Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Tax Audit topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Board of County Commissioners strikes appeal involving Nestle, refers matter to internal audit

Board of County Commissioners · January 31, 2017
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

At a brief Board of County Commissioners meeting, commissioners struck agenda item No. 1—an appeal tied to Nestle—and directed staff to conduct a three-year internal audit covering tax years 2015–2017 after staff said it had reached an agreement with Nestle.

The Board of County Commissioners struck agenda item No. 1, an appeal involving Nestle, and directed staff to handle the matter through an internal audit covering tax years 2015–2017. The action came after a staff representative said he had already met with Nestle and that the parties had reached an agreement covering the years in question.

Speaker 3 told the board that, in past cases involving personal property, the commission typically remands appeals to staff to perform an internal audit extending three years. "I've already met with Nestle. We've already come to an agreement of what both sides would agree to," Speaker 3 said, adding that staff proposed applying the review to 2017 as well.

Speaker 3 also said that discussing detailed code interpretations in public could require a closed session, and noted limits on the commission's authority to change past years if assessments were estimates. He referenced the state tax commission's internal-audit practices in explaining that a three-year review is common and permitted.

Faced with procedural options, the board discussed denying the appeal "without prejudice" or simply striking the item from the agenda. Speaker 3 and Speaker 2 said striking the agenda item would have the same practical effect as denying it without prejudice. Speaker 1 moved to strike item No. 1; the motion was seconded, the board took a voice vote and Speaker 2 stated the motion passed.

The meeting concluded with a motion to adjourn. The transcript does not specify a timetable for the internal audit or further public hearings; staff indicated they would proceed with the audit process.