State ex rel. Waterbury Development Co. v. Witten
Decision Date | 16 September 1977 |
Citation | 58 Ohio App.2d 17,387 N.E.2d 1380 |
Parties | , 12 O.O.3d 29 The STATE ex rel. WATERBURY DEVELOPMENT CO. v. WITTEN. * |
Court | Ohio Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Where a village requires the payment of a water tap-in charge before a building permit can be issued and such charge bears no relationship to the present or future cost of providing water, such act is invalid.
2. Where a village requires the payment of a fee before a building permit can be issued and the purpose behind the requirement is to acquire money for a park development fund, such act is invalid.
Spengler, Nathanson, Heyman, McCarthy & Durfee, Ralph Bragg and Gary D. Sikkema, Toledo, for relator.
Doyle, Lewis & Warner, Thomas D. Smith and Alan B. Dills, Toledo, for respondent.
This cause came on to be heard upon the pleadings, evidence, briefs, and arguments of counsel.
This is an original mandamus action in the Court of Appeals filed by the Waterbury Development Co. against Sally Witten, the Village Administrator for the Village 1 of Waterville. The plaintiff-relator's application for a zoning permit 2 was denied since the plaintiff-relator refused to pay the following fees to the Village of Waterville: a water tap charge pursuant to Waterville Ordinance No. 21-76; a sanitary sewer tap charge pursuant to Waterville Ordinance No. 22-76 3; and a park fee pursuant to Section 1313.19 of the Waterville Code.
The ordinance 21-76 and code provision 1313.19 are set forth below:
The plaintiff-relator maintains that the above stated ordinances and code provisions are invalid and unconstitutional, in that the fees charged exceed the actual cost to the Village or do not confer sufficient benefit to the required payor.
The ordinance imposing increases on water taps raised the fee from $175 to $720. Approximately $220 is used to cover the actual cost of connection and meter installation. The additional $500 is referred to by the village as "equity value." This "equity value" was supposedly calculated on the theory that new connections should pay for the value of the existing water system previously paid for by existing connections. 4
The park fee of $30 is assessed only against a person building a single-family dwelling having more than one bedroom. Persons owning homes prior to the passage of the ordinance are not taxed even though they are entitled to use the parks.
The issue raised by the plaintiff-relator is:
"Are the ordinances imposing the water tap equity value charge and the fee for the New Park Development Fund as pre-requisites for obtaining a building permit valid legislative enactments pursuant to state statutes and to the federal and state constitutions."
The plaintiff-relator contends in its brief that:
"In order for the Village of Waterville to validly impose a water tap fee as a prerequisite for obtaining a building permit, the legislation must constitute either a valid exercise of the police power or a valid exercise of the revenue-raising power of municipality."
We agree with this observation.
Water systems are statutorily defined as public utilities. R.C. 4905.03; see Bd. of Education v. Columbus (1928), 118 Ohio St. 295, 160 N.E. 902. Public utilities may be financed by revenue bonds 5 (State ex rel. Toledo v. Weiler (1920), 101 Ohio St. 123, 128 N.E. 88; Ohio Constitution, Section 12, Article XVIII); rates and charges (Ohio Constitution, Sections 4, 7, Article XVIII); taxes (Ohio Constitution, Section 13, Article XVIII; R.C. 743.22); and special assessments (Ohio Constitution, Section 11, Article XVIII; R.C. 729.06; R.C. 729.11).
The defendant-respondent refers to the amount assessed against the plaintiff-relator as a "user charge." Charges and rates are fixed prices for a product or service. Himebaugh v. Canton (1945), 145 Ohio St. 237, 240, 61 N.E.2d 483. A "user charge" which is unreasonable and discriminates between consumers within a municipality is invalid. 1 Crowley's, Ohio Municipal Law, Section T 43.24; Strahan v. Aurora (1973), 38 Ohio Misc. 37, 311 N.E.2d 876; R.C. 743.04.
It is undisputed that a tap-in charge must be fair and reasonable and bear a substantial relationship to the cost involved in providing the service to the landowner. See Englewood Hills v. Englewood (1967), 14 Ohio App.2d 195, 237 N.E.2d 621, cited by both parties. However,
"An ordinance which imposes a 'tap-in charge' which substantially exceeds the cost to the city of supervising the connection of an adjoining property to a sanitary sewer and which is to be used in making other sewer improvements, is unconstitutional and void as applied to vacant lots sold to a builder by developer who had paid for sewer improvements." Zehman Construction Co. v. Eastlake (1962), Ohio App., 195 N.E.2d 361, 28 Ohio Ops.2d 350, headnote 1.
In the Zehman Construction case the case of State ex rel. Stoeckle v. Jones (1954), 161 Ohio St. 391, 119 N.E.2d 834, and Herman v. State ex rel. (1896), 54 Ohio St. 506, 43 N.E. 990, were considered and distinguished.
Strahan v. Aurora, supra, is of similar import as Zehman,supra. The tap-in charge cannot be sustained as a proper exercise of the police power as it bears no reasonable relationship to the cost involved in providing the service related to tapping in.
Water charges that exceed the cost of the service constitute taxes. See Cincinnati v. Roettinger (1922), 105 Ohio St. 145, 137 N.E. 6; Shoemaker v. Granville (1958), Ohio Com.Pl., 156 N.E.2d 757, 79 Ohio Law Abst. 573.
The collection of taxes by a municipality for water systems must conform with the proper statutory provisions, 6 the Ohio Constitution, Section 2, Article XII, and the Due Process Clause of the United States Constitution. The noncompliance with the above laws renders the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
City of Marion v. Baioni
...fees of $400 for single family homes of new users upheld as valid fee, not a tax); but see State ex rel. Waterbury Development v. Witten, 58 Ohio App.2d 17, 387 N.E.2d 1380 (1977) (water tap-in fee of $720 held a tax because it exceeded cost of service provided new users); Hayes v. City of ......
-
Fairway Manor, Inc. v. City of Akron
...owned, must bear some relationship to the present or future cost of providing service. State, ex rel. Waterbury Development Co., v. Witten (1977), 58 Ohio App.2d 17, 387 N.E.2d 1380 , affirmed (1978), 54 Ohio St.2d 412, 377 N.E.2d 505 . However, rate making is an inexact science. Orr Felt C......