REFEREE’S DECISION

Robert Lee Roth ABATEMENT NO. 16-104

Transmittal Sheet Abatement # 16-104Tax Year 2015Protested? NTax District 2971Tax Rate 9.1751%

Original Values Abatement ResultsParcel Assmt Assd Assmt Assd Number Class Actual Val Rate Value Tax Rate Tax Amount Decision Class Actual Val Rate Value Tax Rate Tax Amount Refund

R0407179 1112 179,798$ 7.96% 14,310$ 9.1751% 1,312.96$ 1112 179,798$ 7.96% 14,310$ 9.1751% 1,312.96$ -$ 1212 497,363$ 7.96% 39,590$ 9.1751% 3,632.42$ 1212 420,202$ 7.96% 33,450$ 9.1751% 3,069.07$ 563.35$

677,161$ 53,900$ 4,945.38$ Partial 600,000$ 47,760$ 4,382.03$ 563.35$

(100,000)$ 7.96% (7,960)$ 9.1751% (730.34)$ (100,000)$ 7.96% (7,960)$ 9.1751% (730.34)$ -$

577,161$ 45,940$ 9.1751% 4,215.04$ 500,000$ 39,800$ 9.1751% 3,651.69$ 563.35$

Difference Actual Value Difference Assd Value Tax Rate Refund9.1751% 563.35$

PLG 4/19/16PLG Date 4/29/16

Date

Original Recommendation: Per field inspection of 4/19/2016, reconsideration of impact of site influence is warranted. Market analysis for 2015 supports a reduction in value. Referee Recommendation: Adjusted further at the 10/13/16 hearings based on sales and location of subject's property.

77,161$ 6,140$

Staff Appraiser:

Agent:Overvaluation

Less Senior Exemtion

Ending Value

$400,000

Assessor Findings: Revised as per Referee's recommendation

Petitioner's Requested Value

1/1/15

Petitioner:

Petitioner's Request:

ROBERT LEE ROTH

Review Appraiser:

6/30/14

Last Known Physical Inspection By:

Assessed Values are rounded to the nearest dollar. Tax dollar references are an estimate only.

Assessment DateAppraisal DateCURRENT SALES STUDY PERIODJuly 1, 2012 - June 30, 2014

Previous Study PeriodJuly 1, 2010 - June 30, 2012

1

DOUGLAS COUNTY ABATEMENT HEARING

REFEREE WORKSHEET

Petitioner: Robert Lee Roth Agent: Property Address: 9726 Brook Hill Court Abatement Number: 16-104 Assessor's Original Value: $677,161 for tax year 2015.

Hearing Date: October 13, 2016 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m. 1. The Douglas County Assessor was represented at the hearing by Peggy Gulam and Brian McKeown. 2. The Petitioner was: a. ☒ present b. ☐ not present c. ☐ present/represented by d. ☐not present/represented by 3. Assessor's Recommended Value: $640,000 for tax year 2015. Petitioner’s Requested Value: $400,000 for tax year 2015. 4. Petitioner presented the following testimony and documents in support of the claim: Petitioner submitted 14 comparable sales ranging from $422,800 to $669,000 with adjusted sale prices ranging from $418,800 to $665,000. Petitioner testified that the subject lot was the last lot sold in the community, is located next to the rear gate of the community, and backs to a Safeway and an elementary school; a similar over-valuation of $604,280 for tax years 2011 and 2012 resulted in the actual value being reduced to $400,000; the time adjustments to comparable sales are confusing to a layman; the basement finish is basic and includes a bedroom, 1-1/2 baths with a spa and sauna; he is retired and increases in taxes will price him out of his dream house.

2

5. The Assessor presented the following testimony and documents in support of the Assessor's position: a. ☒data from sales of comparable properties which sold during the applicable time period; and /or b. ☐valuation using the cost approach; and/or c. ☐a valuation using the income approach; and/or

d. ☒other The Assessor dropped all positive land adjustments to the subject to reach the recommended actual value of $640,000; the house located next door to the subject property has an actual value of $610,000; the subject has the largest finished basement in the community; the basement finish is lovely.

THE REFEREE FINDS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION AND ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ARE: Classification: Residential Total Actual Value: $600,000 for tax year 2015. Reasons are as follows: Comparable sales adjusted for the subject property’s location next to the rear gate of the community, an elementary school and a Safeway support a reduction in actual value. IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED that for the above-stated reasons, the Petition for Abatement is: a. ☐Approved and the value of the subject property is reduced as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations herein b. ☒ Approved in part as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations herein c. ☐ Denied after abatement hearing d. ☐ Administrative Denial is Granted REFEREE: s/ Karen Smith October 13, 2016 Name Date Abatement Log No. 16-104

PETITIONER’S

DOCUMENTS

Robert Lee Roth ABATEMENT NO. 16-104

Ms. Cindy Hancock Abatement Hearing Administrator Douglas County Attorney's Office 1 00 Third Street Castle Rock, CO 80104

Dear Ms. Hancock:

October 21, 2016 Robert Lee Roth 9726 Brook Hill Court Lone Tree, CO 80124 Reference Log Number:16-104 Account Number: R0407179 Owner: Robert Lee Roth Address of Property: 9726 Brook Hill Court Phone: 303-723-8324 Email: Bob.Roth@80124.com

Thank you for scheduling me to address the Board of County Commissioners on Tuesday, November 8, 2016, at 1 :30 pm about my Petition For Abatement Or Refund Of Taxes.

Please make the appropriate number of COLORED copies of the accompanying documents so they can be distributed to members of the Board for their review before the Business Meeting.

Thanks,

Douglas County Board of Commissioners:

Thank you for the second opportunity to venture outside of my comfort zone to request your involvement to have a reasonable actual value assigned to my residence!

The uniqueness of the location of my residence has challenged the Assessor's Office and the Referee to assign a reasonable actual value to my residence. EXHIBIT #1 shows where my residence is located within a 122 home community. The lot for my residence:

* Is located next to the rear gate of the community, which has the potential for noise and traffic issues

* Backs the Safeway Shopping Center, which has the potential for noise issues; and

* Backs the Lone Tree Elementary School, which has the potential for noise issues.

Here are the steps take to arrive at a reasonable actual value for my residence:

1. On June 1, 2015, I realized the Assessor's Office assigned an actual value of $677,161, which is higher than any of the 14 transactions that were reported for the community on the county's Sale Book for the tax season period: 7/1/2012 through 6/30/2013, as shown in EXHIBIT #2.

2. On June, 1, 2015, I filed a Petition for Abatement or Refund of Taxes, as detailed in EXHIBIT #3.

3. On June 23, 2016, ONE YEAR AFTER MY INITAL PETITION, the Assessor's Office responded to my Petition For Abatement or Refund of Taxes by recommending an adjustment in actual value from $677,161 to $640,000, as shown in EXHIBIT #4.

4. On October 13, 2016, a Petition Hearing held before Referee Karen Smith resulted in a proposed adjustment from $640,000 to $600,000, as shown in EXHIBIT #5.

NOTE the date this announcement was sent (i.e. October 14, 2016) and the date my response needed to be submitted by (i.e. October 21, 2016). This Is seven days over a weekend! I was told that a seven days notice is what is required by State statue. However, the USPS delivered the announcement on October 19, 2016, which gave me TWO DAYS to prepare and deliver my response!

IS THE USE OF THIS SHORT TIMELINE REALISTIC AND FAIR FOR COUNTY RESIDENTS, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT MY INITIAL REQUEST WAS MADE ON JUNE 1, 2015? I.e. sixteen months earlier!

Here are my concerns about the logic used by the Assessor's Office to justify its proposed actual value for my residence:

1. Of the three comparable lots it selected from the 12 transactions listed in the Sale Book, COMP #1, with the highest Sale Price, was selected as being the most similar to my residence, as shown in EXHIBIT #6.

NOTE the WRONG ASSUMPTIONS made by the Assessor's Office that are highlighted in yellow!

I challenged this selection because the lot for my residence is not on a greenbelt and it does not offer a walkout to a natural trail like COM #1 offers.

At its original purchase in 2001, COMP #1 was assigned one of the HIGHEST lot premiums for the community because it was on a greenbelt and it offered a walkout to a natural trail.

At its original purchase in 2001 , my lot was assigned the LOWEST lot premium offered by the developed because of its location. As an added incentive to closeout the project in 2001, the developer offered, what the Assessor's Office claims to be, the largest finished basement in the 122 home community.

The fact that it took more than four years and a special incentive to sell my lot supports the idea that buyers are reluctant to purchase lots that are:

* Next to a rear gate, because of perceived noise and traffic issues; * Backed by the Safeway Shopping Center, because of perceived noise issues; and * Backed by the Lone Tree Elementary School, because of perceived noise issues.

The Assessor's Office claims the Safeway noise will be eliminated by the installed sound barriers. However, the fact is, Safeway's sound barriers DO NOT BLOCK the following night and early morning sounds:

* The beeping noise produced when trucks back up; and * The clanging noise produced when garbage containers are emptied into trucks.

The Assessor's Office also claims prospective buyers will not be discouraged by the noise made by children playing on the fields of an elementary school. However, the fact is, some people are bothered by these sounds.

2. The Assessor's Office used the large size of my lot to justify the high actual value assigned to my residence.

The fact is, a large lot size, for our 122 home community, adds value ONLY if it enabled the construction of a three car garage. My lot size allowed only a two car

garage, therefore, lot size should NOT be used to increase the actual value of my residence.

3. The Assessor's Office used the large size of my finished basement to justify the high actual value assigned to my residence.

The fact Is, my large finished basement was the incentive used to encourage me to purchase the last lot of our 122 home development. Therefore, the size of my finished basement should NOT be used to increase the actual value of my residence.

Based on these facts, I'm requesting the Board to assign the actual value for my residence at $500,000 for years 2015 and 2016.

I made a similar request to the Board in 2013, which resulted in the reduction of the actual value for my residence from $604,280 to $400,000 for years 2011 and 2012, as is detailed in EXHIBIT #7 and EXHIBIT #8.

Fortunately, a reasonable increased in actual value for my residence occurred for years 2013 and 2014, from $400,000 to $485,000, which did NOT require a Petition For Abatement or Refund of Taxes.

This trend for increased actual values over the past six years identifies the need for the Board to lead the effort to have the Senior Property Tax Exemption be increased on a regular basis to offset increases in real estate tax resulting from the county's growth. This action is needed to help the county's property owners on fixed Income to live In their home during their final days, absent of the pressure to sell their home because of Increasing real estate tax.

THE BOARD HAS THE POWER TO GRANT COUNTY RESIDENTS THE ABILITY TO FULFILL THE AMERICAN DREAM!

Thank you for considering my requests,

EXHIBIT #1

tu au a: 1-~

. ·- au ' 1--:E

IU

"' ~

9577 ~ 9576

. ~ u 9580 ..a

= % 9584 9585 a:

~ 9589 'iii 9588 9626

T4 9604 9612

9605 9609 9613 9617

MEADOW HILL~

T1

MEADOW Hill ORCLE

HERITAGE HILLS ORCLE

Douglas County Sales Book Fourteen Transactions: 7/1/2012-6/30/2014

T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 T9 T10 T11 T12 T13 T14

Douglas County ASSESSOR'S Sales Comparables Market Adjustment Grid

COMP #1 COMP #2 COMP #3

Heritage Hills

Enclave ;;.-,,c,.·."",~· 122 LOTS

LONE TREE ELEMENTARY

SAFEWAV SHOPPING CENTER @

NORTH

EXHIBIT #2

Douglas County Sales Book

http:Uwww.douglas.eo.us/documents/residential-sales-report.pdf

Sales Transactions: 7/1/2012 - 6/30/2014

Trans- Comparable Year Garage Basement

action Sales GLA Built Size* Size I Finish I

T1 2,293 2001 2 car 2,277 0

T2 2,042 1998 2 car 1,374 1,140

T3 2,074 2001 2 car 2,053 0

T4 2,192 1998 2 car 1,436 0

T5 2,042 1999 2 car 1,374 1,184

T6 2,075 2002 2 car 2,052 1,082

T7 1,938 2001 2 car 1,925 0

T8 2,192 2001 2 car 2,176 1,789

T9 COMP#2 2,043 1999 2 car 1,970 983

T10 1,933 1999 2 car 1,892 1,124

T11 COMP#3 2,192 1999 2 car 1,399 1,156

T12 1,916 1998 3 car 1,497 1,300

T13 1,916 1998 3 car 1,497 1,300

T14 COMP#1 2,298 2001 2 car 2,277 1,490 ----- , __

*Added

Sale Sale Adj. Sale

Type Acres Date Price Price

Typical 0.138 11/05/12 $422,800 $418,800

Typical 0.159 08/20/12 $455,000 $452,500

Typical 0.207 05/30/13 $460,000 $452,000

Typical 0.158 07/01/13 $474,000 $448,350

Typical 0.199 12/21/12 $490,000 $482,000

Typical 0.161 11/26/13 $500,000 $500,000

Typical 0.151 04/23/14 $507,500 $499,500

Typical 0.154 05/23/13 $515,000 $510,700

Typical 0.153 11/16/12 $535,000 $520,000

Walkout 0.152 05/15/14 $539,000 $534,000

Typical 0.169 07/25/13 $550,000 $546,000

Walkout 0.165 07/10/13 $599,000 $598,150

Walkout 0.165 11/29/13 $625,000 $624,500

Walkout 0.138 04/15/14 $669,000 $665,000 - ·-----

EXHIBIT #3

2015 REAL PROPERTY PROTEST FORM You may appeal your valuation online at www.douglas.eo.us/assessor, make an appointment at 303-660-7450 to appear in person, or complete this form and mail it to the assessor by June 1st to begin the protest process.

ACCOUNT NUMBER: R0407179

AGENT AUTHORIZATION: You must provide written authorization if you are using an agent. The agent's name, mailing address, e-mail address, and telephone number must be provided.

YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL THE PROPERTY VALUATION AND/OR THE CLASSIFICATION TO THE ASSESSOR EXPIRES JUNE 1, 2015.

if the date for filing any document falls upon a Saturday, Sunday or legal holiday, it shall be _ _____ -----~'=-~e~!!."2_e_!_Y ~~~~o~tma~~ ~_r:~~-:_e~ ~n_t~e_n_:~ !:~~ess ~~·}~-~-~ 2_9@~ ~·~~:.. ·~- _______ _

Douglas County Assessor 301 Wilcox Street Castle Rock, CO 801 04

Dear Assessor:

June 1, 2015 Robert Lee Roth 9726 Brook Hill Court Lone Tree, CO 80124 303-723-8324 Bob.Roth@80124.com Account Number: R0407179

I wish to appeal the proposed increase in assessed value of my residence from $485,000 to $677,161. This increase of $192,161 is not justified because the facts presented for my successful petition for abatement on 4/16/ 2013 remain true today. Please refer to the accompanying mutual agreement between Assessor and Petitioner. Reference Log Number: 13-128.

The assessed value of my residence should be set at $400,000 for tax years 2015 and 2016.

Thank you for honoring my request.

EXHIBIT #4

. \~~DoUGLAS CO!l~X Office of the Assessor

www.douglas.co. us/Assessor

June 23, 2016

Robert Lee Roth 9726 Brook Hill Ct Lone Tree, CO 80124

Reference Log Number: 16-104

Dear Petitioner,

Lisa Frizell, Assessor

Pursuant to a review of the abatement petition filed, the Assessor's Office is recommending an abatement/refund. Enclosed are two co ies of our original abatement request. If the adjustment(s) below is/are agreeable to you, please sign section I on the back of the abatement form and return it to our office postmarked ~o later tJuly 7, 2016. PI ase retain the other copy for your records.

Tax Year Origmal Value Recommended Adjusted Value

2015 $677,161 $640,000

If we do not receive the signed form back from you by the above date, your petition will be forwarded to the Douglas County Attorney's Office to be scheduled for a hearing. They will notify you in writing of the date, time, place of hearing, and the Assessor's findings.

If you have any questions or require further information, please call us at 303-660-7450.

Sincerely,

Douglas County Assessor, Appeals

301 Wilcox Street, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 • 303.660.7450 • Fax 303.479.9751

EXHIBIT #5

~~DOUGLAS COJL~JX Office of the County Attorney

Reference Log Number: 16-104 Account Number: R0407179 Owner: Robert Lee Roth

/?cc6Jvi/l? Oct /9, Zolb --

Address of Property: 9726 Brook Hill Court

Dear Mr. Roth:

On October 13,2016, your Petition for Abatement or Refund ofTaxes was hear

www.douglas.co.us

Smith. Enclosed are her findings and recommendations to the Douglas Coun Board of County Commissioners. At a Business Meeting scheduled for November 8, 2016, at :30 p.m., these recommendations will be presented to the Board of County Commissioners for ir approval.

. I

Please note that the next step in this appeals process is filing to the State Boar essment Appeals. Instructions for proceeding to the·.n,_~xt level of appeal will also be provided to you with the notification of final determination.

If you have any further questions, please contact me. Thank you.

Sincerely,

{!:::i::Jc~~ Abatement Hearings Administrator

Clh

Enclosures

100 Third Street • Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 • 303.660.7414 • Fax 303.484.0399

DOUGLAS COUNTY ABATEMENT HEARING REFEREE WORKSHEET

Petitioner: Robert Lee Roth Agent:

Property Address: 9726 Brook Hill Court Abatement Number: 16-104

Assessor's Original Value: $677,161 for tax year 2015.

Hearing Date: October 13,2016 Hearing Time: 9:00 a.m.

1. The Douglas County Assessor was represented at the hearing by Peggy Gulam and Brian McKeown.

2. The Petitioner was: a. 181 present

b. 0 not present c. D present/ represented by d. Dnot present/represented by

3. Assessor's Recommended Value: $640,000 for tax year 2015.

Petitioner's Requested Value: $400,000 for tax year 2015.

4. . Petitioner presented the following testimony and documents in support of the claim: Petitioner submitted 14 comparable sales ranging from $422,800 to $669,000 with adjusted sale prices ranging from $418,800 to $665,000. Petitioner testified that the subject lot was the last lot sold in the community, is located next to the rear gate of the community, and backs to a Safeway and an elementary school; a similar over-valuation of $604,280 for tax years 2011 and 2012 resulted in the actual value being reduced to $400,000; the time adjustments to comparable sales are confusing to a layman; the basement finish is basic and includes a bedroom, 1-1/2 baths with a spa and sauna; he is retired and increases in taxes will price him out of his dream house.

5. The Assessor presented the following testimony and documents in support of the Assessor's position:

a. ~data from sales of comparable properties which sold during the applicable time period; and /or

b. Ovaluation using the cost approach; and/ or c. 0 a valuation using the income approach; and/ or d. ~other The Assessor dropped all positive land adjustments to the subject to reach the recommended

actual value of $640,000; the house located next door to the subject property has an actual value of $610,000; the subject has the largest finished basement in the community; the basement finish is lovely.

THE REFEREE FINDS AND RECOMMENDS THAT THE PROPER CLASSIFICATION AND ACTUAL VALUE OF THE PROPERTY ARE:

Classification: Residential

Total Actual Value: $600,000 for tax year 2015.

Reasons are as follows: Comparable sales adjusted for the subject property's location next to the rear gate of the community, an elementary school and a Safeway support a reduction in actual value.

IT IS THEREFORE REC<?MMENDED that for the above-stated reasons, the Petition for Abatement is:

a. OApproved and the value of the subject property is reduced as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations herein

b. ~ Approved in part as set forth in the Findings and Recommendations herein

c. D Denied after abatement hearing

d. 0 Administrative Denial is Granted

REFEREE:

s/ Karen Smith Name

Abatement Log No. 16-104

October 13, 2016 Date

EXHIBIT #6

Douglas County Assessor

Valuation Analysis

Subject property is a Ranch style home with large finished basement in Lone Tree. Subject has one

bedroom and a bath and a half on the main level. Lower level finished basement offers an additional

bedroom, large bath suite than includes separate tub and shower, and a sauna.

All of the sales are proximate Ranch style homes of similar Good quality. The sales bracket the subject in unadjusted sale prices as well as gross livin area. No relevant sales were found that had similar finished basement size. Sales 1 and 2 hav imilar greenbelt exposure owever are significantly smaller in size. Sale 3 is more similar in size being less than , 0 sf vanance but does not have greenbelt exposure. Overall, the site values for the sales are gen ally dee mea similar although further consideration of the subject's traffic influence is value being at e low end of the range. Sale 1 is closest in size relevant to GLA with sale 3 being next strongest sup orter. Sale 1 also has a similar overall basement size although has less finished area. No sales were fo nd with equivalent finished basement area, this subject is SUR · in this characteristic. Sale 1 · also the most current transaction although is superior in having a

"'alkout basement de ·gn. · ~ .._ ·-

All of the al~~~;~~~~port to t e analysis; however, ~a ~e 1. is deemed the best repr~:;~~ Sale 1

required I ast adjustment over. II, best represents GLA, similar basement area, greenbelt rnfluence, I

identical i age, and is them t current transaction. Sales:2 and 3 are felt to lend strong support to the

overall an

influence

d above, further consideration is given to the subject's traffic/noise

n at the lower end of the r/nge is deemed reasonable and appropriate.

Subject Conclusion: $640,000

L.rJ -(jtJ

2015 Abatement Petitioner File Date: 03/22/2016

7

-(f4- ~q -(II Subject Comp # 1 Comp# 2 Comp#· 3

Sale Date 0411512014 11/1612012 07/25/2013

Sale Price $0 669000.00 535000.00 550000.00

TmAdj Sale Price $0 676039.00 602004.00 595849.80

Parcel Number 223110301041 223110301021 223110301038 223110304033

Account Number R0407179 R0407148 R0407174 R0407262

Street Address 9726 BROOK HILL CT ~9644 BROOK HILL LN V 9710 BROOK HILL CT V 9631 SILVER HILL CIR GREENBELT I LG LOT

IGREENBEL T /INFERIOR SITE SIZE I jGREENBEL T /INFERIOR SITE SIZE I INO GREENBELT I SIMILAR SITE SIZE I TRAFFIC INFLUENCE

·-·--

TOTALIMPSF 2250.00 2298.00 $0 2043.00 $0 2192.00 $0 -

TOTALLANDSF 8838.324000 6006.924000 $0 6660.324000 $0 7357.284000 $0 NBHDANDEXT 202- P1 202- P1 $0 '202- P1 $0 202- P1 $0 OCCUPANCY Single Family Resid Single Family Residentic $0 Single Family Residenti;; $0 Single Family Residenli< $0 YEARBLT 2001 2001 $0 1999 $0 1999 $0 GARDEN 0 0 $0 0 $0 0 $0 BSMTFIN 2133.0000 1490.0000 $15,432 :983.0000 $27,600 1156.0000 $23,448 WALKOUT 0 ;1.0000 ($17,280) 0 $0 0 $0

i NETSF 8838.324000 ,6006.924000 $0 6660.324000 $0 7357.284000 $0 UFBSMT 2229.0000 12277.0000 ($749) ,1970.0000 $4,040 1399.0000 $12,948

ALL GAR 506.0000 '472.0000 $694 '420.0000 $1,754 440.0000 $1,346

BLTAS Ranch 1 Story ;Ranch 1 Story $0 'Ranch 1 Story $0 Ranch 1 Story $0

QUALITY Good !Good $0 I ,Good $0 Good $0

SF 2250.00 2298.00 ($2,246) 2043.00 $9,688 2192.00 $2,714

TOTOUTBLGVALUE 0.00 0.00 $0 '0.00 $0 0.00 $0 AGE 13 13 $0 :15 $3,600 15 $3,600

$640,000 ; $ Adjustment ($4,149.60) $ Adjustment $46,682.40 $ Adjustment $44,056 Final Market Value Final Market Value I SF j$284.44 I, Gross% Adjustment 5.3844% I Gross% Adjustment 7.7545% . Gross% Adjustment 7.393

RANGE IN VALUES *

$671,889 $648,686

i Net % Adjustment

! Adlusted Sales Price

' Adjusted Sales Price I SF

Net% Adjustment 7.7545% Net% Adjustment

Adjusted Sales Prjce ~ Adjusted Sales Price

Adjusted Sales Price I SF -~ Adjusted Sales Price I SF

I ~L~Y" ~ . /. , u:J1Jit} fj 5/ P. ·~$'2 Q ~.Q.6:d

$640,000 SUBJECT VALUATION $639,906

All of the sales are proximate Ranch style homes of similar Good quality. The sales bracket the subject in unadjusted sale prices as well as gross living area. No relevant sales were found that had similar finished basement size. Sales 1 and 2 have similar greenbelt exposure however are significantly smaller in size. Sale 3 is more similar in size being less than 1 ,500sf variance but does not have greenbelt exposure. Overall, the site values for the sales are generally deemed similar although further consideration of the subject's traffic influence is given by value being at the low end of the range. Sale 1 is closest in size relevant to GLA with sale 3 being next strongest supporter.

* Sale 1 also has a similar overall basement size although has less finished area. No sales were found with equivalent finished basement area, this subject is superior in this characteristic. Sale 1 is also the most current transaction although is superior in having a walkout basement design.

~

EXHIBIT #7

~~DOUGLAS COJ!~ www.douglas.eo.us/Assessor

April16, 2013

Robert Roth 9726 Brook Hill Ct Lone Tree, CO 80124

Reference Log Number: 13-128

Dear Mr. Roth,

Office of the Assessor Teri Cox, Assessor

Pursuant to a review of the Internal abatement petition filed on your behalf, the Assessor's Office is recommending an abatement/refund. Enclosed are two copies of the original Internal abatement request. If the adjustment(s) below is/are agreeable to you, please sign Section III on the back of the abatement form and return it to our office postmarked no later than April30, 2013. Please retain the other copy for your records.

Tax Year Original Value Recommended Adjusted Value

2012 $604,280 $400,000

If we do not receive the signed form back from'you by the above date, your petition will be forwarded to the Douglas County Attorney's Office to be scheduled for a hearing. They will notify you in writing of the date, time, place of hearing, and the Assessor's findings.

If you have any questions or require further information, please call us at (303) 660-7450.

Sincerely,

Douglas County Assessor, Appeals

301 Wilcox Street, Castle Rock, Colorado 80104 • 303.660.7450 • Fax 303.479.9751

·-~

'

~~DOUGLAS Co~~

Office of the County Assessor Terl Cox, AsseHor Phone 303-680-7450 Fax 303-680-1429

IINTERNA~ l3- \ ~c:z{

PETITION FOR ABATEMENT OR REFUND OF TAXES

301 Wilcox Street Castle Rock, CO 80104

County Douglas Date Recelved,_..,.----~---­Use Assessor's or Commissioners' Date Stamp

Seet!on 1: Petitioner, please complete Section I only.

Date: Aortl16 2013 Month Day Year

Petitioner's Name: ___ ....o;Ro!l.!beB~Jrt...~olee~.DR~otl!.!h ____________ _

Petitioner's mailing address: ....~~.;97u20!ol6:-~oB!.!.lro!.Qowk.J.H!I!jl~l Ciltlt.__ ___________ _

Lone Tree CO 80124 State Zip Code

qfCF~\.tf.D

APR t6 2013

City or Town

SCHEDULE OR PARCEL NUMBER(S)

0407179

PROPERTY ADDRESS OR LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY

9726 Brook Hm Cl

Petitlone·r states that the taxes assessed against the above property for property tax year 2012 are incorrect for the following reasons: (Briefly describe the circumstances surrounding the Incorrect value or tax. Attach additional sheets If necessary.)

Reduce 2012

Petitioner's estimate of actual value $ ______ L-1 Value Year

Petitioner requests an abatement or refund of the appropriate taxes.

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

BY·--------------------------- Daytime Phone Number 1----L-----------Agent's Signature•

•Letter or agency muat be attac:hlld when paUtJon Ia submitted.

If the board of county commissioners, pursuant to section 39-1 0..114(1 ), or the property tax administrator, pursuant to section 39-2-116, 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 section 39-2-125 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 _____ _

~ Assmtd Actual Agmed

Original

Corrected

Abate/Refund

0 Assessor recommends approval as ouOined above.

No protest was filed for the year: or (If a prot"t was nllld, pleue 1ttach a copy of the NOD.)

0 Assessor recoommends denial for the following reason( a):

AsHssor'a or Deputy Assessor's Signature

1 . . ·;

FOR ASSESSORS AND COUNTY COMMISSIONERS USE ONLY (Section Ill m: Sedlon N must be compltttc~J

ev.y petmon tor llbalement or refl.lld llled puiiU8I1t 10 § 39-10.114, C.R.S. lflal be ao:ted upon pur~~~.m to the provisions of this sec:tlon by the Board of County Cornmls5looerl or the AlleUOr, es appropriate, within lixmonthaollhedaleoffding such petition, § 39-1-113(1 .7), C.R.S.

Section Ill: Written Mutual Agreement of Assessor and Petitioner (Only for abll18menta up to $10,000)

The Commissioners of COUnty authoriZe the Assessor by Resolution No. to revlaw pelitlo113 for abatement or refUnd arid to uottle by written mutual agreemtnt any such petition l!:(O~r --­abatement or refund in an amount of $10.000 or less per tract. parcel, or lot of land or per SChedule Of personal property, In accon:lance with§ 39-1·113(1.5), C.R.S.

The Assessor and Petitioner mutually agree to the values and tax abatement/refund of:

TaxYear 2012

!.5!!1!1 !II.IWSI Ill

Orfslnal $604.280 $48,100 $4,648.59

Correctad $400,000 $31,840 $3,077.11

Abate/Refund $204,280 $16,260 $1,571.48

Nolo: Tllo tlliAI tlll! IIIIIOUnt 11oas IIOIInclulle ~= ~u:n:'d feoa esaoclalod wflh lito llldlor delklquem tax peymenta, If

appkable.~easu/cr:;;F--111on. 4/s o I I 5 p~...,t~re ~ Data i.J ~ J

3. I

/,J2-'V! v7 J /(.,II ~oallriaora or Deputy Aneaaor'a Signature =o.-=~a---'"1'"""""'1J,......-. _________ _

Section IV: Decision of the County Commissioners (Must bO completed If Section Ill don not apply)

WHEREAS, the County Commissioners of County, State of Colorado, at a duly and lawfully called regular meeting held on __j __ I-J at which meeting there were present the following members:

Month Day Year

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 (being present-not present) and Name

Petitioner _____ =~------(be#ng present-not 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 agree) with the recommendation of the Assessor, and that the petition be (approved-approved In pan--.d_enled) with an abatemenVrefund aa follows:

Year

Chairperson Of the Board Of County Commlnloners' SlgMture

I, 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 Ia truly copied from the record of the proceedings of the Board of County Commissioners.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the aeal of said County

this _____ day of·---:-:-~--- -~--· Month Year

County Clerk' a or Deputy County Clerk'• Signature

NOie: Abatemenls grelll8r than $10.000 Pill' schedule, por year, muat be aubmllled In dupllcate to the Property Tu AllnWIIIntor ror nmew.

Sec;tlonV: Action of the Property Tax Administrator (For allabatemtnta greatar than $10,000)

The action of the Board of County Commissioners, relative to this petition, is hereby 0 Approved 0 Approved in part $ 0 Denied for the following reason(s):

011• 15-0PT..AA No. 920-66/11

Office of the Douglas County Treasurer P.O. Box 1208 Castle Rock. co 80104

Date 05/07/13

Check Total 2,504.04

Check No. 02006891

TRANSACTION NO. DESCRIPTION GROSS AMOUNT NET AMOUNT

21546 21546 21547 21547

Abatement TAX R0407179 2011 Abatement INT R0407179 2011 Abatement TAX R0407179 2012 Abatement INT R0407179 2012 ··---..-...

&)24--(?uiJ -~ '"' ,) . , ~u l,

(J~/P[~{ jOJ~ c J~tvit!J c 1 f-;rft UfJ q

804.02 112.56

1,571.42 16.04

2,504.04

Stub 1 of 1

804.02 112.56

1,571 .42 16.04

2,504:04

THIS GH:::GK HAS .A COLORED FACE ON WHITE STOCK AND AN AHTIFIGi~i.. WATER\~ARK. ON THE B'IC:<; . • •

OFFICE OF THE DOUGLAS COUNTY TREASURER P.O. Box 1208 Castle Rock, CO 80104

U.S. Bank 950 171h Street Denver, CO 80202

DATE 05/07/13

PAY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED FOUR AND 04/100*"*"*""''*"*"'"**""*'*"*""*"*"*'"*"*'"*'"*"*

TO THE ORDER OF

ROBERT LEE ROTH 9726 BROOK HILL CT LONE TREE CO 80124..0000 PER

Check No. 02006891

~ 422

$***"'*2,504.04

DETAIL FOR FIRST SESSION

Key points from my FIRST SESSION with the County Board of Commissioners, which was held on March 12, 2013, to correct the actual value assigned to my residence for years 2011 and 2012.

1. The actual value for my residence was set at $604,280 for years 2011 and 2012.

2. On October 25, 2012, the Assessor's Office responded to my Petition For Abatement Or Refund Of Taxes by recommending an adjustment in actual value from $604,280 to $585,000, which was much higher than the$485, 128 value determined for my residence by a third party service provider named ValueAppeal (which was recommended by H&R Block).

3. On January 17, 2013, a Petition Hearing held before Referee Karen Smith resulted in a proposed adjustment from $585,000 to $535,000, which was still much higher than ValueAppeal's value of $485,128.

4. On March 12, 2013, at my FIRST SESSION with the County Board of Commissioners, I presented the following concerns I had with the methodology used by the Assessor's Office to determine the actual value for my residence:

(a) The Sales Book, which is published on the counties web site, TIME STAMPS real estate transactions that occurred within the county for a specified period of time. The Assessor's Office uses a methodology to select properties It considers to be similar to the targeted property and adjusts the fixed transaction values of the comparable properties to determine the actual value for the target property.

EXHIBIT #7 details the following adjustments that were made to properties from the Sales Book that were considered to be the most similar to my residence, to arrive at the actual value for my residence:

Comp #1 -a positive adjustment of $30,282 Comp #2 - a positive adjustment of $63,203 Comp #3 - a negative adjustment of $707 Comp #4- a positive adjustment of $14,441 Comp #5 - a positive adjustment of $168 Comp #6- a positive adjustment of $7,119

As can be see on the right edge of the last page of EXHIBIT #7, the following numbers were listed: 609, 592, 585, 526, 493 and 452.

NOTE the number 585 was circled. Was 585 the targeted actual value for my property? i.e. $585,000. If not, what did the circled 585 represent?

If the Sales Book is a TIME STAMP of sales, why is there a need to ADJUST the values of FIXED records? Doing so creates the perception that something Is being done to benefit the county at the cost of the property owner!

(b) My residence is located next to the rear gate of the community, which creates noise and traffic issues.

NONE of the six comparable properties selected by the Assessor's Office were located near the rear gate. And even though the Assessor's Office adjusted TIME STAMPED records from the Sales Book, there no adjustments made for a lot that was located next to the rear gate.

Also, compatible properties selected by the Assessor's Office had the following characteristics that Inflated the values of the comparative properties, but were absent from my property:

(i) Lots that were large enough to allow a three car garage; and

(ii) Lots that were located to allowed a walkout to a natural trail.

EXHIBIT #8

\) Ill

<0 ~

Ol

Subject Sale Date Sale Price $0 TmAdj Sale Price $0 Parcel Number 2231-10-3-01 -041 Account Number R0407179 Street Address 9726 BROOK HILL CT Building SF . 2,250 0 Land SF 8,838 Neighborhood 202 P1 Occupancy Single Family Residenti Age 9

Basement, Finished 2133

Basement, Garden 0

Basement, Unfinish 2229

Basement. Walkout 0

Design Ranch 1 Story Garage, Total SF 506

Land, Acres .2029

Outbulldi~g Count 0 Outbuilding Value 0

Quality Good Total LandVal 124200

Year Built 2001 --------·--·--------

Final Market Value $585,000.00 Final Market Value I SF $268.57

Douglas County ASSESSOR'S Sales Comparables Market Adjustment Grid Comp#1 Comp #2 Comp #3 212412010 5/27/2010 413012010 $500,000 Estate Influenced Sale $436,480 $475,000 Short Sale $496,578 $430,639 $453,521 2231-1 0-3-01 -040 2231 -1 0-3-04-054 2231-10-3-01-036 R0407178 R0407296 R0407171 9720 BROOK HILL CT 9531 BROOK HILL DR 9692 BROOK HILL CT 2,166 $4,116 2,154 $4,704 2,192 $2 ,842 10,977 $0 7,575 $0 6,617 $0 202 P1 $0 202 P1 $0 202 P1 $0 Single Family Residential $0 Single Family Residential $0 Single Family Residential $0 9 $0 8 $0 9 $0

1421 $14,952 1246 $18,627 2070 $1 ,323

0 $0 0 $0 -1 ($7,000)

1497 $10,248 1469 $10,640 2176 $742

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Ranch 1 Story $0 Ranch 1 Story $0 Ranch 1 Story $0

460 $966 914 ($8,568) 440 $1,386

.252 $0 .1739 $0 .1519 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

0 $0 0 $0 0 $0

Good $0 Good $0 Good $0

124200 $0 86400 $37,800 124200 $0

1999 $0 2000 $0 1999 $0

$ Adjustment $30,282.00 $ Adjustment $63,203.00 $ Adjustment ($707.00) Gross % Adjustment 6.10% Gross % Adjustment 18.66% Gross % Adjustment 2.93% Net % Adjustment 6.10% Net % Adjustment 14.68% Net % Adjustment -0.16% Adjusted Sales Price $526,859.92 Adjusted Sales Price $493,841 .61 Adjusted Sales Price $452,814 .25 Adjusted Sales Price I SF $234 .16 Adjusted Sales Price I SF $219.49 Adjusted Sales Price I SF $201 .25

I

-

i:l

"' <0

"' -J

Douglas County ASSESSOR'S Sales Comparables Market Adjustment Grid

.-- subject - --.-1-comp #4 ----- --- - - -

Sale Date Sale Price $0 TmAdj Sale Price $0 Parcel Number · 2231-10-3-01-041

4/28/2010 $600,000 $595,558 2231-10-3-01 -039

Account Number Street Address Building SF Land SF Neighborhood Occupancy

R0407179 R0407176 9726 BROOK HILL CT 9718 BROOK HILL CT 2,250 0 2,192 8,838 14,458 202 P1 202 P1 Single Family Residenti

Age 9

Basement, Finished 2133

Basement, Garden 0

Basement, Unfrnish 2229

Basement, Walkout 0

Design Ranch 1 Story

Garage, Total SF 506 Land, Acres .202g

Outbuilding Count 0

Outbuilding Value 0

Quality

Total LandVal

Good

124200

Year Built 2001

Final Markel Value Final Market Value I SF

$585,000.00

$268.57

$2,842 $0 $0 $0 $0

e \... (~ ~ I~ t V '-Q "' ~ ·-------------~ ~

~~;;':O~os j'\,J "'·"v $585,000 ~ \!1 , \ $578,021 1 ....... '"-.) ~ 2231-10-3-01 -003 I"' ~ ~ R0407119 ~ "- .~ 9522 BROOK HILL DR l ~ ~ \':: 2.192 $2.842 v, ~ ::J 10,842 $0 \. ..... 3- \) 202 P1 $0 Single Family Residential $0 10 $0

493

45~

-------- ·- _~___ __________ _ - -··---- ·---------------·--'---

f\... l.~ ...

·~ ~

~ ;:)

~

& ~ ~ ~ i' 1·.:..> ~ ~

~

~

""' ..... ~

ASSESSOR’S

DOCUMENTS

Robert Lee Roth ABATEMENT NO. 16-104