Hardy and Hampshire counties prepare field survey to correct 1888 boundary mismatch affecting taxes, voting and permits
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
The Hardy County assessor described a project to locate 1888 survey monuments, record state‑plane coordinates, and update GIS to resolve mismatched parcels and voter lists (estimated 30–70 affected) before coordinating any transfers; commissioners asked staff to research regulatory approval processes.
Hardy County officials said they will physically resurvey historic boundary markers recorded in an 1888 survey and update county GIS to resolve longstanding mismatches with Hampshire County that have left some properties assessed or voting in the wrong county.
Assessor Jim Rasford told commissioners the 1888 survey met legal requirements but was recorded only locally and never updated in federal mapping systems; the discrepancy shows on modern topo maps and has produced "mismatch reports" in voter and tax lists. County staff reported preliminary mismatch counts from cross-checked reports of roughly 30–70 affected voters/parcels, but emphasized the exact number will be known only after the field verification and GIS reconciliation.
The planned process described at the meeting is to visit the surviving 1888 monuments and turning points, capture state‑plane coordinate pairs for each, import those coordinates into the county planning office GIS, and produce a parcel-level list that identifies which properties are on which side of the corrected line. County staff said they would then coordinate with Hampshire County planners and relevant departments (health, planning, tax, elections) to transfer records and advise residents where jurisdiction changes affect septic permits, tax rolls, and voting precincts.
Commissioners and department staff raised concerns the move could affect septic permitting, emergency response territories and voting rolls. One health department representative asked whether permitting authority would change for specific properties; planning and assessor staff said the county that ultimately assesses and taxes the parcel will typically administrate permits and that the project will identify which parcels must be handed off. Another commissioner recommended researching whether state-level approvals or notifications are required for an agreed county-boundary change; staff said they will investigate and bring those findings to the scheduled joint meeting with Hampshire County.
No decisions to reassign parcels or change owners were taken at the meeting; the commission approved proceeding with the survey and data work and scheduled follow-up discussions and a joint meeting with Hampshire County to review impacts and legal steps.