Orange County NC Website
Browse       Search
APPROVED JULY 9, 2018 <br /> 438 allowing the subpoenas to be issued. Without the subpoenas and information, there are remaining <br /> 439 questions to be answered. Her position is to allow the subpoenas to be issued. <br /> 440 <br /> 441 Karen Barrows asked Randy Herman to express his thoughts. Randy Herman said he thinks it is legitimate <br /> 442 to ask whether the entity that owned the property was issued the certificate. He does not think the rest is <br /> 443 within the scope of this board. He does not think it is within the scope of this board to look behind the <br /> 444 Department of Revenue's decision. So, if it is passible to rewrite the request to limit the subpoenas only to <br /> 445 the issues of identity, he would be in favor of that. He deferred to the county attorney on whether or not the <br /> 446 board can do that. <br /> 447 <br /> 448 Susan Halkiotis said she had a related question, LeAnn Brown mentioned questions about the qualifying <br /> 449 financial information to gain one of the farm tax exemptions. Susan Haikiotis does not know how that is <br /> 450 unraveled when the question of the entities is resolved. If information was given to acquire a certificate and <br /> 451 that certificate was then used to base a decision ❑n, and the certificate should not have been issued, then <br /> 452 the whole thing falls apart. <br /> 453 <br /> 454 Randy Herman said even if theoretically in another case fraudulent information was provided to obtain the <br /> 455 certificate, he does not think the county can look behind it, He thinks the only question this board can look <br /> 456 at is whether the entity issued the certificate was the one that owned the property, His opinion is that the <br /> 457 board does not have the power to look at whether the Department of Revenue miscalculated the revenue. <br /> 458 <br /> 459 Barry Katz said this is the kind of information that the board needs to know and would be argued before us <br /> 460 at the next hearing we have with these parties. He then said he was not sure whether Randy Herman is a <br /> 461 lawyer and giving a legal opinion. He is in favor of issuing the subpoenas and that LeAnn Brown and her <br /> 462 party have a legitimate right to have this information. <br /> 463 <br /> 464 Randy Herman said he is an attorney, but there is no case law that he is aware of on the interpretation of <br /> 465 these statutes. His opinion is based on what he thinks is a straightforward reading of the statutes. <br /> 466 <br /> 467 Karen Barrows said she agrees with Susan Halkiotis and Barry Katz that the board should allow the <br /> 468 subpoenas to go forward, for the reasons they have stated. <br /> 469 <br /> 470 MOTION by Barry Katz to issues the subpoenas. Seconded by Susan Halkiotis. <br /> 471 <br /> 472 VOTE: 3.1 (RANDY HERMAN FOR REASONS PREVIOUSLY STATED) <br /> 473 <br /> 474 Karen Barrows called for a vote to adjourn. <br /> 475 <br /> 476 Michael Harvey said that before adjournment the board needed to set the date for the next hearing on this <br /> 477 case, with guidance from James Bryan. <br /> 478 <br /> 479 There was agreement to give LeAnn Brown time to recover from surgery. <br /> 480 <br /> 481 LeAnn Brown requested that the date that the documents requested in the subpoenas be submitted to the <br /> 482 board be before the next hearing on this case so that she would have time to prepare. Andy Petesch <br /> 483 objected to providing the documents in advance of the hearing, explaining that he believes he and his <br /> 484 clients would be obligated to produce the documents at a hearing and not before. Randy Herman agreed <br /> 485 with that interpretation. <br /> 486 <br /> 10 <br />