Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Commission hears contested tax‑sale protests; one continued for negotiation, another denied with findings to follow
Summary
Two tax‑sale protests reached the commission: one by Kelvin Wiseman about a narrow 'sliver' parcel was continued so buyer and neighbor can negotiate; a larger, more complex protest by/for Mr. Wallenstein over preferred‑bidder status was denied subject to written findings after debate over access, prior interests and the county's discretionary code §21‑5‑8.
The commission heard two contested tax‑sale protests. For regular agenda item 20, Kelvin Wiseman protested a small strip of land sold at tax sale that he says should have been included with his adjacent property; staff said they had met statutory notice requirements and had sent a neighbor notice directly to Wiseman but that Wiseman did not respond before the sale. The purchaser, Anthony Barnett, said he purchased at the legal sale and offered to retransfer the parcel to Wiseman for a nominal sum; commissioners continued the item for two weeks to allow negotiation and additional title work.
Regular agenda item 21 involved a larger parcel sold previously as a 90% undivided interest with another party holding 10%. Staff and counsel explained the county's preferred‑bidder process under county code (cited during the hearing as §21‑5‑8) and described why the clerk/auditor did not designate the parcel as a preferential sale. Mr. Wallenstein and his counsel argued that the parcel lacked independent access, was unsuitable as a building lot (steep slopes, wetland) and that preferential status should have been granted to clear a cloud on his surrounding property. The successful bidder (Spence/Spence Hansen) said the lot has legal access at a corner touching Scenic Drive, that marketable value exists, and that he followed regular tax‑sale procedures.
Commissioners debated whether staff exercised discretion correctly, whether the parcel met the code criteria for a preferential sale (size, shape, access, nuisance/clouding), and whether the preferred‑bidder application timing (submitted within the clerk's processing window) materially affected the outcome. After extensive testimony from neighbors, purchasers and staff, the commission denied the protest in item 21 (motion carried) and directed staff to prepare written findings explaining the legal basis for the decision; item 20 was continued to allow private negotiation between the buyer and neighboring owner.
