Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Taxes topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County Commission approves tax-correction refund for homeowner misclassified as secondary residence
Summary
The commission approved a refund for a homeowner after the assessor determined the property qualified for the residential exemption in 2023 and 2024; commissioners declined to apply statutory relief for 2022 because of a 186-day occupancy rule.
The Davis County Commission voted to approve a tax-adjustment refund for a homeowner who said his property had been misclassified as a secondary residence.
The decision, made by voice vote during the commission’s Aug. 19 meeting, directed staff to refund amounts the assessor identifies as proper under state law, reflecting taxes for 2023 and 2024. Commissioners declined to order a refund for 2022 after the assessor cited a statutory 186-consecutive-day occupancy threshold.
The issue was raised when the applicant told the commission his home had been listed as a secondary residence since he purchased it three years ago and that he had “been paying property taxes as if it was secondary residence for the last 3 years since I’ve owned the property.” The assessor, Andy Hansen, reviewed county records and said the statutory requirement that a homeowner occupy a property at least 186 consecutive days meant the property did not qualify for the primary-residence exemption in 2022 but did qualify in 2023 and 2024; the assessor’s office had already corrected the 2025 record.
County counsel explained the statutory framework (cited in discussion as 59-2-1337) that allows a legislative body to grant discretionary adjustments, deferrals or corrections when it determines that relief is in the public interest. Commissioners discussed whether to make an exception to cover 2022 but noted caution about setting precedent and the assessor’s legal interpretation.
Commissioners amended the motion so the refund would be for the amount the assessor ‘‘deems is proper under the law’’ and approved the motion; the action was seconded and carried by voice vote. The transcript records only a voice vote of “Aye,” and individual roll-call tallies were not recorded in the public transcript.
The commission also moved to table a second 59-2-1337 application so county departments—including the assessor and legal counsel—could review the documentation more thoroughly before the matter returns to the agenda.
The commission did not specify an exact dollar amount in its motion; during discussion staff referenced application values of $2,881.88 and $2,830.56 for the years under review but said the assessor would calculate the precise refund amounts to be processed under county procedures.
