Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.085.2016 fite d O 14 1 FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY (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 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. Section III: Written Mutual 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 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 mutually agree to the values and tax abatement/refund of: Tax Year Actual Assessed Tax Original Corrected Abate/Refund _ 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) � `• l ..I f op,, `,v 6 St-- -0/(• WHEREAS,the County Commissioners of / t-- >[ <'/t! ' - County,State ofofColorado,at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on (, / 11/AC/4 at which meeting there were present the following members: Month Day`—,Year / OVIMi/tiSSf(9.t 2Cct0 S �;{tl �r•��� i�: l t �i eit,t4t with notice of such meetinlg and an op/po lty to be present ving been given to the Petitioner and the Assessor /c of said County and Assessor Cc.l-f y f!/Y Uv 1L,1-t (being present not present)and t I Namur Petitioner 004-4p�h \35being present-}not present),and WHEREAS,the said Name J County Commissioners have carefully considered t e within petition,and are fully advised in relation thereto, NOW BE IT RESOLVED that the Boar.`agrees foes .t-• ee)with the recommendation of the Assessor, and that the petition be(approved--approved in part--ISO ith an abatement/refund as foil. • Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate/Refund - l• �`� Chai arson of the Board of Coun om •ssioners'Signature .�•t c tip-< 4{ r Y,)li--`<s County Clerk and Ex- fficio Clerk of the Board of .unty Commissioners in and for the aforementioned county,do hereby certify 4�....:<:,„ •ove and foregoing order is truly copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County C;,.:''*>jrbi1 ) IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set fOnd and affixeC1.4 ial oflsaid County this )G/r!— day of t-. S•' ! 56' PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County: Pitkin County Date Received (Use Assessor's or Commtse , V �� Section I: Petitioner,please complete Section I only. R`G(v� Date: 12/28/2015 DEC 3 1 2015 Month Day Year Petitioner's Name: NTC&CO C/O Duff&Phelps,LLC PITKIN COUNTY Petitioner's Mailing Address: 1200 17th Street Suite sso ASSESSOR Denver CO 80202 City or Town State Zip Code SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S) PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY R003922 1383 JUNIPER HILL DR ASPEN 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) 2013 and 2014 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe why the taxes have been levied erroneously or illegally,whether due to erroneous valuation,irregularity in levying,clerical error or overvaluation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The subject property is a contiguous parcel of land associated with account(R003865)under the common ownership.Pursuant to 39-1-102 C.R.S(14.4)(a)"Residential land"means a parcel or contiguous parcels of land under common ownership upon which residential improvements are located and that is used as a unit in conjunction with the residential improvements located thereon.Therefore,Duff&Phelps hereby request that the subject property be classified as residential instead of commercial. Petitioner's estimate of value: $475,000 (2013 )and $475,000 (2014 Value Year 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( Petitioner's Signature Email By Daytime Phone Number(303 )749.9033 Agent's Signature" travis.stuardeduffandphelps.com Email '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 Tax Year Actual Assessed Tax Actual Assessed Tax Original Corrected Abate/Refund ❑Assessor recommends approval as outlined above. lithe 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)(I)(D),C.R.S. Tax year. Protest? ❑No ❑Yes (If a protest was filed,please attach a copy of the NOD.) Tax year. Protest? 0 No 0 Yes (If a protest was flied,please attach a copy of the NOD.) ❑Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s): Assessor's or Deputy Assessor's Signature 15-DPT-AR No.920-86/15 r , Sch# - 3922, NTC & Co.; Brush Creek Village, Block 3, Lot 5, Filing 2 The petitioner is requesting an abatement for tax years 2013, 2014, and 2015. For each of these tax years, the valuation is not subject to dispute, only the vacant land classification. The abatement request claims that the subject parcel is under common ownership with the adjoining improved residential parcel (sch# 3865) and is enjoyed as a unit. Therefore the vacant parcel qualifies for a residential classification. After researching the ownership records of the two parcels, it was discovered that the improved parcel, sch# 3865, is held under the ownership of Harold L. Stitt Family Bypass Trust and the Stitt Family Trust while the vacant subject parcel, sch# 3922, is held under the ownership of NTC & Co. Being separate legal entities, it is the position of the Pitkin County Attorney's office that the two parcels are not under"common ownership". Further, Scotty Giddings did a site inspection of the subject parcel and found no distinct or obvious evidence that the vacant parcel was being used in conjunction with the adjacent residential parcel. As such, the Assessor's office recommends that the vacant parcel does not qualify for the residential classification. If approved as requested, the refund would be: tax year 2013 -$5,558; tax year 2014 - $5,656; 2015 - $5,300 Recommended action: Uphold the assessor's recommendation to deny the request for a change in classification or, recommend a change in classification either or in full or in part. Hearing Officer Recommendation: The Petitioner has demonstrated that Austine Stitt is in an ownership position in the named owner of each of these parcels. They are not both in one common name and I believe this does not qualify under Pitkin County's tiefinition of common ownership. The Pitkin County BOE and County Commissioners have been advised by the county attorney that common ownership is defined as owned by exactly the same entity. Trust documents were provided that demonstrate Austine Stitt's ownership in the trusts but those may give others present or future ownership in the property and do not qualify as the same name or entity and therefore are not common ownership. In addition the use of the property as a buffer and benefit of a potential fenced dog run do not in my opinion meet the standard as integral to the residential use of the improved site. I recommend that the petitioners request for reclassification to residential be denied. Stephen C. Hach 064'' / Please see following Page Below,in addition to the information provided at the hearing by the Petitioner and the Assessor, is part of the information that was also used to make my determination. A partial description as offered by the Division of Real Estate is; "Residential Land"means a parcel or contiguous parcels of land under common ownership upon which residential improvements are located ant that is used as a unit in conjunction with the residential improvements located thereon. From the 2012 court ruling Fifield v. Pitkin County Board of Commissioners 4 Suggested Criteria(but not limited to the 4)were developed by the Pitkin County Assessor to evaluate the residential classification. 1. Are the contiguous parcels under common ownership?(The Pitkin County Attorney's office has interpreted"common ownership"as held under exactly the same entity and name provided this interpretation to the BOE and County Commissioners) 2. Are the parcels considered an integral part of the residence and actually used as a common unit with the residence? 3. Would the parcel(s)in question likely be conveyed with the residence as a unit? 4. Is the primary purpose of the parcel and associated structures to be for the support, enjoyment,or other non-commercial activity of the occupant of the residence?