Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission denies retroactive tax abatement request tied to 2024 flood damage
Summary
The commission denied a compromise abatement request from Creekside Associates LLC related to flood damage in June 2024, citing precedent and concerns about setting a broad administrative precedent.
Lincoln County commissioners voted to deny a request for a retroactive compromise abatement tied to damage from the June 2024 flood.
Carla Golson, Lincoln County director of equalization, presented the request under South Dakota codified law concerning tax abatement for unavoidable casualty loss. The applicant, Creekside Associates LLC (parcel 200.60.00.001), sought relief for loss of use following the June 2024 flood; Golson asked whether the commission wanted to abate for the five days the business was closed, extend abatement through mid‑September when HVAC was restored, or consider other scope options.
Commissioners discussed precedent and insurance, noting the applicant had sought insurance but may have lacked flood coverage. Commissioners cited the county's previous handling of a dental office and concerns about opening a broad precedent for many different loss claims; one commissioner summarized that the issue was a potential "slippery slope." The director noted the difference between the 2024 loss (the timeframe of this request) and relief already considered for 2025 assessments.
Motion and vote: Commissioner Otten moved to follow the director's recommendation and deny the application; the motion was seconded. Roll call recorded: Commissioner Arons — no; Commissioner Otten — yes; Commissioner Schmidt — yes; Commissioner Putnam — yes; Commissioner Landeen — yes. The motion carried and the application was denied.
Why it matters: abatement decisions affect county tax revenue and set administrative precedent for future flood and casualty claims. Commissioners asked staff for clarity on the scope of abatement requests and noted that applicants may file but the board is not required to grant relief.
Ending: The denial closes this particular retroactive request; staff advised the board that a more narrowly tailored petition or future appeals could be considered under statutory guidelines.
