A. There is created in each county a "county valuation protests board". Each board shall consist of three voting members. Three alternates shall also be appointed to serve as voting members in the absence of a voting member. Voting members and alternates shall be appointed as follows:

(1) one member and one alternate shall be a qualified elector of the county and shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners for a term of two years;

(2) one member and one alternate shall be a qualified elector of the county, shall have demonstrated experience in the field of valuation of property and shall be appointed by the board of county commissioners for a term of two years; and

(3) one member and one alternate shall be a property appraisal officer employed by the department, assigned by the director and shall be the chairman of the board.

B. Members of the board and alternates appointed under Paragraph (1) or (2) of Subsection A of this section shall not hold any elective public office during the term of their appointment nor shall any such member or alternate be employed by the state, a political subdivision or a school district during the term of his appointment.

C. Vacancies occurring on the board shall be filled by the authority making the original appointment and shall be for the unexpired term of the vacated membership.

D. The county valuation protests board shall hear and decide protests of determinations made by county assessors and protested under Section 7-38-24 NMSA 1978.

E. Members of the board and alternates when serving as voting members appointed under Paragraphs (1) and (2) of Subsection A of this section shall be paid as independent contractors at the rate of eighty dollars ($80.00) a day for each day of actual service. The payment of board members and alternates and all other actual and direct expenses incurred in connection with protest hearings shall be paid by the department.

History: 1953 Comp., § 72-31-25, enacted by Laws 1973, ch. 258, § 65; 1977, ch. 129, § 1; 1981, ch. 37, § 74; 1982, ch. 25, § 1; 1997, ch. 159, § 1.

The 1997 amendment, effective June 20, 1997, inserted "Three alternates shall also be appointed to serve as voting members in the absence of a voting member. Voting members and alternates shall be" in the introductory paragraph of Subsection A; inserted "and one alternate" following "one member" in Paragraphs A(1), (2), and (3); and made related stylistic changes throughout the section.

The county valuation protests board is a quasi-judicial body. Addis v. Santa Fe Cnty. Valuation Protests Bd., 1977-NMCA-122, 91 N.M. 165, 571 P.2d 822.

Board must act in session with quorum. — When a duty is entrusted to a board composed of different individuals, that board can act officially only as such, in convened session, with the members, or a quorum thereof, present. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Quorum must be present before county valuation protests board can act officially and any act done with less than a quorum present is invalid. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Acts of majority of quorum are binding on entire body. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Quorum not present when not enough members on board. — When the protests board, consisting of three members, instead of the six required by the prior version of this section, heard the protests and entered the orders, a quorum was not present, and the orders of the board were invalid. San Pedro S. Group v. Bernalillo Cnty. Valuation Protest Bd., 1976-NMCA-116, 89 N.M. 784, 558 P.2d 53.

Common-law rule of quorum applies in absence of statute. — Under the former version of this section a quorum of the voting members present was not sufficient for the hearing to be the official act of the board since absent any such statutory provisions the common-law rule that a majority of all of the members of a board or commission shall constitute a quorum applied. Petition of Kinscherff, 1976-NMCA-097, 89 N.M. 669, 556 P.2d 355, cert. denied, 90 N.M. 8, 558 P.2d 620.

Denial of charitable property tax exemption upheld. — Where the Santa Fe county assessor appealed the district court's decision that petitioner, a retirement and continuing care community, was improperly denied a charitable property tax exemption, the New Mexico supreme court held that the district court erred in concluding that petitioner fulfilled the charitable use requirements for tax exemption under art. VIII, § 3 of the New Mexico constitution, because petitioner, a self-sustaining community that accepts and benefits only financially and medically screened residents based on requirements calculated in the interests of financial security for itself, did not create any substantial public benefit and therefore cannot be entitled to exemption from taxation under 7-36-7(B)(1)(d) NMSA 1978 or N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 3. El Castillo Ret. Residences v. Martinez, 2017-NMSC-026, aff'g 2015-NMCA-041, and overruling La Vida Llena v. Montoya, 2013-NMCA-048, 299 P.3d 456.

Constitutional issues are outside the county protests board's statutory authority. — It is the duty of the judiciary to interpret the constitution, the supreme law of the land, and to set forth the law; a county protests board does not have jurisdiction to hear constitutional issues which are outside the protests board's statutory authority. El Castillo Retirement Residences v. Martinez, 2015-NMCA-041, overruling In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-004.

Where retirement community was denied a charitable property tax exemption by the county assessor and appealed the county assessor's decision to the Santa Fe county protests board, claiming a charitable property tax exemption under N.M. Const., art. VIII, § 3, it was appropriate for the protests board to decline to hear the constitutional claim, citing a lack of jurisdiction. El Castillo Retirement Residences v. Martinez, 2015-NMCA-041, overruling In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-004.

Protests board to hear any grounds for protest. — When the language of a statute is clear and unambiguous, the statute must be given its literal meaning. The language of Section 7-38-24 NMSA 1978 and this section (formerly 72-2-37 and 72-2-38, 1953 Comp.) clearly and unambiguously gives to the county valuation protests boards the duty to hear a protest of the valuation of a taxpayer's property on any grounds whatsoever, including the grounds of allegedly unconstitutional discrimination in comparison with assessments of other properties. El Castillo Retirement Residences v. Martinez, 2015-NMCA-041, overruling In re Miller, 1975-NMCA-116, 88 N.M. 492, 542 P.2d 1182, rev'd on other grounds, 1976-NMSC-039, 89 N.M. 547, 555 P.2d 142, and cert. granted, 2015-NMCERT-004.

Am. Jur. 2d, A.L.R. and C.J.S. references. — Standing of one taxpayer to complain of underassessment or nonassessment of property of another for state and local taxation, 9 A.L.R.4th 428.