Fallon County v. State, 87-298

• Decision Date: 27 April 1988
• Docket Number: No. 87-298,87-298
• Citation: 753 P.2d 338,231 Mont. 443,45 St.Rep. 748
• Parties: FALLON COUNTY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE of Montana, et al., Defendants and Respondents.
• Court: Montana Supreme Court

Page 338

753 P.2d 338

231 Mont. 443

FALLON COUNTY, et al., Plaintiffs and Appellants, v. STATE of Montana, et al., Defendants and Respondents.

No. 87-298.

Supreme Court of Montana.

Submitted April 4, 1988.

Decided April 27, 1988.

Daniel L. Schwarz, Schwarz and Schwarz, Broadus, for plaintiffs and appellants.

R. Bruce McGinnis, Dept. of Revenue, Helena, David W. Woodgerd (argued), for defendants and respondents.

SHEEHY, Justice.

In 1985, the state legislature, through its General Appropropriation Bill (H.B. 500), provided state funding for the salaries of county assessors for fiscal year 1987 at the level of 70%. The remaining 30% was to be paid by the several counties. In 1987, the state legislature continued the apportionment of the county assessors' salaries between the state and the several counties for this biennium but reduced the state participation to 66%, with the several counties to pick up the remaining 34%.

Fallon County, 19 other counties, and one county assessor brought suit in the District Court, First Judicial District, Lewis and Clark County against the State of Montana, acting through the Governor and the Department of Revenue, challenging the apportionment between the state and counties of the salaries of the county assessors. After a hearing, and receipt of briefs, the District Court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the state and entered judgment thereon on June 17, 1987, dismissing Fallon County's action on the merits, and holding that the provisions of H.B. 500 which funded only 70% of the salaries for county assessors does not violate Art. VIII, Sec. 3 of the 1972 Montana Constitution. Fallon County has appealed the District Court decision to this Court and on consideration, we affirm.

The section in issue is in Art. VIII, of the state constitution. It provides in pertinent part:

Section 3. Property tax administration. The state shall appraise, assess, and equalize the valuation of all property which is to be taxed in the manner provided by law.

Prior to the 1972 Montana Constitution, the assessment and valuation of property for tax purposes was determined at a county level, subject to review by the former State Board of Equalization. During the Constitutional Convention of 1972, it was contended that the county system had inadequately equalized property values statewide. It was contended during the Convention that the then recent case of Serrano v. Priest (1971), 5 Cal.3d 584, 96 Cal.Rptr. 601, 487 P.2d 1241, mandated a change in Montana's assessment, valuation and equalization system to avoid equal protection attacks on the method of state funding for elementary education. The ultimate result was the adoption of Art. VIII, Sec. 3 above quoted.

Following the adoption of the 1972 State Constitution, the legislature, to implement the new assessment system, provided that all county assessors became agents of the Department of Revenue (DOR), and they remain state agents presently. Section 15-8-102, MCA. County assessors were omitted from the list of county officers (Sec. 25-605, R.C.M. (1947)), but subsequently regained county officer status in 1977. Section 7-4-2203(1)(i), MCA.

Beginning in 1973, all county assessors' salaries were paid from state funds through the DOR. In 1985, the legislature changed this pay structure through H.B. 500 which provided for state payment of 70% of the county assessors' salaries applying to fiscal year 1987. The 1987 legislature has continued the apportionment of such salaries in this biennium by funding an amount sufficient to pay 66% of county assessors' salaries. The remainder is to be supplied by the several counties.

In the District Court and on appeal, Fallon County and its co-plaintiffs argue that Art. VIII, Sec. 3 grants a right to the people to have their property assessed by the State of Montana and to have the state remain solely accountable for such assessments; that the designation of assessors as "county officials" is not sufficient to change the constitutional duty of the state to assess property and to pay for the personnel employed for that purpose; that the assessment of taxes is a duty placed on the state regardless of the form of government at the county level chosen by the people, and that though assessors may perform duties in addition to those provided for in the constitution relating to assessment, the elemental accountability for assessors lies with the DOR. Additionally, Fallon County argues that the apportionment of such salaries, because of the mills limitation applicable to levies by counties, has the effect of using up county funds that would otherwise be available for other county activities. Some of these issues are raised by Fallon County because the District Court, in its order granting summary judgment in this matter held that the office of elected county assessor is a county office, that it is a permissive office, and that the assessor has some duties which are in addition to those required relating to assessment.

When a legislative course of action expressed in statutes or budgetary laws is tested for constitutionality under the State Constitution, our review is circumscribed by certain principles. We must give the state constitutional provision a broad and liberal construction consistent with the intent of the people adopting it to serve the needs of a growing state. State ex rel. Fenner v. Keating (1917), 53 Mont. 371, 163 P. 1156. The constitutional provision should receive a reasonable and practical interpretation in accord with common sense. Cottingham v. State Board of Examiners (1958), 134 Mont. 1, 17, 328 P.2d 907, 912. The constitutionality of a legislative enactment is prima facie presumed, and every intendment in its favor will be presumed, unless its unconstitutionality appears beyond a reasonable doubt. State ex rel....