AG19811102 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

With this background - and with the belief that tbm counties should make a collective effort to assure that their perspective was adequately represented in the case as well as demonstrate a united resolve to meet major challenges to their existing tax base - the County Attorneys Association recommended that all 100 counties join in a collective legal defense fund by making pro rata connri- butions based generally on the amount of tax value at risk. ^lthough not every county was directly implicated in the suit (only 87 counnies were named originally), we proposed that every county make a contribution believing that all counnies would be interested in fostering a reasoned judicial analysis on the issue of equalizing one annually assessed taxpayer's burden (the railroads) wit|~ all other taxpayers. As you know, the fund has been established and the C~arlotte law firm of Ruff, Bond, Cobb, Wade and McNair has been retained ~o present to the court the legal issues of common concern to the counties. Hamlin Wade has been the principal attorney involved on our behalf with assistance from James Cobb This law firm represenns Mecklenburg County for all of its business, and that county has itself directly intervened in the case. Madison County, through its counsel, Larry Leake, has also intervened. The most recent mailings from Mr. Wade have kept you apprised of developments in the case, including notably a stipulation agreed to by all parties which established the level of assessment of real property in affected counties at 10% higher than the figure originally alleged by the railroads. This stipulation alone has resulted in a measurable savings for the counties affected. As Mr. Wade has previously informed you, still at stake in the case are significant common legal issues about whether railroad property should be compared to all property in the county or to commercial and industrial property only, whether locally assessed personal property is considered to be taxed at market value or at the reduced value determined by the sales assessment ratio study of real property, and whether other utility property is to be included in determining the overall level of assessment in each county. The actual trial of the case lasted for ~wo days and was concluded yesterday afternoon. Judge Dupree has given the parties until November 6 to file proposed findings of fact for their respective position. The judge's decision will be r~ndered some time after November 6. Regarding the snatus of the legal defense fund, we have received ~ total of $39,409.20 £n contributions from 77 counties. The fund had earned $157.26 in interest as of August 31. Thus, the total amount produced by the fund has been $39,566.46. With regard to expenditures from the fund, we have paid out $4,581.90 to Assessment Analysis Associates, Inc. We have received a billing for the time and expenses of legal counsel in the amount of $30,953.33. This billing covered time and expenses only t~rough Friday, September 18. We have received a further invoice from Assessment Analysis Associates, inc. in the amount of $839.34.