State Ex Rel. City of Columbus v. Thatcher

178 N.E. 843, 124 Ohio St. 382, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 382, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 37, 1931 Ohio LEXIS 224
CourtOhio Supreme Court
DecidedNovember 25, 1931
Docket23152
StatusPublished

This text of 178 N.E. 843 (State Ex Rel. City of Columbus v. Thatcher) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Ohio Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
State Ex Rel. City of Columbus v. Thatcher, 178 N.E. 843, 124 Ohio St. 382, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 382, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 37, 1931 Ohio LEXIS 224 (Ohio 1931).

Opinion

Robinson, J.

This is an action in mandamus, brought by the state of Ohio on relation of the city of Columbus, against the budget commission of Franklin county. The petition alleges the official character of the various parties, and further alleges that on September 9, 1927, the director of health of the state of Ohio, under authority of Sections 1250 and 1251, General Code, issued orders, approved by the public health council of the state, requiring the city of Columbus to install necessary works or means for collecting and disposing of the sewage of the city, to correct and prevent the pollution of the Scioto river and of Alum creek, caused by the discharge of such sewage into those streams; that on October 11, 1929, the director of health extended the time within which compliance with such order must be made; that pursuant to and in partial performance of such orders, the city of Columbus, prior to 1931, did construct sewers and appurtenances thereto, at an expenditure of approximately $5,000,000, financed by a special tax levy and bond issues; that on December 8, 1930, pursuant- to a resolution duly adopted by the council of the city, it made application to the tax commission of Ohio, in compliance with the provisions of Section 1259-1, General Code, “for authority to raise additional funds with which to carry out said orders;”' that ■thereafter such proceedings were had that on Dé *384 eember 23, 1930, the tax commission of Ohio certified to the director of health of the state of Ohio that the city of Columbus is unable, without a vote of the electors of such city, to comply with the provisions of Section 1259, General Code, by reason of existing debts and limitations; that the director of health of the state, on December 23, 1930, found that an emergency exists in the city, requiring the immediate issue of bonds in order to carry out the orders theretofore made by such director of health; that on December 30, 1930, s,uch finding of the director of health was approved by the Governor of the state; that on December 31, 1930, such finding of the director of health and approval by the Governor was certified to the mayor of the city, and on January 5, 1931, was filed with the council of the city; that on January 14,1931, and prior thereto, and at the present time, the net indebtedness of the city, created or incurred without a vote of the people, was and is in excess of one per cent, of the total value of all the property within such city as listed and assessed for taxation, and that prior thereto and at the present time is less than five per cent, of the total value of the property in such city as listed and assessed for taxation; that on January 5, 1931, an ordinance entitled “To provide for the issue of bonds to pay the cost and expense of constructing sewage treatment works, outfall sewers, sewage pumping station and other appurtenances' necessary in connection with said works, including the purchase of the necessary land and rights-of-way therefor, for the purpose of complying with the order of the Director of Health of the State of Ohio, as herein provided, in the sum of six and one-half million dollars, of which one *385 hundred thousand dollars shall be presently issued,” was introduced in council of the city, and, on January 14, 1931, duly passed by such council; that in pursuance to such ordinance, bonds in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, dated February 15, 1931, were sold March 9, 1931, by the city; that on or about July 15, 1931, the council of the city duly adopted a tax budget for the next succeeding fiscal year, which budget was submitted to the county auditor of Franklin county on or before July 20, 1931; that in such submitted budget the necessary interest and sinking fund charges on such bond issue of one hundred thousand dollars were placed outside the fifteen mill limitation, as provided by Section 1259-1, General Code; that the budget commission of Franklin county, at its statutory meeting for the year 1931, placed the interest and sinking fund charges for such issue of bonds for the year 1932 within the fifteen mill limitation; that such placing of such interest and sinking fund charges within the fifteen mill limitation is contrary to law, especially to the provisions of Section 1259-1, General Code, and that such interest and sinking fund charges should be placed outside the fifteen mill limitation; avers that it has no adequate remedy in the ordinary course of law, and prays for a writ requiring the budget commission to approve and place the levy necessary to provide payment of interest and sinking fund charges on such bonds outside the fifteen mill limitation.

To this petition the defendant filed a general demurrer.

The controlling question in this case is whether the bonds provided for in the ordinance were “au *386 thorized” within the meaning of the schedule to Section 2 of Article XII of the Constitution of Ohio, prior to the effective date of such section. Section 2 reads, in part:

“No property, taxed according to value, shall be so taxed in excess of one and one-half per cent of its true value in money for all state and local purposes, but laws may be passed authorizing additional taxes to be levied outside of such limitation, either when approved by at least a majority of the electors of the taxing district voting on such proposition, or when provided for by the charter of a municipal corporation.”

The schedule thereto provides, in part: “If the votes for the proposal shall exceed those against it, the amendment shall go into effect January 1, 1931, and original Sections 2 and 3 of Article XII of the constitution of the state of Ohio shall be repealed and annulled; but all levies for interest and sinking fund or retirement of bonds issued, or authorized prior to said date which are not subject to the statutory limitation of fifteen mills on the aggregate rate of taxation then in force, * * * shall not be subject to the limitation of fifteen mills established by said amendment; and levies for interest and sinking fund or retirement of bonds issued or authorized prior to said date, shall be outside of said limitation to the extent required to equalize any reduction in the amount of taxable property available for such levies * * *.”

No election has been had upon the issue of such bonds, and the charter of the city does not provide for their issue outside the fifteen mill limitation.

If the order issued by the director of public health *387 on September 9, 1927, plus the extension of the time within which compliance with such order was required to be made, the application of the council to the tax commission for authority to raise additional funds,

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
178 N.E. 843, 124 Ohio St. 382, 124 Ohio St. (N.S.) 382, 11 Ohio Law. Abs. 37, 1931 Ohio LEXIS 224, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-ex-rel-city-of-columbus-v-thatcher-ohio-1931.