Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Sale Integrity topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council Debates Tax-Sale Protest After Resident Alleges Shill Bidding; Votes Split Twice
Summary
A Salt Lake County resident alleged 'shill bidding' at a recent tax auction, prompting an administrative review that produced a 4–3 ratification vote, a motion directing ordinance review, a successful motion to reconsider, and ultimately a 4–3 vote to void the sale and relist the parcel; the council also asked the auditor and district attorney to recommend ordinance changes.
John Prince, who said he participated in a recent county tax auction, told the council during the public hearing that he had evidence a bidder and associates had engaged in 'shill bidding'—bidding to inflate the sale price while retaining or benefiting from ownership interest. "This is practice called shill bidding. It's illegal in most states," Prince said as he described phone calls and documents he provided to the county.
The council moved the matter to an administrative review under county ordinance. County legal and auditor staff told councilors they found gaps in the public chain of title and explained the available remedies under county ordinance—including ratifying the sale, striking the sale, or relisting. County counsel described the legal balancing act: "When the statutes talk about...they talk about balancing two interests, collecting the taxes that are owed...and then really protecting the financial interest of the delinquent owner," (county counsel).
After discussion, the council took a roll-call vote and ratified the bid by a 4–3 margin. Immediately after that vote, the council passed a separate motion directing the district attorney's and auditor's offices to analyze and recommend ordinance revisions to guard against predatory bidding practices, including ideas staff mentioned such as pre-registration and affidavits under penalty of perjury.
Council Member Stringham then moved to reconsider the ratification. Following debate and a second reconsideration motion, the council voted 4–3 to accept the protest, void the sale for the parcel at issue, and relist it at the next county tax sale. Several councilors emphasized competing risks: one argued that notice and public-record gaps reduce the county's ability to identify owners in advance, while others said the county must protect property owners and the integrity of tax sales.
The council's actions were procedural: staff will return with proposed ordinance changes and operational safeguards. The council split on outcomes twice (first to ratify, then to void and relist) and directed staff to pursue concrete changes to notice and bidder-certification procedures.
The protesting resident said he provided recorded evidence and documents to the county and urged more aggressive action; staff said further investigation and potential policy changes would follow. The council's procedural votes do not resolve ultimate title or claims; affected parties could pursue additional claims through the state treasurer's excess-proceeds process or through quiet-title litigation.
