On August 27, 2024, the Kane County Commission met for a second time following the day’s earlier commission meeting for a special town hall. County Assessor Ryan Maddux joined the commission on the dais to present the first segment of the meeting, a rundown on how property taxes are assessed in Kane County and what this year’s assessment would bring and what bearing it would have on taxes. Said Maddux, “Utah has two rules for the assessor: I have to systematically revalue every single property every single year … and once every five years we do what state statute calls a detailed review.” Maddux detailed a few of the assessment procedures, and repeated multiple times over the course of the meeting, “If you have any concerns, if something doesn’t make sense to you or you’re worried about getting overtaxed, just come in and talk to me and we’ll take a closer look at it. Our job, my whole goal, is to make sure your taxes are as accurate as possible.”
Maddux highlighted one exemption, the Primary Residential Exemption, as “one of the biggest things that we see in our appeal process, are people missing that exemption … that’s a 45 percent exemption to property qualifying as primary residential. You don’t get it if you don’t apply.” He then followed up with another exemption that could spare some taxes for citizens: long-term rental. “The other way a property can qualify for an exemption is if it’s a long-term rental, and it is the resident’s permanent place of living.” Maddux encouraged citizens to look closely at their disclosures, which should be coming in the mail by September 16, and observe whether their property is listed as primary residence or non-primary residence.
Maddux went on to warn about tax shifting, explaining the natural increase of property taxes as the value of the property increases and how that process does not require truth in taxation. He offered a dense and in-depth breakdown of tax trends, how COVID years affected tax patterns in Utah and how certain state level statutes affect tax shifts as well. The multi-hour meeting is available in its entirety on the Utah Public Notice Website for those interested in pursuing the specifics of the meeting too dense to cover appropriately here. Maddux concluded with “Again, please come in and visit with me. We’ll sit down and go through property specifics.”
The second half of the meeting began with a discussion on the Vermillion Cliffs Fire Protection SSD. The first concern brought before the commission was the reality of the resolution passed earlier at that day’s commission meeting; the commission had amended the SSD’s plan to have an all-elected five-person board, which had been requested by some citizens living in the proposed SSD bounds. However, the board would require a standard municipal election cycle, meaning the commission would likely be required to appoint interim board members regardless, a process which the opposition worried would leave appointed members managing the SSD’s formative first few months anyway. When asked who might be appointed for the first months of the SSD’s function, Commission Chair Patty Kubeja responded, “My intent was to get input from the community and those who have been involved … whether it’s by people nominating other people and posting it like we would any other vacancy.” The Commission heard feedback and suggestions from the community, such as a petition that would place community approved appointees in a sort of pre-election. Both sides expressed their willingness to compromise, as well as their surprise that the other side had not yet compromised to their satisfaction. No significant changes to any plans were made, and it remains to be seen whether the protest period ending on September 9 will statutorily reject the current proposal.
The final item on the meeting’s agenda discussed the upcoming community center, including basketball courts and plans for future growth like walking paths and climbing walls. There was some criticism of the plan as being too expensive when other needs in the county were going unfulfilled, as well as concerns that this center would cause an increase in taxes. Other members of the community expressed support for the community center as a place for community recreation, specifically for youth, but a desire for more transparency and understanding of how the proposed seven million dollars would be spent. There were passionate opinions expressed on either side, but the majority of expressed opinions were in favor of the community center, especially as the commission reminded the public that the money paying for this center did not come from the general fund or public property tax.
After almost four hours of discussion with the community, the meeting was called to adjourn.
Comments