Alabama Attorney General Opinion 1979-0175

79- OO 176 4. IP OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL LEE L. HALE ' DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL CHARLES A. GRADDICK ATTORNEY GENERAL STATE OF ALABAMA APR 26 1979 ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING 64 NORTH UNION STREET MONTGOMERY. ALABAMA 36530 WILLIAM M. BEKURS. JR. EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT WALTER S. TURNER CHIEF ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL JANIE NOBLES ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Honorable H. B. Wise Judge of Probate Geneva County, Alabama Geneva, Alabama 36340 (205) 8325640 HERBERT I. BURSON, JR. B. FRANK LOEB PHILIP C. DAVIS RON BOWOEN JOHN J. BRECKENRIDGE WILLIAM L. THOMPSON Assistant Attorneys General Revenue Department Taxation - Ad Valorem Tax - Reappraisal Each tax recipient entity in the county is to bear its pro rata portion of the expenses of the revaluation program. The means of financing the program cannot be used to throw a greater portion of these expenses upon certain entities to the benefit of others. Accordingly, those entities which chose to pay the reappraisal expenses on a current basis as they became due are not responsible for the payment of any of the principal and interest on the warrants issued pursuant to Code of Alabama 1975, §00-7-90 - 40-7-100 inclusive. Dear Judge Wise: In your letter of March 20, 1979, addressed to this office, you state that certain entities (specifically the several municipalities in Geneva County and the Geneva County Hospital Board) which receive proceeds from ad valorem taxes chose to pay their pro rata share of the expenses of the reappraisal program as the same became due, and that other such entities did not pay these ex- penses as they became due, and that, therefore, the County issued warrants pursuant to Act 1092, Acts of Alabama 1973, page 1855 (now codified as Code of Alabama 1975, §00-7-90 - 40-7-100 inclusive). Section 9 of that Act (now 00-7-98 of the Code) provides, in pertinent part, that " . . . The principal and interest ton the warrant] shall be paid pro rata by each such tax recipient . . . in the proportions which the amount of ad valorem tax received . . . bears to the total . . ." -2- You ask whether, vel non, those entities which elected to pay the reappraisal expenses as they became due are also subject to paying, pro rata, the principal and interest on the warrants that were isssued to pay the expenses allocable to those entities which chose not to pay as they became due. The answer to your question is that those entities, the Hospital Board and the municipalities in Geneva County, which chose to pay the reappraisal expenses on a current basis, as they became'due, are not responsible for the payment of any of the principal and interest on the warrants issued to pay the balance of these expenses. It is the clear intent of the Legislature, expressed unam- biguously in the statute when read as a whole, that each tax recipient entity is to bear its pro rata share or portion of the expenses of the revaluation program. The means of financing the program cannot be used to throw a greater portion of these expenses upon certain entities, to the benefit of others. Those entities which elected to pay on a current basis have not had the use of the funds used to pay their portion of these expenses, while the other entities have had the benefit of the issuance of these warrants. Therefore those entities which did not pay on a current basis must bear the full expense of the issuance of the warrants as well as the principal thereof, prorated among themselves. Sincerely, CHARLES A. GRADDICK Attorney General By- Philip C. Davis Assistant Attorney General PD:mr