Recent Blog Posts

  • May Unimmunized Children be Excluded from School in North Carolina?

    Authored by: on Friday, January 30th, 2015

    A serious measles outbreak is underway in the United States. The outbreak began in late December in California and has since spread to other states. As of this morning, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported 84 confirmed cases in 14 states.

    Public health officials have attributed this and other outbreaks in recent years to declining vaccination rates in some parts of the United States, especially when underimmunized children are concentrated in particular geographic areas.

    Marin county, California, is an example of an area that has a large population of underimmunized children. Earlier this week, the parents of a boy in Marin county made national news when they asked their child’s school to exclude some unvaccinated children for the duration of the outbreak. Their son is a cancer survivor whose treatments have compromised his immunity, making him more susceptible to infections but also medically unable to take the vaccine himself. The parents’ request is focused on the 6.45% of Marin county kindergarteners who are unvaccinated for reasons that aren’t medical.

    What would happen if this situation arose in North Carolina? Could school or public health officials exclude unvaccinated children from school?

    Read more »

  • Tribal Casinos and Property Taxes

    Authored by: on Friday, January 30th, 2015

    UPDATE:  S.L. 2015-262 now excludes  from local property taxes all property sited on land held in trust for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, effective for the 2016 tax year and beyond.

    Gambling is a big business in North Carolina, and it’s about to get bigger.  

    With more than 1,100 hotel rooms, 3,800 slot machines, and 150,000 square feet of gambling space, Harrah’s Cherokee Casino and Resort is one of the twenty largest casinos in the world.  Operated by the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians, the complex attracted 3 million visitors and generated over $500 million in gambling revenue in 2013.

    Later this year, the Cherokee will open another casino on tribal land outside of Murphy, North Carolina.  The new casino will be only about half the size of the Cherokee facility, but that still means 1,200 slot machines and 300-plus hotel rooms.

    Other tribes may soon get in on the action.  The Catawba Indian Nation is seeking federal and state permission to build a huge casino just outside of Charlotte that would be 50% larger than Harrah’s Cherokee Resort.  In eastern North Carolina, the Lumbees continue to work toward federal recognition that could open the door for tribal casinos along I-95.

    There’s obviously money to be made here both for the tribes and for the state, which takes a slice of the gambling proceeds.  How about local governments? They don’t get a cut of the gambling money, but there’s a heck of a lot of property value in these casinos.  Can local governments at least benefit from increased property tax revenues? Read more »

  • Gearing Up For The 2015-16 Legislative Session

    Authored by: on Tuesday, January 27th, 2015

    It’s that time of year again. The newly-elected legislators are settling into their offices, committee chairs are being appointed and committees are being assigned, lobbyists are bustling about Jones Street, and policy priorities are beginning to take shape or emerge. While the North Carolina General Assembly officially returned to work on January 14 for an “organizing session,” the body quickly adjourned with a plan to return this coming Wednesday, January 28. Typically, the legislative activity in the early weeks of the biennium’s long session is a little slow but the speed often begins to pick up in late February.

    Interested in a preview of a few of the new faces at the General Assembly? Or of some of the bills in the pipeline that may be of interest to local government? Or information about how to renew your subscription to the School’s Legislative Reporting Service (LRS)? Or do you simply want a sneak peek at the LRS summary of the new eminent domain bill? If your answer to any of these questions is yes, please read on… Read more »

  • Statutory Permission to Take Up Items Not on the Special Meeting Notice

    Authored by: on Monday, January 26th, 2015

    The Mayor of Transparent City has called a special meeting to allow the city council to designate an interim manager following the former manager’s unexpected departure. In accordance with the open meetings law, the clerk posts a notice stating the time, location, and purpose of the meeting on the council’s bulletin board 48 hours before the meeting. She also e-mails the notice to individuals and media representatives on the council’s “Sunshine List” 48 hours in advance and posts the notice on the city’s website prior to the meeting’s start time.

    The mayor has long dreamed of enlarging one of the city’s parks, which just happens to be located near his home. On the day before the special meeting, he learns that the owner of a large tract next to the park would like to sell the property. The mayor quickly calls the clerk and asks her to add a closed session to the special meeting agenda so that the council may discuss making an offer on the tract.

    The clerk is worried that adding a closed session to the agenda at this point would violate the open meetings law. She voices her concern to the city attorney, who asks whether the full council will be present for the meeting. When the clerk indicates that all members have said that they plan to attend, the attorney advises her not to worry. He tells her that G.S. 160A-71(b) permits the council to take up matters that don’t appear on the special meeting notice, provided all members are present or any absent members have executed a written waiver of their right to attend. Is the city attorney right? Read more »

  • Voting Rules for Adopting Ordinances

    Authored by: on Wednesday, January 21st, 2015

    A property owner petitioned for a rezoning in a North Carolina city. The city council voted to send the matter to the planning board for a recommendation, and voted to set the public hearing. Now, following the public hearing, the board is ready vote on the rezoning. Does it take a two-thirds vote for the rezoning ordinance to pass, or just a simple majority?

    Under the voting rules in G.S. 160A-75, if the date on which the board votes on the rezoning is regarded as the “date of introduction,” an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the actual membership of the council will be required to adopt the measure. If an earlier date is deemed to be the date of introduction, a majority of the members of the council will be sufficient. Which standard applies? If the two-thirds vote requirement applies and is not achieved, is the rezoning rejected, or may the council vote on the matter a second time at a subsequent meeting at which a majority vote will be sufficient? If this scenario involved a county rather than a city, would the answers to these questions be different? Read more »

  • The Nuts and Bolts of Property Tax Liens

    Authored by: on Friday, January 16th, 2015

    I’ve blogged recently about the importance of record ownership as of January 1 and January 6 for property tax listing and collection.  Today I continue this New Year’s theme and discuss the property tax liens on real property that arise each January 1. Read more »

  • Understanding the Fair Labor Standards Act’s Fluctuating Workweek

    Authored by: on Thursday, January 15th, 2015

    John is an EMS dispatcher whose hours vary unpredictably from week to week. John always works at least 40 hours per week, but some weeks John works 42 hours, some weeks he works 48 hours and occasionally he works close to 60. Ellen is a water plant operator who weekly hours vary as well, but they vary on a scheduled basis. Ellen works 32 hours every first and third week of the month and 48 hours every second and fourth week. Both John and Ellen are nonexempt employees. The city for which John and Ellen work pays cash overtime instead of using compensatory time off. Yet neither John nor Ellen earns overtime at the rate of time-and-one-half. Without violating the FLSA, the city pays both John and Ellen at just one-half their regular rate of pay for each hour over 40 that they work in a given work week. How can that be? Read more »