Township of Andover v. Ashtabula County Budget Commission

Ohio Supreme Court

Township of Andover v. Ashtabula County Budget Commission

360 N.E.2d 690, 49 Ohio St. 2d 171, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 238, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 334

CourtOhio Supreme Court

DecidedFebruary 23, 1977

DocketNo. 76-817

StatusPublished

Cited by6 cases

This text of 360 N.E.2d 690 (Township of Andover v. Ashtabula County Budget Commission) 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

Township of Andover v. Ashtabula County Budget Commission, 360 N.E.2d 690, 49 Ohio St. 2d 171, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 238, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 334 (Ohio 1977).

Pincite

Opinions

Per Curiam.

The local government fund is a form of financial state support of the smaller governmental units existing in Ohio. It is composed of a portion of the state sales tax receipts⁴ and the state-collected tax on “capital employed by financial institutions, and * * * by dealers in intangibles.”⁵ These funds are transferred by the state [174]*174auditor to the several counties for distribution to the local subdivisions. A group of three county officials, designated as the budget commission, then has the responsibility of allocating the local government fund. The budget commission may apportion such funds on a straight formula basis, the “statutory method,” or by the “alternative method,” which latter method allows the budget commission to consider any factor deemed to be “appropriate and reliable,” in its sole discretion. The budget commission meets annually, on the first Monday in August,⁶ at which time it considers the budget submitted by each governmental subdivision.⁷

Appellant presents several arguments to this court which, he urges, warrant a reversal of the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision to reinstate the “alternative method.” We are not persuaded that the adoption of the “alternative method” by the various governmental units constitutes a contract, and hence reject appellant’s attempt to apply principles of contract law. Likewise, we find no merit in appellant’s assertion that the statutory scheme for adoption and repeal of the “alternative method” abrogates a purported power of local self-government. (See Beachwood v. Bd. of Elections [1958], 167 Ohio St. 369.) We do, however, agree with both appellant and appellees that the apparent intent of the General Assembly, in enacting R. C. 5747.53, was to maximize flexibility in the allocation of the local government fund.

The city of Ashtabula has agreed to participate in the more flexible method of allocation of funds, yet has sought to limit its participation by annual resolutions which commit it to the “alternative method” for the next succeeding year only. After having considered, in pari materia, all the Ohio statutes pertaining to the annual distribution of the local government fund, we are unable to agree with the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision requiring that the city be indefinitely locked into the “alternative method,” when it [175]*175has expressly limited its participation in that method to a definite period' of time and the entire statutory scheme implies an annual determination of the method of distribution.

Accordingly, this court holds that the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision is unreasonable and unlawful, and it is., therefore, reversed.

Decision reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, P. Brown, Sweeney and Looher, JJ., concur.

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

Per Curiam.

The local government fund is a form of financial state support of the smaller governmental units existing in Ohio. It is composed of a portion of the state sales tax receipts⁴ and the state-collected tax on “capital employed by financial institutions, and * * * by dealers in intangibles.”⁵ These funds are transferred by the state [174]*174auditor to the several counties for distribution to the local subdivisions. A group of three county officials, designated as the budget commission, then has the responsibility of allocating the local government fund. The budget commission may apportion such funds on a straight formula basis, the “statutory method,” or by the “alternative method,” which latter method allows the budget commission to consider any factor deemed to be “appropriate and reliable,” in its sole discretion. The budget commission meets annually, on the first Monday in August,⁶ at which time it considers the budget submitted by each governmental subdivision.⁷

Appellant presents several arguments to this court which, he urges, warrant a reversal of the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision to reinstate the “alternative method.” We are not persuaded that the adoption of the “alternative method” by the various governmental units constitutes a contract, and hence reject appellant’s attempt to apply principles of contract law. Likewise, we find no merit in appellant’s assertion that the statutory scheme for adoption and repeal of the “alternative method” abrogates a purported power of local self-government. (See Beachwood v. Bd. of Elections [1958], 167 Ohio St. 369.) We do, however, agree with both appellant and appellees that the apparent intent of the General Assembly, in enacting R. C. 5747.53, was to maximize flexibility in the allocation of the local government fund.

The city of Ashtabula has agreed to participate in the more flexible method of allocation of funds, yet has sought to limit its participation by annual resolutions which commit it to the “alternative method” for the next succeeding year only. After having considered, in pari materia, all the Ohio statutes pertaining to the annual distribution of the local government fund, we are unable to agree with the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision requiring that the city be indefinitely locked into the “alternative method,” when it [175]*175has expressly limited its participation in that method to a definite period' of time and the entire statutory scheme implies an annual determination of the method of distribution.

Accordingly, this court holds that the Board of Tax Appeals’ decision is unreasonable and unlawful, and it is., therefore, reversed.

Decision reversed.

O’Neill, C. J., Herbert, Celebrezze, P. Brown, Sweeney and Looher, JJ., concur.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

360 N.E.2d 690, 49 Ohio St. 2d 171, 3 Ohio Op. 3d 238, 1977 Ohio LEXIS 334, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/township-of-andover-v-ashtabula-county-budget-commission-ohio-1977.

Opinions

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack