In re Complaint of Reynoldsburg
134 Ohio St. 3d 29
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Reynoldsburg, a municipal corporation, passed a right-of-way ordinance requiring utilities to bury overhead lines at their sole cost within the city’s rights of way as part of a broader Main Street Project.
- CSP, a public utility, had a tariff provision (Section 17) that requires municipalities to pay the cost of relocating lines underground when the municipality requires such relocation.
- Reynoldsburg sought a PUCO ruling that its ordinance supersedes the tariff; PUCO ruled for CSP.
- Reynoldsburg challenged the PUCO decision, raising constitutional home-rule concerns and multiple statutory/constitutional arguments.
- The case centers on whether state tariff provisions or local self-government/police powers govern the cost-liability for burying lines and whether the ordinance conflicts with a general law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does CSP’s tariff preempt Reynoldsburg’s ordinance? | Reynoldsburg argues home-rule prevails over tariff. | CSP/PUCO contend tariff is a statewide general law. | Tariff prevails; ordinance is preempted. |
| Is Reynoldsburg’s ordinance a valid exercise of local self-government or police power? | Reynoldsburg asserts self-government power over public ways. | Tariff/regulation is a general law enacted via police power. | Ordinance is police-power regulation and thus subject to conflict with general law. |
| Is CSP’s tariff a general law under Canton v. State analysis? | Tariff is not a general law because it is a regulated rate schedule. | Tariff statutes constitute general-law framework for statewide regulation. | Tariff qualifies as a general law; conflicts with ordinance are valid. |
| Did Reynoldsburg preserve or waived any claims regarding common-law relocation costs? | Common-law rule supported Reynoldsburg’s position. | PUCO order not reviewable on waived grounds; rehearing grounds defective. | Claim waived for review; cannot be considered. |
| Did the commission properly interpret tariff language about cost allocation? | City argues cost should be borne partly by CSP. | Tariff language unambiguously assigns cost to municipality. | Commission correctly interpreted; city bears entire relocation cost. |
Key Cases Cited
- Canton v. State, 95 Ohio St.3d 149 (2002-Ohio-2005) (general-law test for home-rule analysis)
- Marich v. Bob Bennett Constr. Co., 116 Ohio St.3d 553 (2008-Ohio-92) (police power vs. self-government; four-part Canton test applied)
- Froelich v. Cleveland, 99 Ohio St.3d 376 (1919) (municipal regulation of public ways evaluated under police power)
- Vernon v. Warner Amex Cable Communications, 25 Ohio St.3d 117 (1986) (regulation of public utilities and use of public property; local self-government vs. police power)
- Kazmaier Supermarket, Inc. v. Toledo Edison Co., 61 Ohio St.3d 147 (1991) (comprehensive statewide framework for utility regulation; tariffs bind customers)