My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
AG19910325
CabarrusCountyDocuments
>
Public Meetings
>
Agendas
>
BOC
>
1991
>
AG19910325
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/28/2003 9:14:47 AM
Creation date
11/27/2017 12:03:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meeting Minutes
Doc Type
Agenda
Meeting Minutes - Date
3/25/1991
Board
Board of Commissioners
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
I <br />! <br /> Report to ~e Association of County Commissioners <br /> Md I~ague MuniciI~tities on <br /> the <br /> of <br /> the <br /> Results and l~ffects of th~ Wayne Coun~ Case <br /> i William H. McBride <br /> Hunton & W/ll/ams <br /> March 6, 1991 <br /> <br />I On l~nuary 10, 1990, the North Carolina Stipreme Courl issued its opinion in the <br /> case of Wayne CounW Citizens Association for Be~er Tax Conlrol. et. gl, v, Wayne County <br /> I }~k~-d of Commissioners. et.al., (I,/.C. 242PAg0-Wayne). V,:'/thout dissent the Court <br /> affirmed the dec/s/on of the Superior Court of Wayne County holding the ins~Elment sale <br /> finance slatute, N.C.G.S. Section 160A-20, to be constitutional and Wayne County's use of <br /> I it to financ~ cormin court, administrative and jail facilities to be within the terms of the <br /> stalute. The decision, which seems cerlain to unleash the bacldog of delayed le-~,'/purchase <br /> t~.nsactions of all types in North Carolina~ is of obvious significanco to North Carolina local <br /> I governments. This report will give some further analysis of it and its likely effects on North <br /> Carolina finance. <br /> <br /> I In its l~-page opirgon written by ~'ustice Meyer, the COurt (a) reviewed the facts and <br /> procedural historY of the case, (b) noted the langu~e of the ins~tlmeot sale contract which <br /> provides '... the Board cannot be forced to appropriate amounts for payment of the <br /> I contract...'I (c) cited cases calling for the presumpiion of constitutionality in reviewing <br /> slatutes, (d) read Article ¥, Section 4 of the North Carolina Constilution to prohibit nonvoted <br /> debts s~cured by a pledge of the laxing power bul not all non¥oted debts, (e) lefuted the <br /> I plainliff's argument ll~t the use.of ~x revenues to pay the contract is improper ('... the <br /> possibility that appropriations which might include income from lax revenues will be used to <br /> repay the indebtedness under the contract is not a constitutionally significant factor,.. <br /> I the legislative intent evidenced in Section 160A-20 to installment sale <br /> (0 <br /> praised <br /> conlracts to the 'rigorous scn~tiny' of the ~ Government Commission, ~g) found that the <br /> .contract does not allow ~.nyo_,2e to com~.l Wz)~e Coun.')' to Ie;~ ~.xes for its pa),'-nent and <br /> I contract not by a pledge taxing power', and (h) accordingly <br /> therefore <br /> the <br /> is <br /> of the <br /> found for the County affmning the lower court decision. Significantly, the Court did not <br /> feel the need to discuss prior North Carolina case law on the constitutional point or the <br /> I historY belfirat the 1971 amendments which put Article V, Section 4 in its current form. <br /> Even though that language had not been consmied by the Court since its adoption (and only <br /> <br /> itw/co by other courts), the opinion admits no hesilafion in its interpretation. Such certa/~ty <br /> was not to~ally unespecled ~ at one point during oral argument before the Court in <br /> November, one justice a~ked plaintiff's counsel subslanffslly the following question: <br /> ! <br /> ! <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.