school district was clearly a "taxing unit" for purposes of Amendment 59 even though its territory spanned two or more counties
How later courts described this case
- school district was clearly a "taxing unit" for purposes of Amendment 59 even though its territory spanned two or more counties
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBERT L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. I agree completely tJustice ice, dissenting opinion that the majority has engaged in a tortured and illogical reading of Amendment 59 (Art. 16 §§ 14, 15, and 16 of the Arkansas Constitution). That amendment, without question, deals with countywide reappraisals and the effect of such reappraisals on taxing units within the county. There is nothing in the amendment to suggest otherwise. A countywide reappraisal has only occurred in Saline County. To read the amendment as embracing residents of a taxing unit who live in a different county runs counter to the clear language of the amendment.
The General Assembly enacted Act 848 of 1981, now codified at Ark. Code Ann. § 26-26-408 (Repl. 1997), to deal with the situation of millage rollbacks in fringe taxing units and how to tax residents of different counties. The majority, without saying so, has effectively ruled that statute unconstitutional by its interpretation of Amendment 59 to mean that a rollback of rates based on a countywide reappraisal in one county applies to residents of a different county who live in the same taxing unit. If a statute which has been on the books for twenty years is to be placed in constitutional limbo, that issue should at least be addressed by this court.
The majority is also wrong in stating that the class representatives amended their complaint following our decision in Barker v. Frank, 327 Ark. 589 , 939 S.W.2d 837 (1997) (Barker I), and “restricted” the defined class to taxpayers in the school district in Saline County. That language indicates that Garland County residents were originally part of the class of taxpayers. That was not the case, however. According to the style of Barker I, the action was brought on behalf of all citizens, residents, taxpayers, inhabitants, and owners of real property in the school district in Saline County. In the body of the opinion, the “taxpayers” were only persons who owned land in Saline County. And, again, Saline County is where the countywide reappraisal occurred. Prior pleadings in the record never suggested that Garland County taxpayers were involved, for obvious reasons.
Should there be a discrepancy in the taxes paid between Garland County and Saline County residents of the school district, that may be stuff for later litigation. But that is no reason to give a twisted reading to Amendment 59. The majority opinion adds to our woes by reading language into Amendment 59 that is simply not there. I respectfully dissent.
Corbin, ]., joins.