Coconino Community v. the Property Tax
── Coconino Community v. the Property Tax ──
Case No.: 1 CA-TX 25-0001
Court: Court of Appeals of Arizona
Date: March 27, 2026
Category: General
IN THE
ARIZONA COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION ONE
COCONINO COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT,
Plaintiff/Appellee,
v.
THE PROPERTY TAX OVERSIGHT COMMISSION,
Defendant/Appellant.
No. 1 CA-TX 25-0001
FILED 03-27-2026
Appeal from the Arizona Tax Court
No. TX2024-000143
The Honorable Erik Thorson, Judge
AFFIRMED
COUNSEL
Gust Rosenfeld, P.L.C., Phoenix
By Charles W. Wirken, Nathan D. Schott
Counsel for Plaintiff/Appellee
Bergin, Frakes, Smalley & Oberholtzer, PLLC, Phoenix
By Brian M. Bergin, Anthony R. Napolitano
Counsel for Defendant/Appellant
COCONINO COMMUNITY v. THE PROPERTY TAX
Opinion of the Court
OPINION
Presiding Judge Andrew J. Becke delivered the opinion of the Court, in
which Judge Kent E. Cattani and Chief Judge Randall M. Howe joined.
B E C K E, Judge:
¶1 The Property Tax Oversight Commission (“Commission”)
appeals the tax court’s decision that the Coconino Community College
District (“District”) adopted a primary property tax levy within the legal
limit. For reasons that follow, we affirm.
FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2 In May 2022, Coconino County voters approved the District’s
request to reset the base levy limit from about $9 million to about $14.7
million beginning in tax year 2022. The ballot language told voters a “YES”
vote would reset the levy limit “beginning in tax year 2022,” and that the
new amount “shall be the base for determining levy limitations . . . for
subsequent years.” By statute, this increase was phased in incrementally
over the following three years. See A.R.S. § 42-17056(F)(1)(a)–(c).
Specifically, for the first tax year after voter approval, the levy limit equals
the original base levy limit plus one-third of the difference between the
original base levy limit and the new base levy limit. For the second tax year,
the levy limit equals the original levy limit plus two-thirds of the difference
between the original levy limit and the new levy limit. Finally, in the third
tax year, the base levy limit equals the voter approved amount.
¶3 For tax year 2022, the District phased in one-third of the new
base levy limit, and the Commission approved the District’s calculations.
For tax year 2023, however, the District phased in another one-third of the
new base levy limit, but also included a 2% “growth” increase and a “new
construction” increase to reflect the change in property subject to taxation,
as required by the Arizona Constitution. Ariz. Const. art. 9, § 19 (1), (4), (6).
¶4 The Commission rejected the District’s calculations for the
2023 levy limit, stating the calculations were incorrect and exceeded the
maximum allowable amount, because the District included the 2%
“growth” and “new construction” increases. The District objected,
2
COCONINO COMMUNITY v. THE PROPERTY TAX
Opinion of the Court
petitioned the Commission to reconsider its decision, and requested a
hearing.
¶5 After a hearing, the Commission denied the District’s petition
to reconsider, relying on the phase-in process language from A.R.S. § 42-
17056(F)(1)(b), (c). Specifically, the Commission concluded that the levy
limit for tax year 2023 “must be less than or equal to the [original levy limit]
plus two-thirds of the difference” between the original levy limit and the
new levy limit, and that the 2024 tax year levy limit “must be less than or
equal to the [new levy limit].” Id.
¶6 The District appealed this decision to the tax court, which
reversed, finding that the District’s position corre
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works
the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel
opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own
address as its source and its own type. #}