Colo. Rev. Stat. » Title 39
Colorado Revised Statutes

Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103 (2024)

Duties of state board - enforcement - reappraisal orders

✓ C.R.S. 2024: the 2025 and 2026 sessions are not included
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section CO-LEGleg.colorado.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

(1) The state board of equalization shall order reappraisals of classes as provided in section 39-1-105.5, make other orders as provided in said section, and perform such other duties as are provided for in said section.

(2) The state board of equalization shall conduct hearings on petitions filed by the administrator for the reappraisal of one or more classes or subclasses of taxable property pursuant to section 39-2-114. The state board of equalization shall also conduct hearings upon complaints filed by the administrator, upon his own motion or upon petition by any tax-levying authority in this state, concerning valuation for assessment of one or more classes or subclasses of taxable property if a reappraisal has not been conducted or ordered pursuant to the provisions of section 39-2-114. Decisions of the state board of equalization shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section 24-4-106, C.R.S.

(3) Said board may compel compliance with its orders by proceedings in the nature of mandamus, by injunction, or by other appropriate civil remedies.

(4) It is the duty of the state board of equalization to examine and review the valuations for assessment of taxes upon the various classes and subclasses of taxable real and personal property located in the several counties of the state as reflected in the abstract of assessment of each county, the decisions of the board of assessment appeals, the recommendations of the administrator, and, effective January 1, 1983, the study conducted by the director of research of the legislative council pursuant to section 39-1-104 (16).

(5) The decisions of the board of assessment appeals which affect the valuation of classes or subclasses of property may be reversed or modified by the state board of equalization, and such action shall be taken only if a written appeal has, within thirty days of the board of assessment appeals' decision, been lodged with the state board of equalization by one of the parties to the proceedings before the board of assessment appeals. Decisions of the state board of equalization shall be subject to judicial review as provided in section 24-4-106, C.R.S.

(6) The state board of equalization shall conduct hearings upon complaints filed by the property tax administrator, upon his own motion or upon petition by any tax-levying authority in this state, concerning alleged dereliction of duty on the part of a county assessor.

(7) The state board of equalization shall review abstracts of assessment and may, by order, change the valuation for assessment of any class or subclass of property which was changed by a county board of equalization.

(8) The state board of equalization may promulgate such rules and regulations as are necessary for the implementation of its duties and responsibilities. Such rules and regulations shall be promulgated pursuant to and be subject to the provisions of section 24-4-103, C.R.S.

(9) Repealed.

(10) (a) It is the function of the state board of equalization and it shall have and exercise the authority, prior to publication but subsequent to review by the advisory committee to the property tax administrator pursuant to section 39-2-131 (1), to review and approve or disapprove, within thirty days after receipt from said advisory committee to the property tax administrator:

(I) Manuals or any part thereof, appraisal procedures, instructions, and guidelines prepared and published by the administrator pursuant to section 39-2-109 (1)(e) and based upon the approaches to appraisal set forth in section 39-1-103 (5)(a) and pursuant to section 39-2-109 (1)(k); and

(II) Forms, notices, and records approved or prescribed pursuant to the authority of the property tax administrator set forth in section 39-2-109 (1)(d).

(b) Any manuals, appraisal procedures, instructions, guidelines, forms, notices, or records which are not approved or disapproved by the state board of equalization within said thirty days shall be automatically approved; except that, if within said thirty days the state board of equalization schedules a hearing on such manuals, appraisal procedures, instructions, guidelines, forms, notices, or records, such automatic approval shall not occur unless the state board of equalization does not approve or disapprove such manuals, appraisal procedures, instructions, guidelines, forms, notices, or records within thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing.

Source: L. 64: R&RE, p. 714, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-9-3. L. 70: p. 386, § 25. L. 76:

(5) added, p. 763, § 29, effective June 10. L. 77: (3) amended, (5) R&RE, and (6), (7), and (8) added, pp. 1736, 1738, §§ 20, 21, effective June 20; (3) amended, p. 1755, § 2, effective July 23. L. 81: (5) amended, p. 1834, § 13, effective June 12; (1) amended, p. 1398, § 12, effective January 1, 1983. L. 83: Entire section R&RE, p. 1505, § 2, effective June 2; (7) and (8) added, p. 2093, § 3, effective September 23. L. 88: (9) added, p. 1290, § 22, effective May 23. L. 90: (10) added, p. 1699, § 28, effective June 9. L. 91: (10) amended, p. 1954, § 3, effective January 1, 1992. L. 93: (9) repealed, p. 1690, § 9, effective June 6. L. 96: (10) amended, p. 948, § 2, effective July 1.

Editor's note: Amendments to subsection (3) by House Bill 77-1242 and House Bill 77- 1452 were harmonized.

Cross references: For right of judicial review under the "State Administrative Procedure Act", see § 24-4-106.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1977–2022 · leading case: Lamm v. Barber, 565 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1977).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Lamm v. Barber, 565 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1977). · cites it 14× “154, § 39-9-103 at 763-64 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1976 Act).”
Bd. of Assessment Appeals of State v. E.E. Sonnenberg & Sons, Inc., 797 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1990). “(1982), provisions authorizing the state board of equalization to correct prospectively any valuations of classes or subclasses of property not valued pursuant to law, § 39-9-103(4), 16B C.R.S. (1989 Supp.), and provisions in Article X, section 3, of the Colorado Constitution…”
State Bd. of Equalization v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 773 P.2d 1033 (Colo. 1989). · cites it 3× “(1982), and the State Board of Equalization then reviewed the valuations for assessment upon the various classes and subclasses of property in each county pursuant to section 39-9-103(1), 16B C.R.S. (1982). On September 21, 1982, the State Board of Equalization approved the…”
Hoffman v. Colorado State Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 6× “Section 39-9-103(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982). 12 The plaintiffs here pursued neither of these remedies.”
AURORA URBAN RENEWAL Auth. v. PK KAISER, 2022 COA 5, 507 P.3d 1033. · cites it 3× “§ 39-9-103(10)(a)(I), C.R.S. 2021. In doing so, the Board must conduct a public hearing and give stakeholders notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Writer Corp. v. Colorado State Bd. of Equalization, 771 P.2d 13 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). · cites it 12× “X, § 15; § 39-9-103, C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.). A distinction is to be made between the act of assessment, which is the act of placing a value upon the property of a particular taxpayer, and equalization, which is the act of altering the total valuation placed upon a class or…”
Hoffman v. Colo. State Bd. of Assessment, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984). · cites it 6× “Section 39-9-103(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982). [12] The plaintiffs here pursued neither of these remedies.”
Telluride Reg'l Airport Auth. v. Bd. of Equalization, 789 P.2d 201 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). · cites it 4× “In the meantime, in September 1986, the State Board issued a notice of hearing, pursuant to § 39-9-103(7), C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.), to review the county's abstract of assessment that had been provided by the county assessor.”
Laredo Hous. Apts., Ltd. v. Bd. of Cnty. Commissioners, 628 P.2d 135 (Colo. Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 4× “In an effort to achieve statewide equalization of property assessment, the General Assembly amended § 39-9-103, C.R.S. 1973, see 1979 Cum.Supp.”
Laredo Hous. Apts., Ltd. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 675 P.2d 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “154, § 39-9-103(5)(b)(III) at 764, because they could obtain full and complete relief under the statutory abatement and refund procedures.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(1): 1 case
State Bd. of Equalization v. Am. Airlines, Inc., 773 P.2d 1033 (Colo. 1989). “(1982), and the State Board of Equalization then reviewed the valuations for assessment upon the various classes and subclasses of property in each county pursuant to section 39-9-103(1), 16B C.R.S. (1982). On September 21, 1982, the State Board of Equalization approved the…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(10)(a)(I): 1 case
AURORA URBAN RENEWAL Auth. v. PK KAISER, 2022 COA 5, 507 P.3d 1033. “§ 39-9-103(10)(a)(I), C.R.S. 2021. In doing so, the Board must conduct a public hearing and give stakeholders notice and an opportunity to be heard.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(2): 2 cases
Hoffman v. Colorado State Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984). “Section 39-9-103(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982). 12 The plaintiffs here pursued neither of these remedies.”
Hoffman v. Colo. State Bd. of Assessment, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984). “Section 39-9-103(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982). [12] The plaintiffs here pursued neither of these remedies.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(4): 2 cases
Bd. of Assessment Appeals of State v. E.E. Sonnenberg & Sons, Inc., 797 P.2d 27 (Colo. 1990). “(1982), provisions authorizing the state board of equalization to correct prospectively any valuations of classes or subclasses of property not valued pursuant to law, § 39-9-103(4), 16B C.R.S. (1989 Supp.), and provisions in Article X, section 3, of the Colorado Constitution…”
Writer Corp. v. Colorado State Bd. of Equalization, 771 P.2d 13 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). “X, § 15; § 39-9-103, C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.). A distinction is to be made between the act of assessment, which is the act of placing a value upon the property of a particular taxpayer, and equalization, which is the act of altering the total valuation placed upon a class or…”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(5): 3 cases
Lamm v. Barber, 565 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1977). “154, § 39-9-103 at 763-64 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1976 Act).”
Hoffman v. Colorado State Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984). “Section 39-9-103(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982). 12 The plaintiffs here pursued neither of these remedies.”
Hoffman v. Colo. State Bd. of Assessment, 683 P.2d 783 (Colo. 1984). “Section 39-9-103(2), 16B C.R.S. (1982). [12] The plaintiffs here pursued neither of these remedies.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(5)(b)(I): 1 case
Lamm v. Barber, 565 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1977). “154, § 39-9-103 at 763-64 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1976 Act).”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(5)(b)(III): 2 cases
Lamm v. Barber, 565 P.2d 538 (Colo. 1977). “154, § 39-9-103 at 763-64 (hereinafter sometimes referred to as the 1976 Act).”
Laredo Hous. Apts., Ltd. v. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 675 P.2d 23 (Colo. Ct. App. 1983). “154, § 39-9-103(5)(b)(III) at 764, because they could obtain full and complete relief under the statutory abatement and refund procedures.”
Colo. Rev. Stat. § 39-9-103(7): 2 cases
Telluride Reg'l Airport Auth. v. Bd. of Equalization, 789 P.2d 201 (Colo. Ct. App. 1989). “In the meantime, in September 1986, the State Board issued a notice of hearing, pursuant to § 39-9-103(7), C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.), to review the county's abstract of assessment that had been provided by the county assessor.”
Writer Corp. v. Colorado State Bd. of Equalization, 771 P.2d 13 (Colo. Ct. App. 1988). “X, § 15; § 39-9-103, C.R.S. (1988 Cum.Supp.). A distinction is to be made between the act of assessment, which is the act of placing a value upon the property of a particular taxpayer, and equalization, which is the act of altering the total valuation placed upon a class or…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.