OFFICE OF THE CLERK. The Routt County Board of County Commissioners adjourned and convened as the Routt County Board of Equalization.

Transcription

1 STATE OF COLORADO COUNTY OF ROUTT OFFICE OF THE CLERK Chair Douglas B. Monger called the meeting of the Routt County Board of County Commissioners to order. Commissioner Diane Mitsch Bush was also present. Commissioner Nancy J. Stahoviak was absent for the day s proceedings. Diana Bolton recorded the meeting and prepared the minutes. EN RE: BOARD OF EQUALIZATION The Routt County Board of County Commissioners adjourned and convened as the Routt County Board of Equalization. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; JON AND SANDRA PEDDIE Jon Peddie, petitioner; Mike Kerrigan, Assessor; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Will Wiggins, Appraiser, were present. Commissioner Monger swore in the petitioner; reminded the Assessor and the Appraiser that they were still under oath, and read the opening statement. Mr. Peddie said that the Appraiser had created a third tier of lots in the South Shore Subdivision at Stagecoach and in so doing had lowered the subject lot s tier and adjusted its value from $233,000 to $170,000. He reviewed all of the sales of lots in South Shore and stated that even with that adjustment, the value of his lot was unsubstantiated and unrealistic. He said that although his lot was elevated and had good views, it was a distance away from the water; the best lots and the most expensive homes were high on the hill. He asserted that there were insufficient sales to establish a sample size large enough to prove that his lot was three times more valuable than the typical tier lots. He estimated the lot s value to be between $100,000 and $125,000. Mr. Wiggins said that in the past, South Shore lots were divided into Typical and Lakefront single-family lots and Inferior, Typical, and Superior multi-family lots. The subject lot was originally in the Lakefront tier and valued at $233,000. That tier, for this reappraisal, at the Assessor level of protest, had been divided and adjusted into a $200,000 tier for Lakefront and a $170,000 tier for Offshore lots. The subject lot was categorized in the latter tier. He reviewe d the comparable sales that had been time-adjusted. He noted that no sales in the subject lot s tier had sold within the last and the present reappraisal periods to demonstrate the relationship over time of the increase in sales prices by tier. He noted that no distinction was evident between the desirability of single-family and multi-family lots; the number of permissible units was based on lot size. Page

2 Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Jon and Sandra Peddie, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as previously adjusted from $233,000 to $170,000 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; SINCLAIR GAS STATION, 500 SOUTH LINCOLN Jon Peddie, petitioner; Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, and John Zimmerman, ValueWest, were present. Mr. Peddie said that gas stations were valued on either the income approach or the underlying real estate. He stated that using comparable sales of gas stations in other communities was an unrealistic approach to value. The income approach was more appropriate because the cost to demolish a facility, including the removal of underground tanks, was substantial. He said that a gas station business was difficult to run sales fluctuated widely, and the petroleum industry was volatile; the Steamboat area was highly competitive, and the parking at the leased retail portion of the building blocked access to the s ubject property s gas pumps. Based on the net income and the cap rate of 8.5%, he estimated the value of the property to be $1,250,000. Mr. Zimmerman noted that the value had been adjusted from $2,172,550 to $1,630,130 at the Assessor level appeal. He discussed several items in the Profit and Loss statement submitted by the petitioner and questioned whether it was applicable to the value of the property because it was incomplete. He stated that the corner location of the business was highly visible and had good access, although parking was an issue; the site was improved with a convenience store, a leased retail business, a gas station, and repair bays. He reviewed comparable sales that established a land value of $749,000, or $617,270 per acre. He reviewed the cost approach based on Marshall and Swift, the market approach using comparable sales of gas stations with and without convenience stores, and the income approach. He reconciled to a total value of $1,784,405 and recommended that the adjusted value be upheld. Mr. Peddie said that the most appropriate approach should be used to establish value not a combination of the three approaches. He claimed that the business was not profitable in winter due to its distance from the ski area, and the convenience store did not have the volume of sales it would have in other communities because people did not buy as many snacks. Henoted that he paid the utilities on the leased portion of the property. Commissioner Monger thought that the parking situation was a detriment to the property and the income approach had established too high a value. He recommended a 7.5% cap rate for a further downward adjustment. Page

3 Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition for Schedule Number R , Sinclair Station on South Lincoln, but to adjust the value of the property to $1,410,700, with the finding that the property had difficulties and the commercial assessor s report using the cost and the market approaches valued the property significantly higher, so using a cap rate of 7.5%, the value as adjusted this day for tax year 2009 was the correct value. Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. was absent. Commissioner Stahoviak SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; JON AND SANDRA PEDDIE Jon Peddie, petitioner; Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, and Susan Chorak, Appraiser, were present. Mr. Peddie said that the Appraiser had adjusted the value of the property at the Assessor level appeal from $1,259,010 to $992,520, but that was still too high for the age and condition of the house. He reviewed comparable sales and showed photographs of his house to demonstrate its poor condition, particularly in comparison with the remodeled comparable sales. He stated that the property was a tear-down and should be valued on the land alone, less the cost to demolish the house. He estimated the value of the property to be $784,000. Ms. Chorak reviewed comparable sales for Old Town lots and improved properties and noted that the adjustment had been made to correct the zone district, the inventory of the improvements, and the land value. She concurred that the house was old but stated that it appeared structurally sound. She recommended that the adjusted value be retained because the comparable sales supported that value. Commissioner Monger noted that the neighborhood was nice, but he suggested an additional adjustment, based on comparable sales and the quality of the subject house. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Jon and Sandra Peddie, for a value of $784,000, but to adjust the value from $992,520 to $850,000, with the finding that, based on the evidence presented this day, the value as adjusted this day was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R , TWIN LANDFILL Page

4 Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , Twin Landfill, had requested an administrative denial. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition for Schedule Number R , Twin Landfill, based on the request of the petitioner. Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; LES LIMAN Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , Les Liman, had withdrawn its petition prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; LES LIMAN Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , Les Liman, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBERS R AND R ; LES LIMAN Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Numbers R and R , Les Liman, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; TIC HOLDINGS, INC. Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , TIC Holdings, Inc., had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY OF STEAMBOAT Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , The Industrial Company of Steamboat, had settled prior to this day s hearing. Page

5 SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY OF STEAMBOAT Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , The Industrial Company of Steamboat, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY OF STEAMBOAT Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , The Industrial Company of Steamboat, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; THE INDUSTRIAL COMPANY OF STEAMBOAT Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , The Industrial Company of Steamboat, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; TIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , TIC Industrial Company, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; TIC INDUSTRIAL COMPANY Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R ; TIC Industrial Company, had settled prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; THE HOME RANCH Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., Tina Segler, Appraiser, and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Commissioner Monger swore in the petitioner s representative, reminded the Assessor and the Appraiser that they were still under oath, and read the opening statement. Mr. Letman said that the Assessor s total value for the property was $3,408,620. The income and expenses for the Home Ranch for 2007 and 2008 had been furnished to the Assessor s Office; the income for 2007 was $1.9 million and $2.1 million for Based on the expenses in 2007 and 2008, for a net operating income in 2007 of $80,000 and $186,000 in 2008, indicated that the income fluctuated significantly from year to year. A cap rate of 10% Page

6 had been applied, and the 1.5% effective tax rate had been added, for a value of $692,024 for 2007 and $1,621,494 for He noted that the income for all of 2008 had been used to reflect the entire year, but the income from 2007 had been weighted double and for 2008 used once, to arrive at $1,002,000, the estimate of value for the subject property for tax year He said that according to the Real Estate Research Corporation, the going-in cap rate for a hotel in the West was 7.5 to 11%. A second source suggested that in Colorado the rate was 10% for a hotel, the category closest to a dude ranch. Based on those sources, a cap rate of 10% was used; the Assessor used a cap rate of 6% the lower the cap rate, the higher the value. Ms. Segler said that the cost approach, the sales comparison approach, and the income approach were considered when valuing the subject property. She had researched the cap rate and learned that it was rarely used for the type of business transacted on the subject property because it was too subjective and determined by sales, which were rare. The sales approach was not used since no guest ranches were sold in Routt County or any counties within Western Colorado during the time period. She reviewed her calculations for the income approach, which used the information submitted by the petitioner from 2001 through 2005 and noted that an appraiser developed a cap rate by comparing a sale price to a hypothetical income stream derived from similar unsold properties. The conclusion was a value of $1,353,147 to $3,301,650, based on cap rates of 4 to 8.5%, the range used for hotels and other resort/recreation commercial properties in Steamboat Springs, since operating income was $133,194 in 2008 and $27,470 in The cost approach, based on vacant land sales, established a land value of $500,000 for 2009, the depreciated cost of improvements of $2,554,056, and concluded to a value of $3,052,060. She stated that the assessed value of the property should be adjusted from $3,408,620 to $3,000,000. She said that historically, guest ranches incomes fluctuated dramatically, and guest ranches were often purchased for the long term more for the lifestyle than as an income-generating enterprise. Mr. Kerrigan stated that each approach had advantages and disadvantages. Commercial properties were much more unique than other types of properties, for example residential. The income approach required that the Assessor was able to obtain adequate comparable businesses incomes from which to derive an indication of value with which to develop cap rates and thus was not as reliable. If a cap rate seemed unreasonable, another approach was used. Mr. Letman said that guest ranches were purchased as an income-producing investment. He stated that in the cost approach, appreciation had to be factored into the value since, according to Marshall and Swift, structures had a variety of useful life. He said that the condition of the property on assessment date had to be considered. The condition of the market on January 1, 2009 was declining, which should have been considered in the Appraiser s calculations because the condition of the market affected a property. Mr. Kerrigan said that to quantify the economic obsolescence, the condition of the market had to be measured, and that market was as of June 30, 2008 so the condition of the market as of January 1, 2009 could not be quantified because the market could not be considered for that time period. When considering obsolescence, he said that it referred to the condition of a property, not the condition of the market. The Board discussed the appropriate cap rate to use. Page

7 Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved the deny the petition of Schedule Number R , The Home Ranch, but to adjust the value of the property to $2,231,600, based on the preponderance of evidence presented this day, and noted that the value was established using a cap rate of 6%. Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT INVESTMENTS CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman and Frank Westerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman said that the property was the Thunderhead and Rendezvous buildings. The Assessor s value was $10,305,411. Both he and the Assessor had used the cost approach and the same depreciation rate. He had valued the building as part restaurant, part warehouse, had factored the cost to reconstruct a new building and the cost to get materials up the mountain, and had concluded to a value of $4,986,000, which, using the Assessor s square footage, came to $6,400,589. He reviewed the cost of reconstruction, based on Marshall and Swift, and had added a local multiplier. He estimated the value of the subject property to be $5,000,000. Mr. Kerrigan said that the value was based on improvements only and was arrived at by using the cost approach, which estimated a value by estimating the cost to replace, applying the accrued depreciation, and then adding land value. No land value was included in the analysis of the subject property. Mr. Kerrigan determined that the Marshall and Swift replacement cost estimates were low and did not reflect local costs or the building s location so he had used a local cost multiplier of 1.5 and a mountain multiplier of 1.2, based on a survey of the cost to construct several different types of structures throughout Routt County. He reviewed his assumptions and calculations based on a 40-year building life and 62% depreciation and, using the petitioner s square-footage, concluded to an adjusted value of $9,109,330. Mr. Letman commended Mr. Kerrigan for his thorough research. He said that he would continue to use Marshall and Swift, but he had no rebuttal to Mr. Kerrigan s analysis. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Investments Corporation for a value of $5,000,000, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the Page

8 value as adjusted from $10,305,411 to $9,109,330 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT INVESTMENTS CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman and Frank Westerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman said that the property was the ski patrol headquarters and the snowmaking equipment building. He had used the same cost approach and factors as the previous petition and had concluded to a value of $704,000. Mr. Kerrigan reviewed his analysis using the cost approach and the same construction costs of various buildings and recommended an adjustment from $888,221 to $855,720. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Investments Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as adjusted from $888,221 to $855,720 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT INVESTMENTS CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman and Mr. Kerrigan stated that their analyses were the same as the previous two petitions. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Investments Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as adjusted this day by the Assessor s Office from $1,292,821 to $507,770 was the correct value for tax year Page

9 Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT SKI AND RESORT CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman said that the property was the Headwall, school, gondola, and the information booth. The Assessor had valued the property at $14,225,190, which included a 200-space underground parking lot that did not exist on this property. He suggested deducting $5,500,000 for that parking lot, for a corrected Assessor s value of $888,220. He said that the Assessor had valued the land at $9,351,060; he proposed a value for the land of $2,613,600 and a total value of $3,663,600. He said that the property was a 30-acre parcel, essentially in open space, with an acre of land on which the gondola was located. Mr. Kerrigan said that he would discuss the improvements on the property; Mr. Zimmerman would address the land value. Mr. Kerrigan acknowledged that the parking garage was a common area. He reviewed his cost approach analysis of the improvements and discussed the land value, based on comparable sales using a base of $100,000 per acre for a land value of $2,890,000, and concluded to a total value of the property of $23,986,235, which, he stated, was incorrect. Based on cost estimates to replace the structures as discussed previously, he had placed the square-foot value at $350 for the gondola terminal, which he was revising this day to $250 per square foot and $160 per square foot to replace the office spaces, he concluded to a revised value of the improvements of $6,829,600. Mr. Zimmerman discussed the land value established at $2,890,000, using a base of $100,000 per acre for the open space. The other acre, on which the gondola was located, was zoned G2. He valued that acre at the full market rate of $6.5 million to be consistent with other G2 lots that were developable in higher density with the gondola structure integrated into the residential units, as Avon, Aspen, Vail, and Telluride had done. He reviewed comparable sales to support his full market rate per acre, for a total upward-adjusted land value of $9,351,060. Mr. Kerrigan stated that with the value of the land at $9,351,060 at the value of the improvements at $6,829,600, the total adjusted value was recommended at $16,180,660. Mr. Frank said that the gondola acre had an easement so full use of the acre was impossible. Mr. Kerrigan said that the comparative sales all had easements or other unique circumstances to resolve, and the sales prices reflected those costs to cure. Mr. Letman est imated that.75 of an acre would be unusable. The Board discussed a 40% adjustment for the easement on the one acre valued at Page

10 $6.5 million. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as adjusted from $ 14,225,190 to $13,620,000 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT SKI AND RESORT CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman said that the subject property was the parking garage across from the Steamboat Grand and beside the Sheraton. He said that the Assessor s value was $5, 772,370. He said that the property had several easements to provide 230 spaces of parking for the Sheraton. He believed that the land would be the last to be redeveloped because the owner would have to provide those spaces. Thus, the land should be discounted 14% for a ten-year period for a land value of $1,334,900 and a value for the improvements, as established by the Assessor of $823,800, for a total estimate of value of $2,158,700. Another approach would be to say that the parking garage was the highest and best use, which would mean valuing the income produced and capitalize the income into value for the land and the improvements, which would be lower than the proposed estimate of value. Mr. Zimmerman acknowledged the easement, which he said would require resolution prior to redevelopment, for a land value of $4,948,600 and an improvements value of $823,770, for a total value of $5,772,370. He noted that over the past several years, the petitioner had annually requested a discount on the property. Mr. Kerrigan said that comparable sales reflected the subject property s limitations because the comparable sales all had issues as well. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as originally established of $5,772,370 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was Page

11 absent. SCHEDULE NUMBERS R , 97, 99, , 16, 17, 21-26, 3040, 41, 44-56, 58, AND 59; MOUNTAIN PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT, INC. Dan Berkey, petitioners attorney; Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, and Susan Chorak, Appraiser, were present. Commissioner Monger swore in the petitioners representative, reminded the Assessor and the Appraiser that they were still under oath, and read the opening statement. Mr. Berkey said that the subject appeal pertained to the 42 platted lots in the Barn Subdivision. He said that the State allowed a discount for unsold inventory to account for the time required to recoup a developer s investment. The issues to address this day were whether the Assessor s Office considered the risk rate component of the subdivider discount calculation and whether the six-year absorption period used by the Assessor s Office was appropriate for the subject development. He said that the summation method for the discount rate combined the safe rate, the management rate, the risk rate, and consideration for illiquidity. The safe rate and management rate were determined by the State; the Assessor had a range to use that took absorption trends, building permit trends, mortgage interest rate trends, employment trends, population trends, and various other factors into consideration when establishing the risk rate. He reviewed a bar graph to support the claim that the market was declining during the time period and stated that only one building permit had been issued during that time. He asserted that a mass exodus was occurring in the Yampa Valley due to job losses and that mortgages were difficult to obtain. He said that the property s location and appeal were good, but when the lots went on the market, other subdivisions lots were also for sale so the market was saturated. He noted the list of sales that showed that twelve sales had occurred between March and April, 2008; two lots had sold after the time period in July, and no sales had occurred since that time. He reviewed the number of lots reserved in the subdivision and the number that actually closed to demonstrate further the longer timeframe needed to sell the lots in the subdivision and the downward trend of the market. He recommended that the absorption period be nine or ten years rather than the Assessor s six years. Ms. Chorak said that she had calculated an absorption period of two years, based on 13 sales within the time period, which did not seem accurate so, after looking at sales in other subdivisions, she had changed the absorption period to six years. She noted that the petitioner s information included all of 2008, which skewed the data. She reviewed those sales to confirm her 6-year risk period. She noted that when land was discounted, the value could not fall below the raw land value. She stated that all of the unimproved lots in the subject subdivision were discounted. Mr. Kerrigan explained that all lots in all subdivisions were discounted until 80% of the lots were sold to recognize the risk of absorption for lots entering the market. Ms. Chorak said that the current values reflected the developer s discount. She explained that State statute required that valuation for 2009 be based on sales during an 18- month data collection period ending June 30, The sales used to determine the base Page

12 values occurred during the time period and, per State statute, were time-trended to June 30, The risk rate was rounded down and considered all risk factors. She recommended that the values for the subject lots be upheld. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petitions of the following schedule numbers, lots in Mountain Property Development, Inc., with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the values as originally established were the correct values for tax year 2009 as follows: Schedule Numbers R , 97, 99, 2300, , 16, 17, 21, 23-26: $166,565 Schedule Number R : $149,900 Schedule Number R : $16,655 Schedule Numbers R , 31, 38, 39, 40, and 41: $333,130 Schedule Numbers R and 35: $99,930 Schedule Numbers R and 34: $233,170 Schedule Number R : $299,790 Schedule Number R : $33,310 Schedule Numbers R : $183,220 Schedule Numbers R , 56, 58, and 59: $216,535 Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT SKI AND RESORT CORPORATION Walter Frank and John Maas, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; Bob Weiss, petitioner s attorney; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Commissioner Monger swore in the petitioner s attorney, reminded those present that they were still under oath, and read the opening statement. Mr. Weiss said the property was part of the Grand Summit Resort. He stated that the exterior and the land around the hotel were common elements owned by all of the owners of the hotel s air-space condominium units. Thus, the area was not taxable because the value of the common elements accrued to the units in the sale price. Ski Corp. had reserved development rights so had the right to withdraw the property from the common elements and convert it to the hotel, which planned to construct 52 additional units. Reserved development rights were not taxable in Colorado because they were a future interest, not a present interest. A Massachusetts case ruled that such common elements were not taxable, which was significant because the Massachusetts statute regarding common elements and future interest was similar to Colorado s statutes. He concluded that the subject property should not be taxed. If it were taxed, the Assessor had valued the 4.35 acres as developable based on other Page

13 multi-family resort property sales near the base of the ski area and within the time period for a value of $15,225,000. He did not dispute the comparable sales used to arrive at a per-acre value of $3,500,000. Yet, the majority of the property was encumbered by an easement for tram installation facilities so was not developable, and a substantial portion of the unencumbered property was undevelopable remnants. Consequently, only of the parcel was developable, and the property should be valued at $5.5 million. Mr. Letman said that the assumption was that Mr. Zimmerman had already discounted the property. Mr. Zimmerman said that the parcel was outside the G2 zone district so was not valued at $6.5 million per acre; the rate used was $3.5 million, which was consistent with land further away from the base area and in a different zone district and thus would not be discounted. Mr. Letman requested that the size of the parcel be changed from 4.35 acres to acres, for a value of $5,386,500, plus a 14% discount for a recommended value of $2,766,991. An appraisal of the 3.5 acres subject to development rights in February, 2007 valued those rights at $3.5 million. Factoring that figure to June, 2008, placed a value on the property of $5.2 million. Mr. Kerrigan noted that the issue raised by Mr. Weiss had been discussed in past years in relation to the parking structure, not the land around the hotel. He asked whether the easements had been recorded. Mr. Weiss said that they had, except the conversion of Units C23 and C22, the common elements to show the garage unit as a common element. Mr. Kerrigan said that the acreage had not changed on the portion of the property reserved for future development. He stated that all real property was subject to property taxes unless it was exempt by statute, and the common elements were not exempt by statute: they should be included in the market value of the properties that benefit from them. The question was whether the owners of the Steamboat Grand benefit from past, current, and future use of the property. In this case, they did not because the property had been reserved. Therefore, the property should be taxed. He said that the Assessor s records had described the ownership of the property inaccurately: the property owner was the Steamboat Grand, and an assignment should be reflected. The ownership would be corrected. He said that a question was who benefited from the easement, and he had insufficient information to address that issue. Another was whether any value had been conveyed. He stated that the easement impacted the value of the property, but not necessarily enough to reduce the value to nothing. Mr. Zimmerman said that the per-acre value was not being disputed, only the amount of acreage to calculate the value was being disputed. He was unclear when the easement was granted. Mr. Frank responded that the dominant estate was conveyed to Wildhorse S. E. Timbers and Ski Corp in April, 2004 and to Ski Corp as grantee in December, Commissioner Monger thought that value should only be established on the one-acre portion of the property; the remainder had no value. Mr. Kerrigan stated that value had to be based on use who could use it and for what. Mr. Weiss said that the people who owned the easements benefited, but easements were not taxed, and the owners could not use the land for anything, and both easements were in place as of January 1, Mr. Kerrigan thought that the land under the easements should be valued, but he had nothing prepared this day to suggest that value. Page

14 Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, but to adjust the value based on the preponderance of evidence presented this day that the value as adjusted from $15,225,000 to $5,500,000 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT SKI AND RESORT CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman said that the property was the Ski Time Square garage. The petitioner s argument was the same as the Sheraton garage petition. The Assessor had valued the land at $5 million per acre. He contended that due to the situation as of January 1, 2009, that value should be discounted for ten years at 14%, for a land value of $2,141,500, an improvements value of $285,000, and a total value of $2,426,500 versus the Assessor s total value of $8,223,950. Mr. Kerrigan said that the property was zoned G1, and comparable sales supported the original land value assessed. He noted that the highest and best use of the property was not a parking lot, and those parking spaces would have to be replaced if the garage were razed. Negotiations for the property to be redeveloped had occurred, but not knowing the nature of those, the property was valued on comparable sales. Mr. Zimmerman reviewed comparable sales to support Mr. Kerrigan s assertions and the level of value for the land. He stated that the discount requested was contrary to the intent of a subdivision discount and should not apply. Mr. Frank confirmed that the property had no easements so was unencumbered. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as originally established of $8,223,950 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT SKI AND RESORT CORPORATION Page

15 Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Letman said that the subject petition was the same argument as the above petition: the value of the lot near the Tennis Meadows should be discounted for a value of $3,100,600. Mr. Zimmerman said that the Meadows parking lot was valued at a lower rate, although it was flat, had high development potential, and a close proximity to the highway. Comparable sales supported the value established. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as originally established of $5,970,000 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; STEAMBOAT SKI AND RESORT CORPORATION Walter Frank, Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation; Steve Letman, petitioner representative; John Zimmerman, ValueWest, Inc., and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Mr. Zimmerman said that the Knoll lot was developable and supported the value established by comparable sales reviewed in previous petitions. Mr. Letman said that the land should be discounted and estimated the value to be $7,812,900. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R , Steamboat Ski and Resort Corporation, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as originally established of $14,781,960 was the correct value for tax year Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; CHASE THURSTON, LLC Page

16 Mr. Kerrigan stated that according to Appraiser John Zimmerman, this appeal was withdrawn on July 28, SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; FCP STEAMBOAT, LLC Mr. Kerrigan was present. Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , FCP Steamboat, LLC, had been settled prior to this day s hearing date. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; MARR 106 FAMILY LTD. Scott Marr, petitioner, and Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, were present. Commissioner Monger swore in the petitioner; reminded the Assessor that he was still under oath, and read the opening statement. Mr. Marr presented three appraisals that had been completed within the last three years. He had offered the Assessor to settle for the highest appraisal of $7,300,000. Mr. Kerrigan said that one of the appraisals preceded the 18-month time period; the latest appraisal was outside the time period. He had thoroughly reviewed the March, 2008 appraisal that valued the property at $8 million, including personal property, and had adjusted the total value of the property accordingly from $8,068,900 to $7,707,410 at the Assessor level appeal. Mr. Marr had provided the Assessor s Office with a personal property inventory, and Mr. Kerrigan was recommending a further reduction in the personal property value for a total adjusted property value of $7,231,370. Mr. Marr accepted that total valuation without rebuttal. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petition for Schedule Number R , Marr 106 Family Ltd., but to adjust the value of the property, with the finding that based on the preponderance of the evidence presented this day, the value as adjusted this day from $7,707,410 to $7,231,370 for tax year 2009 was the correct value. Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; YAMPA STREET DEVELOPMENT Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Number R , Yampa Street Development, had been withdrawn prior to this day s hearing. Page

17 SCHEDULE NUMBERS R AND R , UNITS C1 AND C2, ALPENGLOW CONDO, INC. Mr. Kerrigan recommended that Schedule Numbers R and R , Units C1 and C2, Alpenglow Condo, Inc., be adjusted as follows: C1 from $2,330,921 to $2,200,000 and C2 from $752,851 to $725,000. Commissioner Mitsch Bush moved to deny the petitions for Schedule Numbers R and R , Alpenglow Condo, Inc., with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance presented this day, that the values as adjusted this day by the Assessor for Schedule Number R , from $2,330,921 to $2,200,000, and for Schedule Number R , from $752,851 to $725,000, were the correct values for tax year Commissioner Monger seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. SCHEDULE NUMBERS R , 3199, 73, AND 70; GCP STEAMBOAT, LLC Mr. Kerrigan stated that Schedule Numbers R , GCP Steamboat, LLC, had been withdrawn prior to this day s hearing. SCHEDULE NUMBER R ; ROY POWELL Mike Kerrigan, Assessor, and Susan Chorak, Appraiser, were present. was present. No petitioner Commissioner Monger reminded the Assessor and the Appraiser that they were still under oath. Ms. Chorak said that the value of the property had been adjusted from $663,010 to $637,640 at the Assessor level appeal. She reviewed comparable sales and recommended that the adjusted value be upheld. She noted that the petitioner had estimated the property s value at $480,000. Commissioner Monger moved to deny the petition of Schedule Number R771660, Roy Powell, with the finding that the Assessor had established by a preponderance of the evidence presented this day that the value as previously adjusted from $663,010 to $637,640 was the correct value for tax year Page

18 Commissioner Mitsch Bush seconded; the motion carried 2-0. Commissioner Stahoviak was absent. The Routt County Board of Equalization adjourned and re-convened as the Routt County Board of County Commissioners. No further business coming before the Board, same adjourned sine die. Kay Weinland, Clerk and Recorder Douglas B. Monger, Chair Date Page