NNS Tax Refund Request - CH Hotel Associates, Ltd. - 4-3-95 - IX-B

Browse Search

Board of Commissioners Page 2 March 2, 1995 adjournment of the Board of Equalization and Review, facts have come to his attention that render it advisable to raise or lower the appraisal of a particular piece of property. This power of the County Commissioners does not authorize appraisal or reappraisal because of events or circumstances that have taken place or arisen since the day as of which the property is listed and can only be exercised if the Board of Equalization and Review could have made a decision on the matter had the same facts been brought to its attention while it was in session. N.C. Gen. Stat. S 105-325 (a) (6) . There are further limitations on the power of the County Commissioners to change appraised values . The most important of those limitations is discussed later in this letter following the point where it relates the facts to the law. Another of those further limitations is contained in N.C. Gen. Stat. S 105-380 . That statute says, in pertinent part, that the County Commissioners are prohibited from releasing, refunding or compromising all or any portion of the taxes levied against any property within its jurisdiction except as provided in the Machinery Act. Taxes that have been released, refunded or compromised in violation of the Machinery Act are deemed to be unpaid and are collectible against the taxpayer and they may be recovered from any member or members of the governing body who voted for the release, refund or compromise by civil action instituted by any resident of the taxing unit and when collected from a board member or from board members are paid to the taxing unit. The cost of bringing such an action including reasonable attorneys fees are paid by the board member or members to the person bringing the action in the event the tax is recovered. Relating all of the above to the facts in this case leads me to conclude the following: 1. The February 20, 1991 letter to John Horner from Roland Gammon on behalf of Chapel Hill Hotel Associates, Ltd. put the Tax Collector on notice that there was a reduction in the size of the land in question as the result of a NC DOT highway project. The Tax Collector passed this letter to the Tax Assessor and the Tax Assessor, acting under the power of N.C. Gen. Stat. § 105- 296, reduced the assessed value of the property in question for 1991 based on the reduced size of the property. There is nothing in the February 20, 1991 letter that put anyone in County government and particularly the Tax Assessor on notice that the parcel size reduction affected the value of the residual parcel. 2 . The October 19, 1992 letter to the Tax Collector from Mr. Gammon on behalf of Chapel Hill Hotel Associates, Ltd. , which