Attorney General of Arkansas — Opinion
STEVE CLARK, Attorney General
Honorable Rodger Langster State Representative 29 Colonial Heights Heber Springs, AR 72543
Dear Representative Langster:
You have requested the Opinion of this Office on several questions regarding funding of electronic data processing equipment for counties. Specifically, you asked for an interpretation of Ark. Stat. Ann. 84-801.1 which provides for electronic data processing equipment to be placed in a designated county office for the purpose of preparing tax records and for other county purposes. The specific feature of the Act which is the essence of your question, states:
If any county office, other than the county clerk, is designated to prepare the tax books, said office shall be reimbursed therefore in the manner provided by law.
First, you ask “what method or methods are used to reimburse any county office?” The method for reimbursing any county office for the operation of such electronic data processing equipment is the same method as would be used to reimburse the county assessor for the salaries and expenses of his office pursuant to Ark. Stat. Ann. 12-807 (Repl. 1979). The statute provides that it is the policy of the State that the assessor be reimbursed by the various taxing districts of the county on a pro-rata basis. This is, apparently, the only law dealing with the issue of how to reimburse county offices for their expenses in the performance of their official duties related to taxation, other than the office of county clerk. This is the law which should be followed, then, in reimbursing whatever county office is given the responsibility for the electronic date processing equipment.
Your second questions asks “can the total cost of the computer and the operating cost be pro-rated back to all the taxing units?” The answer is that such costs should be pro-rated back to all the taxing units pursuant to the statute cited above.
Your third questions asks whether “if the cost can be pro-rated, is this total cost pro-rated in the first (1st) year or over a total life expectancy of the equipment?” The answer to this question is that the cost can be pro-rated either in the first year or over the total life expectance of the equipment at the discretion of the county.
Your fourth question asks “can the quorum court create a computer office and place it under the jurisdiction of the county judge, and, if this can be done, can the entire cost of the computer and related expenses be pro-rated to all taxing units?” The law dealing with electronic data processing equipment provides that such equipment can be places in “any county office.” However, some county offices, such as that of the county judge, traditionally have not performed any function with regards to assessing, collecting, or distributing tax monies. In other words, whereas other county offices, such as the collector, assessor, clerk and treasurer, have had actual ministerial functions regarding taxation, the county judge’s office has, rather, had administrative functions with regards to tax monies. There is some question, then, whether it was the intention of the Legislature to include the county judge’s office among the offices in which electronic data processing equipment could be placed.
Your fifth question, as I understand it, reiterates question number 2, which asks whether the cost of the computer can be pro-rated to all taxing units. The answer, then, is that such cost may be pro-rated pursuant to the statute cited.
Again, your sixth question seems to reiterate your fourth question concerning the method for reimbursement if the electronic data processing equipment is placed in the county judges office. Assuming that it could be placed in the county judges office, reimbursement there would, then, also be pursuant to the procedures set our in Ark. Stat. Ann. 12-806.
The foregoing opinion, which I hereby approve, was prepared by Assistant Attorney General Tim Humphries.