HomeMy WebLinkAbout971528.tiffRESOLUTION
RE: THE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, 1997, WELD COUNTY, COLORADO - STIPULATE
VALUE
PETITION OF:
ROTTER KURT A & PATRICIA A
221 MULLIGAN LAKE DR
LONGMONT, CO 80504
DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY: PIN: R0183295 PARCEL: 120715300008 - MEA MLG-8 L8
MULLIGAN LAKE ESTATES
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, convened as
the Board of Equalization for the purpose of adjusting, equalizing, raising or lowering the
assessment and valuation of real and personal property within Weld County, fixed and made by
the County Assessor for the year 1997, and
WHEREAS, said petition has been heard before the County Assessor and due Notice of
Determination thereon has been given to the taxpayer(s), and
WHEREAS, the taxpayer(s) presented a petition of appeal of the County Assessor's
valuation for the year 1997, claiming that the property described in such petition was assessed too
high, as more specifically stated in said petition, and
WHEREAS, in lieu of the hearing scheduled before the Board of Equalization, a Stipulation
was agreed upon by the Assessor and said petitioner(s), and
WHEREAS, the petitioner(s) and the Weld County Assessor agree that the assessment and
valuation of the Weld County Assessor shall be, and hereby is, stipulated as follows:
Land
Improvements OR
Personal Property
TOTAL ACTUAL VALUE
ACTUAL VALUE
AS DETERMINED
BY ASSESSOR
$ 65,000
ACTUAL VALUE
AS STIPULATED
$ 65,000
263.911 215.000
$ 328.911 $ 280.000
971528
AS0038
RE: BOE - ROTTER KURT A & PATRICIA A
Page 2
WHEREAS, said Stipulation shall resolve all issues to have been determined by the Weld
County Board of Equalization.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld
County, acting as the Board of Equalization, that the Stipulation agreed to by the Weld County
Assessor and the above -named petitioner(s) be, and hereby is, accepted by the Board.
The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by
the following vote on the 31st day of July, A.D., 1997.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Assi
nt Cou
AO I ,(Q,(JU2 Cl
y Attorney �f
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
WEL COUNTY, COL RADO
c
-"GeoE. Baxter, Chair
EXCUSED
Barbara J. Kirkmeyer
W. H. Webster
971528
AS0038
1997
COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
WELD COUNTY
ASSESSOR'S PIN NUMBER R018329�
STIPULATION (As To Tax Year
RE PETITION OF
NAME:
ADDRESS:
1997 Actual Value)
ROTTER KURT A & PATRTCTA A
221 MULLIGAN TAKE DR
LONGMONT, CO 80504
* *
*
Petitioner(s),KURT A & PATRICIA A ROTTER and the Weld County
Assessor, hereby enter into this Stipulation regarding the tax year
1997 valuation of the subject property, and jointly move that the
Board of Equalization to enter its order based on this Stipulation.
Petitioner(s) and the Assessor agree and stipulate as follows:
1. The property subject to this Stipulation is described as:
7,8 MULLIGAN TAKE ESTATES
221 MULLIGAN LAKE DR MAD
2. The subject property is classified as RESIDENTIAL
property (what type).
3. The County Assessor originally assigned the following
actual value to the subject property for tax year 1997
Land
Improvements
Total
$ 65,000
$ 263,911
$ 328,911
971528
4. After further review and negotiation, the petitioner(s)
and Weld County Assessor agree to the following tax year 1997
actual value for the subject property.
Land
Improvements
Total
$ 65.000
$ 215,000
$ 280.000
5. The valuations, as established above, shall be binding
only with respect to tax year J997
6. Brief narrative as to why the reduction was made:
MARKET STUDY & APPRAISAL SUBMITTED.
7. Both parties agree that the hearing scheduled before the
Board of Equalization on TUESDAY. JULY 29, 1997 (date) at
10:30 a.m. (time) be vacated; or, a hearing has not yet been
scheduled before the Board of Equalization (check if
appropriate).
DATED this DC( day of JULY , 1997.
a,
Petitioner(s) or Attorney
Address:
LI3N r.c,,.A. 013 g0S-OL/
Petitioner(s) or Attorney
Address:
Telephone: 97S3'/&7? Telephone:
e'
County Assessor
Address:
1400 North 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Telephone:(303)353-3845 ext. 3656
NOTICE OF ADJUSTMENT
WhD c.
COLORADO
MEA MLG-8 LB MULLIGAN LAKE
ESTATES
OWNER: ROTTER KURT A & PATRICIA ACLE \Ic
TO
ROTTER KURT A & PATRICIA A
221 MULLIGAN LAKE DR
LONGMONT, CO 80504
07/02/1997
i 7.
LOG 718
PARCEL 120715300008
ACCOUNT R0183295
YEAR 1997
OFFICE OF COUNTY ASSESSOR
1400 NORTH 17th AVE.
GREELEY, CO 80631
PHONE (970) 353-3845, EXT. 3650
The appraisal value of property based on the appropriate consideration of the approaches to value requiredby
is law. The Assessor has determined that
your property should be included in the following category(ies):
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IS VALUED BY CONSIDERING THE MARKET APPROACH.
If your concern is the amount of your property tax, local taxing authorities (county, city, fire protection, and other special districts) hold budget
hearings in the fall. Please refer to your tax bill or ask your Assessor for a listing of these districts, and plan to attend these budget hearings.
The Assessor has carefully studied all available information, giving particular attention to the specifics included on your protest and has determined the
valuation(s) assigned to your property. The reasons for this defemination of value are:
DUE TO THE VOLUME OF APPEALS YOUR NOTICE OF DETERMINATION HAS BEEN DELAYED AND
POSTMARKED LATER THAN JUNE 30TH. IF YOU WISH TO APPEAL YOUR VALUATION FURTHER
PLEASE FORWARD A COPY OF YOUR NOTICE SHOWING THIS MESSAGE ALONG WITH YOUR DESIRE
TO GO TO THE C EQUALIZATION. THIS WILL ALLOW YOU AN EXTENSION
THROUGH MIDN HT -JULY 21ST.
WE HAVE CORRE THE DESCRIPTION OF THIS PROPERTY. IF THESE ITEMS
AFFECT YOUR VALUATION, THE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED ON THIS FORM. IF YOU HAVE
FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THESE NEW VALUES PLEASE CALL.
PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION
PETITIONER'S
ESTIMATE
OF VALUE
ASSESSOR'S VALUATION
ACTUAL VALUE
PRIOR TO REVIEW
ACTUAL VALUE
AFTER REVIEW
LAND
IMPS
65000
267128
65000
263911
TOTALS $ $ 332128
$ 328911
If you disagree with the Assessor's decision, you have the right to appeal to the County Board of Equalization for further consideration, 39-8-
106(1)(a), C.R.S. Please see the back of this form for detailed information on filing your appeal.
By:
15-DPT-AR
Form PR -207-87/94
WARREN L. LASELL
WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR
07/02/1997
DATE
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON REVERSE SIDE
YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL THE ASSESSOR'S DECISION
The County Board of Equalization will sit to hear appeals beginning July 1 and continuing through August 5 for real
property (land and buildings) and personal property (furnishings, machinery, and equipment) 39-8-104 and 39-8-
107(2), C.R.S.
APPEAL PROCEDURES:
If you choose to appeal the Assessor's decision you must appeal to the County Board of Equalization. To preserve
your right to appeal, your appeal must be POSTMARKED OR DELIVERED ON OR BEFORE JULY 15 FOR
REAL PROPERTY, AND JULY 21 FOR PERSONAL PROPERTY.
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Telephone (970)356-4000 Ext. 4225
NOTIFICATION OF HEARING:
You will be. notified of the time and place set for the hearing of your appeal.
COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION'S DETERMINATION:
The County Board of Equalization must make a decision on your appeal and mail you a determination within five
business days. The County Board must conclude their hearings by August 5.
TAXPAYER RIGHTS FOR FURTHER APPEALS:
If you are not satisfied with the County Board of Equalization's decision you must file within thirty days of the
County Board of Equalization's written decision with ONE of the following:
Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA):
Contact the BAA at 1313 Sherman, Room 315, Denver, Colorado 80203, (303)866-5880.
District Court:
9th Avenue and 9th Street, P.O. Box C
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4520
Arbitration:
WELD COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
915 10th Street, P.O. Box 758
Greeley, Colorado 80632
Telephone (970) 356-4000, Ext. 4225
If you do not receive a determination from the County Board of Equalization, you must file an appeal with the
Board of Assessment Appeals by September 11.
TO PRESERVE YOUR APPEAL RIGHTS, YOU MUST PROVE YOU HAVE FILED A TIMELY
APPEAL; THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND ALL CORRESPONDENCE BE MAILED WITH PROOF
OF MAILING.
PETITION TO THE COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
In the space below, please explain why you disagree with the Assessor's valuation. IN ACCORDANCE WITH 39-
8-106(1.5), C.R.S., YOU MUST STATE YOUR OPINION OF VALUE IN TERMS OF A SPECIFIC DOLLAR
AMOUNT. Attach additional documents as necessary.
O, a- _ lot drSct toi(o✓, 5fiII znCcr✓ce,Y
SI..NA1 UREOI PEI I IIDNER
7' RC -77
DA I E
Kurt and Patricia Rotter
221 Mulligan Lake Dr.
Longmont, CO 80504
970-535-4679
We are protesting the assessor's valuation for the following reasons.
1. Legal Description is incorrect.
You list the first floor as 1451 square feet. In actuality it is 1419. (See Murphy floor plan
of 1249, + addition of 14'8" x 11'6" sun room added in order to meet covenant
requirement of 1400 square feet).
You list the second floor as 1632 square feet. In actuality it is 1446. (See Murphy floor
plan. We did rearrange the master bath from that depicted but made no structural
changes).
You refer to 4 bathrooms. In actuality there are only 3 (See Murphy floor plan).
You refer to 2 wall ovens. In actuality, we have 1.
The garage refers to Attached of 846 and finished attached of 846. I do not understand
this description. Is it double counting the same space? We did alter the garage from the
plan -it is a 3 car (as you described) and is now side -facing. We need clarification to
determine if this description is accurate or not.
Landscaping is listed as Average plus $2,000. Is there some justification for the $2,000
above average? We shopped around on landscaping to find the most cost effective deal
and delayed some of the planned items because of the expense so I would like to question
that we should be assessed above average. It appears this is a subjective evaluation and
our assessment is that it is not justified.
2. Market evaluations used by assessor do not appear valid comparables.
We supplied 4 comparables of homes in our subdivision, sold in approximately the same
time, with comparable lots(non-lake front), comparable lot sizes, comparable descriptions
(2 story), and comparable square footage. Per the assessor, none of these comparables
was used in your assessment, instead a home located in another subdivision miles away
was used, as well as a home in our subdivision, not as comparable as the ones I supplied.
1. 223 Mulligan Lake Drive seems most comparable. It is the house next door to us.
The lot is the same size. It is not lake front. The house is a two story, brick and
siding as is ours. It is actually quite a bit larger than ours (3450 vs. our 2865) and sold
in 10/96 (one year newer than ours) for 319,900. This house is also much more
custom than ours (oak trim rather than painted, tile floors rather than vinyl, tile
counters rather than formica, built in cabinetry). I believe our house would be valued
at considerably less (older, 600 sq. ft. smaller, less custom finishes) yet you assess ours
higher at $328,911.
2. 107 Redwing Ct. is 3 houses away from us. It has a larger lot (1.6 vs. 1.4 acres). It is
a two story brick siding combo like ours. It is also a year newer (10/96) and sold for
$297,500. It is 2741 finished sq. feet so is slightly smaller than ours. Again, it has the
more custom finishes than our home.
3. 213 Mulligan Lake Dr. is 4 houses away from us. It was appraised last month at
$281,800. This is a two story (no brick ) home, 1 year older than hours, with a
considerably larger lot (2.4 acres, 1 acre larger than ours). The custom finishes in this
home are similar to ours.
4. 360 Hunter's Ridge Dr. is in the subdivision next to ours (1/4 mi. South). It sold in
1/97 for $248,100. This house has a larger lot (2 acres), is smaller (2276 sq. ft), is
older, and has a 2 car vs. a 3 car garage so is probably not as good a comparable as
the other 3 we supplied, but is still a good indicator of home values in the area.
The comparables used by the assessor in her market approach did not appear to be as
pertinent as the ones we supplied.
216 Willow Drive. I do not know where this property is located. It is not in our
subdivision, not in the subdivision directly south or us, nor the one directly southwest
of us. There are no other developments within several miles of us (the closest others
being on the north side of Mead, several miles away). My understanding is that when
market assessments are made, homes in close proximity should be used if available.
This does not appear to be the case for this home. Nonetheless, the info I obtained
from the assessor's office on this home shows that it sold in 4/96 (7 months before
ours) for $219,500, although it is considerably larger than hours (3069 compared to
our 2865). I do not know have information on how the lot size compares or if it is
lake front. Your assessed actual value on this home is $303,061, considerably less than
the assessed value you placed on our home of $328,911, even though this house is
much larger.
2. 105 Mountain View is in our subdivision but is on the opposite end of the lake (thus I
don't believe the lots are as comparable). This home sold in 7/95 for $228,500. It is
approximately a year older than ours. I do not have information on the exact lot size
but I believe it is considerably larger than ours. The house itself is larger (2991 sq. ft.)
Your assessed value on this home is $330,143.
You can see from the detailed information the comparables I provided appear to be better
selections for the market value assessment methodology. The homes I provided are closer
in age, proximity, description, and lot size/description than the ones used. I provided this
information to the assessor and question why these homes were not used in the valuation
approach. To not use the homes next door to me, and 3 doors away, yet choose a home
not even in our subdivision instead seems to be not a fair selection.
3. Lot actual value is incorrect.
This is listed as $65,000. In fact, we purchased it for $58,000 and do not believe the value
has gone up since purchase.
4. House values in our neighborhood are decreasing, not increasing.
As I explained to the assessor, an increase in one year of $71,391 in value is absolutely
unjustified. To justify an increase in value of this much, homes in our area would need to
be selling like hot cakes, and values increasing like crazy. In actuality, homes in our
subdivision are not selling at all. We have 6 homes in our subdivision for sale at the
moment that I know of Every single one of them has been on the market for at least one
year and the asking price on them is dropping, not increasing. I don't believe any homes
have sold in our subdivision for over a year, with the exception of pre -sales. In the
subdivision next to ours, the case is the same. There are houses there that have been on
the market for close to 2 years. Market value in our neighborhood is decreasing, or
remaining steady, certainly not increasing at a rate of 28%.
5. Wide range in quality of homes in our neighborhood does not appear to be considered.
Our neighborhood is somewhat uncommon in that we have homes in a wide variety of
values. We have homes that are worth close to $500,000 right next to homes worth
approximately $250,000. The assessor needs to understand that there are wide variations
in the quality of construction, type of customization, cost of different finishes, differences
between lake -front, and non -lake front. Because one home is appraised at more does not
mean the entire neighborhood has houses at that value. The home across the street from
us was for sale for $500,000 (then, 485,000, now 465,000). It has been on the market for
over a year. Although they may get close to their asking price for this home, I would
expect to get about half that if I were to try to sell my home now.
In summary, you assessed our home at $328,911. This value was based on an incorrect
description of the property and should at a minimum be adjusted to correct the errors in
the description. The market approach would appear to justify a lower valuation than that
used. As stated in our previous petition, we estimate the value of our home at
$246,919.42 based on the actual amount paid on 11-16-95, and the fact that home values
are remaining constant or depreciating since the time of purchase.
BUILDING CHARACTERISTICS Account # R0183295
Building #
Property Type
Occupancy
Quality
Condition
Built As
HVAC
Construction Type
Interior Finish
Roof Cover
Floor Cover
Foundation Type
Built As SF
Number of Rooms
Number of Baths
Number of Bdrms
Number of Stories 1
Story Height 8
Year Built 1995
Year Remodeled 0
% Remodeled 0
Adjusted Year Blt 1995
Effective Age
MH Make
Length/Width 0 X 0
Tag Length/Width 0 X 0
MH Skirting LF 0
MH Skirting Type
Capacity 0
Diameter 0
Horsepower 0
Height 0
Sprinkler SF 0
Perimeter
1
Residential
Single Family Residential
Average Plus
Average
2 Story
Forced Air
Frame Hardboard
Drywall
Composition Shingle
Allowance
3,083
10
3
4
Landscaping Quality/Dollars:
Average Plus $2,000
Nbhd
Nbhd Ext.
Nbhd Adj
19
E
1.25
80 0.00 $0.00
1902 0.00 $0.00
Masonry Veneer 1,902.00 $0.00
Open Floor Area 90.00 $0.00
First Floor HA 4-1' 1,451.00 '°"9 $0.00
Second Floor wy Co c> 1,632.00W'"' , $0.00
Bsmnt Conc 8 ft
Attached
Fin Attached
Open Slab
Ceiling
Wood Roof
1,247.00 $11.59 $14,453
Wall Oven
Garbage Disposal
Dishwasher
Cook Top
Water Heater
Bath 4 °'I1' 3
Bath 2
Laundry Sink
Sink Standard
Therapy Tub Average
Sink Bathroom
Bath 3
h c* -w4 S.
Humidifier
Gas Log Fireplace Ventl
Garage Door Opener
SubFloor Concrete Aver
Sprinkler System Avera
O Clear Sgl 1 Story Fire
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
$0
846.00 $16.64 $14,077
846.00 $3.51 $2,969
545.00 $4.06 $2,213
97.00 $3.21 $311
97.00. $11.07 $1,074
2.00 $1,508.46 $3,017
1.00 $238.84 $239
1.00 $634.81 $635
1.00 8527.96 $528
2.00 $0.00 $0
c 1.00 $0.00 $0
1.00 $0.00 $0
1.00 $0.00 $0
1.00 $0.00 $0
1.00 $2,000.00 $2,000
1.00 $0.00 $0
1.00 $0.00 $0
1.00 $250.00 $250
1.00 $1,500.00 $1,500
2.00 $250.00 $500
192.00 ($2.25) ($432)
1.00 $1,500.00 $1,500
1.00 $835.00 $835
Mkt Adj Cost/SF
Total RCN
Phys Depr%
Phys Depr $
RCNLD $
$85.60
$201,471
1%
$2,015
$263,911
Design Adj% 0.00%
Exterior Adj% 5.00%
Interior Adj% 0.00%
Amateur Adj% 0.00%
Func Obs%
Econ Obs%
OtherObs%
0.00
0.00
0.00
Thursday, July 10, 1997
Page 2
Sale Date
3/29/94
PROPERTY SALES HISTORY
Sales Price Heed Type Reception# Grantor
$60,,b(00 02382318
Account # R0183295
Thursday, July 10, 1997 Page 3
i i. section
case w:
UNIFORM RESIDENTIAL APPRAISAL REP
ESTIMATED SITE VALUE -5 60,000
Comments on Cost Approach (such as, source of cost estimate,
site value, square loot calculation. and for HUD. VA and FmHA, the
estimated remaining economic life of the properly): Marshall
Swift Cost Service local contractors 4
, 'f!
ESTIMATED REPRODUCTION COST -NEW -OF IMPROVEMENTS:
Dwelling 2,680 sq. Ft 05 70 00 - $ 187,600
Basement 1.322 5q. Ft o5 12.00 • 15.864
Porch Patio - 4,000
_suppliers were used in preparation of
Garage/Carport 792 Ste Ets5 20.00 • 15,840
report Land value was developed by
Tom Estimated Cost New -5 723,304
using the ombjhetsubject
Less_s_ai_abstractioo
2,94 Physical J Functional Paternal
Depreciation 6.47d I -S 6,828
e 1 red 1 1 a f e` 'i_tio ais
estimated areas.Physical depreciation is
Mlmrovements -5 215.020
estimated based on mtJdified age life
As-1oDepreciatedle,Value
i�'As-is" of Site Improvements -5 5 449
method.**
i INDICATED VALUE Sy COST APPROACH 1281 800) -$ 281,828
_
Remaining Economic Life: 68
ITEM I SUBJECT
CO M PARABLE NO.)
COMPARABLE NO .2
COMPARABLE NO.3
213 Mulligan Lake Dr.
Address Mulligan Lake
223 Mulligan Lake
DON 11
107 Redwing Ct.
DOM 189
360 Hunters Ridge Dr,
DOM 174
Proklmi toSubject
Bl
2 a
1/4 mile South
Sales Price
5 N/A
$ 319,900
"�" ;? 5 297,@0Q
=1$ 248 100
Price/GrossuIvv. Area
$ it
$ 72 � 92.I.95. pt,
$ 108.54 01. ti...;;:d.::: "5
109-01 [434:90
''. Data and/or
Verification Sources
Iaaapection
Inspection
MILS/County
Realtor
MLS/Count y
Realtor
MLS/County
Realtor
VALUE ADJUSTMENTS
DESCRIPTION
DESCRIPTION .pµ Mjmimmi
DESCRIPTION .His satos:mem
DESCRIPTION .cis =m
Sales or Financing
Concessions
\iµ ;(
`, j ,,.
Cony. Ln.
: No Pte.
Cony. Ln.
N9 Pts.
Cony. Ln.
No Pts
Date of sale/nme
57¢7'` ,� •'..t
10/18/96
10/30196
1/30/97
Location
Good
Good
Good
Goo¢
Leasehold/Fee SImpie
Fee Simple
Fee Simple
Fro isle_
Fee Simple
"* Site
2.394 acres
1.37 acres
_
1 581_acres
7.00 acres
'.-. View
Good
Good
Good
Good
Design and Appeal
2 -Sty
2 -Sty
2 -Sty
2 -Sty
: auatily(*Consiredon
Fr/Comp
Fr/ark/Comp
-3.000
-9,600
Fr/Brk/Comp
New
-3 000
-9 000
Fr/Brk/Conte
5 vra.
-3,000)
Ape
A4/E2
New
Condition
New Ex e 1
-6
New Ex 911
-¢ 000
Good
Above Grade
Total I &Ice, i dux
Total i Ems I ean,
told ) elms : Estes
Iola 1 Bdms I Senn
Room Count
8 1 4 4
19i 4 i2 5_
+4 500
9 i 4 !2.5
+4,500
8 4 12.5
+4,500
tGGp}'
cross Llving Area
2 Se. Ft.
4 Sq. Ft.
-27 lSU9
2,741 Sq. Ft.
-2,100
2.276 Sq. Ft.
+14,100
APPPPP: Basements Finished
AIJ Rooms Below Grade
1322 SF
unfinished
1653 s/f
unfinished
-2,000
1959 s/f
unfinished
-3,800
1114 s/f
unfinished
+1,200
qj Functional Utility
Good
Good
Good
Good
k: Heating/Cooling
GFWA/N/A
GEM /N
GFWA/None
GFWA/None
Energy Efficient Items
Thennowindow
Thermowindow
Thertaowindow
ThermoWindow
Garage/Carpot
3 -Ant
3 -Art Gar
3 -Art Gar
3-Att Gar
11 Porch, Paao, Deck,
Fireplace(s), etc.
Porch, Lg. Pat
FPI.
Entry, SmlPat
FPL
+1,000
Entry, Deck
FPL
Offset
Entry, SmlPat
FPL
1,000
Fence, Pool, etc.
Ldp
TractorGrade
+4,000
TractorGrade
+4.000
Ldp_.Spk
—2 000
Net AM. (totml
ararmir
5 38,100
] j IL $ 15.400
Ix I I S 15,800
Adjusted Sales Price
'. of Comparable
Gtzaeal9
$ 281.800
G>oealg_6};,
A•,' $ 282 100
UYe t 5s2fi�a
a?'61
�d"
$ 263.900
'. Comments on Sates Comparison (Including the subject property's ampatibility to the elghbortood, etc.): SIDLE` not ovary subject can be
ared to "ideal" sales the appraiser has rhnaen the hewt available sales from a market
search Every effort was made to conform to MIA and even stricter guidelines All cowerables
�. used are closed sal es unless otherwise noted **SEE ADDENDUM
ITEM
SUBJECT
COMPARABLE NO.
COMPARABLE NO. 2
COMPARABLE NO.3
Date, Price and Data
Source, for prior sales
m, WMin year of appreleal
12/93
$227,800
WeldCtyRecds
None
NewConstructi on
None
Newconstruction
None
Analysis of any current agreement of sale, option, or listing et Me subject properly and analyst, Owl prior sale, of subject and aomparabies within one year of the date at appraisal
'Iy In the subject's development the developer has not completed a drainace system agreed upon
J with the Town of Mead. The Town o€ Head has not annexed this development because of this.
INDICATED VALUE 55 SANE COMPARISON APPROACH $ 280,000
INDICATED VALUE 5y INCOME APPROACH (If Applicable) Estimated Market Rents /Mo. k Gross Rent Multiplier -S N/A
IL__I
This L appraisal is made 'ee Is' I_I Subject to Me nears, alterations, Inspections or conditions listed below U subject to completion per plans and specmanons.
Conditions of Appraisal: No conditions made. Standard state certification plus Appraisal Institute
Lion shown on addendum
Anal Reconala0on: Themarket data la of recant sales This aoprosch is considered reflective of
current market strength and is given the most weight The cost a pports the market but is
niven less rnnw lase -at nn Tank etc gunta1 ......coat.. ....1.e. a.w.. _ -..
MURPHY
1st Floor
2nd Floor
Total
1249 sq. ft.
1446 sq. ft.
2695 sq. ft.
ro0'a1
n/!v
Overall Dimensions
57'-4" x
Floorplans and Elevations are subject to change. Floorplan
dimensions are approximate. Consult working drawings
for actual dimensions and information. Elevations are
artists' conceptions.
c
M;D.
COLORADO
July 22, 1997
ROTTER KURT A & PATRICIA A
221 MULLIGAN LAKE DR
LONGMONT, CO 80504
Dear Petitioner(s):
CLERK TO THE BOARD
PHONE (970) 356-4000 EXT.4225
FAX: (970) 352-0242
915 10TH STREET
P.O. BOX 758
GREELEY, COLORADO 80632
Parcel No.: 120715300008 PIN No.: R0183295
The Weld County Board of Equalization has set a date of Tuesday, July 29, 1997, at or about the
hour of 10:30 a.m., to hold a hearing on your valuation for assessment. This hearing will be held
at the Weld County Centennial Center, 915 10th Street, Greeley, Colorado, in the First Floor
Hearing Room. A number of hearings have been scheduled at this time; peitioners will be asked
to sign in with the Clerk upon arrival, and cases will be heard on a first come / first heard basis.
You have a right to attend this hearing and present evidence to the Board in support of your
petition. The Weld County Assessor or his representative will be present. The Board will make its
decision on the basis of the record made at said hearing, as well as your petition, so it would be
in your interest to have a representative present. If you plan to be represented by an agent or an
attorney at your hearing, prior to the hearing you shall provide, in writing to the Clerk to the Board's
Office, an authorization for the agent or attorney to represent you. If you do not choose to attend
this hearing, a decision will still be made by the Board by the close of business on August 5, 1997,
and mailed to you on or before August 10, 1997.
Because of the volume of cases before the Board of Equalization, all cases shall be limited to 15
minutes, of which you will be allowed 10 minutes for your presentation. Also due to volume, cases
cannot be rescheduled. It is imperative that you provide evidence to support your position. This
may include evidence that similar homes in your area are valued less than yours or you are being
assessed on improvements you do not have. Please note: The fact that your valuation has
increased cannot be your sole basis of appeal. Without documented evidence as indicated above,
the Board will have no choice but to deny your appeal.
ROTTER KURT A & PATRICIA A - R0183295
Page 2
At least two (2) working days prior to your hearing the Assessor will have available, at your request,
the data supporting his valuation of your property.
Please advise me if you decide not to keep your appointment as scheduled. If you need any
additional information, please call me at your convenience.
Very truly yours,
BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
oriald D' Warde
Clerk to the Board
BY:
arol A. Harding
Deputy Clerk to the Board
cc: Warren Lasell, Assessor
Hello