|
March 26, 2007 (Regular Meeting) Page 310
<br />Kelly Sifford, Community Development Manager, reported the County has
<br />been participating in the HOME Program for approximately 13 years through the
<br />City of Concord. She further reported the County will receive $8,326.00 in
<br />administrative funds and $124,893.00 in housing activity funds from Concord.
<br />Ms. Sifford responded to questions from the Board.
<br />At 7:14 p.m., Vice Chairman Juba opened the Public Hearing on the HOME
<br />Program. The Public Hearing Notice was published in THE INDEPENDENT TRIBUNE
<br />and THE CHARLOTTE OBSERVER (Cabarrus Neighbors) on March 15 and 18, 2007.
<br />There was no one present to address the Board; therefore, Vice Chairman
<br />Juba closed the public hearing.
<br />nest Submitted b
<br />Citing the involvement of the law firm of Hartsell & Williams, P.A. in
<br />this matter, Commissioner White MOVED to recuse himself from the hearing and
<br />vote on this request. Commissioner Privette seconded the motion. The MOTION
<br />unanimously carried.
<br />At the request of Vice Chairman Juba, Richard M. Koch, County Attorney,
<br />provided an overview of the refund and release request, including the error
<br />on the deed (incorrect property description) and the statutory requirements
<br />for granting a refund and release request. He reported Onion Lodge #618 is
<br />represented by William L. Mills, III, attorney, the burden of proof is on the
<br />taxpayer and that he could not find any evidence of malice or intentional
<br />wrong doing.
<br />William L. Mills, III, attorney representing Union Lodge #618, provided
<br />a lengthy overview of the request. Highlights included the following:
<br />according to statutes, meeting halls of Masonic fraternities are exempt from
<br />taxation; there was a large delay in addressing the issue because he wanted
<br />the erroneous mistake on the deed corrected before asking the Board to grant
<br />a refund and release request; the deed was corrected in 2006 and a petition
<br />for exemption was also filed in 2006; part of the delay was attributed to the
<br />fact that Mr. Barrett 0. Flowe, the property owner of the old lodge, was
<br />reluctant to correct the error; and refunds and release can be granted as a
<br />result of a clerical error. He introduced the following gentlemen and stated
<br />their ,availability to respond to questions: David Williams, Attorney with
<br />Hartsell & Williams, P.A. (the closing attorney who made the error); Charles
<br />Green, Lodge Trustee; and Larry Robbins, Real Estate Agent.
<br />Mr. Mills responded to questions from the Board.
<br />Brent Weisner, Tax Administrator, stated although he is sympathetic to
<br />taxpayers and after doing extensive research, he could not find a legal way
<br />to help the parties involved. He commented on the rigidness of the tax laws
<br />and the administration of those laws. He said, in error, the new lodge was
<br />transferred to a private individual; as a result, the Tax Department was
<br />required to revoke the exemption on that property. He said the old lodge did
<br />not qualify for exemption because it was no longer being used as a lodge and
<br />did not meet the exemption criteria. Both lodges, he said, were taxed the
<br />full amount for 2005 and 2006. He said when the deed came through in 2005,
<br />the taxpayers were notified. If the deed had been corrected quickly, he said
<br />the situation could have possibly been corrected through the Board of
<br />Equalization and Review. Since their exemption denial was not challenged, he
<br />said the property was taxable. Because the deed had not been corrected in
<br />2006 and an application for exemption was not filed, he said the property was
<br />taxed for 2006 and the only avenue for the taxpayer isto request a refund.
<br />With regard to the clerical error, he reported only mistakes made by the
<br />County are refundable, not errors made by taxpayers. After consulting the
<br />Department of Revenue and Shea Denning of the School of Government, he said
<br />he could not recommend the Board refund these taxes.
<br />Mr. Koch, County Attorney, pointed out the statute itself does not
<br />specifically say "clerical error of the county" although it seems to imply it
<br />in other parts of the stature and in case law. He reported there was hardly
<br />any case law on this particular point and went on to review the one case law
<br />that he found. Finally, he reported each Board member can be held personally
<br />liable for unlawfully refunding or releasing taxes according to N.C.G.S.
<br />105(a)-380. He said if the Board chooses to grant the request, then he will
<br />prepare findings of fact to support the action.
<br />
|