City of Moundsville v. Steele
Decision Date | 26 November 1968 |
Docket Number | No. 12734,12734 |
Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
Parties | CITY OF MOUNDSVILLE, a Municipal Body, etc. v. Carr STEELE. |
Syllabus by the Court
A city ordinance providing for a charge or assessment of twenty-five cents per front foot for special street improvement, maintenance and services imposed upon the users of the services, who were defined in the ordinance to be the occupiers of improved premises abutting the streets and avenues in the city, is a reasonable classification and charge for such services in conformity with the provisions of Code, 8--4--20, as amended, and Code, 8A--5--8, as amended, and does not violate the uniformity provisions of Article X, Section 9 of the Constitution of West Virginia which relates only to taxes on persons or property, usually called ad valorem or general taxes.
Gall & Madden, John T. Madden, G. Charles Hughes, Moundsville, for appellant.
Goodwin, Mead & Goodwin, Charles P. Mead, Wheeling, for appellee.
BERRY, President:
This is an appeal by the City of Moundsville from a final judgment of the Circuit Court of Marshall County dated January 18, 1968, affirming a judgment of the Common Pleas Court of Marshall County in favor of the defendant dated July 10, 1967 which held that an ordinance of the City of Moundsville setting up fees and charges to provide additional revenue for continuous maintenance and improvements of street service within said City was unconstitutional. The case was submitted for decision of this Court upon arguments and briefs at the September Regular Term, 1968.
There is no dispute with regard to the facts involved in this case. A stipulation was entered into by the parties and submitted to the Court on the following facts:
'1. The City of Moundsville is a municipal corporation chartered under the provisions of Chapter Fifty-Six (56) Acts of the Legislature 1937 commonly known as and referred to as 'Municipal Home Rule Law.'
'2. On October 18, 1959, and annually thereafter, the City of Moundsville has enacted an ordinance, commonly referred to as 'Front Foot Tax,' providing for collection of a fee for continuance, maintenance and improvement of the essential service of street maintenance and services within the City of Moundsville, levied against the users of said services, defined in said ordinance to be the occupiers of improved property abutting the streets and avenues within said city. The defendant, Carr Steele, has occupied since the 1st day of July, 1959, improved property abutting 61 feet on Tomlinson Avenue in Moundsville, more commonly known as 204-Tomlinson Avenue. Said ordinance and reenactments provide for assessment of 25 cents per front foot for each fiscal year.
The pertinent parts of the Ordinance in question are as follows:
'* * * Be it ordained by the Council of the City of Moundsville, West Virginia:
. * * *'
The sole issue involved in this case is whether the Ordinance in question which excluded unimproved property from the imposition of the charge or fee was legal and constitutional. The parties agreed that the Ordinance was in accordance with the Charter of the City of Moundsville, and that the City had the authority to charge such fee for services as defined in the Ordinance. The question is over the classifications to which the fee is applied.
The authority for such Ordinance is found in the Municipal Home Rule Law in West Virginia Code 8A--5--8, as amended, in the following language:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Huntington v. Bacon
...158 W.Va. 141, 145, 209 S.E.2d 55, 57 (1974) (the charge for fire protection is a fee and not a tax); City of Moundsville v. Steele, 152 W.Va. 465, 164 S.E.2d 430 (1968) (charge of $0.25 per front foot for street improvement is a fee and not a tax); and Duling Bros. Co. v. City of Huntingto......
-
City of Fairmont v. Pitrolo Pontiac-Cadillac Co., PONTIAC-CADILLAC
...payment due October 1st if paid thirty (30) days prior to the said date each year."10 This was the issue in City of Moundsville v. Steele, 152 W.Va. 465, 164 S.E.2d 430 (1968), where we upheld under W.Va.Code, 8-13-13, a paving fee based on a lineal front foot assessment against the claim t......
-
Cooper v. City of Charleston
...158 W.Va. 141, 145, 209 S.E.2d 55, 57 (1974) (the charge for fire protection is a fee and not a tax); City of Moundsville v. Steele, 152 W.Va. 465, 164 S.E.2d 430 (1968) (charge of $0.25 per front foot for street improvement is a fee and not a tax); and Duling Bros. Co. v. City of Huntingto......
-
City of Princeton v. Stamper
...must reasonably classify the users, and the services for such a charge must be in conformity with state laws. City of Moundsville v. Steele, 152 W.Va. 465, 164 S.E.2d 430 (1968). We hold that a municipality acts reasonably in the exercise of its plenary power and authority under W.Va.Code 8......