Utah County BOE debates green‑belt rollbacks, urges clearer process for urban‑farming appeals

At the Utah County Board of Equalization meeting, board members and staff spent an extended portion of the agenda on appeals tied to green‑belt and Urban Farming Act assessments, discussing whether technical changes of ownership should trigger rollback taxes and what county processes should exist to help affected landowners.

Staff from the auditor’s and assessor’s offices described a pattern where technical events — for example, moving property into a trust — can cause a loss of preferential farmland or green‑belt status even when land use has not changed. Burhardt of the Otter's office told the board that the hearing officer had recommended denial on several items and said that “the only approach left is for the commission … to defer these taxes out and possibly to forgive them,” pointing to the county commission’s green‑folder process as the appropriate avenue for relief.

Why it matters: Rollback assessments can create significant financial burdens. Commissioners noted the stakes — one member described rollback exposure as a multi‑thousand‑dollar bill — and discussed both short‑term remedies (asking appellants to file for a green‑folder deferral) and longer‑term fixes (clearer notifications and a BOE policy inviting green‑folder applications). The board repeatedly emphasized it has limited discretionary authority in these cases and that substantive relief typically requires county‑commission action or a policy change.

What staff said: Mark Carter of the assessor’s office described specific appeals where photographic and aerial evidence showed construction or continued use that factored into recommendations. Burhardt and auditor’s staff said appellants have the right to appeal BOE decisions to the state tax commission and proposed adding information about the green‑folder deferral option to routine appeal notifications so landowners are aware of potential remedies.

How commissioners framed solutions: One commissioner said he has asked appellants to file a green‑folder request and then recommended abatements in practice — for example, abating a portion (discussed as roughly 20% per year over five years in one example) — while another commissioner emphasized the legal rollback period can be lengthy (a comment in the discussion referred to a 10‑year rollback). The board and staff agreed these implementation details vary by parcel and ordinance and that additional written guidance and online materials would reduce confusion for landowners.

Outcome and next steps: After the discussion the board approved the item on the docket (item 8); staff volunteered to include information on deferral options in future appellant notifications and to work with the attorney’s office on drafting any BOE policy language recommending that appellants use the green‑folder process in appropriate cases. The BOE meeting then adjourned and transitioned to the regular county commission meeting.

Representative quote: “The only approach left is for the commission … to defer these taxes out and possibly to forgive them,” said Burhardt of the Otter's office, describing why the county commission’s green‑folder process may be the proper remedy for technical disqualifications.

The BOE recorded its approval of item 8 by voice vote; no further formal BOE remedies were adopted during this session.