Commissioners approve three assessment changes and one homestead-exemption adjustment
Loading...
Summary
At a Berkeley County board review and equalization session, the board approved three assessor-recommended assessment adjustments, accepted the withdrawal of a taxpayer appeal, and approved a homestead-exemption adjustment; motions carried by voice vote.
The Berkeley County Board of Commissioners approved three assessor-recommended property assessment adjustments and a homestead-exemption adjustment during a board review and equalization session.
Assessor Larry Hess told the board the changes resulted from clerical corrections and on-site rechecks. He said one property, listed to Harry Bannersdale in District 7 (Map 14, Parcel 12.1), had a shed misclassified and a fifth-wheel camper added; the assessed value was reduced from $69,000 to $59,040. The board moved and seconded the adjustment, and the chair recorded the ayes and declared the motion adopted.
Hess and assessor staff also presented a second change for a District 6 parcel (Map 9, partial 254) where the assessor reduced an earlier condition increase and lowered the assessment from $76,002.60 to $71,820; the board approved that change by voice vote. A third action discussed was a homestead-exemption adjustment (described in the meeting as an exoneration) that reduced the subject property's assessment by $20,000; the board approved that motion as well. The minutes show routine procedural motions (motion, second, voice vote) and recorded ayes; the transcript does not provide a roll-call vote listing individual commissioner names or a precise numeric tally for each motion.
Hess also told the board that a taxpayer, Elaine Jones (District Falling Waters, Map 7 partial 39.2 and 39.3), had filed with the Office of Tax Appeals and the state tax department but later contacted the assessor’s office and indicated she would withdraw her appeal and was satisfied with the assessed value. Hess said no adjustment to the books would be made in that case because the taxpayer decided not to pursue the appeal.
The board’s actions were procedural approvals of assessor-recommended corrections; no policy changes or ordinance actions were proposed or adopted during the discussion. The record shows commissioners moved, seconded, and adopted the assessor’s requested adjustments by voice votes.
