AG OPINIONS
Can sales tax dedicated capital improvement funds
be used for lease rental payments?
Attorney General Opinion No. 2010-068
May the City of Jonesboro use part of the funds under a city sales tax devoted to “capi- tal improvements of a public nature” for pay- ment of lease rental payments owed under an interlocal agreement for jail expenses?
Te Attorney General finds that it is likely
that funds devoted to “capital improvements of a public nature” may be used for payment of lease rental payments owed under an interlo- cal agreement for jail expenses. Te Attorney General explains that Section 26-75-206 of the Code (Repl. 2002), provides that in the nature of a “lease rental” devoted to making capital im- provements: “Any city levying the tax as permit- ted in this subchapter is authorized to pledge all or any part of the revenues from the tax levied pursuant to this subchapter to the payment of lease rentals . . . for the purpose of providing all or part of the funds for the construction, reconstruction, extension, equipment, acquisi- tion, or improvement of any capital improve- ments of a public nature”. First, the voters must have pledged the tax
revenues to the making of “capital improve- ments”. Secondly, the city must pledge some or all those tax revenues to the payment of capital lease rentals. Te Attorney General said that with respect to the latter of these conditions, it is unclear from the factual recitation whether the refer- enced interlocal agreement actually obligates the city to devote sales tax revenues to payment of the 24.61% of the rental obligation that the parties have agreed is reasonably allocable as “costs of the facility itself.” A finder of fact might well conclude that a pledge of this nature is required under the above quoted statute.
Attorney General Opinion No. 2010-050
Under Arkansas law, what is the relevant period for filing petitions calling for a local
14
option election regarding the sale of alcohol- ic beverages for a precinct in a wet county?
It is my opinion that local option petitions in all likelihood must be filed in accordance with A.C.A. § 14-14-915(b)(1), as amended by Act 1480, i.e., “not less than 90 calendar days nor more than 120 calendar days” before the elec- tion. Te requirement that petitions be filed “not less than 90 calendar days” before the elec- tion is plainly constitutional and not in conflict with Article 5, Section 1 of the Arkansas Con- stitution which states in relevant part “the time for filing an initiative petition shall not be fixed at less than 60 nor more than 90 days before the election at which it is to be voted upon”. In my opinion, A.C.A. § 14-14-915(b)(1), as amended by Act 1480 of 2009, does not con- flict with Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1. Te Attorney General further concluded that in all likelihood local option petitions must be filed in accordance with A.C.A. § 14-14-915(b) (1), as amended by Act 1480, i.e., “not less than 90 calendar days nor more than 120 calendar days” before the election.
Attorney General Opinion No. 2010-043
Does the Arkansas Constitution prohibit
the creation of energy efficiency improve- ment districts? Can the special assessments of energy efficiency improvement districts be given lien priority over a mortgage?
Te Arkansas Constitution does not prohibit
the creation of energy efficiency improvement districts. Te Arkansas constitution does not prohibit, in general, either the creation of im- provement districts or the imposition of special assessments for local improvements.
Indeed,
Arkansas law involving improvement districts and assessments predates our current constitu- tion.
Te Arkansas Supreme Court has held, how- ever, that assessments for public improvements
Attorney General Opinion No. 2010-079
Should a qualified elector’s signature on a
petition for an initiative or referendum sub- mitted pursuant to Ark. Const. art. 5, § 1, be
COUNTY LINES, FALL 2010
MARK WHITMORE AAC Chief Counsel
are not taxes. Any enactment’s effect on energy efficient improvement districts will depend on its particular provisions. Te Attorney General found that the General Assembly has authority to make an energy efficiency improvement dis- trict’s assessment lien prior to a mortgage lien.
Attorney General Opinion No. 2010-066
Can the $20 booking and administrative fee under Act 117 of 2007, ACA 12-41-506, be used for medical expenses of inmates or other related expenses, such as transporta- tion of inmates?
“Yes” with regard to medical expenses. Te booking and administration fee assessed under subdivision (b)(1) of this section shall be de- posited into a special fund within the county treasury to be used exclusively for the
tenance, operation, and capital expenditures of a county jail or regional detention facility.
main- In
accordance with A.C.A. § 12-41-505(a), the prisoner is ultimately responsible for the costs of medical and other services. However, this should have no bearing on whether the book- ing and administration fee is properly applied to expenses. Medical expenses fall within a per- mitted use of the funds, “operation” of the jail. Te same conclusion would seem to apply in the case of a county having a regional detention facility. Te Attorney General was unable to reach a general conclusion with respect to “transporta- tion” or other “related” expenses as referenced generally by the question. He said the answer depends upon whether the expenses at issue were incurred as an act, instance, or process of operating the jail or regional facility.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60