While meeting last Thursday, members of the Gilmer County Board of Assessors discussed the possibility of again changing the way unattached structures are assessed for property owners who receive an over-65 homestead exemption.
Last July, board members decided to reverse a previous decision that removed structures that are not attached to homes from the county’s over-65 homestead exemption and made those structures, including garages, sheds and poultry houses, eligible for taxation. That decision was reached after the board heard extensive comments from more than a dozen local property owners who receive the exemption.
At the same time, a legal opinion from the state attorney general was sought that will be used to decide what, if any, unattached structures should be removed from the exemption.
“We’ve (already) got two legal opinions, one from legislative counsel and one from ACCG (Association County Commissioners of Georgia). They’re 180 degrees out of sync with one another,” said board member Tom Porter at the January assessor board meeting. “I think we left it as we would reverse our position for the 2019 tax year and that’s where it stands, but where does that take us for the 2020 tax year?”
At the January meeting, county attorney David Clark said documentation concerning the local exemption and its history has been submitted to the state attorney general’s office and a request has been made to have an official opinion received by the end of March.
At the Feb. 27 meeting, chief appraiser Theresa Gooch said that opinion hasn’t been received yet and this year’s assessment notices are scheduled to go out in May.
As of now, assessor board members are unsure if the unattached structures will remain included in the exemption, per last year’s policy reversal, or further changes will again make some or all of them eligible for taxation.
Gooch said board members would have to make a decision by the end of April for any changes to be reflected on this year’s notices, but, at this point, they should refrain from making decisions about what should or shouldn’t be included until the legal opinion is received.
“I don’t want to get to the day that assessment notices go out without having a full and complete resolution to the issue,” said board member Tom Porter. “The two opinions (we have already received) are diametrically opposed to one another. I would suggest that, in addition to those two opinions, you can find in 159 counties another half-dozen ways (counties) have figured out how to do it. I don’t see an easy way to come up with an answer.”
Board member Jerry Davis suggested, in the meantime, board members look through a complete listing of structures to which the exemption applies.
“I think, between now and then, we need to come up with what were going to allow. To me, I don’t believe we had good, proper discussion last year,” he said. “If there’s material we can have between now and then to look at — from top to bottom what are we talking about — I think we can reasonably say these particular things might be good to put in the exemption and these are things that you shouldn’t.”
Gooch said, out of roughly 7,000 accounts, half or a little more than half of those property owners have accessory improvements that received some kind of tax as a result of the initial change to the exemption.
“That (tax could have been) one penny or hundreds or thousands of dollars. Not everybody who is 65 (or older) was affected by it,” she noted.
This issue and the wide range of types of unattached structures at play will be discussed further at next month’s assessor board meeting.
“Somebody has a garage that’s a common thing that some people have attached to their house and some people don’t. Just because it’s not attached to the house, they get taxed differently although it’s the same kind of usage,” said board chairman Gary Engel. “I remember a little old lady came in here and (talked) about a place where she parked her lawnmower. It’s not a drop in the bucket, but to her it probably was. Where do you draw the line is the question.”