Case Title: In re Town of Killington

Citation: 176 Vt. 60, 2003 VT 87A, 838 A.2d 98

Docket Number: 2002-365

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 2003-10-24T00:00:00Z

Document:
In re Town of Killington (2002-365); 176 Vt. 60; 838 A.2d 98

2003 VT 87A

[Filed 24-Oct-2003]

       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.

                                 2003 VT 87A

                                No. 2002-365

  In re Town of Killington	                 Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
                                                 Rutland Superior Court

                                                 April Term, 2003

  William D. Cohen, J.

  Ellen Mercer Fallon and Abby C. Moskovitz of Langrock Sperry & Wool,
    LLP, Middlebury, for Appellant.

  William H. Sorrell, Attorney General, and Charles L. Merriman, Special
    Assistant Attorney General, Montpelier, for Appellee.

  PRESENT:  Amestoy, C.J., Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and Allen, C.J. (Ret)
            and Gibson, J. (Ret.), Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  JOHNSON, J.   This appeal arises because the Town of
  Killington failed to meet a filing deadline to the Valuation Appeal Board
  when it appealed its property valuation for Act 60 purposes.  After its
  appeal was dismissed, Killington appealed to the Rutland Superior Court,
  arguing that the Board should have considered, pursuant to V.R.A.P. 4, its
  eligibility for a filing extension for excusable neglect before dismissing
  its claim.  The superior court agreed with the State that the filing
  deadline could not be extended and dismissed the claim.  Although
  Killington is correct that V.R.A.P. 4 applies to its administrative appeal,
  we affirm the decision below because Killington failed to show excusable
  neglect as a matter of law. 
   
       ¶  2.   Act 60 equalizes education expenditures per student across
  Vermont through a state?wide fund comprised of a general state support
  grant and local property tax revenue.  To begin calculating each
  municipality's required contribution, the Director of Property Valuation in
  the Department of Taxes assesses the aggregate and fair market value of a
  municipality's real property.  The Director then calculates each
  municipality's equalized education property tax grand list and coefficient
  of dispersion from this data, notifying the municipalities of these values
  each year by January 1. (FN1) 32 V.S.A. § 5406.
         
       ¶  3.  Upon receipt, a municipality has thirty days to file a petition
  with the Director of the Division of Property Valuation and Review for a
  redetermination of its property tax grand list and coefficient of
  dispersion.  32 V.S.A. § 5408(a).  Within thirty days of receiving the
  Director's redetermination, a municipality may again appeal to the
  Valuation Appeal Board.  32 V.S.A. § 5408(c).  The statute at issue in this
  case, 32 V.S.A. § 5408(c), provides the procedure for appeals to the
  Valuation Appeal Board.
   
       ¶  4.  On December 27, 2000, the Director of Property Valuation and
  Review determined Killington's 2001 equalized education property value and
  coefficient of dispersion.  Killington timely petitioned the Director of
  the Division of Property Valuation for a redetermination of these figures,
  which the Director issued on June 4, 2001.  Although Killington intended to
  appeal the Director's redetermination to the Valuation Appeal Board
  pursuant to § 5408(c), an "office procedure breakdown" within its law firm
  prevented it from filing this appeal within the statutory thirty-day limit. 
  On July 16, 2001, twelve days after the thirty-day limit, Killington filed
  its notice of appeal to the Valuation Appeal Board accompanied by a motion
  for an extension of time to file the appeal.

       ¶  5.  The Valuation Appeal Board dismissed Killington's motion on the
  ground that § 5408(c) does not authorize it to grant extensions of time to
  file appeals.  Killington appealed to the Rutland Superior Court, arguing
  that § 5408(c) authorizes extensions for excusable neglect by first noting
  that § 5408(c) proceedings derive their procedure from the Vermont
  Administrative Procedure Act (APA).  Any proceeding subject to the APA is
  also subject to the provisions in V.R.C.P. 74, which makes appeals under
  its jurisdiction also subject to V.R.A.P. 4.  Based on this analysis,
  Killington contends that courts may consider  V.R.A.P. 4 requests for
  filing extensions for excusable neglect on appeals brought pursuant to 32
  V.S.A. § 5408(c).

       ¶  6.  Both the State and Killington filed motions for summary
  judgment in Rutland Superior Court on the issue of whether a municipality
  can receive a V.R.A.P. 4 extension for excusable neglect under 32 V.S.A. §
  5408(c).  The court granted the State's motion for summary judgment,
  finding that V.R.C.P. 74, the necessary link to V.R.A.P. 4, is "clearly
  applicable only to appeals to the superior court from a decision of a
  governmental agency and not to appeals within or to a governmental agency." 
  This appeal followed.
   
       ¶  7.  Whether a municipality can obtain an extension for excusable
  neglect on appeals pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 5408(c) is a question of law
  subject to de novo review.  See  Jordan v. State, 166 Vt. 509, 511,