Case Title: Rutland Special Tax Challengers v. Rutland City

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1992-05-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
 Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
 Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of any errors in
 order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.

                                 No. 91-125

 Downtown Rutland Special Tax                 Supreme Court
 Challengers, Bruce Utley and
 George H. Looker                             On Appeal from
                                              Rutland Superior Court
      v.

 City of Rutland, The Rutland                 May Term, 1992
 Redevelopment Authority, Ronald
 Graves, The City Treasurer, and
 Vernon Richards, City Tax Collector


 Silvio T. Valente, J.

 Brian P. Dempsey, Castleton, for plaintiffs-appellants

 John Paul Faignant and Robin S. Richards of Miller & Faignant, Rutland, for
   defendant-appellee Rutland Redevelopment Authority

 Frank H. Zetelski, City Attorney, Rutland, for defendants-appellees City of
   Rutland, Graves and Richards


 PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley, Morse and Johnson, JJ.


      ALLEN, C.J.   Plaintiffs, owners of property within a special
 assessment district in the City of Rutland, appeal from a superior court
 order denying their request to declare the assessment void and enjoin its
 implementation.  They argue that the Rutland Redevelopment Authority (RRA)
 violated various statutory and constitutional provisions when it created the
 district and imposed the special assessment.  We hold that the RRA failed to
 follow applicable statutory requirements and therefore reverse and remand.
      In early 1989, the voters of the City of Rutland approved a revised
 city charter that provided for the creation of the RRA.  The new charter was
 duly adopted by the Legislature and signed by the Governor.  Among the
 enumerated RRA powers was the following, which is the focus of the instant
 dispute:  "[t]o assess, in the name of the City of Rutland, impact fees and
 special benefit assessments within those parts of the City of Rutland
 designated by the Board of Aldermen."  1989, No. M-8, { 36-4(c).  Although
 the Board of Aldermen designated the entire city as the special assessment
 district, the RRA proposed an ordinance imposing a special benefit tax only
 on property located in the downtown district.  After conducting hearings and
 making various revisions to the district boundary, the RRA unanimously
 adopted the ordinance.  The City's voters did not vote on the special
 assessment district, and the owners of property within the district did not
 consent in writing to the assessment.
      The ordinance established the tax rate for the special district as "an
 amount no greater than twenty-five percent of the property tax levied and
 assessed" and provided for annual assessments.  For the first year,
 beginning July 1, 1990, the RRA set the rate at 16.75%.  Planned benefits
 for the district included promotion of the downtown area through special
 events, advertising, landscaping, and the installation of park benches,
 signs, and waste receptacles.
      Plaintiffs sought to enjoin the RRA and the City from implementing the
 special assessment and to have the assessment declared void on various
 procedural and substantive grounds.  They argued that (1) the RRA failed to
 adhere to the provisions of Title 24, chapter 87 when imposing the special
 assessment, (2) the Board of Aldermen, not the RRA, should have designated
 the special assessment district, (3) certain members of the RRA's Board of
 Commissioners violated the charter's conflict of interest provision because
 they owned land within the district, (4) the RRA derived no authority from
 either Title 24 chapter 85 or 24 V.S.A. { 2744 for the assessment, (5) the
 ordinance violates the common law of special assessments, and (6) the
 assessment violates provisions of both the Vermont and United States
 constitutions.  We address the first two of these issues and do not reach
 the others.
      As a preliminary matter, we note that the authority delegated by the
 Legislature to a municipality to levy special assessments is strictly
 construed, and that reasonable doubts regarding such authority will be
 resolved in favor of the taxpayer.  Garden Development Co. v. City of
 Hastings, 231 Neb. 477, 480,