Ouray commissioners ratify abstract of assessment as assessment rates and valuations change

5822348 · September 9, 2025

Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts

Subscribe
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The board ratified the chair’s signature on the county’s abstract of assessment; county staff explained legislative changes that created dual residential assessment rates and a net increase in assessed valuation for 2025.

The Ouray County Board of County Commissioners on Sept. 9 ratified the chair’s signature on the county’s abstract of assessment, certifying the Board of Equalization’s conclusion of hearings and enabling the Division of Property Taxation to proceed with tax‑bill calculations. Susie Mayfield, county staff overseeing property taxation, told the board that software delays required the chair to sign the abstract before the board’s formal ratification because vendor updates were delayed. She said the abstract must be sent to the Division of Property Taxation by Aug. 25 and that certification letters using the abstract support local governments’ budget work. Mayfield said 2025 is a revaluation year based on market sales through June 30, 2024, producing higher land values for some parcels and slight decreases in residential structure values overall. She reported a net increase in taxable assessed valuation for county taxing purposes from 2024’s assessed valuation of $311,552,170 to $323,836,360 for 2025. She described recent legislative changes that added complexity to tax calculations: Colorado now uses two separate residential assessment rates—one school assessment rate of 7.05% and a non‑school residential assessment rate of 6.25%—requiring software and reporting changes to break out school vs. non‑school assessed values. Mayfield also cited a temporary two‑year senior exemption portability program that required separate reporting. Commissioners discussed the broader policy tradeoffs the changes reflect. One commissioner noted that some legislative decisions shifted tax burdens in ways that, in their view, devalued county services and added complexity and administrative cost at the county level. Mayfield explained vendor programming challenges, the requirement to show multiple assessment calculations for mixed‑use properties, and that public reports must transparently show school versus non‑school assessed values. Commissioner action: Commissioner (name on record) moved to ratify and approve authorization of the chair signature on the abstract; the motion carried unanimously. Mayfield said she will issue the follow‑up certification letters to local taxing entities and will provide revised reports to the board in November when mill levy certifications are due.