[{"_1":2,"_73":-5,"_74":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_25":26},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_27":28,"_29":30},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[31],{"_32":33,"_34":35,"_36":37,"_38":39,"_40":41,"_42":43,"_44":45,"_46":47,"_48":49,"_50":51,"_52":53,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":55,"_67":68,"_69":55,"_70":71,"_72":71},"mediaId",6203604,"mediaKeyId","3782362-83744bdd377e0477749b1ec637e7a467","parentId",3782362,"title","Supervisors decline requested tax suspension for secondary parcel after questions on SSI, primary-residence rules","audioSeconds",796,"startMs",115000,"endMs",911000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3782362-83744bdd377e0477749b1ec637e7a467&start=115&end=911","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/3782362-83744bdd377e0477749b1ec637e7a467/thumbnail_115000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6203604/Woodbury-County/Iowa/Supervisors-decline-requested-tax-suspension-for-secondary-parcel-after-questions-on-SSI-primary-residence-rules","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6203604-b7590a8acf577b3556bf2ffb13639105/orig.mp4?Expires=1770015044&Signature=SQM0VR4Muo-ePCNnUqgG~642q~KFeF6md9AuopP~pieEm7pKXc9nsP5jo16AqsLZc0R9ZwzZlIogJ1ugc64A0skHiTSDauIZ1gfO8M03KonoSDICEUBL7eGzWKKEcv4nKVoap~F4W-aDnrfwU7oXAN0EJM1YTA385gOK5QETjTeSOVPrJb74npCJnwn-kfyinyht98dV4Dg6AcqqvlgsOnpRDavwptekIdTVJPqsUcGjcA6BYtgk6GETEbE-K72k0ir752P8yaVXJLmhZtrrOlTcO09-AGZ3QWmcwp2HsF45DkD6KLc-4CQHi47iOS3DnimK9Y5y6VITjheu-DFWqg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Woodbury County, Iowa","date","2025-06-12T10:51:53.953Z","article","The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 to deny a requested tax suspension for a parcel tied to a resident receiving Supplemental Security Income (SSI) after supervisors questioned whether the lot qualified as the applicant’s primary residence.

Supervisor Mark Dietrich raised the request during consideration of the consent agenda and said he had reviewed the property and believed it was a separate, vacant lot, not the owner’s primary home. “They make you sell all of your property. They make you sell everything, unless you have somebody, a surviving spouse at home and stuff like that,” Dietrich said, describing how nursing-home rules affected an applicant he had seen previously.

Woodbury County Treasurer Tina Bertram told the board that automatic suspensions generally apply only when an owner receives federal or state supplemental income (referred to in the discussion as SSI) or when a person has entered a nursing home. “If somebody receives Federal or State supplemental income, so it is referred to SSI … they are automatically deemed as unable to contribute to public funds and, therefore, they are suspended,” Bertram said, and added that the Department of Human Services verifies eligibility. She said that the suspension must apply to a primary residence and that an adjacent, unconsolidated vacant parcel normally would not automatically qualify.

Bertram also noted the board retains discretionary authority to set a policy to suspend taxes in particular cases, and she suggested the county attorney could provide more detail on procedural steps. Supervisors discussed options including consolidating parcels so a lot would be treated as part of a primary residence and the practical effect of suspensions on impending tax sales; one supervisor urged staff to work with Board Administration to gather more information quickly because a tax sale was scheduled for the coming Monday.

Procedural steps and votes: supervisors removed the item from the consent agenda for separate consideration, and later in the meeting Supervisor Dietrich moved not to approve the tax-suspension request for the parcel referred to in the backup as “DM.” The motion to deny the suspension passed 5-0 (motion by Supervisor Dietrich; second by Supervisor Carper). Earlier in the meeting the board had voted to approve the consent agenda with item 4 held out for separate action.

Why it matters: a property-tax suspension prevents a parcel from being referred for collection or tax sale while eligibility remains in effect; clarifying eligibility rules for adjacent or non-consolidated parcels affects which low-income or elderly property owners retain parcels and how county staff process requests. Treasurer Bertram emphasized that automatic suspensions are narrowly defined and tied to SSI verification by DHS and to a primary residence; the board’s discretionary authority remains an option when the statutory or regulatory criteria do not automatically apply.

The board did not direct a specific new policy during the meeting; supervisors asked staff (Board Administration and the treasurer) to follow up and provide further clarification from the county attorney and to return with the file if additional action is needed.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","2025-06-10 Board of Supervisors Meeting","oneSentenceSummary","The Woodbury County Board of Supervisors voted 5-0 not to approve a requested property-tax suspension for a parcel tied to a resident receiving Supplemental Security Income after supervisors and the county treasurer said the waiver appears to apply only to a primary residence and must be verified by DHS.","taxTitle","taxId",3851,"location","headline","","shortSummary","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Supervisors decline requested tax suspension for secondary parcel after questions on SSI, primary-residence rules