The Summit County Council on May 6th put on their hats as the Board of Equalization, which hears tax appeals.
They made decisions on two separate cases. In one case, the appellant went away happy. In the other, a group of lot owners received a denial.
The Council heard a request from six lot owners in Promontory asking to be taxed as primary residents (which under state law is a lower rate than second-home residential.)
Their attorney, Mark Gaylord, argued that the owners have declared that the lots are their primary residences. He said they pay their state and federal taxes from those addresses, have their vehicles registered there, and they are registered to vote in the county.
But County Council Member Kim Carson said they over-ruled that, due to the Promontory Development Agreement approved in 2001. That document stipulated that some parcels, including these lots, were restricted to being part-time residences.
“And it’s clearly noted on their plats. There’s a plat note that states that they would not qualify for that primary exemption. And unfortunately, some of those have changed hands over the years and they are being used by residents full-time. So from that aspect we need to look into that more closely as far as there being a possible breach of the Development Agreement. That again is a separate issue from last night.”
Carson added that under the original approval, Promontory got added density in other portions of the development in exchange for these restrictions.
In the second case, just last month the Council had turned down a tax exemption for the Greater Salt Lake Council of the Boy Scouts, on their property in the East Fork of the Bear River, on the grounds they had not filed a timely application.
But on the 6th, the Scouts returned, and got a Council approval. Carson said they determined that a different process for exemptions was set up this year, and the Scouts had not been notified of that.
“In past years, there was a bond. That was the responsibility of the Boy Scouts that it was done through the county. And I think this could have had something to do with the way that they were given their exemption in the past for their 501-c-3 status. But they never had to fill out the normal paperwork and send it in to the county assessor. And the former assessor, because he’s no longer there, we don’t really know the answer to how that process worked. But because they had never had to do this in the past, and they weren’t provided with a courtesy letter—and this isn’t based on the fact that they did or didn’t get the courtesy letter, only how that would have informed them of the requirement at this point, since they didn’t have to do it in the past.”
Carson said the exemption was granted just for this year.
