A new, powerful Citizen Portal experience is ready. Switch now

County treasurer outlines property tax relief options, council to consider raising hardship income limit

August 09, 2023 | Summit County Council, Summit County Commission and Boards, Summit County, Utah


This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »

County treasurer outlines property tax relief options, council to consider raising hardship income limit
Corey Forsling briefed the Summit County Council on the county's property tax relief programs, outlining eligibility, calculation examples and program funding. Forsling described five program types: exemptions for disabled veterans and active‑duty military; a blind exemption; the homeowner 'circuit breaker' credit (with a state‑set income threshold listed in the presentation as $38,369 and a maximum refundable credit component of $11.86); an indigent/hardship abatement for low‑income or disabled residents; and a CB‑75+ deferral option for residents age 75 and older.

Forsling provided examples showing how the circuit breaker and market‑value exemption can reduce tax bills, and said total relieved dollars in 2022 were approximately $434,000 with disabled‑veteran relief accounting for about $206,000. He reported improved outreach to eligible veterans after placing program information on mailed tax notices.

Council discussed the single county‑level tool available to expand relief: raising the county hardship (indigent) income limit. Forsling noted that Grand County raised its discretionary limit to 120% of the state threshold as an example and suggested the council could choose an increased limit while keeping benefit calculations the same. Council members asked for additional information and directed staff to schedule consideration of a proposed change for the August 26 council meeting and to provide a staff report with fiscal implications.

Forsling also asked the council whether he could continue to report aggregate abatement totals rather than parcel‑by‑parcel lists; council signaled support for aggregated reporting with necessary denials run individually to the council if required. No formal vote to change program terms occurred; the council agreed to tee up an agenda item to consider raising the county hardship income limit during the budget cycle.

The council requested follow‑up information on estimated fiscal impacts and an agenda item for a future meeting.

Don't Miss a Word: See the Full Meeting!

Go beyond summaries. Unlock every video, transcript, and key insight with a Founder Membership.

Get instant access to full meeting videos
Search and clip any phrase from complete transcripts
Receive AI-powered summaries & custom alerts
Enjoy lifetime, unrestricted access to government data
Access Full Meeting

30-day money-back guarantee