|
-4-
<br />
<br />assessing real Property at 72% of its true market value. ~The railroads
<br />Want a StipulatiOn in the 1981 case that, for the 1981 tax year,
<br />MeCklenburg was not assessing real property in excess of 72% of its
<br />true market value. The Attorney General's office, which represents the
<br />defendants, is seriously considering the matter. If defendants admit
<br />the assessment levels and if the 1980 railroad case is not overturned
<br />on appeal, then for counties involved in both cases, the issues in
<br />dispute will be determined. A significant problem is that many counties
<br />involved in the 1980 case simply did not conduct their own commercial
<br />and industrial real property studies because of time constraints and
<br />the press of other business in the tax offices. Thus, for a county
<br />affected by the 1980 case, it may now be worthwhile to consider direct
<br />intervention as a party defendant in this lawsuit. TO discuss this
<br />matter further, you should call Assistant Attorney General George Boylan
<br />((919) 733-3252) or Ad Valorem Tax Division Director Doug Ho!brook
<br />((919) 733-7711).
<br />
<br />In another case, several motor freight carriers brought suit in December,
<br />1981 in Federal District Court (under a federal statute substantially
<br />similar to the one used by the railroads) seeking to have their property -
<br />their centrally assessed rolling-stock personal property - assessed in
<br />each county at the same .~e~91s of assessment .agreed to in the 1980
<br />railroad case. The sui~[ii~S relief for the 1980 and 1981 tax years.
<br />Judge Franklin Dupr~e i~ing the case. Ac'cording to state officials,
<br />27 counties are affecte~%~r'the 1980 year and 28 counties for the 1981
<br />year. The Attorney~ Gen~r~ s office has made a motion to have the
<br />affected counties ]olne~ ~efendants, but ~ud~e Dupree has hOE ~et
<br />ruled on it. Once again,~ ~B affected county~will have to determine
<br />whether to become involvements' a party defendant if Judge Dupree does
<br />not order your joinder, i~following 27 counties are~affected for the
<br />1980 tax year: Alamance,~gncombe,'Burke, C~taWba, Durham, Forsyth,
<br />Granville, Halifax, Hendg~gn,. Iredell, ~art$~, Mecklenburg, Moore,
<br />Washington, New Hanover, 'Q~$ow, Pender, Ran~01ph, Robeson, Rockingham,
<br />Rowan, Surry, Union, Wake, Wayne, Wilkes, an~-Wilson. Ali. of the 27
<br />counties above plus Edgeq~e County are aff~tted for the 1981 tax year.
<br />To discuss this matter, cdhtact either Mr. Boy!an or Mr. Ho!brook.
<br />
<br />Finally, enclosed are two resolutions adopted by the County Attorneys'
<br />Association last Saturday and addressed to Governor Hunt, Attorney
<br />General Ed~,isten, and Secretary of Revenue Lynch. One resolution
<br />generally calls for additional State assistance in defendJ, ng lawsUits
<br />such as the ones brought by the railroads and motor freight carriers
<br />challenging their levels of property tax assessment. The other resolution
<br />urges the Attorney General for several reasons not to admit the informa-
<br />tion sought by the railroads in the 1981 tax year case pertaining to
<br />assessment levels stipulated to in the 1980 case. We respectfully urge
<br />your board of county commissioners to consider adopting similar resolu-
<br />tions and otherwise communicating With these state officials the
<br />importance of their support'in defending the efficacy of the property tax.
<br />
<br />If you have any questions about the reco~mendations of the County Attorneys'
<br />Association outlined herein, please call me in Beaufort County at (919)
<br />946-2418, or call Ron Aycock or Butch Gunnells at the Association office.
<br />
<br />Thank you for your thoughtful Consideration and cooperation in addressing
<br />these problems of common concern to all our counties.
<br />
<br /> I
<br />
<br />
<br />
|