State ex rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten
| Decision Date | 21 June 1978 |
| Citation | 8 O.O.3d 410,54 Ohio St.2d 412,377 N.E.2d 505 |
| Parties | , 8 O.O.3d 410 The STATE ex rel. WATERBURY DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, Appellee, v. WITTEN, Village Admr., Appellant. |
| Court | Ohio Supreme Court |
Waterbury Development Co., appellee, filed an action in mandamus in the Court of Appeals for Lucas County against Sally S. Witten, the Municipal Administrator of the village of Waterville, appellant herein, to compel the issuance of a building permit and certificate of availability of utilities as requested by appellee.
Appellant's refusal to issue the permit and certificate was due to appellee's failure to pay fees to the village for a water tap charge, a sewer tap charge and a park fee. (The ordinance concerning the sewer tap charge was repealed and that issue was stipulated to be moot.) The ordinance concerning the water tap, Ordinance No. 21-76, raised water tap fees from $175 to $720. Approximately $220 of that sum covers the actual cost of the connection and meter installation. The remaining $500 is termed an "equity value" by the ordinance. The park fee is specified in Section 1313.19 of the Waterville Code as $30 for a single-family dwelling.
The Court of Appeals granted the writ, ordering appellant-administrator "to issue the necessary building permits * * * without requiring the payment of the equity value fee * * * and without requiring payment of the fees for the New Park Development Funds."
The cause is now before the court upon appeal as a matter of right. Spengler, Nathanson, Heyman, McCarthy & Durfee, Ralph Bragg and Gary D. Sikkema, Toledo, for appellee.
Doyle, Lewis & Warner, Thomas D. Smith, Alan B. Dills and Keith K. Johnson, Toledo, for appellant.
The two propositions of law propounded by appellant in this cause are that: (1) municipalities may adopt ordinances providing for tap-in charges for water services subject only to the qualification that such fees "must be fair and reasonable and bear a substantial relationship to the cost involved in providing service to the landowners"; (2) a municipality is not prohibited from levying a charge on new single family dwellings to provide funds for expanded recreational facilities made necessary by population growth.
Appellant indicates in her brief that the rationale for the water tap fee ordinance adopting the new "equity value" is to apportion the cost of the water system equitably between prior users and new users, although the ordinance does not provide for earmarking of the water tap-in fees. No village revenues other than the funds generated from the park fees collected under Section 1313.19 are paid into the New Park Development Fund, although the fees so collected are earmarked for that fund.
In its opinion the Court of Appeals summarized the methods for financing water works and concluded, with respect to the water tap charges, as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Home Builders Assn. of Dayton and the Miami Valley v. City of Beavercreek
...similarity, both assignments of error will be considered together. In responding to both HBA and Beerman, the City distinguishes Towne, Waterbury, and Westlake, contending that a matching share is just one way of ensuring that new development pays only a proportionate cost of improvements. ......
-
Amherst Builders Assn. v. City of Amherst
...fee which bears a reasonable relationship to the entire cost of providing service to those new users. (State ex rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten, 54 Ohio St.2d 412, 377 N.E.2d 505, Appellant, Amherst Builders Association, initiated this action in the Court of Common Pleas challengin......
-
Elmwood-Utica Houses, Inc. v. Buffalo Sewer Authority
...Watergate II Apts. v. Buffalo Sewer Auth., supra, 46 N.Y.2d at p. 59, 412 N.Y.S.2d 821, 385 N.E.2d 560; State ex rel. Waterbury Dev. Co. v. Witten, 54 Ohio St.2d 412, 377 N.E.2d 505; Boynton v. City of Lakeport Mun. Sewer Dist., 28 Cal.App.3d 91, 94-95, 104 Cal.Rptr. 409, 410-412; Town of T......
-
Granzow v. Bureau of Support of Montgomery County
...However, the type of fees charged in those cases, and in cases cited by plaintiff, such as State, ex rel. Waterbury Development Co., v. Witten (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 412, 8 O.O.3d 410, 377 N.E.2d 505, must be distinguished from the poundage fee charged plaintiff in this case. Unlike the fees......
-
Land Development Conditions
...from $12 to $112. In Weber , the city claimed that the increase was necessary to improve the 340. Id . at 349, 402 N.E.2d at 1184. 341. 54 Ohio St. 2d 412, 377 N.E.2d 505 (1978). 342. Amherst Builders , 61 Ohio St. 2d at 347 n.2, 402 N.E.2d at 1183 n.2. 343. 3 Ohio App. 3d 377, 445 N.E.2d 6......
-
Case List
...S.D. 72, 597 N.W.2d 670 (1999) Everett Sch. Dist. No. 2 v. Mastro , 97 Wash. App. 1013 (1999) Ex rel. Waterbury Dev. Co. v. Witten , 54 Ohio St. 2d 412, 377 N.E.2d 505 (1978) F F&W Assocs. v. County of Somerset , 276 N.J. Super. 519, 648 A.2d 482 (1994) Fairview Enters., Inc. v. City of Kan......