HomeMy WebLinkAbout962158.tiff BEFORE THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
STATE OF COLORADO
WELD COUNTY
FINDINGS AND ORDER OF THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION UPON REVIEW OF
WELD COUNTY ABSTRACT OF ASSESSMENT
Docket No. 200
On October 16. 1996, the State Board of Equalization (state board)
convened in the Legislative Services Building, 200 E. 14th Avenue,
Hearing Room A, Denver, Colorado. The state board, pursuant to 39-9-
103(4) , 39-9-104, and 39-9-106, C.R.S. , reviewed the eighteen counties
that assessed possessory interests for property tax year 1996.
The following members of the state board were present: Lyle Kyle.
Chairman; JoAnn Groff. Vice-Chairman; Tim Daly, Tom Norton, and Andy
McElhany.
Due notice of the meeting had previously been given by telefax on
September 19. 1996 and by mail on October 2, 1996.
Mary E. Huddleston, Property Tax Administrator, presented P.T.A. Exhibit
9 and a. brief history of possessory interests in Colorado.
Additionally, she covered situations that had occurred which culminated
in the state board's review of the eighteen counties having either
continued or placed omitted property assessments on possessory interests
in their counties for the 1996 property tax year after the General
Assembly's passage and the Governor's signing of SB 96-218 which
prohibits the valuation of possessory interests unless the Supreme Court
holds that the Colorado Constitution requires taxation of possessory
interests.
Bob Slough, Montezuma County Attorney, presented Montezuma County
Exhibit 1 and attachments. Mr. Slough stated that the Supreme Court
found that possessory interests are taxable and that, further, even
without 39-3-135, C.R.S. , the statute that was repealed in SB 96-218,
possessory interests are still taxable under the general taxing laws of
Colorado. Mr. Slough also referred to Article X, Sections 3(1)(a) . 6.
9. and 10. Colorado Constitution. Mr. Slough questioned whether, based
on case law, the state board has the authority to act on exempt property
questions.
George Rosenberg, Assistant Boulder County Attorney, expressed agreement
with the remarks made by Mr. Slough. Mr. Rosenberg stated that
possessory interests do not have a constitutional exemption and are
taxable. Mr. Rosenberg questioned whether or not the state board was
the best forum to resolve a constitutional issue and whether the state
board had the authority to decide this issue without rule-making.
5DS
I I �ti I CC /�5 I CA 962158
John Merrill . Routt County Attorney, presented a letter to the state
board written by the superintendent of the local school district, and he
stated that he joined the statements previously made by Montezuma
County.
Stephanie Tuthill , Holme, Roberts, & Owen, representing their client,
Mesa Verde Company, and also a larger group of industry members referred
to as the "Possessory Interest Working Group" (P. I .W.G. ) , spoke to the
state board. Ms. Tuthill presented P. I .W.G. Exhibit 1. In response to
a question from Mr. Daly, Ms. Tuthill stated that one of the state
board's most important job functions is ensuring that all 63 Colorado
Counties use uniform assessment practices, and that the state board
should require all counties to obey SB 96-218. a currently valid
statute. Further, of the 45 counties not assessing possessory
interests. 41 placed no value on possessory interests, and four counties
removed their possessory interests after being requested to do so by the
taxpayers. Of the 18 counties assessing possessory interests, none use
the same criteria for identifying possessory interests and, therefore,
uniformity does not exist. Eight counties only valued a single taxpayer
in the county, seven counties have ten or fewer, and three counties have
more than ten possessory interest valuations in each of their counties.
Mr. Rosenberg. Assistant Boulder County Attorney, then expressed his
concern that a fact question may exist based on Ms. Tuthill 's
presentation, and that it appeared to him that a complaint should have
been filed by the possessory interest lessees with the Property Tax
Administrator under 39-2-111. C.R.S. , prior to any hearing by the state
board under 39-9-103(2) , C.R.S.
Maurice Knaizer, Deputy Attorney General , responding to a question by
Senator Norton, stated that the state board did have the alternative to
act under 39-9-104 and 106, C.R.S. , 39-9-103(2) , C.R.S. , being another
action. He stated that he believed that the counties should be
permitted to respond to Ms. Tuthill 's allegations.
After discussion, the state board unanimously voted to extend further
notice to each one of the 18 counties to present information to the
state board on their valuing possessory interests and notice that the
state board intends to enforce the present law. Further, if the
counties are found to have improperly valued possessory interests, the
state board will require them to remove the possessory interests.
The hearing was recessed until October 28, 1996.
On October 28. 1996. the State Board of Equalization (state board)
reconvened in the Legislative Services Building, 200 E. 14th Avenue,
Hearing Room A, Denver. Colorado.
The following members of the state board were present: Lyle Kyle.
Chairman; JoAnn Groff, Vice-Chairman; Tim Daly, Tom Norton, and Andy
McElhany.
Due notice of the meeting was previously given orally at the October 16.
1996, meeting and by telefax and mail on October 17. 1996.
David Baumgarten, Gunnison County Attorney, stated that we all
acknowledge that we are facing a difficult problem. He stated that he
believes that it is in the public interest to have the Supreme Court
resolve the issue of whether or not possessory interests are taxable
under the Constitution, and an order issued by the state board is the
quickest way to bring the issue to the Supreme Court. He also stated
that the counties are not acting in bad faith. Mr. Baumgarten confirmed
the possessory interests presently assessed in Gunnison County.
John Merrill , Routt County Attorney, stated that Routt County agrees
with the presentation by Gunnison County. He also stated that Routt
County is attempting to identify all possessory interests in the county
as under the previous law, 39-3-135, C.R.S. , those interests were
exempt.
Jim Robinson, Assistant Adams County Attorney, presented Adams County
Exhibit 1 and stated that Adams County had removed the valuations from
the possessory interest listing because the airport had sold the
improvements, and they are privately owned. Mr. Robinson also stated
that Adams County is in support of the counties that valued possessory
interests.
Jack Bush, Assistant Arapahoe County Attorney, stated that the state
board does not have jurisdiction because: (1) possessory interests are
neither a class or subclass of property and are not defined as such in
the Property Tax Administrator's manuals, (2) Proper notice of this
meeting was not given, and (3) The state board does not have
jurisdiction over exempt property.
Denise Steiskel , Summit County Assessor, testified that Summit County
has valued possessory interests, the county supports the other counties
that valued possessory interests, and she has instituted a research
project to identify all possessory interests in the county.
George Rosenberg, Assistant Boulder County Attorney, stated that the
state board does not have jurisdiction over the possessory interests
issue.
Lawrence Levin, Holme, Roberts and Owen, stated that the Property Tax
Administrator's memo on possessory interests, P.T.A. Exhibit 9, was
based on a memo to her, dated October 1. 1996, from Michael Schuster of
her office, and he would like to make that memo part of the record. The
state board accepted the memo.
Melanie Mills, Ski Country U.S.A. , stated that ski areas have total
control of the property that they lease. The ski area must allow anyone
on the property.
After considering all of the evidence and testimony, the state board
found and concluded that the state board does have jurisdiction over the
possessory interest issue under 39-9-103(4) , 39-9-104, and 39-9-106,
C.R.S. . that it is the duty of the state board to supervise the
administration of all laws concerning the valuation and assessment of
taxable property, that it is the duty of the state board to correct any
obvious error in the Abstract of Assessment, and that it is the duty of
the state board to ensure that uniformity and equalization exists among
and within the counties.
By unanimous vote of the state board, with all members present and
voting, the State Board of Equalization ordered the fourteen counties,
which counties are Arapahoe. Archuleta, Boulder, Clear Creek, Eagle,
Grand, Gunnison, Jefferson, Montezuma , Pitkin, Routt. Summit. Teller,
and Weld, to remove the possessory interest properties from the
Abstracts for the current year pursuant to 39-9-103(4) , 39-9-104, and
39-9-106, C.R.S. The State Board of Equalization further ordered that
each county must submit written notification to the state board within
two weeks of the hearing on October 28, 1996, that they have removed the
possessory interests from the tax rolls.
Accordingly, the State Board of Equalization hereby orders Weld County
officials to immediately take all available measures to remove the
possessory interest valuations. The assessor shall perform his duty as
required by 39-9-107 and 39-5-127, C.R.S. , and report back to the State
Board of Equalization no later than November 13, 1996, that this order
has been implemented. If there is a variance in the amount removed from
the 1996 Abstract of Assessment after implementation of this order, the
assessor shall include this in his report to the State Board of
Equalization.
The assessor must recertify valuations to the various taxing
jurisdictions in the county pursuant to 39-1-111(5) , C.R.S.
So ordered by the State Board of Equalization this f/ (day of October,
1996, nunc oro tunc, October 28, 1996, as to the order-to remove
possessory interest valuations from the Abstract.
For the State Board of Equalization
/-.
% '
Lyle Kyle. CFiairman '---- ( SCH-c--
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify that I have duly served the within order of the
State Board of Equalization upon all parties by depositing copies of
same in the United States mail , postage prepaid. at Denver, Colorado,
this a4day of October, 1996, addresses as follows:
Weld County Assessor
1400 N. 17th Avenue
Greeley, CO 80631
Weld County Commissioners
P.O. Box 758
Greeley, CO 80632
Weld County Attorney
Bruce T. Barker
P.O. Box 1948 •
Greeley. CO 80632
Weld County Treasurer
P.O. Box 458
Greeley. CO 80632
Nineteenth District Attorney
Al Dominguez
P.O. Box 1167
Greeley, CO 80632
Maurice Knaizer
Attorney General 's Office
1525 Sherman Street, 4th Floor
Denver, CO 80203
15 DPT AD PAGE 18 OF
FORM 101 AR 68/96 18 PAGES
15 DPT AD
CERTIFICATION BY STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
TAXABLE EXEMPT TOTAL
VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION
8. Total after $ 1331005598 48969910 1379975508
Net Changes by CBOE
II. CHANGES BY THE STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION
(Indicate + or- changes and round each entry to nearest $10)
\.3o aa30 (- 5,s5,20
-3D-DO M13 $ 3a.lho C \3�, ,a $ loc6 )
(code) (+/-) (amount) (code) (+/-) (amount)
TAXABLE EXEMPT TOTAL
VALUATION VALUATION VALUATION
9. Net Changes by the
State Board of
Equalization $&L\ $ $ �'��`e)
10. Total after Net
Changes by the
State Board of
Equalization $ i fi5, $ L\Y,W1/4, ,,K` $ y,3 ,c°vA,3c*
A B C
CERTIFICATION BY STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION TO THE COUNTY ASSESSOR
The State Board of Equalization, having examined this abstract for the
year 1995, with changes and/or corrections as approved by the State
Board of Equalization, finds the valuation of the property in
15 DPT AD wo,VI County to be $ \, T2O,,Q\,7\,3 n (Line 10,
Column A, Page 18) and certifies the same to be the assessed valuation
for the year 1995.
Signed at Denver, Colorado this day of n cc , AD 1996
)74/ ( d V
tenairman of the Board ✓
END PAGE 17 - END OF ABSTRACT REPORT FORM
Hello