State ex rel. Stoeckle v. Jones, 33677
| Decision Date | 12 May 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 33677,33677 |
| Parties | , 53 O.O. 303 STATE ex rel. STOECKLE v. JONES, Supervisor, et al. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court.
Where a municipality levies special assessments on a tax duplicate valuation basis to meet the cost of constructing a sewer system, an ordinance is not invalid which imposes a reasonable charge for the issuance of connection permits to owners whose subsequently improved property was assessed on its unimproved valuation. Hermann v. State ex rel. Cooper, 54 Ohio St. 506, 43 N.E. 990, 32 L.R.A. 734, approved and followed.
The relator is the owner of a certain lot located in the village of Loveland, Ohio.
The respondents are officials of that village.
The relator instituted this action in the Court of Appeals for Hamilton county to obtain a writ of mandamus to require the respondent officials to issue him a permit and allow him to install a sewer by connecting it with the public sewer constructed by the village in the street on which his lot fronts.
The Court of Appeals denied the writ.
The cause is in this court on an appeal as a matter of right.
Frank J. Richter and Simmonds & Simmonds, Clincinnati, for appellant.
John L. Undercoffer, Peck, Shaffer & Williams and Judson Allgood, Cincinnati, for appellees.
Fortunately the pertinent facts are not in dispute and are stipulated by counsel.
The nub of this controversy is the amount of the fee to be paid to the village by the relator for the issuance of the sewer permit.
The relator has offered to pay the sum of $5. The respondents insist that the amount should be $300.
This difference of opinion is due to the existence of two different municipal ordinances. The relator contends that the earlier one applies, while the respondents are of the view that the later ordinance controls.
The earlier ordinance was adopted July 8, 1952, and provided for a general permit fee of $5.
The second ordinance was adopted December 16 of that year for the purpose of securing an equitable apportionment of the cost of constructing the village sewer system.
This cost was met in part by the issuance of mortgage revenue bonds and in part by levying special assessments on a tax duplicate valuation basis.
Of course the valuations and consequent assessments on unimproved property were only a fraction of those on improved property. As unimproved property, the relator's lot was on the tax duplicate at a valuation of $70, and the resulting assessment thereon amounted to only $8.19, which he paid. Then after the relator improved his property by constructing a dwelling thereon, the tax appraisal was increased to $3,710; and if the relator had been required to pay a corresponding assessment thereon, the amount would have been $435.84 instead of the nominal $8.19 he was in fact assessed--a difference of $427.65. In other words, the relator was assessed approximately 1/53 of the amount he would have been required to pay on the higher valuation as did his neighbors.
It was correct such inequities that the ordinance of December 16, 1952, was adopted by the village council. The provisions of the ordinance applicable to the relator read as follows:
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
S. S. & O. Corp. v. Bernards Tp. Sewerage Authority
...when rates are 'determined upon the same basis for all new users of the city's facilities.' See also State ex rel. Stoeckle v. Jones, 161 Ohio St. 391, 119 N.E.2d 834, 836 (Sup.Ct.1954); Hartman v. Aurora Sanitary Dist., 23 Ill.2d 109, 177 N.E.2d 214, 218--220 (Sup.Ct.1961); Seltzer v. Ster......
-
Haymes v. Holzemer
...as well as improved, while this fee is only imposed when a new user desires to connect to the sewer system. "In Stoeckle, supra (161 Ohio St. 391, 119 N.E.2d 834 ), at page 393, this court recognized this distinction, stating that 'the charge is not in fact a second assessment but * * * is ......
-
Amherst Builders Assn. v. City of Amherst
...that they assume a fair share of the original construction costs when they become improved properties." In State ex rel. Stoeckle v. Jones (1954), 161 Ohio St. 391, 119 N.E.2d 834, we endorsed this concept of cost equalization in an analogous situation. There the municipality had partially ......
-
Engelman v. Budish
...be required to again pay sewer connection fees directly to the county. Moreover, the county's reliance upon State ex rel. Stoeckle v. Jones, 161 Ohio St. 391, 119 N.E.2d 834 (1954), is also unavailing because that case involved the landowner's payment of a special assessment for constructio......