HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.026.2012 iY
FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY co fzDav T 1491 t s 7c 05
(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 / 30 /
Board of County Commissioners or the Assessor, as appropriate, within six months of the date of filing such petition, § 39-1- 113(1.7), C.R.S. oC
Section ill: Written M$1$"11 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 ot• r
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:
Tax Year_ APPROVED BY
Actual As T'x RESOLUTION
r .
Corrects_ ,
Abat&Refunu — __ ._ — -
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 Date
Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature Date
Section IV: Decision of the County Commissioners
(Must be completed if Section III does not apply) -
WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of Pi t< A) County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully
called regular meeting held on .4 / / f / 11 , at which meeting there were present the following members:
- h ray, Y' / / / ,/
!laaiu.G• :.J. /1.atL._ '4 IA 1 1,_/..,1 „it, ,7 .. .. __ J ,GrJ
/1/ f�. •
r ?i.L y PiA YVI1gAA -- 1 •
with notice o suc . meeti • and an opportunity to be present having been given to t ner and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor 77YYI r94- ing present— of present) and
// 4 Name
Petitioner , f 4 /0 Ott ing; - -- present), and WHEREAS, the said
ante
County Commissioners h e carefully con _ • - • • the within petition, and are fully advised in relation thereto,
NOW BE IT RESOLVED t and iir does not agree) with the recommendation of the Assessor,
and that the petition be ' approved in part- denied) with an abatement/refund as follows:
9 (( �lol / yc _ /6�71U, 0 A ///
Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate /Refund j/frj t/l p/�f •) 61
• /� CCC / / / halrperson of the Bo rd Coun ommiss rs' Signature
I, /1/A hNP. K - t 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 rgpied -from the
record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners. /si� -:N.0 (i t ;
IN WITNESS.. WHEREOF, I have /2/4"-i! e hereunto set my d hand and affixed the seal of said County i i : ' •..r.
this A-- day of ,�ctig. ; HEAL io
/ 4'
Month Year / / * t
- .41 AI .' �l
o ill Ci 's or Deputy County C
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 $1 0,000)
The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to this 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 -08/11
� ( � / � PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAX
County: 7 / "f L / 1 0 Date Received 9 I
(Use Assessor's or Com is loners' Date Stamp)
Section I: Petit) ner, pie se complete Section I only.
Date: 0 d
Month Day Year p //��
Petitioners Name: � 1 ! c G7 ( s' l , �
Petitioner's aping Address: ��� 1 1 ) • ! i 11 t - d - i
/� ICGiG� r a9(o1I
City or Ti State Zip Code
SCHEDULE A CEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS R LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY / ��7
gQ 1'2'3 D - ( f / ow CReef - 12j) r °wt (�'ec(c Pct 0 c
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund,�QQt the, appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the
above property for the property tax year "d1) 1 / are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe why
the taxes have been levied erroneously or illegally, whether due to erroneou valuation, irregularity in levying,
clerical error, or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) Du ens cc)vre r es e-F
-/ r �[
L44 valve IA ill t 12QLc) G'(11- S51(C'Q/7UY1 ® AG 364 veyckef 5 S I
appO at MJ /thief ,�i2rv1 ✓aldeo/ZC2 ✓4G- L'lca f)C��1u avio
Petitioner's estimate of value: $ I 9 I) % `� ` (9vi )
Value Year
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 f )
n
uA Petitioner's Signature \ r C
By fT�i (SS ("7 (]"Sr' C Daytime Phone Number J )
Agent's Signature*
*Letter of agency must be attached when petition Is submitted by an agent
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.
Section II: Assessor's Recommendation
(For Assessor's Use Only)
Tax Year f/�
L/ Ac / teal u� Assea Tax
f sed I� u ?-447
Original /. 1 6% J IW ),P 3t 1 E -ro 13 V)-
Corrected q a 7 950 97 . la
� Q I � %/ COO ) f 3 , 6
Abate/Refund
a Assessor recommends approval as outlined above.
If the request for abatement is based upon the grounds of overvaluation, no abatement or refund of taxes shall be made if 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)(1)(D), C.R.S.
Tax year: 1.0) \ Protest? ( No ❑ Yes (lf a protest was filed, please attach a copy of the NOD.)
❑ Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s):
Assessor's o p e ignature
15- DPT -AR No. 920-66/11
I✓ �
Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement
Assessor Generated ❑
Taxpayer Generated ❑
To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor
From: Scotty Giddings
Date: Feb. 01, 2012
Petitioner: Gordon James Trust/Garfield & Hecht, P.0
Schedule #: R12301
Parcel #: 264333401003
The appraiser has completed a review of the referenced property, as of this date, and hereby
submits a recommendation as stated below:
❑ Deny
❑ Approve as Submitted
❑ Abatement/Refund Different than requested
Abatement for Year: 2011 Abatement for Year:
Data collection period N/A Data collection period
for year #1: for year #2:
Assessment Rate: 29% Assessment Rate:
Tax Area: 091 Tax Area:
Mill Levy: 36.361 Mill Levy:
Actual Value this year: $ 15,156,400 Actual Value this year: $
New Value: $ 9,211,900 New Value: $
Assessed Value Tax Amount Assessed Value Tax Amount
Original value: $ 1,206,450 $ 43,867.72 Original value: $ $
Corrected value: $ 744,945 $ 27,086.92 Corrected value: $ $
Refund: $ 461,505 16,780.80 Refund: $ $
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. Data correction for incorrect land classification for 2011.
Chief Appraiser Approval: ateL-49_
Assessor Approval:
R12301 James Gordon Trust 2011 Abatement based on Classification change
2011 original value Actual Value Assessed Value Tax (mill levy = 36.361)
Land $6,000,000 $477,600
Residence 9,156,400 $728,850
Total $15,156,400 $1,206,450 $43,867.72
2011 Revised Ag Value Actual Value Assessed Value Tax (mill levy = 36.361)
Land $55,500 $16,100
Residence 9,156,400 $728,850
Total $9,211,900 $744,950 $27,087.12
Total 2011 refund $16,780.60
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, Docket Number 56130
STATE OF COLORADO
1313 Sherman Street, Room 315
Denver, Colorado 80203
Petitioner:
JAMES GORDON TRUST,
v.
Respondent:
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.
ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board of Assessment Appeals on May 17. 2011, Sondra
W. Mercier and Gregg Near presiding. Petitioner was represented by Gregory S. Gordon, Esq.
Respondent was represented by Christopher G. Seldin, Esq. Petitioner is protesting the classification
of the subject property for tax year 2010.
Docket Numbers 56130 & 56131 were consolidated for purposes of the hearing only.
Subject property is described as follows:
Lot 3, Owl Creek Ranch, Snowmass Village, Colorado
Pitkin County Schedule No. R012301
Petitioner is requesting an agricultural classification for the subject property for tax year
2010. Respondent assigned a residential classification for the subject property for tax year 2010.
The subject is a 69.22 -acre lot not 3 ") located in the Owl Creek Ranch subdivision. Lot 3
was classified as agricultural land for tax years 2003 and 2009, but was reclassified to residential in
2010. The Owl Creek Ranch consists of approximately 850 acres with several large undeveloped
land parcels subdivided from the original ranch and sold to others. Only one of the lots has been
improved with a dwelling.
The Protective Covenants of the Owl Creek Ranch require that the land be "held for open
space, agricultural, and recreational purposes" to "preserve the agricultural operations within Owl
Creek Ranch." (See Pet.'s Ex. No. 12, page 176).
36!30
1
To further that intent, the property was further subdivided to delineate the "Irrigated Lands"
section. The area included within the "Irrigated Lands" section restricts owners of the individual lots
from interfering with or impairing agricultural operations.
The "irrigated Lands" are served by water rights quit - claimed to the Owl Creek Ranch
Homeowners' Association (HOA) by the developer in 1991. The sale was contingent upon the
continuation of the agricultural operations. Should the HOA fail to complete their responsibilities, its
rights and responsibilities may be assumed by the developer. or if the developer fails to do so, then
by Pitkin County.
Petitioner's witness, .lances J. Snyder, Ranch Manager for the Owl Creek Ranch, testified that
he has managed the "Irrigated Land" and farm grounds for 21 years. His responsibilities in this
regard include a yearly "burn" of the irrigation ditches, dragging and fertilizing the fields, and
applying weed control and new seeds every two years. The ranch formerly completed all the haying
operation but has sub - contracted the process of harvesting, bailing and hauling for the previous ten
years.
Historically. the ranch produced approximately 300 tons of hay on annual basis, The Owl
Creek Ranch would retain 110 to 125 tons for internal use and sell the remainder. Declining output
has reduced the annual return to 225 to 250 tons per year.
The HOA hired Mountain Harvesting, LLC (`Mountain I larvesting ") in 2008 to harvest hay
grown on the "Irrigated Lands." The agreement allows for the harvesting of 300 tons per year, of
which 100 tons would be retained by the HOA with the remainder to be stored and sold to other
parties by Mountain Harvesting. Mr. Snyder indicated that the HOA pays Mountain Harvesting
$100.00 per ton for any shortage. Mountain Harvesting charges $150.00 per ton when selling the
product.
Mr. Snyder stated that approximately 90 days of his time each year is devoted to the
maintenance of the hay lands. If the ranch were to complete all of the operations to harvest the hay,
the cost would be approximately $250.00 per ton.
The hay retained by the 110A is used to feed horses boarded on the ranch.
Petitioner's witness, Mr, Charles A. Vidal, testified that he has served as the manager of the
HOA for approximately 30 years. Mr. Vidal indicated that there is insufficient production from the
"Irrigated Lands" to justify ownership and maintenance of the equipment needed for harvesting. Mr.
Vidal also indicated the arrangement with Mountain Harvesting produces the best possible outcome
for the HOA, as it reduces the subsidies required of the members. The haying operation is not
monetarily profitable but contributes to a reduction in other expenses such as weed control. The
HOA could make a profit from hay sales by foregoing weed control and fertilization, but this is a
short term solution ultimately leading to greater problems and potential reversion of the "Irrigated
Lands" section to the developer.
55130
2
Petitioner's witness, Cody Christopher from Mountain Harvesting, testified that his
arrangement with the Owl Creek Ranch HOA is intended to allow his operation to acquire hay to sell
for a profit. Mountain Harvesting provides the tractors, bailers, rakes and hauling equipment
necessary to harvest the hay. Mountain Harvesting's share of the harvest is stored within its own
barn. Mr. Christopher indicated that his sales range from $120.00 to $200.00 per ton and the hay
from Owl Creek Ranch is the best quality it obtains. From 2009 to 2010, the cotnpany acquired an
average of 80 tons of hay from Lot 3 which was kept by Mountain Harvesting.
Petitioner contends that the agreement between the HOA and Mountain Harvesting
qualifies as a lease which conveys a property right known as a `profit a prendre," e.g, the right to
enter the land, and to remove a profitable commodity, crop, etc. Lobate v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938,
945 (Colo. 2002).
Respondent indicated the principal issue for agricultural classification for the subject is
whether the operation is for the primary purpose of profit, specifically, is the land being used by the
HOA for a profit or used by Mountain Harvesting to make a profit. Respondent pointed to the
testimony by Mr. Vidal that they had never made a profit from hay sales. Respondent also repeated
Mr. Christopher's testimony' that he would not have provided the cutting operations to the HOA
without the cash guarantees in place.
Respondent suggested that the subject property is not a farm and likened the situation to
homeowner growing tomatoes in the back yard. The owner plants the seeds, rents the rototiller,
fertilizes, weeds the plants, and then allows a neighbor to pick the tomatoes, sell them on the street,
and keep the money. The use by the HOA of the hay for the horse boarding operation is not an
agricultural use, as maintenance of "pleasure horses" does not qualify. Respondent also asserted that
the HOA's assessment process and use of the hay field results in expenses that are five times the
normal cost to develop hay. The HOA and Mountain Harvesting depend upon a subsidy by the
landowners for the operation, and there is no evidence that the primary purpose of the operation is to
make a profit, in fact, there is no hope of a profit.
Petitioner presented sufficient probative evidence and testimony to show that the subject
property was incorrectly classified for tax year 2010.
Section 39- 1- 102(1.3), C.R.S., provides that a parcel of land must be classified as
"agricultural" if, among other things and as relevant here. the land was used the previous two years
and presently is used as a "farm' as defined in Section 39 -1- 102(3.5), C.R.S.
Pursuant to 39- 1- 102(3.5). C.R.S.. a "farm" is `'a parcel of land which is used to produce
agricultural products that originate from the land's productivity for the primary purpose of obtaining
a monetary profit." The statute does not differentiate between, on the one hand, a lessee's primary
purpose in using the land and, on the other, the landowners primary purpose in acquiring and
maintaining ownership of the land. Boulder County Board ofEqualizalion v. Al D.C. Construction,
Inc., 830 P.2d 975 (Colo. 1992). Further, the landowner need not actually profit or intend to profit
from agricultural operations on the land conducted by the owner's lessees." Id.
36130
3
First, the Board was persuaded by Petitioner's argument that the agreement between the HOA
and Mountain Harvesting qualifies as a lease which conveys a property right known as a "profit a
prendre." Although the lease agreement is not directly between the owners and Mountain Harvesting,
the Board was convinced by Petitioner's contention that the statutory language does not require that a
lease agreement be directly between an owner and a lessee.
Second, the Board was convinced that the surface use of Lot 3 was for production of hay.
Accordingly, the Board is persuaded that the parcel is used to produce "agricultural products" for
purposes of Secti on 39 -1 -102 (3.5), C.R.S.
Third, the Board was persuaded that monetary profit is the primary purpose behind the
production of agricultural products on the subject property as required by Section 39-1-102(3.5),
C.R.S. The Board found that a profit is realized in three ways within the lease relationship: (i) the
HOA receives crop share payment from the landowner for the production of hay on Lot 3; (ii)
Mountain Harvesting holds a "profit a prendre" interest in the subject, receiving a crop share
payment of hay in exchange for the removal of the hay; (iii) the landowner receives a reduced HOA
fee when operating costs of the 11OA are reduced.
The Board recognizes that while "pleasure horse" operations do not qualify for agricultural
classification, such operation is the operation of the HOA, not the actual landowner.
ORDER:
Respondent is ordered to change the 2010 classification of the subject property to
agricultural.
The Pitkin County Assessor is directed to change his/her records accordingly.
APPEAL:
If the decision of the Board is against Petitioner, Petitioner may petition the Court of Appeals
for judicial review according to the Colorado appellate rules and the provisions of Section 24-4-
106(11), C.R.S. (commenced by the filing of a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals within
forty -five days after the date of the service of the final order entered).
If the decision o f the Board is against Respondent, Respondent, upon the recommendation of
the Board that it either is a matter of statewide concern or has resulted in a significant decrease in the
total valuation of the respondent county, may petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review
according to the Colorado appellate rules and the pmvisions of Section 24-4 - 106(11), C.R.S.
(commenced by the filing of a notice of appeal with the Court of Appeals within forty days after
the date of the service of the final order entered).
In addition, if the decision of the Board is against Respondent. Respondent may petition the
Court of Appeals for judicial review of alleged procedural errors or errors of law within thirty days
36130
4
of such decision when Respondent alleges procedural errors or errors of law by the Board.
If the Board does not recommend its decision to be a matter of statewide concern or to have
resulted in a significant decrease in the total valuation of the respondent county, Respondent may
petition the Court of Appeals for judicial review of such questions within thirty days of such
decision.
Section 39- 8- 108(2), C.R.S.
DATED and MAILED this 15th day of September, 2011.
e °e no
...
BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
bar•
o C1 Ct-J �..�
SF, Ai
Sondra W. Mercier
C .* "7#11%9"1/4."*".'
Gregg Near
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of
the Boar. of Assessment Appeals.
MillaCRton _ s „ '—
56(30
5
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, Papa Hammond tax years 2009 & 2011; Sch# 12301 James Gordon,
tax year 2011 onl nd - Scfi ('12303, Nichos Hecht.
ttr� ese properties are located in the Owl Creek Ranern 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 BM 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.