CO Code § 39-2-123 (2021)
2021 Colorado Code|Title 39 - Taxation|Article 2 - Division of Property Taxation - Administrator - Board|§ 39-2-123. Board of Assessment Appeals Created - Members - Compensation

  On and after July 1, 1971, the Colorado tax commission shall be known as the board of assessment appeals, which agency is hereby created within the department of local affairs. The board shall be a quasi-judicial tribunal.    Effective July 1, 1991, the existing board of assessment appeals is abolished, and the terms of members of the board then serving are terminated. Effective July 1, 1991, the new board shall be comprised of three members, who shall be appointed by the governor with the consent of the senate. Appointments to the board shall be as follows: One member shall be appointed for a term of two years, and two members shall be appointed for terms of four years. Thereafter, appointments to the board shall be for terms of four years each. In order to allow for appeals to be heard timely, up to six additional members may be appointed to the board by the governor with the consent of the senate. Such additional members shall be appointed for terms of one state fiscal year each. Members of the board shall be experienced in property valuation and taxation and shall be public employees, as defined in section 24-10-103 (4)(a), who are not subject to the state personnel system laws. One of such members shall be or shall have been, within the five years immediately preceding the date of initial appointment, actively engaged in agriculture. On and after June 1, 1993, members shall be licensed or certificated pursuant to the provisions of part 6 of article 10 of title 12. Service on the board shall be at the pleasure of the governor, who may appoint a replacement to serve for the unexpired term of any member. Such replacement shall be appointed with the consent of the senate. Any other vacancies on the board shall be filled by appointment by the governor with the consent of the senate for the unexpired term.    In addition to any other compensation provided for by law, members of the board shall be compensated one hundred fifty dollars per diem. In addition, members of the board who do not reside in the Denver metropolitan area, which consists of the counties of Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Gilpin, and Jefferson, shall be reimbursed for their actual and necessary travel expenses as determined by the executive director of the department of local affairs. Per diem compensation not to exceed two hundred twenty days in any calendar year shall be paid only when the board is in session or when any member thereof conducts a hearing pursuant to section 39-2-127. The board shall be in session when it determines that it is necessary or as directed by the executive director of the department of local affairs.    The board of assessment appeals shall exercise its powers, duties, and functions under the department of local affairs as if it were transferred to said department by a type 1 transfer under the provisions of the “Administrative Organization Act of 1968”.     History. Source: L. 70: R&RE, p. 376, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-3-23. L. 76: (3) amended, p. 757, § 11, January 1, 1977. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1735, § 13, effective June 20. L. 83: (3) amended, p. 1500, § 1, effective May 26. L. 85: (3) amended, p. 1219, § 2, effective March 23; (3) amended, p. 1228, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (2) amended, p. 913, § 30, effective June 15. L. 88: (2) amended, p. 1296, § 1, effective April 29. L. 89: (2) amended, p. 1453, § 8, effective June 7. L. 91: (2) and (3) amended, p. 1977, § 1, effective July 1. L. 92: (2) amended, p. 2206, § 2, effective June 3. L. 2013: (2) amended,(SB 13-146), ch. 388, p. 2258, § 1, effective July 1; (2) amended,(SB 13-155), ch. 392, p. 2283, § 15, effective July 1. L. 2019: (2) amended,(HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1728, § 250, effective October 1. History. Source: L. 70: R&RE, p. 376, § 1. C.R.S. 1963: § 137-3-23. L. 76: (3) amended, p. 757, § 11, January 1, 1977. L. 77: (2) amended, p. 1735, § 13, effective June 20. L. 83: (3) amended, p. 1500, § 1, effective May 26. L. 85: (3) amended, p. 1219, § 2, effective March 23; (3) amended, p. 1228, § 1, effective July 1. L. 87: (2) amended, p. 913, § 30, effective June 15. L. 88: (2) amended, p. 1296, § 1, effective April 29. L. 89: (2) amended, p. 1453, § 8, effective June 7. L. 91: (2) and (3) amended, p. 1977, § 1, effective July 1. L. 92: (2) amended, p. 2206, § 2, effective June 3. L. 2013: (2) amended,(SB 13-146), ch. 388, p. 2258, § 1, effective July 1; (2) amended,(SB 13-155), ch. 392, p. 2283, § 15, effective July 1. L. 2019: (2) amended,(HB 19-1172), ch. 136, p. 1728, § 250, effective October 1.    Editor's note:    Amendments to subsection (3) by House Bill 85-1105 and House Bill 85-1106 were harmonized.    Amendments to subsection (2) by Senate Bill 13-146 and Senate Bill 13-155 were harmonized.     Cross references:   For the “Administrative Organization Act of 1968”, see article 1 of title 24.   ANNOTATION   Law reviews. For article, “Appealing Property Tax Assessments”, see 15 Colo. Law. 798 (1986).   Board's rules and regulations were not abolished by legislation abolishing existing board and immediately creating a newly constituted one, nor was board required to re-enact, ratify, or promulgate new rules and regulations, since annual legislation by the general assembly specifically postponing the expiration of the board's rules effectively postponed the rules of the “old” board and continued their application under the “new” board. 1st Am. Sav. Bank v. Boulder County, 888 P.2d 360 (Colo. App. 1994).   Board rule requiring parties to exchange witness lists ten days prior to hearing has a legitimate relationship to express statutory provisions since need for the rule is paramount where the board's procedures do not allow discovery. 1st Am. Sav. Bank v. Boulder County, 888 P.2d 360 (Colo. App. 1994).   Board abused its discretion in denying the right to call a witness it had inadvertently omitted from its witness list where taxpayer's attorney had implicit knowledge of the witness and subject matter of the witness' testimony and no prejudice was claimed if the testimony was allowed. 1st Am. Sav. Bank v. Boulder County, 888 P.2d 360 (Colo. App. 1994).