Court Opinion

ID: 9520095
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 01:31:15.037174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:45:31.634186
License: Public Domain

PAULSON, Justice
(on petition for rehearing).
The State Board of Equalization has asked this court to reconsider two aspects of our December 5,1979, opinion in the instant case. First, the Board argues that the State Board of Equalization is not an administrative agency as defined by § 28-32-01(1), N.D.C.C., because its actions are not subject to review in the courts of this State. We disagree.
As we indicated in the opinion, Chapter 57-08, N.D.C.C., makes the actions of the Board subject to review in the courts *468of this State. Again, the Board relies heavily on the Northern Pacific decision, 71 N.D. 93, 299 N.W. 696 (N.D.1941), which is not controlling on the issue of whether or not the Board is an administrative agency. The Northern Pacific case was decided on July 10,1941. It-was, however, an application of the law in effect for the Northern Pacific tax assessments for the year of 1939. The 1941 Legislative Assembly enacted the Administrative Agencies Practice Act. Section 28-32-22, N.D.C.C., provided that the effective date of that Act would be July 1, 1941, and that its procedure should be applied to all claims and proceedings filed in or commenced by an administrative agency subsequent to that date. Accordingly, Northern Pacific is no longer applicable.
Secondly, the Board asks us to reconsider that part of our holding requiring assessments to be uniform for purposes of taxation beginning with the 1980 assessments. The Board does not argue with the rationale of that decision, but asks only that we postpone the time when all tax assessments must be uniform until the Legislature has had full opportunity to consider the matter.
The Board makes several assertions, i. e., (1) that the court’s holding will require reassessment in 1980 of real estate in those cities and counties that do not assess real estate annually; (2) that the administrative burden of having to reassess locally assessed property and the cost of notifying owners of locally assessed property of the value of their property as reassessed; (3) of the possible disruption it would cause in the medical school mill levy; and (4) that the task of making a complete reassessment of property in the State would be unduly burdensome because for locally assessed property the annual assessment date would be February first for the 1980 assessments. Some of these assertions are more pertinent than others. We conclude that to avoid as much confusion as possible and to permit a more deliberative process, we should postpone the effective date of the opinion.
Accordingly, we hold that all assessments of property in North Dakota for purposes of taxation must be uniform beginning with the 1981 property tax assessments, unless the Legislature provides for classification of property for purposes of assessment.
ERICKSTAD, C. J., and VANDE WALLE, J., concur.
SAND, Justice.
I adhere to my former opinion.
PEDERSON, Justice.
I do not agree with the changes made by the majority.