Minutes - 19750213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

~~~ Mr. Giles stated that "In this case you are dealing with the taxability of land that the state has now acquired by you dealing with its tax status prior to its acquisition when it was awned by the Nature Conservancy for preservation and conservation gurposes.. ultimately to be conveyed to the State of North Carolina as part of our purchase arrangement. We not only pay them what they pay for the property, we also reimburse them for any cost which includes taxes, therefore, we are going to foot the tax bill if you all rule that its taxable. It is our con*_ention that the_property was not taxab'.e on January 1, 1974, by virture of a statutory exemption. That is G.S. 105.275(12), which holds that real property owned by a non-profit corporation or association exclusively held or used 'ay its owner for educational and scientific purposed as protected natural area. This is the exclusion. For purposes of the subdivision `he .term protected natural area means a nature reserve or park in which all types of wild nature, flora, fauna, biotic communties are preserved £or observation and study. We contend that this statutory provision requires a passive use of the property. Namely, it has got to be pre- served so that scientific and educational studies may be made of the area. And this was precisely what was done with the properties acquired by the Nature Conservancy during the.time which they held title to it. I have before me and I will let you all look this over, this is a one year study of a portion Of the property conducted by Duke University for various departments within Duke University primarily on the Sernheim tract which is a 89.9 acre tract which is one of the tracts in question. I might add that when we got ready to acquire these properties we had a title examined by various County Attorneys. Several of these attorneys concluded that the property was not taxable by virture of this provision. When it came to our office (Attorney General), our office reached the same conclusion. This same conclusion has been concurred in by Mr. Doug Holbrook, who is the head of the ad-valorem section of the Department of Revenue and likewise concurred in by Mr. Henry Lewis of the Institute of Government. Mr. Lewis and Mr. Holbrook drafted this statute specifically with the Nature Conservancy in mind,. and specifically for the purpose of exempting property held by the Nature Conservancy for preservation and conservation purposes to exclude those from taxes." Discussion ensued and :the Board heard from Margaret Nygard and Duncan Herron and A. T. (Sandy) Davison. The County Administrator advised the 3oard that the Sheriff had the opportunity to apply fqr a LEEA grant. This grant would 'ae a training grant in the amount of $21,0O0,however, the deadline for the grant application was within the next few days. Mr. Gattis stated that this is basically a training grant for personnel and that the cost to the county would be less than, $200. Upon motion of Commissioner Gustaveson, seconded by Commissioner Pinney, it was moved and adopted, that the Chairman be authorized to sign the LEEA grant application.. :. . UNABLE TO OBTAIN COPY OF NEEDED RESOLUTION 1 Chairman Garrett advised the Board that somebody wha was speaking in behalf of the University in the matter of the taxation of the University property has asked the 5oard to postpone the hearings of February 18th. Chairman Garrett advised the Board that she had discussed the matter with the County Administrator and we were suggesting a 30-day postponement until our mid-March meeting which would also be March 18th meeting. Mr. Coleman advised the Board that he had contacted Chairman Garrett because he had received a phone call from Mr. Marion Banks of the Attorney General's Office and he's got to be in court somewhere on the 1Bth:_ Mr, Banks requested that he be notified of the date of postponement. Mr, Coleman advised that Mr. Banks stated that he would be glad to forward a written waiver of any further notice. The County Administrator advised that E. B. Denny, Attorney for the Town of Chapel Hi11, was willing for the postponement as long as they would postpone also the hearing before the Town of Chapel Hill. He did not want the Chapel Hill hearing to occur until after the county hearing had taken place. And that likewise while he isn't speaking for the Town of Carrbaro, he would like for that hearing to be postponed again so all the hearings, so to speak,are handled here (before the Board) before it comes out in Chapel Hill or Carrboro. Mr. Coleman replied that he would convey this sentiment to Mr, Banks that all three (3) governmen~al units any and all notices is waived. The Board advised Mr. Coleman that they wished to hold this hearing on Tuesday, March 18, 197$, Mr. Laws presented the appeal from Highland Woods Recreation Association. This property is designated as Tax Map 54, BL A, Lt 4, assessed value $6,500, Mr, Laws stated that this request was denied on a presumption that the use of this recreational -lot '.was:.restricted to residents of the Highland Woods community or members of the Association and that therefore the property could not be considered a "public" park,