Hall County commissioners authorize appeal of 197‑parcel McKeever Road valuation, ask staff to seek settlement

HALL COUNTY — The Hall County Board of Commissioners voted Feb. 20 to authorize the county assessor to pursue an appeal to Superior Court over the valuation of 197 rental parcels off McKeever Road, while directing staff and the county legal department to attempt a settlement before taking the case to trial.

Steve Watson, Hall County’s chief appraiser, opened the special-call meeting by identifying the property as “Beacon ACPF McKeever F. B. LLC” and saying the parcel group had been heard by a hearing officer and reduced 9.96% from the assessor’s valuation. Watson said federal- or state-level statutory procedure requires Board of Commissioners approval before a superior-court appeal when an assessor pursues an appeal after a hearing officer reduction (cited in meeting materials as “48-5-311(g)(1)”).

The commissioners were presented a packet of figures and a slide deck comparing values and potential revenue impacts. Watson said the assessor’s bulk fair-market valuation for 2024 was listed in meeting materials as $92,630,000 (a separate slide in the packet listed $93,630,000). He told the board the hearing officer set a bulk value at $83,690,100, and that the property owner had supplied a 2022 appraisal estimating $87,300,000 and had paid roughly $93.7 million for the property in 2022.

Watson ran through a staff analysis showing the county’s potential tax revenue loss if the hearing officer’s valuation stood. Using the assessor’s figures, he summarized the county’s estimated revenue loss as $293,686.44 over three years if the hearing officer value remained; Watson also said that settling closer to the owner’s 2022 appraisal would reduce the revenue impact by about $114,100.86. Watson described the immediate objective as exhausting settlement options before escalating the matter to Superior Court.

County legal staff told commissioners the county would try to handle the initial stages of any Superior Court appeal in-house but that, if the case progressed toward trial, it would likely be outsourced to outside counsel. A county legal representative estimated outside counsel costs could average about $50,000 if the county had to outsource a trial. Watson and legal staff also told the board they had prepared a spreadsheet of past outside legal fees allocated to tax-assessor matters and were reviewing entries that might have been misallocated to the assessor’s account.

Commissioners pressed staff for clearer tracking of legal invoices and for a cost-benefit approach. Commissioner Poole said a cost analysis was necessary “if it’s going to cost us more to go get $5 it’s going to cost us a hundred to go get it.” Watson responded that he could reconcile the legal department’s monthly reports against assessor records to improve tracking.

After discussion, a commissioner moved “to allow the appeal to go forward” and to “try to settle it”; another commissioner seconded. The chair called for the vote and announced the motion passed.

The board did not record a roll-call vote tally in the public discussion; the meeting record shows the motion carried after the call for “All in favor.” Commissioners asked staff to continue settlement negotiations, to provide a clearer accounting of legal fees tied to tax-assessor litigation, and to keep the board informed before outsourcing any trial work.

The action does not itself change parcel valuations; it authorizes the county to pursue appeal steps and settlement negotiations. Watson told the board most property appeals that reach Superior Court are resolved at the settlement-conference stage and said the county would seek that outcome here as well.

The county also discussed broader procedural improvements: commissioners requested monthly reconciliation of outside legal invoices by department and the use of clearer file/task numbers so departments can verify charges against specific appeals.

A follow-up report and reconciliation of attorney-fee allocations were promised by staff and the legal department at a later date.