HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.027.2012 14e-c r, All leas
FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY 12303
(section PI $ Section N must be completed)
Every petiran for abatement or refund Pled pursuant to section 39 -10-114 shall be acted upon pursuant to the provisions of ties section by the
' board of county commissioners or the assessor, as appropriate, stein six months of the date of Ming such petition. § 39-1- 113(17), ..
Aa.rr nil ,7 0BY
1% 021_1 M: W_ ritten Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner f A`
(Only for abatements up to $1,000) RE0 L-L/ 7 ION
The commissioners of County authorize the assessor by Resolution No.
to review petitions for abatement us ,o,u an to settle by written mutual agreement any such petition Q� — .Ze a/
abatement or refund in an amount of one thousand dollars or less per tract, parcel, or lot of land or per ache. -
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 abatementlrefund //, �� J��77 ff tT ((1 r
Tax Yea; Tax Year +/�'' /
"Mt kgiling DA Slag NOMA To
Original
Corrected - i
AbetenRefu,._ -
Note: The total tax amount does not-Include accrued interest, penalties. and fees associated with lam and/or ddklquenttax payments,11
applicable. Please contact the county treasurer for full payment information.
Petitioner's Signature Date
Assessor's or Deputy AesessotS Signature Date
Section IV: Decision of the County Commissioners
(Must be co a Section 111 does not appty) •
WHEREAS, The County Commissioners of P 1714, /h) County, State of Colorado, at a duty and lawfully
.
called regular meeting held on / 19 ! /2 , at which meeting ere were present the following members:
• M. pi s ear
_ !.uin I i / l ,1 / l
' 1 .✓l ' :&j41) r 914 ' ' 9
with notice of such meeting and a'- • • d to be present having been given to - -1 er and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor 74/i L i l i ' ., .6 , • • ng present ,.. • t present) and
I
petitioner .' rALr . e_ ?i. - not present), and WHEREAS, The said
County Commissioners have carefully cons" � e within petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto,
NOW BE IT RESO 4 • = Boa not agree) with the recommendation of the assessor
and the petition b ,, • • ved in part— dented) with an abatementfrefund as follows:
Poo? 4a5 9 'JO (G9vq•4' rl6)o 651,q 3f /19 fflt 1q
Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate/Refund , 0.4.:.. Taros .Omtl
� p �j y /,)�n,r� ', t,.. rsonof the Board of County •eisaloners' Sig , re
1, / 1/v��e J� '._ � ? K fi County Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the Board of County Com�rn
in n or the atoremeMbned courtly, do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truiyC digit l ftol&tthe
record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. l ;; 1 \ '• - ., , ,a
IN WITNES$_yYHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said ounty t; SEAL ; ! j
this O �� n ( - -- day of A # , p . / / ` `� '• a 1
Monts Year r d A ' '• ad,
7 C _ / County C.:des of Deputy C. ,r v !rn . .
Note: Abatements greater than $1,100 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 $1,000)
The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to the within petition, is hereby
❑ Approved ❑ Approved in part $ ❑ Denied for the following reason(s):
Secretays Signature Property Tax Administrators Signature Date
15-DPT -AR No. 92066(08
Recommended action:
Uphold the assessor's recommendation for approval; or, recommend a full or
partial reduction in value with the value set at
Sch# 12304, pana n • • • 011; Sch# 12301. James Gordon,
tax year 2011 only an et' 1 . 'cho= . = •
All 3 of these properties are located in the Owl Creek Rane•n subdivision and the
abatement is related to a successful appeal requesting agricultural classification for the
subject properties.
The 2010 Ag appeals before the Board of Assessment Appeals involved Dana
Hammond and James Gordon. These appeals were filed in tax year 2010 but not
actually heard before the Board of Assessment Appeals until 2011. Long story short,
their appeals were successful and their property's classification and valuations were
changed to agricultural for tax year 2010. Since the 2010 BAA decision didn't come out
until after 2011 values were finalized, we are making the same change effective for both
properties for the 2011 tax year based on the 2010 decision.
In the case of Dana Hammond, no appeal had been filed in 2009 so the 2010 decision
is being applied retroactively to 2009 as well. The Gordon property had previously been
classified Ag in 2009 so no other adjustment was warranted for that tax year.
Nichos Hecht had appealed his property classification in 2009 and went through the
appeal channels up to the BAA where the appeal was withdrawn. Mr. Gordon has
included 2009 in his abatement request and argues that due to the classification issue,
the 2009 value being appealed earlier represents an "erroneous value" vs. an
"overvaluation ". As such, the property is eligible for a 2009 abatement. I asked Chris
Seldin for his opinion and he agreed with Mr. Gordon. That being the case, using the
BAA decision from the Hammond and Gordon properties (no relation) as the basis, the
Assessor's office has recommended that the Hecht property also receive an Ag
classification for 2009 as well as 2010.
It should also be noted that as of January 1, 2012, state statute requires the review of
all agricultural properties to try and determine whether or not the resident in an
agricultural dwelling is "integral" to the Ag operation. For those properties where it is
determined that the resident does not play an integral role in the operation of the
farm /ranch, a market value will be assigned to "up to 2 acres of land underlying the
residence ". These properties will be included in that overall review.
Recommended action:
Uphold the assessor's recommendation for approval or denial for owner for each
year in question.
• PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES
County: Pitkin
ry Date Received
(!)tie Assessors a Commissioners' Date Stamp)
Section I: Petitioner, please complete Section 1 only. RECEIVED
12/28/2011
Date: DEC 18
Month Day Year �01
Petitioners Name:
Nikos Hecht PITIONCOUNTY
Petitioner's Mailing Addfess: c/o Gregory S. Gordon Garfield & Hecht, P.C. 601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen Colorado 81611
City or Town State Zip Code
SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMSER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
R 12303 Owl Creek Ranch Lot: 5
Petitioner states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year(s) 2009 and 2010
are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the incorrect value or tax.
Attach additional sheets 11 necessary.)
Please see attached letter. Petition is based on an erroneous valuation for assessment.
The property was erroneously classified and therefore illegally valued under Colorado law.
17,062,300 2009 17,062,300 2010
Petitioner's estimate of value: $ ( 1 and S 1 )
Value Year Value Year
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes.
I declare, under penalty of perjury 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 complete.
Daytime Phone Number ( )
Petitioners Signature
� �
By S 970 925 -1936 Daytime Phone Number J )
A rry nature•
yyr�
'Letter of agency must be attac7m rwhen petition Is submitted by an agent
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 taxes In whole or In part, the
petitioner may appeal to the board of assessment appeals pursuant to the provisions of section 39 -2 -125
within thirty days of the entry of any such decision, § 39- 10- 114.6(1 C.R.S.
Section u• Assessor's Recommendation
(pm-Assessors use Only,
Tax Year - TaxYear
As ua Assessed igA Si I Meant IRK
Original
Corrected
Abate/Rotund I
❑ Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. 3CC aC Aci eet
No protest was filed for the year(s): or (If a protest was med, please attach a copy of the 1404)
0 Assessor recommends dental for the following reason(s):
Assessors or Deputy Assessors Signature
15- DPT -AR No. 92096/06
Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement
Assessor Generated
Taxpayer Generated ❑
To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor
From: Scotty Giddings
Date: Jan 31, 2012
Petitioner: Nikos Hecht/Garfield & Hecht, P.0
Schedule #: R12303
Parcel #: 264333301005
The appraiser has completed a review of the referenced property, as of this date, and hereby
submits a recommendation as stated below:
❑ Deny
Az Approve as Submitted
EDI Abatement/Refund Different than requested
Abatement for Year: 2009 Abatement for Year 2010
Data collection period N/A Data collection period N/A
for year #1: for year #2:
Assessment Rate: 29% Assessment Rate: 29 %
Tax Area: 091 Tax Area: 091
Mill Levy: 28.828 Mill Levy: 30.471
Actual Value this year: $ 25,422,700 Actual Value this year: $ 25,422,700
New Value: $ 17,021,800 New Value: $ 17,021,800
Assessed Value Tax Amount Assessed Value Tax Amount
Original value: $ 2.023,650 $ 58,337.80 Original value: $ 2,023,650 $ 61,662.64
Corrected value: $ 1,367,710 $ 39,428.34 Corrected value: $ 1,364,150 $ 41,675.50
Refund: $ 655,940 $ 18,909.96 Refund: $ 655,938 $ 19,987.14
The basis of this recommendation is: Agriculture status was awarded for 2010 based on BAA docket
56131. See attached BAA Order with reasons to change classification from Residential land to Agricultural
land. Value for 2009 is also changed due to reclassification.
Chief Appraiser Approval:
Assessor Approval:
Nikos Hecht Abatement Valuation summary
2009 Original value as 100% Residential
Actual Value Assessed Value Tax (mill levy is 28.828)
Residence 517,022,800 51,355,010
Land $8,400,000 $668,640
total 525,422,800 $2,023,650 $58,337.80
2009 Revised value classified as Agricultural
Actual Value Assessed Value Tax (mill levy is 28.828)
Residence 517,022,800 51,355,010
Land $43,800 512,700
total 517,066,600 $1,367,710 $39,428.34
2009 abatement refund $18,909.46
2010 Original value as 100% Residential
Actual Value Assessed Value Tax (mill levy is 30.471)
Residence 517,022,800 51,355,010
Land $8,400,000 $668,640
total 525,422,800 $2,023,650 $61,662.64
2010 Revised value classified as Agricultural
Actual Value Assessed Value Tax (mill levy is 30.471)
Residence $17,022,800 $1,355,010
Land $43,800 512,700
total 517,066,600 51,367,710 $41,675.50
2009 abatement refund $19,987.14
ASPEN OFFICE GARFIELD &HECHT, P.C.
Victorian Square
601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen, Colorado 81611 ATTORNEYS AT LAW
Telephone (970) 925 -1936
Facsimile (970) 925 -3008 Since 1975
www.garfleldhecht.com
Gregory S. Gordon
Aspen Office
ggordon@garfieldhecht. com
December 28, 2011
BY HAND DELIVERY
Pitkin County Assessor
506 East Main Street, #202
Aspen, Colorado 81611
RE: Abatement Request, 14012303, Owl Creek Ranch Lot 5 (the "Subject
Property")
Dear Sir or Madan
We represent the owner ( "Owner ") of the above referenced Subject Property.
Owner respectfully submits that his property was erroneously valued for assessment due
to the Subject Property being improperly classified as residential in 2009 and 2010.
Consistent the Board of Assessment Appeal's decisions concerning schedule nos.
R12301 and R12304 (which decisions are attached), the Subject Property should have
been classified agricultural. The misclassification resulted in an improper methodology
for valuing the property inconsistent with Colorado law.
Although Owner filed a valuation protest in 2009 this abatement should not
legally be precluded for that year. The basis for this abatement is not overvaluation, as
that term is used in C.R.S. §39 -10 -114 and case law interpreting same, rather it is based
on an erroneous valuation for assessment and illegal levy.
Section 39- 10- 114(1)(a)(1)(D), C.R.S., only precludes filing an abatement in the
same year as a protest if the grounds for the abatement are based solely overvaluation.
There are no restrictions on filing an abatement in the same year as a protest where the
basis for the abatement is any of the other grounds described in C.R.S. §39-10 -
114(1)(a)(1)(A), including an erroneous valuation; see Boulder Country Club v. Boulder
County Board of Commissioners, 97 P.3d 119 (Colo. App. 2003) cert. denied (2004).
The use of the sales method to value agricultural property is both illegal and erroneous.
The Boulder Country Club decision, and the 1996 amendment to C.R.S, §39-10 -
114(1)(a)(1)(A). where the Colorado legislature expanded the definition of "erroneous
No protest was filed in 2010.
" F °n`ed °n recycled paper
Aspen • Avon • Basalt • Glenwood Springs • Rifle
GARFIELD & HECHT, P.C.
December 28, 2011
Page 2 of 2
valuation" to include abatements on the grounds of an erroneous classification, indicates
that the instant abatement is permitted for 2009; and is clearly permissible for 2010 when
no protest was filed.
Please contact me if you wish to discuss these matters. Thank you.
Very truly yours,
Gregory gory S. Gordon
Attachments
768236 1
%r Printed on recycled paper