Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization accepts some assessment adjustments, upholds others in Aug. 5 hearings
Summary
At a long morning session Aug. 5 the Board of Equalization heard several residential assessment protests. The board accepted a reduced value for one Georgetown property (case 25-04 reduced to $691,740) after the assessor used corrected square footage; another protest (case 25-27) was denied; other cases accepted assessor values.
The Clear Creek County Board of Equalization on Aug. 5 heard a series of residential property assessment protests and made adjustments in a small number of cases after reviewing sales comparables and building characteristics.
Lede: The panel accepted a lowered valuation for a Georgetown property after the assessor confirmed the basement square footage was incorrectly included in prior records; the board denied at least one protest where county comparables supported the assessor’s value. The hearings were held in person and on Zoom.
Nut graf: The board stressed that its review follows state assessment rules: the board may adjust values if (a) characteristics recorded by the assessor are incorrect (for example, finished living area or finished basement square footage) or (b) better comparables exist. The board cannot change values based on a taxpayer’s ability to pay.
Selected outcomes reported at the meeting: - Case 25-04 (Georgetown): The assessor originally valued the property including an unfinished basement that had been recorded as finished. After the assessor recomputed the model using corrected living area, the board voted to accept a revised value of $691,740. - Case 25-27 (Soda Creek Road area): The petitioner provided comparables and photos showing poor condition; the assessor ran adjusted comparables and recommended denial. The board denied the protest and adopted the assessor’s value. - Case 25-31 and Case 25-36: The board reviewed comparables and, after questioning the assessor, accepted the assessor’s adjusted amounts in both cases.
Process notes: County assessor staff explained the regression-based sales approach (sales window July 1, 2022–June 30, 2024) used to set values and why certain outside-the-base-year sales could not be considered. When property sketches or town plans were produced and confirmed, the assessor adjusted the living-area and corresponding values.
Ending: The board concluded its set of hearings and said staff should continue supporting petitioners whose claims include permits or documentation from municipalities; several petitioners were advised how to submit additional evidence and next steps if they wished to appeal.
