Opinion ID: 1760281
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Library Cross-Appeal

Text: The Library urges, for its cross-appeal, that the circuit court erred in finding that the proceeds of one mill from the Amendment 30 tax for libraries was properly included in the Assessor's Certification of the total ad valorem rate. [8] This is the same issue raised by the City as point four in its appeal, but we choose to discuss the issue under the Library's cross-appeal. The Library first contends that the one mill should not have been included in the Assessor's certification for the redevelopment district financing, because Amendment 30 states that proceeds of taxes for the maintenance of public libraries shall be . . . used only for that purpose. Ark. Const. amend. 30, § 2. In addition to its reliance on Amendment 30, the Library also relies on certain provisions of Act 2231 of 2005, now codified at Ark.Code Ann. § 14-168-301(18)(B)(ii) (Supp.2005). We decide this issue, however, based on Amendment 30. The City's argument with respect to Amendment 30 is much like its argument relating to Amendment 74. It maintains that Amendment 78 did not totally repeal Amendment 30 but only worked a slight modification to its language that the one mill be used for the purpose of maintaining and operating a public city library. . . . Ark. Const. amend. 30, § 1. The City claims, as a result, that the modification required by Amendment 78 is such that although the existing mill rate is left untouched as to the current assessed value of property within a redevelopment district, any increase in the assessed value of property in the area obtaining after the effective date of the ordinance approving the redevelopment plan for the district shall be used to pay any indebtedness incurred for the redevelopment project. . . . Amend. 78 § 1(d). The City explains that everywhere throughout the state, except for the properly enacted redevelopment districts, the full sweep of Amendment 30's provisions remain in full force and effect. The City again points to the general repealer clause in Amendment 78 and black-letter law that a more recent constitutional amendment necessarily supersedes or implicitly repeals an earlier provision. The City argues that although the General Assembly could have easily added the Amendment 30 millages to the exclusion for debt service in Amendment 78, it did not. It concludes that the General Assembly possessed full knowledge of the constitutional scope of its power and certainly of the effect that Amendment 78 had on Amendment 30. Accordingly, the City presumes that the General Assembly and the voters wanted part of the mills in Amendment 30 to be diverted from the libraries for redevelopment financing. The City's argument fails again for the same reason that it did concerning Amendment 74. Amendment 30 provides, in pertinent part: The proceeds of any tax voted for the maintenance of a city public library shall be segregated by the city officials and used only for that purpose.  Ark. Const. amend. 30, § 2 (emphasis added). Again, there is no notice to the voters that by adopting Amendment 78, it would in any way impair the funding for public libraries under Amendment 30. See City of Hot Springs, supra . We reverse the circuit court on cross-appeal. Affirmed in part. Reversed and remanded in part. Reversed and remanded on cross-appeal.