Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Tax Sales topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Millard County approves most 2025 tax‑sale results; authorizes staff to accept next‑highest bidder on one parcel

5113726 · July 1, 2025
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 Millard County Commission accepted the auditor’s report on the county’s June online tax sale and voted to approve six of seven sale results, instructing staff to offer the seventh parcel to the next highest bidder and to bring formal approval of that substitution to the next meeting.

County Auditor Bonnie Smith told commissioners that Millard County held its 2025 online tax sale through the PublicSurplus platform and that one winning bidder later declined to pay for a parcel. Smith recommended the county advance to the next highest bidder under the sale platform’s terms.

Why it matters: tax‑sale proceeds and ownership transfers affect property rights and county title obligations; when winning bidders default, counties must either accept the next bidder or relist the parcel. Auditor Smith explained administrative costs tied to the sale (title searches and required notice) total roughly $400 per parcel and noted the county already collects a $300 bid deposit on sales.

Commission discussion: commissioners asked whether defaulting bidders are assessed fees or barred from future sales. Auditor Smith said the county can block bidders who default and that PublicSurplus will manage communications with bidders. Commissioners asked staff to proceed with contacting the next highest bidders on the affected parcel and, if necessary, the subsequent bidders if the next bidder declines. The commission moved to approve all successful sales except for the seventh parcel and separately authorized staff to accept the next highest bidder for that seventh parcel. One commissioner added that if the difference between bid prices is large, the county might choose to relist the parcel instead of accepting a much lower next bid.

Outcome: the commission’s motion to approve six of the seven sale results passed by voice vote. The commission additionally authorized staff to accept the next highest bidder for the seventh parcel and directed staff to present the formal approval of the substituted buyer at the next commission meeting. The auditor said the contested parcel is a primary‑residence property in Delta and that the winning bidder ultimately notified staff she would not pay for that parcel.

Implementation notes: staff will contact the next highest bidders through PublicSurplus per the platform’s procedures, implement any applicable bidder penalties or restrictions under platform and county terms, and present the substitution for formal ratification at the next commission meeting.