Opinion
No. 40946
Decided October 4, 1967.
County budget commission — Apportionment of funds to county subdivision — Need of subdivision essential requirement for apportionment — Board of Tax Appeals — Duty to make findings as to needs — Claimed needs not necessarily actual needs.
1. The need of a subdivision for revenue, in addition to what it has, is an essential requirement for any apportionment to that subdivision from the county undivided local government fund. (Paragraph two of the syllabus of Lake County Budget Commission v. Village of Willoughby Hills, 9 Ohio St.2d 108, approved and followed.)
2. The Board of Tax Appeals has the same duty as the County Budget Commission to make findings as to the dollar amount of the needs of each subdivision of the county seeking to participate in the fund. (Paragraphs five and six of the syllabus of Lake County Budget Commission v. Village of Willoughby Hills, 9 Ohio St.2d 108, approved and followed.)
3. The claim of a subdivision that it needs a certain amount for an expenditure that it is authorized to make for current operating expenses does not require a determination that it needs such amount for such expenditure.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
This case involves the same facts that were involved in Lake County Budget Commission v. Willoughby Hills (1967), 9 Ohio St.2d 108, 224 N.E.2d 120, and is an appeal from the rehearing there ordered. On rehearing, the Board of Tax Appeals reallocated the initial Undivided Local Government Fund of Lake County, Ohio, for the year 1966. In making this reallocation the board determined the amount of need as follows:
"The `need' of each subdivision for current operations was computed by the Board of Tax Appeals as follows: From the grand total of proposed general fund expenditures as set out in each subdivision's 1966 tax budget was subtracted the proposed expenditures contained therein for capital improvements and debt, which items are not considered a proposed expenditure for current operations. In addition to the above deductions the board, being aware that a county or township, unlike a city or village, cannot spend money from the general fund for roads and bridges, eliminated any such items from the proposed expenditures appearing in the general fund budget of these particular subdivisions. After these deductions were made the resulting sum was designated `General fund expenditures to be used in computing "need" for local government fund allocation purposes.'"
Mr. Fred V. Skok, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Albert Obermeyer, for appellant.
Mr. Paul H. Torbet, Mr. Ross Avellone, Mr. Russell Adams, Mr. John Pollock, Mr. John Wiles, Messrs. Donaldson Colgrove, Mr. Gilbert T. Cave, Mr. Henry R. Rand, Mr. Rudolph Rizzo, Mr. Charles P. Baker, Jr., Mr. Wayne E. Davis, Mr. Louis A. Turi, Mr. David P. Freed, Mr. Donald Wiper, Jr., Mr. E.W. Mastrangelo and Mr. Wayne R. Milburn, for appellees.
The foregoing determination of need based solely on proposed general fund expenditures, with certain adjustments, fails to take account of the requirements set out in paragraphs two, four, five and six of the syllabus of Lake County Budget Commission v. Village of Willoughby Hills, supra ( 9 Ohio St.2d 108).
Furthermore, in the opinion in that case it is stated (page 113):
"In order to apportion the estimated amount of the local government fund of a county for a particular year, the Budget Commission must, to use the words of Section 5739.23, Revised Code, `determine the amount needed by each subdivision for current operating expenses * * * in addition to revenues available from all other sources [except those received from an additional voted tax or service charge] * * * in order to enable it to carry on its essential local government functions.' Brooklyn v. Cuyahoga County Budget Comm., supra ( 2 Ohio St.2d 181) ; Budget Commission of Lorain County v. Board of Tax Appeals, supra ( 176 Ohio St. 98); Troy v. Miami County, supra ( 168 Ohio St. 418) ." (Emphasis added.)
As pointed out in paragraphs five and six of the syllabus of that case, the Board of Tax Appeals has the same duty as the County Budget Commission to review the claimed needs and to make a finding in its decision as to the actual needs in dollars of each of the subdivisions of the county seeking to participate in the fund.
A list of proposed general fund expenditures of a subdivision is merely a statement of claimed needs. Claimed needs are not necessarily equal to actual needs.
The claim of a subdivision that it needs a certain amount for an expenditure that it is authorized to make for current operating expenses does not require a determination that it needs such amount for such expenditure.
For the foregoing reasons the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is unlawful and the cause is remanded to that board for further proceedings.
Decision reversed.
ZIMMERMAN, MATTHIAS, O'NEILL, HERBERT, SCHNEIDER and BROWN, JJ., concur.