AG19810908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

(2) For those counties which have not conducted a commercial and industrial ratio study, (or have conducted one which did not show beneficial changes from the railroad allegations) the railroads have agreed to alter the ratios by adding 10% to the allegations in the complaint, t believe each county knows what its alleged ratio is. Of course, this has the effect of giving each county a direct and immediate financial benefit without any work being done by the county. (3) The question of whether the utility valuations (other than railroad valuations) are to be factored in to determine the overall level of assessment in each county is left for consideration by the court. This is largely a legal issue and the counties need not be concerned or prepared to assist in this question. (4) The question of whether personal property (either commercial and industrial or all personal property) is to be factored in to determine the overall level of assessment in each county is left open for determination by the court. Also, the question of the level of assessment for the personal property is left open. It is the railroad's contention that personal property is valued at no higher ratio than real estate and in any event is never valued at 100% market. It has generally and traditionally been felt by North Carolina counties, that personal property was valued much closer to market than was real estate, principally because of the annual valuation process. The legal question, therefore, is, who has the burden of proof in determining the level of assessment and how that burden is going to be carried. This is an important point in the case. The only advice we can give, at this time, is for those counties who have strong convictions about the level of assessment being at or close to market, be present at the trial to present evidence to that effect. The problem is one of time because our agreement with the railroads is that we will supply the names of the counties who wish to be heard on this subject no later than Monday, August 31. Of course, this means you will have to respond on the very day you receive this memorandum. However, the earlier memoranda have urged each county to make its desires know~ to Doug Holbrook's office before September 1. It is regrettable that we are under this time constraint, but the trial judge will undoubtedly require a list of all the names of the counties, witnesses and exhibits at the time of the pre-trial conference on September 1. In summary then, the essence of the stipulations will be that every county will benefit to some degree (although we waived the right to contest the validity of the railroad's sales ratio study). And, if we prevail on the utility question and the personal property question, each county will benefit to a greater degree. Doug Holbrook's office