HomeMy WebLinkAbout931367.tiff •
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS �-1
STATE OF COLORADO 29
Docket Number 24617
ORDER
WEST GREELEY NATIONAL BANK,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
October 18, 1993 , Ramon G. LeDuke and Kenneth Bennett presiding.
Petitioner was represented by William A. McLain, Esq. Respondent
was represented by Cindy Giauque, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . Subject property is described as follows :
BANK/OFFICE COMPLEX LOCATED AT 821 8TH STREET, GREELEY,
COLORADO (Weld County Schedule Number 961-05-3-15-022)
2 . Petitioner is requesting an abatement/refund of taxes on
the subject property for tax year 1990 . The subject property
consists of two buildings, which contain a total of 118, 349 square
feet . The larger building contains 99, 549 square feet, of which
23 , 525 square feet are bank space and 94, 824 square feet are office
space . The improvements are situated on a 54, 125 square foot
parcel of land.
3 . Petitioner presented the following indicators of value :
Cost : $8, 062 , 600 . 00
Income : $3 , 967, 037 . 00
4 . Petitioner' s witness stated that a market analysis was
not made, since the only known bank sales were smaller in size and
not comparable to the subject property.
,e9dA 1
///Zy (11(1, ��/ /4� 931357
5 . Petitioner presented a cost approach to derive a market-
adjusted cost value for the subject property of $8 , 062 , 600 . 00 .
6 . In the cost approach, Petitioner used data from the
Marshall Valuation Service, and estimated the replacement costs of
$56 . 48 per square foot for the smaller building and $72 . 55 per
square foot for the larger building. Physical depreciation was
estimated to be 1/2% per year or 7 . 0% . No consideration was given
to economic or functional obsolescence.
7 . Petitioner presented an income approach to derive a value
of $3 , 967, 037 . 00 for the subject property.
8 . In the income approach, Petitioner derived rental rates
from a master tenant list of company-owned properties in Greeley,
Longmont, Pueblo, Grand Junction and Colorado Springs .
9 . Petitioner estimated a 5 . 0% vacancy rate for the bank
space, 20 . 0% for the office space in the larger building and 40 . 0%
for the office space in the smaller building.
10 . Petitioner' s witness stated that the actual expenses for
the subject property were approximately 50 . 0%, but that he used
35 . 0% in his analysis . He further stated that the 35 . 0% expense
ratio used was an industry standard.
11 . Petitioner used a band of investment technique to derive
a capitalization rate of 13 . 2% .
12 . Petitioner contends that the 1990 actual value of the
subject property should be $3 , 967, 037 . 00 .
13 . Respondent presented the following indicators of value :
Market : $ 7, 200, 000 . 00
Cost : $11, 200 , 000 . 00
Income : $ 4 , 848, 692 . 00
14 . Respondent presented three comparable sales ranging in
sales price from $595, 000 . 00 to $907, 000 . 00 and in size from 10, 000
to 14 , 746 square feet to derive a market approach value of
$7, 200 , 000 . 00 for the subject property.
15 . Respondent' s witness stated that the comparable sales
were made up of 100% office space, and were selected because the
subject property was 80% office and only 20% bank. Two of the
three sales were subsequent to the base period, and cannot be
considered by the Board. The third sale was 15 . 0% of the size of
the subject property. An additional sale of a bank only property
was presented by Respondent, but this sale was subsequent to the
base period and cannot be considered by the Board.
24617.den
2
16 . Respondent used a state-approved cost estimating service
to derive a market-adjusted cost value for the subject property of
$11, 200, 000 . 00 .
17 . In the cost approach, Respondent estimated the land value
by use of the sales comparison approach. No support was presented
by Respondent' s witness in his replacement cost analysis of the
subject improvements.
18 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$4 , 848 , 692 . 00 for the subject property.
19 . In the income approach, Respondent used income and
capitalization rate information from excerpts of an appraisal by a
third party, who was not available for cross-examination at the
hearing.
20 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $4 , 900, 000 . 00 to
the subject property for tax year 1990 .
CONCLUSIONS:
1 . Petitioner presented insufficient probative evidence or
testimony to prove that the subject property was improperly valued,
in accordance with the Board' s Rule 14 .
2 . Further, the applicable state statutes and the Division
of Property Taxation manuals and guidelines were used in valuing
the subject property for tax year 1990 .
3 . The Board concluded that the appropriate method to value
the subject property was by the income approach. The income
evidence presented by Petitioner, excluding references to distant
properties, indicated a rate near to that used by Respondent,
supporting the value set by Respondent .
4 . It is the determination of the Board that Petitioner
failed to meet the burden of proof.
ORDER:
The petition is denied.
24617.den
3
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 Not-day of November, 1993 .
D O ASSESSME APP 7/7
Ramon G. LeD ce
Kenneth B nn tt
This decision was put on the record
PssOFC0iz0 ,
N0V 1 51993 '�
r•e kr,
r
•• I
I hereby certify that this is a true ;Ca • SEAL ••
and correct copy of the decision of 9 J �3
t Board Assessment Appeals . +9O .•' �Q '
l`-- • LJ. - IfIl(�193 cfssESSMEN�_-
Eileen M. Kile
24617.den
4
Hello