AAC F A M I L Y & F R I E N D S
» » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » » »
AG Opinions: Wet/dry petitions to jail reimbursement funds
AG OPINION NO. 2015-133 Te AG concluded that petitions signed under prior law on a wet/dry issue could not be submitted and counted under a new and materially different law. Te General Assembly reduced the signature requirements for wet/dry petitions from 38 percent to 15 percent and also amend- ed the text of the measure reflected on the petitions. Tose signing the original petition were declaring their support for a measure that was materially different from those signing petitions signed under the new act. Te AG further explained that the signatures collected under the text of the original petition did not strictly comply with the text of the measure to be adopted. Terefore, the court would have little difficultly concluding that signatures collected under the prior law, before the amended law and text, cannot support holding an election under ACA § 3-8-602 as amended.
AG OPINION NO. 2016-001 Te AG addressed questions regarding special school millage elections. Te AG determined that a school may conduct a school millage election under ACA § 6-14-102(b) on the same day as the pref- erential primary. Te AG noted that the law requires approval by the Commission- er of Education. Te AG also determined that ACA § 6-14-102(b)(2) requires the school millage to be included as a single issue on a separate ballot (apart from the party primary ballots and the nonpartisan
We want your news
12
ballot). Te AG concluded that a court would hold that the requirement of a school election law (under title 6) that no other issues appear on the ballot (and thus a separate ballot is required) supersedes the requirement of general election law (under title 7) that all questions appear on the party and nonpartisan ballots. Te AG explained that when statutes conflict on the same subject matter, the more specific provisions of law prevail over the general provisions of law.
AG OPINION NO. 2015-131 Amendment 79 of the Arkansas Con- stitution adopted an annual credit against the ad valorem property tax on a home- stead of not less than $300. Te General Assembly increased the credit to $350 in 2009. Te AG explained that a person who lives in a house they don’t own (a relative of the deceased landowners) is not entitled to the homestead credit. ACA § 26-26-1122 defines “property owner” as: an owner of record, a mortgagee, a buyer under a recorded contract to purchase, a person holding a recorded life-estate or under certain circumstances, etc. Te AG further indicated that the opinion is con- sistent with the published guidance of the ACD and ACD’s guidelines in the areas of assessment, equalization, and collection of taxes should be afforded deference as pro- vided by ACA § 26-24-106.
AG OPINION NO. 2015-123 Te Attorney General addressed wheth-
AG Opinions
er the Arkansas Department of Correc- tions (ADC) can use funds appropriated by the Gen- eral Assembly for reimburs- ing counties for holding state inmates from County Jail Reimbursement Fund to make payment to contractors holding inmates for the ADC out of state. Te AG explained that the General Assembly appropriation for county jail back up un- der ACA § 19-5-1045 is for “reimbursing counties for housing prisoners” sentenced to the ADC. It does not allow ADC to use the appropriation for another purpose or another entity. Also, ACA § 12-27-114(b) explicitly directs the payments under the fund be based upon certified invoices by the county as to the number of days that inmates were held in the county jail. Te AG made clear the ADC cannot use funds expressly to be used to reimburse counties to satisfy ADC contractual obligations for holding inmates with private contractors (in state or out of state). Te AG also not- ed that AG Opinion No. 2013-058 made clear that the authority of county sheriffs to transfer a state inmate is generally lim- ited to another county or regional jail in Arkansas (not to a jail or detention facility out of state).
Mark Whitmore AAC Chief Counsel
Did an aspect of county government “make news” recently in your county? Did any
of your county officials or staff get an award, appointment or pat on the back? Please let us know about it for the next edition of County Lines magazine. You can write up a couple of paragraphs about it, or if something ran in your local paper, call and ask them to forward the story to us. We encourage you or your newspaper to attach a good quality photo, too: e-mail
csmith@arcounties.org.
COUNTY LINES, SPRING 2016
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