HomeMy WebLinkAbout941381.tiff CLfekula-
A--
\CD CuU-,:T t^
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS Innq ' " r111: 58
STATE OF COLORADO
Docket Number 26023 CLER;<
ORDER
STARPAK INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION,
Petitioner,
vs .
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION,
Respondent .
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on
June 8, 1994, Don Clifton and Kenneth Bennett presiding.
Petitioner was represented by James E. Heiser, Esq. Respondent was
represented by Cyndy Giauque, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT:
•
1 . Subject property is described as follows :
LOTS 1 & 2, 10 THRU 14 BLK 1 GREELEY IND PARK
(Weld County Schedule Number 0961-17-1-02-002)
2 . Petitioner is protesting the 1993 actual value of the
subject property, a warehouse/manufacturing building containing
94, 669 square feet of gross space, including approximately 5, 876
square feet of office space and 5, 000 square feet of pole-shed
storage . The original portion of the building was constructed in
1965 with additions through 1971 and a minor addition in 1981 . The
improvements are situated on a 266, 858 square foot fenced site
which is partially paved.
3 . Petitioner presented the following indicator of value :
Market : $256, 500 . 00
4 . Petitioner presented one comparable sale which was the
1991 sale of the subject for $256, 500 . 00 .
1 941381
U ? {
5 . Petitioner' s witness testified that the sale was an
arm' s-length transaction, which was verified with Starpak, the
purchaser.
6 . When questioned by the Respondent, the witness testified
that he had not considered any other comparable sales, nor had he
presented an income or cost approach.
7 . Under further questioning, the witness testified that the
purchaser, Starpak, had the subject under lease when the purchase
was made.
8 . Petitioner contends that the 1993 actual value of the
subject property should be $256, 000 . 00 .
9 . Respondent presented the following indicators of value :
Market : $662, 600 . 00
Cost : $661, 000 . 00
Income : $503 , 000 . 00
10 . Respondent presented six comparable sales ranging in
sales price from $225, 000 . 00 to $1, 300, 000 . 00 and in size from
13 , 152 to 105, 942 square feet to derive a market approach value for
the subject property.
11 . Respondent' s market approach indicated a range of value
of $7 . 95 to $17 . 11 per square foot .
12 . Respondent used a state-approved cost estimating service
to derive a market-adjusted cost value for the subject property of
$661, 000 . 00 .
13 . Respondent made use of the Marshall and Swift computer
cost service for the cost analysis, using the light manufacturing
classification with 6% of the space assigned to office use.
Depreciation was estimated to be 67% . Land value, derived from the
market, was estimated to be 65 per square foot, or $172 , 173 . 00 .
14 . Respondent used the income approach to derive a value of
$503 , 000 . 00 for the subject property.
15 . In the income approach, Respondent estimated the rental
rate (from market information) to be $1 . 00 per square foot, vacancy
and collection loss 10% and operating costs 20% . The market
developed capitalization rate was estimated to be 13 . 5% .
16 . When questioned as to why the $300, 000 . 00 value was
assigned to the subject by the Assessor, the Respondent' s witness
testified that someone in the Assessor' s Office had lowered the
actual value of the subject because of the sale of the subject for
$256 , 500 . 00 during the base period.
TZ/B26023
2
17 . When further questioned, the Respondent' s witness
testified and presented evidence that the sale was not an arm' s-
length transaction as the sellers (owners/note holders) were under
pressure from federal regulators to reduce the drain on reserves
and cut losses.
18 . Respondent assigned an actual value of $583, 000 . 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 . The Board carefully reviewed all testimony and evidence
presented and concluded that the three approaches to value
presented by the Respondent supported the value of $583 , 000 . 00 set
by the County Board of Equalization.
4 . The Board further concluded that the only evidence of
value presented by the Petitioner, the sale of the subject itself,
was invalidated, as the Board determined that the sale was not an
arm' s-length transaction.
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/B26023
3
DATED this 71 day of July, 1994 .
BOARD OF A SSMENT APPEALS
Ken th Bennett
Don Clifton
This decision was put on the record
J M 8194 •
TZ/B26023 S.0FCpjo
•off•
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of '``
the Board of Assessment Appeals. % •
7e,/p/ n..l• 771(G o�gSSESSME+�p2e
Ma y omis
4
Hello