Appeal of Coos County Commissioners o/b/o the Unincorporated Places of Dixville, NH and Millsfield, NH
166 N.H. 379
N.H.2014Background
- CCC, on behalf of Millsfield and Dixville, appeals BTLA’s denial of downward equalization of 2012 DRA values.
- Windpark (PILOT) project in Millsfield and Dixville; CCC entered PILOT agreement in 2008 using $113 million as windpark value.
- In 2012, DRA appraised windpark at a much higher value; CCC urged using PILOT value and to ignore higher utility valuation.
- CCC sought access to the Windpark utility tax appraisal; BTLA denied disclosure.
- BTLA denied motions to compel production and to continue; CCC sought to introduce expert testimony on value sensitivity; BTLA limited testimony.
- BTLA ultimately denied equalization relief; CCC appealed to NH Supreme Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether DRA could use its utility tax appraisal to determine true market value for equalization. | CCC asserts Windpark value should be $113M (PILOT) and not the utility appraisal. | DRA argues appraisal method aligns with RSA 21-J:3, XIII and statutory duties. | Yes; use of utility tax appraisal proper under statute. |
| Whether DRA was obligated to adjust Windpark value under the second clause of RSA 21-J:3, XIII. | CCC contends need for just and equitable adjustment to Windpark value. | Second clause applies to other property, not PILOT-covered wind facility; no adjustment required. | No mandatory adjustment; Windpark valued under first clause; no adjustment required. |
| Whether the BTLA erred in denying production of the Windpark appraisal and in limiting CCC’s testimony, affecting fair hearing. | CCC needed Windpark appraisal and witnesses to challenge valuation. | BTLA properly applied confidentiality and disclosure rules. | BTLA erred in denying production; CCC entitled to access for a fair hearing and remand for further hearing. |
| Whether the DRA is estopped from denying Windpark's true value based on December 2007 statements. | CCC relied on DRA representations that Windpark would be valued at $113M. | No express or implied fixed-value commitment; statements were informal. | Estoppel not established; BTLA’s finding supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- City of Nashua v. Nashua, 164 N.H. 749 (2013) (standard of review for BTLA decisions; statutory interpretation; de novo review of interpretation)
- State Employees’ Assoc. of N.H. v. State of N.H., 161 N.H. 730 (2011) (statutory interpretation guidelines; reading statutes as a whole)
- Rochester v. Corpening, 153 N.H. 571 (2006) (enforces interpretation of ‘may’ vs ‘shall’ in statutes)
- Concord v. Tompkins, 124 N.H. 463 (1984) (elements and proof for estoppel)
- Hobbs v. United States ex rel. Russell, 209 F.3d 408 (5th Cir. 2000) (broad interpretation of ‘tax administration’ for confidentiality exceptions)