HomeMy WebLinkAbout930628.tiff 15-DPT FORM PRESCRIBED BY THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR.
FORM 920 1/66-6/90 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES—O E HOECKEL CO., ['PIPER 36312
Petitioners: Use this side only.
Greeley , Colorado, 1993
City or Town I,.r 1
To The Honorable Board of County Commissioners of Weld County
Gentlemen:
The petition of Cottonwood Travel Co.
whose mailing address is- 1641 23rd Ave.
Greeley CO 80631
City or Town State Zip Code
SCHEDULE NUMBER DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AS LISTED ON TAX ROLL
R 0138692 Schedule R 0138692 Pin R 0138692 Dist 0600
Cottonwood Travel Co. (Lessee)
Trustees of State Colleges in Colo (Owner)
respectfully requests that the taxes assessed against the above property for the years A. D.
19 , 19 , are erroneous, illegal, or due to error in valuation for the following reasons:
(Completely describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax.)
Cottonwood Travel does not own this property and even if we
did this tax is much to high.
WELD COUNTY ASSES', OR
l
I : rid 9l i5 cli
GREELEY,COLO.
19 92 19
Value Tax Value Tax
8930 j/7) ,OO $721 .54
Orig.
Abate. . 7 7e2 7 7.6'f
Bal. [9 - --67 —
The taxes (have) (have not) been py 1d.54herefore your petitioner prays that the taxes may
be abated or refunded in the sum of $
I declare, unaer penalty of perjury in the second degree that this petition, together with any
accompanying exhibits or statements, has been examined by me and to the best of my knowledge,
information and belief is true, correct and complete.
Cottonwood Travel Co.
Petitioner
By �11YLd C
K y osmicki Agent
Address 1641 23rd Ave-, Greel.ey,..C.O...-81631
93O628
RESOLUTION OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WHEREAS, The County Commissioners of Weld County,
State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 7th day
of July , A.D. 19___93___, at which meeting there were present the following
members Cons.tance...L__Harbert*--Chairman>--and--Commissioners_George...Baxter,--Dale_Hall,_Barbara_Kirkmeyer,_-and_W.._B._Webster
notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the taxpayer and
the Assessor of said County and said Assessor_ Warren_Lasell and taxpayer
Kay Kosmicki - being present; and (name)
(name)
WHEREAS, The said County Commissioners have carefully considered the within applica-
tion, and are fully advised in relation thereto,
NOW BE IT RESOLVED, That the Board..daes_nat_concur with the recommendation of
that (concurs or does not concur)
the assessor ELM the petition be denied ._, and an abatement/refund_he--allowed
(approved or denied) (be allowed or not be allowed)
adjusted
on an/assessed valuation of$ 163690 for $ 43 56....___..-total tax for they ar(s)
119.92
Chairman of Board of County Commissioners.
STATE OF COLORADO,
ss.
County of...Wel d
I, Donald D. Warden , ¢oo Ierk}ac>EdcEx}officic Clerk
of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the County of Weld ,
State of Colorado, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from the
records of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners for said Weld
County, now in my office.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County,
at Greeley, Colorado , this 7th Lof...Jul A. D. 1993 iiii144
MEI Clerk.
By...4"--112-7 -1-eike-t---A-
uty.
ACTION OF THE PROPERTY TAX ADMINISTRATOR
Denver, Colorado, , 19
The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby
❑ approved; ❑ approved in part $ ❑ denied for the following reason(s)
ATTEST:
Secretary. Property Tax Administrator.
` s
, .. V y ,..:
y w O a
N Z O y
U
a
0k as WH d 8. g b Y_ •p 0
N O �i m O '. C .y " � o.C47J ,.. Cd' Qp Y fAU
y W OS W Q p" w N Y O q
O (n (� to •.' t u 5 U
a
(X p w w ¢ 3w O 'S ' a � 4a° 3
O Pi d) vi to (I) q4 2 p a q ai
a E " az . a C] •8'� a> 2 e2 0
O Z o a; 0 n 'P al e 0
ed w r-r N CC O A 3 .D V c. E O
O F i. o a > = •0c nyR • c mi° ECo fl •C w
i 0
F FL I-cu 'ivi a cc m fi h a ay e x
F" o Z 3 LL
c � cd ° � >- t+� ~ co - 17; •a �y ,e
w o
f/) O Z a) e O b 2 co a cc ) O [Y • w o U O i
r.' £"� I'" V o W W v. , N ae p, of >a
as O .j t,d E 0. G w to v) M k to t O — .0 y" .0 t
c c) z O c •00 ca.i7 = cwn x LL _ \ "C .E .ea. Q� 0 0. c Qd,
U Ln
G, v] R' ❑®❑ n ~ O ~ wx \ 0.1 c E .51 iG
a 3 , H \'
)
n, p
930029
CLERK TO THE BOARD tif 4j* P.O. BOX 758
'ris‘ .ilk GREELEY,COLORADO 80632
(303)356-4000 EXT.4225
iiipC.
COLORADO
May 11, 1993
Cottonwood Travel Company
Kay Kosmicki, Agent
1641 23rd Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER R 0138692
Dear Property Owner:
This is to advise you that the Board of Weld County Commissioners will hear your
petition for tax abatement or refund on the property described as: Pin R 0138692
Dist 0600 Cottonwood Travel Co. (Lessee) Trustees of State Colleges in Colo
(Owner) . The meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 24, 1993 at 9:00 a.m. at which
time you may be heard. The Assessor is recommending that the Board deny your
petition.
The meeting will be held in the Chambers of the Board, Weld County Centennial
Center, First Floor, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, at the above specified
time.
If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to
contact this office.
Sincerely,
d t 1 gtF
esi
Donald D. Warden,
Weld County Clerk to the Board
BY: 4..e/42)}9
Deputy Clerk to the B rd
XC: Assessor - W. Lasell
County Attorney
9'30(-23
APPRAISAL
OF THE
C-t LA -�- -�C7
UNC STUDENT CENTER
2045 10 AVENUE
/1 LEASE SPACE #4
---(
TO
COTTONWOOD TRAVEL
i
PIN: 0138692
�- PARCEL: 0961-17-2-00-003
FOR THE
ABATEMENT HEARING
MAY 24, 1993
1
DATE OF VALUE: JUNE 30, 1992
DATE OF REPORT: MAY 21, 1993
93002S
F I NAL VALUE E S T I MAT E
The final value estimate in the appraisal process is to approximate a value
for the subject property. This is done after analyzing the quantity, quality,
and reliability of the data utilized, strengths and weaknesses of the different
methods of valuation, and applicability of each approach to the type of property
being appraised. The final estimate of value approximates that which an
informed, rational investor would pay for the subject property if it were
available for sale on the open market at the date of appraisal, given the data
used in this report.
COST APPROACH N/A
SALES COMPARISON APPROACH 28,800
INCOME APPROACH 27,700
Bas the alysis I estimate the market value of the subject property
as une 30, 199 o be $27,700.
1
9 1 2J
PROPERTY INFORMATION
Colorado statutes provide for the taxation of the possessory interest in
exempt property which is leased, loaned, or otherwise made available to and used
by a private individual, association, or corporation in connection with a
business conducted for profit.
In January 1991 the assessor became aware of the businesses in the student
center, we contacted the university to obtain blue prints and lease agreements.
In 1992 these lease spaces were valued for property tax purposes.
This property, which is the University of Northern Colorado's student center has
five lease spaces on the lower level which are currently leased to separate
business owners.
2
931329
r ii;
., `i;'O 1I " • ,� 1.,k �� ,_ "' d. k. . ,
z 'Y t
Y SrY �S 11)"1)
,,„,.•••- • M.dw',Ps,w �' w $^'' i! a��..
ala• " ' ' ` kYyhygaya r . 20 STREET Aa-....aia.r+.'.*..ru:'W"^..+r++,M.rw•'mock I � ri '' r•4,
�' ,C,-,,,,,4;'&30
" nr i • +.. r� .... '}5JgywuaN".'Y"iWMfY . v f1
/1
,I,b t !` i ,� ✓�
w ,.. . «.,.,, ie.7a*{{�a /
\ ' �fir. 4. /�f
)4
� a! S�.' uisso, IY
.:',,re‘
k' • ,yr .w.,„„ Y` ,� •'� Yom. i �.:
v..tt 1 g'} 1. :�( r f , A4ifit.".YY9'�V fM 1� �`
• I r, z •,3. m --II!', ' `9 't." r�4.w V I �•s R•.7`4,. l- . ♦ „ 2 illailtt,r; 1 \ " fir rr "' `h..p FM
V � ry .u" In'
F `fir .
M; m7 z e 'Y.1
W f w "M ',.� r k- 1` L-
-� H L�-wa..ii- firm alto ?', .
F S Yx 1 '
• ar
t F Y ^+kF�{ ' • !tU't, f " ° i1.• '� '1k ',' fit'
7 r k ,.M ,y 'ia i. @t• a< , t a x � Sx�4y`p
itik13 ` '4 �, h 4 �4< `e'ri y `� ,t r "?�;.,b' 'r 5'.� w e9�YlLiy°)4++ O
n +la t ' .r I +At I i ,aG f i .
s C'f i..
{a4xy,.• a i ..ct ` 4 S ': i .,,,:..?„,..,,y; t* t4.1.�qr ' ' ,IS “.'-r
1 3 .•
8 s : •. x1 �4• a4
ap I.ww r
$ I F w• . •i
r 1 r SLY c ,� ti. i F/ ..; � � � � �
g':',4
,f. "' ir.*ifR r ,F2 "r.R i 4, y- iv aMn '4 ?1 x`rZ . . a sai X61'
1- {.I r R , ,J,syy� rt.rtry na -t -6
., ;z rn �
4 s A n.,t r '- i -Y,'.
�yF maw yh ,� w"�+ z 2045 10 AVENUE ' 14 •,y. p�Jj' :J-iv. � ?� ;< _ .
66 14W Ewa'_
y�. r 4� R d—a a 4=_-T a Y� 4 r�
.-&.,..1.: ..�22 STREET �� ,rte' r; +" qDr� r ��'.-
'-. ' '1 N d'� r
J STOR.
J I /"' STORE F
l� I E
KITCHEN C
- •
ZACHARIAH'S y� Q ii , _
LI
• • '<# ISO-I''I DRY g
J J '�'I U STOR.
1
DWi
J _J x
/ [ �ELEV. OFF. MECH
MGR
qa.
OFF
, [ •
CAT
FOOD II U OFF
COURT '
PATIO ATRIUM •L •.—.,
S sus,
mill
,yyq JAN. ..--0,4Ig. tl ___ —W 'ST' STORE LEASE SPACES
lit.rs".t P �I ILL��L^ • • a FOYER • .
'1
I LEASE
illlllir� •
TTIRRI�__ O-THE 1 I1T LLL ® ❑ I SPACE
4 �-+�� SQUARE NORTHI� HBPROMEMADE I i
I I ¢BT�yU �R�`' 'y�,II SOUTH (PROMENADE rFR�''-JAM ; VIDEO
L O I�+ '� lu -J lu �ffi �___Al GAMES
• T
W
PIZZA HUT PETE'S PLACE ELEV -
CLUB BENTLEY-
ILti
`U c C V • • a • a' • • - R •
COPY CTR.
'
I STORES < IPREP AR
� SAND RECREATION
MGR. STAND AREA
• UNIVERSITY BOOKSTORE
2 -' Sre
• • "-' MRCH
OFF.OFF. • • • • • SEC>4OR MECH.
yTO
•
• SEC/ w•
---'
RECPT C
• EREAI
F
— •INF1 •SERVICE TO I TRUCK
MGR.
I STOR. LOAD'O
�___ r • J 1.
BOOKSTORE
REC•VG
1.
I I UNIVERSITY CENTER
1 University of
® LANorthern Colorado
LOWER LEVEL PLAN
4
9301 V3
'I'I-1 E A P P RA I S AL P ROC CE SS
S
Cost Approach:
Underlying Principles: The principles applied in the cost approach are the
principle of substitution, and the principle of contribution. Substitution is
based on the assumption that buyers will not pay more for a structure than the
cost to duplicate it without undue delay. Contribution states that to have
value, a property must have adequate utility, and it is possible to incur cost
without creating commensurate usefulness.
Procedures: The cost approach determines value by estimating the land
value (as though vacant) , calculating the Reproduction Cost New (RCN) of a
property, and then subtracting depreciation due to all causes. The steps in the
cost approach are:
1. estimate the site as if vacant,
2. estimate the reproduction cost new of the improvements,
3. estimate the amount of accrued depreciation,
4. subtract the estimated accrued depreciation from the estimated
cost new and
5. add the estimated site value to the estimated depreciated
reproduction cost new.
Income Approach:
Underlying Principles: The principle of substitution says that value tends
to be set by the effective investment necessary to acquire, without delay, a
comparable substitute income-producing property offering and equally desirable
net income return. The principle of anticipation affirms that value is created
by the future, not the past, benefits achieved through possession or capital
gain.
Procedures: In the income approach value is usually estimated by
capitalizing net income. The steps in the income approach are:
1. estimate potential gross income
2. estimate and deduct a vacancy and collection loss to
determine effective gross income
3. estimate and deduct expenses of operation to
determine net operating income
4. estimate remaining economic life and the pattern of
the projected income stream
5. select an appropriate capitalization method
6. develop the appropriate rate
7. capitalize the net income into an estimated value.
5
Sales Comparison Approach:
Underlying Principles: The rational of the sales comparison or market
approach is that a buyer will usually not pay more for a property than he would
pay in acquiring an equally desirable property. This is the principle of
substitution.
The principle of highest and best use requires a prudent purchaser examine
not only its current use, but all other uses to which the property is adaptable.
Procedures: Involves developing an indication of value by comparing the
subject property with other similar properties which have sold or are listed for
sale. The steps to develop a market comparison are:
1. collecting and analyzing the data
2. selecting appropriate units of comparison
3. making reasonable adjustments based on the market
4. applying the data to the subject of appraisal.
Highest and best use of the site is always estimated as if the land were
vacant and available to be put to its highest and best use. If there are
improvements on a site, the highest and best use may be different from the
existing use. This criterion becomes the measure of accrued depreciation on the
improvements. Highest and best use of the land assumes the subject improvement
usually sets the upper limit of value.
6
cos T APPROACH
To determine the cost of the subject lease space I used the Marshall
valuation cost service. Since the lease is only a fraction of the total floor
area we are using the cost approach as a cross check of our value.
Cost range of student activities center 60.75 - 103.50 per square foot.
The average cost for heating and cooling. 10.50 10.50
TOTAL COST 71.25 114.00
By averaging the costs the student activities center is worth 93.00 per
square foot.
Because there is no way to determine the fractional interest of the subject
lease space, we did not figure a cost approach for this property.
7
93C._ ?.3
INCOME A P P BOAC H
The Approach reflects the subject's income-producing capabilities. This
method of valuation entails capitalizing the anticipated future benefits form
ownership of the subject property, i.e. , net operating income, into an indication
of value. The subject property is the student union building located on the
campus of the University of Northern Colorado. Listed below is a summary of the
5 lease spaces rented for use by private business. These leases are net leases
to the landlord (the University) which means the tenants are responsible for the
fixed and variable expenses associated with property i.e. , real estate taxes,
maintenance, utilities, repairs and reserves for replacement.
Annual
Term Net Net Cap. Price Rent
Start Income Rent Rate P.S.F. Area Value
1. Pizza Hut $12,000 $18.75 1 .13 = 144.23 x 640 sf x $92,300
2. Erickson's Flowers $ 3,600 10.00 / .13 = 76.92 x 360 sf x 27,700
3. Campus Cuts $ 3,600 10.00 1 .13 = 76.92 x 360 sf x 27,700
4. Cottonwood Travel $ 3,600 10.00 / .13 = 76.92 x 360 sf x 27,700
5. Family Eye $ 3,600 10.00 / .13 = 76.92 x 360 sf x 27,700
These leases for A 3-5 year term and most of the leases commenced in 1990.
Lease Renewal
Space Start Term Option
1. Pizza Hut 11/89 5 yr 10 yr
2. Erickson Flowers 3/90 3 yr 2 yr
3. Campus Cuts 1/90 3 yr 5 yr
4. Cottonwood Travel 4/90 3 yr 2 yr
5. Family Eye 10/90 3 yr 5 yr
Lease space 5 originally leased to family eye has been transferred to
EZ Life effective 1/1/92 subject to all the terms, covenants, and agreements of
the original lease.
A capitalization rate converts net operating income into an estimate of
value. This rate can be determined by looking at the net operating income
divided by sales price.
8
natty
Summary of Overall Capitalization Rates
Sale Number 1078 1107 118
Date of Sale 1/92 4/91 9/86
Sales Price 818,000 356,000 774,900
Building SF 9,672 2,880 11,200
Net Operating Income 56,424 23,389 65,358
Overall Rate 6.90 % 6.57 % 9.08 %
Along with analyzing market capitalization rates, a band of investment has
been employed to estimate capitalization rate. This method of deriving a
capitalization rate considers mortgage terms and equity yields. It is assumed
that the subject can be financed with a 25-year loan bearing a 10.5 percent
interest rat. This produces a mortgage constant of 0. 1144. Loan-to-value is 75
percent. It appears that an equity dividend rate of approximately 12 percent
would be required initially since there is not a significant increase in net
operating income over the projected 10-year holding period. Therefore, yields
will not substantially increase over time.
The overall rate calculated by the band of investment is as follows:
Weighted
Portion Rate Rate
Mortgage 0.75 x 0.1144 = 0.0850
Equity 0.25 x 0.1200 = 0.0300
Overall Rate 0.1150
(weighted average)
The band of investment suggests a capitalization rate of 11.5 percent. It
mirrors the attitude of an investor in the current market analyzing a property
purely on the basis of its income stream. These sales show a lower return that
an owner-occupant will accept. The greater the risk the higher the capital-
ization rate. Because the subject has five small lease spaces this would in
theory increase the landlord risk in getting and keeping these spaces leased.
The market rate of 7 - 7.5 (average of 7.25) will be increased 3 percent.
Adding an additional 3 percent or 40 percent downward adjustment in value should
account for this increased risk (3/7.25 = 41%) . Therefore, the normal capital-
ization rate should be 10.5 percent based on the market derived rate and this
correlates with the 11.5 percent of the band of investment.
Due to concerns of the tenants this rate was further increased to 13
percent due to lack of parking space, the holiday schedule and lack of marketing
to the general public. This is an 18 percent downward adjustment for an
increased risk (2/11 = .18%) . I have selected an overall adjusted rate of 13
percent as the capitalization rate.
9
96fla 23
'.Zta lai " ..•raVenra giCA‘ tw,h sw- ...v,.,... »...v'v..i ..S--,,,-.e.« a." .., , ...a... :A 3 vux,.. i,.s r.!3arelr..yk7"'^""`e^wanowYmioww),,,.u,.,,,, i-j
COMPARABLE SALE
1078
a.. .:.
�r C
-T?r ►iw " ---Sar !61e !T . 4-4.x« ya-Y'X 5 ,; irds,
y1 _3� M 2 . _ Y'yRf� i 1LZZ'' -- }
. J
PIN: 2041686 PARCEL # : 95911116016
OCCUPANCY : OFFICE
ADDRESS: 3535 W 12 ST GREELEY
BOOK # :/VOT RECORDED
SALE DATE: 01/01/92 RECEPTION # : 0
SALE PRICE: $368 , 100 ADJ SALE PRICE:$818 , 000
GRANTOR: FABRICIUS THOMAS
GRANTEE: BROWN MARK & R. O. KRON
CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: GOOD BLDG SIZE: 9 , 672
PR/SF(IMPS) : $70 . 09 YEAR BLT: 1985
PR/SQ FT: $84 . 57 CLASS : D
LAND SIZE: 40 , 020 WALL HEIGHT: 8
LAND VALUE: $140 ,070 STORIES: 1
LAND/BLDG RATIO: 4 . 14 BSMT SIZE : 961
REMARKS: GRANTEE PURCHASED 45% INTEREST FOR 368 , 100
TERMS: 89 , 100 DOWN, ASSUME 45% OF 620 , 000
PRINCIPAL BALANCE AT 11% . NOTE WAS WRAPPED
NET INCOME 56,424/818,000 = 6.9%
All 10
9:30628
0
COMPARABLE SALE
1107
V-.? ) 'C
i li IL
it
„N
• 7+ •r
,
- r -
_ __ _ ::.
-
•
0 PIN: 2040086 PARCEL # : 95911115003
OCCUPANCY: OFFICE
ADDRESS: 3700 W. 10 ST
GREELEY
SALE DATE: 04/29/91
SALE PRICE: $356 , 000
GRANTOR: HSC INVESTMENTS
GRANTEE: WHITE, DANIEL & MARY
CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: GOOD
PR/SF( IMPS) : $44 . 17 BLDG SIZE: 2 , 880
PR/SQ FT: $123 . 61 YEAR BLT: 1980
LAND SIZE: 43 , 580 CLASS: D
LAND VALUE: $228 , 795 WALL HEIGHT: 9
LAND/BLDG RATIO: 15 . 13 BSMT SIZE: 0
REMARKS: NET INCOME 23,389/356,000 = 6.57%
• 11
930628
COMPARABLE SALE
118
_•
,I : •
- .-
Aliiih
. 9'2
•
t4Z r"7F'r.F7744'
a
PIN: 2291586 PARCEL # : 95912400016
OCCUPANCY: OFFICE
ADDRESS: 1770 25 AV
GREELEY
SALE DATE: 09/30/86
SALE PRICE: $774 , 900
GRANTOR: FOSTER,SHAW,FLACK
GRANTEE: SHIRAZI , SHAW,FLACK
CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: 0
- PR/SF(IMPS) : $61 . 14 BLDG SIZE: 11 , 200
PR/SQ FT: $69 . 19 YEAR BLT: 1979
LAND SIZE: 30 , 056 CLASS: C
LAND VALUE: $90 , 168 WALL HEIGHT: 10
LAND/BLDG RATIO: 2 . 68 BSMT SIZE: 0
REMARKS: SALE 1/3 INT 258 , 300
NET INCOME 65,358/720,000 = 9.08 Cap Rate
12
930628
SALES C OMP A R S SON APPROACH
The Sales Comparison or Market Data Approach is predicted on the principle
of substitution, which implies that a prudent purchaser would not pay more for
a property than it would cost to purchase a reasonably similar substitute. The
application of this approach yields an estimate of value for the property being
appraised by comparing it with similar properties that have recently sold, or are
currently offered for sale in the same or competing neighborhoods. With a
building such as the subject, sales are most frequently analyzed on the basis of
the sales price per square foot of gross building area. For comparative
purposes, in this report, the properties are being analyzed on the basis of price
per square foot of gross area.
The Sales Comparison Approach is probably the most easily understood by the
general public, since purchases typically familiarize themselves with the market
place and make informal comparisons of relative values and amenities. The com-
parability between two properties involves adjusting each sale or comparable
property with respect to differences in such elements of comparison as property
rights conveyed, financing terms, conditions of sale, market conditions (time) ,
location, and physical characteristics. Physical characteristics include, but
are not limited to, differences in building size, quality of construction, age
condition, architectural style, contributory value of the site, desirability of
site or view, or any other potential physical difference. These adjusted sales
prices, thus yield an indication of market value for the property being
appraised.
The Sales Comparison Approach is applicable when there is sufficient data
on recent market transactions to indicate value patterns; it is less useful when
data is scarce. Abrupt changes in economic conditions also limit the reliability
of the approach. The comparable used essentially represent all of the Greeley
transactions over the past three to four years involving buildings, more or less
similar to the subject. Motivation, therefore, becomes a factor when analyzing
these sales. Greeley does not stimulate much real estate interest in terms of
outside investors. The large majority of rental properties are bought and sold
locally, which tends to limit the potential market. Additionally, there is not
a large turn-over in the ownership of properties.
Sales Comparison Summary
Comparable Date of Sales Size Pricelsf
Number Sale Price
Subject 360
82 2/87 64,000 800 80.00
1034 7/91 54,600 897 55.30
184 6/87 55,000 1,120 49.11
13
930628
It should be noted no buildings of 360 square feet have sold. The small
size of the subject increases the value per square foot considerably. Com-
parables 1034 and 184 need to be adjusted upward 50 percent for size, quality and
condition to compare to the subject.
As you can see from the example 1440 sf is 4 times 360 square foot but only
contains twice the exterior footage of wall.
18 x 20 = 360 sf 76 Lineal foot of wall
36 x 40 = 1440 sf 152 Lineal foot of wall
•
14
9306418
COMPARABLE SALE
82
.."
1. "fir --.
I
6 ' 2F —i
‘si- cf,_ 01. El LilA ,,.,
II 1 ca
�i
PIN: 1800486 PARCEL #: 95901425010
OCCUPANCY: OFFICE
ADDRESS: 10 ST W 2305
GREELEY
SALE DATE: 02/02/87
SALE PRICE: $64 ,000
GRANTOR: PAWL, MICHAEL TRUSTEE
GRANTEE: HERR, ROBERT BLDG SIZE: 800
CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: LOW YEAR BLT: 1946
PR/SF(IMPS) : $67.00 CLASS: D
PR/SQ FT: $80.00 WALL HEIGHT: 12 FT
LAND SIZE: 2,600
LAND VALUE: $10 ,400
LAND/BLDG RATIO: 3 . 25
REMARKS:
15
930628
COMPARABLE SALE
1034
rt
If
I h:
PIN: 3252186 PARCEL #: 96108215016
OCCUPANCY: OFFICE
ADDRESS: 820 13 ST
GREELEY
SALE DATE: 07/01/91
SALE PRICE: $54,600
GRANTOR: LIMPITLAW, GUY B
GRANTEE: ANSON, R. RUSSELL
CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: 0
PR/SF( IMPS) : $44 .23 BLDG SIZE: 897
PR/SQ FT: $55 .30 YEAR BLT: 1962
LAND SIZE: 4,963 CLASS: C
LAND VALUE: $9 ,926 WALL HEIGHT: 10
LAND/BLDG RATIO: 5.53 BSMT SIZE: 0
REMARKS: SALE 54 ,600-FF&E 5000=$49 , 600 . PREVIOUS SALE
5/21/84 $72 ,000. ANNUAL DECREASE 4%
16
930628..
COMPARABLE SALE
184
14-"
L.
."_ _ ••- _
-.
lr �
t
.�.z, , si._ x.�ad "rr
PIN: 3830086 PARCEL # : 96120317008
OCCUPANCY: OFFICE
ADDRESS: 36 ST 1101
EVANS
SALE DATE: 06/30/87
SALE PRICE: $55,000
GRANTOR: CENTRAL BANK OF GREELEY
GRANTEE: ANDERSON, DEAN BLDG SIZE: 1,120
CONSTRUCTION-QUAL: LOW YEAR BLT: 1980
PR/SF(IMPS) : $32 .28 CLASS: C
PR/SQ FT: $49 . 11 WALL HEIGHT: 12 FT
LAND SIZE: 9 ,425
LAND VALUE: $18,850
LAND/BLDG RATIO: 8 .42
REMARKS:
17
9130628
Hello