Case Name: DEALERS MANUFACTURING, CO., Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ANOKA, Relator
Court: Minnesota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Minnesota
Decision Date: 2000-08-10
Citations: 615 N.W.2d 76
Docket Number: No. C9-99-1869
Parties: DEALERS MANUFACTURING, CO., Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ANOKA, Relator.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Western Reporter 2d
Volume: 615
Pages: 76–85

Head Matter:
DEALERS MANUFACTURING, CO., Respondent, v. COUNTY OF ANOKA, Relator.
No. C9-99-1869.
Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Aug. 10, 2000.
Thomas G. Haluska, Assistant Anoka County Attorney, Anoka, for appellant.
Daniel J. Biersdorf, Biersdorf & Associates, P.A., Minneapolis, for respondent.
Thomas R. Wilhelmy, Steven Z. Kaplan, Fredrickson & Bryon, Minneapolis, for amicus curiae.

Opinion:
OPINION
STRINGER, Justice.
We consider whether a taxpayer challenging a property tax assessment is entitled to a reduction in the assessed value of contaminated property based on stigma. Taxpayer, Dealers Manufacturing, Co. (Dealers), petitioned the tax court for a reduction in the assessment of its contaminated property in Anoka County (the county) on the basis that, because the county failed to take into account the stigma ef-feet on the market value of the property, the assessed value exceeded the market value of the property. The parties filed cross-motions for partial summary judgment as to the interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 (1998), specifically, whether it limits reduction in market value for stigma relating to contamination. The tax court granted Dealers' motion concluding that Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 does not apply to reductions in market value due to stigma. See Dealers Mfg. Co. v. County of Anoka, No. C4-98-2963, 1999 WL 717228, at * 5-6 (Minn. Tax Ct. Sept. 8,1999). We affirm.
The subject of this property tax dispute is a manufacturing plant site in Anoka County owned by Dealers. In 1988 Dealers discovered groundwater and soil contamination related to the use of solvents and the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) placed the property on the State Superfund list. Dealers implemented a MPCA-approved response action plan in 1995. As of 1998, Dealers had spent $350,000 to clean up the property against a total clean-up cost projection of $560,000. Contaminants were still present on the property at the time of the tax court's partial summary judgment ruling.
In the course of its remediation efforts, in 1997 Dealers obtained an appraisal by Alan Leirness, MAI, which concluded that the property value was subject to a stigma devaluation factor due to the risk of liability for clean-up costs, fear of liability to the public arising from the contamination, and possible lack of mortgageability. In Leirness' opinion the impact of the stigma could exceed $500,000.
The county assessed the market value of the property at $1,336,600 in 1997 and Dealers filed a petition in the tax court in 1998 pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 278.01 (1998) challenging the assessment on the basis that it exceeded the property's actual market value in violation of Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 1 (1998), and that the-property was not assessed equally when compared with other property in violation of Dealers' constitutional rights to equal protection and uniform taxation. The county responded that Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 limits reductions in market value resulting from contamination, including the stigma factor, to the reasonable cost of a response action plan.
In granting Dealers' motion for partial summary judgment, the tax court noted that Minn.Stat.. § 273.11, subd. 17 makes no reference to "stigma" — it addresses only reduction in market value resulting from the "presence of contaminants" — and that because stigma can remain after all contaminants have been removed from the property, it is incongruous to construe it to be included in "contamination value." The court further noted that assessors are required to consider all relevant factors when valuing property and to assess property at market value, see Minn. Stat. § 273.12 (1998); Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 1, and to exclude or limit the stigma factor in the valuation of the property would be inconsistent with this statutory mandate. Finally, the tax court reasoned that as the legislature was well aware of the impact of stigma on property tax revenues, if it had intended to include stigma among the factors determining contamination value, it would have referenced "stigma" in Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17. The tax court ordered a trial to determine the value of the property as of January 2, 1997, consistent with its ruling that the market value impact of stigma was not to be included in the contamination value for purposes of section 273.11, subd. 17.
Our review of an order of the tax court is limited to whether the court lacked jurisdiction or it was contrary to the evidence or based on an error of law. See Minn.Stat. § 271.10 (1998). The tax court appropriately grants summary judgment where there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Minn. R. Civ. P. 56.03; see also Brookfield Trade Ctr., Inc., -609 N.W.2d at 873-74; Rule 81.01(a) (noting Minnesota Rules of Civil Procedure apply to tax court proceedings where not inconsistent with tax court procedures). The tax court's partial summary judgment ruling is based on the resolution of a question of law which we review de novo. See F-D Oil Co., Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 560 N.W.2d 701, 704 (Minn.1997).
We begin our analysis with the observation that we have recognized the practice of considering the market value impact of both the present value of cleanup costs and the stigma devaluative factor as appropriate considerations in determining the market value of contaminated properties. See Westling v. County of Mille Lacs, 543 N.W.2d 91, 93 (Minn.1996) (Westling II). In Westling II, we affirmed a market valuation of zero based on the estimated cost of clean-up and the stigma discount. Id.
The county argues however, that Minn. Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 places a cap on deductions from market value relating to contamination, including the stigma factor, at the cost of a reasonable remediation plan. The county contends that even though the statute does not refer to "stigma," the "presence of contaminants" is defined as "the release or threatened release of contaminants on the property," Minn.Stat. § 270.92, subd. 5 (1998)-thus because property affected by stigma is subject to the "release or threatened release" of contaminants, Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 applies to stigma. The county attempts to provide a coherent application of Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 consistent with its argument, contending that the statute should be applied in the following situations: where a taxpayer has not yet begun to implement a response action plan for property affected by stigma, the contamination value should equal the cost of such a plan; after the taxpayer has begun to implement the plan, the contamination value should equal the amount of the remaining clean-up costs plus any market value reduction resulting from stigma up to the total cost of the response action plan; as the plan nears completion, the portion of the deduction attributable to clean-up costs should decrease and the portion attributable to stigma should increase, with the deduction never exceeding the total cost of the response action plan.
The county's argument fails for several reasons. First, a stigma factor can attach to property whether contaminants are present, are threatened, or are totally absent. Where, for example, a property has been successfully remediated leaving no contamination, or is in proximity to property that is contaminated, stigma may nonetheless be present as a heavy burden on the value of the property due to the perception of risk of liability, or government imposed restrictions on the use or transferability of the property, among other concerns. See Patchin, supra. Second, as the dissent concedes, the plain language of Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 is that it applies only to property that is actually contaminated: "In determining the market value of property containing contaminants ⅜ ⅜ ⅜.» Because the term "contamination value" is defined as the reduction in mar ket value resulting from the presence of contaminants, it does not include a stigma factor because stigma may attach to property that is not itself contaminated but nevertheless can have a substantial impact in determining the value.of uncontaminated property. Third, the county's attempt to rationalize application of the statute under various scenarios is creative but has no basis in the language of Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. ,17 whatsoever. Fourth, in Westling II we recognized the separate bases for reduction in market value based on clean-up costs, on the one hand, and the stigma discount for environmental damage, on the other. 543 N.W.2d at 93. .To assume the legislature intended to include stigma in contamination value, which by definition is measured by the cost of cleanup, would inappropriately blur these distinct factors impacting market value.
Although we resolve Dealers' claim based on the plain language of the statute, we also note that the legislative history fails to support the county's position. The statute under review here was enacted in 1993 as part of an article of chapter 375 creating a contamination tax, a tax on the contamination value of taxable real property. See Act of May 24, 1993, ch. 375, art. 12, § 1-9, 1993 Minn. Laws 2728, 2941-45, now codified at Minn.Stat. § 270.91-98; Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17. In explaining' the tax revenue issues that precipitated the legislation, the committee chair referred to Westling v. County of Mille Lacs, Nos. C5-92-341, C7-92-342, 1993 WL 35155; at *3 (Minn.Tax Feb.10, 1993), rev'd 512 N.W.2d 863 (Minn.1994), where the tax court concluded that two properties that had been assessed at $974,200 had a market value of $100 due to contamination and stigma. Hearing on H.F. 427, H. Comm, on Taxes, 78th Minn. Leg., Mar. 26, 1993 (audio tape) (comments of Chair Rep. Rest). But. despite the committee chair's specific reference to Westling, there was no suggestion that stigma was to be included in contamination value. We decline to read into the statute a construction that-contradicts the plain language of Minn.Stat. § 273.11,'subd. 17 and is unsupported by the legislative history.
The argument of the dissent relies heavily on the point that Dealer's property was in fact contaminated and therefore the court should not be concerned with the devaluation effect of stigma on property that is not contaminated. We cannot avoid the issue before the court so simply however, as the sequence of this argument leads to the anomaly that stigma would be capped at the cost of the remediation plan for property that is contaminated, but for property that is not contaminated the stigma factor would be fully taken into account in determining the assessed value. The lack of any rational justification for this disparate treatment further underscores the logic of the court's reasoning in concluding that stigma is not included in the contamination value.
Finally, the county's interpretation of Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 is inconsistent with Minnesota's property tax scheme that provides that with limited exceptions, all property is to be valued at market value. The county argues that Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 is one of those exceptions. We disagree. While it is true that Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 creating the concept of contamination value is an exception to the general statutory rule of section 273.11, subd. 1 that "all property shall be valued at its market value," the exception in subdivision 17 permits the reduction of market value - nowhere does it authorize a valuation greater than the market value which would be the result of failing to account for stigma. Further, consistent with the statutory admonition that the assessor must "consider and give due weight to every element and factor affecting the market value" of the property, section 273.11, subdivision 1 appears to specifically reject the argument of the county in its provision "the assessor shall take into account the effect on the market value of property of environmental factors in the vicinity of the property " -a brief but clear recognition that environmental (e.g.contamination) factors affecting market value, although not present on the subject property, are to be taken into account. Stigma would appear to be one of those factors.
We hold that contamination value as defined by Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17 does not include stigma and therefore Dealers is entitled to partial summary judgment as a matter of law.
Affirmed.
. The concept of "stigma" is based on the theory that the value of contaminated property is reduced due to the risk to a purchaser of liability for clean-up costs, fear of liability to members of the public who are harmed by contaminants on the property, and possible lack of mortgageability. See Peter J. Patchin, MAI, Valuation of Contaminated Properties, Appraisal J., Jan. 1988, at 7.
. Minnesota Statutes § 278.01, subd. 1 provides a statutory remedy for a taxpayer whose property has been assessed in excess of market value:
Any person having personal property, or any estate, right, title, or interest in' or lien upon any parcel of land, who claims that such property ⅜. has been assessed at a valuation greater than its real or actual value may have the validity of the claim, defense, or objection determined by the district court or the tax court
Minn.Stat. § 278.01, subd. 1.
. Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 1 states: "Except as provided in this section all property shall be valued at its market value."
. See U.S. Const.amend. XIV, § 1; Minn. Const, art. X, § 1. The partial summary judgment ruling by the tax court was based on a statutory analysis and therefore the court did not reach the issues related to the Equal Protection Clause of the United States Constitution or the Uniformity Clause of the Minnesota Constitution.
. Minnesota Statutes § 273.11, subdivision 17 provides:
In determining the market value of property containing contaminants, the assessor shall reduce the market value of the property by the contamination value of the property. The contamination value is the amount of the market value reduction that results from the presence of contaminants, but it may not exceed the cost of a reasonable response action plan or asbestos abatement plan or management program for the property.
Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17.
Section 273.11, subdivision 17 references Minn.Stat. § 270.92, subd. 6 (1998) for the definition of a response action plan which describes a plan to remove contamination approved by the commissioner of the MPCA or the commissioner of agriculture pursuant to Minn.Stat. § 469.174, subd. 17 (1998); Minn. Stat. chapter 115B (1998); Minn.Stat. chapter 18D (1998); or Minn.Stat. § 115C.03 (1998).
. The tax court noted that representatives from county assessors' offices had testified regarding assessing properties impacted by stigma at a hearing of the House of Representatives Committee on Taxes. See Dealers Mfg. Co., 1999 WL 717228, at *4; see also Hearing on H.F. 427, H. Comm, on Taxes, 78th Minn. Leg., Mar. 26, 1993 (audio tape).
. While we do not condone the advisory nature of the matter before us, we review this appeal in the interests of judicial economy. See Tarutis v. Commissioner of Revenue, 393 N.W.2d 667, 669 (Minn.1986). We repeat our warning in Brookfield Trade Center, Inc. v. County of Ramsey however, that with respect to appellate review not specifically autho rized, our grant of discretionary review will be cautiously exercised. 609 N.W.2d 868, 873 n. 6 (Minn.2000).
. Release is defined as "any spilling, leaking, pumping, pouring, emitting, emptying, discharging, injecting, escaping, leaching, dumping, or disposing into the environment which occurred at a point in time or which continues to occur." Minn.Stat. § 115B.02, subd. 15 (1998).
. In Dealers' affidavit of Alan Leirness, MAI, he explained: "Stigma can exist even if contamination is not present on a property, e.g. a property adjacent to the subject site is known to be contaminated or the subject site is one where the contamination has been remediat-ed."
. The dissent errs in its assertion that our interpretation of the statute renders superfluous language that the contamination value "may not exceed the cost of a reasonable response action plan." Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 17. It is clear that this language effectively limits contamination value to clean-up costs for purposes of computing the contamination tax, see Minn.Stat. ' § 270.91-98 (1998), but in no way suggests that properties need not be assessed at a market value that takes into account the effects of stigma.
.A representative from the Hennepin County Assessor's Office commented as to the difficulties of valuing contaminated property, in- . eluding property affected by stigma, and the impact of such factors on county tax revenues. See Hearing on H.F. 427, H. Comm, on Taxes, 78th Minn. Leg., Mar. 26, 1993 (audio tape). The dissent argues that based on these statements the legislature intended to include stigma in contamination value, but the comments by the representative of the assessor's office in fact support the opposite conclusion. Although clearly aware of the- effect of stigma on property tax valuations, the legislature failed to include stigrha in enacting the contamination tax provisions.
. Minn.Stat. § 273.12.
. Minn.Stat. § 273.11, subd. 1 (emphasis added).
. In concluding that contamination value includes stigma, the dissent simply ignores these statutory mandates.