HomeMy WebLinkAbout920783.tiff brad•El.
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
IT' ?fl ' - g STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 14748
CL.L
Ri i l;._ _. .. ... . .
ORDER
GARY and EARL KENNEDY,
Petitioners,
vs.
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Respondent.
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
January 27, 1992, Ramon G. Le Duke and Don A. Holmes presiding.
Petitioner appeared pro se. Respondent was represented by Jan
Allison, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Subject property is described as follows:
SE 1/4 SE 1/4 SEC 2 , TWNSHP 1, RNG 66 (Weld
County Schedule Number 1471-02-0-00-062)
2 . Petitioners are protesting the 1991 classification of the
subject property, a 15.7 to 17 acre parcel of land with
improvements consisting of a single-family residence and a utility
building.
3 . Petitioner indicated that they were not protesting the
value of the property but the classification change from
agricultural to vacant land.
4 . Petitioners presented information to indicate that they
have been in the business of breeding and selling horses and
raising feed on this property, as well as on property rented by the
petitioners.
1
Aweip 01\1
)V
S Gib 920783
5. Petitioner indicated that the subject property is owned
by Earl Kennedy, the father, and Gary Kennedy, the son. Both
families live in the house on the property. Earl Kennedy receives
social security that amounted to $6,264 . 00 for 1991. Gary Kennedy
receives a disability check which totaled $4, 462 . 00 for 1991. They
each have a half interest in the horse operation.
6. Petitioner indicated that they started raising horses on
the property in 1978 and brought records indicating foals being
born thru 1986. Petitioner indicated that in 1990 they owned six
mares, and that the actual breeding takes place other places. The
Petitioner stated that they own three mares at the present time.
7 . Petitioner stated that he farmed over 500 acres of land
prior to 1986. At the present time they farm 60 acres, the part
they rent and the 17 acres they own. Petitioner indicated that
they raise rye, which is then green-chopped and traded to a dairy
on a one-to-one basis for baled hay. Petitioner indicated that
one-third of the green-chop is taken off the 17 acres.
8 . Petitioners presented information from income tax returns
for 1989 and 1990 for M. Earl and Marie A. Kennedy. The returns
indicated income from custom work of $64 , 964 . 00 for 1989 and
$53 , 926. 00 for 1990. The information was not complete, and when
questioned about the information, the Petitioner indicated the
income was from horses, not custom farming.
9. Petitioners contend that, due to the type of soil on the
property, they cannot keep horses on the property year-round.
Petitioners think the property should be classified as agriculture
use. Petitioner stated that the tax information was wrong. The
Petitioner thinks the County has treated him like a liar. He
stated that he is a poor farmer trying to make a living.
10 . Respondent witness Michael Sampson submitted evidence to
value the property indicating that two acres of the land would be
used for the residence and 13 .73 acres would be classified as
vacant land. The value of the land in both cases was $1, 200. 00 per
acre. The residence was added for $60, 420. 00 and a utility
building for $13 , 440. 00, for a total improvement value of
$73 , 860, 00. This was added to the land value of $18 ,876.00 for a
total value of $92 ,736. 00. The Assessor had assigned a value of
$105, 320. 00 to the subject property for 1991.
TS/I14748
2
11. Respondent indicated that the Assessor's Office feels the
evidence of agriculture use is clearly in doubt, based upon the
physical inspections and photographs submitted. The inspections
made by the Assessor's Office did not indicate that they were
running an agribusiness at the subject property. Respondent stated
that there was no farm equipment stored on the property, nor
horses, nor storage of feed, and they could not find where the
fields were green-chopped. The Respondent indicated that there
were no partitions in the utility shed nor any panels of any kind
to use for corrals, nor any indication of the utility shed being
used as a barn.
12 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $105, 320. 00 to the
subject property for tax year 1991. The Respondent agreed to a
value of $18, 876. 00 for the land for 1991 which would derive a
total value for 1991 of $92, 736. 00.
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Petitioner presented insufficient probative evidence or
testimony to prove that the Weld County Assessor improperly valued
the subject property, in accordance with the Board's Rule 14 .
2 . Further, the Assessor properly used the applicable state
statutes and the Division of Property Taxation manuals and
guidelines in valuing the subject property for tax year 1991.
3 . After careful consideration of all the evidence
submitted, the Board determined that the evidence submitted by the
Petitioner did not prove the property was used as agriculture
business. The income tax information did not indicate there was a
horse breeding operation being conducted. Also the information as
to the green-chop trade was not specific as to when this was being
done.
4 . The Board did agree with the change in the land value as
proposed by the Respondent.
ORDER:
The petition is denied as to the classification being changed.
The Respondent is ordered to reduce the 1991 actual value of
the subject property to $92,736. 00, with $18, 876. 00 allocated to
land and $73 , 860. 00 allocated to improvements.
TS/I14748
3
Th20
The Weld County Assessor is directed to change his records
accordingly.
DATED this 2.s' day of February, 1992 .
BD 0 SMEN LS
•
Ramo G. Le Duke
Don A. Holmes
This decision was put on the record
FEB 2 4 1992
, ommtutifTS/I14748 AY*.
•0F•C0L°�,���''/
S
• o
I hereby certify that this is a true 0S
and correct copy of the decision of
SEAL
t'.% •�=
the Board of Assessment 11 Appeals. � ASSESS W
Mirmium�ME °�```
Xrine.o ! ?S19o2
Me mis
4
(p )7 3
Hello