Clear Creek CountyBoard of County Commissioners met July 30 in a special session to hear property tax protests while sitting as the Board of Equalization. The board heard dozens of individual appeals, reviewed assessor comparables and evidence, and ruled on each case by motion and vote. Most appeals were denied and the assessor's values were sustained; three protests were withdrawn and one parcel was reclassified as natural resources.

The Board prioritized in-person protesters, limited public-comment slots to three minutes and ran the appeal process in a standardized order: assessor presentation of comparables, a three-minute petitioner statement, and commissioner questions before a motion and vote. The board repeatedly noted that the assessor is required by state statute to use a specified sales time window when setting values and that annual appropriation is required for any future funding tied to decisions.

Votes at a glance
- Case 25-54 (Kaplan): Board accepted assessor recommendation to reduce the valuation from $701,007.30 to $639,003.70 and approved the adjusted value. Motion passed.
- Case 25-48 (873 Soda Creek Road): Motion to deny the petitioner's request and accept the assessor's value passed; appeal denied.
- Cases 25-42 and 25-53 (204 Argentine Street): Motion to assess the property at the assessor's value and deny the appeals passed; appeals denied for both account numbers.
- Case 25-43 (41 Juneau Trail): Motion to deny the protest and accept the assessor's value passed; appeal denied.
- Case 25-46 (commercial property, Shiprock Holdings): Board accepted the assessor's assessment (sale-based regression adjustment applied); motion passed.
- Case 25-49 (90 Crow Ridge Road): Board accepted the assessor's adjusted value after review; motion passed.
- Case 25-50 (Bastian): Board accepted the assessor's valuation and denied the protest; motion passed.
- Case 25-51 / 2551 (Mead): Board accepted the assessor's adjusted value and denied the protest; motion passed.
- Case 25-40 (Agnew/Robert Agnick; 586 Highview Drive): Board accepted the assessor's assessment; motion passed.
- Case 25-22 (Sisson): Board accepted the assessor's adjusted valuation after discussion of square-footage and comparable issues; motion passed.
- Bear Creek / Fair Creek Development cluster (multiple contiguous parcels): Several protests were heard together. Three accounts (case numbers 2555, 2556 and 2560) were withdrawn by the petitioner. For the remaining disputed parcels the board: denied the protests on 25-57, 25-58 and 25-59 (assessor values sustained); amended case 25-61 to reclassify the parcel as "natural resources" with an assessed value of $480 (motion passed); and denied the protest and accepted the assessor's valuations for case 25-62.
- Case 25-44 (Weber / 428 Upper Elk Creek Drive): Board accepted the assessor's assessment; motion passed.
- Case 25-47 (Jane Gray / 1103 Aspen Drive): Board accepted the assessor's adjusted value; motion passed.
- Case 25-39 (Elk Valley / 2650 Winter Gulch and similar): Board accepted the assessor's adjusted values; motion passed.

How decisions were reached
Commissioners repeatedly told petitioners the board can consider factual errors in recorded characteristics (bedrooms, bathrooms, square footage, condition) and comparable sales submitted within the statutorily required period, but not matters outside that window. The assessor noted that mass-appraisal regression analysis sets the county's statistical baselines (for example, adjustments for road maintenance or topography) and that individual appraisals may be considered but are subject to statutory limits on the sales period for tax assessment. Several petitioners provided photographs, third-party appraisals or sale-comparison material; in multiple cases the board found the assessor's chosen comparables and adjustments more persuasive.

Ending
Most appeals were resolved in favor of the assessor after the board reviewed comparable sales and property characteristics. The board recorded votes and motions for each item and instructed staff to mail formal decisions. A handful of petitioners were advised on how to provide clearer evidence (photos, proof of condition issues, permits or records) if they choose to file future appeals.