FAQs on Adopting the Budget Ordinance

Local governments across the state are scrambling to finalize and adopt their budgets before July 1. This post provides a brief overview of the applicable procedural requirements and addresses frequently asked questions about the budgeting process. Read more »

Can Time Limits be Imposed on Speakers at a Zoning Hearing?

The county board of commissioners is holding a public hearing on a controversial rezoning. A sizable contingent of neighbors who oppose the project are present. Many have signed up to tell the commissioners just how terrible it would be if the rezoning were to be approved. Anticipating that opposition, the developer has brought nearly as many folks to speak in favor of the rezoning. Looking out over the restless crowd awaiting the commencement of the hearing, it appears the board is in for a long evening.

Would it be legally permissible for the board to set time limits for the speakers at this rezoning hearing, say three minutes per speaker? How about an overall time limit, such as giving the proponents and opponents 30 minutes each? If so, could those same time limit rules be applied next month to a similarly controversial hearing on a special use permit?

For the rezoning, reasonable time limits are perfectly acceptable. For the special use permit, not so much so. Read more »

Collecting Property Taxes from Corporations

[Today’s guest blogger is Adam Parker, UNC School of Government summer law clerk.]

Let’s begin with an all-too-familiar hypothetical. In 2006, Carl Corporation incorporated a small business, Tar Heel Roofing Inc. Business went well for a few years. But when the Great Recession hit, Carl’s customers basically disappeared. After six months with no revenue Carl decided to get out of the roofing industry.

In July 2011, Tar Heel Roofing sold all of its assets—a truck, two roofing machines (kettle and roof cutter), and some supplies—to a friend who runs Wolfpack Roofing, Inc. Carl moved to a remote mountain cabin in West Virginia and stopped paying property taxes on a two-acre parcel of land in rural Carolina County, NC, that is listed in the name of Tar Heel Trucking, Inc., a corporation created by Carl back in 2002 when he tried (unsuccessfully) to start a trucking business.

Tar Heel Roofing and Tar Heel Trucking now owe two years of delinquent taxes on their respective property. What options does Carolina County Tax Collector Tina have to collect these taxes? Read more »

State Emergency Management Act Rewrite: More Than Changes to Emergency Firearms Restrictions

In two previous blogs (here and here), I discuss a 2012 federal district court ruling (Bateman v. Perdue) on the constitutionality of North Carolina’s emergency weapons restriction statutes and the legislative response to that ruling.  The General Assembly responded to the court’s ruling by limiting the authority of cities and counties to impose restrictions and prohibitions on lawfully possessed firearms and ammunition under a state of emergency declaration.  This limitation was included in a comprehensive rewrite of the State Emergency Management Act (S.L. 2012-12; HB843).  While much attention was focused on the “gun ban” issue, HB843 included many other changes to our state’s emergency management statutes.  So, what other changes were included in HB843 and what to they mean for state and local emergency management officials? Read more »

Can Cities and Counties Restrict Firearms Under A State Of Emergency?

In a previous post, I summarized a 2012 federal district court ruling on the 2nd Amendment challenge brought against restrictions on dangerous weapons that can be imposed by local governments during a declared state of emergency.  The General Assembly responded to this ruling by prohibiting restrictions and prohibitions on the lawful possession and use of firearms and ammunition under a state of emergency declaration.  This prohibition was included in the legislature’s comprehensive rewrite of the State Emergency Management Act (G.S. Chapter 166A) (S.L. 2012-12; HB843).  This post describes what restrictions can – and importantly, cannot – be imposed on lawfully possessed firearms or ammunition under a state of emergency declaration.

Read more »

Time for PUV Reform in NC?

$200 million. That’s the estimated property tax revenue North Carolina’s 100 counties defer each year under the state’s present-use value (“PUV”) property tax exclusion program for farms and other favored properties. And by “defer,” I really mean “lose,” because most of those deferred PUV taxes will never be collected.

The impact of PUV property on individual county budgets can be substantial. Consider Allegheny County, which in 2010-11 had a total taxable real property base of $1.6 billion. In that same fiscal year the county deferred taxes on $500 million of PUV property, meaning the deferred tax revenue amounted to nearly a third of the county’s entire real property tax revenue.

Although none took the same percentage hit as did Allegheny County, nearly twenty other North Carolina counties deferred PUV property value representing at least 10% of their total real property values in 2010. Coming in the midst of the dire economic climate and plummeting revenues from other taxes, a 10% reduction in county tax revenue from real property is no small matter. And don’t forget that North Carolina’s municipalities also lose tax revenue on PUV property.

In light of its financial effect on local governments, it seems fair to question whether the PUV program is worth the cost. Maybe not, says national property tax expert Professor Richard England in a recent article for the well regarded Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Prof. England concludes that major PUV reform is needed across the country. Before analyzing whether Prof. England’s proposals are right for North Carolina, here is a quick primer on our state’s PUV program. Read more »

Consolidated Human Services Agencies

UPDATE September 2013: For more recent information on this topic, click here.

To consolidate or not to consolidate, that [may be] the question.

In the coming weeks, the NC General Assembly could act on legislation that would permit a county to combine its county health department and department of social services into a single consolidated human services agency.  Under present law, only the three largest counties (Wake, Mecklenburg, and Guilford) may create consolidated human services agencies.

Several bills addressing this issue were introduced last year in the long session (see discussion by Jill Moore here, here, and here) and new legislation (H 1075/S 875) was introduced just last week.  The new legislation focuses primarily on governance of local management entities (LMEs), the agencies responsible for administering public mental health, developmental disabilities, and substance abuse (MH/DD/SA) programs. But the new legislation also includes language that would allow any county, regardless of size, to create consolidated human services agencies

As the conversations continue to unfold on this subject, I thought it might be worthwhile to clarify some key concepts in the law that allows counties to consolidate human services agencies and to discuss the relevant sections of the new legislation.

Read more »