Opinion
No. 79-793
Decided January 23, 1980.
Taxation — Real estate — Exemptions — Park district property not taxable.
R.C. 5709.10 extends a tax exemption to property owned by park districts, regardless of its use. ( Atwell v. Board of Park Commrs., 2 Ohio St.2d 257, approved and followed.)
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
The Commissioner of Tax Equalization herein appeals from a decision of the board of Tax Appeals, determining that the commissioner erred in denying appellee, Montgomery County Park District (hereinafter "park district"), tax exemptions in connection with its ownership of three residential facilities located on park district land and rented to park district employees.
The park district rents these residential facilities at discount rates to park district personnel in exchange for maintenance and supervisory services related to surrounding park district lands. The above residential facilities and adjacent lands were purchased by the park district pursuant to its plans for the development of public park reserves. The park district anticipates that employee occupancy of each facility will terminate once the facilities can be integrated into its development plans.
The commissioner denied the park district exemptions for the three residential facilities and their adjacent one-acre sites based on his findings that the facilities were not being used exclusively for public purposes. On appeal, the Board of Tax Appeals reversed, determining, "as a matter of law, that the subject real property belonging to the park district is entitled to exemption from real property taxation, pursuant to R.C. 5709.10, without reference to any use made of such property." Having so determined, the Board of Tax Appeals found it unnecessary to determine the park district's alternative contention that the facilities were being used exclusively for public purposes within the meaning of R.C. 5709.121.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal as of right.
Messrs. Smith Schnacke, Mr. Paul E. Lacouture and Mr. Joseph M. Rigot, for appellee.
Mr. William J. Brown, attorney general, and Mr. John C. Duffy, Jr., for appellant.
The issue presented in this cause is whether park district property must be used exclusively for public purposes for it to be extended a property tax exemption under R.C. 5709.10.
In relevant part, R.C. 5709.10 provides:
"***[P]roperty belonging to park districts, created pursuant to section 1545.01 of the Revised Code, shall be exempt from taxation."
The commissioner bases his appeal solely on the contention that R.C. 5709.10 implicity includes an exclusive public use requirement. He does not dispute that the literal terms of R.C. 5709.10 merely require that a park district own the subject property. Moreover, he admits that conditioning this tax exemption on mere park district ownership is valid under Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution, effective January 1, 1931. Denison University v. Bd. of Tax Appeals (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 17, paragraph three of the syllabus.
The commissioner concedes that appellee is a park district within the meaning of R.C. 1545.01, and that appellee owns the residential structures involved here.
Effective January 1, 1931, Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution, was amended to read as follows:
"*** without limiting the general power, subject to the provisions of Article I of this Constitution, to determine the subjects and methods of taxation or exemptions therefrom, general laws may be passed to exempt burying grounds, public school houses, houses used exclusively for public worship, institutions used exclusively for charitable purposes and public property used exclusively for any public purpose***." (Emphasis added.)
The commissioner asserts that an exclusive public use requirement must be read into R.C. 5709.10 because, at the time of the enactment of the provision in R.C. 5709.10 (formerly G.C. 5356) exempting park district property from taxation, in 1920, Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio constitution, as amended November 5, 1918, provided that "public property used exclusively for any public purpose***may, by general laws, be exempted from taxation***." He then argues that as a matter of statutory construction, neither the above 1931 amendment to Section 2 of Article XII, broadening the legislative power to permit such exemptions to be conditioned on mere public ownership, nor a later reenactment of the relevant provision in an amended version of R.C. 5709.10 in 1949, operates so as to delete exclusive public use as a statutory requirement.
108 Ohio Laws 1285.
We note the similarity between the relevant facts herein and those addressed by this court in Atwell v. Board of Park Commrs. (1965), 2 Ohio St.2d 257. In Atwell, this court approved the granting of a tax exemption under R.C. 5709.10 on a mere showing of park district ownership, without considering the use made of the subject property. See, also, Muskinghum v. Walton (1970), 21 Ohio St.2d 240, 244. The commissioner seeks to distinguish Atwell by noting that there "the issue of whether***R.C. 5709.10 [should] be read in light of [Section 2, Article XII of] the Ohio Constitution as it existed [in 1920] when the statute was enacted was not placed before the court for consideration."
Assuming, arguendo, that Atwell, supra, is so distinguishable, the substance of the commissioner's argument is nevertheless without merit. The relevant provision of R.C. 5709.10, as amended in 1949, does not include an exclusive public ownership requirement nor was one constitutionally required subsequent to the 1931 amendment to Section 2, Article XII of the Ohio Constitution. Denison, supra. We assume that the General Assembly in 1949 was aware of the 1931 constitutional amendment, and reenacted the relevant provision of R.C. 5709.10 with it in mind. Since the language of R.C. 5709.10 as amended in 1949 is unequivocal in its requirement that a park district merely own the subject property, there is no basis for reading into it stricter requirements. See Provident Bank v. Wood (1973), 36 Ohio St.2d 101, 105, 106. Thus, at least as of 1949, property owned by a park district is entitled to a tax exemption under R.C. 5709.10, regardless of its use.
123 Ohio Laws 455.
We do not determine whether the pre-1931 versions of Section 2, Article XII, ever required that an exclusive public use requirement be read into R.C. 5709.10. Moreover, assuming that before 1931 an exclusive public use requirement was implicitly included in R.C. 5709.10, we do not determine whether the 1931 amendment to Section 2, Article XII, was itself sufficient to delete it as a statutory requirement.
The decision of the Board of Tax Appeals is affirmed.
Decision affirmed.
CELEBREZZE, C.J., HERBERT, P. BROWN, SWEENEY, LOCHER and HOLMES, JJ., concur.