Metropolitan Dist. v. Town of Barkhamsted, 2632
| Decision Date | 18 December 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 2632,2632 |
| Citation | 485 A.2d 1311,3 Conn.App. 53 |
| Court | Connecticut Court of Appeals |
| Parties | METROPOLITAN DISTRICT v. TOWN OF BARKHAMSTED. |
Bourke G. Spellacy, Hartford, with whom were Karen P. Blado, Hartford, and Michael J. Whelton, East Hartford, for appellant (plaintiff).
Wesley W. Horton, Hartford, with whom were David L. Fineberg, David B. Losee, Hartford, and, on brief, Charles M. Rice, Jr., Hartford, for appellee (defendant).
Before HULL, BORDEN and DALY, JJ.
This case involves the proper basis for assessing land owned by the plaintiff, the Metropolitan District, and used for reservoir purposes in the defendant town of Barkhamsted, on the tax assessment lists of 1979, 1980, and 1981. The underlying facts are not in dispute.
The district is a specially chartered municipal corporation which owns 6628 acres of land in the town. The land consists of a reservoir and associated watershed area used to meet the needs of member towns and nonmember customers of the district. In a dispute over the tax assessment on the district's land, it argued that the per acre value of its land was $118.65; the town claimed that the land value was $1900 per acre. The district appeals from the judgment of the trial court valuing its land at $1800 per acre, claiming error in the court's application of the property tax assessment provision of the special act which created it.
The district was created in 1929 by a special act of the Connecticut General Assembly. 20 Spec. Acts 1204, No. 511. 1 The charter, as amended by 21 Spec. Acts 655, No. 505, provides as a method of real estate tax assessment that land shall be "assessed for taxation at the average assessed valuation per acre of the improved farming land in said town." See Part I, infra.
On October 1, 1979, the town's tax assessor assessed the district's property at $1900 per acre. The district appealed this assessment to the board of tax review of the town. Upon the board's refusal to change the assessment, the district appealed to the Superior Court. 2
The court determined that the true and actual value of the property was $11,930,400, representing an $1800 per acre valuation. 3 The court rejected the district's The court did not further consider the question of the possible existence of improved farmland 5 in the town or its average assessed value per acre. It proceeded, without explaining the reasons for not applying the charter assessment provision, to determine the assessment value of the district's property on the bases of testimony by the town's appraiser, James Oles, and common knowledge of increasing farmland values. The court reduced the assessment per acre to $1800, which it labeled a "conservative figure," agreed to by the town.
claim that General Statutes §§ 12-107a through 12-107c 4 applied to its land in the town. The court found that the land had never been classified under those sections and that the legislature never intended those sections to be used in determining the value of water company property
The tax assessor of the town testified that $118.65 was the average assessment per acre of the farmland in the town. A document posted at the town hall showed various farmland classifications and a schedule of recommended use values pursuant to General Statutes §§ 12-107a through 12-107e. 6 Tillable land is classified, in descending order of quality from best to worst, as "Tillable A," "Tillable B," "Tillable C1" and "Tillable C2." "Permanent Pasture Land" is defined as "Untillable Land." The term "improved farmland" is not used in the document. The entire assessment of farmland consists of 254.6 acres classified as "Tillable C2" and 427.9 acres classified as "Permanent Pasture." For the years 1979, 1980 and 1981, "Tillable C2" farmland was assessed by the town at $150 per acre and "Permanent Pasture Land" at $100 per acre. These values were based on the list of statewide and river valley recommended use values per acre provided to towns by the state tax commissioner. The resulting calculation is as follows:
Thus, $118.65 per acre, computed as $80,980 for 682.5 acres, is the average assessed valuation per acre of farmland in the town. This $118.65 per acre valuation reflects the fact that the owners of all farmland in Barkhamsted have applied for and received classification of their land as farmland under General Statutes §§ 12-107a through 12-107c.
The district proffered only two witnesses. The first of these was the town assessor, Mary Ringuette. She testified as follows: There is no improved farmland in the town; her definition of such land is "land along the river valley or along some flat land that is not slopey, not rocky, so it's able to have a tractor go through and plant crops" such as lettuce or tobacco, as distinguished from hay; tillable C2 land is not improved farmland; she stated that her opinion is consistent with those of the other assessors at the Hartford County and Litchfield County assessors' meetings.
The other witness was Leon C. Kirk, a senior engineer with the real estate department of the district. He examined assessment cards in the assessor's office for land classified as farmland, being all of the tillable C2 land and pasture land. These cards show that if all of the town's farmland were assessed without the preferential statutory reduction, the average assessment per acre would be $963.54, or $874.14 if farmland located in a business zone were excluded.
Kirk testified that in his opinion "tillable C2 and pasture land do come within the definition of improved farmland." The trial court specifically found that the district tried the case without a competent appraiser.
James C. Oles, an expert appraiser with twenty-six years of experience, testified for the town. He prepared a report for trial estimating the fair market value, in a sale, of improved farmland from a willing seller to a willing buyer. He did not consider any farmland within the town despite the fact that there are four working dairy farms in the town and despite the land classified as farmland by the assessor.
Oles testified that the reason he did not consider existing farms in Barkhamsted in determining the value of the district's land is that the only "improved farming land" in the town is now under water as the "reservoir was built by the Metropolitan District on the best land that existed in the Town of Barkhamsted." He defined "improved farming land" as "prime crop land cleared, the absolute best farmland there is." He used farmland values from other towns in Litchfield County with similar market conditions for farming.
The district briefed three major issues: (1) that the court erred in interpreting the property tax assessment provisions of the charter; (2) that the court erred in its interpretation of the relationship of the charter to General Statutes §§ 12-63, 12-76 and 12-107a through 12-107c; and (3) that the court erred in setting the assessment at $1800 per acre.
The appellee also briefed, as an alternate ground upon which the judgment may be affirmed pursuant to Practice Book § 3012(a), whether General Statutes § 12-76, as amended in 1963, repealed by implication the assessment provision of the district's charter.
In West Hartford v. Board of Water Commissioners, 44 Conn. 360 (1877), the Supreme Court held that a reservoir owned by a municipal corporation in another town was not liable to taxation in the latter town. This case prompted adoption of the original predecessor of General Statutes § 12-76, which stated: "Land owned or taken by any municipal corporation for the purpose of creating or furnishing a supply of water for its use or benefit, shall be liable to taxation, and shall be set in the list in the town where such land is situated, to the corporation owning or controlling such water supply, at a valuation which would be fair for said land if used for agricultural purposes: provided, however, that no such land shall be liable to taxation, or set in any list as aforesaid, wherever the inhabitants of the town in which the said land is situated have the right to the use of such water supply upon the same terms and conditions as the inhabitants of such municipal corporation, and when such town actually uses the same." (Emphasis added.) Public Acts 1879, No. 79. Thereafter, the legislature altered the language "for agricultural purposes" as follows: "land shall be liable to taxation and shall be assessed ... at the average assessed valuation per acre of the improved farming land in town." (Emphasis added.) Public Acts 1913, No. 156.
In 1929, the district was created by 20 Spec. Acts 1205, No. 511. This act contained no section specifically on taxation of its water supply property until, in 1931 for the East Branch of the Farmington River and again in 1949 for the West Branch, the Charter borrowed the identical language of the 1913 Public Act: "[A]ll land taken for any of said purposes shall be set in the list for taxation in the town in which said land is situated, to the Metropolitan District, and assessed for taxation at the average assessed valuation per acre of the improved farming land in such town." (Emphasis added.) 21 Spec.Acts 655, No. 505, § 14; 25 Spec.Acts 1162, No. 444, § 10.
In 1963, the pertinent portion of the present § 12-76 was amended to state: "[S]uch land shall be liable to taxation and shall be assessed in the town in which such land is situated to the corporation owning or controlling such water supply at what would be its fair market value were it improved farm land." (Emphasis added.) Public Acts 1963, No. 490, § 10. 7
THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE CHARTER TO GENERAL STATUTES § 12-63
AND 12- 107a THROUGH 12-107c
Whether the Charter Provision Was Repealed by Implication by
General Statutes § 12-76
We will first consider the town's alternate position that General Statutes § 12-76, as it read prior to the 1982 amen...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
State v. Boucher, 5404
...598, 602, 489 A.2d 1041 (1985); Finkenstein v. Administrator, 192 Conn. 104, 110, 470 A.2d 1196 (1984); Metropolitan District v. Barkhamsted, 3 Conn.App. 53, 70, 485 A.2d 1311 (1984). We thus conclude that the trial court correctly construed "open to public use" as used by General Statutes ......
-
State v. Lo Sacco
...may, therefore, look to the common understanding of the words as expressed by their dictionary meaning. Metropolitan District v. Barkhamsted, 3 Conn.App. 53, 72, 485 A.2d 1311 (1984). "Violent" is defined as "characterized by extreme force" and "furious or vehement to the point of being imp......
-
Metropolitan Dist. v. Town of Barkhamsted
...Court. The decision of the Appellate Court fully describes the underlying facts, which are not in dispute. Metropolitan District v. Barkhamsted, 3 Conn.App. 53, 485 A.2d 1311 (1984). In 1979, the town assessed 6628 acres of water supply land owned by the district, a specially chartered muni......
-
Lerman v. Levine
...196 Conn. 309, 317, 493 A.2d 846 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1063, 106 S.Ct. 813, 88 L.Ed.2d 787 (1986); Metropolitan District v. Barkhamsted, 3 Conn.App. 53, 70, 485 A.2d 1311, cert. granted, 195 Conn. 801, 487 A.2d 564 (1984). Section 52-404(b) must be applied as its words direct. John......