The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink Aboutbocc.res.052.2010. A�?PRO�'�E� �Y �o Osc� . R�SOLUTION � � # D5 �•� � � FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY ,w.��, � (Section III or Section IV must be complet¢d) Every petition for abatement or refund filed pu�suant to secGon 39-70.114 shali be acted upnn pursuan[ ro tbe provisions of this sectlon by the bcard of counry commissioners or the assessor, as appropriate, within six months of the date of Tiling such pelition, g 39-1-173(1.7), C.R.S. 9 section m: Written Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner (Only for abatements up to =1,000) The commiss+oners 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 a6atement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per schedule of personaf property, in accordance with § 39-1-113(1.5), C.R.S. The assessor and petkioner mutualty ree o Lhe values and tax abatemenUrefund of: Tax Year q ActuaS Assessed Tax /� Originai v' �� `� 7 as�ov (/'�• `"" l� I"� Conected� `�� J�� Abate/Refund /�: Q� rV_ f � �� Note: The totai [att amount dces not inGude accrued interest, penaltles, ar.d fees associated with late and/or delinquent tax payments, if applicable. Please caniact the wunty Veasurer for fuli payment infarmation. � Petlfioner's Signature Date Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature Date section iv: Decision of the County Commissioners (Must be com leted if Section 1ti dces not apply) WHEREAS, The County Commissioners of � • County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting heid on �_I��l,7D�G , at which meeting there were present the following members: , ' hlon Day Year A ^ �L�� / `'�_ /f i ( /Yfnn.vHiA.aJ.Os[�iLd) o.Q ��ILP _ %Y�.W1ffsLK, LC /.�fi1lO� � J with notice of such meeting'and �h opportunity io be present having been given to t a er and the Assessor of said County and Assessor �JCOTT'Y �v /,apiiV/.'S ( ing present not present} and Name pet+tioner �.J �-14-i2 !�o v n _ (being present ot presen , and WHEREAS, The said Neme County Commissioners have careful(y considered the i ''on, and are fully advised in relation thereto NOW BE IT RESOLVED, That the Boa a rees oes not agree with the recommendation of the assessor and the petition be (approve approved in part denied) with an abatement/refund as foliows: �� l�r�v qyy. �� Year Assessed Value Taxes AbafelRefur,d • /� p ' % � j/ jf�•V p /�/�,�/� Cha3rperson of th Board of Cou ty Gommissioners' Signatur "�� ti'` ` �. �y�vne� . �r� Y � �� °�� Count Cierk and Ex-offiao Clerk of the Boar of Cou Commi in an f� aforementioned county, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing or uly copied 2he :.�. record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. ,: �� : 1 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, i have hereunto set my hand and aKxed the seal of said County *' � this y� dayof�� , ,�b/� . , �i ••. .. ^ �p Month Year o �.(�R� o Deputy County Clerk's Si nature' _ Note: Abatements greater than 81,000 per schedute. per year, must be submitted ir. duphca;e ro ihe Property Tax AdminisVator for review. section v: Action of the Praperty Tax Administrator (For ai! abatements greater than 51,000� The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby ❑ Approved ❑ Approved in part $ ❑ Denied for the foliowing reason(s): Seuetays Sgnature Properry Tax Administrator's Signature Date 15-OPT-AR No. 920-66/O6 � �r PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County: �� Section I: Petitioner, please complete Section 1 only. �ate: Z Z'.i �� Month Day Year Petitioner s Name: ( � � Petitioner's Mailing Address �� t IN1.�Ih1A/�� City or Town SCHEDULE OR PARCE NUMBER(S) �v � 3S'L�t' Date Received (Use Assessors or Commissioners' Date S:amp) �V V �VJ 'lt)�'` (4Vr[ • �. �3t5Zi State Zip Coda PROP RTY ADDRESS dR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY ��.. ��nu,��-- t�� Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for ihe property tax year �� are incorrect for the foliowing reasons: (Briefiy describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax. Attach additional sheets 'rf necessary.} �S� �� 4f� Petitioner's estimate of value: 5 � a � U) Value Year Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes. I deciare, under penalty of pery'ury in the second degree, that this petition, together with any accompanying exhibits or statements, has been prepared or examined by me, and to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, is true, correct, and comptete. � Daytime Phone Number ( ) Petitioner's Sig t e By //!/' r Daytime Phone Number ( f �lX �v� ��` ( J" AgeraYs Signature' `Letter ot agency must 6e attached when petttion 15 submitted 6y an agant. If the board of county commissioners, pursuant to section 39-10-114(1), or the property tax administrator, pursuant to section 39-2-116, denies the petition for refund or abatement of ta�ces in whole or in part, the petitioner may appeat to the board of assessme�t appeals pursuant to the provisions of section 39-2-125 within thirty days of the entry of any such decision, § 39-10-114.5(1), C.R.S. section ii: Assessor's Recommendation (For Assessor's Use Oniy) Tax Year�� Actuai Assessed Tax Original �/ � �NIJCJ �� , � Ip Corrected ""__!�'�� !!� •✓ `�' AbatelRefund /� � / �� _��!�e__t � ❑ Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. RECEIVED FEB 2 6 201a P�tcin Courrt� A�se�.�� No protest was filed for the year: �ir a Procesc was n�ea piease attach a copy of the NOD.) � Assessor recommends deniai for the foilowing reason(s): /:� C, , n�� /�' J � � � t�l�/ V � � � Assessor's or Depury Assessor's Signature � 15-OPT-AR No.920-66/O6 1 Renl b'st�ttc ura Hit�lter t�rntattd .� \. ,�� , BJ�ADAMS aND COMPANY February 25, 2010 Larry Fite Deputy Assessor Pitkin County Assessor's Office 506 E. Main Street, Suite 202 Aspen, CO 81611 RE: Lot 6 HORSE RANCH; Pitkin County, Colorado (Schedule #013564) Dear Larry, RECEIVE� . . ,: . � Oscar Novo asked me to study the current valuation of his Horse Ranch property, as he felt the recent adjustment was too great, and he wanted assistance supporting his view. I've looked into what I think are the relevant data, and below are the circumstances surrounding what appears to be an inaccurate valuation for Mr. Novo's property: 1. Adjacent lots (5, 7, 8 and 9) were valued at $1.8M vs. $2.5M for Lot 6; this is a substantial inequity for similar properties which all support the same FAR (3500 sq ft). ' 2. These adjacent lots increased 80% vs. 92% for Lot 6; 80% would equate to $2.34M, and while this is not as large of an inequity, that is because the prior Lot 6 assessments were excessive as well, so the difference has been compounded over the years. 3. I believe even applying the county's time adjustment to the 2007 assessed value for Lot 6, which adjustment I know many taxpayers have challenged (unsuccessfully), would result in a value of about $2 million (which would still be excessive because of items #2, #6 & #7). ASPEN - 534 E. HoPxiNS AvENUe AsPeN, CO 81611 970.922.2111 Fax 970.920.2927 SNOWMASS VILLAGE - PO Box 6699 17 KE�aNS Ro.a� SNOwhtnss ViL�nce, CO 81615 970.923.2ll 1 Fax 970.923.2927 www.bjAdamsandCompany.com email��bjac.net � , . _ _ _ Larry Fite February 25, 2010 Page 2 RECEIVED FEB 2 6 201� �t�Citl �?i!(1t� ��,'�° 4. Horse Ranch Lot 8, just "two doors" away from Lot 6, was listed during the assessment period (actually from 10/06-6/09) and did not sell even thou�h the price dropped to $1.95M; this adds further support to a$1.8M value. 5. The only lot to sell in the period for a time-adjusted $2.5M price (Lot 37) was valued at $1.75M in 07-08, and so was adjusted 43%. Lot 6 was valued at $1.3M in 07-08 yet was increased twice as much as this actual sale; a similar 43/o increase would equate to $1.86M. 6. The fact that the average across-county increase was approximately 35% suggests that greater increases would have to be substantiated by significant sales activity at greater percentage increases—Horse Ranch did not enjoy such activity, and the most comparable sale (Lot 37) sold for just 13% above its then assessed value. 7. The only other sale during the assessment period was not actually listed (Lot 90), and was quite unusual as it occurred when there were just two other Horse Ranch lots on the market for 25% to 50% more than the price accepted by the owner of Lot 90; this was not a typical sale and was clearly bolstered by the very high competing lot prices, which lots were never sold. In summary, the only support for the value adjustment would be a few other similarly excessively valued Horse Ranch lots which should not be considered for the same reasons enumerated above, and I would request on the Novos' behalf that the value of Lot 6 be adjusted to $1,800,000. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Best regards, r� Barbar��B)") Adams, CRS Broke70wner bj@bjac. net Enclosures cc: Oscar Novo � . .�� m� a a r B�� .� y � o � `° o c �, � � � d � = ; a o _�� c �� a �.» m ` bb �ea � n � � H � � I � y � , � i o '�xA <�eaa,o � � � � � r•� � W � �, r �,, �w . �' � m� o � N � p � V] � O O x � O� O ` � O N C�/� O� ('�'� W [T7 N � o 0 N �„y � W � x ° z A .:.� � GGG __ N � ~ � � in �O O O � � l � � � � � GH 69 4s4 a z W O �`' � � � <y C '3 x � z 0 m m "� 0 r � ° a '�?' ti+ CJ O C/� A� N (7 W Oo �1 01 �� n W O� w 9 ��TJ N r �y I N � � � � � W Q � '' 0�0 .`� z � � � r" � � � r � w il p � � � r.�+ I f/9 §9 (/� N 6g i N � � � � i O O p O�o O O O 6 O� O O 1 1 � � � :1 � 0 � � °^Al � � N � � N � � � +-i � � � � � � � � • � Abatement request for R013564, Oscar Novo, Horse ranch Lot 6 Vacant lot — current value $2,500,000 Petition requests value be lowered to $1,800,000 Letter from BJ Adams lists seven (7) reasons why this property should have a lower value. Reasons range from FAR allowed, size of lot, county wide increase in value based on "sales activity', lack of sale of lot close in proximity with lower price of $1.95M, time adjustment factor, etc. Comps used: 13604 —132 Bridle Path Ln. Lot sold May 2007, for $1,984,415, TAJ $2,528144 FAR on this lot the same as subject at 3500. This lot is higher up in Horse Ranch subdivision and therefore has a slightly better view getting a adjustment. Lot size is similar, but this lot is surrounded by other buildable lots. The lot is tucked under the lots off Oak Ridge Rd so does not get views of Snowmass Ski area but does have views east toward Two Creeks and Aspen Highlands. Current value $2,500,000 13581 — 47 Mustang Circle This lot has small open space frontage in back of property, (subject is fronted on finro sides by open space) and has impact from traffic flow and noise due to direct location on Horse Ranch Dr. and Mustang Circle. Lot size is smaller allowing only 3000 SF for an improvement to be built. Positive adjustments on this property for FAR and location/size. Current Value $2,100.000 Abatement denied based on value substantiated by sales comparables and subject is within the range of the sales in the Horse Ranch Subdivision. Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement Assessor Generated ❑ Taxpayer Generated� To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor From: Date: 3�)S �►C� Petitioner. � C�42 ��d Schedule #: 1�0 t3 � �{ Parcel #: �(pl�� 3�p( The appraiser has comp/eted a review of the referenced property, as of this date, and hereby submits a recommendation as stated be/ow: c�- Deny � Approve as Submitted ❑ Abatement/Refund Different than requested � Abatement for Year: Data collection period for year #1: � Assessment Rate: � Tax Area: � Mill Levy: � Actual Value this year: New Value: � � Original value: � Corrected value: � Refund: �� 7� ��► � '��o �Stt�, �o �8 � „� % � �� ~�1. '�0, � � N �� / � Assessed Value �$ �$ �$ � Abatement for Year: I Data collection period for year #2: � Assessment Rate: � � Tax Area: � � Mill Levy: � � Actual Value this year: � � New Value: � Tax Amount � � $ � � Original value: $ � � Corrected value: $ � � Refund: The basis of this recommendation is: �ry�OS �u-pPd�t f�d �J� I Chief Appraiser Approval Assessor Approval: � % Assessed Value $ $ $ Tax Amount � $ � � � � � NOTICE OF DETERMINATION ON PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS PITKIN COUNTY, COLORADO Date: May 3, 2010 Petitioner: Oscar Novo Schedule No. RO 13564 Dear Petitioner(s): Pursuant to CRS 39-10-114, you have requested that the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) consider your petition for abatement or refund of taxes • At a meeting held on April 27, 2010, it was the decision of the BOCC to : � Approve abatement as requested � Approve a partial abatement � Deny the petition for abatement Assessor's valuation: $ �� (7 BOCC amended valuation: $ �►�`�d� . Further appeal procedure_ If the Board of County Commissioners (CRS 39-10-114(1)) or the state property tax administrator (CRS 39-2-116) denies the petition for refund or abatement of taxes in whole or in part, the petitioner may appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals (1313 Sherman St, Room 315, Denver, CO 80203, 303-866-5880) pursuant to the provisions of CRS 39-2-125 (b) and (c) within 30 days from date of the BOCC decision. For further information regarding the Board of Assessment Appeals you can visit their website @http://www.dola.colorado.gov/baa. • Refund, if applicable: If an abatement petition was approved in full or in part, the assessor will adjust his records accordingly and the treasurer will process a refund if the taxes were previously paid. g�bocc\boe�abatementdenialnotice2010. doc