Opinion ID: 1918147
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Uniformity Requirement if Tax is Classified As a Property Tax.

Text: In Barnes v. West Allis (1957), 275 Wis. 31, 37, 81 N. W. (2d) 75, this court declared: Under sec. 1, art. VIII, constitution of Wisconsin, where a property tax is levied, there can be no classification which interferes with substantial uniformity of rate based upon value. Other cases which have interpreted the uniformity clause, as applied to a property tax, to require practical equality based on value are: State ex rel. Baker Mfg. Co. v. Evansville (1952), 261 Wis. 599, 609, 53 N. W. (2d) 795; Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. State (1906), 128 Wis. 553, 608, 108 N. W. 557; and Knowlton v. Rock County (1859), 9 Wis. 378, 449 (, ). The tax imposed by the instant ordinance violates the constitutional requirement of uniformity because all residence properties having electrical service meters are taxed 50 cents per month regardless of value. A residential property having an assessed value of $5,000 is required to pay the same tax as one having an assessed value of $20,000. This same disregard of value occurs with respect to the tax imposed on commercial properties having electrical service meters. The instant tax also violates the uniformity requirement by taxing commercial properties at a higher rate than residential properties. That this is so is clear from this statement by Mr. Justice MARSHALL in Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. State, supra, at pages 603, 604: For the direct method of taxing property, taxation on property so called, as to the rule of uniformity, there can be but one constitutional class. All not included therein must be absolutely exempt from such taxation. All within such class must be taxed on a basis of equality so far as practicable. See also Knowlton v. Rock County, supra . The appellant city does not challenge the correctness of the determination of the trial court that the instant tax violates the uniformity requirement of sec. 1, art. VIII, Wisconsin constitution, if such tax is held to be a direct property tax. Rather it seeks to avoid this result by contending that this tax is not a general property tax but a special assessment. If it is a special assessment, the uniformity requirement is inapplicable. Williams v. Madison (1962), 15 Wis. (2d) 430, 443, 113 N. W. (2d) 395; Milwaukee v. Taylor (1938), 229 Wis. 338, 340, 282 N. W. 448; Weeks v. Milwaukee (1860), 10 Wis. 186, 204 (, ). Thus the crucial question is whether the tax imposed by the ordinance is a special assessment. A special assessment differs from a general tax in that it is imposed to pay for an improvement which benefits specific property within the political division imposing it. De Pere v. Public Service Comm. (1954), 266 Wis. 319, 327, 63 N. W. (2d) 764. See also Yates v. Milwaukee (1896), 92 Wis. 352, 356, 357, 66 N. W. 248; Hale v. Kenosha (1872), 29 Wis. 599, 605; 14 McQuillin, Mun. Corp. (3d ed.), pp. 14, 15, sec. 38.01. The instant tax was levied to provide funds with which to acquire industrial sites to be leased or sold to industries. While industrial sites may constitute public improvements, they do not benefit specific property in the city to a tangible extent which permits the levying of a special assessment measured in terms of the benefit conferred. Such sites confer no more tangible benefits to specific property than would a school or municipal swimming pool. In Duncan Development Corp. v. Crestview Sanitary Dist. (1964), 22 Wis. (2d) 258, 264, 265, 125 N. W. (2d) 617, it was held that an improvement to the water system of a sanitary district which benefited all the property of the district, but to varying degrees, could be financed through special assessments levied on all the property of the district. However, the benefits conferred by such an improvement to all property in the district were tangible enough to support a special assessment. In view of the foregoing we conclude that, if the tax imposed by the instant ordinance is a property tax, it is a general tax and not a special assessment. By the Court. Judgment affirmed.