Case ID: ohio-st_43/html/0162-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Eollett, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Parmelee v. Youngstown.
    
      Assessments — Revised Statutes, sections 2269, 2270 — Benefited land not subdivided— Value as assessed for taxation.
    
    The plan of assessments for special improvements, and the provisions of Revised Statutes, sections 2269, 2270, were intended to equalize the expense upon all the land benefited, and should be so construed as to carryout their spirit and principle; and where there is benefited land, not subdivided into lots, and the council has fixed the value of the front of such land to the usual depth of lots adjoining, as therein provided, for this assessment such value is the value of the property as assessed for taxation, within the meaning of this assessment statute.
    Appeal. Reserved iu the District Court of Mahoning county.
    The city of'Youngstown is a city of the second class in a county not containing a city of the jirst grade of the first class.
    This is an action ‘to restrain the collection of a special assessment upon a part of o'ut-lot No. 80, in that city, to pay for a portion of the cost and expense of certain improvements. Prior to such improvement out-lot 80 contained four and 16-1000 acres of land in the central part of the city.
    The city appropriated the irregular part of the lot, straightened aud widened the street on which the lot abutted, so that it corresponded in width with the street upon either side.
    Prior to the appropriation proceedings this out-lot, excluding buildings, was valued in one parcel on the county tax list at $5,911; and for purposes of general taxation it has so remained.
    The city council determined that a part of the cost and expense of the improvement should be assessed upon property benefited thereby. As this out-lot was not allotted, the city council fixed the benefited part thereof at 420 feet along the improvement, and back to the depth of 200 feet, which was the usual depth of adjacent and benefited lots. This assessable part of lot No. 80 was not on the tax duplicate by itself, and was there only in bulk with other land; and the city council fixed the valuation of the benefited part for the purposes of the assessment at $30 per foot front, or $12,600 upon the whole frontage of 420 feet, and to the usual depth of lots in the neighborhood, 200 feet. On this benefited part and as an equivalent of the special benefits resulting thereto on account of the improvement, the council placed an assessment of $3,150 by the foot front. This would be $7.50 per foot front.
    The total cost of the improvement was $10,553.79, as follows: $5,000 for 319-1000 of an acre of land taken from this out-lot No. 80; $5,341.79 for improvements, fixtures, and an unexpired leasehold upon the same; and $212 costs of appropriation.
    Besides this $3,150 upon a part of out-lot No. 80 as property abutting upon the improvement and specially benefited thereby, the council assessed $3,598 upon property specially benefited and not' abutting thereon; and each assessment was made payable in four equal annual installments from and after August 1, 1881, and' the remainder, $3,805.79, was levied upon all the taxable property in the city.
    Plaintiffs claim that the city council could not lawfully assess upon the whole of out-lot No. 80, or oh any part thereof, in all a sum greater than $1,477.75, which is 25 per cent of the full bulk appraisement of all the lot for general taxation, $5,911; and they pray that defendants, the city of Youngstown, and the county auditor and the county treasurer, be enjoined from collecting of said assessment a greater sum than $1,477-75, etc., and for other relief.
    
      Sidney Strong, for plaintiff in error.
    
      Volney Rogers, for defendant in error.
   Eollett, J.

We will consider:

I. What is the assessed value of this benefited land ? Or what is the value of this benefited property as assessed for taxation ?

Plaintiffs do not aver or claim that this land is assessed by the city council at more than its true value, or at any higher rate than the adjoining property.

In making such improvements and such assessments the Revised Statutes provide as follows:

“ Sec. 2269. In making a special assessment, according to valuation, the council shall be governed by the assessed value of the lots, if the land is subdivided and the lots are numbered and recorded; but if the lots are not assessed for taxation, or if -there is land not subdivided into lots, the council shall fix the value of the lots or the value of the front of such land to the usual depths of lots, by the average of two blocks, one of which shall be next adjoining, on each side; and if there are no blocks so adjoining, the council shall fix the value of the lots or lands to be assessed, so that it will be a fair average of the assessed value of other lots in the neighborhood; and if in making a special assessment by the foot front there is land bounding or abutting said improvements not subdivided into lots, or if there be lots numbered and recorded, bounding or abutting said improvements, and lying lengthwise of said improvements, the council shall fix, in like manner, the front of such land and such lots to the usual depth of lots, so that there will be a fair average of the depth of lots in the neighborhood which are subject to such assessments, and this section shall be applicable to all special assessments provided for in this chapter.”

“ Sec. 2270. In municipal corporations other than cities of the first class, or in corporations in counties containing a city of the first grade of the first class, the tax or assessment specially levied and assessed on any lot or land, for any improvement, shall in no case amount to more than twenty-five per centum of the value of the property as assessed for taxation, and the cost exceeding that per centum shall be paid by the corporation, out of its general revenue, and there shall not be collected of such assessments, in any one year, more than one-fifteenth of the value of the property on which the assessment was made, as valued in the count}' tax list for taxation.”

The provisions and policy of these sections are clear. When the land is divided into lots and valued for taxation, such assessed value controls; but where it is not subdivided into lots, the council shall fix the value of the front of such land to the usual depths of lots by the average assessed value of adjoining lots in the neighborhood.

Plaintiffs had not subdivided this land into lots ; and this benefited part was not separately assessed for taxation, except as it was done by the city council; and this part was not separately in the county tax list for taxation until so placed there for this special assessment by the city council. Plaintiffs could have had it so placed there, but they did not. They preferred that this benefited part should remain in bulk with other lands and be valued in gross, rather than be divided and valued, as were the adjoining lots, at a higher rate.

As this benefited part was not separated from the other parts of out-lot No. 80, and as it was not subdivided into lots, and as it was not separately valued for taxation, the council had to fix its fair value by the former assessed values of similar lands, as provided by section 2269. The council found a definite standard, and with that standard they found and fixed the fair value of this benefited part to be $12,600.

In so fixing the value there was no'error, and $12,600 is the assessed value of this benefited land, as assessed for this special taxation.

II. What assessment may be taxed on this valuation is fixed by section 2270, which provides that such assessments “ shall in no case amount to more than twenty-five per centum of the value of the property as assessed for taxation.” The $3,150 assessed on this property is just twenty-five per centum of $12,600, “ the value of the property as assessed for taxation ” for this improvement. And in accordance with the principle and spirit of section 2,270, if not within the exact lettef of that section, an amount equal to one-fifteenth part of su'ch assessed value may be collected in any one year. So that there could have been collected in one year one-fifteenth of $12,600, being $840, when only $787.50 was sought to be collected in one year.

.Thus each part of these sections is in harmony with every other part, and all together they present a consistent plan that may secure equity. There was no error, and

The petition must be dismissed.