Adult Protective Services: Which County is Responsible?

If you have reasonable cause to believe that a disabled adult has been abused, neglected, or exploited and is in need of protective services, you are required to report your concerns to the county department of social services (DSS). GS 108A-102. DSS is then required to take action on the report. But what if multiple counties are involved? Which one should take the lead?  In most circumstances, it will be the adult’s county of residence but there may be some exceptional situations. A working group convened by the North Carolina Division of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS) recently developed policy guidance intended to clarify some ambiguities related to the interpretation and application of state statutes and regulations. This guidance is now in draft form but it will likely be integrated into the Adult Protective Services manual and incorporated into forms used by county social workers. This blog post explains the legal framework involved and highlights some of the recommendations included in the working group’s guidance materials.

Read more »

The Latest on North Carolina Body-Worn Camera Legislation

The national debate about body-worn cameras continues as more law enforcement agencies adopt this powerful tool. As I’ve noted in a previous blog post here, this issue involves numerous competing issues, including safety, privacy, fairness, and transparency. Public expectations of transparency have often been frustrated by laws and policies that limit access to recordings. A recent New York Times piece criticized the City of New York for its reluctance to release recordings of police interactions with citizens and cited North Carolina as an example of a state that is taking steps to limit access to body and dashboard video. The reference was to the latest version of HB 972, a bill under active consideration in the North Carolina General Assembly. This blog post summarizes the most recent version of the proposed legislation, and focuses on the main issue: Who controls disclosure and release of these records? Read more »

Local Government Support for Privately Constructed Affordable Housing

County officials from Tarheel County as well as City officials from the county seat were approached by two residential developers who are seeking to construct housing that is affordable to low and moderate income (LMI) persons. One developer, DoGooder Inc., is a private, for-profit developer who intends to construct multi-family housing in which half of the twenty apartment units will be rented at a rate that is affordable to LMI persons. DoGooder is financing the project through conventional private financing but has asked the City and County for a cash subsidy to “make the project feasible.” The other developer, Good Habits for Humans, is a nonprofit corporation whose staff and volunteers plan to construct one single family home and sell it to a family headed by a LMI person. Good Habits has asked the City and County to provide a cash grant to help them pay for staff supervision and construction materials for the project.

This post describes the legal authority for the City and County to provide the requested subsidies and explains some important differences between City and County authority in this area. Read more »

2016 Changes to Municipal Service District (MSD) Authority

In 2015, the legislature made a few significant changes to municipal service district (MSD) authority. (Those changes are summarized here.) The legislature made additional amendments to the MSD statutes this year. See S.L. 2016-8.

To summarize, the amendments first require that all new MSDs be created, modified, and/or abolished by ordinance. They mandate a procedure for adopting an MSD-related ordinance that is similar to that for awarding a franchise. Second, the amendments establish a formal process for property owners to request a new MSD, or to request that a property tract or parcel be excluded from a proposed MSD or removed from an existing MSD. A property owner may not compel a city’s governing board to take any of these actions. The new provisions simply allow a property owner, or group of property owners, to seek governing board consideration. Finally, the amendments require a private entity that has contracted to do work in an MSD to report on all subcontracts related to that work.

The remainder of this post briefly explains the purpose of an MSD and then fleshes out the contours of these changes. Read more »

Tricky Refund and Release Questions

My in-box is usually filled with tough property tax questions from across the state, which I love because they educate me about the issues I need to cover in my blogs and classes.  Today I offer my thoughts on two recent brain-busters concerning refunds and releases (aka waivers).

Before we get to the questions, here’s a quick refresher on when and how property taxes can be refunded or waived.  Read more »

Providing Utility Services Outside Territorial Boundaries: Recent Developments

Municipalities and counties are authorized, but not required, to provide utility services to properties that lie beyond their territorial borders. See G.S. 160A-312; G.S. 153A-275; see also City of Randleman v. Hinshaw, 2 N.C. App. 381 (1968) (“A [local government] which operates its own water and sewer system is under no duty to furnish water or sewer service to person outside its limits. It has the discretionary power, however, to engage in this undertaking.”) (The same is true of water and sewer authorities, sanitary districts (on a limited basis), metropolitan water districts, metropolitan sewerage districts, metropolitan water and sewerage districts, and county water and sewer districts.)

Local governments are likewise authorized to adopt different user fee rate schedules for services provided extraterritorially (to nonresident customers). See, e.g., G.S. 160A-314; G.S. 153A-277. Many local governments charge rates to nonresident customers that are significantly higher than those imposed on resident customers. Local governments also often impose different terms of service on nonresident customers.

A recent court of appeals opinion, United States Cold Storage, Inc. v. Town of Warsaw, No. COA 15-341, __N.C.App. ___ (Apr. 2016), gives some new guidance on the contours of a local unit’s authority to set the terms of service for nonresident public enterprise utility customers. The court’s opinion has two significant holdings. The first is that a municipality may condition its provision of utility services to a property located outside its boundaries on the property owner’s agreement to voluntary annex the property into the municipality’s corporate limits. The second is that a municipality (and likely other government utilities) may not unfairly discriminate among similarly situated nonresident customers.  Read more »

Residential Exclusions for Co-Owners

Today, June 1, is the deadline for taxpayers to submit applications for the three primary residential property tax exclusions: elderly & disabled, disabled veteran’s, and circuit breaker.  (That deadline is not exactly written in stone, however.)

Once the tax office determines that a property qualifies for an exclusion (or the Board of Equalization and Review or the Property Tax Commission makes that decision for them), calculating the exclusion amount is usually simple. The elderly & disabled exclusion reduces the property’s tax appraisal by the greater of $25,000 or 50%.  The disabled veteran’s exclusion eliminates $45,000 in appraised value.  The circuit breaker exclusion requires only a bit more math, with property taxes capped at either 4% or 5% of the taxpayer’s income.

But when co-owners are involved, these calculations can get complicated. Different owners can participate in different exclusions, requiring tax offices to mix and match exclusion amounts.  Here’s a short primer on this process. Read more »