HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.min.reg.08111960it
August 11; 1960
A-Special Meeting of the County Commisaionera sitting as a Board of Equalization for Pitkin County,
'Colorado, Co consider equalization nmttera as providdd by Statute was held August 11, 1960, at the
!'~, Commissioner's Room, Courthouse, Aspen, Colorado. Coa®issionera Gerbaz, Sardy and Nowell, were present, and
Il also .Peggy E. Coble, County Clerk and Robert Delaney, County Attorney. Mr. Bucholz, a representative of the
:Colorado Tax Coa®isaionwas alsopresen[.~. Mr. Hoy Bandy was invited to flttend,. and appeared before [he
°i Commisaionera along withDeputy Aeaeasor'RObert Wiese.
The petition of Royal Land Corporation for abatemmnt on 1959 taxes was referred to the County
~'~i Aaseasor for further investigation, it being contended that the assessment was erroneous by including $4000.000
ji asaeased valuation onpereonal property, at a time when the business of that corporation was non functioning
!'~: and ae it was contended, before the rpoperty was brought into the County.
The commissioners recoam;ended that the Asaeayor examine schedule of Joseph M..Elder in order to
Ali determine thwether the same was correct.
Mta.. Donald H. Hatfield appeared before the Commisaionera protesting asaesament and-tax imposed
'i for the business known as "Rardh House" whereby tax was imposed on the basis of assessed valuation of $8,500.00
ill It was requested that the assessor study Chia matter and report further to the Commissioners. It-was
;further auggeated that as to prior asseseaenta and back taxes, Mr. Hatfield or her husband file the proper
~~abatement petition for consideration by the Commissioners flf the protest.
The application for reduction of assessed valuation of Frances Miklich was considered, and it was
i determined that the assessed valuation was fair ;and proper, and accordingly ouch application was denied. IC
,was further determined that the primary basis of objection of Mrs. Miklich was [he fact that there had been a
~~~subatantial increase in her taxes, which waa not, however, attributable to erroneous aseeaement.
The protest and application of Robert Ropp on assessed valuation was carefully considered and
i thereafter was denied.
The application of .Charles Gates for revision of asaeased valuation against the Charles Oaten house
in Aspen was discussed at length wnd Mr. ~uckabiz advised that he had carefully investigated the matter, and ha
concluded that the~house'was classified on a basis higher than was warranted by the conatruc tion. He rec-
co®ended that the classification be changed from 1.7 to 1.6, but not for 1.5 as requested by. the petition.
!Ae advosed that thins would result in a reduction in assessed valuation on such improvements from $31,604.00 [o
'j $20,190.00 with the land valuation of. $480.00 remaining the same, and after further ®isauasion and upon
'motion duly made, seconded and unanimously adopted, it was directed that cuirent assessment be revised from
1.7 to 1.6 and that abatement petition on taxes for 19$9, payable ih 1960 be granted in part to provide that
taxes imposed of $1,750.60 shall be reduced by [be sum of $622.64, leaving the correct tax balance due and
owing in the sum of $1,127.96.
Next the objection of Francis Kalmea to asaeased valuation of $6,110.00 was considered and it was
determined that the aeaessor had already made an adjustment so as to provide assessed valuation of $5,110.00
on improvea;enta, which the Commisaionera aona idered fair and adequate, and hereby deny [he application for
(further reduction.
The application of Aspen Self-Service Laundry. for abatement and adjustment of asaeased valuation was
consideaed, and it was determined [hat-on iecommenda[ion of Mr. Burger of the State Tax Commission, a
aubatantfal reduction in aeaeasad valuation had been granted; that the petition for abatement and adjustment
should be denied.
~ -The petitionand protest of.Ralph W. Ball on 1960 asaeased valuation of $2,340.00 on improvements
in connection with hie residence property was taken into consideration, discussed in detail, and it was
~ determined that the assessment was fair and equitable,. and accordingly the request was denied.
The petition iSr abatement and protest of asaeased valuation of Donald Snyder and Lorene Snyder was
considered, and found to be fair and equitable, and not to require equalization, and accordingly this
petition was denied.
The petition of .Howard Lee for reduction of asaeased valuation and for abatement or refund was
taken into consideration, sad after extensive discussion.and consideration, it was determined that no basis
has. been shown whereby the valuation should be changed, awdaccordingly the petition was denied.
The petition of Gordon Nalford aad_.Bet[y J. Halford for recudtion of assessed valuation on their
property on. the Frying Pan .River was considered, and it was determined that the pria;ary reason for raising the
valuation was the fact. that additional improvements had been discovered and placed oa the schedule,- According-
ly, it was determined the assessment was fair, and that the petition should be denied. -
The assessment on the property of Robert.Rnight was considered, discussed, determined to be fair and
equitable, and request for reduction was denied.
The petition. for abatemen[.of G.. E. Jones was discussed, and Mr. Wiese explained that the property
in question had been substantially iebuilt, and that standard methods of.. assessment has beeh followed in
establishing [he assessed valuation. Mcordingly, the petition waedenied.
The petition of Elmer and Shirley L, Sparks for abatement on 1959 taxes on .property located along
the Crystal River was taken into consideration and after diacusaion it Has"determined the property should be
i properly classified as special use land and that the asaesamen[ was fair ;and proper and [he petition should
be denied.
The petition of Roy Vroom for reduction of asaeased val nation on his house west of Aspen was. taken
nto consideration and after diatuse ion with Mr. Wiese it was determined the assessment was fair ;and equitable
nd the petition was denied.
The further petitionof Boy Vroom .protesting the assessed valuation as to lands located in the vic-
nity of [he Buttermilk Bki. Development, northeasterly of Highway 1182, was considered and it was determined
that no small lot or tract sales, and noaubdiviaion plat had been completed; that the use of such Land was
~-~, edcominan[ly agricultural, and Chat no sufficient basis existed for special use c Ta~saiPfcation. .Accordingly,
'', twas recommended to the Assessor that sgqch land be retained in anagricultural classification until additions:
~. vidence appeared. to. justify. special usesla$aificatioa,..2tcvae,. however,. recommended. to the Assessor ,that the
roperty used in connection with the Buttermilk Ski Development be restudied and all portions thereof used
n connection with skiing and related purposed be classified as special use land.
There being no further business the Board adjourned to meet August 18, 19601
The minutes of ;the meetings of March 7, 1960; Marcy 18, 1960;Apri1 4, 1960; April 7> 1960; April
7, 1960; May 2, 1960; Maq 17, 1960; MaylB, 1960; May 27, 1960; June 6, 1960; June-20, 1960; July 5, 1960;
my 18, 1960 and August 2, 1960 were read and approved.
' ~~~~.! APPBOV~
Clerk