Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Valuation Appeals topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Emery County Board of Equalization reviews dozens of appeals; half‑lot valuation and multiple appraisal acceptances recorded
Summary
At a Sept. 17 Board of Equalization session, county assessors and board members reviewed appeals for dozens of parcels; the board agreed to apply a half‑lot valuation for one vacant parcel, accepted multiple owner appraisals where supported by comparables, and approved a set of assessor‑initiated corrections for multiplier/effective‑age errors.
The Emery County Board of Equalization spent its Sept. 17 meeting hearing and resolving valuation appeals and assessor corrections for dozens of parcels across the county.
Most of the meeting involved detailed, parcel‑by‑parcel discussion. An assessor presenter (identified in the transcript as Speaker 3) walked the board through comparable sales, appraisals and field‑visit notes for each appeal; board members asked for clarifications on effective age, basement finish, and whether accessory structures should be treated as part of the house or as separate buildings. In one early decision, the board agreed to apply a half‑lot value to a vacant parcel owned by Ryan Ware after members said the owner had recently paid roughly half the assessor’s stated lot value. As one board member put it, “Do a half lot,” and the group recorded that adjustment for the vacant lot while leaving the house valuation unchanged pending any reappraisal.
Where owners submitted recent appraisals that aligned with local comparables, the board generally accepted the appraisals: examples discussed included properties where appraisals or CMA materials yielded totals in the mid‑to‑high‑$300,000s through the $600,000s. For several homeowners the board noted differences tied to basements, square‑foot corrections and remodels; in those cases the board either accepted the submitted appraisal or set a revised market value supported by the county’s comparables.
The board also addressed a set of technical and data issues identified by county staff. Speaker 3 flagged multiple system errors—misapplied multipliers, incorrectly assigned mobile‑home multipliers and inconsistent effective ages. The assessor indicated these would be corrected as assessor‑initiated adjustments and added to the special commission meeting packet. Several members emphasized the need to document appraisals and comparable sales carefully to withstand state audit scrutiny.
Other recurring themes included parcel packaging (combining a house with adjacent vacant land so the owner qualifies for the residential exemption), applying greenbelt or backage rates for inaccessible/landlocked lots, and targeted reductions for accessory amenities (for example a 10% reduction applied to an oversized garage component rather than the home's entire assessed value). On mixed‑use properties such as the Buckhorn Resort, the board settled on apportioning most of the structure(s) as business/use value while treating identified living units as residential for exemption purposes.
Decisions made at the meeting were recorded for inclusion in the special commission roll and follow‑up reports. Staff said corrected charts and a table of assessor‑initiated fixes will be circulated to the commission ahead of the formal approvals. The board closed the session after confirming next steps and that owners will be notified of the recorded decisions.
Votes at a glance
- Ryan Ware (vacant lot at Crown Center St.): board applied a half‑lot valuation for the vacant parcel; house valuation left for current assessment records (motion recorded; no roll call vote recorded in transcript). - Multiple parcels (examples: Olsen family, Bolton, selected high‑value homes): appraisals accepted where supported by comparables; specific parcel totals vary and are recorded in the assessor’s packet. - Packaging/adjacent land: several owners with land adjacent to their primary residence had parcels combined (package/backage) to qualify for the LR01 residential exemption; board approved the approach. - Greenbelt decisions: several rural parcels were assigned greenbelt land treatment for acreage used for grazing/feed, with buildings taxed separately; board approved greenbelt treatment where owners showed agricultural usage. - System/data corrections: assessor‑initiated multiplier and effective‑age corrections were identified and will be formally included on the special meeting materials.
What’s next
Staff will produce a table of assessor‑initiated corrections, circulate corrected parcel charts, and include the approved parcel treatment and appraisal acceptances on the special commission roll for final administrative or ministerial action. Owners whose parcels were discussed will receive written notice of the board’s determinations.
