Court to decide Cushing nature center’s tax status

loading...

CUSHING – The tax status of the Cushing Nature and Preservation Center is in the hands of a Knox County Superior Court judge.

Justice John Atwood will rule on whether the corporate entity, which owns the 400-acre waterfront parcel, should pay its 1998 and 1999 property taxes and whether the land and buildings should be subject to future taxes.

However, that decision is not expected to be issued for several months because of the judge’s work schedule. The motion for summary judgment, which is a request for a judge to rule without a trial, was brought by the nature center.

The property in dispute is located off Pleasant Point Road near Gant Neck, which is on the Meduncook River side of the peninsula, according to Assessor Roland Stimpson. The 400 acres includes roughly 2,000 feet of deep-water frontage and a few thousand feet of tidal frontage, he said.

While he didn’t have the exact figures available, Stimpson estimated that the center owed $18,000 in taxes this year. Given the 2000 tax rate for the community is $13.10 per $1,000 of assessed value, the property would have to be valued at more than $1.35 million. He did not know if the corporation had paid taxes for the disputed years.

In the late 1990s, the town took the nature organization, formerly known as the Advanced Medical Research Foundation, to court for nonpayment of taxes and won the case, Selectman Alton Grover had said.

The foundation conveyed the property to the nature center in February 1998, at which time it obtained nonprofit status, according to the lawsuit filed in September 1999.

Last year, attorney William Dale said the foundation operated the property as a retreat of sorts for doctors involved in medical research to get away from the “hubbub of Boston” to think. Dale, who represented the nature center when the suit was filed, was in court Wednesday with Portland attorney Sally Daggett.

At the Wednesday hearing, Daggett argued for the nature center, saying that the dispute with the town “boils down to two legal issues.”

Those issues are: Is the nature center a charitable and benevolent organization and is it owned and operated as an educational center, offering public access?

“This is a very spectacular piece of property,” Daggett said.

Daggett described the activities on the property as educational and beneficial to the community. There is a science camp, guided nature walk, visits by groups of Girl Scouts and Boy Scouts and schools, she said.

The property is open to the public, with some restrictions, she said. There are natural resources on the property that can be used for educational and environmental purposes.

In response, Atwood said that almost any land could be said to have educational and environmental attributes. The judge indicated to Daggett that just because someone has acres of land, sets it up as a conservation center and allows the public access does not necessarily mean it should be tax-exempt.

“In this case, it’s more than public access,” she said, pointing to recreational opportunities, and protection of scenic and natural beauty, as well as its science camp program.

“Your client wants to limit recreational activities,” the judge said.

“For every state park out there, there are prohibitions,” Daggett said, noting that the prohibition of recreational vehicles and snowmobiles is consistent with the underlying purpose of the center.

“What is the nature center?” Atwood asked.

“The nature center itself is the organization,” Daggett said, explaining that there is a farmhouse and barn on the property. In the barn are books, reference materials and tables and chairs, she noted.

Daggett said that the organization is run on grants and charitable donations and has operated with a deficit for the last few years.

“There’s no admission charge whatsoever,” she said.

The judge asked how many days of organized activities took place on the property in 1998 and 1999, but the question was not answered. Daggett only named the groups that had visited the property.

The town’s attorney, Daniel Mitchell of Portland told the judge, “What CNPC is asking is to change the definition of what is a charitable organization.”

Mitchell argued that the nature center is a land and wildlife preservation organization.

“Is that a charitable purpose?” Mitchell asked. “I think the answer has to be no.”

Mitchell referred to a law in Maine that allows for an exemption of up to 95 percent of taxes if a property provides open space. The criteria for the exemption requires that the land be protected in perpetuity, that it be forever kept wild and allows public access.

According to Mitchell, the corpoate president of the nature center, Dr. Nile Albright, has conceded that he does not want to “tie up the land forever” and did not want it to be open space land.

Mitchell asked the court to consider how the property has been used.

He alleged that the nature center has been hardly occupied during the two years for which the corporation is seeking tax exemption, that there have been no improvements to the condition of the buildings, that there is no office maintained for the corporation, no full-time staff, no restrooms and no regular electric service to the site. He also noted that the barn was locked to the public unless an appointment was made with the caretaker.

Referring to the corporation’s 1998 tax return, Mitchell said, “There aren’t any expenditures for programming.”

Mitchell asked the judge to find in favor of the town because the nature center could not demonstrate that it is a charitable and benevolent entity and that in reviewing the factual information “they’re really not running much of anything there.”