| OCR Text |
Show STATE CAN NOT LEVY ROAD TAX Repeal of the present 3-niill state road tax that may be levied in each county and the substitution of a state tax from which the revenue might be expended where the state road commission com-mission desires is not possible under the state constitution, Harvey H. Cluff, state attorney general, yesterday yester-day informed Howard C. Means, chief engineer of the commission. Mr. Cluff directed attention to the provision of the constitution that whenever the taxable property within the state shall amount to $400,00.0,-000 $400,00.0,-000 the rates shall not exceed 2 4-10 mills for general state purposes, and added: "It is my understanding that the assesesd valuation of the state is something over $600,000,000 and therefore it would be absolutely impossible im-possible for the legislature to substitute substi-tute a state tax for the one now permitted per-mitted to be levied by the counties, the revenue from which could be expended ex-pended where the state road commission commis-sion desired, because it requires all the 2 4-10 mills for general state purposes. Of course, the 1925 legislature legis-lature may repeal the present 3-niill state road tax, but it could not substitute sub-stitute a general state tax in lieu thereof." The present lack of a state road fund is a problem with which the state road commission has to contend and a solution is tiig sought. The state road tax, cVted by the legislature legisla-ture of 1909, is available for expenditure expendi-ture only in the county in which the money is raised. This condition and state road finances fi-nances caused the road commission to request an opinion from the attorney at-torney general. Mr. Means also pointed out that the state is bonded almost to the constitutional limit of 1 Vz per cent of the assessed valuation, valua-tion, and asked if the aggregate of the sinking funds does not offset to that extent the state's liability under the constitution. To the latter question ques-tion the attorney general replied that any amount in the sinking funds could not be lawfully taken into consideration con-sideration in the issuance of bonds or in incurring bonded indebtedness, and that it would be necesasry to ascertain as-certain from the assessment the exact bonded indebtedness that may be incurred in-curred and then consider the amount existing, regardless of any funds on hand. Salt Lake Tribune. |
