It has become a fairly regular event each month for the Fayette County Board of Commissioners to consider requests for tax refunds from county property owners. Some appear to be straightforward and receive approval or denial quickly, while others of late have garnered quite a bit of debate.
The main sticking point appears to be cases in which property owners have applied for a federal exemption given to disabled veterans. On more than one occasion an applicant has requested a tax refund too late according to state law, but such an exemption cannot be requested until the appropriate documentation has been received from the federal government, which can take far too long to obtain.
County Attorney Dennis Davenport has advised consistently that, in accordance with state law, such requests should be denied. Most of the commissioners have gone along with that, expressing their reluctance and disappointment at doing so but saying that the action is legally necessary.
Commissioner Steve Brown has also been consistent in his vote against such recommendations, and at the Jan. 26 meeting he was joined on the dissenting side by Chairman Eric Maxwell.
“I’m very sympathetic to the plight of these people. It’s absolutely no fault of their own,” said Brown. “The federal government is screwing these people because it’s taking so long to get these dadgum things done. I feel really bad for them.”
Brown pointed out that the board could give these refunds at its own discretion and acknowledged the concern among some commissioners about setting a precedent that could cause problems down the road.
“I respect that. No hard feelings toward anyone who opposed me on that,” he said. “I’d just rather pay the people and take the chance.”
The request under consideration at this meeting was by Jamie Johnson Kagels for $5,745.49 accumulated over three years (2014-2016). Davenport reiterated that state law does not allow refunds that are retroactive and requested after the mandated time limits. Commissioner Charles Oddo made a motion to follow Davenport’s recommendation and deny the request, saying that it was not an easy decision to make.
“It is not something I want to do but something I have to do,” said Oddo. “The best way to rectify this is to go through the system [via the state legislature]. As hard as this is, I would have to agree with the recommendation of the county attorney.”
Commissioner Randy Ognio echoed those sentiments. “I agree its is heart-wrenching but, the way the law is written, denial is the only option.”
“I’m willing to roll the dice,” said Brown. “These cases are heartbreaking.” The vote was 3-2 to deny the refund request, with Brown and Maxwell casting the dissenting votes. Ognio, who noted that a resolution had been sent to the county’s legislative delegation asking for action, said he contacted U.S. Sen. Johnny Isakson’s office and spoke with a staff member there about the issue, but “they don’t seem to think it’s an issue and they don’t want to take it up at that level. Hopefully the state will address it and give us more leeway.”
Commissioner Charles Rousseau agreed with his colleagues. “I agree that there should be a simple solution to help these people who have served us so well,” he said. “But there are implications, as our county attorney has advised.”
Rousseau urged citizens to let their legislators know the matter needs their support, because the current system “makes it look as if we don’t support veterans when we do.” Maxwell said he agreed that Davenport’s opinion is correct on the law, but he noted a recent court case in Douglas County that was ruled in favor of a veteran in a similar situation. This was the first time Maxwell faced a vote on the issue since taking office at the beginning of the year and he had not seen all of the previous such requests over the past year.
“It would be easy for me to just vote against the denial and in favor of this person getting her money but I don’t know the scope,” he said.
Maxwell asked what would happen if the vote was in favor of the refund, and Davenport replied that the most recent cases previously denied would probably resurface, as well as future requests being looked at in a different way.
Two other requests heard at the same meeting was somewhat simpler. Joan Chapman asked for $251.53 in refunds for 2014 and 2015, and Davenport recommended approval. Chapman had an exemption for school taxes because she was over the age of 62, and when she had to move elsewhere because of medical reasons she maintained that address but the exemption was removed by mistake. Her request was approved unanimously.
Gregg Appliances DBA HH Gregg requested a $3,253.80 refund based on what the business stated was a differing methodology used to arrive at the company’s value and tax liability. The request was not submitted within the 45-day window so Davenport recommended denial. The board agreed with a 5-0 vote.
