Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Tax Abatement Rescission topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pennington County commissioners rescind Feb. 4 abatement for taxpayer after legal review
Summary
The Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 on March 4 to rescind an abatement approved Feb. 4 for Thomas Tennyson after staff and the state's attorney advised the commission the prior action did not meet statutory requirements.
The Pennington County Board of Commissioners voted 3–2 on March 4 to rescind an abatement it approved on Feb. 4 for taxpayer Thomas Tennyson, after the county's state's attorney and staff said the commission lacked authority under state law to grant the relief.
The rescission motion was made by Commissioner Gary Drews and seconded by Commissioner Jerry Durr. Commissioners Ron Rosknecht, Drew Adcock and Drews voted to rescind; Commissioners Hatcock and Roskinek voted no. The board recorded the motion as carried 3–2.
Why it matters: The item had drawn extensive legal discussion in public session in March after staff and the state's attorney's office reviewed the facts and statutory procedures for tax abatements and owner-occupied classification appeals. The state's attorney advised the board that under SDCL chapter 10 the local appeals process and specific statutory steps limit the county's authority to grant the kind of abatement Tennyson sought, and that the county's abatement power did not apply in the way the February action had treated it.
What the board heard: The March 4 meeting included statements from Tennyson seeking relief and lengthy legal explanation from Megan Krueger of the state's attorney's office, who said the county's administrative forms and the statutory appeal path (local board of equalization, then further appeals) are controlling. Commissioners debated whether the county's different abatement form or internal procedures had contributed to the dispute.
Next steps and context: Tennyson and the county continue to have related litigation and depositions scheduled; the board said it would not take substantive action while litigation is pending. Commissioners also directed staff to review forms and processes used by the county so inconsistent administrative forms do not create future disputes.
Votes and formal action: Motion to rescind the Feb. 4 abatement (mover: Gary Drews; second: Jerry Durr). Outcome: rescinded (vote 3–2).
