It’s All Relative

When it’s filing season for people seeking city or county offices, questions often arise about who can run. Can the spouse of a current board member run? What about the spouse of a current employee? How about the adult child of a sitting board member? These questions imply that there may be some type of conflict of interest when people who have close family or other relationships work for or serve the same unit of government.

Read more »

Bankruptcy, Registration Blocks, and The New Property Tax System for RMVs

[UPDATED 8/24/16]

Big changes are on the horizon for all North Carolina drivers.  Under the state’s new “Tax and Tag Together” program (aka “H.B. 1779” among property tax geeks) that will launch in September, anyone who wishes to renew a vehicle registration or obtain a new registration will be required to pay local property taxes on the vehicle at the time of registration.  Under the current property tax system, owners are billed for taxes on their vehicles about three months after registration.  The hope is that the new system will greatly increase motor vehicle tax collection rates while at the same time making taxpayers’ lives easier by combining the two transactions (registration and tax payment) into one.

The new system transfers most of the collection responsibility for property taxes on registered motor vehicles (“RMVs”) from the counties to the N.C. Division of Motor Vehicles.  But counties will still play an important role in the process, about which I’ll be blogging and teaching over the next few months.

Today’s post focuses on an issue that arose under the current RMV tax system but takes on even greater importance under the “Tax and Tag Together” program: can the DMV refuse to register a vehicle based on the owner’s failure to pay RMV taxes if that owner is in bankruptcy? Read more »

County Funding of Public Schools: Dispute Resolution Process

For most units July 1 (or the date that the annual budget ordinance is adopted) marks the end of the formal budgeting season. Each year, however, at least a few counties and local school boards face a protracted budgeting process. That is because state law allows a local school board to challenge a county’s appropriations to the local school administrative unit (local school unit) if the school board believes that the amount allocated for either capital or operating expenditures (or both), when combined with moneys made available to the school unit through other sources, is not sufficient to support a system of free public schools.

Commonly referred to as the dispute resolution process, G.S. 115C-431 sets forth the procedures for challenging a county’s appropriations. This post summarizes the dispute resolution process and highlights a recent legislative change. Read more »

Can the Board Take Action in a Workshop Meeting?

A newly elected local government board member is attending an orientation session. Her hand shoots up. “One thing I’ve always been confused about is whether or not it’s legal for a board to take action in a workshop or retreat meeting.” All eyes turn to the board attorney for an answer. “That’s a great question,” the attorney says. “But I need one more piece of information to answer it.”

Can you guess what piece of information is missing?

Read more »

America’s “First” July 4th

Tomorrow we celebrate the 237th anniversary of the adoption of the Declaration of Independence and the beginning of our journey as an independent nation.  But, did you know that July 4th also marks another beginning for our nation, one that happened right here in North Carolina?  No, not the opening of the first Krispy Kreme doughnut store in Winston-Salem.  That happened on July 13th, 1937.  The beginning described in this post is arguably America’s “first” July 4th.  And it happened here, in North Carolina, 429 years ago.

Read more »

Voting Rights Act Preclearance is Dead: Practical Considerations

Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 is unconstitutional.  So said the Supreme Court of the United States on June 25, 2013, in the case of Shelby County v. Holder.  Section 4 identified the jurisdictions in the nation that were required under Section 5 of the Act to submit changes related to voting for approval by the U.S. Department of Justice, in a process known as “preclearance.”  With Section 4 unconstitutional, Section 5 is left without force.  It is, for all practical purposes, dead.  See Michael Crowell’s blog post here.

What, exactly, does that mean for North Carolina’s 40 counties that were covered by Section 4?  For decades, those counties and their cities and school boards and boards of elections have been required to submit elections changes for preclearance.  For elections changes made starting now they no longer have to do that.  Their preclearance obligation with respect to those future changes has ended.

But what about elections changes already made?  How are they affected?  My best guesses follow.  Let me say that again.  What follow are my best guesses.  There is no statute in place that describes how the Shelby County decision affects changes already made.  There is no obvious legal precedent from other contexts to clearly show the way; as Chief Justice Roberts said, in his Shelby County opinion, Sections 4 and 5 were “extraordinary measures,” unique in their enforcement mechanism.  And, it appears, no guidance has yet come from the Attorney General of the United States or from the Voting Section of the U.S. Department of Justice. Read more »

The Koontz Decision and Implications for Development Exactions

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that when a government agency conditions approval of a development permit on the dedication of some property interest, that condition must have an “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” with the impacts of the development that the condition seeks to mitigate.  Thus, if a new development would moderately increase traffic to a site, a permit condition would need a nexus, or relation, to the particular kind of impact (i.e., road improvements, not parks) and the condition would need to be proportionate to the impact (i.e., turn lanes, not major highway construction).  This test of “essential nexus” and “rough proportionality” are commonly referred to by the names of the cases that set forth the test: Nollan and Dolan. (Nollan v. California Coastal Comm’n, 483 U. S. 825 (1987), and Dolan v. City of Tigard, 512 U. S. 374 (1994)).

In the recent decision of Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District, 570 U. S. ____ (2013), the Supreme Court addressed two questions concerning the application of the Nollan/Dolan test:

1)      Does it apply to demands for property, even when a permit was denied and no conditions attached?

2)      Does it apply to conditions requiring money, not property?

The answers? Yes and yes.  The Supreme Court extended the Nollan and Dolan test to demands for property prior to permit approval (not just exactions that attach to approved permits) and to conditions for cash payment (rather than just interests in real property).   The Koontz decision has clarified some issues for development permitting, but the full implications of this decision are not perfectly clear.  This blog discusses what we know and what questions remain.   Read more »