. MORRISON: Or any portion of it. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: We could even to a portion, then this would go to the. . . MR. HANSEN: Go to Mary Anne Maurer, the tax administrator, and she would make her decision. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: This is just a recommendation to her then? MR. HANSEN: No it' s your decision, but she has a right of. . . COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Overruling it? MR. HANSEN: . . .Overriding it. Yes. Like I said if you decide this is proper, it stops right here. If you approve it, it goes on to Mary Anne. COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Getting back to what the attorney said, we really have to consider whether your procedure was correct or not. That' s basically it, isn' t it? And you ask, can we consider your circumstances. It really doesn' t have a basis. MR. WARDEN: Part of the problem though, is you've set up an administrative procedure, I mean obviously there' s neglect on the part of the property taxpayer in this case, but I mean you set up a procedure where everyone has their due process to do it, if you leave the crate open that anyone can come in during this appeal time, you' re giving every district that has taxation, a moving target of what their taxes are going to be in a given year. For those that are assessed in this matter. -23- COMMISSIONER BRANTNER: Madam Chairman, as much as I dislike what the motion I'm going to make, because of the circumstances and everything else, I don' t think we have any choice and that' s my opinion after listening to both sides and everything else , so I 'm going to make a motion for denial very reluctantly, but I don't think I have any choice. COMMISSIONER LACY: I'd second that motion and I agree with you , Gene , and I think that' s what I was trying to get across before , that this is a process used by the Assessor and this is the procedure that' s used on all of the other wells that we do not have the information on. So, my feeling is that this is the way that this is handled for others and this is the way it should be handled with all wells and if that' s the tax administrator' s, or the book that you receive from the State of Colorado saying this is the way, you know, you go through the procedure. . . MR. HANSEN: That' s not necessarily what it says in the book, but that' s what' s. . . COMMISSIONER LACY: Well , not the figures but this is the procedure that you go through. Not necessarily the figures, so I second this motion. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Motioned by Gene and seconded by Gordon to deny the petition for the abatement of taxes. Is there discussion? All in favor say Aye. WHEREUPON Commissioners Johnson, Lacy, Brantner, Yamaguchi voted Aye. CHAIRMAN JOHNSON: Opposed? Motion carries. -24- Hello