Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the County Assessment Error topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Provo official says County double‑counted property values; county to reissue corrected tax notices

Neighborhood District 4 · September 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

A member of the Provo school finance committee told residents a County data error double‑counted about $530 million of Provo property value, part of a Utah County problem near $970 million in total; the county agreed to reissue corrected tax notices rather than delay correction until next year.

Lisa Boyse, a member of the school finance committee, told Neighborhood District 4 residents that a recent county data error affected Provo tax rates and the school district budget.

Boyse explained that when the County converted assessed property values into the spreadsheet used to calculate tax rates, about "$530,000,000 worth of assessed value in Provo was counted twice," which lowered the official tax rate and produced an unexpected budget effect for the school district. She said the full Utah County error was "about, I think it's like $970,000,000" in misstated values.

Because the county rate was set using incorrect totals, Boyse said the school board faced two options: defer correction to next year (which she described would combine this year's and next year's adjustments) or ask the County to reissue corrected tax notices and cover the reissue cost. The board voted to have the county reissue corrected notices; Boyse said County Auditor Rod Mann attended the emergency board meeting and the county agreed to pay the cost of reissuing tax notices to make the correction now.

Boyse described the error as materially significant for Provo — she said the mistake affected about 5% of the city's budget — and named a local citizen (Mike Groan) who first raised the discrepancy with the county. She also said the state was examining what actions were legally permissible and that the county plans to automate the data flow to reduce future errors.

Boyse invited residents to contact her for questions about the budget and emphasized the board’s intent to be transparent about the impact on services and priorities.