Opinion ID: 2166740
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Hammond alleged in Count I of its petition that the findings of the Authority were prejudicial to its business interest and not based on any substantial evidence. Specifically, Hammond asserted that the project was primarily retail in nature, [6] would not make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the state, would result in substantial detriment to existing industry, and that there was insufficient demand in the area to employ the efficient capacity of existing industry. See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2). Findings of fact made by an administrative agency must be upheld if supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5 M.R.S.A. § 11007(4)(C)(5) (1979); Gulick v. Board of Environmental Protection, 452 A.2d 1202, 1207-08 (Me.1982). In reviewing administrative agency action, this court can directly review the administrative record in exactly the same manner as the Superior Court, and need not remand the case to the Superior Court for its review of that record. Gulick, 452 A.2d at 1209 n. 6; City of Bangor v. A.F.S.C.M.E., Council 74, 449 A.2d 1129, 1134-35 (Me. 1982); Driscoll v. Gheewalla, 441 A.2d 1023, 1026 (Me.1982). A careful review of the entire record in this case demonstrates that the Authority had substantial evidence upon which to base its findings. The Authority justifiably found that the project would result in the retention of 25 existing jobs and the creation of 8 new positions, would add to and diversify the tax base of the City of Augusta, a community with many non-taxpaying government facilities, and would make a significant contribution to the economic growth of the State of Maine. 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2)(A). Although Hammond asserted that the retail sales of Augusta Lumber would dramatically increase at its new location, in violation of 10 M.R.S.A. § 1061-A(1), there was substantial evidence concerning Augusta Lumber's past business and future intentions to justify the Authority's finding that less than 25% of the proceeds of the securities would be used for retail sales space. In concluding that the project would not result in substantial detriment to existing businesses under 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2)(B), the Authority considered whether the demand within the market area would be sufficient to employ the efficient capacity of existing businesses, see 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2)(B)(1), and balanced the contribution the project would make to the economic growth of the state against any adverse economic effect of the project on those businesses, see 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2)(B)(2). The evidence showed that Augusta Lumber was a going concern that, as a result of the project, was to operate from a new facility. The Authority found that as a result of the project, Augusta Lumber would not be intruding into a market that it currently did not serve, and further found that the project would not affect the share of the market that Augusta Lumber then had. Nothing Hammond presented persuasively suggested otherwise. In fact, Hammond presented no compelling evidence at all of its suffering any detriment as a result of the project. Hammond complained of the advantage to be realized by Augusta Lumber from interest savings resulting from municipally issued industrial bonds, contending such interest savings would allow Augusta Lumber to undercut detrimentally its competitors in pricing. An examination of the record before the Authority discloses that Hammond presented nothing more than its speculative and generalized conclusions as to the connection between the interest Augusta Lumber was to save on the issuance of the bonds and its ability to charge lower prices. Damage to a competing business from its competitor's savings on interest payments must be actual. Such savings do not result per se in an unlawful advantage. Indeed, such savings on interest resulting from the issuance of municipal industrial revenue securities are contemplated by and are part of the purpose of the Municipal Securities Approval Program. In addition, in this case, the Authority found that the modest advantage from savings on interest payments to be realized by Augusta Lumber was offset by higher mortgage payments and costs of occupying the new facility. The Authority also found that any detriment caused by the project would be outweighed by benefits to the economic health of the state. See 10 M.R.S.A. § 1063(2)(B)(2). We conclude that the Authority's findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record.