City of Elyria v. Lorain County Budget Commission, 946 N.E.2d 742

Lorain County Budget Commission adopted a new alternative method of apportionment for 2004–2006, after negotiations related to the city of Lorain’s 2002 appeal.
The 2002 settlement offered Lorain a $500,000 payment and pledged a new method that would reduce several subdivisions’ shares in 2004, including Elyria, Avon Lake, North Ridgeville, and Amherst Township.
The $250,000 carve-out to reimburse the county for part of its 2003 settlement payment was intended to offset the county’s cost, and was to be applied in 2004.
Elyria, Avon Lake, North Ridgeville, and Amherst Township were not parties to the Lorain settlement but challenged the formula as to whether it could be applied to them.
The BTA initially dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; this Court remanded, prompting consideration of whether the new method could be applied to non-parties and whether the carve-out could be applied to them.
The BTA ultimately held the new method lawful for 2004–2006 and that the $250,000 carve-out could not be applied against the four subdivisions’ 2004 shares; the decision was affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is the 2004–2006 alternative method lawful despite arising from a settlement to which appellants were not parties?	Elyria et al. contend the settlement cannot bind them or form the basis for reduced shares.	County argues approval requirements were satisfied by proper votes and statutory procedures, making the method valid.	Yes; the method is lawful when statutorily approved.
May the $250,000 carve-out from the 2004 allocation be applied to Elyria, Avon Lake, North Ridgeville, and Amherst Township?	Carve-out traces to the 2003 settlement and cannot affect non-parties.	Carve-out is permissible as part of the settlement adjusted formula for 2004.	No; carve-out cannot be applied to those four subdivisions.
Does R.C. 5747.55(D) bar changes to allocations of non-appellees when adopting a new method?	Statutory language prevents changing shares for non-appellees.	New method affects all eligible subdivisions with proper approval; the provision does not bar the method itself.	No reversible bar; method valid while carve-out limited to proper parties.
Did the budget commission have authority to adopt a hybrid allocation that reduces county shares while keeping others under the new method?	Such a hybrid would be inconsistent with prior appeals and statutory framework.	The commission had discretion to allocate via the new method under R.C. 5747.53/ former 5747.63.	Yes; the BTA reasonably approved the hybrid method for 2004–2006.

Elyria v. Lorain Cty. Budget Comm., 117 Ohio St.3d 403 (2008-Ohio-940) (remand on merits; authority to apply alternative method after settlement)
E. Liverpool v. Columbiana Cty. Budget Comm., 90 Ohio St.3d 269 (2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard in adopting alternative formula)
E. Liverpool v. Columbiana Cty. Budget Comm., 105 Ohio St.3d 410 (2005-Ohio-2283) (clarifies that after approval, hearing not required before adopting alternative formula)
HealthSouth Corp. v. Levin, 121 Ohio St.3d 282 (2009-Ohio-584) (waiver of argument in reply brief may occur; omission may waive issues)