Court Opinion

ID: 9514865
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 22:52:13.849026+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:06:21.933853
License: Public Domain

SABERS, Justice
(dissenting).
[¶ 25.] I agree that it is not necessary for this congregate living facility (CLF) to show it relieves a governmental burden, but I do not agree that it has shown that it has the ability to provide the necessary supporting services of:
1) health care, and
2) “food service which provides a balanced nutritional program.”
*185Quite simply, it has only shown that its parent (Hospital) has those abilities. It is not enough to merely make these required services available part-time to the residents of the CLF to qualify for tax-exempt status. The requirements of SDCL 10-4-9.3 are mandatory and unforgiving and there is no tax exemption for almost complying or complying in part.
[¶ 26.] The majority opinion gives lip service to the rule that we will strictly construe “laws exempting property from taxation in favor of the taxing power” and then violates the rule by “contriving] a strained construction.” Application of Veith, 261 N.W.2d at 426. The “supporting services” required by SDCL 10-4-9.3 include the ability to provide health care and also a balanced nutritional food program. This means that CFL must be able to provide health care and a balanced nutritional food program all the time, even if all these services are not always used by all residents all the time. It certainly does not mean mere availability within the community at large.
[¶ 27.] The majority opinion determines that County has stipulated itself out of court. Nonsense. The stipulated facts do not satisfy CLF’s burden, instead, they provide an overview of the uncontroverted services CLF makes “available” and then the courts determine if they are sufficient for tax exemption. They are not. Neither the evidence presented, nor the stipulation, satisfies these statutory requirements.
[¶ 28.] The health care services offered at CLF are unremarkable at best. The “health screening” provided by CLF consists of a form listing whom to contact in case of an emergency, a physician’s name, and whether the resident requires a cane, walker, etc. County offered expert testimony that indicated this is not the typical health screening process, generally a health screening would include such things as blood pressure checks, cholesterol and blood sugar screens. The “household services” referenced in the stipulation includes such things as snow removal, window washing and general yard work. None of which help establish CLF’s claim to gain tax-exempt status.
[¶ 29.] The “emergency call system” provided by CLF includes nothing more than a programmed telephone set for the hospital. This system puts a resident in contact with an on-call nurse who then determines if 911 should be called. This emergency call system can also be used to summon maintenance for nonemergency repairs, this may be convenient but it is not enough to satisfy the statute. Is this really what the legislature envisioned when it attempted to attract safe, caring and responsive facilities for our older citizens through the tax-exempt scheme? The stipulation acknowledges only that the parent (Hospital) makes available the types of services required to satisfy the requirements of SDCL 10-4-9.3. The majority opinion misreads Hospital’s availability as the equivalent of CLF’s ability.
[¶ 30.] Additionally, the stipulation provides that the CLF offers “special diets.” What this really means is that CLF tenants are provided one meal, breakfast. All other meals can only be obtained through the meals-on-wheels service or at Hospital. Obviously, these same services are available at local cafes or restaurants. Once again, Hospital, not CLF, makes available the services that CLF claims it has the ability to provide. The statute clearly requires that CLF have the ability to provide “a balanced nutritional program.” Even the CLF expert testified that a balanced breakfast is not a balanced nutritional program. Basically, CLF has the ability to provide less than one-third of its requirement. The majority opinion determines this is sufficient under the statute. *186I do not. Because CLF has not met the stringent requirements, the general rule in SDCL 10-4-1 requiring property to be subject to taxation should control.
[¶ 31.] Therefore, I dissent.
[¶ 32.] We should affirm the circuit court in all respects.