Opinion
No. 25942
Decided July 1, 1936.
Taxation — Distribution of undivided classified property tax fund — Public libraries — Broad and discretionary powers vested in Budget and Tax Commissions — Mandamus denied to compel inclusion of estimates of contemplated revenue.
The powers vested by the Budget Act (Section 5625-24, General Code) in the County Budget Commission and in the Tax Commission of Ohio with reference to the making of allotments to boards of trustees of public libraries, qualified to participate in the classified property tax fund, are broad and discretionary in nature, and in the absence of a clear abuse thereof, a writ of mandamus will not issue.
IN MANDAMUS.
This is an original action in mandamus, brought by the city of Cleveland Heights on behalf of itself and all other municipalities in Cuyahoga county, Ohio, entitled to participate in the distribution of the undivided classified property tax fund to be distributed for the year 1936 under the provisions of Section 5639, General Code. The action was filed against the respondents as members of the Tax Commission of Ohio.
The petition alleges that under Section 5639, General Code, the shares of such fund coming to relator and to the other municipalities in Cuyahoga county is limited to the remainder of that fund after the amount allowed to the various boards of library trustees in the county, which have qualified under the law to participate in the fund, has been paid in full; and that therefore "the larger the share allowed said libraries, the less of said fund will remain for said municipalities, including this relator."
It is alleged that there are eleven libraries in Cuyahoga county which have passed the necessary resolution required by Section 5625-20, General Code, each extending the benefits of its particular library service to all inhabitants of the county, so as to be eligible to share in the proceeds of such tax fund; that of these eleven libraries six existed prior to 1931; that there are outstanding delinquent taxes, from levies on real estate made for those six library districts for the year 1930 and prior years, in the total sum of $211,000, which taxes, if and when collected, are required to be distributed to the particular library districts for which they were levied.
The petition further alleges that the budget requests made by the libraries were not in compliance with Section 5625-20, General Code; that although they contain a statement of the boards' estimate of contemplated expenditures, they did not contain any statement of the estimate of contemplated revenue, such as unencumbered cash on hand January 1, 1936, or of miscellaneous receipts to be reasonably expected during the year for book rentals, fines, interest, etc.
The petition also alleges that the Cuyahoga County Budget Commission, by formal action, fixed the amount of proceeds of the undivided classified property taxes collected within that county to be distributed to each of the libraries, and the Budget Commission determined to increase the amount so fixed or allowed to the six libraries that existed prior to 1931 by an amount equal to the total uncollected delinquent real estate taxes levied for the six library districts for 1930 and prior years, as part of a plan which provided that if and when the delinquent taxes were finally collected, no settlement for the same would be made to such library boards.
It is alleged that a protest was made by relator and other municipalities of Cuyahoga county, after which the Budget Commission reconsidered the question of the amount to be allowed the libraries and their budget requests, and issued a further order in which it made its allowances to the libraries, refusing to take the cash balances and other available resources into consideration, but made allowances to the libraries without regard thereto, and that the Budget Commission continued in its plan to trade with the six libraries the total sum of $211,000 above mentioned of the undivided classified property tax fund for an equal amount of delinquent real estate taxes above referred to; all to the detriment and prejudice of the relator and other municipalities of the county which were likewise entitled to a share in the distribution of such fund under Section 5639, General Code.
The petition sets forth many figures which, it is alleged, show that there was made available to the Cleveland Public Library alone, for 1936, $276,341.95 more than its total budget request, and $780,991.95 more than the amount determined by the Budget Commission on January 15, 1936, as sufficient for the needs of that library, at a time when the commission had no knowledge of the cash balances or the amounts of other expected receipts. It is alleged that excessive amounts, in smaller sums, were likewise allotted to the other libraries because of a disregard of budget law and practice.
It is further alleged that the relator and the other municipalities of Cuyahoga county appealed to the State Tax Commission of Ohio from the action of the Cuyahoga County Budget Commission; that the appeal was denied and the State Tax Commission affirmed the action of the Budget Commission.
Relator claims that the action of the Tax Commission of Ohio constituted a flagrant abuse of discretion and that by reason thereof relator will be deprived of more than $100,000 of undivided classified property taxes, which would be available to it had respondents complied with the law.
A writ of mandamus is sought to command respondents to require the board of trustees of the eleven libraries to complete their budget requests by setting forth estimates of contemplated revenues for 1936, including cash balances and expected miscellaneous receipts; to compel the Tax Commission to take into account both the estimate of contemplated revenues and the estimate of contemplated expenditures of each library, and to make appropriate reductions of allowances made to each of the libraries; to reduce the amount of the classified property taxes allowed to the six libraries above referred to by $211,000, theretofore added to their allowances in exchange for delinquent real estate taxes levied for 1930 and prior years for the benefit of those libraries, and to increase the allowance to the municipal corporations, including the relator, in a sum equal to the reductions ordered.
To the petition of relator respondent filed a demurrer on the grounds, first, that there was a defect of proper and necessary parties defendant; second, that mandamus is not a proper remedy; and, third, that the petition does not state a cause of action.
Mr. G.E. Hartshorn, for relator.
Mr. John W. Bricker, attorney general, Mr. Wm.J. Ford and Mr. Thomas M. Miller, for respondents.
Section 5625-20, General Code, provides, in part, that: "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 * * *, and shall certify a copy of such rules and regulations to the taxing authority with its estimate of contemplated revenue and expenditures. * * *"
By virtue of the above quoted statutory provision, relator seeks a writ of mandamus, commanding respondents to direct the Cuyahoga County Budget Commission to require the various library boards, seeking to participate in the proceeds of the classified property tax fund collected in the county, to furnish estimates of contemplated revenue, which, it is claimed, such library boards failed to furnish, inferring that when furnished it would be the duty of the Budget Commission to deduct the estimate of contemplated revenues from the allotments already made to them. However, we find no provision in the General Code requiring such deductions from allotments made out of the classified property tax fund; nor do we find in the General Code the specific duty imposed upon the County Budget Commission to require library boards of trustees to furnish such estimates; nor do we find a specific duty imposed by statute upon the Tax Commission of Ohio to direct the County Budget Commission to require library boards to furnish such estimates. Mandamus will not lie to compel performance of a duty not clearly and definitely imposed by law; and, where it is thus imposed, whether mandamus will lie is dependent upon the question whether the duty sought to be enforced is ministerial or judicial in nature. If judicial, and vesting in respondents powers of discretion, courts will not interfere with the exercise of discretion unless abuse is clearly shown.
Section 5625-20, General Code, requires boards of trustees of public libraries, desiring to participate in the proceeds of classified property taxes collected in the county, to furnish estimates of contemplated revenue. This is a duty imposed upon library boards of trustees and not upon the Tax Commission of Ohio or upon the County Budget Commission. While an estimate of contemplated revenues should have been furnished by the library boards in their budget requests submitted to the Budget Commission, the action of the Budget Commission in making the allotments is not invalidated by the absence of such estimates. The question whether to deduct estimated revenues, including cash balances and expected miscellaneous receipts, from such allotments, is solely within the discretion of the Budget Commission, with the exercise of which no court can interfere except in cases of clear abuse.
Relator further contends that the Budget Commission failed to deduct uncollected delinquent taxes levied for the benefit of six of the libraries in question from the amount allotted to them. Here, too, we find no specific duty imposed upon the Budget Commission to deduct such taxes from the amount allotted, that question being left solely to its discretion. In the instant case, the Budget Commission, in making the allotments, included "any and all delinquent real estate taxes assessed for 1930 and prior years" and provided that "In case any library board should claim and legally secure any of such delinquent real estate taxes, the above allowance shall be reduced as to such taxing district to such extent." We find no abuse of discretion here. The statutes give to the Budget Commission and to the Tax Commission of Ohio broad powers.
Relator contends that the Budget Commission and the Tax Commission of Ohio, in making its allotments, favored the library boards as against the municipalities; that "therefore the larger the share allowed said libraries, the less of said fund will remain for said municipalities, including this relator." However, as between the claims of public libraries and those of municipalities against the undivided classified property tax fund, the statutes do favor the public libraries, as is evidenced by the fact that allotments are first required to be made to them according to their requirements and that whatever remains of the fund after such allotments have been made to the libraries may be distributed among the municipalities of the county entitled thereto. If the Budget Commission and the Tax Commission of Ohio have, by their acts, favored the public libraries in preference to municipalities, they have merely put into effect public policy as reflected by the legislative enactments, which this court can not and will not frustrate.
This court already held such preference to be reasonable and justified by the fact that public libraries "are now compelled to rely solely upon the proceeds of classified property taxes, while the municipal corporations, the county and school districts still derive their principal income from various other taxes." State, ex rel. Rice, v. Lutz, County Auditor, 129 Ohio St. 201, at page 205, 194 N.E. 423.
We hold that the Budget Commission, in refusing to request the library boards of trustees to furnish estimates of contemplated revenues, and the Tax Commission of Ohio, in affirming its action, did not thereby refuse to perform a duty specifically enjoined by law, no such duty having been imposed upon them.
Demurrer sustained and petition dismissed.
WEYGANDT, C.J., STEPHENSON, WILLIAMS, JONES, MATTHIAS and ZIMMERMAN, JJ., concur.