306 N.E.2d 422
No. 73-657Supreme Court of Ohio.
Decided January 30, 1974.
Taxation — County budget commission — School district public library — Participation in classified property tax fund — R.C. 5705.28 and 5707.05 — Library serving county other than county of permanent library facility — Entitled to participate in tax fund of other county, when — Board of Tax Appeals — May order allocation to library trustees, when.
1. Where a school district public library extends its services to residents of a part of a county other than the county in which the permanent facility of the library is located, in such a manner as to meet the requirements of R.C. 5705.28, the board of library trustees is entitled to participate in the distribution of the classified property tax fund of such other county.
2. Where the budget commission of a county fails to make an allocation to a qualified board of library trustees from the classified property tax fund of the county, the Board of Tax Appeals acts reasonably and lawfully in ordering an allocation to be made upon the basis of proportionate benefit received by the residents of the county.
3. The distribution of the county classified property tax fund, provided by R.C. 5707.05, does not prohibit a county from allocating moneys to the board of trustees of a public library which makes its services available to residents of that county, but whose permanent physical facility is not located therein.
APPEAL from the Board of Tax Appeals.
Page 40
The facts of this case are not in dispute. The Rodman Public Library was organized as a school district public library in the Alliance city school district. The boundaries of the school district and the library district are coextensive, and include parts of Stark, Mahoning and Columbiana counties. Since 1934, appellee, the board of library trustees, has maintained the policy of making its services available on an equal basis to all residents of those counties. Appellee participated in the distribution of classified property taxes collected in Mahoning County from approximately 1936 through 1961.
On July 18, 1972, appellee again filed a budget request for the 1973 fiscal year with the Budget Commission of Mahoning County, appellant herein, requesting that it be allocated $6,000 for operating expenses from the classified property tax fund of that county. The budget commission made no allocation. Appellee thereupon appealed the decision to the Board of Tax Appeals, pursuant to R.C. 5705.37. Following an evidentiary hearing, in which both parties provided briefs, the board determined that appellee was entitled to participate in the classified property tax fund of Mahoning County under the provisions of R.C. 5707.05, and made the requested allocation.
The cause is now before this court upon an appeal from the decision of the Board of Tax Appeals.
Mr. Vincent E. Gilmartin, prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Dennis Haines, for appellants.
Mr. David D. Dowd, Jr., prosecuting attorney, and Mr. Allan L. Krash, for appellee.
PAUL W. BROWN, J.
Participation by public library trustees in the classified property tax fund of a county is governed by R.C. 5705.28 and 5707.05. Certain standards are established by R.C. 5705.28 which must be satisfied by the board of trustees before a public library can qualify to participate in the distribution of the county classified
Page 41
tax fund pursuant to R.C. 5707.05.[*] It is undisputed that appellee herein has satisfied the statutory criteria for qualification. Moreover, R.C. 5707.05 directs that:
“* * * the county treasurer shall distribute the * * * fund * * * as follows:
“(B) To each board of public library trustees in the county, which has qualified for participation in such fund * * *.” (Emphasis added.)
Under the clear provisions of R.C. 5707.05, the county does not have the option of refusing participation to a qualified board of library trustees. In determining the amount of the allocation to which appellee was entitled, the Board of Tax Appeals used the rational basis of the relative benefit of its service to Mahoning County residents and to those students in the other counties served. We find the order of the board to be reasonable, as well as lawful.
The premise of appellants’ argument is that because the sole permanent physical facility of the library is not in Mahoning County, and because R.C. 5707.05 speaks of public library trustees “in the county,” the Budget Commission of Mahoning County is without authority to allot money from the county’s classified tax fund to appellee.
Page 42
Appellants cite County of Cuyahoga v. Budget Comm. (1949), 152 Ohio St. 351, and Friedlander v. Gorman (1933), 126 Ohio St. 163, to support their contention.
Appellants’ premise is not correct, nor do the cited cases support it. We do not read R.C. 5707.05 as restrictively as do appellants, who argue that the reference to boards of library trustees “in the county” means that only boards of trustees of libraries physically located within the county of the taxing authority are eligible to participate in the distribution of the classified tax fund. To so read the statute would negate the realization implicit in the eligibility requirements of R.C. 5705.28 and the distributive mechanism of R.C. 5707.05 that public libraries extending their services on an equal basis to the residents of a multi-county district are entitled to proportionate support from those counties whose residents are the beneficiaries. Our interpretation finds support in the long history of this practice. The General Assembly has been aware of the continued participation of appellee in the Mahoning County fund, and it has been aware of the specific approval of this practice by the Attorney General in 1934. Opinions of Attorney General (1934), No. 2516. Had the General Assembly wished to prohibit such participation, it had ample opportunity to do so. The fact that it did not, evidences its approval of this sharing of tax revenues.
Therefore, we hold that where a public library is “in the county,” whether by virtue of actual physical presence or by extension of its services on an equal basis to the residents thereof, and satisfies the requirements of R.C. 5705.28, it is entitled to participate in the distribution of that county’s classified property tax fund, and where the county budget commission fails to make an allocation therefrom the Board of Tax Appeals acts reasonably and lawfully in ordering such allocation based upon a rational basis of proportionate benefit received by the county.
Decision affirmed.
O’NEILL, C.J., HERBERT, STERN and W. BROWN, JJ., concur.
CORRIGAN and CELEBREZZE, JJ., dissent.
“The board of trustees of any public library, desiring to participate in the proceeds of classified property taxes collected in the county, shall adopt appropriate rules and regulations extending the benefits of the library service of such library to all the inhabitants of the county on equal terms, unless such library service is by law available to all such inhabitants, and shall certify a copy of such rules and regulations to the taxing authority with its estimate of contemplated revenue and expenditures. Where such rules and regulations have been so certified or where the adoption of such rules and regulations is not required, the taxing authority shall include in its budget of receipts such amounts as are specified by such board as contemplated revenue from classified property taxes, and in its budget of expenditures the full amounts requested therefrom by such board. No library association, incorporated or unincorporated, is entitled to participate in the proceeds of classified property taxes or other public funds unless such association was organized and operating prior to January 1, 1968.”
Page 43