Laserfiche WebLink
(4) There'are 26 counties which are no longer affected by tile suit <br /> because they either have i~o railroad property~ or the Railroads <br /> <br /> allowing a 10 percent increase over a~d above the ocigintilty <br /> alleged ratios. These counties are [~sted on Exhibit A to <br /> memorandum. Cleveland might he added tn this list aft~r the <br /> Railroads have examined its ratio st~ldy. <br /> <br /> (5) The Court set a time limitatio~l of St~ptember 4 foe counties to <br /> advise the Railroads whether they wart to testify in the pro- <br /> ceediogs. Doug Holbrook's of[ice polled all affected counties <br /> following our memorandum dated August 28, and the counties which <br /> have indicated a desire to be heard on the personal property <br /> level of assessment are listed on Exhibit B. All othe~ count~e~ <br /> <br /> testify. ~is Will not necessarily be detrimental to those <br /> counties, but in all candor it will diminish their cha*~c~s <br /> have their personal property included in determi~ing the overall <br /> level of assessment of locally assessed property. It will still <br /> be our position that the Railroads have tile burden of proof to <br /> show by competent evidet~ce that there is discrimi,~atio~l by each <br /> and every county in this area, and alse the extent of that dis- <br /> crimination. At any rate, only those counties me~tioned in <br /> Exhibit B will now be et~tltled to testify (wi~h some possible <br /> exceptions as indicated in the next paragraph). <br /> <br />(6) In our memorandum dated August 28, each county was advised that <br /> the Railroads would accept the results of a properly conducted <br /> sales-ratio study involving only commt:rci~l mhd indusgri.l real <br /> <br /> delivered to the Railroads. They have until Sept,~mber 1t <br /> accept or reject the studies; and if any study is rejected for <br /> good cause, that county will have the right ~o appear a~d tes- <br /> <br /> found throt~gh ~he studies is attached as Exhibit C. <br /> <br />(7) As a result of the stipulation by the Ri~ilroads that each county <br /> would have its originally alleged ratio increased by 10 percent, <br /> we have shown on Exhibit D the adjusted real estate ratios <br /> <br /> industrial real estate study. <br /> <br />(8) For those count[es listed in Exhibit B (and ~my co,rely listed <br /> Exhibit C whose ratio is rejected by the Railroads) we propose <br /> to have a workshop to discuss individually and send, ratty the <br /> <br /> practices for personal property, lhe ~ime ,~1 place w[[l be <br /> tided later. I~ is anticipated that tile RailrO;tds will submit <br /> <br /> <br />