Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Adjustment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davis County Commission approves tax adjustment for homeowner for 2023–24, denies 2022 under residency rule
Summary
The commission approved a property‑tax refund for the years the county assessor deemed proper (2023 and 2024) after determining the homeowner did not meet the 186‑day residency requirement for 2022; commissioners asked staff to calculate interest and refund amounts.
A Davis County homeowner who discovered their house had been coded as a secondary residence was granted a county tax adjustment for the two years the assessor recommended, the Davis County Commission decided during its August 19 meeting.
The applicant told the board the property had been registered as a secondary residence since purchase three years ago and that they had paid the taxes under that coding. "It’s been registered as secondary and I’ve been paying property taxes as if it was secondary residence for the last 3 years," the applicant said during public comment.
Davis County Assessor Andy Hansen explained the governing legal standard for the residential exemption: the statute requires 186 consecutive days of occupancy to qualify. Hansen said that, because the applicant purchased the property in 2022, the owner did not meet the 186‑day threshold for 2022 but did qualify for 2023 and 2024. "For 2022, you technically don’t qualify," Hansen said, adding the assessor’s office had corrected records for 2025 and supported refunds for 2023 and 2024.
Commission discussion clarified the amounts listed on the application for the two eligible years (the application shows $2,881.88 for one year and $2,830.56 for the other) and whether interest or penalties would be applied. Staff said no penalties had been assessed because taxes were paid on time; the board discussed whether any interest for overpayment could apply and noted caution about setting precedent.
A commissioner moved to approve the application for the years the assessor deemed proper and to refund amounts the assessor identifies as allowed under law, including applicable interest and penalty adjustments. A colleague seconded the motion; commissioners present responded "Aye," and the motion carried. The record does not list a roll‑call tally or name the mover and seconder.
The commission tabled a second 13‑47 application for future consideration. Next steps recorded on the meeting record direct staff to calculate the precise refund and any allowable interest and return with details for administration of the refund.
The commission’s action was limited by the statute cited in the discussion; the record shows the board declined relief for 2022 because of the 186‑day residency requirement but approved correction/refunds for 2023–24 as recommended by the assessor.
