Summit County Council members convened as the Board of Equalization on Nov. 3 and ratified a packet of assessor and hearing-officer recommendations covering roughly 456 cases, then considered 10 requests to file late appeals and voted to accept two and deny the remaining eight.

Chase Black, an Auditor’s Office staff member presenting the packet, told the council the report contained “quite a big big spreadsheet here, of recommendations” and that “456 is the number in this report,” with 32 entries that “meet the definition of a significant adjustment.” Black described three kinds of hearing outcomes in the packet: standard hearings, waived hearings with written decisions by a hearing officer, and stipulations where assessor and appellant reached agreement.

The council briefly discussed workload and scheduling, with staff explaining the county moved to monthly BOE reviews this season. Council member Chris Long reviewed the packet’s aggregate numbers and said, “If I read this correctly … the total change in taxable value is a $147,000,000.” Black responded that figure represented a change in market value, and that the packet’s taxable-value effect would be harder to pin down until BOE conclusions were final.

After discussion, a motion to approve the Board of Equalization recommendations as presented in the packet passed by voice vote. The council then turned to 10 late-appeal requests. Black explained the statutory appeal deadline is Sept. 15, notices of valuation (NOVs) were mailed in late July, and a late-appeal process exists only in limited circumstances set out by state law and administrative rules, including county notification failures, death or medical emergencies, extraordinary and unanticipated circumstances, or objectively verifiable factual errors.

Black said the auditor’s office reviewed each late request, coordinating with the assessor’s office and the recorder’s office as needed. Staff recommended accepting one late appeal and denying nine, citing reasons such as timely mailing of NOVs to the address on record, failure to specify an objectively verifiable factual error, or circumstances (for example, a property sale close to the mailing period) that did not meet the statutory exceptions.

Council members questioned several cases in the packet. For one appeal (PR-2-144), where ownership changed shortly after notices were mailed, council members noted the timing was tight and discussed whether to be “more charitable” given the buyer’s limited opportunity to receive the mailed NOV. After discussion, the council voted to accept the first two late-appeal requests and deny the others. The board instructed staff to issue written decisions to appellants; Black said affected property owners will have 30 days after receiving the written decision to request review by the Utah State Tax Commission.

The Board of Equalization then adjourned. The auditor’s office will record the council’s ratifications and late-appeal decisions and provide written notices to appellants. Those notices will include appeal rights and deadlines to escalate decisions to the Utah State Tax Commission.

Quotes in this article are taken verbatim from the meeting transcript and attributed to speakers on the record.