Shepherd v. City of Wentzville, 43915
| Decision Date | 30 November 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 43915,43915 |
| Citation | 645 S.W.2d 130 |
| Parties | Charles M.M. SHEPHERD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The CITY OF WENTZVILLE, Defendant-Respondent. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Charles M. Shepherd, pro se.
Robert M. Wohler, O'Fallon, for defendant-respondent.
Plaintiff challenges the denial of his petition for a declaratory judgment in which he sought to have two ordinances establishing utility rates of defendant City declared unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional. The trial court entered judgment in defendant City's favor.
We affirm.
The City of Wentzville owns and operates a water and sewer system. Ordinance 695 sets the billing rate for city water using a regressive rate schedule, the cost per hundred gallons decreasing as the volume used increases. 1
The regressive rate schedule applies to commercial and residential multiple-unit complexes and to single entities. The rate is applied differently, however, to "multiple-unit complexes."
"Multiple-unit complexes," as this ordinance is applied by the City, includes apartment houses and multi-business office buildings. Motels, laundromats and nursing homes are treated as single enterprises.
In billing multiple-unit complexes, the City divides the total water volume used in a complex by the number of occupied units served. This smaller, quotient volume is then treated as though it were the amount actually used by each unit and is applied to the rate schedule to establish the per unit charge. This charge is then multiplied by the number of units that were occupied during the billing quarter to establish the water bill for the entire complex, for which the complex owner is responsible.
The system results in a total bill for such multiple complexes which is based on the volume assessed to the individual units, low volumes to which the higher rates apply. The City thus precluded the more favorable charge multiple-unit complexes would pay if the regressive scale were applied to the total volume registered as is done with single entity users.
Ordinance 696 sets the City's sewer rates, comprised of a basic charge of $1.50 assessed to all City residents plus the water volume they used times $0.05 per hundred gallons. A similar quotient volume formula is used to calculate the total charge for multiple-unit complexes, however since the ordinance uses a flat rate for sewer usage, the result is that multiple-unit complexes differ from single enterprises in that they pay a basic charge equal to $1.50 multiplied by the number of occupied units. Like the water service ordinance, 696 places responsibility for paying the utility bills on the complex owner.
Plaintiff owns Pinehill Apartments in Wentzville consisting of four buildings, each accommodating eight units. Thus plaintiff receives four separate water bills for each service period.
Plaintiff, by this action, seeks to have the two ordinances declared unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional, in the differential treatment accorded multiple-unit complexes. The trial court denied the petition.
Plaintiff first contends that the trial court failed to honor his timely request for findings of fact and conclusions of law. We find no request for specific findings of fact and conclusions of law in the record before us as required by Rule 73.01.1(b). 2 The judgment however, does give a statement of the grounds for its decision which satisfies the requirements of Rule 73.01.1(b). Even if a request for specific findings of fact had been made the failure to make such findings is not reversible error. First Fla. Bldg., Inc. v. Safari Systems, Inc., 570 S.W.2d 728, 730 (Mo.App.1978). We find no defect in the form of the judgment.
As we read plaintiff's principal point relied on, he complains that Ordinance 695 and Ordinance 696 provide for methods of charging for water and sewer service that are unreasonable, arbitrary and unconstitutional, in the differential treatment accorded multiple-unit complexes.
Municipal corporations that operate public utilities are not subject to the rate making process of the Public Service Commission. The courts, however, have equitable jurisdiction to prevent a municipality from enforcing public utility charges that are "clearly, palpably and grossly unreasonable." Forest City v. City of Oregon, 569 S.W.2d 330, 335 (Mo.App.1978).
Although the issues specifically presented in this case have not been addressed by the courts of this state, there is abundant authority, some conflicting, in other jurisdictions.
The basic precepts enunciated by all jurisdictions are that the function of fixing rates and the determination of whether differences in rates between classes of customers are to be made, and the amount of differences, is a legislative function not a judicial function. There is a strong presumption that the rates fixed by the municipality are reasonable and the burden of proving that the rates fixed by the municipality are unreasonable is upon the party challenging the rates. Lewis v. Mayor and City Council of Cumberland, 189 Md. 58, 54 A.2d 319, 323 (App.1947); Gillam v. City of Fort Worth, 287 S.W.2d 494, 497 (Tex.Civ.App.1956). See also Kliks v. Dalles City, 216 Or. 160, 335 P.2d 366 (1959).
A municipality may classify its users for the purpose of fixing rates if the classification is reasonable and if there is no discrimination within the class. Beauty Built Construction Corp. v. City of Warren, 375 Mich. 229, 134 N.W.2d 214, 218 (1965).
Plaintiff here argues that his apartment buildings should be classified the same as motels or hotels. The effect of the classification made in this case is to treat each residential dwelling unit within the apartment complex as a single...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State ex rel. Empire Dist. Elec. Co. v. Public Service Com'n
...cost of service is but one consideration in the determination of the reasonableness of the rate, as was held in Shepherd v. City of Wentzville, 645 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Mo.App.1982). It is in any event a sufficient answer to subpoint C, which complains of the form of the Commission's finding, t......
-
State v. City of Iowa City
...cost the city less to provide the customer sewer services than it did to provide such services to other users); Shepherd v. City of Wentzville, 645 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Mo.App.1982) ("Cost of service is but one consideration in the determination of the reasonableness of the rate."); Oradell Vil......
-
Mullenix-St. Charles Properties, L.P. v. City of St. Charles
...purpose of fixing rates if the classification is reasonable and if there is no discrimination within the class. Shepherd v. City of Wentzville, 645 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Mo.App.1982). There is a strong presumption that the rates fixed by the municipality are reasonable. Id. The party challenging......
-
City of Sullivan v. Truckstop Restaurants
...to its customers look to see if the particular rate is "clearly, palpably and grossly unreasonable[,]" quoting Shepherd v. City of Wentzville, 645 S.W.2d 130, 133 (Mo.App.1982). City further quotes Shepherd to state the principle that setting rates and determining whether there should be di......