HomeMy WebLinkAboutC.054.93010_1332 (2)has in implementing the provisions of the statutes, and how much authority the Board of
Commissioners has in seeking to address grievances brought to it by taxpayers. I think there
is still some confusion by members of the General Assembly and those at the Department of
Revenue as to what resources are available to help the tax office meet its responsibilities to
carry out the provisions of the property tax laws.
In order to help establish a fair and equitable farm use program in Iredell County, and
at the same time ensure compliance with the laws of the state, and to rebuild confidence in
those who are appointed or selected to administer the program, I concur with the
recommendation to appoint an advisory group to review policies, procedures, and practices,
and to serve as a resource to the tax office in carrying out the functions of that office as it
pertains to farm use. This has to be done in such away as not to circumvent the provisions of
the statutes or to place one group of taxpayers in an inequitable position. A committee made
up of agricultural interest, policy makers, and tax administration should go a long way toward
developing a farm use program in Iredell County that meets the statutory requirements, yet
administers them in a fair and equitable manner.
In conclusion, there is one particular provision of the statutes that has been
responsible for much of the consternation we have gone through on this matter. GS 105.2960)
makes it clear that the tax assessor's office must give a taxpayer 60 days to provide requested
information when a review is being done. As I mentioned earlier, prior to January of 2004,
there were times the assessor's office did indeed request additional information, and gave only
10 or 15 days. This was wrong and has been corrected. However, in the matter of an appeal
before a board of equalization, a different set of statutes applies, and it is clear in GS 105-
322(3), that the Board of Equalization and Review has the power to subpoena witnesses and
documents, and the 60 days to respond is not a provision of this statute. Granted, the request
to Texolina for additional information was not done by a formal subpoena; it was done under
the provisions of 105-321— not 105-296.
The above is just another example of how confusing it can become in attempting to
administer the tax laws in North Carolina. If farm agencies, lawyers and legislators are
unclear on some of the provisions, then it is not unreasonable to expect those charged with the
responsibility to carry out the law, to be somewhat confused from time to time. All the more
reason, in my opinion, to have the entire process reviewed by stakeholders with a
predisposition to search out what is fair, equitable and true.
(End of Manager's Comments)
(Note: The attachments cited in the manager's comments and the Farm Use Task Force's Findings of Fact are hereby
incorporated into the minutes by reference. They maybe reviewed in the office of the clerk to the board.)
Commissioner Norman said he was concerned that there was still not a method or
mechanism in place to aid citizens when they wanted to voice a complaint.
Mashburn said that if a citizen wasn't satisfied, he or she could express their concerns to
the department head, or the county manager, but in the end "it would probably wind up going to
the commissioners" He encouraged the board members, when this happened, to refer the citizen
back to him.
Norman asked if anything was posted in county buildings advising where citizens could
express their concerns.
Mashburn said nothing was posted, but Mr. Norman made a good point.
Norman asked if the tax employees received training.
Mashburn said the North Carolina Department of Revenue provided training and the
county's employees did attend. He said it was advantageous, many times, for the staff to hold
community meetings to explain new laws, e.g., the inspections department had done this on a
few occasions.
Commissioner Williams said the Cooperative Extension Service had held meetings about the fart
use statute change, but they were not widely attended by the public.
Mashburn said confidence in the tax administrator's office needed to be rebuilt, and he didn't think
it was beyond repair. Mashburn said that in the past, the county had basically ignored the auditing
requirements, but a mechanism to begin the process was implemented a year and half ago.