Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Exonerations Ag Tourism topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
County assessor wins wide set of tax exonerations; state "ag tourism" ruling reduces tax class for some farms and distilleries
Summary
Berkeley County Assessor Larry Hesse presented multiple tax exonerations across personal property, real estate and farm classifications and reported a state tax ruling that put four local distilleries onto the ag-tourism tax list, lowering their property tax class in some cases.
County Assessor Larry Hesse told the Berkeley County Commission that his office submitted a series of personal-property and real-estate exonerations and corrected tax classifications after proofing following the board of equalization. He said the office grouped exonerations and notified taxpayers in writing when adjustments affected already-paid bills.
Hesse presented seven personal-tax exonerations totaling $1,494.34 and seven personal-property exonerations totaling $2,546.56; both sets were approved by motion of the commission. He also presented 22 real-estate exonerations grouped as ‘‘group 1’’ totaling $22,783.56 and a second group of 15 farm-related real-estate exonerations totaling $18,112.87; commissioners approved both groups.
Hesse described a state tax department ruling interpreting the recent ag-tourism law that allows certain farm operations to retain a lower Class 2 property tax rate even when they sell products, host events or run distillery operations on the farm. He said the ruling covered four distilleries in Berkeley County (listed to the state as ag-tourism operations) and allowed a lower tax classification for their land; he noted one property (Paul Payne’s Christmas tree farm) contains a cell tower that remained classified separately.
Why it matters: The assessor’s ruling and the group exonerations shift tax liabilities for local taxpayers and may affect county tax collections and future classifications for farm-based businesses that use their property to attract visitors. Hesse said the state ruling broadens the ag-tourism benefit statewide; he also noted county concerns that some owners could be using the classification to cover rental properties or activities not intended by the law.
In the meeting: Commissioners approved the listed exonerations by motion; Hesse said his office mailed notices to affected taxpayers explaining that an exoneration had been submitted and that they would receive corrected bills. Commissioners asked clarifying questions about which businesses were on the state list and whether other operations (for example, stables) had applied. Hesse said the list came from the state tax department and that some operations might not have applied to the program.
Next steps: Hesse recommended monitoring and, if needed, revisiting the scope of the ag-tourism designation if counties believe it is being used in ways not intended by the law. The commission approved the consolidation of two parcels into a single tax bill for one taxpayer as well.
