Curtis Boone, the Clerk of the Board, presented a proposal on Nov. 6 to charge nonrefundable administrative processing fees for property tax assessment appeals to recover staff costs. Boone proposed $290 for residential, agricultural and vacant‑land appeals and $675 for commercial and business appeals, rounding cost-recovery calculations for simplicity.

"Appeals come in a variety of forms," Boone said, explaining staff time estimates and the offices calculation that residential appeals constitute about 46% of filings but only 27% of processing time, while commercial appeals are roughly 54% of filings and 73% of staff effort.

Committee members asked detailed process questions. Supervisor Susan Ellenberg requested a one‑year follow up to compare estimated time allocations to actuals and asked the clerk to consider whether residential appellants should have a refund mechanism if the assessor ultimately reduces the value. James (county staff) explained the county-wide accounting constraints and noted that refunds would affect multiple taxing entities because property tax distributions extend beyond the county general fund.

Clerk staff described implementation issues, including vendor and software updates to accept online payments and track fees per account (multiple parcels filed together would be charged per account). Members asked that the clerk expand the comparative fee table to indicate which counties have refundable fees and to return to FGOC with more details on collection mechanisms and refund scenarios.

Supervisor Ellenberg moved that the committee receive the report and asked for a return to FGOC in January with expanded information; the motion passed by voice vote. Staff said they aim to have the fee adopted and implemented in time for the next main filing period (the annual filing window starts July 2) and will present a revised package for committee review.

Why it matters: The proposed fee shifts a portion of the administrative costs for running assessment appeals from the general fund to appellants. Committee members sought to protect residential appellants and to minimize unintended consequences while balancing county budget recovery goals.