City of Osceola v. Board of Equalization, Clarke County

• Decision Date: 16 February 1920
• Docket Number: 33291
• Citation: 176 N.W. 284,188 Iowa 278
• Parties: CITY OF OSCEOLA, Appellee, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, CLARKE COUNTY et al., Appellants
• Court: Iowa Supreme Court

176 N.W. 284

188 Iowa 278

CITY OF OSCEOLA, Appellee, v. BOARD OF EQUALIZATION, CLARKE COUNTY et al., Appellants

No. 33291

Supreme Court of Iowa, Des Moines

February 16, 1920

Appeal from Clarke District Court.--P. C. WINTERS, Judge.

SUIT in equity by the plaintiff city against the township trustees of Osceola Township as a board of equalization. The purpose of the suit was to adjudicate the question of exemption from taxation of certain real estate owned by the municipality and to cancel an alleged assessment thereon. There was a decree granting the relief prayed, and defendant appeals.

Affirmed.

J. B Dyer, County Attorney, for appellants.

O. M Slaymaker, for appellee.

EVANS, J. WEAVER, C. J., PRESTON and SALINGER, JJ., concur.

OPINION

EVANS, J.

The plaintiff is a city of the second class. It has constructed a system of waterworks, at an expense of about $ 100,000. The source of water supply is an artificial lake, which it has constructed upon land acquired by it, and which is contiguous to the city, but outside of the corporation. The lake proper covers an area of less than 10 acres. When first constructed, there was no attempt by the city to control the watershed, though surface water constitutes the only source of supply to the lake. The surface of the land surrounding the lake is quite rough, and the soil thereof, when cultivated, washes rapidly. The result of the first experiment was that the wash of the soil soon filled the lake. It was then determined to acquire a larger acreage of watershed, and to protect it against washing by withdrawing it from cultivation and seeding it to grass. The total acreage finally acquired by the city, largely by condemnation, was 76 acres, all of which was withdrawn from cultivation and seeded down. Manifestly, even grass must have attention, and must be either cut or pastured, in order to develop the condition of sod desired by the municipality for its purpose. Some of this land, therefore, was devoted to pasture, and rents were collected for such pasture to a total amount of less than $ 100 a year. Because of the collection of such rents, the defendant board contended that this land outside of the area of the lake itself is subject to taxation, and it has assessed the land accordingly; whereas the plaintiff claims that such land is exempt from taxation, under the express provision of Section 1304 of the Code, which is as follows:

"The property of the United States and this state, including university, agricultural college and school lands; the property of a county, township, city, town or school district or militia company, when devoted entirely to public use and not held for pecuniary profit; * * *"

The only question presented to us is whether, under the facts here stated, this land should be deemed exempt from taxation under this statute.

We see little, if any, room for argument to the contrary. Clearly this land was acquired for public use, and not for pecuniary profit. It is just as clear that it is not now held for pecuniary profit, and that it is fully devoted to the public use for which it was acquired. We have not heretofore passed directly upon the question here presented, but authority is abundant from other jurisdictions. City of Colorado Springs v. Board of County Com., 36 Colo. 231 (84 P. 1113); Town of West Hartford v. Board of Water Com., 44 Conn. 360; Board of County Com. v. City of Wellington, 66 Kan. 590 (72 P. 216);...