NIAGARA MOHAWK POWER CORPORATION
CITY OF DUNKIRK
DECISION and ORDER
Respondents move for an order for leave to reargue and/or
renew motions that prompted the Court's May 26, 1995 Decision and
Order granting Petitioner's application for exemptions with
respect to a waste water treatment facility, air pollution
control facilities (units 2 and 3) and a boat coal loading dock
constructed at the Dunkirk Station.
This motion rests on the ground that the Court overlooked or
misapprehended the facts and law; that it did not have the
benefit of June 9, 1995 Fourth Department decision; did not have
before it new and additional evidence, and, did not apply ratio
to full market value.
Except for the ratio to full value omission, the Court did
not overlook the facts or law applicable to this case.
The facts were simple. Respondents assessed the Power Plant
at $195,975,000 and disallowed Petitioner's application for
exemptions on the ground that Petitioner had failed to provide
adequate documentation even though DEC had certified the property
as eligible for exemption.
The Court held that the Respondent did not have the right to
make its own determination whether the environmental facilities
were eligible, but, was limited to valuing the property both with
and without the new facilities; the exemption amount is the
difference in value. 5 Op Counsel SBEA NO. 110.
On this motion, Respondents argue that the coal boat dock,
air pollution control unit II and air pollution control unit III
were never added to the overall assessment because they were
"erroneously omitted from the 1994 assessment roll and thereby
excluded from taxation". The assessors have initiated "Pro-rated
Tax & Omission" procedures to include these items on the
assessment roll and scheduled administrative review for June 6,
The Court finds it remarkable that items of an assessed
value of nearly $7 million Dollars were "erroneously omitted"
regarding an assessment of property that has been headlined in
local media and vigorously contested in the Courts for over two
years, an omission that was not noted until after considerable
proceedings before the Board of Assessment, motions and cross-
motions made ......(date), and, after a month and a half elapsed
after oral argument.
If the exempt items had not been included on the 1994 final
assessment roll, then the grievance procedure and appeals, and
the motions to this Court regarding the assessments represented a
waste of considerable time and money.
The Court finds no justification or basis to grant the
motion to reargue and/or renew. The Coal Boat Dock is not a
substation. The granting of the other exemptions was proper,
except with regard to the omission of the ratio.
The Court hereby amends its DECISION and ORDER by adding
that the full market value of the exemption claimed should be
multiplied by the ratio that was applied by the assessors to
compute the 1994 assessment, viz:
Respondents motion to reargue and/or renew is denied,