Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Exemption topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tax review panel, then commission, move to deny retroactive primary-exemption claim for Roy property
Summary
Weber County tax review staff and commissioners discussed and moved to deny a request to retroactively restore a 2024 primary-residence property tax exemption for a Roy parcel after the county said notices tied to a deed change were sent to a Tremonton mailing address.
Weber County tax review staff told commissioners on May 19 they had sent multiple required notices after a deed transfer changed the mailing address for a Roy property and recommended denying a retroactive primary-residence exemption for tax year 2024. The commission followed the tax review committee’s recommendation and moved to deny.
What happened: County staff said a warranty deed recorded after the sale changed the parcel’s tax mailing address to a Tremonton address; under state procedure, the county mailed multiple notices to that address after the conveyance and then treated the parcel as non‑exempt when no reply was received. Jared (clerk/auditor staff) said the office sent three separate notice mailings and the valuation and tax notices to the Tremonton address but received no response.
Property representatives told the commission they never received the notices. Darren Stansford, representing the property owners, said, “We never received any of these, these letters,” and produced a residential lease dated March 1, 2024, and payment records showing the parcel met occupancy requirements for a primary-residence exemption in 2024.
Why the county denied: The tax review committee reviewed the record twice and determined the assessor had followed statutory notice procedures; staff said they could only reinstate the exemption for tax year 2025 because the online application to restore the exemption arrived after the 2024 deadlines. Commissioners supported the review board’s recommendation to deny the retroactive 2024 exemption but left the correction for 2025 in place, noting the 2025 exemption was already restored.
Next steps and guidance: County staff advised property owners to pursue standard administrative remedies if they believe mail delivery failed and to provide any additional proof of non‑receipt. Commissioners noted staff will include the item on the consent agenda and that anyone could request to remove it for separate discussion.
