Opinion ID: 1145145
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Invalidity as a Tax

Text: Plaintiffs urge that the requirements of the ordinance in question are but a revenueraising scheme for the purpose of meeting the financial needs of the City, and thus constitute an improper levy of a tax upon their property. This labeling is but an exercise in semantics which misconstrues the purpose of the ordinance to make another attack upon it. It has been adjudicated that such an ordinance, if reasonably designed and carried out for the purpose intended, is a proper form of planning for the good of the community, and is not such a prohibited tax. [11] The question as to the percentage of the land in the subdivision (in this instance, 7 percent) to be committed to the public purpose is within the prerogative of the City Council to determine, and so long as it is within reasonable limits, so that it cannot be characterized as capricious or arbitrary, the courts will not interfere therewith. [12] In harmony with what has been said above, it is our opinion that the ordinance under attack is within the scope of the powers granted to the City so that it can plan for the general good of the community as well as for the newly-created subdivisions. We have decided the principal issue which was addressed by the parties in the district court, and on this appeal, as to the validity of the ordinance. However, we observe that in the averments of the affidavits, there are other matters which may need to be resolved on remand; and accordingly, it is deemed appropriate that we make some additional comments. [13] There is no question, but that the ordinance should be applied fairly, and without favoritism or discrimination insofar as that can be accomplished. In view of the averment in plaintiffs' affidavit that that principle has been violated, the trial court should be concerned with examination into and resolution of any legitimate issue raised thereon. In his affidavit, plaintiff Clark Jenkins averred that he not only paid the $16,576 (assumed to be 7 percent of the value of the subdivision, $248,000) but was also required to dedicate .028 acres valued at $1,500; and to expend about $19,000 in construction of a storm sewer (which plaintiff urges is flood control) before the City would approve the subdivision. He asserts that these amounts are in excess of the 7 percent required by the ordinance. The City's affidavit states that it received the $16,576, but says nothing about receiving the other amounts just referred to. It is, of course, essential that the amount the City exacts pursuant to the ordinance is not more than the 7 percent of value of plaintiffs' property it prescribes. Our final observation is on plaintiffs' urgence that the $19,000 they expended in constructing a storm sewer should be credited upon their obligation under the ordinance. From what has been said in this decision, it should be sufficiently plain that the 7 percent exacted pursuant to the ordinance is for the general purpose of parks, recreation facilities and flood control, and is to be so administered and expended by the city government for that purpose; and that it is not necessarily to be used solely for the plaintiffs' subdivision or any other particular one. This does not in any way prevent the City from imposing other reasonable conditions upon the approval of a subdivision and proposed construction therein, including requiring a storm sewer if the conditions are such that it is needed in that subdivision for the protection of future residents thereof or other residents of the City. We therefore do not disagree with the City's requirement of the storm sewer, nor with its refusal to credit the plaintiff with the cost thereof on its 7 percent required by the ordinance. The decision of the trial court is affirmed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. No costs awarded. HALL, J., concurs.