Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Assessor Budget topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County assessor flags surge in appeals, seeks extra appraisal funding as software conversion looms
Summary
Assessor Andy Hansen told the Davis County Budget Committee that appeals have risen to about 1,000 this year, prompting requests for contracted appraisal work and equipment, while the office prepares to convert to a new 'Puma' system with multi-year integration costs.
Andy Hansen, Davis County assessor, told the county budget committee on Oct. 3 that his office has seen a surge in property-tax appeals and is seeking additional budget authority for contracted appraisal work and equipment as it prepares to convert to a new property-tax system.
Hansen said the office handled roughly 1,000 appeals this year, an increase driven in part by two large appellants who filed “about 400” appeals on a single last day. ‘‘We were able to process every single one of them within about two and a half weeks,’’ Hansen said, citing the value-pro program and a new land-plot evaluation tool that staff use to support valuations.
Why it matters: higher appeal volumes have increased workload and prompted one-time contracted costs, and the assessor said a planned conversion to the Puma system will require integrations and additional testing that together will add multi-year costs.
Hansen outlined a set of budget changes: a contracted appraisal engagement budgeted at $40,000 to complete a review; an identified gap of roughly $42,000 resulting from a data-extraction issue; modest travel increases so two employees and the assessor can attend the International Association of Assessing Officers conference next year; and an additional laptop to allow staff to use two existing CoStar licenses more efficiently. Hansen said an extra CoStar license was quoted at about $450–$500 per month.
On a long-running commercial appeal tied to a site the presentation labeled the 'Lagoon' matter, Hansen described efforts to have the opposing appraiser revise an opinion. When that failed, he said, ‘‘we'll have a hearing scheduled, and we'll both present our appraisals to the board of equalization or to the hearing officer and then move on straight to state if [necessary].’’
A committee speaker raised broader funding concerns about multi-county arrangements, saying in the meeting transcript that ‘‘Davis County citizens are being double taxed’’ and criticizing a rule-making body (referred to as MCAT/MCAB) for withholding funds; commissioners discussed consulting the Utah Association of Counties on oversight and legal options. That complaint was not resolved during the meeting.
On technology, Hansen said the office is converting to Puma next year and has built a test database to support the migration. ‘‘We will have to rewrite about nine or 10 different integrations to support the change,’’ Hansen said, noting lessons from Salt Lake and Weber counties’ conversions and praising IT staff who held vendor representatives accountable during demonstrations.
No formal vote or motion was recorded on the budget items in the transcript. Staff reported the $40,000 contracted appraisal cost is included in the request and said they would reconcile the $42,000 data gap and continue with the Puma conversion planning. The next procedural steps described were scheduling the appraisal hearing for contested properties and reconciling the budget data dump error.
Ending: The committee acknowledged the additional budget requests and technical work ahead; staff said they would follow up with legal counsel on escalation options for long-running appeals and with finance staff to reconcile the missing line items.
