Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
House approves changes to property‑tax appeals, adds training requirement for hearing officers
Summary
First substitute House Bill 54 narrows who may serve as hearing officers, requires competency training beginning January 2014, and broadens the types of evidence taxpayers may present in property‑tax appeals; sponsors said the changes increase fairness, while some members warned the list of eligible hearing officers may be too broad.
The Utah House on Jan. 30 adopted a first substitute to House Bill 54, a package of changes to the property‑tax appeals process that sponsors said will give taxpayers a fairer opportunity to challenge assessed values.
Representative Ford, the sponsor, told members the measure clarifies that hearing officers who decide appeal cases must not be employees of the county assessor's office and, beginning in January 2014, must complete a course on valuation and administrative law approved by the Tax Commission. The bill also allows people other than licensed appraisers or brokers — including neighbors, real estate professionals, attorneys or other qualified individuals — to present evidence on a taxpayer's behalf in an appeal.
"What this bill does is allows that evidence, makes sure that the hearing officer has some type of competency, and says and tells the public in general you have better access and fairer access to a tax appeal," Ford said during floor debate.
Supporters argued the change addresses practical barriers to appeals. Representative Frewe said assessors sometimes will not recognize evidence other than a formal appraisal, making appeals costly and discouraging taxpayers from challenging valuations. The substitute also requires hearing officers to consider a wider range of market information, including comparable sales and properties under contract, when determining value.
Members questioned how the changes would affect rural counties and whether counties that now use staff as hearing officers would face fiscal or staffing impacts. Representative Chavez Houck asked whether rural assessors had been consulted; the sponsor said county assessors and appraiser boards had not reported problems and generally use independent appraisers already. Representative Draxler, a certified appraiser, praised the goal of fairness but warned the bill may open the pool of hearing officers too broadly, potentially allowing people without suitable expertise to decide complex cases.
The bill clarifies that appraisers remain constrained by appraisal statutes on contingent‑fee arrangements, while other advocates a taxpayer might hire (attorneys or brokers) may use contingency arrangements.
The House adopted the first substitute and later passed the measure on voice vote; the substitute passed the body with a recorded tally of 70 yeas and 0 nays and will be transmitted to the Senate.
The bill also directs the Tax Commission to approve the training curriculum and permits counties, private entities or the commission to provide the required instruction. Sponsors said the intent is to ensure hearing officers demonstrate basic competency in valuation and administrative law, not to prescribe a single qualification path.
Next steps: The bill will be transmitted to the Utah Senate for consideration. If enacted as written, the hearing‑officer course requirement takes effect in January 2014 and the broader evidence rules would be applied in tax appeals going forward.
