Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Parcel Assessment Corrections topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Assessors correct condo common‑area assessments, approve three years of refunds for two parcels
Summary
The Glynn County Board of Assessors on Feb. 20 approved removing taxable value from two condominium common parcels (items 48 and 51), moving one parcel to zero value and authorizing refunds for three years where applicable after staff confirmed common‑area ownership and mapping errors.
The Glynn County Board of Assessors approved corrections to two condominium common‑area parcels and authorized the related refunds during its Feb. 20 meeting.
Board member Miss Miller asked questions about item 48 after noting the mapping showed a single large parcel and no designated common areas. Sean Chapman, real property supervisor, explained the issue: "During the rollover of the clubhouse and the pool and all that got put back on that common area during that the year. And, of course, the pool in the clubhouse and all that is actually is the common area, so it doesn't carry a value, and it shouldn't had a value," Chapman said, describing that GIS mapping and the parcel rollover had mistakenly placed taxable value on common amenities. Chapman said the condo's individual units are taxed separately but the common area should carry a zero value.
On item 51 (Poister Cottages, Sea Island), staff advised that of four common parcels tied to townhomes, three already carried zero value and one was still taxed. Jamie (staff member) said the parcel’s ownership was updated to the homeowners association and the office recommended moving its value to zero to match the other common parcels. Staff noted the parcel’s owner of record on county paperwork was listed as Exclusive Resorts SI 1 LLC before the deed transfer to the HOA; staff also said the correction was applied to the appropriate tax year records.
The board voted to approve the consent agenda with items 48 and 51 pulled for discussion, then approved items 48 and 51 after discussion. The motion to approve the consent agenda (minus 48 and 51) passed by voice vote; the subsequent motion to approve items 48 and 51 passed on a voice vote with members answering "aye." Staff said the parties requested refunds covering three years; staff applied the correction back to the original request date, producing three years of refunds where applicable.
Board materials and staff discussion showed the corrections involved mapping and ownership updates, not a change in assessment methodology. The board directed staff to finalize the corrections and process the refunds consistent with county procedures.
