The URL can be used to link to this page

Browse Search

Home My WebLink About20181547.tiffRESOLUTION RE: ACTION OF THE BOARD CONCERNING PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES FOR ACCOUNT NUMBER R6411486 - TAGAWA GREENHOUSES, INC. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, pursuant to Colorado statute and the Weld County Home Rule Charter, is vested with the authority of administering the affairs of Weld County, Colorado, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on the 14th day of May, 2018, at which meeting there were present the following members: Chair Steve Moreno, Commissioners Barbara Kirkmeyer, Sean P. Conway, Julie A. Cozad, and Mike Freeman, and WHEREAS, notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present has been given to the taxpayer and the Assessor of said County, with said Assessor, Christopher Woodruff, being represented by Brenda Dones, Assessor's Office, and taxpayer, Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc., being represented by Higgins, Hopkins, McLain, and Roswell, LLC, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has carefully considered the attached petition, and is fully advised in relation thereto. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, that the Board concurs with the recommendation of the Assessor and the petition be, and hereby is, denied, and an abatement or refund be allowed as follows: CORRECTION TO ASSESSED VALUATION ABATEMENT OR REFUND TAX YEAR $0.00 $0.00 2015 $0.00 $0.00 2016 CC: GZSRCCw(gO( otc), c .CAII), CxPPL (aPPL R£P OS/89 ((' 2018-1547 AS0099 TAX ABATEMENT PETITION - TAGAWA GREENHOUSES, INC. PAGE 2 The above and foregoing Resolution was, on motion duly made and seconded, adopted by the following vote on the 14th day of May, A.D., 2018. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WELD COUNTY, COLORADO ATTEST: yv� w jell4;14. Weld County Clerk to the Board BY: AP eputy Clerk to the Board ounty L orney Ste e Moreno, Chair arbara Kirkmeyer, Date of signature: O ((5(( o-Tem Sean P. C• nway Mike Freeman 2018-1547 AS0099 PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County: Weld Section I: Petitioner, please complete Section I only. Date: 11/6/2017 Month Day Year Petitioner's Name: Tagawa Greenhouses Inc. Petitioner's Mailing Address: 17999 Weld County Rd. 4 Brighton Colorado 80603 City or Town, State Zip Code Ci kil OACS" g i fr SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBERS) .e r—`PROPE TY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY 17999 Weld County Rd.4 n• REDate Received Use Assessor's or Commissioners' Date Stamp) Nov i 5 201? RECEIVED WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR NOV 1 3 2017 GREELEY, COLORADO WELD COUNTY iliftnettee45 < 147331201005 'uffTr� j t S RECEIVED WELD COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appro riate taxes and stales that the taxes assessed against the above property for properly tax yea r(s) 2015 and 2016 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe why the taxes have been levied erroneously or illegally, whether due to erroneous valuation, irregularity in levying, clerical error or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Overvaluation Petitioner's estimate of value: $ 1,500,000 ( 2015 ) and $ 11500,000 (2016 ) Value Year Value Year I declare, under penalty of perjury in the second degree, that thispetition, together with any accompanyingexhibits has been prepared or examined by me, and to the est of my aknowledge, iformatin ad belief, is or statements, true, correct, and complete. eft. William A. McLain (#6941) Attorney for Petitioner Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell. LLC 1777 S. Harrison St., Suite 750 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (303) 987-9870 email: wmclain@hhmrlaw.com If the Board of County Commissioners, pursuant to § 39-10-114(1), C.R.S., or the Property Tax Administrator, pursuant to § 39-2-116, C.R.S., denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes in whole or in part, the Petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals pursuant to the provisions of § 39-2-125, C.R.S., within thirty days of the entry of any such decision, § 39-10-114.5(1), C.R.S. I Section II: Original Corrected Abate/Refund ■ Assessor's Recommendation (For Assessor's Use Only) Tax Year AO/ 5 Tax Year C201(.0 Actual Assessed Tax Actual Assessed Tax ?5,500 19105-5-7q P3o21650 Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. gl, 510 j4'qco. vy if the request for abatement is based upon the grounds of overvaluation, no abatement or refund of taxes shall be made it an objection or protest to such valuation has been filed and a Notice of Determination has been mailed to the taxpayer, § 39-10-114(1)(a)(I)(D), C.R.S. Tax year: -O IS Protest? Tax year: a0I4 Protest? No ❑ Yes (It a protest was filed, please attach a copy of the NOD.) No ■ Yes (tf a protest was filed, please attach a copy of the NOD.) Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s): Assessor's or Deputy Assess . Signature 15-DPT-AR No. 920-66/16 2018-1547 FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY (Section III or Section IV must be completed) Every petition for abatement or refund filed pursuant to § 39-10-114, C.R.S. shall be acted upon pursuant to the provisions of this section by the Board of County Commissioners Of the Assessor, as appropriate, within six months of the date of filing such petition, § 39-1-113(1.7), C.R.S. Section III: Written Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner (Only for abatements up to $10,000) The Commissioners of County authorize the Assessor by Resolution No. to review petitions for abatement or refund and to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition for abatement or refund in an amount of $10,000 or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per schedule of personal property, in accordance with § 39-1-113(1.5), C.R.S. The Assessor and Petitioner mutually agree to the values and tax abatement/refund of: 4� Originaltr Corrected Abate/Refund Actual Tax Year messed Tax Year Actual Assessed Thic Note: The total tax amount does not include accrued interest, penalties, and fees associated with late and/or delinquent tax payments, if applicable. Please contact the County Treasurer for full payment Information. Petitioner's Signature Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature Date Date Section IV: Decision of the County Commissioners (Must be completed if Section III does not apply) WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on / / , at which meeting there were present the following members: Month Day Year with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the Petitioner and the Assessor of said County and Assessor (being present —not present) and Name Petitioner (being present —not present), and WHEREAS, the said Name County Commissioners have carefully considered the within petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto, NOW BE IT RESOLVED, that the Board (agrees —does not agree) with the recommendation of the Assessor and the petition be (approved --approved in part --denied) with an abatement/refund as follows: Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate/Refund Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate/Refund Chairperson of the Board of County Commissioners' Signature I, County Clerk and Ex -officio Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners in and for the aforementioned county, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County this day of Month Year County Clerk's or Deputy County Clerk's Signature Note: Abatements greater than $10,000 per schedule, per year, must be submitted in duplicate to the Property Tax Administrator for review. Section V: Action of the Property Tax Administrator (For all abatements greater than $10,000) The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to this abatement petition, is hereby ❑ Approved ❑ Approved in part $ ❑ Denied for the following reason(s): Secretary's Signature Property Tax Administrator's Signature Date 15-DPT-AR No. 920-66/16 May 24, 2018 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE: (970) 400-4225 FAX: (970) 336-7233 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 TAGAWA GREENHOUSES, INC. 17999 CR 4 BRIGHTON, CO 80603 RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER R6411486 Dear Property Owner: On May 14, 2018, the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition for abatement or refund of taxes and denied same. Pursuant to Section 39-2-125(f), C.R.S., you have the right to appeal this decision to the State Board of Assessment Appeals within thirty days. You may obtain the appropriate forms and instructions from: Board of Assessment Appeals, Department of Local Affairs, 1313 Sherman Street, Room 315 Denver, CO 80203 Phone: (303) 864-7710 Email: dola_baa@state.co.us. In preparation for appealing to the State Board of Assessment Appeals you may also go to the following state link to obtain any further information you may need to proceed, http://www.dola.state.co. us/baa/index. htm. Very truly yours, Chloe A. Rempel Deputy Clerk to the Board crempel@weldgov.com cc: Weld County Assessor William McLain — Higgins, Hopkins, McLain and Roswell, LLC Chloe Rempel From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Good morning, Chloe Rempel Thursday, May 24, 2018 10:25 AM 'wmclain@hhmrlaw.com' Petition for Abatement or Refund of Taxes - Denial Notice for R6265186 and R6411486 Tax Abatement Denial - R6265186.pdf; Resolution 2018-1546.pdf; Tax Abatement Denial - R6411486.pdf; Resolution 2018-1547.pdf On May 14, 2018, the Board of Weld County Commissioners considered your petition for abatement or refund of taxes and denied same. Pursuant to Section 39-2-125(f), C.R.S., you have the right to appeal this decision to the State Board of Assessment Appeals within thirty days. For information about how to obtain the appropriate forms and instructions, please see the attached letters. The final signed resolutions are also attached. If you have any questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincere regards, Chloe A. Rempel Deputy Clerk to the Board Weld County 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80631 tel: 970-400-4213 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. 1 WELD COUNTY PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES CERTIFICATE OF MAILING COMPANY CITY POSTAL FIRST NAME LAST NAME ADDRESS 1 STATE .CO CODE Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. 17999 CR 4 Brighton 80603 William McLain wmclain@hhmrlaw.c om I hereby certify that I have sent a Tax Abatement Petition denial letter in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County in the United States Mail, postage prepaid First Class Mail by letter as addressed on the attached list this 24th day of May, 2018. Chloe A. Rempel Deputy Clerk to the Board D c0 m O a D a N a U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com OFF IC Certified Mail Fee $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ ❑ Certified Mall Restricted Delivery • Adult Signature Required • Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ $ Postage $ ...1 Total Postage and Fees Postmark Here 5f( i g ...0 Sent To a-`rQc�----C?-teg..ha cs� sA Street Apt. No., or PO Box No. 1-7 lc,q CR 9 State, ZIP+4® • • ot* , r PS Form 5800, April 2015 •SN 7530-02-000-9047 =nt See Reverse for Instructions items 1, 2, and 3. a • U -J fa; C 0 -,^^ ^O ia a) L - -D Cri CD N N.?o. CA) U a� . a co -c w-- O D U U 4-1 0 4JC Q • ui a a) a 9- O 9- -c C O O T o E so oU) D, } 0 o co v 22 C n.� x w2 Tina • 1.12 >.CD N O a) L (1) a_ CC C O O)m CT) ❑ ❑❑ O ❑❑ .> a) O O a) U .C. 4-0 C O -D > _ a) 0 U 0 OT� V IIL V/ a) U C a) i a N a' a)a)a) a) 0 C .≥ .> a) a D — a) a) C -- g ctoo— — 0 C C-0 C CccO .{5.(3)_ -D -D O O U Cn CO a) a) Z (1)t1a)fa) 1 <<OO ri D X ❑ C 1. Article Addressed to: 4,4 O S dC 9590 9402 1714 6053 4712 94 Article Number (Transfer from service label) N CD c0 c0 m co N CI D a a Domestic Return Receipt r CO co L4:5 co AGREEMENT (To be signed in duplicate and client to retain one copy) The Parties to this agreement are Tagawa Greenhouses Inc., 17999 Weld County Rd 4, Brighton. CO 80603 ("Client") and William McLain, an attorney with Higgins, Hopkins. McLain & Roswell. LLC, 1777 S. HarriSon Street. Suite 750. Denver, Colorado 80210 ("Mr. McLain"). The Parties agree that Mr. McLain will represent Client with regard to the valuation for property tax purposes of the properties identified below, and for the tax years stated below pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 1. The property covered by this Agreement: Weld County Assessor's Parcel Nos. 147125000015 (Account Nos. M0139990. M6265286. P3789407, R6265186) and 147331201005 (Account No. R6411486), located at 17999 Weld County Rd 4, Brighton, CO 80603, and referred to in this Agreement as "the Properties". 2. The property tax years covered by this Agreement: 2015 and 2016. 3. Duties of Mr. McLain: Mr. McLain will use his best efforts to seek a reduction in the valuation of the Properties for the tax years stated above, and after negotiations with the Assessor or the Assessor's staff. by filing an appeal to the Board of County Commissioners. If Mr. McLain determines that there is a reasonable likelihood of success by doing so, he will appeal any adverse decision of the County Board of Commissioners to the Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals. Mr. McLain will provide such services faithfully and with due diligence. 4. Duties of Client: Client will provide Mr. McLain with such information as may be necessary in connection with the successful negotiation or appeals for the reduction of the valuation of the Properties. IN WITNESS WHREOF. the parties have executed this Agreement. in duplicate, this &q day ofJ&cj T. 2017. Tagawa Greenhouses. Inc. )14-30.AA-2 William A. McLain Chloe Rempel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Attachments: William McLain <wamclain@gmail.com> Thursday, May 10, 2018 7:50 PM Esther Gesick Brenda Danes; Millie Channell; Chris Woodruff; Chloe Rempel Re: Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. Petition for Abatement 2015-2016 (Weld County Account Numers R6411486 and R6265186 894P2D52_060956.pdf After reviewing the emails concerning our pending abatement petitions from both Jefferson and Weld Counties and some further legal research, it is apparent that the term "administrative denial" is not a term used in statute. In practice, it has been used in the past as a way of informing Counties that a Taxpayer would not be attending a CBOE hearing on a pending protest. That was our intent is using that term. In the case of Isbell Associates Inc. v. Jefferson County CBOC, 894 P.2d 52 (Colo. App. 1995), a copy of which is attached, Jefferson County moved to dismiss a Taxpayer's abatement petition because the Taxpayer had not attended the County's hearing. The Court of Appeals held that attendance at the County hearing was not a prerequisite to an appeal to the BAA. The emails I received, however, indicate that Jefferson and Weld Counties may well interpret our use of the term as an abandonment of our petitions, thus giving up any further appeals. That is and was not our intent. In order to avoid the confusion caused by our request, the request for an administrative denial is hereby withdrawn. Counsel will attend and present Taxpayer's case at the County hearings as scheduled. Bill McLain Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell 1777 S. Harrison Street, Suite 750 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (303) 759-0087 On Wed, May 9, 2018 at 2:36 PM, Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>wrote: Thanks Brenda! I've also asked staff to also include the Agent's email request in the digital packet. Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street P.O. Box 758'Greeley, CO 80632 1 894 P.2d 52 (Colo.App. 1995), 93CA2034, Isbill Associates, Inc. v. Jefferson County Bd. of County Com'rs /**/ div.c1 {text -align: center} /**/ Page 52 894 P.2d 52 (Colo.App. 1995) ISBILL ASSOCIATES, INC., Petitioner -Appellee, and Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colorado, Appellee, v. JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Respondent -Appellant. No. 93CA2034. Court of Appeals of Colorado, Fifth Division March 9, 1995 Page 53 Pamela J. Fair, Denver, for petitioner -appellee. Gale A. Norton, Atty. Gen., Stephen K. ErkenBrack, Chief Deputy Atty. Gen., Timothy M. Tymkovich, Sol. Gen., Mark W. Gerganoff, Asst. Atty. Gen., Denver, for appellee Board of Assessment Appeals of the State of Colo. Frank J. Hutfless, Jefferson County Atty., Brian L. Utzman, William A. Tuthill, III, Stanley Monroe, Carolyn D.C. Justice, Asst. County Attys., Golden, for respondent -appellant. OPINION METZGER Judge. Respondent, Jefferson County Board of County Commissioners (County), appeals the order of the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA) granting taxpayer, Isbill Associates, Inc., an abatement of property taxes. The County contends that the taxpayer failed to exhaust available administrative remedies because it did not attend the County's property tax abatement hearing. As a result, the County contends, the BAA lacked subject matter jurisdiction. We affirm the order. The facts are not in dispute. Taxpayer filed a timely petition with the County requesting a refund or abatement of real property taxes from 1990 through 1992 and the County set the matter for hearing. Although taxpayer received timely notice of the hearing, it did not attend or present evidence. However, the County Assessor did attend the hearing and presented evidence of the property's value. The County denied taxpayer's petition. Taxpayer then brought a timely appeal of the County decision to the BAA. The County filed a motion to dismiss taxpayer's appeal. The BAA denied the motion and determined that taxpayer was not required to attend the county hearing to bring an appeal. It then reversed the County's decision and granted the abatement. The County argues that the refund and abatement statutes require that the taxpayer attend the county hearing and present evidence in order to exhaust its administrative remedies before appealing the County's decision to the BAA. We disagree. It is true that a tribunal "lacks jurisdiction to grant relief if a plaintiff has not exhausted his administrative remedies." Hoffman v. Colorado State Board of Assessment Appeals, 683 P.2d 783, 785 (Colo.1984). However, as our supreme court held in City & County of Denver v. Lewin, 106 Colo. 331, 336, 105 P.2d 854, 858 (1940): [T]he legislature has plenary power on the matter of taxation, and it alone has the right and discretion to determine all questions of time, method, nature, purpose, and extent in respect of the imposition of taxes, the subjects on which the power may be exercised, and all the incidents pertaining to the proceedings from beginning to end.... Thus, we must examine the statutory scheme to determine the requirements the General Assembly has set out for taxpayers seeking an abatement of property taxes. Denver -Laramie - Walden Truck Line, Inc. v. Denver -Fort Collins Freight Service, Inc., 156 Colo. 366, 399 P.2d 242 (1965). Page 54 The statutory right to challenge property valuation under the abatement or refund procedures is found at §§ 39-10-114(1)(a)(l)(A) and 39-1-113, C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol. 16B). See Board of Assessment Appeals v. Benbrook, 735 P.2d 860 (Colo.1987). Section 39-10-114(1), C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol. 16B) requires the taxpayer to file a petition with the County. Section 39-1-113 requires that the County conduct a hearing before making a decision, but it contains no language mandating that a taxpayer be present at the hearing or produce any evidence. Section 39-10-114.5(1), C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol. 16B) permits the taxpayer to appeal the County's complete or partial denial of the petition to the BAA, not later than 30 days after the entry of the decision. Landmark Petroleum, Inc. v. Board of County Commissioners, 870 P.2d 610 (Colo.App.1993). Section 39-2-125(1)(f), C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol. 16B) provides that the BAA may conduct a de novo review of decisions from the County. Board of Assessment Appeals v. Valley Country Club, 792 P.2d 299 (Colo.1990). Here, the taxpayer timely filed the petition with the County and received notice of the hearing. After the mandatory hearing, taxpayer received notice of the County's denial of the petition and was informed that it had the "right to appeal this Board's decision to the State Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA)...." Taxpayer then filed a timely petition with the BAA. We conclude that these actions of taxpayer constituted full compliance with the statutory requirements. Thus, the taxpayer fully exhausted the available administrative remedies, and therefore, the BAA correctly determined that it had jurisdiction to consider the appeal. Sections 39- 2-125(1)(f) and 39-10-114.5, C.R.S. (1994 Repl.Vol. 16B). See Gunnison County v. Board of Assessment Appeals, 693 P.2d 400 (Colo.App.1984). The County argues that its effectiveness and efficiency will be weakened if taxpayers are not required to attend the county level hearing. While that may be so, our responsibility is to construe and apply the statute in accordance with its terms. Boulder County Board of Equalization v. MDC Construction Co., 830 P.2d 975 (Colo.1992). As well, a reviewing court must give deference to the interpretation given the statute by the agency charged with its administration. Howard Electric & Mechanical, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 771 P.2d 475 (Colo.1989). Here, the BAA noted that, while it did not necessarily agree with the way the statute was written, it concluded that the filing of a petition with the County was sufficient to preserve a taxpayer's appeal rights. The County relies on cases from other jurisdictions to support its argument that taxpayer failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. These include Boyd v. Supervisor of Assessments, 57 Md.App. 603, 471 A.2d 749 (1984) (jurisdiction was denied on appeal because taxpayer failed to appear at inferior administrative hearing and petition was dismissed) and Mullenaux v. State, 293 Or. 536, 651 P.2d 724 (1982) (taxpayer failed to appear at administrative hearing and petition was dismissed). However, while other jurisdictions may require a taxpayer to attend the initial administrative hearing and to present evidence, here, we cannot engraft such a requirement on the controlling statute. The order is affirmed. MARQUEZ and CASEBOLT, JJ., concur. Chloe Rempel From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Hi Esther, Brenda Dones Wednesday, May 9, 2018 2:14 PM Esther Gesick; wamclain@gmail.com; Millie Channell Chris Woodruff; Chloe Rempel RE: Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. Petition for Abatement 2015-2016 (Weld County Account Numers R6411486 and R6265186 I believe these hearings are scheduled before the BOCC on Monday, May 14th. We will appear and request the denial on behalf of the tax agent. Thanks! 13revtda Brenda Dones Chief Deputy Assessor Weld County Assessor's Office 970-400-3699 bdones@weldgov.com Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: Esther Gesick Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 1:54 PM To: wamclain@gmail.com; Millie Channell <mchannell@weldgov.com> Cc: Brenda Dones <bdones@weldgov.com>; Chris Woodruff <cwoodruff@weldgov.com>; Chloe Rempel <crempel@weldgov.com> Subject: RE: Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. Petition for Abatement 2015-2016 (Weld County Account Numers R6411486 and R6265186 Hi Millie, This is a typical request during BOE, but I'm not familiar with it through the Tax Abatement process. Can you advise on how we proceed? I've also copied Chris and Brenda if they need to chime in. Please advise. 1 Thanks! Esther E. Gesick Clerk to the Board 1150 O Street I P.O. Box 7581 Greeley, CO 80632 tel: (970) 400-4226 Confidentiality Notice: This electronic transmission and any attached documents or other writings are intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain information that is privileged, confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately notify sender by return e-mail and destroy the communication. Any disclosure, copying, distribution or the taking of any action concerning the contents of this communication or any attachments by anyone other than the named recipient is strictly prohibited. From: William McLain [mailto:wamclain@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, May 9, 2018 12:30 PM To: Esther Gesick <egesick@weldgov.com>; Millie Channel! <mchannell@weldgov.com> Subject: Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. Petition for Abatement 2015-2016 (Weld County Account Numers R6411486 and R6265186 To the Weld County Board of County Commissioners: Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc., requests that the Weld County Board of County Commissioners enter an administrative denial with regard to the Petition for Abatement for 2015 and 2016 for Weld County Account Numbers R6411486 and R6265186, rather than proceeding to hearing, so that Tagawa can seek a de novo hearing before the Colorado Board of Assessment Appeals. William A. McLain Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC 1777 S. Harrison Street, Suite 750 Denver, CO 80210 2 2/12/2018 Attn: Chris Woodruff RE: 2015/2016 Abatement received 11/13/2017 R6411486 Tagawa Greenhouses Inc 17999 Weld County Road 4 2015/2016 Assessors Value $308,651 SUBJECT: The subject property Is located on the southeast corner of County Road 4 and County Road 37 near Lochbuie. The business is Tagawa Greenhouses where they grow plants from seed and distribute to retail stores. This parcel is 56.28 acres with 4.5 acres being classified as commercial use and 51.78 acres used as irrigated agriculture land. The subject has 6 improvements and are greenhouses and commercial sheds that were built in the 1970's, 1980's and 1990. The improvements total 109,667 sf ft. Cost Approach: Using Marshall & Swift Valuation Services for the improvements plus the land value supports the $308,651 value for 2015/2016. Reconciliation: After a review of all approaches to value, with a primary emphasis on the Cost Approach, we recommend sustaining the Assessor's values for 2015/2016. Therefore, I would recommend a denial of the petitioner's request for abatement. WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Tax Year: 2015 Levy: 45.311000 Tax Dist: 2497 Map #: 2496 PUC: Initials: Assign To: WJM # of Imps: 6 LEA: 9A0511 Acct Type: Agricultural Created On: 09/16/1986 Active On: 04/02/2011 Inactive On: Last Updated: Owner's Name and Address TAGAWA GREENHOUSES INC 17999 COUNTY ROAD 4 BRIGHTON, CO 80603 - 9731 Property Address Street: 17999 4 CR City: WELD Sales Summary Sale Date Sale Price Deed Type Reception # Book Page # Grantor Legal 10874 L57 TO 64 IN NW4 31 1 65 ALSO THAT PT OF NE4NW4 BEG NE COR L57 S TO SE COR L63 E470' N24D10'W 430' N1D55'E 555' N9DW 380' TO N LN SEC W250' TO BEG EXC BEG 460'S OF NW COR OF SEC S200' E300' N20 Section Township Range Qtr 31 01 65 QtrQtr Government Lot Government Tract Subdivision Information Sub Name Block Lot Tract Land Valuation Summary Land Type Abst Cd Value By Net SF Measure # of Units Value/Unit Actual Val Asmt % Assessed Val Commercial 4180 Market 196,020 Acres 4.500000 $17,500.00 $78,750 29.00% $22,838 Class Sub Class Agricultural 4107 Market 192,971 Acres 4.430000 $956.00 $4,235 29.00% $1,228 Class P Sub Class I Agricuitural 4107 Market 1,486, Acres 34.119000 $838.95 $28,624 29.00% $8,301 224 Class P Sub Class II Agricultural 4107 Market 171,757 Acres 3.943000 Class P Sub Class IV Agricultural 4107 Market 404,585 Acres 9.288000 Class P Sub Class Ill Land Subtotal: 56.28 $526.91 $2,078 29.00% $721.90 $6,705 29.00% $120,392 $603 $1,944 $34,914 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 1 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Land Attributes Attribute Description Adjustment Improvement Valuation Summary Imp # Property Type Abst Code Occupancy Class Actual Value Asmt % Assessed Val* 1 Commercial 2230 Nursery/Greenhouse Metal Frame $40,698 29.00% $11,802 2 Commercial 4280 Comm Shed - Equipment Metal Frame $45,566 29.00% $13,214 3 Commercial 2230 Nursery/Greenhouse Metal Frame $27,123 29.00% $7,866 4 Commercial 4280 Storage Warehouse $58,270 29.00% $16,898 5 Commercial 2235 Comm Shed - Utility Metal Frame $732 29.00% $212 6 Commercial 2230 Nursery/Greenhouse Metal Frame $15,870 29.00% $4,602 Improvement Subtotal: $188,259 $54,595 Total Property Value Total Value: *Approximate Assessed Value $308,651 $89,510 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 2 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Imp #: 1 Property Commercial Quality: Fair Condition: CM -Typical Perimeter: 1456 % Complete: 100.00% Nbhd: Nbhd Ext: Nbhd Adj: 4901 00 1.0000 Occupancy Summary Landscaping $: 0.00 Occupancy: Nursery/Greenhouse Built As Summary Occ %: 100% Built As: Construction Type: Nursery/Greenhouse HVAC: None Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: 52992 # of Baths: 0.00 # of Bdrms: 0.00 # of Stories: 0.00 Story Height: 8 Sprinkler SF: 0 Capacity: 0 Year Built: 1973 Year Remodeled: 0 % Remodeled: Adj Year Blt: 1973 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Improvement Summary 0.0000 0 0 Improvement Units Improvements Value Summary Units Price RCN Actual Value IMPNO: 1 RCN Cost/SF: $3.84 Total RCN: $203,489.00 Phys Depr % 0.8000 Phys Depr $: $162,791.00 RCNLD $: $40,698.00 Design Adj: 0.0000 Exterior Adj: 0.0000 Interior Adj: 0.0000 Amateur Adj: 0.0000 RCNLD Cost/$:$0.77 Func Obs %: 0.0000 Econ Obs %: 0.0000 Other Obs %: 0.0000 Market/SF: $0.00 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 3 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Imp #: 2 Property Commercial Quality: Fair Condition: CM -Typical Perimeter: 546 % Complete: 100.00% Nbhd: Nbhd Ext: Nbhd Adj: 4901 00 1.0000 Occupancy Summary Landscaping $: 0.00 Occupancy: Comm Shed - Equipment Built As Summary Occ %: 100% Built As: Construction Type: HVAC: Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: # of Baths: # of Bdrms: # of Stories: Story Height: Sprinkler SF: Capacity: Built As: Construction Type: HVAC: Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: # of Baths: # of Bdrms: # of Stories: Story Height: Sprinkler SF: Capacity: Built As: Comm Shed - Utility None 896 0.00 0.00 1.00 8 0 0 Storage Warehouse None 2832 0.00 0.00 1.00 8 0 0 Comm Shed - Equipment Year Built: 1990 Year Remodeled: 0 % Remodeled: Adj Year BIt: 1990 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Year Built: 0.0000 0 0 1980 Year Remodeled: 0 % Remodeled: Adj Year Blt: 1980 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Year Built: 0.0000 0 0 1980 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 4 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local#: Parcel #: 147331201005 Construction Type: HVAC: Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: # of Baths: # of Bdrms: # of Stories: Story Height: Sprinkler SF: Capacity: None 5597 0.00 0.00 1.00 8 0 0 Year Remodeled: 0 Remodeled: Adj Year Blt: 1980 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Improvement Summary 0.0000 0 0 Improvement Units Units Price RCN Actual Value Improvements Value Summary IMPNO: 2 RCN Cost/SF: $20.67 Total RCN: $192,748.00 Phys Depr % 0.7636 Phys Depr$: $147,182.00 RCNLD $: $45,566.00 Design Adj: 0.0000 Exterior Adj: 0.0000 Interior Adj: 0.0000 Amateur Adj: 0.0000 RCNLD Cost/$:$4.89 Func Obs %: 0.0000 Econ Obs %: 0.0000 Other Obs %: 0.0000 Market/SF: $0.00 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 5 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Imp #: 3 Property Commercial Quality: Fair Condition: CM -Typical Perimeter: 966 % Complete: 100.00% Nbhd: Nbhd Ext: Nbhd Adj: 4901 00 1.0000 Occupancy Summary Landscaping $: 0.00 Occupancy: Nursery/Greenhouse Built As Summary Occ %: 100% Built As: Construction Type: Nursery/Greenhouse HVAC: None Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: 24702 # of Baths: 0.00 # of Bdrms: 0.00 # of Stories: 0.00 Story Height: 10 Sprinkler SF: 0 Capacity: 0 Year Built: 1988 Year Remodeled: 0 % Remodeled: Adj Year Blt: 1988 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Improvement Summary 0.0000 0 0 Improvement Units Improvements Value Summary Units Price RCN Actual Value IMPNO: 3 RCN Cost/SF: $5.49 Total RCN: $135,614.00 Phys Depr % 0.8000 Phys Depr $: $108,491.00 RCNLD $: $27,123.00 Design Adj: 0.0000 Exterior Adj: 0.0000 Interior Adj: 0.0000 Amateur Adj: 0.0000 RCNLD Cost/$:$1.10 Func Obs %: 0.0000 Econ Obs %: 0.0000 Other Obs %: 0.0000 Market/SF: $0.00 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 6 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Imp #: 4 Property Commercial Quality: Good Condition: CM -Typical Perimeter: 332 % Complete: 100.00% Nbhd: 4901 Nbhd Ext: 00 Nbhd Adj: 1.0000 Occupancy Summary Landscaping $: 0.00 Occupancy: Storage Warehouse Built As Summary Occ %: 100% Built As: Light Commercial -Commodity Year Built: 1988 Warehouse Construction Type: Year Remodeled: 0 HVAC: None Interior Finish: % Remodeled: 0.0000 Roof Cover: Adj Year Blt: 1988 Built As SF: 6888 Effective Age: # of Baths: 0.00 # of Bdrms: 0.00 # of Stories: 1.00 Story Height: 12 Sprinkler SF: 0 Diameter: 0 Capacity: 0 Height: 0 Built As: Light Commercial -Commodity Year Built: 1990 Warehouse Construction Type: Year Remodeled: 0 HVAC: Space Heater Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: 640 # of Baths: 0.00 # of Bdrms: 0.00 # of Stories: 1.00 Story Height: 8 Sprinkler SF: 0 Capacity: 0 % Remodeled: 0.0000 Adj Year Blt: 1990 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: 0 0 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 7 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Improvement Summary Improvement Units Units Price RCN Actual Value Improvements Value Summary IMPNO: 4 RCN Cost/SF: $27.15 Total RCN: $204,385.00 Phys Depr % 0.7149 Phys Depr$: $146,115.00 RCNLD $: $58,270.00 Design Adj: 0.0000 Exterior Adj: 0.0000 Interior Adj: 0.0000 Amateur Adj: 0.0000 RCNLD Cost/$:$7.74 Func Obs %: 0.0000 Econ Obs %: 0.0000 Other Obs %: 0.0000 Market/SF: $0.00 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 8 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account #: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Imp #: 5 Property Commercial Quality: Fair Condition: CM -Typical Perimeter: 93 % Complete: 100.00% Nbhd: Nbhd Ext: Nbhd Adj: 4901 00 1.0000 Occupancy Summary Landscaping $: 0.00 Occupancy: Comm Shed - Utility Built As Summary Occ %: 100% Built As: Construction Type: Comm Shed - Utility HVAC: None Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: 480 # of Baths: 0.00 # of Bdrms: 0.00 # of Stories: 1.00 Story Height: 8 Sprinkler SF: 0 Capacity: 0 Year Built: 1990 Year Remodeled: 0 % Remodeled: Adj Year BIt: 1990 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Improvement Summary 0.0000 0 0 Improvement Units Units Price RCN Actual Value Improvements Value Summary IMPNO: 5 RCN Cost/SF: $7.62 Total RCN: $3,658.00 Phys Depr % 0.8000 Phys Depr $: $2,926.00 RCNLD $: $732.00 Design Adj: 0.0000 Exterior Adj: 0.0000 Interior Adj: 0.0000 Amateur Adj: 0.0000 RCNLD Cost/$:$1.53 Func Obs %: 0.0000 Econ Obs %: 0.0000 Other Obs (1/0: 0.0000 Market/SF: $0.00 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 9 of 13 WELD COUNTY ASSESSOR PROPERTY PROFILE Account#: R6411486 Local #: Parcel #: 147331201005 Imp #: 6 Property Commercial Quality: Fair Condition: CM -Typical Perimeter: 760 Complete: 100.00% Nbhd: Nbhd Ext: Nbhd Adj: 4901 00 1.0000 Occupancy Summary Landscaping $: 0.00 Occupancy: Nursery/Greenhouse Built As Summary Occ %: 100% Built As: Construction Type: Nursery/Greenhouse HVAC: None Interior Finish: Roof Cover: Built As SF: 14640 # of Baths: 0.00 # of Bdrms: 0.00 # of Stories: 1.00 Story Height: 8 Sprinkler SF: 0 Capacity: 0 Year Built: 1973 Year Remodeled: 0 % Remodeled: Adj Year BIt: 1973 Effective Age: Diameter: Height: Improvement Summary 0.0000 0 0 Improvement Units Improvements Value Summary Units Price RCN Actual Value IMPNO: 6 RCN Cost/SF: $5.42 Total RCN: $79,349.00 Phys Depr % 0.8000 Phys Depr $: $63,479.00 RCNLD $: $15,870.00 Design Adj: 0.0000 Exterior Adj: 0.0000 Interior Adj: 0.0000 Amateur Adj: 0.0000 RCNLD Cost/$:$1.08 Func Obs %: 0.0000 Econ Obs %: 0.0000 Other Obs %: 0.0000 Market/SF: $0.00 Monday, February 12, 2018 Page 10 of 13 Property Report Page 1 of 14 Weld County PROPERTY PORTAL Property Information (970) 400-3650 Technical Support (970) 400-4357 Account: R6411486 February 20, 2018 Account Information Account Parcel Space Account Tax Buildings Actual Assessed Type Year Value Value R6411486 147331201005 Agricultural 2018 6 Legal 308,353 89,410 10874 L57 TO 64 IN NW4 31 1 65 ALSO THAT PT OF NE4NW4 BEG NE COR L57 S TO SE COR L63 E470' N24D10'W 430' N1D55'E 555' N9DW 380' TO N LN SEC W250' TO BEG EXC BEG 460'S OF NW COR OF SEC S200' E300' N200' W300' TO BEG EXC UPRR RES (10 1.86R) Subdivision Block Lot Land Economic Area Property Address Property City 17999 COUNTY ROAD 4 WELD GREEN HOUSES Zip Section Township Range 31 01 65 Owner(s) Account Owner Name Address R6411486 TAGAWA GREENHOUSES INC 17999 COUNTY ROAD 4 BRIGHTON, CO 806039731 Document History https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 2 of 14 No documents found. Building Information Building 1 AccountNo R6411486 ID Type Building ID Occupancy 1 Nursery/Greenhouse NBHD Occupancy Bedrooms Baths Rooms Complete 1 Commercial 4901 Nursery/Greenhouse 100 0 0 0 ID 1 ID Exterior 1 Roof Cover Gable Square Condo Ft SF Interior HVAC Perimeter Units None 1456 0 Total Finished Basement Basement SF SF Unit Type Make Garage Carport Balcony Porch SF SF SF SF 52,992 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Built As Details for Building 1 II, ID Built As Square Year Stories Length Width Ft Built 1.00 Nursery/Greenhouse 52,992 1973 0 0 0 No Additional Details for Building 1 Building 2 https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 3 of 14 AccountNo Building ID Occupancy R6411486 2 ID Type I � Comm Shed - Equipment NBHD Occupancy Complete Bedrooms Baths Rooms Comm 2 Commercial 4901 Shed - 100 0 0 0 Equipment ID Exterior 2 Roof Cover Gable ID Square Condo Ft SF 2 9,325 0 Interior HVAC Perimeter Units None 546 0 Total Finished Basement Basement SF SF Unit Type Make Garage Carport Balcony Porch SF SF SF SF 0 0 0 0 0 0 Built As Details for Building 2 I ID Built As Square Ft 2.00 Storage Warehouse 2.00 Comm Shed - Equipment 2.00 Comm Shed - Utility Year Built Stories Length Width 2,832 1980 1 0 0 5,597 1980 1 0 0 896 1990 1 0 0 No Additional Details for Building 2 AccountNo R6411486 Building 3 Building ID Occupancy 3 Nursery/Greenhouse https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 4 of 14 ID Type NBHD Occupancy Complete Bedrooms Baths Rooms 3 Commercial 4901 Nursery/Greenhouse 100 0 0 0 ID Exterior Roof Cover 3 Gable Interior HVAC Perimeter Units None 966 0 Unit Type Make Square Condo Total Finished Garage Carport Balcony Porch ID Ft SF Basement Basement SF SF SF SF SF SF 3 24,702 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Built As s Details for Building 3 ID Built As Square Year Stories Length Width Ft Built 3.00 Nursery/Greenhouse 24,702 1988 0 0 0 No Additional Details for Building 3 AccountNo R6411486 ID Type Building 4 Building ID Occupancy 4 Storage Warehouse 0/0 NBHD Occupancy Complete 4 Commercial 4901 ID 4 Storage Warehouse 100 Bedrooms Baths Rooms 0 Exterior Roof Interior HVAC Perimeter Units Cover Gable None 332 0 0 0 Unit Make Type https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 5 of 14 I ID Square Condo Ft SF Total Finished Basement Basement SF SF Garage Carport Balcony Porch SF SF SF SF 4 7,528 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Built As Details for Building 4 Square Year I ID Built As Ft Built Stories Length Width Light 4.00 Commercial 6,888 1988 1 0 0 Commodity Wareho Light 4.00 Commercial 640 1990 1 0 0 Commodity Wareho No Additional Details for Building 4 Building 5 AccountNo Building ID R6411486 ID I Type Occupancy 5 Comm Shed - Utility 0/0 NBHD Occupancy Complete Bedrooms Baths Rooms Comm 5 Commercial 4901 Shed - 100 0 0 0 Utility ID ; Exterior 5 Roof Cover Gable Interior HVAC Perimeter Units Unit Make None 93 0 Square Condo Total Finished Garage Carport Balcony Porch ID Ft SF Basement Basement SF SF SF SF SF SF 5 480 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 6 of 14 Built As Details for Building 5 ID Built As 5.00 Comm Shed - Utility Square Year Stories Length Width Ft Built 480 1990 1 0 0 No Additional Details for Building 5 AccountNo R6411486 Building 6 Building ID Occupancy 6 Nursery/Greenhouse ID Type NBHD Occupancy Complete Bedrooms Baths Rooms 6 Commercial 4901 Nursery/Greenhouse 100 0 0 0 ID 6 Exterior Roof Interior HVAC Cover Perimeter Units Unit Type None 760 0 Make Total Finished ID Square Condo Basement Basement Garage Carport Balcony Porch Ft SF SF SF SF SF SF SF 6 14,640 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Built As Details for Building 6 ID Built As 6.00 Nursery/Greenhouse Square Year Ft Built Stories Length Width 14,640 1973 1 0 0 No Additional Details for Building 6 https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 7''of 14 Valuation Information Type Code Description Actual Value Assessed Value Acres Land SqFt Improvement 2230 SPECIAL PURPOSE- IMPROVEMENTS 85,767 24,870 0 000 0 Improvement 2235 WAREHOUSE/STORAGE- IMPS 1,044 300 0 000 0 Improvement 4280 ALL OTHER AG IMPS 84,567 24,520 0 000 0 Land 4107 LSPRINKLER IRRIGATED 46,975 13,620 51 780 2,255,537 Land 4180 ALL OTHER AGRICULTURAL LAND 90,000 26,100 4 500 196,020 Totals - - 308,353 89,410 56 280 2,451,557 Tax Authorities Tax Area District ID District Name Current Mill Levy 2497 0700 AIMS JUNIOR COLLEGE 6 317 2497 0302 COLORADO WATER (CCVV) 1 800 2497 0309 CENTRAL COLORADO WATER SUBDISTRICT (CCS) 1 353 2497 1050 HIGH PLAINS LIBRARY 3 256 2497 0509 HUDSON FIRE 6 039 2497 0203 SCHOOL DIST RE3J- KEENESBURG 20 053 2497 0100 WELD COUNTY 15 800 2497 1209 WEST ADAMS CONSERVATION 0 000 Total - - 54 618 Photo https //propertyreport co weld co us/7account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 8 of 14 https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 9 of 14 https://propetlyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account—R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 10 of 14 https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 12 of 14 O O rn 128.0' Greenhouse Range 1 Blt 1972 Metal frame/Wood Truss Fiberglass sidewalls Triple Wall Polycarbonate Roof Covering o, o o, 8 �o 19200.0 sf 8WH 214' Bldg #1 (005) Total 52,992 sq ft Greenhouse Greenhouse Range 3 Range 4 Blt 1973 Blt 1976 200' Metal frame Metal Frame lberglass sides Fiberglass sides & Roof Double Polycarbonate 40 Roof Covering 32592.0 sf 8 WH 82' 8 WH 132' Building 1 Page 1 First Floor 168.0 sf Utility Shed 5' First Floor 728.0 sf Utility Shed a Bldg 82 (005) 55 13 36.0' 16 0' First Floor 8429.0 sf Storage Warehouse Blt 1973 Class S 8' WH Boiler House Cooler 58' Building 2 Page 1 https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 13 of 14 O N. u) Ln N 15' 142.0' Bldg #3 Greenhouse 22152.0 sf Blt 1988 Metal Frame Fiberglass sides Double Polycarbonate Range 5 Building 3 Page 1 156.0' N N 5' Bldg 4 20' First Floor 640.0 sf Office Break m Room Storage Warehouse Blt 1988 Class S 12' wh First Floor 6888.0 sf 25' 82' Building 4 Page 1 op op https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Property Report Page 14 of 14 ' -I 15.5' First Floor 480.5 sf 8' WH Pump House Bldg 5 Building 5 Page 1 90' Range 2 First Floor 13320.0 sf Blt 1973 Metal Frame Steel Bow Double Polyethylene Fiberglass Sides 115 30.5 1320.0 sf 132 Building 6 Page 1 Copyright © 2018 Weld County, Colorado. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy & Disclaimer I Accessibility Information https://propertyreport.co.weld.co.us/?account=R6411486 2/20/2018 Stephanie Frederick From: Sent: To: Subject: William McLain <wamclain@gmail.com> Wednesday, February 21, 2018 2:35 PM Stephanie Frederick Re: Weld County Tax Abatement Notice of Hearing Thank you for your email advising me of the setting of the Commissioners' hearing of Tagawa Greenhouses' 2015 and 2016 Petition for Abatement for schedule number R6411486. You advised that the hearing was scheduled for Monday, March 19, 2018, at 9:00 am. I would like to know if the hearing is scheduled for a specific amount of time so we can plan accordingly. William A. McLain Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC 1777 S. Harrison Street, Suite 750 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (303) 759-0087 On Wed, Feb 21, 2018 at 11:32 AM, Stephanie Frederick <sfrederick@weldgov.com>wrote: Dear William McLain, This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petition for abatement or refund of taxes on the property with schedule number R6411486 at 17999 CR 4, Brighton, Colorado 80603. Please see the attached letter for more information, and reply to this email for confirmation of receipt. Sincere Regards, Stephanie Frederick Deputy Clerk to the Board Clerk to the Board 1150 "O" Street, Greeley, Colorado 80631 970-400-4219 1 CLERK TO THE BOARD PHONE: (970) 400-4219 FAX: (970) 336-7233 1150 O STREET P.O. BOX 758 GREELEY, COLORADO 80632 February 21, 2018 Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. 17999 CR 4 Brighton, Colorado 80603 RE: SCHEDULE NUMBER R6411486 Dear Property Owner: This is to advise you that the Weld County Board of Commissioners will hear your petition for abatement or refund of taxes on the property described as: 17999 CR 4, Brighton, Colorado 80603. The meeting is scheduled for Monday, March 19, 2018, at 9:00 a.m., in the Chambers of the Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, Colorado, Weld County Administration Building, 1150 O Street, Assembly Room, Greeley, Colorado 80631. The Assessor is recommending that the Board deny your petition. You are not required to be present at this hearing; however, this is your opportunity to have your position heard, particularly if your position is opposed to the Assessor's recommendation. If you intend to submit any documentation in support of your position for this hearing, all such documentation must be submitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board and to the Weld County Assessor's Office at least seven calendar days prior to the meeting date in order for it to be considered at the scheduled hearing. If you have any questions concerning this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at (970) 400-4219. Stephanie Frederick Deputy Clerk to the Board cc: Assessor William A. McLain, Higgins, Hopkins, McLain, and Roswell, LLC WELD COUNTY PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES CERTIFICATE OF MAILING FIRST NAME LAST NAME COMPANY ADDRESS 1 CITY STATE POSTAL CODE Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. 17999 CR 4 Brighton CO 80603 William McLain Higgins, Hopkins, McLain, Roswell, LLC wmclain@hhmrlaw.co m I hereby certify that I have sent a notification of hearing date letter in accordance with the notification requirements of Weld County in the United States Mail, pastarepaid First Class Mail by letter as addressed on the attached list hi : 21 day of February, 2018. ,1e,er,;4, Stephanie Frederick Deputy Clerk to the Board a C7 U.S. Postal Service' CERTIFIED MAIL° RECEIPT Domestic Mail Only For delivery information, visit our website at www.usps.com® :- <as -.i t:= Certified Mail Fee $ Extra Services & Fees (check box, add fee as appropriate) ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ ❑ Adult Signature Required $ ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery $ Postage Total Postage and Fees SertL To Postmark Here ao►W4 LjyetkouSeb Street4nd Apt. No., or P Box No. , State, ZIP+4 S. rs -D• PS Fo►;.i 3800, April 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9047 See Reverse for Instructions SENDER: COMPLETE THIS SECTION • Complete items 1, 2, and 3. • Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. • Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: 0.,10`. 11. ,rc.c��A� r1�1 c. . J flccag erg , Co. StxDo� i i HI m III i 9590 9402 1714 6053 4709 07 i COMPLETE THIS SECTION ON DELIVERY A. Signature eceived b'f(Printed'dme) B Agent ❑ Addressee C. Date of Delivery -- 23 H D. Is delivery address different from item 1? ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: -as tto 2. Article Number (transfer from service label) 7016 0750 0000 7938 350 PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 3. Service Type ❑ Adult Signature ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery ❑ Certified Mail® ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery ❑ Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery flail 7 Ian Restricted Delivery 0) ❑ Priority Mail Express® ❑ Registered MailTM ❑ Registered Mail Restricted Delivery ❑ Return Receipt for Merchandise ❑ Signature confirmationTM ❑ Signature Confirmation Restricted Delivery Domestic Return Receipt Chloe Rempel From: Sent: To: Subject: William McLain <wamclain@gmail.com> Thursday, March 8, 2018 3:27 PM Chloe Rempel; Millie Channell; Lori Lovato Tagawa greenhouse abatement hearings Petitioner Tagawa Greenhouses respectfully requests that the abatement hearings set for March 19th be reset for May 14th due to the unavailability of counsel before that date. William A. McLain Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC 1777 S. Harrison St. Ste. 750 Denver, CO 80210 Telephone: (303) 759-0087. , 1 Higgins, Hopkins, McLain & Roswell, LLC April 24, 2018 Weld County Board of County Commissioners Weld County Administration Building 1150 O Street Greeley, CO 80632 RECEIVED MAY 01 2018 COMMISSIONERS Re: Tagawa Greenhouses, Inc. Abatement Hearing Exhibits, Account Nos. R6411486 and R6265186 Dear Board Members: By letter of March 6, 2018, Taxpayer filed exhibits for the above -captioned matters. Attached is a new page 60 of those exhibits as well as additional pages 60.1 through 60.3 and page 63.1. Sincerely, William A. McLain cc: Weld County Assessor, with exhibits. Hi II iV1'(I:I ,NI1,•DIAA!K(.O•fill= I•I,‘,I' i)�llI \i\l\\.{i1111?r1.l\)..0 �!I Cost Approach • The DPT recommends use of the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service (M&S) in developing a cost approach value. See, page 60.1-60.3. • Weld County used the M&S online service, but incorrectly classified the improvements as "average." • An average steel frame greenhouse in M&S has a glass or fiberglass covering whereas, fair and low cost greenhouses have double polyethylene covers. See Page 63.1. The roof covering is the principal item that affects the type of greenhouse. Because of the difference in cost between a glass or fiberglass roof covering and a covering of double polyethylene, as well as the fact that electrical, lighting and water service which are affixed to the real property for proper utilization of such articles for growing plants in the greenhouses are personal property to be deducted from the real property value (See Page 61), the greenhouses here are more like an interpolation between fair and low cost than average. • The Marshall & Swift values greenhouses in Section 17 of Its Calculator Method and also values the greenhouse support buildings in Section 17. • Since the support buildings also have double polyethylene roof covering, which is recognized by Marshall & Swift as a determining factor in classifying property, the support buildings should be classified as low cost, one step below "average." 60 5.77 While consideration must be given to the cost, market, and income approaches to appraisal, when valuing agricultural structures there generally is insufficient data for the application of the market or income approaches. Therefore, the Division recommends use of the cost approach when determining values for agricultural structures. Sales data may be used for specific types of agricultural structures where appropriate. Examples may include grain bins and railroad boxcars. Sales of agricultural parcels that include land in the transaction must not be used to extract values associated with specific buildings since the extracted values would be highly speculative. Any income pertaining to agricultural properties is generally attributed to the land and is not directly attributable to agricultural structures. Therefore, insufficient data exist to rely on an income approach when valuing agricultural structures. RECOMMENDED COST SERVICE The Division recommends counties use the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service for the following reasons: 1. Use of a single cost service promotes uniformity of agricultural structures' valuations among counties. 2. Statewide equalization will result from uniform valuations. 3. Marshall & Swift is recognized as an authoritative source within the appraisal profession. 4. It provides for different types of construction (classes A -B -C -D -S). 5. It provides uniform definitions of quality (excellent -good -average -low cost). 6. It provides height multipliers. 7. It provides area/perimeter multipliers. 8. It provides refinements in cost to the general descriptions for various building components. 9. Costs are inclusive of direct and indirect cost, i.e., materials, labor, contractor's overhead and profit, design fees, and permits, etc. Counties may develop and use their own cost tables if they are well documented, supportable, and consistent with those used by the surrounding counties to ensure equalization of values. Whenever local cost tables are used and they differ from surrounding counties, supporting documentation must be submitted. 15-AS-DPT ARL VOL 3 1-89 Rev 1-15 5.78 REPLACEMENT OR REPRODUCTION COST The cost to construct an improvement, including agricultural structures, as of the appraisal date may be developed as the cost to reproduce the improvement or the cost to replace it. The following definitions, from The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2010, are to be considered in selecting either reproduction or replacement cost: 1. Reproduction Cost: The estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of the effective date of the appraisal, an exact duplicate or replica of the building being appraised, using the same materials, construction standards, design, layout, and quality of workmanship and embodying all the deficiencies, superadequacies, and obsolescence of the subject building. 2. Replacement Cost: The estimated cost to construct, at current prices as of the effective appraisal date, a substitute for the building being appraised, using modern materials and current standards, design, and layout. All applicable unit costs are to be as of current level of value and determined by using either the Marshall & Swift Valuation Service or locally developed contractor costs. The Division recommends that locally developed contractor costs be collected from more than one contractor in each county where these costs are used. However, in the event only one major contractor provides the majority of buildings in a particular county, and in the judgment of the assessor these costs are representative, the assessor may use the costs from this single source in the valuation of agricultural structures. Documentation must be available for any V , cost method used other than Marshall & Swift. OLOCAL MULTIPLIERS N Local multipliers are applied to agricultural structure costs derived from Marshall & Swift to adjust these costs to reflect local cost conditions. The Division provides cost multipliers to be applied to Marshall & Swift cost values, depending on the location of each county, at each change in level of value. These multipliers are used for the following intervening year as well. The current local multipliers may be found in Addendum 5-G, Rural Structures Local Multipliers. Counties are to use the Division published cost multipliers unless specific county cost multipliers have been purchased from Marshall & Swift or locally researched and developed. When using Marshall & Swift -developed multipliers, weighted labor and material costs and all local sales taxes have been included. The use of out-of-state multipliers is not recommended. Documentation must be available for any cost multipliers used other than those provided by the Division or directly by Marshall & Swift. Local multipliers are unnecessary if costs are locally developed. 15 -AS -DPI ARL VOL 3 1-89 Rev 1-15 5.79 DEPRECIATION Adjustments for depreciation should be in accordance with Marshall & Swift Valuation Service valuation procedures, unless locally developed economic lives and depreciation schedules are well supported and have been validated. Supporting documentation should be available for all locally developed depreciation schedules. The following methods as defined in The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fourth Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2002, may be used to measure accrued depreciation: 1. Observed Condition: The condition of a property ascertained from an appropriate inspection; physical condition. The observed condition method requires both a physical inspection and sound appraiser judgment. 2. Economic Age -life Method (Straight Line): A method of estimating depreciation in which the ratio between the effective age of a building and its total economic life is applied to the current cost of the improvements to obtain a lump -sum deduction. This is the method employed by Marshall & Swift. The Division recommends the use of Marshall & Swift depreciation tables. MINIMAL VALUE DESIGNATION CRITERIA When building depreciation is observed to exceed 80 percent, but there is some remaining utility, or when the structure is no longer capable of being used, minimal lump sum value designations, i.e., salvage value, scrap value, or no value, should be considered. Lump sum values should be assigned to the structures commensurate with the physical characteristics of the structures. The appraiser must use sound judgment as to what is an appropriate value. Salvage Value: The price expected for a whole property (e.g., a house) or part of a property (e.g., a plumbing fixture) that is removed from the premises usually for use elsewhere. The Dictionary of Real Estate Appraisal, Fifth Edition, Appraisal Institute, 2010. —' Only "salvage value" may remain in a structure when the following criteria are met: 1. There is only marginal utility remaining in the structure for the purpose for which it was originally intended. 2. The structure is potentially available for alternative uses. 3. The structure is suffering from incurable physical deterioration, but has not quite reached the end of its physical life. 4. The structure contributes very minimally to the total value of the property. 5. The structure has no residual value once removal and/or disposal cost have been deducted. 15 -A5 -OPT ARL VOL 3 1-89 Rev 1-15 SECTION 17 PAGE 12 May 2009 CALCULATOR METHOD GREENHOUSE - STRAIGHT -WALL STRUCTURES (136) CLASS TYPE EXTERIOR WALLS INTERIOR FINISH LIGHTING & PLUMBING HEAT Sq. M. COST Cu. Ft. Sq. Ft. Average Wood frame, glass or fiberglass Gravel, some concrete Adequate electrical and hose covering, some vents bibs None $ 95.37 $ .89 $ 8.86 D Fair Low cost Cheap Wood frame, fiberglass walls, double Gravel floor Minimum electrical, lighting and polyethylene roof cover water Post frame, fiberglass end walls, Dirt floor Minimum equipment outlet and double polyethylene cover hose bibs Light post frame, wide spacing, Dirt floor No electrical, hose bib only polyethylene cover None None None 62.11 40.47 35.95 .58 .38 .33 5.77 3.76 3.34 Excellent Best frame, translucent sandwich Concrete floor, drains Good lighting and plumbing panels and venting 9 9 None 319.04 2.96 29.64 Very good Heavy frame, good sandwich panels, Good concrete walks Adequate electrical, good fixtures good wall and roof vents and water service None 263.18 2,45 24.45 SAverage Good Fair Low cost Cheap Good metal frame, tempered glass, Concrete walks Adequate electrical and water polycarbonate/acrylic, good vents service Metal frame, glass or fiberglass Gravel, some concrete Adequate electrical and hose covering, some vents bibs Metal frame, double polethylene arch Gravel floor Minimum electrical, lighting and roof, fiberglass walls water Metal frame, fiberglass end walls, Dirt floor Minimum equipment outlet and double polyethylene cover hose bib Light tubular frame. gable or arch Dirt floor No electrical, hose bib only roof, polyethylene cover None None None None Norte 216.79 100.97 68.67 46.82 41.66 2.01 .94 .64 .44 .39 20.14 9.38 6.38 4.35 3.87 GREENHOUSE - HOOP (ARCH-RIB/QUONSET) STRUCTURES (135) DLow cost Light built-up wood arch, fiberglass Dirt floor Minimum equipment outlet and ends, double polyethylene cover hose bibs None $ 37.78 $ .35 $ 3.51 Very good Good translucent sandwich panels, heavy frame, pitched peak, vents Good concrete walks Adequate electrical, good fixtures and water service None 184.28 1 71 17.12 Good Good polycarbonate or acrylic Concrete Adequate electrical and water cover,roof and wall vents walks service None 152.20 1.41 14.14 Average Fiberglass panels on light arch Gravel, _ Sg - frame, some vents some concrete Adequate electrical and hose bibs None 71.69 .67 6.66 Fair Pipe or light tubular arch, double Gravel floor Minimum electrical, lighting and poly., fiberglass ends & knee walls None 49.08 .46 4.56 Low cost Trussed pipe arch, double polyethylene Dirt floor _water Minimum equipment outlet and _ cover, fiberglass end walls hose bibs None 33.80 .31 3.14 Cheap Light pipe arch, wide spacing, polyethylene cover Dirt floor No electrical, hose bib only None 30.03 28 2.79 nu rts: For modified hoop structures (3' straight side wall), add 5% to the arch base costs. For heavy fabric cover on cheap pipe arch, add 50%. See Section 18 for institutional/commercial greenhouses. For size and shape adjustments, see greenhouse tables on the following page. For refinements from the basic building descriptions, make adjustments or modifications from items listed below or on the next page. For heat, see Pages 58 and 59. Electrical: Low cost, $ .21; Average, $ .64; Good, $1.30; Excellent, $2.26. Floors or walks: Dirt, $ .21 — $ .33; Gravel, $ .46 — $ .67; Asphalt, $1.76 — $2.87; Concrete, $2.60 — $3.79. To convert square foot costs to square meters, multiply by 10.764; for linear foot costs to meters, multiply by 3.281. MARSHALL VALUATION SERVICE x^2009 MARSHALL 4 SW7FT/BOECKH. LLC and its licensors. .1 // rights reserved The data included o _ bifo s obsolete after April 2011. swiftestimator.com - building cost reports online 5/2009 Hello