Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Of Equalization topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board of Equalization denies most late valuation appeals, approves one factual correction
Summary
At its Oct. 23, 2018 session, the Utah County Board of Equalization denied multiple late appeals for property valuations (citing administrative rules and mailing/filing deadlines), approved one petition to correct a factual error, and accepted one petition to hear an appeal because of state-timing concerns.
The Utah County Board of Equalization met Oct. 23, 2018 and considered seven agenda items including several late property valuation appeals. Tax administration staff, led by Bert Harvey, recommended denial for most late petitions, saying the circumstances presented did not meet the administrative-rule standard for extraordinary circumstances or did not show how a medical event prevented timely filing.
Harvey described Petition #4 as a late filing where the petitioner had previously appealed a 2017 valuation and the state tax commission finalized an action in June; because the state's timing could affect the county's ability to review, commissioners voted to approve the petition to hear the appeal so the matter could be considered on the merits.
For Petition #5, staff reported that the petitioner cited a motorcycle accident on July 1 and subsequent medical care, but Harvey said the written statement did not explain how the medical situation impaired the ability to file on time; the board denied that petition under the administrative rule.
Petition #6, described by staff as a factual error request, was approved so the assessor's office could correct the record. A final late petition (Petition #7) was denied after staff presented address-history evidence that valuation notices had been mailed to the same address since Feb. 2010 with no return mail; staff concluded the record did not support the "did not receive" claim.
All motions on these items carried on voice votes (recorded as 2-0). The board heard staff explanations and relied on administrative rules and mailing records in reaching its determinations. Harvey repeatedly emphasized that staff recommendations rested on the available documentation and the specific threshold in the administrative rule for late appeals.
Next steps: petitioners denied by the Board of Equalization may have other statutory appeal options (e.g., state tax commission) depending on the case; Petition #4 will be heard on the merits by the board as approved.
