Utah County panel denies multiple green-belt appeals, continues others for more evidence

The Utah County Commission heard appeals of Green Belt property-tax classifications and on Sept. 1 denied multiple requests to retain preferential agricultural assessment while continuing others for further review.

County attorneys and appraisal staff told property owners that parcels failed to meet statutory Green Belt requirements and outlined an alternate pathway, the county's urban farming program, for parcels with 1 to 4.99 acres in active production.

Katrina Cole, attorney for the Utah County Assessor's Office, told the commission that the assessor's office "has a statutory and constitutional duty under article 13 section 2 of the Utah constitution to make sure that everyone's assessed and taxed at an equal and uniform rate." She said Green Belt classification requires at least five contiguous acres actively devoted to agricultural uses and a reasonable expectation of profit.

On several cases the assessor's office found accessory residential construction, commercial storage or insufficient production had reduced the area in active agriculture below the five-acre threshold. Bert, identified in the meeting as the county assessor, and Diane, the county's Green Belt staff member, advised owners about applying instead for the urban farming classification that covers 1 to 4.99 acres of production and provides similar tax benefits for that part of a parcel.

Property owners described their uses and concerns at the meeting. Landowner Hendershot said the barn on his 5.31-acre parcel includes a roughly 600-square-foot office area and an upstairs apartment area; he asserted the barn is used for agriculture except for that office space. Katrina Cole and staff explained the county considers structures permitted as an accessory dwelling to be residential for classification purposes and said Hendershot could apply for urban farming immediately if he meets production and irrigation requirements.

In another appeal, landowner Troy Hells and representatives including an attorney and a farmer who leases the ground described grazing and haying activity on a roughly 39.28-acre parcel. County staff said roughly 14.78 acres showed signs of production while about 24.5 acres had no visible agricultural activity and some portions were being used for equipment, trucking and storage. Staff and farming representatives agreed to on-site inspections and further documentation; the commission continued that appeal to the Sept. 25 meeting to allow staff and owners to collect production records and conduct field inspections.

Farmer Ricky Giles and lessee Terry Larson said they have grazed and harvested hay on portions of the parcel since 2011 and described seasonal grazing patterns and recent bailing. County staff said they would perform on-site inspections to verify recent production, AUMs (animal-unit months) and hay yields.

For a separate 8.82-acre parcel, owner Skip Dunn said he has maintained horses on a small portion of the property, that he had recently tried to regrade and seed additional acreage but was stopped by Springville City permitting requirements, and that he had paid rollback taxes when he bought the property in 2017. Assessor's staff noted production on that parcel was limited (reporting roughly 0.8 acres in production now) and recommended removal of Green Belt status for the portion not in agriculture; the commission voted to deny retention of Green Belt for that item.

The commission and assessor's staff repeatedly noted that owners can appeal county denials to the Utah State Tax Commission and that an approved urban farming application can, after meeting requirements and time-in-program rules, reduce or reverse rollback tax obligations for the producing acreage. Staff explained that certain rollback and refund processes require legal descriptions and recorded withdrawals before liens can be adjusted.

Votes at a glance: - Item 3 (class change, secondary residential to primary): motion to approve — passed. - Item 4 (Hendershot, review of Board of Equalization): motion to deny — passed. County staff recommended denial because accessory dwelling construction left fewer than five contiguous acres in active agricultural production; owner advised to apply for urban farming. - Item 5: motion to deny — passed. - Item 6: continued to Sept. 25 — passed (owner is resolving trust/title issues). - Item 7 (T & K Residential Holdings / Giles Farms parcel): continued to Sept. 25 for on-site inspection and documentation of production. - Item 8 (Skip Dunn parcel): motion to deny — passed.

The commission directed staff to assist owners who want to pursue urban farming applications and to perform on-site inspections and documentation where production levels were disputed. Staff noted the urban farming program requires irrigation evidence and a legal description for the producing area and generally requires five years of continued compliance before certain rollback tax relief is finalized.

The meeting concluded after the final denials and continuations; commissioners encouraged owners to work with the assessor's office on applications and documentation before the next hearings.