Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutbocc.res.046.2018FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY (Section I11 Q 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: Actual Tax Year Assessed Jet 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 12, Oil& _wig (Must be completed if Section 111 does not apply) WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of r !� I Tic. t Al County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on 0 / 27 / Zv/B , at which meeting there were present the following members: Month Day Year �i9 f•'t'r CLAPPER- > 12A-/2-tei a s.2 .srv6— c6 u-iD (1-- Lve—Oil /Vt- c0 M,4 IV with notice of such meeting and an opportunity to be present having been given to the Petitioner and the Assessor of said County and Assessor L.,4-12-9-vt F i ra dieing presen)not present) and Name Petitioner /4ICk-ESA (being present-(t prese3X 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 (regree-does not a ree) with the recommendation of the Assessor, and that the petition be (approved --approved in part enie with an abatement/refund as follows: Year Assessed Value Taxes Abate/Refund .c Chairpe on of the Board of Cou Commissioners' Signature 1, Jt!�(Art GTTr 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 copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commies: CNN% u N enpN IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my han f k . xed'tL i I of said Cou fr this �g day of J+Ji� . t, % 4 •• iS Ar �/�� Month Yet E'`L n '• ,�.',' Clerk's or Deputy ounty Clerk's Signature o� ...... ; . Note: Abatements greater than $10,000 per schedule, per year, must b.'- f to to the Property ax Administrator for review. Section V: Action of the Property Tax Administrator (For all abatements greater than $10,000) 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. 920-66/11 fiTrildIMENT HEARING OFFICER DETERMINATION PITKIN COUNTY ABATEMENT HEARING Property Owner's Name: 71.1) TAX YEAR: 20 1 7- Property Address: R 3 /41 e_ DX Legal Description: /"1ov-f'e-,ti ?IA Hearing Date: 6 ° % `' , / U Hearing Time: "1 ci-pvl Assessor's Representative: rr A �yl S\ Assessor's Valuation: `t?��� 8• 5 3 (r6 Owner(s) Requested Value: Schedule No. r ` 1 VALUATION DATA COLLECTION PERIOD: F./. / 7 - C 3 O t/6 4s/ Owner(s) Justification for Appeal: Assessor's Justification for Valuation: $ e- - ' ,cer Re-5 Classification Code: 0/Z/I212 Land: Improvements: Total: $) 7-7 ', 3 cia TO BE FILLED OUT BY HEARING OFFICER: Petitioner Present: yes i( no Comments/Remarks: Dunn Sch# R16768 983 Moore Dr., Aspen 81611 The major 2 differences in opinion of value between the petitioner and assessor rep was a suggested $1,000,000 adjustment for negative market factors along with a big difference in opinion for time adjusted price. The assessor's office presented good comps in the immediate area including a sale in Meadowood that supports their opinion of value of $ 8,778,300. My recommendation is that there be no adjustment. If more room is needed continue qn back page Property Owner Present: Yes X No Determination: No Change X Stipulation The following Change: Present Value: 778, 3 d C7 Adjusted Value: Classification Code: If (z. // Z/ t-. Land: Improvements: Total: g, 7 7 8 , 3 Olp JAcK M usel2 l U 5 C a� Hearing Officer: Hearing Office Signature • ASSESSOR'S OFFICE May 22, 2018 Mills Ford AV Pros, LLC 3199 South Pearl Street Englewood, CO 80113 Re: Sch# R16768, 983 MOORE DR Aspen, CO 81611 Subdivision: MOORE FAMILY PUD Block: G Lot: 4 Dear Mr. Ford, 506 E. Main Street, Suite 202 Aspen, Colorado 8161 1-2903 phone (970) 920-5160 fax (970) 920-5174 The Board of County Commissioners will consider your petition for abatement of taxes on the above listed property at a hearing scheduled for June 14, 2018 at 9:00 A.M. The meeting will take place in the County Courthouse meeting room located at 506 East Main Street, Aspen, Colorado. There are several taxpayers being scheduled for hearings at this time. We are attempting to allot 30 minutes hearing time for each abatement petition. While we can't guarantee exactly when your hearing will commence, a list is enclosed to show the order in which the abatements will be heard. The Pitkin County Assessor is recommending denial of your abatement request. Enclosed for your information is the material that is being included in the commissioners' packets for this hearing. Please call me at 920-5160 if you have any procedural questions. Since the Assessor is recommending denial of your petition, you may want to appear to state your case. If you can't be here in person, you may request to present your case by conference call. The Board may not concur with the recommendation made by the Assessor. Cordially, Larry Fie Chief Appraiser Pitkin County Assessor office Hearing Order: Sch# 5224, Christopher and Pamela Denby Sch# 10063, Phillip Kendall Sch# 16768, Mickey T. Dunn Sch# 19728, Mountain Song Sch# 2270, Mark and Arlene Baratz Sch# 12768, Helen Louise Mead PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES County: Pitkin Date Received (Use Assessor's or Commissioner's Date Stamp) Section 1: Petitioner, please complete Section I only. Date: April 2, 2018 Month Day Year Petitioner's Name: Mickey T Dunn Petitioner's Mailing Address: 165 S OAK TRL Fredericksburg, TX 78624-4319 RECEIVED APR 1 1 2018 PITKIN COUNTY ASSESSOR City or Town State Zip Code ******* PLEASE CONDUCT ALL CORRESPONDENCI•, THROUGH PETITIONER'S AGENT******* SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER PROPERTY ADDRESS R016768 983 Moore Dr Aspen CO 81611-4319 Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes and states that the taxes assessed against the above property for the property tax year(s) 2017 is 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.) Petitioner does not agree with the County Assessor's valuation for 2017 assessment purposes of the subject property described above. Please see attached appraisal report and other supporting data for details. Petitioner's estimate of value: $5,975,000 (2017 ) Value Year(s) 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. Petitioner's Signature , Agent Agent's Signature" Daytime Phone Number ( Daytime Phone Number (303) 757.2570 / fordidit(caatt.net c/o AVPros, LLC, 3199 S Pearl St, Englewood, CO 80113 *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 Actual Original Corrected Abate/Refund Assessed Tax ❑ 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: Protest? ❑ No ❑ Yes (if a protest was filed, please attach a copy of the j`IOD.) ® Assessor recommends denial for the following reason(s): Matlock- C071,p Md. bOtt- C 4 d 74-fr1. Assessor's or ep, ty Assessor's Signature 15-DPT-AR No. 920-66/11 LETTER OF AUTHORITY May 14, 2017 Mills Ford AVPros, LLC 3199 South Pearl Street Englewood, Colorado 80113 RE: Filing a protest and/or appeal with regard to the 2017 assessed value with the County Attorney's Office in the county where my property is located for my property known as: 983 Moore Dr, Aspen, legally titled in the name of Mickey T Dunn with Parcel Identification Number: PIN: MAUI. Dear Mr. Ford, Uwe hereby appoint AVPros, LLC to act as my/our agent to present appraisal data and make arguments to the County Assessor's office in the county where my property is located in an effort to reduce the 2017 valuation for assessment purposes on my property described above, and further, if necessary, to act on my/our behalf with regard to continuing the protest/appeal process to the second round venue, the County Board of Equalization. Thanks for your efforts in this matter. Yours truly, BY Name: (Prit) Date If Owner is an LLC, corporation, or other enti#, then REPLACE th tittoele above with tits following signotittre block] XX Entity Nome By: Name: (Mit) Title: /VPRoS THE ASSESSED VALUE PROTEST PROS April 4, 2018 Pitkin County Board of Equalization Pitkin County Administration Offices 123 Emma Road, Suite 106, Basalt, Colorado 81621 APPRAISER 3199 South Pearl Street Englewood, CO 80113 mills@avprotestpros.com 303.626-7600/ 303.757.2570 RE: 2017 assessment value property appeal for property whose address is 983 Moore Dr., Aspen CO 81611-4319, and PIN is R016768. Board of Equalization, I looked at numerous residential sales in the west Aspen area where the subject is located in an effort to find comparable sale data, which was reduced to the 5 comparable sales used. The Subject's 4,609 above grade improved square feet is in the middle in size of the comparable sales I used which were in the range of 3,440 to 5,266 square feet. All but one of the sales used have similar basement and finished basement situations when compared to the subject's partially finished 1,859 square foot, 1,269 finished basement. The subject's 1.669 acre lot size fit in the middle of the five sales used, 1 larger, 1.953 acres, and 4 smaller ranging from 0.558 to 1.100 acres. Generally, all of the 5 sales used were newer constructed residences ranging in effective age from 1997 to 2015 (built in 2000), with the subject's effective year of construction listed as 2002. There are, however, negative conditions present in the subject property on January 1, 2017, which I considered when making adjustments. The subject property was a recent sale in the marketplace selling in the last base sale period on April 6, 2014. A synopsis of the transaction is as follows: The original listing price was $6,450,000 which was reduced to $5,950,000 at the time it went under contract and closed for $5,200,000 after having been a total of 289 days on the market. At the same time, the 2015 assessed value was originally $6,137,900 which was reduced to $5,240,000 as a result of my abatement/refund petition. I believe the reason that the stipulated 2015-16 assessment value was $40,000 more than the purchase price was simply because the Buyer spent $40,000 to add a hot tub after closing. As of January 1, 2017 the owner maintains that all he has done to the property since closing was the addition of the hot tub. In analyzing the subject's sale it's apparent to me that there is some sort of market resistance inherent in the property that causes it to under -perform as it recently did in the market. In my opinion, the current base sale period which began just 82 days after subject's sale date is not that different from the one it sold in. If anything my TASP analysis shows a slower appreciating market than the previous base sale period. Therefore, it is my belief that the subject's design -location - condition issues as they exist would cause sales resistance in the approximate amount of $1,000,000, an amount similar to that measured in the last sale. In my opinion, the addition of a hot tub by itself did not address the systemic negative market factors that make up the subject property. Thus, in my sales comparison grid I made a negative $1,000,000 adjustment to the five sales used based on my objective market analysis of the subject property. In selecting the comparable sales used, I felt it was most important to find sales in the subject's immediate area in as close proximity to the subject as possible that have similar age, utility, size, lot size, and garage situation. The sales used are all within a reasonable distance of the subject. In making my adjustment for time, I used an annual +1.80 percent TASP factor that I derived from linear regression analysis of base period sales in Pitkin City. A copy of the TASP study is included in this report. In the attached Sales Comparison Grid, I looked at a number of sales in the subject's west Aspen neighborhood, two sales had larger above ground square footage, two are excellent and three are good quality, similar lot sizes and values, age, utility, basement size, basement finish, and garage situation. A substantial adjustment was made reflecting the subject's condition issues which is explained in this letter. The indicated value range for the subject is $4,802,058 and $6,719,945. Sale 3 is considered the best sale because of the smallest net adjustment and overall similarity to the subject. Sale 1 and 5 are the next best sales because of the next smallest net adjustments and the fact their indicated values bracketed the subject's indicated value. Sales 2 and 4 are helpful in determining the range of indicated value for the subject and the fact their indicated values bracketed the subject's indicated value. An annual TASP adjustment of +1.8% was used based on linear regression analysis of property sales in the subject's area and price range - a copy of the TASP study is made part of this report. From my review and analysis of the subject, I estimate the value of the subject property for tax assessment purposes, as of June 30, 2016 to be $5,975,000. Additional comments and illustrative material regarding my appraisal are contained in the attached appraisal material. Thank you for your consideration. Respectfully submitted, 44) Mills H. Ford Certified General Appraiser Lic.# CG01316568 SUBJECT Aerial Photo of the Subject Location Map Property Map rO 123' 141' bing 43' 223' pr.+ Lot Detail and Location 29' 178' 308' C 2018 Microsoft Corporsiim € 20tE HERE 55 y ads 200 yard Ls LIN Prop. Owner SCH./PIN # Sub Area Street No. Street Dir Street Name Street Type City Condition Prop Type Zoning Lot Size (AC.) Lot Value House Style Construction Quality Grade Overall Rating Bsmt.Walkout Tot. SF MLS MLS Sq Ft As Bsmt Size MLS Bsmt Fin MLS Bsmt Size As Bsmt Fin As Effective Age YOC Bdmi # MLS Bdrms As Bath # MLS Baths As Fireplace # Car Storage Garage #.Cars Garge Size Ext.Amenities AV'16 AV Land'17 AV'17 Sold Date Solid Price Sold Fin Terms Sold Loan Amt Sold Loan Int Seller Conces. Data Source Broker Agent Seller Type Time Adjust Time Adj. Rate Adj.Sales Price CDOM Liv. Area Adj. Net Adjust Indic $ p/SF Indic Val Sub. X 4,802,058 6,528,578 5,705,560 5,966,105 6,719,945 SUBJECT Adj. SALE 1 #1 ADJ. SALE 2 #2 ADJ. SALE 3 #3 ADJ. SALE 4 #4 ADJ. SALE 5 #5 ADJ. DUNN 103 113 107 101 R016768 R004338 R016793 R014425 R004073 Moore Family F Pyramid View E Moore Family F Maroon Cree Meadowood 983 135 416 86 721 S Moore Maroon Moore Meadow Meadowood Dr Dr Dr Ln Dr Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen Last Sale Cond -$1,000,000-1,000,000-1,000,000 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN 13 1.669 1.110 1.953 0.930 0.558 0.587 $3,500,000 75% $2,750,000 562,500 $2,600,000 675,000 $2,850,000 487,500 $2,600,000 675,000 $2,600,000 675,000 2 1 3 3 Excellent 10% Good 417,780 Excellent Excellent Good 351,820 600 600 400 600 600 400 $40,000 4,609 3,682 282,059 4,155 262,735 4,969 -143,331 3,440 617,151 1,859 $90 1,610 22,410 2,452 -53,370 901 86,220 128 155,790 1,269 $150 1,610 -51,150 2,452 -177,450 901 55,200 190,350 2002 $0.4 1998 208,890 2015 -456,625 1997 488,375 2000 87,955 2002 1975 2000 1997 1970 6 4 5 1 7 4 6 6 1 2 $12,000 2 24,000 3-12,000 1 12,000 Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage 704 $62 1,168 -28,768 815 -6,882 686 1,116 624 4,960 $5,240,000 $3,883,200 $4,320,500 $5,589,200 $2,809,600 $3,500,000 $2,750,000 $2,600,000 $2,850,000 $2,600,000 $8,778,300 $4,838,900 $4,005,000 $6,757,000 $4,359,100 4/9/14 9/18/14 4/3/15 11/23/15 12/22/15 $5,200,000 $4,250,000 $7,100,000 $5,680,000 $4,825,000 l3,640,000/Conv $3,300,000/Conv $3,840,000/Conv ADJUSTABLE „ ADJUSTABL ADJUSTABLE ADJUSTABLI ADJUSTABLE Realist Realist Realist Realist Realist 6/30/16 1.80% 6/30/16 6/30/16 6/30/16 6/30/16 0.1500% 3.2550% 2.2700% 1.1000% 0.9550% 4,388,338 $7,261,170 $5,742,480 $4,871,079 1,046 321 39 356 $1.50 MEAN $5,944,449 MEDIAN $5,966,105 INDIC. VALUE 6/30116 $5,975,000 $ p/SF $1,296.38 114 R016797 Moore Family P 171 Cascade Ln Aspen Excellent 600 5,266 1,722 1,722 2000 2000 6 7 2 Attached Garac 816 $5,740,300 $2,600,000 $8,281,600 8/12/14 $6,950,000 $63,347/Conv ,ADJUSTABLE Realist 6/30/16 3.4400% 283 e -365,651 12,330 -67,950 284,080 -6,944 $7,189,080 304.27 578.71 398.14 527.93 556.55 413,721 -732,592 -36,920 1,095,026-469,135 1,304.20 1,571.26 1,148.23 1,734.33 1,276.10 4,802,058 6,528,578 5,705,560 5,966,105 6,719,945 REMARKS: I looked at a number of sales in the subject's west Aspen neighborhood, two sales had larger above ground square footage, two are excellent and three are good quality, similar lot sizes and values, age, utility, basement size, basement finish, and garage situation. An substantial adjustment was made reflecting the subject's condition issues which is explained in the accompanying letter. The indicated value range for the subject is $4,802,058 and $6,719,945. Sale 3 is considered the best sale because of the smallest net adjustment and overall similarity to the subject. Sale 1 and 5 are the next best sales because of the next smallest net adjustments and the fact their indicated values bracketed the subject's indicated value. Sales 2 and 4 are helpful in determining the range of indicated value for the subject and the fact their indicated values bracketed the subjects indicated value. An annual TASP adjustment of +1.8% was used based on linear regression analysis of property sales in the subject's area and price range - a copy of the TASP study is made part of this report. SUBJECT AND COMPARABLE SALES SUBJECT 983 Above Gr SF Basement Fin Bsmnt Lot Size Ac Sale Price Sale Date SALE 1 135 Above GrSF Basement Fin Bsmnt Lot Size Ac Sale Price Sale Date SALE 2 416 Above Gr SF Basement Fin Bsmnt Lot Size Ac Sale Price Sale Date SALE 3 86 Above GrSF Basement Fin Bsmnt Lot Size Sale Price Sale Date SALE 4 721 Above Gr SF Basement Fin Bsmnt Lot Size Sale Price Sale Date SALE 5 171 Above Gr SF Basement Fin Bsmnt Lot Size Sale Price Sale Date Ac Ac Ac Moore Dr 4,609 1,859 1,269 1.669 Maroon Dr 3,682 1,610 1,610 1.110 $4,250,000 9/18/14 Moore Dr 4,155 2,452 2,452 1.953 $7,100,000 4/3/15 S Meadow Ln 4,969 901 901 0.930 $5,680,000 11/23/15 Meadowood Dr 3,440 128 0.558 $4,825,000 12/22/15 Cascade Ln 5,266 1,722 1,722 0.587 $6,950,000 8/12/14 TASP STUDY ASPEN / SNOWMASS 2017 ASSESSMENT VALUE BASE SALE PERIOD 7/1/14 to 6/30/16 4 AVERAGE ■ MEDIAN Linear (AVERAGE) { { m < -1 N Ni \ Filili! 91111 S!XV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C0 0 O O Ln o ul o 0 0 0 Lc) o Ln O 0 In 0 C) u') Z n Ln Q- N c-I 0 0 N 0 C+') O Ln 0 CO rl n N- Cl d' Q1 r+ i rri d r n en r+i m W tv} t/ v} Vv} try UT t/} t} v} cY C1 O Cn N ci l0 UD C1 d ' d- Cl N Kt LD N N m LIJ N Ln Ln 0 N Ns (Y1 Cl dt O 00 N n Y LD Q N 00 Ln Cl Cl m dY ri 0 W CO +-I 0 0 C1 N, dr ul O Cr Ln ▪ Ln Ln v Lri Ln cY Ln Q / • v)- v} v} 1J 11- t/ t1 V} cY czY ‘zt Ln Ln Ln ul u) lD NY .-1 c-I rl c-I e-I c-I .--I ci ci u J \ \ \ \ \ \ - \ i_ 0 0 .1 c-I 0 O %-1 ri 0 cc m Cr) Cr) M M M enrn \ \ \ \ \ \ \ Q 11 m up Cl+i D CN l N up m c-1 ,-I a 00 N 0 Cl N LD N CA 'YI O N (.0 dt (.0 Ln lD Ln f N� Ln QUARTERLY SALES FOR BASE SALE PERIOD Z Q 3 WC 0 0 0 0 O O N d 00 Cl m V} t/? 0 O O i-1 ADOPT LRA TASP STUDY ASPEN / SNOWMASS 2017 ASSESSMENT VALUE BASE SALE PERIOD 7/1/14 to 6/30/16 MONTH END AVERAGE 76 N • AVERAGE ■ MEDIAN Linear (AVERAGE) 7 11 (o c J 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 01 00 1\ l0 ul M r' ri ir? iR in in. in to in in in aMl sixd MONTHLY SALES FOR BASE SALE PERIOD Z CW 0 0 N c N aS 00 — U 00 7D i C m W N Q O O ADOPT LRA 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Ln o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O Ln 0 Ln O O O O O O O O O Ln o O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O N O N O Ln Ln O O O O Ln a N o O m 0 0 0 0 0 0 Li) In Ql Ln i-I 0 Ln O) N O Ln O o N 0 01 0 O) Cr al O l0 0 0 0 N I� N LC) O lD CO l0 m Cr) 00 LD Ol r-1 O) Ln O) 0 Ol m N Ln Ln 00 ri ri (NJ M N M CO' ct M N N N M M M N M Ln M M N rr.4 Ch t/} t/T in- t/} t/)- trT tn. VT t/T 1/1- t/T t/} t/} t/} tP t/i t/} i/} VI- t/T t/T t/T tn- t/T ri Ln M M N O Ln <-1 Vl Ln O- M Ln N 00 m Cr M M Ol 0 O) M c-I 1� 00 N. M O Ln Ln N N N Ln Ct M I- lD O O l0 Ln Ln o0 0 M Ln N Cr) O 00 m ri N.O O e-i M L) N O m N Ln ci l0 LO SD O) N CO 01 N. N O) lD M LO L0 N O) ri O) 00 N 00 Ln O) N O l0 O) N N O 00 N LD IJ i-I rn O CO O l0 CO CT) Ln Cr M lD rO i ri Cr CO00 00 Ln L) I� n lO O o 00 N Lr1 Q) N lO N -I to lO O1 m Ln LO LO N N r-1 M lD M 00 N O1 N - CO' m Lr) 00 re -is M Ln u- M d' Ln LD l0 - Lfl 7t d' Lr1 in- t/} t/? i/T t/T t/T t/? th t/T t!T t/T to t/} in (A- t/? t/)- t/} t/} t!} t!? t/} t!} t/T t!} t/T • cr zt Ct Ln Ln Ln Ln If) Ln Lr) If) Ln Ln Ln Ln LD l0 LO LO LD VD r1 r-i c--1 r-1 r-1 ri r-i ri e-1 r-1 c-1 r-1 r-1 '- ri r-1 r-1 r1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 r-1 e-i 0 • <-1 ri 0 ri • 0 r-1 • e1 • 00 • ri 0 r-1 0 ri ri 0 r1 ▪ 0 ▪ r-1 ▪ ri (7) r-1 0 • ri 0 CO M CO CO CO m m m CO N M m M M M CO m M co M m N m m m m Ln l0 ▪ N 00 O) O • r-1 N • <1 • N • m • Ln co N- 00 O) 0 ▪ r-1 • N ▪ r-1 N M Cr ▪ in LD i-1 r-1 i-1 ri r-1 ri 00 M LD M N LD N l0 N Ln c-I LD Ln N O) N 00 1- N ci O) N O) LDI O) N N N r-1 c-I N N r-I c-I r1 ri r-1 ri Cr Cr Appraiser Recommendation for an Abatement Assessor Generated ❑ Taxpayer Generated Q To: Tom Isaac, Pitkin County Assessor From: Dan Popish Date: 5/29/18 Petitioner: Mills Ford (agent for owner) Schedule #: R16768 Parcel #: 273514111104 The appraiser has completed a review of the referenced property, as of this date, and hereby submits a recommendation as stated below: 121 Deny ❑ Approve as Submitted ❑ Abatement/Refund Different than requested Abatement for Year: Abatement for Year: 2017 Data collection period for year #2: July 1, 20 to June 30, 20_ Data collection period for year #1: July 1, 2014 to June 30, 2016 Assessment Rate: Assessment Rate: 7.2% Tax Area: Tax Area: 087 Mill Levy: Mill Levy: 45.716 Actual Value this year: Actual Value this year: $8,778,300 New Value: New Value: No Change Assessed Value Tax Amount Assessed Value Tax Amount Original value: $ 632,040 $ 28,894.36 Original value: $ $ Corrected value: $ No Change $ No Chance Corrected value: $ $ Refund: $ $ Refund: $ No Change $ No Change The basis of this recommendation is: Attached comparable sale grid for the subject shows 3 comparable sales with a median of $8,774,192 (also comparable #1). Comparable #1 has the fewest adjustments to match the subject with comparable #2 and #3 having done remodels after their sales. Upon review of comparable sales, it was determined that the subject property was valued correctly in accordance with Colorado statutes. Recommend denial. Chief Appraiser Approval Assessor Approval: danpo @ May 22, 2018 8:38:25 AM Pitkin County Colorado Assessor CO c 0 N ;in shed Basement Area -t o Effective Year Runt . 'C er, r 0, to CA < C G' y a;eD• od A-s Cn m a !A to 'D CA 10 t rj CO a '^ a et .0Y m z B e ere,p . 1-e C. c 'I ; w us sac Construction EXCELLENT Quality FINISHED 704 GARAGE HEATED FINISHED GARAGE Art Studio 526,600 Value $8,778,300 Value/Sqft $1,493 Adiusted Sale Indicated/SqFt ro rri z 1983 MOORE DR 273514111104 I ,. en a 00 0-.0000 r tr CN O 0 O 2002 o O .0 a v. IE. 47 W CA 00 . iv sO N. Cs EXCELLENT 1722.0000 5320.0000 2000 I2000 'MOORE PUD I 00 'DESCRIPTION 00 N 00 tT CO O r i+ v tT O+ o,O C O 0 O` 08/12/2014 ASPEN 171 CASCADE LN 273514111133 Comparable: R016797 q • I �! 1,. dEn C�� ......_ i. A N (A -a N EA U N O+ 0 O 0 0 EA t)) 00 $0 EA CON I, to •W EA W 0 EA ? W O 0 $0 000`006$ EA 0 0 +(-)ADJUST H9 r+ �7 EA 00 00 O 00 IV GOOD 0.0000 14555.0000 2002 N ,' 0-4 0 [MOORE PUD 0 --' LA DESCRIPTION J 000 o O O O f/i r in to A --1 000 O O 0 O 04/03/2015 ASPEN 416 MOORE DR 273514111129 1 Comparable: R016793 _ .1 • I� r'. - N OS m s„� 0o O U IQ On O O fA O 0 O 0 O N a ON O O so T CA O b oo O 69• 0 EA 0 O o O O _0 69 O EA O C (10 y d9 O EA J A O+ O --1 W IV GOOD O O111 O 14441.0000 2007 12006 MEADOWOOD Y 138677 0 'DESCRIPTION 1 fA O, W W O O H I,+ N T CO I000`005` S$ 03/07/2016 ASPEN 293 HEATHER LN 273511401014 Comparable: R004525 -- N • ,• F� EA -' eo W A Os O EA in N O O O 69 O h9 O EA L A O p O O EA O $552,8601 ^EA CO g, J 0 b9 O 000 00£$ EA O EA O r C to ►.J danpo @ May 22, 2018 8:38:25 AM Pitkin County Colorado Assessor X 4,802,058 6,528,578 5,705,560 5,966,105 6,719,945 SUBJECT Adi. SALE 1 #1 ADJ. SALE 2 #2 ADJ. SALE 3 #3 ADJ. SALE 4 #4 ADJ. SALE 5 #5 ADJ. Prop. Owner DUNN 103 113 107 101 114:. SCH./PIN # R016768 R004338 R016793 R014425 R004073 R016797 Sub Area Moore Family F Pyramid View E Moore Family F Maroon Cree Meadowood Moore Family Street No. 983 135 416 86 721 171 Street Dir S Street Name Moore Maroon Moore Meadow Meadowood Street Type Dr Dr Dr Ln Dr Ln City Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen Aspen ' Aspen Condition Last Sale Cond -$1,000,000-1,000,000 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 -1,000,000 Prop Type TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN TYPE UNKNOWN Zoning 13 Lot Size (AC.) 1,669 1.110 1.953 0.930 0.558 0.587 Lot Value 83,500,000 75% 52,750,000 562,500 $2,600,000 675,000 $2,850,000 487,500 $2,600,000 675,000 $2,600,000 675,000 House Style 2 1 3 3 Construction Quality Grade Excellent 10% Good 417,780 Excellent Excellent Good 351,820 Overall Rating 600 600 400 600 600 400 Bsmt.Walkout $40,000 Tot. SF MLS MLS Sq Ft As 4,609 3,682 282,059 4,155 262,735 4,969 -143,331 3,440 617,151 26 , -365,651 Bsmt Size MLS Bsmt Fin MLS Bsmt Size As 1,859 $90 1,610 22,410 2,452 -53,370 901 86,220 128 155,790 1.722 12,330 BsmtFinAs 1,269 $150 1,610 -51,150 2,452 -177,450 901 55,200 190,350 .1,722 -67,950 Effective Age 2002 $0.4 1998 208,890 2015 456,625 1997 488,375 2000 87,955 284,080 YOC 2002 1975 2000 1997 1970 Bdrm # MLS Bdrms As Bath # MLS Baths As 7 4 6 6 1 Fireplace # 2 $12,000 2 24,000 3 -12,000 1 12,000 2 Car Storage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attached Garage Attahed Garage Garage #.Cars Garge Size 704 $62 1,168 -28,768 815 -6,882 686 1,116 624 4,960 $16: -6,944 Ext.Amenities AV'16 $5,240,000 $3,883,200 $4,320,500 AV Land'17 83,500,000 $2,750,000 $2,600,000 AV'17 $8,778,300 $4,838,900 $4,005,000 Sold Date 4/9/14 9/18/14 4/3/15 Solid Price $5,20'0,000 $4,250,000 $7,100,000 Sold Fin Terms Sold Loan Amt ;3,640,000tConv $3,300,000/Conv $3,$40,000/Conv $63,3471Conv Sold Loan Int ADJUSTABLE , , ADJUSTABL ADJUSTABLE ADJUSTABLI ADJUSTABLE , ADJUSTABLE Seller Conces. Data Source Broker Agent Seller Type Time Adjust 6/30f16 1.80% 6/30/16 6/30/16 Time Adj. Rate 0.1500% 3.2550% 2,2700% Adj.Sales Price 4,388,338 $7,261,170 CDOM 1,046 321 Liv. Area Adj. $1.50 Net Adjust Indic $ p/SF Indic Val Sub. 6 Realist MEAN MEDIAN INDIC. VALUE $ p/SF 4 5 5 $5,944,449 $5,966,105 6130116 $5,975,000 $1,296.38 304.27 413,721 1,304.20 4,802,058 1,000,000 TYPE UNKNOWN Excellent 600 $5,589,200 $2,809,600 85,,740,300 $2,850,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 $6,757,000 $4,359,100 88,281,600. 11/23/15 12/22/15 8/12/14 $5,680,000 $4,825,000 $6950,000 Realist Realist Realist Realist 6/30/16 6/30/16 1.1000% 0.9550% $5,742,480 $4,871,079 39 356 578.71 398.14 527.93 -732,592 -36,920 1,095,026 1,571.26 1,148.23 1,734.33 6,528,578 5,705,560 5,966,105 $7,189,080 556.55 -469,135 1,276.10 6,719,945 REMARKS: I looked at a number of sales in the subjects west Aspen neighborhood, two sales had larger above ground square footage, two are excellent and three are good quality, similar lot sizes and values, age, utility, basement size, basement finish, and garage situation. An substantial adjustment was made reflecting the subject's condition issues which is explained in the accompanying letter. The indicated value range for the subject is $4,802,058 and $6,719,945. Sale 3 is considered the best sale because of the smallest net adjustment and overall similarity to the subject. Sale 1 and 5 are the next best sales because of the next smallest net adjustments and the fact their indicated values bracketed the subject's indicated value. Sales 2 and 4 are helpful in determining the range of indicated value for the subject and the fact their indicated values bracketed the subject's indicated value. An annual TASP adjustment of +1.8% was used based on linear regression analysis of property sales in the subject's area and price range - a copy of the TASP study is made part of this report. 01/6 FA.88 c-, / r 1 1; 4 1' 'f • . ( A ) — il t r r , / , 2 \ C:- •11' \ i t\ •! • !,.•;. I ,- '-ur ' . ,—, R \;•• ,..... , , •..77.7"" • • , - \ 2•' , -""' '''' i '" ; .,, i - , , , r - ) V ., / J . „c...I= '\ ' ''n-4' A' a;'' , ,•(c1' ;, \ p • k; I ';' , ; .'" , ',, , ;' ; ;.••: ..is -. .t-.' '-,. "-s1-.' \ , ,. : 'P 7 - .. ' ': 1: , , d\ ''..'.' 's- '\:, , , , e- . . ip •\ , \' • „' ;VD 1 // C4\ !\ -. .n \\ 7r' // \ D,\YA,;\ ,;c\ c• '' ' \' \\ ''- \\' •.,, " ',,''",• , b \ , \- \--!., ! \ \ \ .,,i :s-, ,--- \''-‘4:,,c,,. .,,,,,, \,,,,, •I;; \-1\ \ \ \ 'i t\.) \ \ , ''''' , C.a...) '' ' n ' \ ‘‘..,,,, \ \ -4;;;;:' , 't., . :.4.k • - 44! • \ , •• nk. !' -1:1•• • • 5i• r , ' • •! •• - 1.317i6- ' '')'' \' • / I ''''''• ) - \ ‘:,,4;(,;rti - - I \‘i' - N--.-1. • '' ' 42 r7n,.,,,JAT: 4/527/fri.- I '"". I 1 /1 i / `11:;;.•141',/ ,1 :14i '''',,,,, f ,4" . ,W .. 1 ,'W -./...,,., il ...1.,:r - 4, , . , „ 4 , . , ueititi, 11,1-'",,k-11•1., 41" "\ (11 CD • 1, '• 11,f;, CD 4,1!,?• 1i1;:t •," , to()/ „ Exterior Exterior 02013 Property of Aspen/Glenwood MLS Rear Exterior with View 02013 PropertyftWIGlenwaOd MLS ©201 3 Property of AspeniGlenwood MLS Deck 02013 Property of Aspen/Glenwood MLS Great Room Kitchen ©2013 Property of Aspen!Glenwood NILS Kitchen .• iANNININE, -i V2013 FropertyotAspen.Glenwood MLS Sittin. Area ,02.043 Property M1ofA1 nwood MLS Dinin• Room Dinin• Room Master Bedroom ; rerrx•r# 101 ,s Master Bath ,02Q13 Property of Aspen,Glenwood MLS ailitioperty of Aspen/Glenwood NILS Master Bath _ Qf A 4e n/Glenwood Master Bath ,C?2013 Property of Aspen.Glenwood MLS Bedroom Bedroom I'I'I •Iiyf Bedroom with Water Feature Detached Caretaker/Guest House '))2Q I.3 P {petty of Aspen:,_;lenwooci h.ILS Bedroom of /.i:I>f 1, _ 1=u ;i> ,(; IA ' View Flowers Flowers Chairlift •mot • • .; ..� Cl201 3 P, perty of AsFie,n7Y3lerhocl fSILS