Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Property Tax Suspension topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Supervisors debate tax‑suspension for non‑primary parcel; item 4 removed from consent agenda
Summary
Supervisors discussed whether a vacant adjacent parcel should qualify for a property‑tax suspension tied to a nursing‑home resident's SSI status; Treasurer Tina Bertrand said SSI suspensions apply to primary residences and the board voted to remove item 4 from the consent agenda for further review.
Supervisor Dietrich pressed the board to clarify when the county should suspend property taxes on parcels owned by people in nursing homes, saying the county had seen a similar case the prior week and that families sometimes lose most assets paying for long‑term care. "If somebody doesn't have that ability, we should give them their house and home and stuff like that," Dietrich said, arguing for protecting a primary residence while questioning whether a separate vacant parcel should also be suspended.
Woodbury County Treasurer Tina Bertrand explained the statutory and administrative practice, saying federal or state supplemental income (SSI) typically leads to suspension qualification on the primary residence and that Department of Human Services verification is required. "If somebody receives federal or state supplemental income... they are automatically deemed as unable to contribute to public funds, and therefore, they are suspended," Bertrand said. She added that an adjacent or unconsolidated vacant parcel generally would not meet the automatic suspension criteria.
Board members discussed options including consolidating parcels, adopting a local policy to define eligibility, and consulting the county attorney on legal boundaries. Because a tax sale was scheduled the following Monday, the board moved procedurally to remove item 4 from the consent agenda and later voted to not approve item 4 as presented, 5‑0. The chair directed staff to work with the treasurer and county attorney and return with clearer recommendations and a policy option at a future meeting.
The board did not adopt a new policy at the meeting; supervisors asked staff to provide a legal opinion and an operational recommendation for next steps so the board can decide whether to suspend taxes on non‑primary parcels in narrowly defined circumstances.
