Chester Tp. v. Geauga County Budget Commission

• Decision Date: 27 December 1976
• Docket Number: No. 76-690,76-690
• Citation: 48 Ohio St.2d 372,358 N.E.2d 610
• Parties: , 2 O.O.3d 484 CHESTER TOWNSHIP, Appellant, v. GEAUGA COUNTY BUDGET COMMISSION et al., Appellees.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 372

48 Ohio St.2d 372

358 N.E.2d 610, 2 O.O.3d 484

CHESTER TOWNSHIP, Appellant, v. GEAUGA COUNTY BUDGET COMMISSION et al., Appellees.

No. 76-690.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

Dec. 27, 1976.

This is an appeal from an order of the Board of Tax Appeals affirming the Geauga County Budget Commission's allocation of the 1976 Geauga County local government fund to the various political subdivisions of Geauga County authorized to participate in such allocation.

The allocation was made pursuant to the provisions of R.C. 5747.53, which provides for the apportionment of such fund under an alternative method, other than that provided for in R.C. 5747.51, or on a formula basis as authorized by that section.

The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.

Arthur T. Wincek, Cleveland, for appellant.

Jerry Petersen, Pros. Atty., and Terry Pasqualone, Geneva, for appellee Geauga County Budget Commission.

Weston, Hurd, Fallon, Paisley & Howley, Johm M. Baker and Joseph J. LoPresti, Jr., Cleveland, for appellees Geauga County and various villages and townships.

PER CURIAM.

The order of the Board of Tax Appeals affirming the allocation made by the Geauga County Budget Commission is affirmed.

Appellant contends that R.C. 5747.53 is an unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority and is an unconstitutional grant of administrative power, being contrary to Section 1, Article II of the Ohio Constitution.

There is a presumption in favor of the validity of a statute. Cincinnati, W. & Z. R.R. Co. v. Commrs. of Clinton County (1852), 1 Ohio St. 77, paragraph two of the syllabus; Kroger Co. v. Schneider (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 80, 85, 223 N.E.2d 606.

This court stated in Bd. of Co. Commrs. v. Willoughby Hills (1968), 14 Ohio St.2d 163, 164, 237 N.E.2d 138, 139:

'There is just so much money in the undivided local government fund for distribution among the eligible political subdivisions of a county. It is difficult to attain absolute accuracy in allocating that fund. If the division made by the Board of Tax Appeals is fair and impartial and is determined upon the basis of actual need as established by the evidence, a reviewing court may not disturb the allocation. It is only when it is apparent that the board has proceeded in an unreasonable or unlawful manner that a court may intervene.'

In the use of the alternative method of apportionment authorized by R.C. 5747.53, a county budget commission is limited to factors deemed to be appropriate and reliable in the sole discretion of that commission. The limitation set forth in R.C. 5747.51 and R.C. Chapters 5107 and 5113 are made applicable by subdivision (C) of R.C. 5747.53. Further limitations are imposed by subdivision (A), which requires the approval of the board of county commissioners and a majority of the boards of township trustees of the county and legislative authorities of municipal corporations located wholly or partially in the county.

The General Assembly made the decision to grant the county budget commission the alternative method of allocating its undivided county local government fund in a manner which would maximize its utility to the local communities.

R.C. 5747.53 is constitutionally valid. See Belden v. Union Central Life Ins. Co. (1944), 143 Ohio St. 329, 55 N.E.2d 629; and State ex rel. Bd. of Edn. v. Bd. of Edn. of Columbus City School Dist. (1961), 172 Ohio St. 533, 179 N.E.2d 347.

Appellant contends further that in the even this court finds R.C. 5747.53 constitutional, the court should hold that the Geauga County Budget Commission abused its discretion in allocating the local government fund by the alternative method.

After a careful review of the record, this...