Englewood Hills, Inc. v. Village of Englewood
| Citation | 14 Ohio App.2d 195,237 N.E.2d 621 |
| Parties | , 43 O.O.2d 399 ENGLEWOOD HILLS, INC., et al., Appellants, v. VILLAGE OF ENGLEWOOD et al., Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 01 September 1967 |
| Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court.
Municipalities may adopt ordinances providing for tap-in charges for water and sanitary sewer services subject only to the qualification that the fees established by the ordinances must be fair and reasonable and bear a substantial relationship to the cost involved in providing the service to the landowner.
Allberry & Roberts, Dayton, for appellant Englewood Hills, Inc.
Talbott, Jennings & Ducker, Dayton, for appellant Diehl Const. Co.
Oldham & Oldham and Hamrick, LeCrone & Parks, Dayton, for appellees.
This is an appeal on questions of law from a judgment of the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County.
The plaintiffs, appellants herein, Englewood Hills, Inc., and Leonard E. Diehl, d. b. a. Diehl Construction Company, are builders of residential homes and the owners of land and buildings situated in the village of Englewood.
In the trial court, the plaintiffs commenced a declaratory judgment action challenging the validity of Ordinances 416 and 417 of the village of Englewood.
In separate petitions, each plaintiff says that in accordance with the terms of such ordinances 'it is prevented from connecting into the water and sanitary sewer system until it has paid a permit and entry fee of $250.00 for each lot to tap the sewer system and a permit fee of $200.00 for each lot to tap the water system; that said charges imposed as a tap-in charge substantially exceed the cost to the village in supervising the connection of the properties to the sanitary sewer and water system and therefore are invalid * * *.'
The answer of defendants, appellees herein, says among other things, 'that all expansion of sanitary sewer main lines and sewage treatment plant facilities and all expansion of water main lines and water plant facilities needed to serve the land owned by the plaintiff and other developers which has been annexed to the village since 1960 have been paid from tap charges, sewer and water revenues, or from bonds payable from sewer revenues without levying special assessments against such lands, and that defendants propose to pay the cost of future expansion of sewer and water facilities from tap charges or by the issuance of bonds payable from sewer and water revenues including tap charges.'
After hearing considerable evidence, the trial court entered judgment for the defendants, and, thereafter, upon motion of the plaintiffs pursuant to Section 2315.22, Revised Code, made the following findings:
'(1) Ordinances 416 and 417 of the defendant village were duly and regularly enacted and by their terms increased existing fees payable by contractors as a condition precedent to the issuance of permits for the establishment of water services from $100.00 to $200.00 for each house and maintained the fee for each house for sewer services at $250.00, such permit price having been fixed by prior ordinance in 1960.
'(2) That all extensions of the sewer and water system since 1960 have been paid for from income from the fees established pursuant to such ordinances or sewer and water revenues, and that no assessments of any nature have been levied by the village for the expansion of such services.
'(3) That prior to the adoption of ordinances 416 and 417 the defendant board of public affairs authorized sufficient and necessary engineering studies and that thereupon the defendant village through its council adopted such ordinances upon the recommendation of such board of public affairs, and that such engineering data was available to the council.
'(4) That the fees established by such ordinances are fair and reasonable and bear a substantially direct relationship to the per unit cost of providing a new service to the village.
'(5) That both plaintiffs have paid such fees without written protest up until the time of filing of such suit.
'(6) That the operation of such ordinances and their predecessors have been generally and fairly administered.
'(7) That Article 18, Section 4 of the Ohio Constitution grants to municipalities sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Torsoe Bro. Const. Corp. v. Board of Trustees of Inc. Village of Monroe
...740, 185 N.Y.S.2d 821, 158 N.E.2d 512; Strahan v. City of Aurora, 38 Ohio Misc. 37, 311 N.E.2d 876; Englewood Hills, Inc. v. Village of Englewood, 14 Ohio App.2d 195, 237 N.E.2d 621; Henry B. Byors & Sons, Inc. v. Board of Water Comm'rs, 358 Mass. 354, 264 N.E.2d 657; Johnston, 'Constitutio......
-
Colonial Oaks West, Inc. v. East Brunswick Tp.
...constituent elements as set forth on the face of the ordinance, and neither do we. Cf. Englewood Hills, Inc. v. Village of Englewood, 14 Ohio App.2d 195, 237 N.E.2d 621 (Ct.App.1967); Western Heights Land Corp. v. City of Fort Collins, 146 Colo. 464, 362 P.2d 155 The real objection by the p......
-
Amherst Builders Assn. v. City of Amherst
...ordinance was sustained as a legitimate exercise of municipal power under Section 4, Article XVIII, in Englewood Hills v. Englewood (1967), 14 Ohio App.2d 195, 237 N.E.2d 621. The court therein found that the only limitation on this power was that the charges must be fair and reasonable and......
-
City of Hillsboro v. Hugh Ferguson
... ... State v. Longhorn World Championship Rodeo, Inc ... (1985), 19 Ohio App.3d 115 at 118 ... Witten (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 412; ... Englewood Hills v. Englewood (1967), 14 Ohio App.2d ... 195. As ... ...
-
Case List
...4th 854, 911 P.2d 429 (1996) Elam v. Albers , 44 Colo. App. 281, 616 P.2d 168 (1980) Englewood Hills, Inc., v. Village of Englewood , 14 Ohio App. 2d 195, 237 N.E.2d 621 (1967) Englewood Water Dist. v. Halstead , 432 So. 2d 172 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1983) Erickson & Assocs., Inc. v. McLerrra......