The Salt Lake herald. [volume] (Salt Lake City [Utah]) 1870-1909, 1896-08-06

a few days ago the state board of
equalization, having been seriously
hindered in its work through the fail
ure of several counties to make reports
within the time fixed by law, sent a
communication to the attorney general,
asking for an opinion.
The law requires that county boards
of equalization should complete their
work by July l, and sets out that any
act performed by them after the second
Monday in July shall not be recog-
niZed. Several OF the counties con-
tinued their work until after the first
Monday in August, while the law
states thai county auditors who fail to
report as stated above may forfeit their
compensation. Eight or ten counties
failed to comply, while Cache, Summit,
Wayne, Willard and Garfield have not
yet been heard from.
OF the counties so far reported nearly
ali hold their own and several, es-
pecialay the smaller counties, show
quite an increase in the valuations over
lest year The most notable gain is in
Sanpete, where the increase is $3.50, 000
Washington shows small decrease,
which is explained by losses through
drouth and the heavy sales of horses
and cattle. The greatest decrease is
in Weber cCuuty, which is a round
million under the valuation of 1895.
ATTORNEY GENERALS OPINION.
Following is the opinion of the attor-
ney general, referred to above:
Salt Lake City, Utah, August 4, 1896.
To the Honorable State Board of Equali-
cation, Salt Lake City:
Gentlemen-I have before me your
favor of July 81, asking to be advised
upon the following: This board has
been informed that the boards of equali-
cation in some of the counties are still
continuing to make attachments in the
taxes; please inform this board, first,
whether any act of any county commits
SlonerS, pretending to act as county
board of equalization, after the second
Monday in July, is legal; second, whether
any county officer can recognize any act
of the county commissioners, sitting or
acting as a county board of equalization,
after the second Monday in July, without
making hirHself and his bondSmen liable"
Answering your first interrogatory, l
am of opinion that the board of county
com tnissioners, sitting as a county board
Of equalization, have no authority in law
Ia continue its session after the second
Monday in July; under section 20 Of the
revenue act, page 444 of the Laws of Utah
Of 1896. il is made the duty of the board
Ito meet on the last Monday in June in
each year 10 examine the assessment
books and equalize the assessment of
property in the county" 1t must con-
Iinue in session from time to time until
the business of equalization is disposed
Of, but not later than the second Monday
in July. You will observe that the last
clause above set out is an eXress limita-
ton upon their authority to make any
changes IN the assessment roll, after the
second Monday in July, inasmuch as they
are prohibited from sitting as a board
subsequent to that date. Section 81 of
the same act provides: THE county au-
diter must, on or before the last Monday
in. July of each year, prepare from the
assessment book of each year as cor
rected by the county commissioners du-
plicate statements, etc, showing in sep
arate columns the total value of all pro-
perty; section IS makes it the duty of
the county auditor, as soon as such state
ments are prepared, TO transmit them
by mail. one to the state auditor and one
to the state board of equalization. It
will be observed from these provisions
that il was the intention Of the legisla-
ture to limit the time that the county
board of equalization should sit, in order
that the county auditor might have time
between the second Monday in July and
the last Monday of July in which to pre-
pare this statement and transmit it to
the state auditor and the state board of
equalization, as it is evident that such
statement could not be made until the
county board of equalization had COM
peted the changes in the roll.
Again. subdivisions and 9 of section
So of the revenue act. in defining the
duties of the state board of equalization,
Nrovides that they shall meet on the
sild Monday in July for the purpose of
1ualizing the values of taxable property
the several counties in this state for
e purpose of taxation" In order to do
sis, it will be necessary for the state
GARD of equalization to have in its pos
session the duplicate statements from the
county auditor, which he is required to
make up from the assessment book after
the same has been corrected by the coun-
ty commissioners and transmitted to the
said board.
These statements, as will be observed
are required to be prepared by the au-
iitor Oh or before the last Monday in
July. and as soon as prepared be trans
ruided by the auditor to the state board
of equalization. If the board of county
commissioners, sitting as board OF
equaliZa ton, are authorized TO continue !
as such after the second Monday in July,
the county auditor would not be able to
prepare his statement on or before the
last Monday in July. nor would the state 4
board of equalization be in a position TO
transact the business required of 1t at
its meeting on the third Monday in July.
It thus becomes important that each /
board and officer perform the duties pre- /
scribed by law, within the time limited
by Law, and that to permit any other rule 4
10 obtain in these matters would result /
in confusion and complications which the |
law clearly intended to provide against.
Under these provisions of the law, / /
am of opinion that ii is clearly the duty |
continue in session not later than the I
second Monday in July, and that the /
county auditor must complete the dupli-
cate statements required by section 90 :
on or before the last Monday in July of |
each year, and Immediately transmit /
Them TO the state auditor and the state |
board of equalization. The provisions of
section 20, supra, limit the time for the /
sitting Of the county board of equaiiza- I
ton and these provisions are prohibitory, !
and any act or pretended act of the said |
board after the second Monday in July
would be illegal and void.
AS to your second interrogatory l am !
of opinion that no county officer would |
be required in law to recognize any act !
of the county commissioners, acting as a
county board of equalization. performed |
after the second Monday in July, with I
out rendering himself and his bondsmen
liable.
The legislature has defined what are |
the duties of the county officers respec-
lively, and it is the duty of each officer !
to obey the law and be governed and |
controlled by its provisions.
/ have the honor to be,
Very respectfully yours,
A. c. BISHOP,
Attorney General.
PAYMENT OF ASSESSORS.