Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charleston agency flags tax‑sale problem after government properties land at state auditor; board asks counsel to memorialize options
Summary
The agency heard that several government-owned properties — including Sugar Creek School — were certified in the county tax-sale pipeline and could face tax deeds; legal volunteers said case law may render such tax deeds void and the board asked counsel to memorialize advice and pursue coordinated outreach to the state auditor before January deadlines.
Board members and legal staff warned that government‑owned properties were moved into the tax‑sale pipeline and, in some cases, sold or certified to the state auditor. Staff reported that the Sugar Creek School currently has an outstanding tax bill of about $4,800 and recommended seeking authorization of up to $10,000 to redeem affected parcels if needed.
Legal counsel and volunteer lawyers at the meeting said some of the tax deeds issued on government property are void under existing case law. One attorney stated plainly, "Those tax deeds are void," and another counsel noted the state Supreme Court has considered related questions. Members debated whether to pursue a check on the auditor's certification process and to coordinate an outreach strategy before statutory deadlines in January.
Staff described coordination challenges among the assessor, sheriff (the tax collector), and the state auditor, and said a few erroneous assessments had been dismissed after legal work. Staff said some parcels advanced too far in the pipeline to be administratively reversed and that work is underway to identify all county properties affected.
Board members discussed tactical options including: asking counsel to memorialize legal opinions for use in formal outreach; coordinating with the abandoned‑properties coalition and municipal league; and making a professional outreach to the state auditor's office before sending a formal letter. The Chair said the board should give the auditor a heads up that a formal communication was forthcoming and agreed to continue conversations and convene a follow-up meeting with counsel present.
No emergency redemption votes were recorded at the meeting; the board directed staff and counsel to memorialize advice, continue outreach and return with a recommended next step before the January timeline.
Next steps include staff and counsel compiling the affected property list, memorializing the legal position for outreach, and a follow‑up committee conversation before the board's next meeting.
