HomeMy WebLinkAbout930968.tiff BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS._.
• STATE OF COLORADO r ,
Docket Number 19654 r
ORDER
ELEANOR A. TEDFORD, ET AL,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
March 24 , 1993 , Harry J. Fuller and Ramon G. Le Duke. Petitioner
appeared pro se . Respondent was represented by Thomas David, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1 . Subject property is described as follows :
15813C PT NE4NE4 7 1 66 BEG AT A PT 672' W &
269' S OF NE COR OF NE4NE4 S108' W168' S943 '
W480' N1051' E648' TO BEG EXC UPRR RES -
LOCATED AT 1861 14TH STREET - FT LUPTON - WELD
COUNTY SCHEDULE NUMBER R6189886
2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1992 actual value of the
subject property, a parcel of vacant land approximately 11 . 9 acres .
3 . Petitioner contends that the assessor erroneously changed
the subject property' s classification from agricultural to vacant
land. According to Petitioner' s witness, the subject tract has
always been farmed along with other land that the Petitioner owns .
4 . Petitioner contends that the subject parcel had been
farmed in preceding years, but was only tilled in 1990 . Petitioner
was under the understanding that state rules allowed for
agricultural land to go untilled for conservation purposes . Since
the weeds were not a problem the ground was not tilled in 1991 .
hSQo�asS
1 930966
06 ID�1 £c= : ('n, n5
5 . Petitioner stated that in 1992 the subject parcel was
disked, planted and harvested as baled forage the same as in the
past prior to 1989 .
6 . Petitioner contends that inspections of the subject
property were completed by the assessor' s staff in 1991 and 1992
and no agricultural use was apparent . The only activity noted was
weed control .
7 . Petitioner contends that the subject property should be
reclassified agricultural and be valued accordingly.
8 . Respondent' s witness presented the following indicators
of value :
Market : $60, 000 . 00 ($5, 000 . 00 per acre)
9 . Respondent' s witness testified that, a study of
comparable sales done in the subject area showed, an actual value
of $5, 000 . 00 per acre for vacant land.
10 . Inspections of the subject property 1991 and 1992
established reasons for Respondent to change the classification of
the property to idle land and applied the market value for 1992 .
11 . The Petitioner did not supply the assessor with proper
documentation showing that the property was in a conservation plan
for two years . Respondent was aware that the subject parcel was
only tilled in 1990 and was not farmed in 1991 .
12 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $60, 000 . 00 to the
subject property for tax year 1992 .
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 1992 .
3 . The Board carefully reviewed all documentation and
testimony presented by both parties . The Board determined that the
subject property was not being used as agricultural property during
the two years prior to the taxable date January 1, 1992 , in
accordance with Colorado statutes . Petitioner admitted that no
2
farming had taken place on the subject property during 1990 and
1991 . If the land was laying fallow for two years it should have
been reported to the county assessor that it was in a conservation
plan.
4 . The Board noted that during 1992 the Petitioner purchased
Sudex seed and reportedly planted and harvested it as baled forage .
It appears to the Board that the Petitioner intends to use the
subject property again for agricultural purposes along with the
rest of the family' s farming operation.
5 . The assessor should monitor the subject property for
continued use as agriculture . It is the Boards opinion that it is
not necessary for the Petitioner sell the crop grown on the
property in order to make a profit, he may use it elsewhere in the
family' s farming operation.
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.
Also, 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.
3
DATED this 3 day of May, 1993 .
-et
-Too BOARD OF ASSE SMENT APPEALS
,40FC010
SEAL t Ha ller
0SSESSMEt
�
�amon G. L Duke
This decision was put on the record
APR 3 0 1993
I hereby certify that this is a true
correct copy of t c ' on o
the Board ss nt peals .
s R. Sharp 19 4 . P3
4
Hello