Title: Bridgewater, Town of, v. Dept. of Taxes

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Town of Bridgewater v. Department of Taxes (2001-031); 173 Vt. 509; 
787 A.2d 1234

[Filed 08-Nov-2001]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                      SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 2001-031

                             OCTOBER TERM, 2001

Town of Bridgewater, et al.	       }	APPEALED FROM:
                                       }
                                       }
     v.	                               }	Rutland Superior Court
                                       }	
Vermont Department of Taxes	       }
                                       }	DOCKET NO. S0715-99RcC

                                                Trial Judge: David A. Jenkins

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiffs are several towns and five individual taxpayers who
  challenged the assessment  methods used by the director of the Division of
  Property Valuation and Review to calculate the  equalized education
  property tax grand list required by the Equal Educational Opportunity Act
  of  1997 (Act 60).  The State brought a motion to dismiss pursuant to
  V.R.C.P. 12(b)(1) on the ground  that the court lacked subject matter
  jurisdiction.  The Rutland Superior Court granted the motion on  the
  grounds that plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies provided
  under 32 V.S.A. §  5408.  We affirm.

       Act 60 funds the state's education expenses through a general state
  support grant and local  property tax.  Each municipality must contribute
  an amount based on the equalized education  property tax grand list.  That
  amount, as well as the coefficient of dispersion, is determined by the 
  director of the Division of Property Valuation and Review in the Department
  of Taxes.  These  calculations are based on the aggregate fair market value
  of all real property in each municipality.   Plaintiffs brought suit in
  Rutland Superior Court claiming that the methods used by the director to 
  determine the equalized education property tax grand lists in the
  municipalities do not comply with  accepted industry standards of
  appraisal.  Based on this argument, the suit alleges numerous state and 
  federal constitutional violations as well as statutory violations.

       The State brought a motion to dismiss on the ground that the superior
  court did not have  subject matter jurisdiction.  The State claimed that
  plaintiffs lacked standing, that their claims were  moot and that
  plaintiffs failed to exhaust administrative remedies.  The court granted
  the State's  motion, finding that 32 V.S.A. § 5408 provides an
  administrative process by which municipalities  can contest their equalized
  education grand list value as determined by the director.  Because the 
  court determined that the administrative process was an adequate forum for
  plaintiffs' claims, the  court required that plaintiffs exhaust
  administrative remedies before seeking review in the superior  court.  This
  appeal followed.

 

       Plaintiffs raise two challenges to the court's ruling.  Primarily they
  argue that exhaustion is not  required because the administrative remedy is
  not exclusive.  If exhaustion is not the exclusive  remedy, then, according
  to plaintiffs, exhaustion can be required only through the exercise of
  judicial  discretion.  Plaintiffs' second argument is that judicial
  discretion does not justify the court's decision  not to entertain the
  action for several reasons.  First, they claim that the administrative
  process does  not provide a remedy for the municipality plaintiffs. 
  Similarly, they argue that there is no  administrative relief that will
  satisfy the claims of the individual taxpayer plaintiffs.  Plaintiffs also 
  contend that the administrative process is inappropriate where
  constitutional challenges are raised.   Finally, plaintiffs assert that
  requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies is inconsistent with  goals
  of judicial economy.

       We review a trial court's dismissal for lack of subject matter
  jurisdiction "de novo, with all  the uncontroverted factual allegations of
  the complaint accepted as true and construed in light of the  nonmoving
  party."  Jordan v. State, 166 Vt. 509, 511,