City of Clifton v. North Jersey Dist. Water Supply Commission
| Decision Date | 10 January 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. A--1001,A--1001 |
| Citation | 104 N.J.Super. 147,249 A.2d 14 |
| Parties | CITY OF CLIFTON, Petitioner-Respondent, v. NORTH JERSEY DISTRICT WATER SUPPLY COMMISSION, Respondent-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division |
Oscar R. Wilensky Passaic, for appellant.
Frank A. Carlet, First Legal Asst., Clifton, for respondent (Arthur J. Sullivan, Jr., Passaic, attorney).
Arthur J. Sills, Atty.Gen. (William Gural, Deputy Atty. Gen, of counsel), filed a statement in lieu of brief on behalf of Division of Tax Appeals.
Before Judges CONFORD, KILKENNY and LEONARD.
The opinion of the court was delivered by
KILKENNY, J.A.D.
North Jersey District Water Supply Commission (hereinafter Water Commission) appeals from two judgments of the State Division of Tax Appeals (hereinafter State Division) fixing the assessed valuations for the year 1964 of certain lands owned by the Water Commission and located in Clifton. One tract, known as Block 353, Lot 10, has been valued by the State Division at $151,200, the same as the city's original assessment. The other tract, Block 353, Lots 60A--62A--65C, has been valued by the State Division at $38,000, as compared with the city's $43,000. There is no cross-appeal by the city.
The Water Commission urges two grounds for reversal. It argues: (1) the premises are tax exempt, and (2) they were not valued according to their actual use.
The Water Commission is a public water supply agency. It is organized and operates pursuant to R.S. 58:5--1 et seq., N.J.S.A. Its Wanaque reservoir is located in the boroughs of Wanaque and Ringwood, in Passaic County. The reservoir's lands and protective area comprise approximately 6300 acres. Extending for 18 miles from the reservoir through a number of municipalities is a right-of-way used for large transmission aqueducts. Lot 10 in Clifton is used primarily for a 'balancing tank' for the purpose of equalizing water pressures through the pipelines leading to various municipalities. It is not a collecting reservoir or source of water supply, but it is an appurtenance to the transmission system. The tank holds 15 million gallons of water.
Clifton did not assess the improvements. It did assess the lands where the balancing tank is located, and it assessed the lands in its city which constitute part of the right-of-way for the large aqueducts of the transmission system.
From 1961 through 1963, Lot 10, consisting of 7.56 acres, was assessed at an average of $1650 per acre. The other three plots, consisting of 1.9 acres, were assessed at an average of approximately $1200 per acre. The assessments for 1964, now under review, averaged $20,000 and $21,500 per acre respectively. The Water Commission did not challenge the city's right to assess these lands for tax purposes, or the amount of the assessed valuations, for many years prior to 1964 because of the relatively small amount of taxes involved. The substantial increases in the 1964 assessed valuations prompted the instant appeals.
The city's right to assess the Lands of the Water Commission is based upon R.S. 54:4--3.3, N.J.S.A., which provides as follows:
'The Lands of counties, municipalities, and other municipal and Public agencies of this State used for the purpose and for the protection of a public water supply, shall be subject to taxation by the respective taxing districts where situated at the taxable value thereof Without regard to any buildings or other improvements thereon, in the same manner and To the same extent as the lands of private persons, but all other property so used shall be exempt from taxation.' (Italics ours)
The Water Commission concedes that its watershed lands are taxable because they are used 'for the purpose and for the protection of A public water supply.' (Emphasis added.) But it contends that the taxing statute, supra, does not authorize the taxing of its lands used for the transmission and distribution of water. It asks us to draw a distinction between lands used for the purpose of protection of a 'public water supply,' expressed in the tax-allowing statute, and lands used in connection with a 'public water supply System,' for which it claims tax immunity as public lands not expressly permitted to be taxed by any statute.
We agree with the State Division that a fair interpretation of R.S. 54:4--3.3 N.J.S.A., does not warrant such a distinction. Lands used 'for the purpose and for the protection of a public water supply' would include the lands in question. They are For the purpose of a public water supply, albeit they are used as part of the system whereby that purpose is effected.
The Water Commission, as indicated by its own conduct over a long period of time in paying the annual tax levies upon the subject lands, never asserted the existence of the distinction for which it now contends. It paid similar tax assessments to the other municipalities through which its aqueduct right-of-way extends. Long-continued practical interpretation by the parties involved of a statutory provision without legislative change, as in the instant case, supports the finding of concordant legislative intent. It is clear that the Water Commission has been motivated in seeking a different interpretation only because the assessments were substantially increased.
In Jersey City v. Blum, 101 N.J.L. 93, 127 A. 214 (E. & A.1924), the court reviewed the validity of taxes levied by nine municipalities on Lands owned by Jersey City on which were located:
'* * * the reservoir, dam, pipes, conduits, etc., constructed in or laid through these various municipalities, and Used for the purpose of providing inhabitants of Jersey City with a water supply.' (at p. 93; 127 A. at p. 215; italics ours)
It held that the tax was valid and enforceable, as a statutory exception to the general rule that property of the State or its political subdivisions is excluded from the operation of general statutes imposing taxation. In the Jersey City v. Blum case the taxing statute therein was a 1910 counterpart of the present R.S. 54:4--3.3, N.J.S.A., and contained practically identical language.
See, too, City of Newark v. West Milford Tp. in Passaic County, 9 N.J. 295, 88 A.2d 211 (1952), wherein the disputed tax assessment, levied pursuant to R.S. 54:4--3.3, N.J.S.A., involved 18,548 acres in West Milford. The court noted: 'On part of the property a reservoir is located but the rest of the property can be classified as watershed property and Part of the Newark water supply system.' (At p. 300, 88 A.2d at p. 213; emphasis added.) Thus, no sharp distinction was made between lands used for the purpose of a public water supply and lands used for the purpose of a public water supply system.
The Water Commission's second point is that the lands were not valued...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hackensack Water Co. v. Borough of Old Tappan
...that test it is appropriate to consider the highest and best use of the property. See City of Clifton v. No. Jersey Dist. Water Supply Comm'n, 104 N.J.Super. 147, 153, 249 A.2d 14 (App.Div.1959). The parties assumed the highest and best use of the land was for residential development and pr......
-
Lake End Corp. v. Rockaway Tp.
...both cases are applicable to valuation questions regarding any large property tract. See Clifton v. North Jersey Dist. Water Supp. Comm'n, 104 N.J.Super. 147, 152, 249 A.2d 14 (App.Div.1969). In applying the constitutional and statutory mandates to the assessments in dispute, the Tax Court ......
-
Borough of Belmar Policemen's Benev. Ass'n of Local No. 50 v. Borough of Belmar
...a finding of legislative intent to vest the authority exercised in municipalities. City of Clifton v. North Jersey District Water Supply Comm'n., 104 N.J.Super. 147, 249 A.2d 14 (App.Div.1969); Solomon v. Newark, 137 N.J.L. 247, 59 A.2d 386 (Sup.Ct.1948). Moreover, this interpretation is in......
-
Atl. City Mun. Utilities Auth. v. City of Absecon
...of a public water supply and lands used for the purpose of a public water supply system." City of Clifton v. North Jersey Dist. Water Supply Comm'n, 104 N.J. Super. 147, 151 (App. Div. 1969). The statute does not warrant a distinction for taxing lands used for the transmission and distribut......