{ "id": 12133086, "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE APPEAL OF CAMEL CITY LAUNDRY COMPANY FROM THE APPRAISAL OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY THE FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW FOR 1990", "name_abbreviation": "In re the Appeal of Camel City Laundry Co.", "decision_date": "1994-07-05", "docket_number": "No. 9310PTC965", "first_page": "469", "last_page": "473", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "115 N.C. App. 469" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1992, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 S.E.2d 752", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "287 N.C. 547", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8564265 ], "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/287/0547-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 105-283", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 3, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-286", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 528, "char_count": 9718, "ocr_confidence": 0.721, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.1657094398942786e-07, "percentile": 0.5851285152145936 }, "sha256": "c87196dab15498dfd5ab0602f87f800f61ab3bc73a44069a013addd5a9b71855", "simhash": "1:e7722bab704f2a52", "word_count": 1553 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:58:18.676868+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges LEWIS and MARTIN concur." ], "parties": [ "IN THE MATTER OF: THE APPEAL OF CAMEL CITY LAUNDRY COMPANY FROM THE APPRAISAL OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY THE FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW FOR 1990" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WYNN, Judge.\nFor several decades, Taxpayer, Camel City Laundry Company (\u201cCamel City\u201d) owned and operated a commercial dry-cleaning business at 501 East Third Street, Winston-Salem, Forsyth County, North Carolina. The property is also known in Forsyth County as Tax Block 40, Lot 301. The property is 53,600 square feet (1.23 acres) and contains one 25,486-square foot building surrounded by a paved, 56-space asphalt parking lot.\nFrom 1900 until purchased by Camel City, the property was successively owned by Winston-Salem Gas & Lighting Company, Duke Power Company, and Piedmont Natural Gas Company, and was used as an industrial site. Between 1910 and 1920, the facility was used to produce gas by coal and water gasification. The owners all used and stored various chemicals on the property for the operation of the gasification plant, for a creosote pit to coat power line poles, and for on-site waste disposal. Over the years, fuel storage tanks and an underground mineral spirits tank were used on the property. Coal was also stored on the property.\nCamel City has owned the property since the late 1950\u2019s or early 1960\u2019s. It was a dry-cleaning and laundry processing plant until 1989, when the building was converted into office space and a laundry and customer service facility.\nIn 1988, pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-286, appellant Forsyth County (\u201cCounty\u201d) reappraised all real property within Forsyth County in accordance with N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7\u00a7 105-283 and 105-317. Camel City\u2019s property was appraised at $639,000, effective 1 January 1988.\nIn 1989, Camel City received an offer to purchase the property for $750,000, contingent on a satisfactory environmental assessment. An environmental assessment concluded that both subsurface soils and the shallow groundwater table appeared to be contaminated by pollutants. Upon learning of the contamination, the offer to purchase was withdrawn.\nWhile the subsurface of the property is contaminated, there is no evidence in the record that the interior of the building or the parking lot have been negatively affected.\nOn 29 May 1990, Camel City appealed the $639,000 valuation to the Forsyth County Board of Equalization and Review. The Board unanimously affirmed the $639,000 valuation. Camel City appealed this decision to the Property Tax Commission. On 23 April 1993, the Commission granted Camel City\u2019s petition for a reduction in the assessment of the property and entered its Final Decision, setting the value of the property at $125,000. The County appeals from that decision.\nI.\nDuring the course of the Commission\u2019s 12 November 1992 hearing, the County tendered its only witness, John Potter, the lead commercial tax appraiser in Forsyth County. After establishing Potter\u2019s credentials in the field of real estate appraisal, the County\u2019s counsel ' stated, \u201cAt this time I tender Mr. Potter as an expert witness in real estate appraisal.\u201d Camel City\u2019s counsel said, \u201cNo objection,\u201d and the Commission\u2019s Acting Chairman stated, \u201cLet him be admitted.\u201d\nThe County contends that the Commission failed to consider Mr. Potter\u2019s testimony to be that of an expert witness. The County\u2019s only basis for this contention is that the Commission\u2019s Final Decision listed \u201coral testimony of Mr. John G. Potter\u201d among the evidence presented by the County, while for Camel City\u2019s evidence it listed \u201coral testimony of Mr. John McCracken. Admitted to testify as an expert witness in the field of real estate appraisal.\u201d The County contends that because the Commission did not identify Mr. Potter as an expert when listing the County\u2019s evidence, it did not give Mr. Potter\u2019s testimony the weight normally given to that of an expert witness.\nWe do not accept the notion that the manner in which the Commission identifies a witness in the record indicates the weight the Commission attached to his opinion. Mr. Potter was qualified, admitted, and testified as an expert witness. There is no reason to believe that the Commission understood him to be otherwise. We find no reversible error in the Commission\u2019s consideration of Mr. Potter\u2019s testimony.\nII.\nThe County next argues that the Commission overstepped its statutory authority in determining the property\u2019s value because it considered factors that are not authorized by statute. The Commission\u2019s Finding of Fact No. 19 reads, \u201cAfter carefully considering both the ability of the subject property to produce income in its contaminated state and the cost to cure the contamination, the Commission finds that the true value in money of the subject property as of 1 January 1990 was $125,000.\u201d\nThe Machinery Act, which controls the listing, appraisal, and assessment of property, sets forth uniform standards for property appraisal and assessment throughout the State. The statute provides:\nAll property, real and personal, shall as far as practicable be appraised or valued at its true value in money. When used in this Subchapter, the words \u201ctrue value\u201d shall be interpreted as meaning market value, that is, the price estimated in terms of money at which the property would change hands between a willing and financially able buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or to sell and both having reasonable knowledge of all the uses to which the property is adapted and for which it is capable of being used.\nN.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-283 (1992). The North Carolina General Assembly, and no one else, determines how property in this State should be valued for the purposes of ad valorem taxation. In re Appeal of Amp, Inc., 287 N.C. 547, 215 S.E.2d 752 (1975). The Machinery Act does not provide for consideration of property\u2019s income-producing ability nor for the cost to conduct environmental remediation on the property in determining property value. This is not to say that these factors do not play a part in the value of the property. No doubt a buyer would take them into account when deciding upon a price to offer for the property. However, the Commission relied on these factors without linking them to the price a buyer would pay for the property, which is the statutorily-required measure of true value. Not one of Camel City\u2019s three witnesses provided the Commission with a statement of the fair market value of the property. Thus, even assuming the existence of a buyer who had considered the property\u2019s income-producing ability and the cost of remediation, we have no way of knowing whether this buyer would purchase the property for $125,000. The Commission did hear some evidence about the difficulty of selling the property, and found that \u201cuncertainties concerning the costs of cleaning up the site (if it can be completely remediated) and who might ultimately have to pay these costs would make the subject property extremely difficult to sell.\u201d However, it appears from the record that the Commission did not base its decision on this finding.\nA Property Tax Commission decision is reversible where its \u201cfindings, inferences, conclusions or decisions are ... in excess of statutory authority or jurisdiction of the Commission\u201d or \u201cunsupported by competent, material and substantial evidence in view of the entire record as submitted\u201d such that they prejudice the appellant\u2019s substantial rights. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-345.2 (1992). Absent evidence that the Commission\u2019s decision was based on statutorily-mandated criteria, we find that the Commission exceeded its statutory authority and that its decision is unsupported by competent evidence, resulting in prejudice to the County\u2019s substantial rights.\nWe reverse the Commission\u2019s decision and remand so that the Commission may consider appropriate evidence of the property\u2019s true value as defined by N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 105-283.\nIII.\nThe County also assigns error to the Commission\u2019s consideration of materials which were not submitted ten days before the hearing, as required by the Commission\u2019s rules. Because we remand for rehearing on other grounds, we need not address this assignment of error.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges LEWIS and MARTIN concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WYNN, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Stem, Graham & Klepfer, by James W. Miles, Jr. for petitioner-appellee.", "Office of Forsyth County Attorney, by Bruce E. Colvin, for respondent-appellant." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: THE APPEAL OF CAMEL CITY LAUNDRY COMPANY FROM THE APPRAISAL OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY BY THE FORSYTH COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION AND REVIEW FOR 1990\nNo. 9310PTC965\n(Filed 5 July 1994)\n1. Taxation \u00a7 100 (NCI4th)\u2014 Property Tax Commission\u2019s identification of witness \u2014 no indication of weight attached to testimony\nThere was no merit to appellant\u2019s contention that the manner in which the Property Tax Commission identified its expert witness in the record indicated the weight the Commission attached to his opinion, since the witness was qualified, admitted, and testified as an expert witness, and there was no reason to believe that the Commission understood him to be otherwise.\nAm Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation \u00a7\u00a7 704 et seq.\n2. Taxation \u00a7 82 (NCI4th)\u2014 valuation of property \u2014 nonstatu-tory factors considered \u2014 error\nThe Property Tax Commission overstepped its statutory authority in determining a property\u2019s value where it considered the ability of the subject property to produce income in its contaminated state and the cost to cure the contamination; the Commission did not link these factors to the price a buyer would pay for the property; and none of appellee\u2019s witnesses provided the Commission with a statement of the fair market value of the property.\nAm Jur 2d, State and Local Taxation \u00a7\u00a7 704 et seq.\nAppeal by Forsyth County and its tax assessor from final decision entered 23 April 1993 by the North Carolina Property Tax Commission. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 May 1994.\nStem, Graham & Klepfer, by James W. Miles, Jr. for petitioner-appellee.\nOffice of Forsyth County Attorney, by Bruce E. Colvin, for respondent-appellant." }, "file_name": "0469-01", "first_page_order": 501, "last_page_order": 505 }