BRUNSWICK FAIRFIELD LLC. v. TOWN of BRUNSWICK
| Decision Date | 18 March 2011 |
| Docket Number | CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-10-010 |
| Parties | BRUNSWICK FAIRFIELD, LLC, et al., Plaintiffs v. TOWN OF BRUNSWICK, Defendant and JHR DEVELOPMENT OF MAINE, LLC, et al., Parties-in-Interest |
| Court | Maine Supreme Court |
Before the court is the defendant's motion to dismiss count II of the plaintiffs' complaint pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In count II, the plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment under the Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act, 14 M.R.S. §§ 5951-5963.
Plaintiffs Brunswick Fairfield, LLC, Maine Course Management Company, LLC, Austin Hotels, and Karen Klatt (the "plaintiffs") bring this action against defendant Town of Brunswick (the "Town"). In count I of the complaint, the plaintiffs request review pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80B. In count II, plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment pursuant to 14 M.R.S. §§ 5951-5963 to determine whether the Town complied with statutory and Town Charter requirements.
On March 1, 2010, the defendant, through the Town Council, approved by resolution designation of the Town of Brunswick Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District and the Development Program for the Brunswick Downtown Municipal development and Tax Increment Financing District. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Along with the District, the Development Program includes tax increment financing (a "TIF") with a credit enhancement provision for an inn that the parties-in-interest propose to construct within the District as part of a mixed-use development project known as Maine Street Station Project. (Compl. ¶ 23; Id. ¶¶13,18.)
In their requests for relief, the plaintiffs specifically request a declaratory judgment that the Town:
(A) did not provide proper notice of the public hearing on the Development Program;
(B) failed to consider certain evidence concerning the Development Program and the credit enhancement TIF offered by some of the plaintiffs at the public hearing, violating 30-A M.R.S. § 5223;
(C) failed to consider the significance of, and properly weigh evidence concerning, whether the adverse economic effect of the Development Program was outweighed by the contribution of the Development Program, as required by 30-A M.R.S. § 5223(2); and
(D) improperly authorized the Development Program by resolution rather than by ordinance as required by the Town's charter and improperly included provisions in the Development Program not allowed by State statute.
(Compl. at 14.)
The Town initially moved to dismiss Count II on the grounds that Rule 80B provides the exclusive means of judicial review of a government action. In their reply to the plaintiffs' opposition, however, the Town contends that whether an action for declaratory judgment may be brought as an independent cause of action "is a distinction without a difference." (Def.'s Rep. Mot. to Dismiss at 2.) Regardless of the plaintiffs' grounds, the Town requests that this court apply the same "procedural limitations and expedited time frames." (Id.) The Town expressed concern that the plaintiffs intend to seek unlimited discovery.1 (Id. at 3.)
The parties do not dispute that the plaintiffs may bring an action for declaratory judgment to challenge the Town's decision in its legislative capacity. F.S. Plummer Co., Inc. v. Town of Cape Elizabeth, 612 A.2d 856, 859 (Me. 1992). Further, this court issued an order specifying the future course of proceedings on July 22, 2010. The order limited discovery and designation of experts. The plaintiffs filed their combined Rule 80B and declaratory judgment summary disposition brief and the Rule 80B record and the defendant has responded.
The entry is
The Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.
Date: 3/15/11
Nancy Mills
Justice, Superior Court
The plaintiffs, Brunswick Fairfield, LLC, Maine Course Management Company, LLC, Austin Hotels, LLC, and Karen Klatt bring this action pursuant to Rule 80B. The plaintiffs appeal the decision of the Town of Brunswick's Town Council to approve by resolution the Town of Brunswick Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District (District) and the Development Program for the Brunswick Downtown Municipal Development and Tax Increment Financing District (Development Program), with a credit enhancement agreement. The plaintiffs also seek a declaratory judgment that the Town failed to satisfy the requirements of 30-A M.R.S. § 5221, et seq. and the Town Charter.1
For the following reasons, the court declares that the Town of Brunswick Town Council's approval of the Development Program, the District, and Credit Enhancement Agreement by resolution complied with 30-A M.R.S. § 5221, et seq. and the Town Charter.
On March 1, 2010, the defendant, through the Town Council, approved by resolution the District and the Development Program. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Along with the District, the Development Program includes tax increment financing (a "TIF") with a credit enhancement provision for an inn that the parties-in-interest propose to construct within the District as part of a mixed-use development project known as Maine Street Station Project.
The District, along with the Development Program, encompasses nearly 90 acres of the downtown business district. The Development Program contemplates a redevelopment project in which downtown land, once contaminated with coal ash and which stood largely vacant for the past 30 years, will be remediated by the Town and then redeveloped by party-in-interest JHR Development of Maine, LLC ("JHR"). Included in the Development Program is the Maine Street Station Project, which includes five mixed-use buildings and a 54-room inn to be constructed, owned, and operated by JHR. (R. at 8.)2
The Development Program's terms state that the Town will apply some of the captured TIF revenues to the Town's costs for development. (R. at 8-10.) In addition to the Town's costs, the Development Program's terms assign a portion of the TIF revenues to JHR through a separate ten-year Credit Enhancement Agreement. (R. at 9.) JHR is to use these funds to help pay for the costs of development of the proposed inn. (Id.)
According to the proposed Credit Enhancement Agreement, beginning in fiscal year 2011-2012, over the ten-year period the Town will return to JHR a portion of the TIF revenues generated by the inn. (Id.) Over the first five years, the Town will return one hundred percent of the taxes paid. (R. at 16, 89.) Over the final five years, the percentage of the reimbursement decreases incrementally to fifty percent. (Id.) JHR indicated that the proposed Credit Enhancement Agreement is necessary to proceed with the Maine Street Station Project. (R. at 9.)3
On February 18, 2010, the Town published notice of a public hearing on the proposed District, Development Program, and Credit Enhancement Agreement. (R. at 23.) At the public hearing on March 1, 2010, three separate hotel operators, including some of the plaintiffs, presented evidence that JHR's proposed inn would compete directly with existing hotels in Brunswick, would lower the already low occupancy rate at the existing hotels, and have substantial competitive advantage. (R. at 35-40.)
After the close of the public hearing, John Eldridge, the Town Finance Director, informed the Town Council that changes were made to the version of the Development Program and Credit Enhancement Agreement made available to the public in advance of the public hearing. (R. at 31, 432-38; compare R. at 84-99 with R. at 297-311.) Members of the public had not been informed of any of these changes prior to the close of the public hearing. The Town provided copies of the revised Credit Enhancement Agreement to the public at the March 1st hearing. The Town Council acknowledged the changes and discussed the proposals. (Id.) By resolution,4 the Town Council voted to designate the District and approve the revised Development Program, including the Credit Enhancement Agreement. (R. at 34.)
The plaintiffs filed a combined Rule 80B and declaratory judgment action. Essentially, the plaintiffs challenge the validity of the entire Development Program and argue that:
(1) the Town failed to consider the impact of the proposed Development Program on competing businesses pursuant to 30-A M.R.S. § 5223(2);
(2) the Town failed to comply with the hearing requirements pursuant to 30-A M.R.S.§5226(1);
(3) the original assessed value of the proposed TIF district exceeds the statutory limit in 30-A M.R.S. § 5223(3)(C): and
(4) the Town violated the Town Charter by approving the Credit Enhancement Agreement by resolution, rather than by ordinance, thus invalidating the entire Development Program.
In an action for declaratory judgment, "the sole province of the court .. . is to determine whether the [Town] Council could rationally have adopted the [Development Program] in light of the evidence presented to it ...." McMillan v. City of Portland, 2005 Me. Super. LEXIS 164, *10 (Me. Super. Nov. 22, 2005) (Crowley, J.); see also LaBonta, 528 A.2d at 1265. Under the Declaratory Judgment Act, the court has the "power to declare rights, status and other legal relations whether or not further relief is or could be claimed." 14 M.R.S. § 5953 (2010). The court will not, however, substitute its judgment for the judgment of the legislative body. Adelman v. Town of Baldwin, 2000 ME 91,¶ 22, 750 A.2d 577, 585.
Moreover, when operating in a legislative capacity, the Town Council is not required to make specific findings of fact and conclusions of law. McMillan, 2005 Me. Super. LEXIS at *9-10 (citing Carroll v. Town of Rockport, 2003 ME 135, ¶¶ 26-31, 837 A.2d 148, 156-157). Additionally, the court cannot remand the Town Council's decision for further findings of fact or conclusions of law. Id. at *10.
The plaintiffs assert...
To continue reading
Request your trial