HomeMy WebLinkAbout941380.tiff BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 25199
ORDER
BANC ONE COLORADO CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
June 6, 1994 , Don A. Holmes and Ramon G. Le Duke presiding.
Petitioner was represented by Richard G. Olona, Esq. Respondent
was represented by Bruce T. Barker, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . Subject property is described as set forth on Attachment
A.
2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1993 actual value of the
subject property, an eight-story bank/office building containing
109, 318 square feet, with a two-story annex building containing
18, 017 square feet . The improvements are located on 54, 125 square
feet of land.
3 . Petitioner witness Jeffrey Monroe presented the following
indicators of value :
Income: $4 , 168 ,448 . 00
Cost : $3 , 384, 900 . 00
4 . Petitioner' s report stated, "In appraising bank
properties the market approach to value has been deemed the most
unreliable approach by Tax Profile Services, most County Assessors
offices, and in some rulings by the Board of Assessment Appeals .
Bank properties are limited market, special use properties. "
941380
1
f
5 . The witness described the subject property and stated
that he had inspected it four or five times . The subject is a high
rise eight-story office/bank building with a two-story annex. The
subject property on 8th Avenue has a drive-up building and a
parking lot for tenants and customer parking; the employee parking
is on two other lots .
6 . The witness stated that they had determined the square
footage of the subject property from Computer Assisted Drawings
(CAD) . The vertical penetration was taken out to determine net
leasable areas.
7 . The witness discussed the leases for the subject
property, and indicated that the bank lease rates should be $12 . 00
per square foot . Office space in the high rise would lease at
$8 . 73 , and lease rates in the annex should be $9 . 00 per square
foot . Vacancy in the bank should be 5%, the office vacancy 22% and
the annex 27%. The witness stated that expenses should be 35%, and
the capitalization rate should be 12% .
8 . Petitioner presented an income approach using these
figures. The potential gross income for all types of space was
indicated at $938, 910 . 00 . With the vacancy deducted, the effective
gross income was indicated at $769, 559 . 00 and expenses were
deducted at 35%, or $ 269, 345 . 00, to determine the net operating
income of $500, 214 . 00 . The capitalization rate of 12% was applied
to derive a value from the income approach of $4 , 168, 445 . 00 .
9 . The witness stated that he had completed a cost approach
for the subject property of $3 , 384 , 900 . 00 , but gave it little
weight .
10 . The witness stated that the lease rates used were an
average of actual and market rates . Most weight was given to the
income approach.
ii . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness stated
that the lease rates were applied to the usable space. The bank
has never had any vacancy. The witness stated that the subject
property has 40% of all office space in Greeley.
12 . Petitioner contends that the 1993 actual value of the
subject property should be $4 , 168, 445 . 00 .
13 . Respondent witness David Schildmeier presented the
following indicators of value :
Cost : $10, 300, 000 . 00
Market : $ 5, 900, 000 . 00
Income : $ 5, 700, 000 . 00
TZ/Y25199
2
14 . The witness described the subject property and indicated
that they had deducted the 4th and 8th floors and a small garage
from the total square footage.
15 . The witness determined a land value from the market,
considering some 36 sales, with most weight given to sales #6, #25
and #26 . All three of the sales were in excess of $4 . 00 per square
foot without adjustments . A value of $4 . 00 was assigned to the
subject .
16 . Using Marshall and Swift data, the witness calculated a
replacement cost new after depreciation plus the land value for the
subject property of $10,348, 997 . 00, rounded to $10, 300, 000 . 00 .
17 . Respondent' s witness presented six comparable office
sales ranging in sales price from $235, 000 . 00 to $5, 800, 000 . 00 and
in size from 6, 086 to 111, 722 square feet . Five bank sales were
considered but not used in the market valuation. Sales #244 and
#252 were considered the most comparable . Adjustments were made
and a value of $48 . 00 per square foot was assigned to the subject
property to derive a value from the market approach of
$6, 169, 776 . 00, rounded to $6, 200, 000 . 00 .
18 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$5, 700, 000 . 00 for the subject property.
19 . The witness stated that rental rates were determined from
the best information available, using rent rolls from previous tax
protests, and charts of Greeley office rental data. The rent
assigned to the bank is $12 . 00 per square foot, with office space
at $11 . 00 per square foot for the high rise and $9 . 00 for the
annex. The witness stated that the bank rent should be $12 . 00 net,
not gross .
20 . The witness assigned a lease rate of $12 . 00 for the bank
area of 23 , 525 square feet . No vacancy was deducted; the witness
deducted 35% for expenses . This indicated a net operating income
for the bank of $183 , 495 . 00 . Office space in the high rise was
assigned a rental rate of $11 . 00 . Vacancy of 20% and expenses of
35% were deducted to indicate a net operating income of
$336 , 026 . 00 . The annex was assigned a rental rate of $9 . 00 .
Vacancy of 40% and expenses of 35% were deducted to derive a net
operating income of $65, 988 . 00 .
21 . The report indicated that each of the net operating
income values were capitalized at 12% and the values totaled
$5, 702, 833 . 00, rounded to $5, 700, 000 . 00 .
22 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $4 , 900, 114 . 00 to
the subject property for tax year 1993 .
TZ/Y25199
3
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . Respondent presented sufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the subject property was correctly valued
for tax year 1993 .
2 . The Board determined that the applicable state statutes
were used in valuing the subject property for tax year 1993 .
3 . After careful consideration of all evidence and
testimony, the Board determined that the value assigned was proper.
4 . The Board did not agree with the rental rates assigned by
the Petitioner for the bank portion of the facility. The rental
rate of $12 . 00 gross stated by Petitioner should be $12 . 00 net .
The Respondent better supported the rates assigned for the office
area of the high rise and the annex. There were some mistakes in
the income approach presented by the Respondent . The Board made
adjustments in this area and determined that the income and market
approaches of the Respondent supported the value assigned for 1993 .
ORDER:
The petition is denied.
APPEAL:
Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial
review within 45 days from the date of this decision.
If Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by
this Board, Respondent may petition the Court of Appeals for
judicial review within 30 days from the date of this decision.
TZ/Y25199
4
DATED this day of July, 1994 .
BO OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Do mes
amon G. L Du e
This decision was put on the record
JUL 61994
TZ/Y25199 StPZEOF�3
Ve2,1` *.
I hereby certify that this is a true o ; '-
and correct copy of the decision of vo .
the Board of Assessment Appeals . o '•. y
, c 'tc�/Lw4 7�%�T1i ssmEN
ary omis
5
uca.acirnvn yr rlcurcKir: rnv: K zsTJ480 PARCEL: 096105304020.- GR 4612 L6
BLK25X920 5TH STX
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R 2804686 PARCEL: 096105304012 - GR 4623
S90' L16 S90' E7.56' L15 BLK25 1901 6TH STX
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R 2804586 PARCEL: 096105304011 - GR 4622
W42.44' L15 BLK25%907 6TH STX
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R 2808386 PARCEL: 096105310029 - GR 4792 L9
& 10 N2 L11 & 12 ALL L13 THRU 20 BLK37 ALSO S2 VACATED ALLEY ADJ L13 THRU 19 EXC
E5' OF ALLEY ADJ L19 ALSO EXC W8.65' OF S2 L13
Hello