Laserfiche WebLink
43 <br /> <br /> UPON MOTION of Commissioner Payne, seconded by Commissioner Cook and <br />unanimously carried, the Board approved the following resolution pertaining <br />to the railroad lawsuit as adopted by the North Carolina County Attorneys' <br />Association. <br /> <br />A RESOLUTION URGING THE ATTORNEY GENERAL'S OFFICE NOT TO ADMIT CERTAIN <br />INFORMATION REQUESTED BY PLAINTIFFS IN THE RAILROAD'S 1981 TAX YEAR <br />LAWSUIT <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the major railroads in the State filed suit in federal <br />district court on February 5, 1982, requesting the defendants, the <br />Secretary of Revenue and the Director of the Ad Valorem Tax Division, <br />to admit that the levels of assessment of real property in counties are <br />not in excess of the values agreed to in the railroads 1980 tax year <br />lawsuit; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the Attorney General's office is representing the State <br />defendants; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the Attorney General's office is seriously considering the <br />matter of admissions because of its belief that failure to so admit might <br />potentially sUbject the State to bear the plaintiff's expense in performing <br />another sales ratio study, if the court finds that defendants were acting <br />arbitrarily and without good reason in denying plaintiff's request for <br />admissions; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the County Attorneys' Association believes that there are <br />substantial reasons for defendant to deny plaintiff's requests, including <br />the fact that the majority of counties in the 1980 case did not have a real <br />opportunity to conduct their own commercial and industrial real property <br />sales ratio studies because of severe time constraints and the fact that <br />county tax officials were heavily involved at a pressing point in the annual <br />property tax administration cycle in preparing tax lists; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, most of the counties that were able to conduct commercial <br />and industrial studies were able to get the railroads to agree to increase <br />their sales ratio to a much higher level than originally alleged by the <br />railroads, thus evidencing the inaccuracy of the railroads own sales ratio <br />studies; and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the effect of the federal trial court's decision in the <br />1980 railroad case is to place an even more heightened (and - we think - <br />disproportionate) significance on the sales ratio study as the method for <br />determining the plaintiff's measure of relief, and therefore plaintiffs <br />should be required to substantiate the validity of their study's methodology; <br />and <br /> <br /> WHEREAS, the federal court should delay any further proceedings in the <br />1981 lawsuit until the 1980 railroad case is finally determined by the U.S. <br />Fourth Circuit of Appeals; <br /> <br /> NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the North Carolina County Attorneys' <br />Association respectfully urges Attorney General Rufus Edmisten to instruct <br />his staff not to admit the information requested by plaintiff railroads <br />wherein it is requested that defendants agree that the levels of assessment <br />in the counties are not in excess of the values agreed to in the 1980 case. <br /> <br /> FURTHER, BE IT RESOLVED that the Attorney General's office is urged <br />to make every effort to request that the federal trial court delay any <br />further action in the 1981 tax year case until the outcome of the appeal <br />is determined in the 1980 tax year railroad case <br /> <br />Adopted this the Thirteenth Day of February, 1982 in Chapel Hill, North <br />Carolina. <br /> <br />North Carolina'County <br />Attorneys' Association <br /> <br />/s/ Bill Mayo <br /> <br />Bill Mayo, President <br />Beaufort County Attorney <br /> <br />/s/ Robert W. Yelton <br /> <br />Bob Yelton, First Vice President <br />Cleveland County Attorney <br /> <br /> <br />