Test

R0085016 PROTEST

Property Overview

The subject property, located at 3630 Collins St, Castle Rock, Colorado, is characterized by its unique attributes. It is incorrectly identified in land records as a Ranch Style Modular Home built in 1973, which predates the standards established by 42 USC 5401. Several errors are noted in the records, such as the misrepresentation of the finished area and the use of 1/8” paneling instead of drywall, which does not comply with fire codes. The assessor's report inaccurately lists the home as a single-story ranch style, while photos show a walk-out level deck with yellow tape and no stairway to the main level front door. Access to the front door has been unavailable for approximately 20 years due to soil movement, rendering the west deck unsafe and necessitating the removal of the stairway. The assessor rates the property's condition as 'average,' but it is actually below average and requires significant repairs.

Image Source: DC Assessor R0085016

County records indicate no comparable properties within a 70-mile radius. The property's age, condition, economical construction, hillside location with a 20% grade, and history of water loss in 2018, along with significant hail damage in 2012 and 2019, contribute to its unique status. The water and hail damage remain largely unaddressed due to the misappropriation of materials and insurance funds by a contractor, which is currently the subject of ongoing litigation (22CV28 and 24CA767).

Image: R0085016 Fireplace Abandoned 2010, Front Chimney Removed 2021

Despite financial constraints and obligations imposed by insurance and mortgage requirements to complete repairs within two years, our efforts were hindered, further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Notably, our second general contractor, Dan Scariato of Juliesburg Construction, succumbed to COVID-19 in 2021. Restoration efforts commenced to address the water damage affecting the upper-level floor, necessitating floor replacement and the relocation of belongings to on-site POD containers. In the spring of 2019, kitchen demolition began, and due to the absence of a garage, refrigerators were temporarily relocated outdoors. Unfortunately, a 2019 severe hailstorm caused damage to the roof, siding, and appliances, necessitating the cessation of restoration efforts and the initiation of a new insurance claim to address storm damage. The damage to the exterior remains unrepaired due to contractor theft of water claim funds and the insurance company putting the claim on hold due to pending litigation.

In the spring of 2021, the hail-damaged roof was replaced with a metal roof for enhanced hail and fire resistance and chimney removed. However, the cumulative impact of the 2012 and 2019 hail events resulted in extensive exterior damage. With ongoing contractor issues and three open claims, State Farm discontinued our coverage, compelling us to secure an expensive construction-type policy that mandated the installation of a video surveillance system and security fence. This requirement conflicted with a court order to remove the fence, exposing us to increased liability due to the attractive nuisance a construction site presents, as outlined in CRS 13-21-111.

The roof and gutters were completed in June 2021, and the fireplace roof vent was removed. While the assessors is taxing us for a fire place we don’t have and has not been used in 15 years+. The chimney enclosure was partly removed to accommodate gutters and new fascia board. Without a General Contractor (GC), the insurance company would not move forward with exterior supplementation. Litigation with the county and GC has stopped work and given the insurance company an excuse to delay, switch adjusters weekly, and effectively deny the claim.

Despite having applied for a building permit, the county exacerbated the situation by initiating legal action during the COVID-19 pandemic for storing construction materials classified as 'wood remnants.' Additionally, the POD containers housing our belongings were deemed 'un-permitted structures,' contradicting county policy. It was discovered that the home was never properly attached to the foundation, allowing wall movement and necessitating excavation of the foundation wall for significant repairs, having moved some 8”. A construction fence was erected to mitigate liability, prevent theft of materials, and conceal the construction site. Despite these efforts, the court did not recognize the site as an active construction zone, and ongoing litigation with contractors was disregarded. The County Attorney committed fraud by failing to disclose County Resolution R-19-124, the zoning compliance guide, and our building permit, which exempted the action. The county's demand for expedited construction completion was accompanied by a $41,500 fine, and I endured a 30-day jail sentence, which hardly facilitated the process.

The culmination of these challenges has significantly diminished the value of our home. The current valuation is unsupported, as we will demonstrate with a preponderance of evidence. Our analysis reveals that the subject property more closely resembles a mobile modular home not affixed to a foundation, nearing the end of its economic life, akin to EX.13 M0328161, which was demolished in 2021 (Certificate of Destruction Reception# 20211119551).

Process

The subject was factory-built in 1973, of unique construction pre-HUD Non-IRC/IBC compliant, lacking a garage, steep grade lot, close proximity to Home Depot, road noise, lacking attachment to the foundation, major foundation issues, and unrepaired extensive water and hail damage. We have been unable to find a comparable using standard and advanced assessor search tools.

Image: R0085016 Screen Capture Comparable Search

Quoting from the Division of Property Taxation Department of Local Affairs: Manufactured Homes Workshop (rev.5/07) Exhibit 39:

“Most appraisers/assessors would agree that manufactured homes built to the HUD/1975 (IRC) code should be valued using comparable homes built to the same code. It would not be practical to use stick-built (IRC/IBC/UBC code) homes as comparables due to the fact that manufactured homes generally have lower values or a "stigma." ("Stigma", may be true for manufactured homes that were built prior to 1976, known as mobile homes.) “Stigma could disappear over time, based on the availability of affordable housing in the county. In addition, manufactured homes built to HUD code generally are considered to have a shorter economic life than site-built homes (25-35 years), which would also have an impact on the value. Therefore, comparables should be HUD(IRC) code and generally similar in age.”

The subject is a modular home pre-HUD code NOT built to IRC/IBC; if so, it would be attached to a permanent foundation as required by the IRC. The lack of attachment is the reason the foundation wall has moved, requiring substantial cost to repair. The structure floor provides a path for force to resist soil hydraulic pressure.

Quoting the Workshop manual: "Once a home is sited and lived in, it becomes unique. No two homes are going to be utilized or maintained exactly alike, even if they come from the same production plant. That is why we emphasize the importance of a PHYSICAL APPRAISAL REPORT in order to determine its LOCAL MARKET VALUE."

Market Approach

Following an exhaustive search using the advanced property locator, we were unable to identify direct comparables. Consequently, we determined that the most suitable comparison would be mobile modular homes constructed in the same year, 1973, with identical dimensions of 24x60, totaling 1,440 square feet, and exhibiting similar construction and appearance characteristics. We propose to offer 10 modular homes that are of equivalent size and age. Subsequently, in accordance with CRS 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), adjustments will be applied to account for natural events (such as hail), water-related incidents, and regulatory compliance (bringing up to code), in addition to incorporating land considerations.

Table of Comparable Manufactured Modular Homes (Same Size, 1973 Build Date Construction PRE-HUD)

Cost Approach (CRS § 39-1-104(2)(a))

The valuation of the property is determined based on the cost required to replace it, deducting any depreciation, such as that resulting from damage.

We propose to provide twelve new modular homes of comparable size, featuring three bedrooms and two bathrooms. The costs will include the removal of existing contents, provision for alternate living arrangements, and the demolition of the current property, as it has reached the end of its economic life according to the NADA valuation. Additionally, the land value will be considered, and adjustments will be made in accordance with CRS 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) for natural events (such as hail), water-related incidents, and regulatory requirements to ensure compliance with current codes.

During the restoration process addressing the water release that damaged the kitchen, upper-level floor, it became necessary to replace the flooring and temporarily store contents in on-site PODs or containers.

The subject property was not originally constructed in accordance with 42 USC 5401, and therefore, it does not comply with most contemporary energy, fire, and building codes. The costs associated with bringing the property into compliance are considerable.

Adjustments CRS 39-1-104(11)(b)(I)

Pursuant to CRS 39-1-104(11)(b)(I), the Cost Approach and market approach allow for increases/decreases adjustments for:

1. Accident (2018 Water Loss); EX.15
2. Detrimental acts of nature

1. Hail Damage Exterior 2019 EX.16

      1. Roof EX.16
      2. Exterior EX.05, EX.16

3. Soil Movement 20% lot Grade soil movement gravity

1. Soil Movement Damaging Foundation Wall requires excavation and repair. EX.06

2. Soil Movement Damaging Foundation requires home attachment to resist movement. EX.08,06

3. Soil Movement Damaging Front deck has ripped the deck and stairway from home. EX.05-06

4. Soil Movement Damaging Foundation Wall, Decks East and West

1. East Deck Removal, Excavation, Attachment, Deck Replacement EX.05,EX.06

5. Soil Movement Damaging West Upper Deck Entry Way Front Door EX.05, EX.06
6. West Deck Removal, Excavation, Deck Replacement EX.05
7. New regulations restricting or increasing the use’

1. Energy Code Requires Exterior Wall Insulation R-19 EX.05

2. Fire Code Requires Exterior Wall 15 min Fire Barrier e.g., drywall vs 1/8” paneling 2018 Fire Code

3. Building Code Requires Home attached to permanent foundation 8CCR 1302-14 and related 42USC5401

Cost Approach and Market Approach Analysis Table

The low valuation using the Comparable Approach demonstrates that the subject property is at the end of its economic life, i.e., salvage value, with combined adjustments for damages CRS 39-5-122. The current valuation of $512,443 is not supported, also revealing the NADA valuation to be accurate.

Statutory Requirements and Evidence Submission, CRS 39-5-122, Challenging Market Approach with Damage Evidence

The statutes require supporting evidence for any adjustments, which are substantiated by Exhibits 01-37, as detailed in the table below. The Douglas County website designated for the submission of this protest, accessible at Douglas County Appeals, is unfortunately limited to a maximum of 5 files and 5 megabytes. This limitation is, predictably, insufficient for the requirements of this task. As a workaround, a copy of this report and Exhibits was mailed to the Assessor by US mail on a thumb drive. We shall proceed to upload the summary and, if requested or if the matter proceeds to appeal, we will, in accordance with Rule-11, provide the Exhibits on a thumb drive and/or DVD.

CRS 39-5-122, Challenging Market Approach with Damage Evidence

It is noteworthy that the Exhibits illustrate the current condition of the property, as the county action 2020CV30437, coinciding with the COVID-19 pandemic and the misappropriation of our funds and materials, has effectively halted our restoration efforts. Fortunately, the county zoning department documented our construction site (EX.31) as evidence of some alleged zoning violation. The work site contained wood remnants, fixtures, and POD containers with building supplies. Indeed, we applied for a permit (EX.19), erected a customary construction security fence commonly seen around town to secure the site, and even informed them by certified mail (EX.33).

R0085016-EX.06(Subject 1 min Photo walk around Subject Property)

R0085016-EX.24(2018 Water loss Damage photos)

R0085016-EX.26(US BANK Water Hail Loss Inspection Photos 21jan21)

R0085016-EX.27(2018 property damage photos packed to PODs)

R0085016-EX.31(2020 Complaint with property condition Photos 20CV30437)

Current Property Condition and Legal Challenges

The current state of the property, compounded by ongoing legal disputes and the potential for additional county actions, renders the residence unmarketable. It may only be feasible to consider the property as raw land, necessitating the demolition of the existing structure and subsequent sale of the lot. Typically, valuation depends on a willing and informed seller engaging with a willing and informed buyer; however, the prevailing circumstances do not support such a transaction.

This situation represents an exceptional convergence of events, akin to a 'perfect storm': water damage, an unsuccessful insurance restoration due to contractor theft, significant hail damage, the COVID-19 pandemic, court closures, lockdowns, and charges initiated by the county. These charges resulted in 30 days of incarceration for the presence of a fence and POD containers, with fines surpassing the original water insurance claim. The situation is indeed extraordinary.

County Zoning Enforcement and the county Attorney proceeded with action (EX.31) during the COVID-19 pandemic, disregarding the fact that we possessed a building permit (EX.16) and that construction was underway. According to their own policies (EX.20), POD/containers are permitted nothing less than Fraud on the Court C.R.C.P 60(b).

Due to the absence of a garage, a water damage claim necessitated adjuster approval (E.15) to pack belongings into an inter-modal container for storage. As a result, for the past six years, we have been living out of boxes, uncertain of when the civil case 22CV28 and appeal 24CA767 will be resolved, or if the county will proceed with eviction and foreclosure (EX.18). We are both enthusiastic horticulturalists and enjoy cultivating a garden for growing wholesome food. The higher elevation of Castle Rock, Colorado (6300’) results in a short growing season with late snow/frost, damaging hail, cold nights, and early frost. A simple “hoop house” (EX.23) garden season extender “ornamental shade” lacking a foundation is recommended by Colorado University however is considered an “un-permitted structure” needing a permit.

1. The water damage claim exposed the lack of attachment, thus requiring excavation to correct a foundation wall that was damaged due to its lack of resistance to the lateral hydraulic forces to the foundation wall. This necessitated the erection of a construction fence to mitigate liability (attractive nuisance) and protect the home and construction materials from vandalism and theft. In 2019, the county also mandated, via letter, a visual barrier to obscure construction debris, appliances (refrigerators moved for repairs), and wood remnants (e.g., replacement decking, flooring plywood, drywall, insulation, and siding). This resulted in county action 2020CV30437, leading to 30 days of incarceration and $41,550 in fines for having "hoop houses," (EX.23) inter-modal/POD containers, and, heaven forbid, a customary construction fence the county requested and prudence required.

Exhibits and Evidence

RBAA Rule 9: Discovery

If this goes to appeal, we will be asking for discovery.

RBAA Rule-11: Exchange of Documentary Evidence

Per RBAA Rule 11, Exchange of Documentary Evidence, 28 days before the trial hearing, Exhibits Thumb Drive will be shared.

RBAA Rule 21: Submission of Stipulations/Agreements

RBAA Rule 21, concerning the Submission of Stipulations/Agreements regarding Facts and/or Law, stipulates that if the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) does not agree that the subject property requires attachment to a permanent foundation, the matter will present a legal question to the Board of Assessment Appeals (BAA). The existence of natural events, accidents, and regulations that diminish the value of the subject property must be considered. Should the BAA be unable to render a legal determination, it is necessary to request dismissal in accordance with BRAA Rule 24, thereby transferring the issue to a court of competent jurisdiction where a Judge can make the requisite determination. BRAA Rule 24 pertains to Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction.

In the case of Douglas County District Court 2020CV30437, it was determined that "hoop houses" are classified as 'ornamental garden shade' and that Inter-modal POD/containers are considered "structures" requiring building permits. A determination is required as to whether these "structures" should be incorporated into the property for taxation purposes.

Exhibits (Provided on Separate Thumb Drive)

All of the Exhibits below comply with RBAA Rule 20, Copies and Size of Evidence. The county web portal limits applicants to five files, completely inadequate for the 35 exhibits. The statutes require supporting documentation; however, state procedures limiting the appellant to 5 files not to exceed 5 megabytes do not comport with statutory requirements.

• R0085016-EX.01(R0085016, 3630 Collins Double Wide 1973(2025))
• R0085016-EX.02(Comparable Sales Mobile Homes same construction, age and sqft.)
• R0085016-EX.03(NADA Valuation Evidence of End of Economic Life)
• R0085016-EX.04(Foundation Repair Estimate $12,552)
• R0085016-EX.05(Juliesburg Construction Quote $190,844.00)
• R0085016-EX.06(Subject 1 min Photo walk around Subject Property)
• R0085016-EX.07(No Comparable found for M0211529, M0211246,M0328161, M0211422)
• R0085016-EX.08(3630 Collins Attach to foundation Estimate -$33,854)
• R0085016-EX.09(Buske has Interest in Property can testify in Protest action)
• R0085016-EX.10 (CCR and CRS Related to Home Attachment to Permanent Foundation Requirements (Take Judicial Notice))
• R0085016-EX.11(ORDINANCE NO. O-019-002 Adoption of Fire Code requires Dry wall Fire Retardant 15 min)
• R0085016-EX.12(New Modular Homes Building only Replacement with Like Cost Approach CRS § 39-1-104(2)(a) )
• R0085016-EX.13(Mobile Home Demolished 2021 M0328161 9669 Spruce Mtn Rd #9 End of Economic Life)
• R0085016-EX.14R(P.E. Report Sweet Structure attachment report $500)
• R0085016-EX.15 Insurance Water Loss Select Pages
• R0085016-EX.16( Insurance Hail Loss 2019 8June19 roof Siding Total)
• R0085016-EX.17(New Metal Roof Gutters 2021 $13743)
• R0085016-EX.18(County threatens more jail time eviction and foreclosure)
• R0085016-EX.19(Building Permit 20-00478 R0085016)
• R0085016-EX.20(Zoning Compliance Guide Inter-modal container permitted W Build Permit)
• R0085016-EX.21(ORDER GRANTING PERMANENT INJUNCTION 2020CV30437)
• R0085016-EX.22( SENATE BILL 22-238 Exemption for Mobile Home )
• R0085016-EX.23(Hoop House ‘Structure” Season Extender Colorado state university (CSU))
• R0085016-EX.24(2018 Water loss Damage photos)
• R0085016-EX.25.4(M0211422 comparable Double Wide_1973(2025)
• R0085016-EX.26(US BANK Water Hail Loss Inspection Photos 21jan21)
• R0085016-EX.27(2018 property damage photos packed to PODs)
• R0085016-EX.28(BOCC Resolution NO R-019-124 AMENDMENTS TO THE 2018 INTERNATIONAL RESIDENTIAL CODE (IRC))
• R0085016-EX.29(BOCC trespassed on title with fraudulent lien $41,550 )
• R0085016-EX.30(Lien Holder Buske has interest can testify at proceedings )
• R0085016-EX.31(2020 Complaint with property condition Photos 20CV30437)
• R0085016-EX.32(Deck(s) Remove replace quote Estimate)
• R0085016-EX.33( 2019 County Zoning Letter Construction Barrier 2019-2025)
• R0085016-EX.34( Builders Ins Application 8May23)
• R0085016-EX.35( Complaint 22cv28 )
• R0085016-EX.36(Security system Fencing $3,500 )
• R0085016-EX.37(Estimated Cost to Pack out Home To Storage on and off site)
• R0085016-EX.38(Aerial View Subject 2023)
• R0085016-EX.39(Assessor_Modular_Workshop_Manual)

Witness List (For Appeal)

In the event it goes to appeal, the proposed witness list is below:

1. NADA Representative: person that prepared the report and/or has firsthand knowledge as to how the report was made.
2. Jeff Buske: testify construction, repairs, litigation, all photographs firsthand knowledge
3. Michael Cary Zoning Manager Determination Building Permit for Structures
4. Others TBD for rebuttal and impeachment purposes.
5. Pursuant to BRAA Rule 13, Subpoenas for Production of Records, we anticipate requesting issuance of subpoenas for records and/or persons.

Property Assessment Analysis

The property in question is identified as a mobile modular home and bears the closest resemblance to mobile and modular homes utilized for comparable purposes within the market and cost approaches. Subsequent adjustments were made to account for natural events, accidents, vandalism, building codes (regulations), and new regulations and/or court orders.

According to the preponderance of evidence presented, supported by exhibits in accordance with RBAA Rule 19, the burden of proof shifts to the Assessor to substantiate his or her valuation. The case of BAA v. Sampson, 105 P.3d 198 (2005), presents a similar scenario involving a modular home not secured to a permanent foundation.

In conclusion, the subject property has not been certified as affixed to a permanent location or foundation pursuant to CRS 38-29-202. The subject property, constructed in 1973, was not manufactured in accordance with CRS 38-29-202 to be affixed to a permanent location or foundation. CRS 39-1-102(7.8) defines a "Manufactured home."

In the case of Douglas County District Court 2020CV30437 (EX.21, EX.31), it was determined that "hoop houses" (EX.23), unattached 'ornamental garden shade' (EX.23), and inter-modal POD/containers are considered "structures" requiring building permits. Similarly, Douglas County zoning (EX.33) concluded that "fences" are "structures" necessitating building permits. A determination is required as to whether these "structures" should be included in the property for real estate taxation purposes.

We present our estimated valuation for R0085016 at $5,809 USD.

Thank you for your consideration.

Renee Sweet

Jeffrey Buske

Footnotes

CRS 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) The provisions of subsection (10.2) of this section are not intended to prevent the assessor from taking into account, in determining actual value for the years which intervene between changes in the level of value, any unusual conditions in or related to any real property which would result in an increase or decrease in actual value. If any real property has not been assessed at its correct level of value, the assessor shall revalue such property for the intervening year so that the actual value of such property will be its correct level of value; however, the assessor shall not revalue such property above or below its correct level of value except as necessary to reflect the increase or decrease in actual value attributable to an unusual condition. For the purposes of this paragraph (b) and except as otherwise provided in this paragraph (b), an unusual condition which could result in an increase or decrease in actual value is limited to the installation of an on-site improvement, the ending of the economic life of an improvement with only salvage value remaining, the addition to or remodeling of a structure, a change of use of the land, the creation of a condominium ownership of real property as recognized in the “Condominium Ownership Act”, article 33 of title 38, C.R.S., any new regulations restricting or increasing the use of the land, or a combination thereof, ..., any detrimental acts of nature, and any damage due to accident, vandalism, fire, or explosion. When taking into account such unusual conditions which would increase or decrease the actual value of a property, the assessor must relate such changes to the level of value as if the conditions had existed at that time. (emphasis added)

Reference

CRS Colorado Revised Statutes

CCR

Rules of the Board of Assessment Appeals

Comparable sales Modular Home/ Mobile Homes

2020Cv30437 BOCC V Sweet (Doug Co)

2022CV028 Sweet Buske v Super Frank LLC et. al.(Doug Co)

24CA767 COA

Certificate of Service

A reduced version of the document supra was uploaded to the Douglas County Assessor on 9Jun25 by Jeff Buske. Due to burdensome file size limitations (5 Mb) and the number of files (5) of the Assessor's office, the applicant was required to remove critical content to satisfy said limitations.

NOTE: A more complete copy was emailed to the assessor's office, and a thumb drive containing the 39 supporting exhibits was priority US-mailed to the assessor's office on 3July25. NOTE: A more complete copy was emailed to the assessor's office, and a thumb drive containing the 39 supporting exhibits was priority US-mailed to the assessor's office on 3July25.

Jeff Buske|