HomeMy WebLinkAbout911242.tiff BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 13876 _ .
ORDER
LITTLE CAESARS PIZZA OF NORTHERN COLORADO,
Petitioner ,
vs.
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Respondent.
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
March 25, 1991 , Ramon G. Le Duke, Lisa M. Shay and Susan Broyles
Layton presiding . Petitioner was represented by Dave Williams,
Esq . Respondent was represented by Jan Allison , Esq . The Board ' s
decision was put on the record April 19, 1991 .
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . Subject property is described as follows:
PIN P 0010316, PARCEL 095913120001 - 2331 23
AVE, GREEL GR BPSC-B, BRENTWOOD PARK SHOPPING
CENTER
PIN P 0013852, PARCEL 095911124006 - 3810 W 10
ST GREEL GR BN-TB TR "B" BITTERSWEET NORTH
2. Petitioner is protesting the 1990 actual value of the
subject property, which consists of personal property located in
its stores at 2331 23rd Avenue and 3810 W. 10th Street in Greeley.
3. Petitioner contends that Respondent failed to follow the
Colorado law which requires that the valuation for personal
property be based on appropriate consideration of the three
approaches to value ( i .e. , cost , market and income) .
4 . Petitioner further contends that economic obsolescence
should be deducted from Respondent ' s cost approach.
�y�) G 1
4.
I\\�` Q �t `O I J 911242
5. Petitioner presented its market approach, and Respondent
presented its cost approach. Neither party gave weight to the
income approach.
6. The owner of the subject property, Anthony Fonte,
testified that restaurant equipment rapidly declines in value from
its original installed cost . In his opinion , the value declines
20 percent immediately, 40 to 50 percent during the first two years
and 80 to 40 percent over five years.
7 . Mr . Fonte contends that the equipment in the 23rd Avenue
store is worth $18,000.00 to $20,000.00; and the equipment in the
10th Street store is worth $20,000.00 .
8. Petitioner ' s witness, Mark Soukup, CPA, testified that
the fair market value of the subject property would average 20
percent of the cost for both restaurants, or $20,463.00 for the
23rd Avenue store and $22,679.00 for the 10th Street store.
9. The written documentation submitted as Petitioner ' s
Exhibit 1 indicated that the average percent of the original cost
of the equipment was 17 .8 percent , based on Restaurant Equipment
Company, Inc . ' s appraisal of equipment at the 10th Street store and
another store in Longmont . Using 17.8 percent of cost, Mr. Soukup
derived values of $18,212.00 for the 23rd Avenue store and
$20, 185.00 for the 10th Street store.
10. Respondent used the Division of Property Taxation cost
and depreciation manuals and tables in valuing the subject personal
property. This cost approach method was used for all restaurants
throughout Weld County.
11 . Respondent ' s cost approach indicated a value of
$80,848.00 for the 10th Street store and $71 ,297.00 for the 23rd
Avenue store.
12. Respondent contends that the market and income approaches
were considered in valuing the subject personal property, but were
not used.
13. Respondent was unable to use the market approach due to
lack of descriptive information about the equipment and lack of
sales data. In Respondent ' s opinion, the Petitioner' s valuation
is not proper since it does not include the costs of placing the
equipment into use. Respondent contends that the "value of
equipment in use" and as a part of a going concern, is not
reflected in the Petitioners' market approach.
13876.47
2
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . Petitioner presented insufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the Weld County Assessor improperly valued
the subject property, in accordance with the Board ' s Rule 14.
2. Further . the Weld County Assessor properly used the
applicable state statutes and the Division of Property Taxation
manuals and guidelines in valuing the subject property for tax year
1990.
3. The Board found that Petitioner did not sustain its
burden of proof with clear and convincing evidence or testimony .
Petitioner' s approach to value was flawed and subjective. Although
it was presented as a market approach to value, it was not. It did
not value the subject property using comparable sales of like
properties, and did not reflect the subject property in its present
condition or use.
4. The Board also found that Petitioner did not support its
contention that economic obsolescence should be deducted from
Respondent ' s cost approach to value.
5. Respondent is required to consider the three approaches
to value, and then give weight to the applicable approach .
Respondent has shown that the applicable approach in this case is
the cost approach.
ORDER:
The petition is denied.
13876.47
3
DATED this '�3V.E.L day of April , 1991 .
HO SESSMENT APPE S
oefigT;;;?7
��
g1""""""11i L..../Ramon G. Le Duke
`` \ Of COlap u��i`��p••. ... ..A �h
�� 5•• it y G /
• • Lisa M. Shay
ca SEAL a
=V9,• t• � Stir"„/
q'4SSESSallot Susan 8royi Layt
ananiwmitta
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of
t kBoard off,\ Assessment Appeals.
tiuk W.. hlQi. - dist3l4i
Eileen M. Kile (D )
13876.47
4
Hello