Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Taxes Solar topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Commissioners deny three solar property tax appeals, cite state Department of Revenue depreciation tables

2215996 · February 4, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Scotland County commissioners voted to deny three appeals from solar companies seeking property‑value adjustments based on alternate depreciation schedules; county staff cited the North Carolina Department of Revenue’s published tables and said no case was made for adjusting values locally.

The Scotland County Board of Commissioners on Feb. 3, 2025 voted to deny three property tax appeals from solar project owners asking for adjustments based on alternative depreciation assumptions.

County staff and the county attorney described guidance from the North Carolina Department of Revenue, which told counties it would not change the published depreciation table and left case‑by‑case considerations to local review. In presenting the appeals, staff said the written submissions in the packet contained no additional, property‑specific factors that would warrant departing from the DOR schedules.

“I would make a motion to deny this based on the Department of Revenue’s statement that they are going to stand by the depreciation schedule,” one commissioner said during the meeting. The board’s vote to deny the three appeals passed on a voice vote; the transcript shows a motion, a second and an affirmative vote, and staff recorded the denials.

County staff told the board the appeals effectively asked the county to reduce tax value in the hundreds of thousands of dollars, and the county’s recommendation was to uphold the DOR schedules and deny the requests absent specific new evidence about the properties.

The decision can be appealed further to the state appeals body allowed under tax law, a staff member noted during the discussion.