| Show JUDGE ZANES DECISION IN THE CITY TAX CASE chief justice zane this thin morning gave his decision in the case of hiram jo johnson hn vs the mayor and city council of salt lake city and J F jack recorder his honor said the petition as filed asked the court for a writ of certiorari to annul the resolution of the ct city y council sitting as a board of equalization which reid read as follows resolved that the assessment roll be corrected and revised by reducing the valuation of all real property and improvements prove ments menU to 80 per of the valuation as assessed except on such real es ate and improvements as have before been or may hereafter be reduced in value by this board for special reasons the valuation of which to be reduced to 80 per of the corrected valuation thereof and that it be the sense of this board and the city council to instruct the proper official to refund to all taxpayers who have heretofore paid their taxes 20 per of the taxes paid by them on real property and improvements now the effect of that resolution if valid was to the valuation appearing on the assessment roll prepared by the assessor twenty per cent in other words to nake make the valta valuation eighty per cent of the valuation made by the assessor appearing in the assessment roll as returned by himan it seemed from the answer of the city council to the writ of certiorari that time for the return of the assessment roll to the assessor was extended by another return on the ath of august 1891 and that the time to sit as a board of equalization to bear and determine objections made by property holders was fixed from the to the slat august the board sit s it from time to time until there were objections presented by that number of property holders to the assessment of real estate that finally on the Septem berthe resolution which he had just before read was adopted the question now arose had the council sitting as F a board of equalization the power to adopt that resolution and reduce the assessment of real estate 20 per cent the retura of the assessment roll of the city council by the assessor gave that tribunal authority as was conceded by both parties to hear bear and determine any specific objection made to the assessment but counsel for the plaintiffs insisted that it did not give the city council jurisdiction and authority to make a general reduction in the valuation as made ba the assessor and that as to all of the property holders except the ones who made inside special objections the action of the council was without jurisdiction and authority so bo the question quee tion presented was had the coonc council sitting bitting as a board of equalization authority to make a general reduction upon all property to the assessment of bf which objection had been interposed by the owners the proper parties as well as to that in which no such objections had been raised the arhe section relied yo upon was vol 1 of the compiled laws of utah 1888 the city council shall have power by ordinance to regulate the form or of assessment rolls and prescribe the duties and define the powers of assessors and col lectors electors lec tors the annual assessment rolls shall be returned by the assessor on or before the first tuesday of july in each year but the time may be extended or additions made thereto by order of the city council on the return thereof the city council shall fix a day for hearing objections thereto and any person feeling aggrieved by the assessment of his property may appear at the ume time specified and make his objections which shall khall be heard and determined upon by the city council and they shall have power to alter add aad to take from and otherwise correct and revise said assessment roll y the first provision was that on WON the return thereof the city council shall hall fix a day for hearing objections objection etc of course the meaning of that was that the city council should bear the objections ectro na and such evidence as a person aberson might t offer ff r and as might be proper for the council to consider and upon that determine the validity of the objection whether it was well taken or not then followed these words and they shall have power to alter add take from and otherwise correct and revise the said assessment oll the question was whether this power to alter etc must be confined to the objections whether the alteration must be confined to the valuations objected to the language and power given wore were quite broad band and they shall have power to alter the assessment ses roll Y of course the reduction of f 20 per cent of the assessment would be an alteration of that roll or add to seemed to be general and applied to the whole assessment roll the council in this case bad not added to but the question was if the council were satisfied that the whole assessment on real estate was too low say 10 or 20 per cent could they have added to it or taken from it it would hardly be expected that a man would object to his assessment because it was too low people hardly ever objected to benefits or reductions duct ions in their taxes at least he had bad never heard of such a th thing I 1 ng the city council as the legislative tribunal of the city was here invested inva sted with judicial function to some extent of passing upon objections and hearing reasons for and against it had wide discretion in many things being entrusted largely with the control of the city so far as the legislature of the territory had seen fit to entrust the affairs of the people living in the locality and within the limits of the local authority reference had bad been made to another section 1787 of the compiled laws of utah which was expressly made ap to existing cities and agg applied here said board of equalization shiou is hereby authorized to administer oaths in the discharge of official duties and it may require property owners to give a statement to it of their taxable property and its value under oath and it may summon such other persons to appear and testify be fore it as it may deem necessary to carry out the provisions of this act it would seem from this that the city council had the authority to summon witnesses hear objections and pass upon the correctness of the assessors assessor ls work and in his honors judgment it would have the right to make any reasonable alterations and corrections in the assessment roll that it might think proper it did not dot appear in the return that the city council as a board of equalization heard fany laDy evidence nor did it appear that they did not the presumption however would be that they acted upon reasonable evidence and the court must so presume unless there was some testimony to the contrary his honor quoted the case of vs the board of equalization recorded in the pacific I 1 c reporter page 14 1 4 and cited by the e supreme court of california wherein it was held that where the return did not show that evidence was heard the presumption was in the affirmative where the city council as in this case was entrusted with a certain discretion creti oDthe the court would not control that discretion within the limits given IN D his honor next cited estee on ae taxation xa and said assuming that the city council had bad authority in their discretion to adopt the resolution in question the court would not annul it ot of course they must act reasonably they would not have the power to assess the property of one man at two thirds of its cash or market value or any other fraction and that of another at its full value and he would be disposed to hold that they would not be authorized to make discriminations as personal property at its market value and real estate at 20 per cent lose less the assessment must be just and equitable he did not understand by this resolution that the council undertook to assess real estate 20 per cent below its cash or market value but he be presumed at its cash value probably the just way of making all these assessments and the one which our law required was to assess property at its fair market value which would be the cost value and there was no evidence here upon which the court could act by which it could say that personal property was assessed at its market value and real estate at 80 per cent of that value he must presume in the absence of evidence to the contrary that the C city ity council intended to do justice and were not dot guilty of inequitable judgment the application for the writ in this case must therefore be denied and his bis judgment would be for the defendant mr varian applied for a stay of two days pending peu dinc the possible filing of a bond of appeal mr rawlins offered no objection to this and the request was granted |
