A Worthington man filed suit to force OSU to pay taxes on parts of the property not directly dedicated to student learning, rather than legally forgoing those payments as it has for decades. OSU counters that the airport is an integral part of more than two dozen degree programs and research and other educational activities and meets state law requirements for the exemption.
Justices heard oral arguments in the case Wednesday; a final decision is expected in coming months.
Plaintiff: Airport more than educational
The nearly 326-acre Don Scott Field has been owned by the university since 1942 and exempt from property taxes since ’43.
Worthington resident John O’Keeffe filed a formal complaint in 2016 about the latter, saying the airport’s role has evolved over the decades, from a private facility that solely benefited OSU’s flight education program to a public airport today. A substantial portion of the property is used by private individuals and corporations.
Keeffe’s suit also noted that, under Federal Aviation Administration grant regulations, no income produced on by the airport property can be used to directly support the general expenses of the university. Those funds, instead, go toward the maintenance and operations at the airport.
That point prompted a question of Chief Justice Maureen O’Connor Wednesday: “Well, if the university doesn’t have to expend funds and those funds can be diverted for other operations of the university, and there’s a benefit to the university community, in other words the students, why is that not sufficient?"
Attorney Sandra Dickinson, representing O’Keeffe, responded that much of the property is no longer directly supports the university's educational activities.
OSU: Entire airport is a 'learning laboratory'
The state tax commissioner and the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals earlier upheld the exemption, noting that the airport’s operations support the university, as a “learning laboratory” for students, with direct and indirect benefits to OSU’s educational mission.
Attorney Hilary Houston, representing the university, said the airport falls under OSU’s engineering college and is used for educational and research purposes — a learning laboratory that supports more than 30 degree programs. The facility also operates at a loss, with the university financially subsidizing operations.
“The airport is operated and managed by Ohio State students, faculty and staff, and it’s used specifically for courses like airport management, planning and design, aeronautical, mechanical and civil engineering, architecture, industrial design and finance, just to name a few,” Houston said.
Justice Sharon L. Kennedy asked about an OSU map that designated areas at the airport used by students and those used by private companies, including runways for private use only to allow the landing of larger aircraft.
But attorney Kimberly Allison, representing the state tax commissioner, said the property has to be taken as a whole, not pieced out by use for tax purposes.
“The entire system is a learning laboratory,” she said. “Students come to Ohio State, they can take these programs and they can get the experience … with the control tower and the multiple runways — experiences that they can’t get anywhere else. They clearly operationally relate to the operation of the university.”
Some nearly 80 years of the same operations and one jackass decided to raise a hullabaloo about property taxes? What bug crawled up his backside? There is something more to this story and the man obviously has a personal vendetta when apparently no other group or individual ever has with their tax exempt status (otherwise it would have been addressed long ago with enough angry taxpayer voices). My nose says this smells a lot like a kid of his didn't get accepted to OSU (on any campus). Poor failed daddy.
ReplyDeleteOr this could be a corollary case to the ruling that churches using their urban parking lots to generate revenue during the week must pay taxes despite being non-profit orgs. That those profits were used for outreach programs didn't sway the courts. Without more info, I don't agree with the vendetta accusation.
ReplyDelete