HomeMy WebLinkAbout124-90 RESOLUTIONRESOLUTION NO.
124-90
A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY ATTORNEY TO
APPEAL THE CASE OF SUE PHILLIPS, ASSESSOR AND
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF EQUALIZATION v.
CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS REGARDING AD
VALOREM TAXES ON THE ART CENTER PROPERTY.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE CITY OF
FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS:
t'
Section 1.
and directed to
stating that
exclusively for
status for the
attached hereto
PASSED AND
S":„
"CATTEST:sca
`
4
That the City Attorney is hereby authorized
appeal the recent,decision.of Judge William Storey
the Arts Center. 'property =would ' not be used
public purposes, thereby denying the tax exempt
Arts Center. A copy of the court's decision is
"A" and made a. part hereof.
marked Exhibit
1 4 '
APPROVED. this
7th day of A„,Gt , 1990.
APPROVED:
By:
_ZZeedto-Pel, ea -a -4,y
Mayor
t:JUN 291990
CIRCUIT/CHANCERY COURT:1 LIAM A. STOREY
Fourth Judicial Circuit c Judge
Juvenile Division sup : 3 fle Division
Washington and Madison Counties
Courts Building • Fayetteville, Arkansas 72701 • 501-521-8400 Ext. 508
June 28; 1990
Ginger P. Crisp, EsqS.
Associate General Counsel
University of Arkansas
-421 Ad inistrati.cn. Buildingr=A
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Jerry E. Rose, Esq.
Fayetteville City Attorney
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
George Butler, Esq.
Washington County Attorney
207 E. Center Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
x
Re:Sue Phillips, Assessor, et al. vs. City of
Fayetteville, et al.
Washington County Circuit No. CIV 89-1075
Dear Attorneys: -
At the request of the parties, this case is submitted for
decision on the stipulations of fact, exhibits, and briefs filed
for record and appearing in the case file. I am advised by the
parties that the matter is now ready for disposition.
The primary issue before the court is whether the property,
upon which the Walton Arts Center will be constructed is exempt
from -ad vorum taxation in accordance with the provisions of
Article XVI Sec. 5(b) of the Constitution of 1874. The exemption
applies to property used "exclusively" for public purposes.
As pointed out in the Defendants' excellent brief, two
issues are disputed by the parties: one, whether the real estate
EXHIBIT A
r
June 28, 1990
Page Two
which has been purchased as the site for the Arts Center is being
used for a public purpose during construction and, two, whether
the Walton Arts Center willbe used exclusively for public
purposes?
The Supreme Court in Hilger v. Harding College, 231 Ark. 686
331 S.W. 2d 851 (1960), in Off -Street Parking Development
District No. 1 v. City of Fayetteville, 284 Ark. 453, 683 S.W. 2d
229`"w(1985),'"anu ia':.: Car.li, Y -...ca Gv ,. .has made It
.quite clear the
property must "actually and directly and exclusively" be used for
a public purpose to be entitled to an exemption from taxation.
From an examination of the parties stipulation, more
particularly the Affidavit of R. William Mitchell (Exhibit 7),
many decisions relating to the use of and accessibility to the
Center are yet to be made. It is also unclear whether the Center
will in fact compete with similar facilities located in Northwest
Arkansas. These are questions which, in my opinion, cannot be
answered until such time as the facility is constructed and
operating in accordance with yet to be determined policies.
Therefore, I am in agreement with the Defendants' assertion to
the effect that the issues relating to use of the facility are
not ripe for decision by the court.
As to the question relating to the tax-exempt status of the
property prior to the opening of the Arts Center, a number of,
cases are found touching on this issue. Although the
contemplated use of the property by the entities seeking the
exception is an important factor to be considered, it seems the
actual ,type of use to which the property may ultimately be put,
is _determinativeas to questions involving entitlement to an
exemption. See Hudgins v. City of Hot Springs 168 Ark. 467, 270
S.W. 594 (1925), Foresee v. Board of Directors of Boraman Special
School !District, 213 Ark. 567, 211 S.W. 2d 432 (1948). If the
type of use contemplated by the entity seeking the exemption is
exclusively public, as well as the actual character of the use to
which the property can be put, the property will be entitled to
tax-exempt status.
Itappears the case before the court is distinguishable from
Hudgins' and Foresee, supra. In those cases, the contemplated
uses of the property as well as the actual use to which the
property could be put, i.e., a city dump and school gymnasium,
were clearly, by definition, public uses without any suggestion
June 28, 1990
Page Three
or possibility of non-public uses. Here, Defendants contemplate
an exclusive public use of the facility when constructed,
however', its actual use may not be exclusively public in nature.
Simply stated, if a possibility exists that the .property can or
will be used for non-public purposes and that issue is raised by
the taxing authority, the exemption will not apply prospectively.
Based on the foregoing, it is my opinion the Defendants, the
_ City of Fayetteville and the Board of Trustees of the University
-of..krkansas, who.seek the exemption for the property which is the
site of the Walton 'Arts Center have failed to meet the strict
burden of proof imposed upon entities seeking such exemptions.
Accordingly, the property owned by the Defendants, more
particularly described in Exhibit 1, of the parties' stipulations
of fact, is subject to ad vorum taxation.
I request that Mr. Butler prepare a precedent consistent
with my ruling, submit same to Ms. Crisp and Mr. Rose for their
approval, and to me for my signature.
WAS:tst'.
cc:Circuit Clerk
County Clerk
Yours s' erely,
William A. Storey
{y M
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF WASHINGTON COUNTY, ARKANSAS .
SUE PHILLIPS, ASSESSOR, AND
WASHINGTON COUNTY BOARD OF
EQUALIZATION
VS. NO. CIV 89-1075
THE CITY OF FAYETTEVILLE, ARKANSAS,
AND THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF
THE UNIVERSITY OF ARKANSAS
_.<:- ORDtR
On the 28th day of June, 1990, this matter
P.
co
cnn
PLAINTIFS` -
C
m
c> -a
o
G,..
DEFENDANTS -I
a Cc
came on for con-
sideration by the Court, the parties having submitted the matter
for decision on the stipulations of fact, exhibits, and briefs
filed for record and appearing in the case file, and the Court
finds, for the reasons set out in its memorandum opinion dated
June 28, 1990, and filed herein:
1. Property must be "actually and directly and exclusively"
public purpose to be entitled to an exemption from
used for a
taxation.
2. The actual type of use to which property may ultimately be
put is determinative as to questions involving entitlement to an
exemption"during construction. If the type of use contemplated by
the entity seeking the exemption is exclusively public, as well
as the actual character of the use to which the property can be
put, the property will be entitled to tax exempt status.
3. If.a possibilityexists that the property can or will be
used for cion -public purposes and that issue is raised by the
.r
Phillips v. City of Fayetteville
Order
Page 2
taxing
tively
4.
authority, the tax exemption will not be applied prospec-
du'ring construction of the facility.
Issues relating to the use of the Walton Arts Center after
construction are not ripe for decision by the court.
5. The defendants have failed to meet the strict burden of
proof imposed,upon entities seeking an exemption from ad valorem
taxation.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the properties.on_whi:ch.the
Walton Arts Center will be constructed, which is more particu-
larly described in Exhibit i to the Complaint, be and hereby are
subject to ad valorem taxation.
ORDERED this g day of July, 1990
APPROVED:
PL NTIFF' S?TTORN
GEORGE E. BUTLER, JR.
Washington County Attorney
207 E. Center Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
Judge
Date 7 hfo
Jury Thal
Bench MA
Non -Trial
WILLIA. STO: EY
CIRCUIT JUDGE
DEFENDANTS' ATTORNEYS:
JERfY_ E.IROSE
Fayetteville City Attorney
113 West Mountain Street
Fayetteville, AR 72701
GINGEE/ P. CRISP
Associate General Counsel
University of Arkansas
421 Administration Building
Fayetteville, AR 72701