HomeMy WebLinkAbout941382.tiff- .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 27071
ORDER
BANC ONE COLORADO CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
June 7, 1994 , Don A. Holmes and Don Clifton 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 follows :
GR 4832 LOTS 8 TO 26 BLK 44 TOG W/VAC N-S
ALLEY ADJ TO LOTS 12 THRU 23 & E-W VAC ALLEY
ADJ TO LOTS 9 THRU 12 LOTS 17 & 18 & LOTS 23
THRU 26 (Weld County Schedule Number 961-05-3-
15-022)
2 . Petitioner is requesting an abatement/refund of taxes on
the subject property for tax years 1991 and 1992 .
3 . Petitioner presented the following indicators of value:
Cost : $3 , 384, 900 . 00
Income : $4 , 247, 617 . 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 . "
1
941382
5 . Petitioner presented a cost approach to derive a market-
adjusted cost value for the subject property of $3 , 384 , 900 . 00 .
6 . Using Marshall and Swift, the witness calculated a
replacement cost for the eight-story building of $7, 159, 371 .00 .
The improvements were depreciated 60% to determine a depreciated
replacement cost of $2, 846, 239 .00 . The annex was calculated from
the same source and indicated a replacement cost new of
$962, 392 . 00 . Depreciation was deducted at 69% to derive a
depreciated replacement cost of $297, 911 . 00 . hand was added to the
improvement values at $216, 500 . 00 to derive a -value from the cost
approach of $3 , 360, 650 . 00 . The testimony indicated a cost approach
of $3, 384, 900 . 00 .
7 . Petitioner presented an income approach to derive a value
of $4, 247, 617 . 00 for the subject property.
8 . The witness indicated that the rental rates were taken
from the market and leases in place in the base time period. The
witness assigned $12 . 00 per square foot rent to the bank portion,
$9 .27 to the highrise office and $6 .00 to the annex. He deducted
5% vacancy for the bank, 16% vacancy for the highrise office, and
40% for the annex. Expenses were deducted at 35% for each, and a
capitalization rate of 12% applied to the net operating income
derived a value from the income approach of $4, 247, 617 . 00 .
9 . The witness contends that additional deductions should be
made as the subject property has customer parking and employee
parking at other locations .
10 . Petitioner contends that the 1991 and 1992 actual value
of the subject property should be $3 , 661,425 . 00 .
11 . Respondent presented the following indicators of value :
Cost : $10, 500 . 000 . 00
Market : $ 5, 900, 000 . 00
Income : $ 5, 700 , 000 . 00
12 . The witness described the subject property and indicated
that Respondent had deducted the 4th and 8th floors and a small
garage from the total square footage .
13 . 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 per square foot was
assigned to the subject .
14 . Using Marshall and Swift data, the witness calculated a
replacement cost new after depreciation plus the land value for the
subject property of $10 , 516 , 021 . 00 , rounded to $10, 500, 000 . 00 .
TZ/A27071
2
15 . Respondent' s witness presented five 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 .
16 . Respondent used the income approach 'to derive a value of
$5, 700, 000 . 00 for the subject property.
17 . 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, office space at
$11 . 00 per square foot for the highrise and $9 . 00 for the annex.
18 . The witness assigned a lease rate of $12 . 00 for the bank
area of 23 , 525 square feet . No vacancy was deducted; Respondent
deducted 35% for expenses. This indicated net operating income for
the bank of $183 ,495 . 00 . Office space in the highrise was assigned
a rental rate of $11 . 00 . Vacancy of 20% and expenses of 35% were
deducted to indicate net operating income of $336, 026 . 00 . The
annex was assigned a rental rate of $9 . 00 per square foot . Vacancy
of 40% and expenses of 35% were deducted to indicate net operating
income of $65, 988 . 00 .
19 . 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 .
20 . The witness indicated that the bank rent should have been
calculated at $12 . 00 net, not gross .
21 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $5, 290, 696 . 00 to
the subject property for tax years 1991 and 1992 .
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . Respondent presented sufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the tax year 1991 and 1992 valuation of the
subject property was correct .
2 . The Board determined that the applicable state statutes
were used in valuing the subject property for tax years 1991 and
1992 .
TZ/A27071
3
3 . After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony
presented, the Board determined that the value assigned for 1991
and 1992 was proper.
4 . The evidence and testimony for the hearing was very
similar to the evidence and testimony presented for the 1993
valuation hearing under Docket #25199 . The Board did not agree
with the Bank rental rate used by the Petitioner of $12 . 00 gross,
and determined that the rate should be $12 . 00 net . The evidence
and testimony presented by the Respondent ' support the value
assigned by the Assessor for 1991 and 1992 .
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.
DATED this 77% day of July, 1994 .
BO OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Don . Holmes
Don Clifton
This decision was put on the record
JUL 61994
TZ/A27071 SiPjE0E-co
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of •' `.
•
the Board of Assessment Appeals . $
f
o,)o
W-iMa " omiS n7V� �j�� � o�SSFSS..Etatgfi
4
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 25191
ORDER
BANK 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 follows :
GR 17534E PT TR A GREELEY PLAZA (Weld County
Schedule Number 095912104003)
2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1993 actual value of the
subject property, a one-story bank with 4, 346 square feet of
improvements and a 4, 346 square foot basement located on 81, 783
square feet of land.
3 . Petitioner witness Jeffrey Monroe presented the following
indicators of value :
Cost : $614, 450 . 00
Income : $345, 167 . 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 . "
1
5 . The witness described the subject property, and indicated
that it consisted of 4, 346 square feet on the upper level and a
basement. The witness stated that they looked at the wall
thickness and the ornamental windows in order to determine the
square footage .
6 . Petitioner presented a cost approach to derive a market-
adjusted cost value for the subject property of $614,450. 00 .
7 . The witness used Marshall and Swift to determine the
replacement cost of the subject property. Using a Class C masonry,
a cost rank of 1 . 5 low/average, an effective age of 21 years,
average condition, brick and block walls, warm and cooled air, and
including banking equipment, Petitioner determined a basic
structure cost of $65 .46 per square foot or $284 ,480 . 00 . The
basement was assigned a cost of $28 . 66 for the 4, 346 square feet or
$124, 541 . 00 and added to the upper level cost to derive a total
building replacement cost of $409, 021 . 00 .
8 . The witness added other improvements that included
asphalt and concrete paving and parking lot lighting for
$37, 136 . 00, for a total replacement cost for all improvements of
$446, 157 . 00 .
9 . The witness assigned physical depreciation of 17%,
functional depreciation of 11 . 5% and locational depreciation of 10%
for a total depreciation of 38 . 5% or $274, 372 . 00 . A canopy and
drive-up was added for $94, 740 . 00 to derive a total depreciated
value for the improvements of $369, 112 . 00. Land was added for
$245, 350 . 00 to derive a total value from the cost approach of
$614 ,450 . 00 . The witness stated-that not much weight was given to
the cost approach.
10 . Petitioner presented an income approach to derive a value
of $341, 524 . 00 for the subject property.
11 . The witness indicated that for the leasable subject
property area of 3 , 985 square feet, rent was assigned at $12 . 00
gross per square foot and the indicated potential gross income was
$47, 820 . 00 . Vacancy was deducted at 5% and expenses were deducted
at 35% to indicate a net operating income of $29, 529 . 00 . A
capitalization rate of 12% was applied to derive a value of
$246, 074 . 00 to which excess land was added for $95, 450 . 00 to derive
a total value from the income approach of $341, 524 . 00 .
12 . The witness explained the deductions for vacancy and
expenses and how the capitalization and rental rates were
determined.
TZ/Y25191
2
13 . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness stated
that he thought the highest and best use for the subject property
was as a bank. In further questioning, the land value was
discussed, along with the heating and cooling, basement finish, and
the location depreciation, and the rental rate of $12 . 00 was
explained.
14 . Petitioner contends that the 1993 actual value of the
subject property should be $345, 167 . 00 .
15 . Respondent witness Stanley Jantz presented the following
indicators of value :
Cost : $794 , 000 . 00
Market : $648, 000 . 00
Income : $559, 000 . 00
16 . The witness described the subject property and indicated
that the subject property had been measured by the staff . The size
of the land is 81, 783 square feet and 41, 783 square feet is
considered excess land.
17 . Respondent presented four comparable land sales ranging
in sales price from $285, 000 . 00 to $752, 500 . 00 and in size from
39, 962 to 76, 126 square feet to derive a land value for the subject
property of $7 . 00 per square foot for the 40, 000 square feet needed
for the bank, and a value of $2 . 00 per square foot was assigned to
the excess land.
18 . Respondent used a state-approved cost estimating service
to derive a market-adjusted cost value for the subject property
improvements . Using Marshall and Swift, with a cost rank of
average, a masonry class, with hot and chilled water heating and
cooling, the basic structure cost was assigned at $98 . 67 per square
foot or $437, 108 . 00 .
19 . The basement was assigned a cost of $44 .37 per square
foot for a total cost of $185,476 . 00; this was added to the basic
structure cost to derive a total cost for the building of
$622, 584 . 00 . Extras for banking equipment were added for
$95, 120 . 00 to determine a total replacement cost new of
$717, 704 . 00 . Total depreciation was deducted for 40% to determine
a depreciated cost of $430, 622 . 00 . Land was added for $363 , 566 . 00
to derive a total value from the cost approach of $794, 188 . 00,
rounded to $794 , 000 . 00 .
20 . Respondent' s witness presented three comparable sales
ranging in sales price from $450 , 000 . 00 to $625, 000 . 00 and in size
from 4, 363 to 6 , 530 square feet . Adjustments were made for time,
land size, building size, basement, canopy, and the drive-up.
TZ/Y25191
3
21 . After adjustments, the price per square foot ranged from
$148 . 30 to $193 . 60 . A value of $160 . 00 was assigned to the subject
to derive a value from the market approach of $708, 800 . 00, rounded
to $709, 000 . 00 .
22 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$559, 000 . 00 for the subject property.
23 . The witness stated that rental rates were determined from
a survey of bank leases in the Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins
area. The net rental rates ranged from $11 .76 to $15 .44 per square
foot . One lease was a gross lease at $17 . 00 per square foot .
24 . The witness assigned a lease rate of $13 . 00 per square
foot for the 4, 430 square feet of space. A management fee of 5%
was deducted to determine net operating income . A capitalization
rate was determined from the market and applied at 11 . 5% to derive
a value of $475, 739 . 00 . The witness added excess land of
$83, 566 . 00 to derive a final value from the income approach of
$559, 305 . 00, rounded to $559, 000 . 00 .
25 . When questioned by the Petitioner, the witness stated
that the Assessor assigned value was $500, 001 . 00 . The building was
measured, the sales used in the market approach were confirmed
sales, and most weight was given to the income approach.
26 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $500, 001 . 00 to the
subject property for tax year 1993 .
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 . Both parties gave most weight to the income approach;
however, the Board did not agree with the rental rate used by the
Petitioner. Respondent developed a rental rate from the market
which was a net rate where the bank pays all expenses . The Board
agreed with this rate, which supports the value assigned by the
Assessor for 1993 .
TZ/Y25191
4
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.
DATED this 7Z day of July, 1994 .
0 OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Don lures/.. ;7AP
Ramon G. Le Duke
This decision was put on the record
JUL 61994
TZ/Y25191 �PtEUFCcjCo„ y
•
c : n
vL;�
I hereby certify that this is a true tir9'; ;,,,�
and correct copy of the decision of a '•. CQ
the Board of Assessment Appeals. ..
%AwSSMEN
1/17Oo/17O ms
�/ ?'ue ? 9V
5
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 27056
ORDER
•
BANC ONE COLORADO CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
June 7, 1994, Don A. Holmes and Don Clifton 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 follows :
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1001 - 27TH AVE, GREELEY
CO (Weld County Schedule Number 0959-12-104-
003)
2 . Petitioner is requesting an abatement/refund of taxes on
the subject property for tax years 1991 and 1992 .
3 . Petitioner presented the following indicators of value:
Cost : $614, 450 . 00
Income: $345, 167 . 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 . "
1
5 . The witness described the subject property, and indicated
that it consisted of 4, 346 square feet on the upper level and a
basement. The witness stated that they looked at the wall
thickness and the ornamental windows in order to determine the
square footage.
6 . Petitioner presented a cost approach to derive a market-
adjusted cost value for the subject property of $614,450 . 00 .
7 . The witness used Marshall & Swift to determine the
replacement cost of the subject property. Using a Class C Masonry,
and a cost rank of 1 . 5 low/average, an effective age of 19 years,
average condition, brick and block walls, warm and cooled air, and
including banking equipment, Petitioner determined a basic
structure cost of $63 . 54 per square foot, or $276, 130 . 00 . The
basement was assigned a cost of $120, 915 . 00 and added to the upper
level cost to derive a total building replacement cost of
$397, 045 . 00 .
8 . The witness added other improvements that included
asphalt and concrete paving and parking lot lighting for $36, 128 . 00
for a total replacement cost for all improvements of $433 , 173 . 00 .
9 . The witness assigned physical depreciation of 16%,
functional depreciation of 11 . 8% and location depreciation of 10%
for a total depreciation of 37 . 8%, or $163 , 947 . 00 . A canopy and
drive-up were added for $94, 740 . 00, to derive a total depreciated
value for the improvements of $363 , 966 . 00 . Land was added for
$250, 484 . 00 to derive a total value from the cost approach of
$614 ,450 . 00 . The witness stated that not much weight was given to
the cost approach.
10 . Petitioner presented an income approach to derive a value
of $341, 524 . 00 for the subject property.
11 . The witness indicated that for the leasable subject
property area of 4 , 044 square feet, rent was assigned at $12 . 00
gross per square foot and derived potential gross income of
$48, 528 . 00 . Vacancy was deducted at 5%, and expenses deducted at
35% to indicate net operating income of $29, 966 . 00 . A
capitalization rate of 12% was applied to derive a value of
$249, 717 . 00 . Excess land was added for $95,450 . 00 to derive a
total value from the income approach of $345, 167 . 00 .
12 . The witness explained the deductions for vacancy and
expenses, and how the capitalization and rental rates were
determined.
13 . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness stated
that he had not added the land value to the cost approach. The
heating and cooling of the subject was discussed.
TZ/A27056
2
14 . Petitioner contends that the 1991 and 1992 actual value
of the subject property should be $345, 167 .00 .
15 . Respondent witness Stanley Jantz presented the following
indicators of value :
Cost : $783 , 000 . 00
Market : $709, 000 . 00
Income: $559, 000 . 00
16 . The witness described the subject property and indicated
that the property had been measured by the staff . The size of the
land is 81, 783 square feet and 41, 783 square feet is considered
excess land.
17 . Respondent presented five comparable land sales ranging
in sales price from $200, 000 . 00 to $600, 000 . 00 and in size from
26, 345 to 76, 126 square feet to derive a land value for the subject
property of $7. 00 per square foot for the 40, 000 square feet needed
for the bank, and a value of $2 . 00 per square foot was assigned to
the excess land, for a total land value of $363, 566 . 00 .
18 . Respondent used a state-approved cost estimating service
to derive a market-adjusted cost value for the subject
improvements . Using Marshall and Swift, with a cost rank of
average, a masonry class, hot and chilled water heating and
cooling, the basic structure cost was assigned at $98 . 67 per square
foot, or $437, 108 . 00 .
19 . The basement was assigned a cost of $40 . 61 per square
foot and a total cost of $179, 909 . 00 . This was added to the basic
structure cost to derive a total cost for the building of
$604, 259 . 00 . Extras for banking equipment were added for
$94, 320 . 00 to determine a total replacement cost new of
$698, 579 . 00 . Total depreciation was deducted for 40% to determine
a depreciated cost of $419, 147. 00, and land was added for
$363, 566 . 00 to derive a total value from the cost approach of
$782 , 713 . 00 , rounded to $783 , 000 . 00 .
20 . Respondent' s witness presented three comparable sales
ranging in sales price from $450, 000 . 00 to $1, 500, 000 . 00 and in
size from 6, 180 to 11, 094 square feet . Adjustments were made for
time, land size, building size, basement, canopy, and the drive-up.
21 . After adjustments, the price per square foot ranged from
$148 . 30 to $176 . 85 . A value of $160 . 00 was assigned to the subject
to derive a value from the market approach of $708, 800 . 00, rounded
to $709, 000 . 00 .
22 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$559, 000 . 00 for the subject property.
TZ/A27056
3
23 . The witness stated that rental rates were determined from
a survey of bank leases in the Greeley, Loveland, and Fort Collins
area. The net rental rates ranged from $11 . 76 to $15 .44 per square
foot . One lease was a gross lease at $17. 00 per square foot.
24 . The witness assigned a lease rate of $13 .00 per square
foot for the 4, 430 square feet of space. A management fee of 5%
was deducted to determine net operating income. A capitalization
rate was determined from the market and applied at 11 . 5% to derive
a value of $475, 739 . 00 . The witness added excess land of
$83, 566 . 00 to derive a final value from the income approach of
$559, 305 . 00, rounded to $559, 000 . 00 .
25 . When questioned by the Petitioner, the witness stated
that the Assessor assigned land value was wrong, and that
$363 , 566 . 00 was the correct land value . The witness discussed the
excess land value, and stated that he gave little weight to the
cost approach. The market approach was considered.
26 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $500, 001 . 00 to the
subject property for tax years 1991 and 1992 .
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . Respondent presented sufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the tax year 1991 and 1992 valuation of the
subject property was correct .
2 . The Board determined that the applicable state statutes
were used in valuing the subject property for tax years 1991 and
1992 .
3 . After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony
presented, the Board determined that the value assigned was proper.
4 . The Board determined that the information presented by
the Respondent supported the lower value assigned by the Assessor.
The difference in the income approaches presented by the parties
was in the bank rental rates and the vacancy assigned. The Board
determined that a rate of $13 . 00 net was proper. This did support
a value of $500, 001 . 00, but would not support the $559, 000 . 00 value
determined from the appraisal .
ORDER:
The petition is denied.
TZ/A27056
4
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.
DATED this 7 day of July, 1994.
O OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Don A. Holmes
Don Clifto
This decision was put on the record
JUL 61994 SjpTEOF�
TZ/A27056
m tiNA
I Cti
0 it
hereby certify that this is a true o*'., •
and correct copy of the decision of 4ss,••.......
. PQ Ay
the Board of Assessment Appeals .
aAloomis
5
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 27055
ORDER
•
BANC ONE COLORADO CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs.
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
June 7, 1994 , Don A. Holmes and Don Clifton 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 follows :
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2600 - 11TH AVE, GREELEY
CO (Weld County Schedule Numbers 0961-17-3-18-
007, -009)
2 . Petitioner is requesting an abatement/refund of taxes on
the subject property for tax years 1991 and 1992 .
3 . Petitioner presented the following indicators of value :
Cost : $860, 300 . 00
Income : $749, 921 . 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 . "
1
5 . The witness described the subject property, and stated
that the bank leased extra land for parking and a teller machine.
The witness stated that the basement is not finished in the
subject . The property is considered 48% bank and 52% office .
6 . The witness report indicated 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 used Marshall and Swift 'to calculate a cost
approach for the subject property. Using Class C masonry, a cost
rank of 1 . 5 low/average, block and stone exterior walls, warm and
cooled air, an elevator, bank equipment, bank money vault and
record storage vault, the basic structure cost was indicated at
$49 . 28 per square foot . This was applied to the 18, 428 square feet
to determined a basic structure cost of $929, 578 . 00 . A cost of
$21, 431 . 00 for the basement was added, and extras for paving,
parking lot lighting, canopy, and drive-up were added to derive a
replacement cost new of $970, 905 . 00 .
8 . The witness deducted depreciation of 40 . 8% to indicate a
depreciated value of $574, 890 . 00 . The drive-up and canopy were
added for $94, 740 . 00 with a land value of $190, 652 . 00 to derive a
value from the cost approach of $860, 282 . 00, rounded to
$860, 300 . 00 .
9 . 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 would lease at $8 . 00 per square
foot . Vacancy in the bank should be 5%, the office vacancy 42%.
The witness stated that expenses should be 35%, and the
capitalization rate 12%.
10 . Petitioner presented an income approach using these
figures . The potential gross income for all types of space was
indicated at $174, 268 . 00 . With the vacancy deducted, the effective
gross income was indicated at $138, 447 . 00 . Expenses were deducted
at 35%, or $48, 456 . 00, to determine the net operating income of
$89, 991. 00 . The capitalization rate of 12% was applied to derive
a value from the income approach of $749, 921 . 00 .
11 . The witness stated that the lease rates used were an
average of the actual rates and the market rates . Most weight was
given to the income approach. Some leases were presented, and
other bank lease rates in the witness' s files were included.
12 . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness stated
that the bank rental rate is a gross rate .
13 . Petitioner contends that the 1991 and 1992 actual value
of the subject property should be $749, 921 . 00 .
TZ/A27055
2
14 . Respondent witness David Schildmeier presented the
following indicators of value:
Cost : $1, 820, 000 . 00
Market : $1,400, 000 . 00
Income: $1,400, 000 . 00
15 . The witness described the subject property and indicated
that they had measured the improvements and foi{nd them in excellent
condition.
16 . The witness determined a land value from the market,
considering seven sales, with most weight given to sales #4 and #5 .
The report stated that, since all sales are in excess of $1. 50 per
square foot, the land is undervalued (at $1 . 50 X 47, 663 =
$71, 480 . 00) . A value of $4 . 00 per square foot was assigned for the
land.
17 . Using Marshall and Swift data, the witness calculated a
replacement cost new after depreciation plus the land value for the
subject property of $1, 819, 340 . 00, rounded to $1, 820, 000 . 00 .
18 . Respondent' s witness presented four comparable office
sales ranging in sales price from $459, 000 . 00 to $1, 575, 000 . 00 and
in size from 6, 180 to 17, 042 square feet . Adjustments were made to
the sales for land, time, canopy, size and age. The prices per
square foot without land ranged from $63 . 15 to $87 . 80 .
19 . The witness assigned an improvement value of $65 . 00 per
square foot to the subject property, or $1, 197, 820 . 00 and a mini
bank for $17, 280 . 00 . Land was added for $190, 652 . 00 to derive a
value from the market approach of $1, 405, 752 . 00, rounded to
$1, 400, 000 . 00 .
20 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$1, 300, 000 . 00 the subject property.
21 . The witness stated that rental rates were determined from
a survey of bank leases to assign a rental rate of $12 . 00 net for
the bank space. A gross rate of $8 . 00 was assigned to the office
space, the same rate used by the Petitioner.
22 . The witness assigned a lease rate of $12 . 00 per square
foot for the bank area of 8, 843 square feet . No deductions were
made for vacancy. This indicated net operating income for the bank
of $106 , 116 . 00 . Office space was assigned a rental rate of $8 . 00
per square foot for 9, 585 square feet . Vacancy of 10% and expenses
of 35% were deducted to indicate net operating income of
$44 , 858 . 00 . The capitalization rate of 12% was applied to the net
operating income to derive a value of $1, 258, 117 . 00 . Added to this
was a mini bank of $17, 180 . 00 for a value of $1, 275, 280 . 00, rounded
to $1, 300 , 000 . 00 .
TZ/A27055
3
23 . When questioned by the Petitioner, the witness stated
that more weight was given to the income approach than the market
approach.
24 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $1, 002, 352 . 00 to
the subject property for tax years 1991 and 1992 .
CONCLUSIONS:
1. Respondent presented sufficient probative evidence and
testimony to prove that the tax year 1991 and 1992 valuation of the
subject property was correct .
2 . The Board determined that the applicable state statutes
were used in valuing the subject property for tax years 1991 and
1992 .
3 . After careful consideration of all evidence and testimony
presented, the Board determined that the value assigned was proper.
4 . The Board determined that the information presented by
the Respondent supported the lower value assigned by the Assessor.
The difference in the income approaches presented by the parties
was in the bank rental rates and the vacancy assigned. The Board
determined that a rate of $12 . 00 net was proper; this did support
a value of $1, 002, 352 . 00 .
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/A27055
4
DATED this _2{tday of July, 1994 .
BO OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Don . Holmes
Don Clifton
This decision was put on the record
JUL 61994 .
TZ/A27055
s co?COLorG
� -.
P� , D
qg
I hereby certify that this is a true �Q
and correct copy of the decision of ��o , e
the Board o Assessment Appeals .
-7/ 44:9%°-°;;;;;;;;5147
•9o°FASSE;;;51
�I a-P7,9r� /g li
Mil// mis
5
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 25200
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 follows :
GR 6052B PT OF SUBURBAN - 2600 11TH AVE,
GREELEY CO (Weld County Schedule Number
096117318007)
2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1993 actual value of the
subject property, a two-story bank and office building consisting
of 18, 427 square feet and located on 47, 663 square feet of land.
3 . Petitioner witness Jeffrey Monroe presented the following
indicators of value:
Cost : $913 , 500 . 00
Income : $749, 921 . 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 . "
1
5 . The witness described the subject property, and stated
that the bank leased extra land for parking and a teller machine.
The witness stated that the basement is not finished in the
subject . The property is considered 48% bank and 52% office.
6 . The witness report indicated that they had determined the
square footage of the subject property from Computer Assisted
Drawings (CAD) . The vertical penetration was taken out to
determined net leasable areas.
7 . The witness used Marshall and Swift 'to calculate a cost
approach for the subject property. Using Class C masonry, a cost
rank of 1 . 5 low/average, with block and stone exterior walls, warm
and cooled air, an elevator, bank equipment, bank money vault, and
record storage vault, the basic structure cost was indicated at
$50 . 81 per square foot . This was applied to the 18, 427 square feet
to determined a basic structure cost of $936 , 272 . 00 . A cost of
$22, 378 . 00 for the basement was added, and extras for paving
parking lot, lighting, canopy, and drive-up were added to derive a
replacement cost new of $1, 096 , 948 . 00 .
8 . The witness deducted depreciation of 42 . 7% to indicate a
depreciated value of $628, O66 . 00 . The drive-up and canopy were
again added for $94 , 740 . 00, with a land value of $190, 652 . 00, to
derive a value from the cost approach of $913 , 458 . 00 , rounded to
$913 , 500 . 00 .
9 . 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 would lease at $8 . 00 per square
foot . Vacancy in the bank should be 5%, the office vacancy 42% .
The witness stated that expenses should be 35%, and the
capitalization rate should be 12% .
10 . Petitioner presented an income approach using these
figures . The potential gross income for all types of space was
indicated at $174, 268 . 00 . With the vacancy deducted, the effective
gross income was indicated at $138, 447 . 00 . Expenses were deducted
at 35%, or $48 , 456 . 00, to determine the net operating income of
$89, 991 . 00 . The capitalization rate of 12% was applied to derive
a value from the income approach of $749, 921 . 00 .
11 . The witness stated that the lease rates used were an
average of the actual rates and the market rates . Most weight was
given to the income approach. Some leases were presented, and
other bank leases that were in the witness' s files were included.
12 . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness stated
that it was an error that the canopy and drive-up were added twice .
The witness stated that the bank rental rate is a gross rate.
13 . Petitioner contends that the 1993 actual value of the
subject property should be $749, 921 . 00 .
TZ/Y25200
2
14 . Respondent witness David Schildmeier presented the
following indicators of value:
Cost : $1, 770, 000 .00
Market : $1,400, 000 .00
Income: $1,400, 000 .00
15 . The witness described the subject property and indicated
that they had measured the improvements and found them to be in
excellent condition.
16 . The witness determined a land value from the market,
considering seven sales, with most weight given to sales #4 and #5 .
The report stated that since all sales are in excess of $1 . 50 per
square foot the land is undervalued (at $1. 50 X 47, 663 =
$71, 480 . 00) . A value of $4 . 00 per square foot was assigned for the
land.
17 . Using Marshall and Swift data, the witness calculated a
replacement cost new after depreciation plus the land value for the
subject property, of $1, 772, 884 . 00, rounded to $1, 770, 000 . 00 .
18 . Respondent' s witness presented four comparable office
sales ranging in sales price from $459, 000 . 00 to $1, 575, 000 . 00 and
in size from 6, 180 to 17, 042 square feet . Adjustments were made to
the sales for land, time, canopy, size and age . The prices per
square foot without land ranged from $64 . 16 to $86 . 14 .
19 . The witness assigned an improvement value of $65 . 00 per
square foot to the subject property for $1, 197, 820 . 00, and land was
added for $190, 652 . 00, to derive- a value from the market approach
of $1, 400, 000 . 00 .
20 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$1, 300, 000 . 00 for the subject property.
21 . The witness stated that rental rates were determined from
a survey of bank leases to assign a rental rate of $12 . 00 net for
the bank space . A gross rate of $8 . 00 was assigned to the office
space, the same rate used by the Petitioner.
22 . The witness assigned a lease rate of $12 . 00 for the bank
area of 8, 843 square feet . No deductions were made for vacancy.
This indicated net operating income for the bank of $106, 116 . 00 .
Office space was assigned a rental rate of $8 . 00 for 9, 585 square
feet . Vacancy of 10% was deducted, expenses of 35% were deducted
to indicate net operating income of $44 , 858 . 00 . The capitalization
rate of 12% was applied to the net operating income to derive a
value from the income approach of $1, 300, 000 . 00 . However, the
correlated value in Respondent' s report was stated as
$1, 400, 000 . 00 .
TZ/Y25200
3
23 . When questioned by the Petitioner, the witness stated
that he thought the Assessor' s assigned value was in error; the
land value should be higher, and the Assessor' s original square
footage was incorrect .
24 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $1, 002, 352 . 00 to
the subject property for tax year 1993 .
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 Board did not agree in total with 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
support the lower 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/Y25200
4
DATED this -4, day of July, 1994 .
BO OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
Do mes
Ramon G. Le Du e
This decision was put on the record
JUL 61994
TZ/Y25200
r�'lP��OF Cp(p9n•.
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of I
the Board of Assessment Appeals . co a
SEAL 1
o • : co
ChY/,(.i //Gi •/1/4
y oomis FgSSESSios
5
Hello