As to the following issues:

Whether the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that under C.R.S.§ 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) an assessor must take into consideration unusual conditions that occur after the assessment date of January 1, 2020, for a revaluation for the 2020 tax year.

Whether the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, under C.R.S. § 39-1-104(11)(b)(I) property owners are not required to demonstrate that the alleged unusual conditions caused a diminution in value to their properties before triggering the duty of assessor to revalue such properties.

Whether the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, the executive and public health orders issued by the State and County are "regulations of the use of land" and therefore an "unusual condition" pursuant to C.R.S. 39-1-104(11)(b).

Whether the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that a Plaintiff is not required to demonstrate the Assessor's value for the subject properties was incorrect.

Whether the District Court erred in concluding, as a matter of law, that if an unusual condition does exist, the Plaintiff is not required to demonstrate that the unusual condition impacts the subject properties.

1