Summary
In Fairfield Cty. Budget Comm., this court found that the relator had no adequate remedy by way of appeal under R.C. 5705.341 or 5705.37. Relators in the cause sub judice, however, clearly had an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal pursuant to R.C. 5705.37.
Summary of this case from State, ex Rel. Bd. of Edn., v. Budget CommOpinion
No. 83-1158
Decided April 18, 1984.
Taxation — Mandamus — Reinstatement of voter-approved levy in excess of ten-mill limitation — Writ allowed, when.
APPEAL from the Court of Appeals for Fairfield County.
This is an appeal as of right from the denial of relator-appellant's complaint for a writ of mandamus by the court of appeals.
The facts are not in dispute. On June 8, 1982, the voters of Fairfield County approved an additional one-mill levy to provide funds for the relator-appellant, Fairfield County Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities. The voters in Fairfield County had previously passed two other levies of eight-tenths mill in November 1976 and four-tenths mill in June 1980 which, when added to the newest levy, brought the total millage to be assessed on behalf of relator to two and two-tenths mills. All three of these levies were placed on the ballot and passed by the voters in conformance with the procedures set forth in R.C. 5705.01 through 5705.51. All the levies were in excess of the ten-mill limitation set forth in Section 2 of Article XII of the Ohio Constitution.
Thereafter, the respondent-appellee Fairfield County Budget Commission met on August 23, 1982 and voted unanimously to reduce the millage for the relator from the two and two-tenths mills approved by the electors to two and one-tenth mills based upon its finding that there was insufficient need for the full millage.
After the budget commission refused relator's request to reinstate the total original voter-approved millage, the board of mental retardation filed this mandamus action in the court of appeals seeking reinstatement of this total original millage. The court denied the writ on the ground that an adequate remedy at law exists by way of appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals.
Wiles, Doucher, Van Buren, Boyle Casey Co., L.P.A., and Mr. Thomas J. Keener, for appellant.
Mr. Thomas J. Corbin, for appellees.
Appellees' assertion of an adequate remedy at law by way of appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals is in conflict with Bd. of Mental Retardation v. Bd. of Commrs. (1975), 41 Ohio St.2d 103 [70 O.O.2d 197]. That case also involved a mandamus action brought by a board of mental retardation seeking, as in this cause, reinstatement of a voter-approved levy in excess of the ten-mill limitation. In support of their contention, appellees state that in Bd. of Mental Retardation, supra, the court "* * * did not closely review the propriety of the remedy of mandamus, * * *" since it was agreed by the parties therein that the board of mental retardation had no adequate remedy at law. However, R.C. 5705.341 and 5705.37, which are the relevant statutes providing for appeal, confine such rights to: (1) those required to pay taxes pursuant to such levies (R.C. 5705.341) and (2) taxing authorities (R.C. 5705.37). Appellees' claim that appellant falls within the category set forth in R.C. 5705.341 is not well-taken.
R.C. 5705.341 provides in relevant part:
" Any person required to pay taxes on real * * * property * * * in any taxing district or other political subdivision of this state may appeal to the board of tax appeals from the action of the county budget commission * * *." (Emphasis added.)
Thus, the issue here is the same as in Bd. of Mental Retardation, supra, and revolves around the apparent conflict between R.C. 5705.31, which requires the county budget commission to approve, without modification, levies in excess of the ten-mill limitation that have been properly passed by the voters, and R.C. 5705.341 which mandates that all tax rates be clearly required by an approved budget pursuant to procedures set forth in R.C. 5705.01 to 5705.47. In Bd. of Mental Retardation, supra, at 109, we considered the statutory scheme of R.C. 5705.01 to 5705.47 as being interrelated relative to "* * * the procedure necessary to collect certain tax levies." We resolved the sections so as to harmonize them "in order to give meaning and effect to each of them." In so doing, we concluded that voter approval of a levy properly placed upon the ballot pursuant to R.C. Chapter 5705 constitutes an approved budget as a matter of law, thus satisfying the provision of R.C. 5705.341 which requires budget approval before levying any rate of taxation.
Appellees criticize this conclusion in Bd. of Mental Retardation, supra, for the reason that tax rates beyond the ten-mill limitation may be increased by the voters without the protective requirement that need therefor be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the county budget commission. This argument fails to recognize that tax levies submitted for approval by the electorate in fact afford the opportunity for consideration and evaluation of need by the voters themselves. See R.C. 5705.25.
Based upon Bd. of Mental Retardation, supra, the Fairfield County Budget Commission's action was contrary to law when it reduced the total voter-approved millage. Therefore, the appellant is entitled to a writ of mandamus compelling the appellees to reinstate the levy to the total original voter-approved millage.
For the foregoing reasons the judgment of the court of appeals is reversed and the writ prayed for is hereby allowed.
Judgment reversed and writ allowed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., W. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER, HOLMES, C. BROWN and J.P. CELEBREZZE, JJ., concur.