The Davis County Property Tax Assessment Board of Appeals on Aug. 14 heard a consolidated appeal from investor Gary Hart over assessments on multiple duplex and row-type properties and approved adjustments to several parcels after the assessor presented sales comparables and an income approach from a commercial-data vendor.

Gary Hart, who said he owns seven duplexes, told the board he used comparable sales and a cost/income analysis to argue the assessor's values were too high. "The model that they're utilizing is flawed," Hart said, presenting sale-to-assessed deltas and per-unit income calculations. Hart described low investor returns under current assessments and said some duplexes have sat unsold for long periods.

Crystal Osby, Davis County Assessor, and Kim/Grant Murray (county appraiser) responded with two lines of analysis: sales-based comparables on a per-square-foot basis and an income approach prepared by Nexus, a commercial-assessment firm the county employs. Osby explained the county uses state cost tables for certain improvements and presented Nexus's "loaded" capitalization-rate worksheets (which include tax impacts) as an alternate indicator of value. "Nexus is a professional assessing company that we have hired in this county to do all of our commercial industrial, assessing, reassessment, appeals, all of it," Osby said.

The board accepted several assessor concessions and approved new assessed values by motion for individual parcels: 911 & 913 Southwest Fifth Street set at $272,100 (unanimous), parcel including 908/910/912 Southwest Fifth Street set at $363,800 (unanimous), 815 Northeast Third Street set at $215,000 (motion passed), 107 & 109 Sycamore Street set at $282,100 (motion passed), 401/403 Southeast Third Street set at $243,400 (motion passed) and 205 Campbell Hill Road set at $280,000 (motion passed). The board recorded votes and asked assessors to supply full documentation where missing.

The hearing included extended discussion about which valuation method is preferable for small multiunit properties: Hart argued investor returns and local listing performance showed lower market values, while the assessor's team emphasized recent sales and state-approved cost tables and supplied an income-capitalization check. County staff noted that sales often occur one side at a time and that assessing the combined building can differ from the sum of individual sides.

The board's adjustments reflect parcel-by-parcel compromises rather than a systemic change to the county's duplex-assessment model. Hart was given the standard administrative options for any further appeals.