VILLAGE OF NORTH PERRY, APPELLANT, v. LAKE COUNTY BUDGET COMMISSION ET AL., APPELLEES.
Nos. 93-1552 and 93-1932
SUPREME COURT OF OHIO
August 3, 1994
70 Ohio St.3d 46 | 1994-Ohio-28
Submitted May 25, 1994
APPEALS from the Board of Tax Appeals, Nos. 90-J-260, 91-J-279 and 92-B-267, and 93-B-216.
{¶ 2} In each of the abоve years, the Lake County General Health District, appellee, filed a budget with the Lake Cоunty Auditor pursuant to
{¶ 3} For each of these years, North Perry included an estimate of this assessment in the budget it filed with the auditor. The auditor then delivered North Perry‘s budget to the commission, which approved it. The commission thereafter
{¶ 4} In January 1990, the health district began the 1991 budgеt process by issuing a letter advising all subdivisions within its district of its proposed 1991 budget. This letter mentioned eaсh subdivision‘s 1990 actual assessment. North Perry, claiming that this was the first notice of its actual 1990 assessment, appealed from this letter to the Board of Tax Appeals (“BTA“) on February 26, 1990, claiming an overassessment for the budget year 1990. North Perry filed appeals from similar letters for budget years 1991 and 1992 on Fеbruary 28, 1991, February 26, 1992, and January 20, 1993, respectively.
{¶ 5} The BTA dismissed these appeals for lack of jurisdiction. The BTA ruled that the appeals were not timely filed as to any action taken by the commission.
{¶ 6} This cause is now before this court upon appeals as of right.
Crabbe, Brown, Jones, Potts & Schmidt, John P. Kennedy, Larry H. James and David A. Morton; Cannon, Stern, Aveni & Loiacono, and James V. Loiacono, for appellant.
Steven C. LaTourette, Lake County Prosecuting Attorney, and Michael P. Brown, Assistant Prosecuting Attorney, for appellees.
Per Curiam.
{¶ 7}
“The taxing authority of any subdivision that is dissatisfied with any action of the county budget commission may, through its fiscal officer, appeal to the board
of tax appeals within thirty days after the receipt by the subdivision of the official certificate or notice of the commission‘s action. * * *”
{¶ 8} North Perry claims that the only notiсe it received of the actual assessment was contained in the letters sent by the health distriсt. Consequently, so it argues, it may appeal from this notice. The commission responds that the appeals were untimely since North Perry filed them more than thirty days after it received noticе of the commission‘s actions and because North Perry attempted to appeal the health district‘s action, not the commission‘s action.
{¶ 9} “The right to appeal granted by
“Pursuant to the express terms of
R.C. 5705.37 , the permissible time in which to perfect an appeal to the Board of Tax Appeals may be triggered by a subdivision‘s receipt of either the official certificate as set forth inR.C. 5705.37 or by receipt of notice as defined inR.C. 5747.51(J) .”
{¶ 10} The commission, in the instant case, sent the оfficial certificates of resources in August of the year prior to each of the years in dispute. Further, the notice defined in
{¶ 11} Thus,
{¶ 12} In truth, North Perry had some knowledge of its assessment prior to receiving the official certificates. According to the testimony of North Perry‘s clerk-treasurer, she attempted, in December 1989, to obtain information on 1990‘s assessment from the health district to preрare the 1990 budget. North Perry then included an assessment estimate in such budget. Moreover, accоrding to Lake County‘s Chief Deputy Auditor, who handles the budgeting process for the auditor, North Perry‘s official certificate of resources reflects the assessment because such amount is deducted from real estate tax revenue to determine the exact amount of that revenue source.
{¶ 13} Accordingly, we affirm the BTA‘s decisions because North Perry did not file timely appeals for each of the years in question.
Decisions affirmed.
MOYER, C.J., A.W. SWEENEY, DOUGLAS, WRIGHT, RESNICK, F.E. SWEENEY and PFEIFER, JJ., concur.