Title: Twin Valley Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Randolph

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Twin Valley Community Services, Inc. v. Town of Randolph (99-220); 170 Vt. 648;
756 A.2d 1233

[Filed 01-May-2000]

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 99-220

                              APRIL TERM, 2000

Twin Valley Community Services, Inc.	}	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
     v.	                                }	Orange Superior Court
                                        }	
Town of Randolph	                }
Randolph Board of Listers	        }	DOCKET NO. 169-10-97 Oecv	

Trial Judge: Pratt, J.

             In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       The Town of Randolph appeals an Orange Superior Court order declaring
  that certain property  owned by taxpayer Twin Valley Community Services,
  Inc. was exempt from property taxation  pursuant to 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4). 
  The Town claims the court erred in finding the property was 
  unconditionally dedicated to public use.  Taxpayer cross-appeals the
  court's decision that an  adjoining property was not tax exempt pursuant to
  32 V.S.A. §3802(4).  We affirm.

       The trial court found the following facts.  Taxpayer Twin Valley
  Community Services, Inc. is a  Vermont non-profit corporation organized to
  further the purposes of Upper Valley Services, Inc.  ("Upper Valley"),
  another non-profit corporation, which in turn is organized to support
  community  needs related to mental health and mental retardation.  Upper
  Valley is the only member of Twin  Valley Community Services, Inc. 
  Taxpayer purchased two adjoining lots in 1994.  One of the lots  had a
  pre-existing dwelling on it, and the other was vacant.  The lot with the
  pre-existing dwelling  was purchased to facilitate the purchase of the
  adjoining vacant lot.  The dwelling was used for a  time as a residence for
  a developmentally disabled woman, and then the lot was sold. 

       Taxpayer purchased the lots for the purpose of building a residence
  ("Home") on the vacant lot to  house three lower-income developmentally
  disabled adults.  Because of this purpose, the purchase  was financed in
  part by a grant from the Vermont Housing and Conservation Board, a state
  agency.  The Home is staffed with one to three people at all times.  The
  staff assists the residents with  personal care, meal preparation,
  transportation, medications, cleaning, etc.  A major portion of the  cost
  of providing the residents with housing and support services is covered
  through Medicaid  waiver funds, a mechanism used for community-based care,
  rather than institutional care.  Upper  Valley charges each resident
  $650.00 per month for room and board.  Upper Valley pays monthly  rent of
  $2,200.00 to taxpayer.  The lease between the two corporations provides
  taxpayer the right 

 

  to terminate the lease and enter should Upper Valley default.

       Taxpayer requested a determination that the properties were tax exempt
  under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4)  as "real and personal estate granted,
  sequestered or used for public, pious or charitable uses."   American
  Museum of Fly Fishing, Inc. v. Town of Manchester laid out the test for
  determining  whether a property is entitled to tax-exempt status as a
  public use: (1) the property must be dedicated  unconditionally to public
  use; (2) the primary use must directly benefit an indefinite class of
  persons  who are part of the public, and must also confer a benefit on
  society as a result of the benefit  conferred on the persons directly
  served; and (3) the property must be owned and operated on a not-
  for-profit basis.  151 Vt. 103, 110, 557 A.2d 900, 904 (1989).  The Town
  argues that taxpayer fails  the first part of the test because the lease of
  the property from taxpayer to Upper Valley contains  conditions.

       Although an exemption is strictly construed against the party claiming
  it, it may not be so strictly  construed as to defeat the purpose of the
  statute.  See id. at 108, 557 A.2d  at 903; Kingsland Bay  School, Inc. v.
  Town of Middlebury, 153 Vt. 201, 206, 569 A.2d 496, 499 (1989).  The
  requirement  that the property be dedicated unconditionally to a public use
  assures that the use directly benefits  the public.  See Kingsland Bay, 153
  Vt at. 205, 569 A.2d  at 498 (discussing Vermont Wild Land  Found. v. Town
  of Pittsford, 137 Vt. 439,