Court Opinion

ID: 9531529
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:12:41.472811+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:30.369378
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(specially concurring).
I would straight out reverse the trial court because the power of the State Board of Equalization is not limited to the equalization of assessments “within classes of property.” The State Board can equalize “between classes of property,” i.e., between Ag and Non-Ag property.
SDCL 10-11-25 and 10-11-28 give the County Board of Equalization the power to equalize between different assessment districts and between different classes of property. SDCL 10-11-28 provides:
Such county board of equalization shall equalize the assessment of all real and personal property between the several assessment districts of the county having local boards of equalization. It shall raise or lower, if necessary, each class of property upon a percentage basis covering such class as a whole within such assessment district, (emphasis added).
The statute clearly allows the equalization of assessments of all real property — not just Ag or Non-Ag, and not just one class at a time. The reading placed on this statute by the majority opinion is incredibly narrow. The Lake Poinsett case is clearly distinguishable and not controlling.
The constitutional provisions cited in the majority opinion do not prohibit this power —they merely allow for different taxable rates for different classes of property. The legislature was within its authority in providing the County Board of Equalization (and the State Board under SDCL 10-2-1.1 and 10-11-42) the right to equalize assessments between classes and districts.