AG19811221 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

It is interesting that the Court acknowledges that Mecklenburg County "presented substantial evidence tending to show that the assessment ratio of commercial and industrial personal property in that county is greater than the 72% assessment ratio prevailing for real estate, and that it approaches 100%." In fact, Judge Dupree goes ~o far as to say: "(t)he court is well aware of the strength of th~ county's position concerning the incompleteness of a study which excludes personal property, and the court would require the indlusion of personal property data if Section 306 (the statute) did not so clearly express a preference for a particular meahs of proving discrimination." The Court indidates that to make a personal property study would force railroad~ to use a more time-consuming and expensive method of proof. The iCourt concludes that Congress intentionally chose the sales-assessment ratio study of real property technique to give railroads a speedy method of relief to overcome a long history of frustrating barriers to the railroads' efforts to achieve tax equalization. On the issue of other centrally-assessed utility property, the Court holds that it can be included in calculating a county's overall assessment ratio,' but not in the "weighted" manner proposed by defendants which would have permitted such utility property to be factored in .based.on its value in relation to the total property tax base. For example, if 30% of a county's property tax base is comprised of utility property other than railroads then at least that portion of.'t~~tax base is assessed at 100%. And, in determining a county's overall level of assessment, this factor should be fully included. On the other hand, plaintiffs contended that the ~ales- assessment ratio study itself is the only method of proof contemplated by the statute, that the ratio study is designed to determine the "average taxpayer", and that the statistically acceptable way (and easiest way) to calculate the average is by utilizing the median ratio. Plaintiffs contended further that if utility property is added in at all it should only be included as an additional sample and treated equally with all other taxpayers. The Court sides with plaintiff on this point. Frankly, the decision is unclear in this area because the result is to add in each utility as one additional taxpayer in the statistical sample of real property transactions (sales) used to calculate the assessment ratio, when the utility property itself is not the subject of a sale. It is uncertain why utility property should be factored in and not other property owners. The deadline for appeal to ~he Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals ~s December 28. The Mecklenburg County Board of commissi°ners has instructed Ham Wade to appeal on behalf of Mecklenburg County. (The State-level' defendants have not made a final dec~sion about appeal.) Mr. Wade has suggested that.it will'cost approximately $10,000 to appeal to the Fourth Circuit. Mecklenburg County has requested %hat other interested counties consider contributing to the legal defense .costs for appeal. I