HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.014.2013 .�_�.,..M..�;��.�a�,�M�. ..�,.��.:: �.�.,�.: , ,� . .�,�,,. ��._..-�� �._ �
� FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY�'Q'"'� " �'° ' ����
P RtJVE D BY (Section 111 or Sectio�IV must be completed) / � 7'^�
F�L.."�„�O�p'y�t�batement or refund filed pursuant to §39-10-114,C.R.S.shall be aded upon pursuant to the provisions of this section by th ,Gr��C�
�f�O��I�O Board of County Commissioners or the Assessor,as appropriate,within six moMhs of the date of filing such petition,§39-1-'113(1.7),C.R.S.
TT
°"' .r-- Written Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner
(Only for abatemerns up to 510,000)
The Commissioners of County authorize the Assessor by Resolution No.
to review petitions for abatement or re und 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 mutuaily agree to the values and tax abatement/refund of:
Tax Year Tax Year
Actual Assefsed Tax Actual Assessed Tax
Original
Corrected
Abate/Refund
Note:The total tax amouM dces not indude accrued interest,penalties,and fees associated with late andlor delinqueM tax payments,if
applicable. Please contad the County Treasurer for full paymeM information.
Petitioner's Signature ��
Assessor's or Deputy AssessoPs Signature Date
section iv: Decision of the County Commissioners
(Must be completed ff Section ill does not apply)
WHEREAS,the County Commissioners of G County, State of Colorado,at a duly and lawfully
called regular meet;ng held on�_lQ��'jQ/�,at which meeting there were present the following members:
" nth Da Year
.
with notice of such meeting and an o po unity to be pre ep having been given to the Petitioner and the Assessor
of said County and Assessor � (being present-�and
Petitioner/X0I0� �i¢1V�0 N(f�ipp.pr�s�wt nof 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 agreeJ with the recommendation of the Assessor
and the petition be(approved--approved in part—denie�with an abatemenUrefund as follows:
�.� �S5 � tq ' � ot 46� 1 � �1U
Year Assessed Value Ta�ces Abate/Refund ear Assessed V e Taues Abate/Refund
�
/
Chairperson of rd of Co Commissioners'Signature
�, /v�e � � County Clerk and Ex-officio Clerk of the Boar nty Co ' ners
in a d r the aforementioned county,do hereby certify that the above and foregoing order is truly e
record of the proceedings ot the Board of County Commissioners. ��, �'�,♦
4 Y r"
IN WITNES5�IIHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said County C���T �
�7 ru.�
this�day of /N1�,�fF' , 2013 } ...-
Month Year
puty Coun ��i��
Note: Abatements greater than$10,000 per schedule,per year,must be submitted in duplicate to the Property Tax Administrator for review.
Section v: Action of the Property Tax Administrator
(For all abatements greater than 510,000)
The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to this abatement petition, is hereby
❑Approved ❑Approved in part$ ❑ Denied for the fo�lowing reason(s):
Secretary's Signature Property Tax Administrator's Signature Date
15-DPT-AR No.920-66/11
�,.�r_,�����ra�.�-,�,�����.y�.,��..o.,�.._ -,�.,�,��.,�,...�. �.:.�.�, _
PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES
, County: P�tkin Date Received
(Use Assessors or Commissione������E D
Section 1: Petitioner,please complete Section I only.
Date:
12l27/2012 DEC 2 7 2012
Morrth Day Year PITKIN CUUN7Y
Petitioner's Name: Lois L.and Thomas C.Sando Aee�ec�nR
r1M�
Petitione�'s Mailing Address: �o Gregory S.Gordon,Ga�eld&Hecht,P.C.,601 East Hyman Avenue
Aspen Colorado 81611
City or Town State Zip Code
SCHEDULE QR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
R12305 Owl Creek Ranch Lot:7
Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the
above property for property tax year(s) 2010 and 2011 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly
describe why the taxes have been lewed erroneously or itlegaily,whether due to erroneous valuation,irregularity in
levying,clerical error or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.)
The property should have been cfassified agricultural pursuant to the Board of Assessment Appeals decision for
subdivision.
Petitioner's estimate of value: $4,958,500.00 2�( 10 )and $3,017,400.00 201{ 1 1
Value Year Value Year
I dec{are,under penalty of perjury in the second degree,that this petit'son,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( )
Petitioner' Sign re
gy � Daytime Phone Number(970 � 925-1936
A nYs Signature*
Gregory S.Gordon,attorney for Petitioner
•Letter of agency must be atfached when pedtion is submitted by an agerrt.
If the Board of Courrty Commissioners,pursuaM to§39-10-114(1),C.R.S.,or the Property Tax Administrator,pursuant to§39-2-116,C.R.S.,
denies the petfion for refund or abatemeM of taxes in whole or in part,the Petitioner may appeal to the Board of AssesSmerA AppeaVs pursuant
to the provisions of§39-2-125,C.R.S.,within thirty days of the entry of any such decision,§39-14114.5(1),C.R.S.
Section��: Assessor's Recommendation
(Far Assessor's Use Only)
Tax Year�� Tax Year�1,G�1
Actual Assessed Tax Actual Assessed Tax
Original � �UV 1 �� S{� ��z�►1.6�( � -1 � ��q 1 � ��1, l
�o��d 55� Soc� �� '1 12 '� �1. '� ' Zao Z �? bl0 �, t�2.. 4
AbatelReTund � 3SS 0� b � ��1 `� "l.� ' � � ���v V � a t1
�Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. ')e'C �"n�o.c,�h t�
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 NWice of Determination has been mailed to the taupayer,§39-1a114(1)(a)(I)(D),C.R.S.
Tax year. Zd,� Protest? �No ❑Yes (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.)
Tax year: �,� Protest? �No ❑Yes (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.)
❑Assessor recommends denial for the following reason�s):
��� ,
As essor's or essoPs ignature
15-DPT-AR No.92a66111
Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement
Assessor Generated ❑
Taxpayer Generated ❑
To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor
From: Scott Giddings
Date: 12.28.12
Petitioner: Lois L. and Thomas C. Sando
Schedule#: R012305
Parcel #: 264332401007
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: 2010 Abatement for Year: 2011
Data collection period 7/1/2008- Data collection period 7/1/2010
for ear#1: 6/30/2010 for ear#2:
Assessment Rate: 7.96 % Assessment Rate: 7.96/29 %
Tax Area: 091 Tax Area: 091
Mill Lev : 30.471 Mi{I Lev : 36.361
Actual Value this ear: $ 13,313,500 Actual Value this ear: $ 8,967,400
New Value: $ 4,958,500 New Value: $ 3,017,200
Assessed Value Tax Amount Assessed Value Tax Amount
Original value: $ 1,059,750 $ 32,291.64 Original value: $ 713,810 $ 25,954.84
Corrected value: $ 404,070 $ 12,312.42 Corrected value: $ 250,610 $ 9112.44
Refund: $ 655,680 $ 19,979.22 Refund: $ 463,160 $ 16,842.40
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 2011 is also changed due to reclassification.
Chief Appraiser Approval: �'
Assessor Approval:
rmkE.rc#*µwa .w..�s...4vaA�'.e�'vnwaN+KV.�as..w.wa.ini4.atm.rwwuun�ruw.ze...r,......:,..�,s.vu.�mv.r..ae�i'a�e.cvass�we.ruvaiv.w.au�aw t.,.<.:.�:�u. ....v...rc,:.�.ca��w.-.:zre.mi�.n..v.•:.nrc.»».....,n.......,:.:.: � �....._. - _
l�0 � N 00 ci Ct
�--I N �l � N N
LL N M Q�1 Ol a-�-I 0�0
N N 01 � � l0
M r-I �--I N t/� �--I
i/� i/) i/? i/} i/�
f6 N
a-+ �+
W X X
+�+ C C � � C
� � � � � �
H H � � H �
� �
dA
C
f6
s
U
C
O N
� �
U N
� t"�
M Ct
� N �
� r-I N
U �� �
'� `� t�/�
3 v u
c O .1
� M M
U � v M
� � —
� � - � _
� 3 �o E � � �
�...� c� > � ia > �
� N � � N � M
� y h � N H �
� N � M N � M �
O Vf � y � M � t�/� � N
N � N Q x � H Q X �
� � -a a O O � -a a O O U
N � v�i �D rl O L v�i O N tD �
�. ca in � .–i � �° in � � O �^ t
� +�+ ��if +�+ N C1 O +�+ v�i +�+ � M � � +.+
a V H O �i M �' U vf O ai N N 3 -a
Y Q Q H 'V� t1} i/} Q Q H V1 V1 t/} G1 C
N O O O O O O O O O O � f6
L O � O O O O �--i O O O ta O N
V In I� I.f� 1� Lf1 � 00 N 00 � > e-I e-I
O .-M-� ►11 � � rM-I � � e�-1 ct t� � O O
�p M O Q1 i/� Ol Q1 I� O t/? 01 +� 00 O
M �-i � � 00 �' M N V � `�
� � t/f t/� t/� v1� t/) t/� � O O
t/?
N � O O
L �L
� = Q Q
N � �
� O
� � 1n N
�
� � O � O N Q Q
� � � � � .� f0 fC
� 7 � ^ 7 � ^ � C C
/�' � •— —
a J � � O � � l0 � � v cN6 c6
o � � o o c � �''� o o c = 3 3
J C � p� � C lC � � G 1 � �
� �qp o\° M � cV � �qp c M � cV � � � 7
� O Ol � U CJ � O O� � c�.� C1 � � > >
.-N-� � ^ — � � Q �-ri-I n — � -a Q � O r-I
� N� a.�+ •� V J � �N +�+ � U J � � O O
a--I N M � t!'f lD I� 00 01 0 �--I �-N-I �-Mi r�-I �-�i �-�i �-^i � �-�-I ON N N N N N N
-----.-- _ _._._._..
�.___ _...___ ___.__- --
BUARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS� Docket Nurnber: 56131
STATE OF GOLORADO
1313 Sherman Street, Room 31 S
Denver, Colorado 80203
Petitioner:
DANA AMES HAMMOND,
v.
Respondent:
PITKIN COUNTY BOARD OF EQ[1ALIZATION.
;
--- - _�..
ORDER
THIS MATTER was heard by the Board af Assessment Appeals on May 17,201 l,Sondra
W. Mercier and Gregg Near presiding. Petitianer 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& 563 31 were consolidated for purposes of the hearing only.
Subject property is described as follows:
Lot 6,4wI Creek Ranch,Snowmass Village,Colorado
Pitkin County Schedule No. RU1Z3D4
Petitioner is requesting an agricultural classification for the subjeet property for taat year
2010. Respondent assigned a vacant land c}assification for the subject property for tax year 2010.
The subiect property is a 67.64-acre lot ("Lot 6"} located in the Owl Creek Ranch
subdivision. Lot 6 was classified as vacant tand for tax years 2008 and 2009. Owl Creek Ranch
eonsists of approximately 850 acres with several large undeveloped!and parcels subdivided frorn the
original ranch and sold to others.
'1'he Protective Covenan[s ofOwl C��cck Ranch rcquirc that the land be"helcl fnropen space,
agricultwral, and recreational purposes'to "preserve the agricultural operations within Owl Creek
Ranch."(See Pet,'s Ex.No. 12, page 176}.
SG13/
1
To further that intent,the property was further subdivided to delineate the"Irrigated Lands."
The area included within the`'irri�ated 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 4wl Creek Ranch
Homeowners' Association (HOA} by the developer in 1991. The sale was contengent upon the
continuation of the agricultural operations.Shauld the H�A fail to complete their responsibilities,its
rights and responsibilities may be assumed by the developer; or if the developer faiis to do sa,by
Pitkin County.
Petitioner'S Witri8S5,James J.Snyder,ranch manager for the(�wl Creek Ranch,testified that
he has managed the irrigated land and farm grounds far 21 years.His responsibilities in this regard
include a yearly "burn" of the irrigation ditches, dragging and fertilizin�the fields, and apptying
weed control and aew seed every two years.The ranch formerly completed all haying operation but
has sub-contracted the process of harvesting,bailing,and hauling far the previous ten years.
Historieally,the ranch produced appraxirnately 3�0 tons of hay on an annual basis.The 4w1
Creek Ranch would retain 110 to 125 tons for internal use and selt the remainder.Declining output
has reduced the annual retunn to 225 to 250 tons per year.
The HOA hired Mountain Harvesting LLC("Mountain Harvesting")in 2008 to harvest hay
grown on the"Irrigated Lands." The agreement allows for the harvesting Qf 30Q tons per y�ear,of
which 104 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 approximat�ly 90 days of his time each year is devoted to the
maintenance of the hay lands. If the ranch were ta complete all of the operations to harvest the hay,
the cost would be approximately $250.04 per ton. The hay retained by the HOA is used to feed
horses boarded on the ranch. Mr. Snyder indicated that Lot 6 produces an average of 20 to 25-ions
of hay each year.
Petitioner's witness, Mr. Charles A. Vidal, testified that he has served as a manager of the
H�A for approximately 30 years. Mr, Vidal indicated there is insufficient production from the
`'Irrigated Lands"to j ustify ownership and maintenance of the equipment needed£or harvesting.Mr.
Vidal also indicatec�the arrangement with Mountain Harvesting produces the best possible outcome
for the HOA, as it reduces the subsidies required of the members. The hayin� operation is nat
monetarily profitable but contributes to a reduction in other expenses such as weed control. The
HOA could make a profit from hay sales by foregaing weed control and fertilization but this is a
short term soiution ultimatety leading to greater problems and potential reversion of the"Irrigatecl
Lands"ta the developer.
Petitioner's witness,Cody Christopher;a co-owner of Mountain Harvesting,testitied that his
arrangement with the Qwl Creek Ranch H4A is intended lo allow his operation to�cyuire hay to sell
J6/3/
2
for a prafit. Mountain Harvesting provid�s the tractors, bailers, rakes, and hauling equigment
necessary to harvest the hay. Mountain Harvesting's share af the harvest is stored within its awn
bam. Mr. Christopher indicated his sales range from$lZO.OQ to$200A0 per ton and the hay from
Owl Creek Ranch is the best quality it obtains.
Petitioner contended that the agreement between the H4A and Mountain Harvesting quali�es
as a lease which conveys a property right known as a"profit a prendre,"e.g, the right tv enter the
land, and to remove a profitable commodity, crop, etc. Lobnta v. Taylor, 71 P.3d 938,945 (Golo.
r0o4)•
Respandent indicated the principal issue for agricultural classification far the subjeci is
whether the operation is for the primary purpc�se af profit,specificatly is the tand being used by the
HOA for a profit or used by Mountain Harvesting to make a protit.Respondent pointed to testimony
by Mr. Vida! that they had never made a prof'tt from hay sales. Respondent alsa repeated Mr.
Cl�ristopher's testimony that he would not have provided the eutting operating to the HOA withaut
the cash guarantees in place.
Respondent suggested the subject property is not a farm and likened the situation to
homeowner gowing tomatoes in the back yard. The awlter plailts the se�eds, rents the rotatiller,
fertilizes,weeds the plants,and then aitows a neighbor ta pick the tamatoes,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 for such classifie�tion.
Respondent also asserted the HUA's assessment process and use of the hay field results in expenses
that are five times the normal cost to deveto�hay.According tv Respondent,the HOA and Mount�in
Harvestin�depend upon a subsidy by the landowners for the operation,and there is no evidence the
primary purpose of the operation is to make a profit, in fact there is na hope of a profit.
Petitioner presented sufficient probative evidence and testimony to show that the subject
property was incorrectly classified for ta�c year 2010.
Section 39-t-1(12(1.3}, C.K.S.. pc�vides tl�at a pa��cel o!' land must be classi�ed as
"a�ricultural'"it;aniung othcr thin�s and as reIe��ant her�.the lanci was user!tli�pr�vious two years
and presentty is used as a "far�n" as detined in section 39-1-1d?(3.5).
Pursiwnt to sec:tion 39-1-1U?(3.>), C.R.S.. a '`farir►" is `'a parcel of Iand which is used to
produce a�ricultt�a•al prc�dt�cts that ori�►inate froni the iand's praductivity far the primary purpase oi'
obtaining a monetary protit.'' The statute does not di flerentiate between,an ihe one hand,a lessee's
primary purpose in using the land and,on the other,the landowner's primary purpose in acquiring
and maintaining ownership of the land. Boulder County Boarci of L�quulization v. M.D.C.
Constructivn, Inc., 830 P.2d 975 (Colo. 1992). Further, the landowner need nat actually prvfit or
intend to profit from agricultural operations on the land conducted by the owner's lessees." Id.
First,the Board was persuaded by Petitioner's argument that the agreement between the HOA
�nd Mountain N�rvesting quali�ies as a lease which conveys a property right known as a"profit a
pr�ndre."Although the lease agreement is not directly between the own�rs and Mountain Harvesting,
56131
3
the Board was convinced by Petitioner's contention that the statutory language does nat require that a
lease agreement be directly between an ow�ner and a lessee, which wauld be inconsistent with the
holdin�of Boulder County�Boc�rd o�'Equalizatian v. M.D.C. Construction C'a.,830 P.2d 975(Colo.
1992).Accordingly,the Baard finds#hat Mountain Harvesting is a"lessee"far pur�wses of section
39-1-102(].6)(a).
Secnnd,the Board was convinced ihat the surface use of Lot 6 was for production of hay in
201 U as well as in the prior two years.Accordingly,the Board is persuaded that the parcel is used to
produce"agrieultura) products" for purpases of section 39-1-102 (3.5), C.R.S.
Third,the Board itnds that monetary profit is the primary purpose behind the production of
agricultural pmducts on the sub3eet praperty as requiced by section 39-1-102(3.5),C.R.S. The 8oard
found that a profit is realized in tfzree ways within this retationship: (i}the lessee/HOA receives crop
share payment from the landowner for the productio�of hay on Lot 6; {ii) Mountais� Harvesting
holds a"profit a prendre"interest in the subject,receiving a crop share payme�nt af hay in exchange
for�:moval of the hay:(iii)the tandowner receives a reduced HOA fee when aperating cflsts of the
HOA are reduced.
The Board recognizes th�t while"pleasure horse"operations do not qualify for a�ricultural
classificatian, such aperation is the operation of the HOA, not the actual landowner.
ORDER:
�
Respondent is ordered to ehange the 2010 classification of the sub3eet property to
agriculturai.
The Pitkan Co�nty Assessor is directed to change hislher records accordingly.
APPEAL:
._�____.__.
Tf the decision of the Board is against Fetitioner,Petitioner may petition the Gaurt of Appcals
far judicial re�iew according to the Coiorado appellate rules and the provisions of 5ection 24-4-
106(11), C.�t.S. {commenced by the filing of a nntice t�f appeal with the Court of Appeals within
forty-five days after the date of the service af the finai order entered).
Ifthe decisian ofthe Board is against Respondent,Respondent,upon the recommendation uf
the Saard thai it either is a matter of statewide concern or has resulted in a si�nificant decrease in the
tatal valuation af the respandent county, may petition the Court of Appeals for judici�l review
according to the Cal�rado appellate zules and the provisions 4f Section 24-4-106(11), C.R.S.
(cammenced by tl�e filing of a natice o£appeal with the Cuurt of Appeals within forty-five days after
the d�te of tlie service of the final order enterrd},
In addition, if the decis�ort af the Baard is against Respondent,Respondent rnay petition the
Court of Appeals for judicial review of al(eged procedural errors or errors of law within thirty days
s61sr
4
of such decision when Respondent alleges procedural errars ar errors of law by the Boazd.
If the Board daes not recommend its decision to be a matter of statewide concern or ta ha�e
resulted in a signifcant decrease in the tatal valuation of the respondent county, Respandent 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 28th day of September,20I 1.
� �EOF co�o� BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS
�.p. " •.,��
ti'Y /�• .
i.� � O
�� �t ; � �/(/ I'�"'�...ry'
t �.= =� :
;wJ _ _.,
� _ _ ._.__ _. .. _ __, _ _
�.,. Sondra W. Mercier ,..,
,��. i
E'S�i� �`, ,�' .✓�� ;;�'
� F
4-� / �
�I _ �.r.�-..v.._.._.._.._....�_..__.._....r
Gregg Near
I hereby certify that this is a true
and correct copy of the decision of
t ard of Assessment App�als.
___._ _ _ ._—
Milla Crichton
56131
5