Colorado House Bill HB1095

Colorado 2025 Regular Session

• Introduced: 1/27/25
• Refer: 1/27/25
• Failed: 3/3/25

Caption

Petitioner Requirements in Certain Property Tax Appeals

Summary

HB1095 would tighten the evidentiary and documentation requirements for certain Colorado property tax appeals involving nonresidential real property that is not agricultural property. For protests to the county assessor, hearings before county boards of equalization, and related appeals, the bill requires the petitioner or the petitioner’s agent/representative to state the requested valuation in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP). It also expands the information that must be provided in appeals involving rent-producing commercial property and abatements, including full copies of all leases in effect on the valuation date and any market data relied on to support the requested value. The bill is aimed at making commercial property valuation appeals more standardized and transparent by requiring petitioners to substantiate their requested values with appraisal-based methods and supporting documents. It applies to notices of objection and protest, county board appeals, state board of assessment appeals proceedings, district court appeals, and arbitration requests received on or after the effective date. The bill does not change the assessor’s obligation to support the county’s valuation, but it does add new obligations on taxpayers and their representatives when challenging valuations.

Impact

HB1095 would amend Colorado’s property tax appeal statutes, primarily sections 39-5-122, 39-8-107, and 39-8-108, to impose additional procedural requirements on petitioners in nonresidential, nonagricultural property tax disputes. It would require valuation requests to comply with USPAP and would add disclosure requirements for leases and market data in certain commercial property appeals. These changes would affect property owners, tax representatives, appraisers, county assessors, county boards of equalization, the Board of Assessment Appeals, and courts/arbitrators handling property tax disputes.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests the bill was not broadly supported in committee, despite unanimous approval of two amendments. The final committee action to refer the bill to the Committee of the Whole failed 2-11, and the committee then postponed the bill indefinitely by a 11-2 vote. That pattern indicates substantial opposition or concern among committee members, even though the amendments themselves were adopted without dissent. No transcript excerpts are available to show detailed debate, but the vote record suggests the bill was controversial and did not advance out of House Finance.

Contention

The main point of contention appears to be whether it is appropriate to impose USPAP-based standards and expanded disclosure obligations on taxpayers appealing commercial property valuations. Supporters likely viewed the bill as a way to improve consistency, transparency, and the quality of evidence in appeals, while opponents may have been concerned that the new requirements would make it harder or more expensive for property owners to challenge assessed values. The bill’s focus on nonresidential property, especially rent-producing commercial property, suggests the burden would fall most heavily on commercial taxpayers and their agents or appraisers.