AG19811221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

-2- During the pre-trial stage, the~sales-assessment ~atio for each ~ounty was ~ettled by stipulation of all parties, and thus the question of the ~alidity of the study conducted by plaintiffs was no longer before' the federal court. The settlement occurred by taking the assessment ratio for each county as alleged by plaintiffs in their original complaint and increasing that figure by 10%. (For example, Alamanoe was alleged to be at 63.4%; the settlement adjusted Alamance up to 71.0%. Currituck was alleged to be at 44.~2%, and thus adjusted to 48.62%.) Also, counties that could prove by an independent study of only commercial and industrial real property transactions that plaintiffs had made substantial errors were able to obtain a further upward adjustment. Clearly, one result~of the stipulation for all counties involved was to obtain an immedfate par~al savings of tax revenue whether or not specific errors were identified ~ plaintiffs' study. Two legal issues remained for the federal trial court to consider: (1) whether to take into account locally assessed personal property in determining a county's overall assessment ratio; and, if so, how to calculate a county's level of assessment of personal property; and (2) whether, to take into account other utility property in determining a county's overall assessment ratio; and if so, how to add in utility property as an additional factor. Obuiously, both personal property and utility property are revalued-annually, and together they comprise a .significant amount of the overall property tax base in practically every county. To include both factors would tend to adjust upwardly the sales-assessment ratio in every county and ~ould'demonstrate that the coun'ties are in fact assessing property at closer to true value than a study of only real property transactions ~outd suggest. For these reasons,.from the county perspective the defehdants argued that both factors should be taken into account in determining the county's overall level of property assessment. Judge.Dupr~e's ruling essentially holds in favor of plaintiff railroads and against the defendants on both points. The memorandum of dedision begins bY noting that railroads throughout the nation have long been victims of discrimination in the asse'ssment o~ local property taxes, and that the statute enacted in 1976 by Congress was intended to help relieve the discrimination. The Court states that the statute "was designed to give railroads a plain, speedy and efficient remedy in federal court." These statements give an early indication of the direction the decision takes. On the issue of personal property, the Court rules against its inclusion in determining a county's overall level of assessment. The Court reasons that Congress intended railroads to be able to obtain relief ~n a speedy, efficient manner, and a sales-assessment ratio study.is identified in the federal s~atute as the preferred techniqu~ since it is reliable, objective and expeditious. The Court then notes that uncontroverted evidence shows that such a study only includes locally-assessed real estate.