Mountain View Cmty. Sch., Inc. v. City of Rutland ( 2010 )

Mountain View Cmty. Sch., Inc. v. City of Rutland, No. 748-10-08 Rdcv (Cohen, J., Jan. 28, 2010)
[The text of this Vermont trial court opinion is unofficial. It has been reformatted from the original. The accuracy of the text and the
accompanying data included in the Vermont trial court opinion database is not guaranteed.]
STATE OF VERMONT
RUTLAND COUNTY
)
MOUNTAIN VIEW COMMUNITY ) Rutland Superior Court
SCHOOL, INC., ) Docket No. 748-10-08 Rdcv
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. )
)
CITY OF RUTLAND, )
)
Defendant )
DECISION ON PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY
JUDGMENT, FILED OCTOBER 1, 2008
Plaintiff Mountain View Community School, Inc. (Mountain View) brought the
instant action seeking tax exempt status as a “public school” under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4).
Previously, the Court granted Mountain View’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiff Mountain View is represented by Theodore F. Robare, Esq. Defendant City of
Rutland is represented by Andrew G. Costello, Esq.
FINDINGS OF FACT
(1) An evidentiary hearing was held on October 26, 2009.
(2) Mountain View Community School, Inc. (Mountain View) is a Vermont non-
profit corporation organized for educational purposes.
(3) Mountain View has been granted non-profit status pursuant to the Internal
Revenue Code § 50(c)(3).
(4) Mountain View is licensed by the Vermont Department of Education as an
independent school pursuant to 16 V.S.A. § 166.
(5) Mountain View owned real property located at [address redacted] in the City
of Rutland.
(6) Mountain View owned real property at [address redacted] in the City of
Rutland.
(7) Mountain View has paid property tax payments to the City of Rutland from
the time it began operations as a school in 1994 and owned the real property.
(8) The 2007-2008 Mountain View Community School Handbook describes the
school’s admissions policy: “All prospective students and their
parents/guardians must visit the school and meet with an appropriate
classroom teacher prior to enrolling. Parents/guardians will receive
information about MVCS and an application form upon their request. The
completed application form, accompanied by an application fee of $25 per
family, not per child, must be submitted to MVCS. Admission decisions occur
through a mutual process. Parents/guardians of the child and the teachers work
together in consultation with the Administrative Committee of the Board of
Directors to make the final decision with regard to the acceptance of children
into the program.”
(9) Mountain View submitted no other evidence as to its admissions process.
(10) Mountain View submitted no evidence as to the how many students it has
accepted and denied since its inception in 1994.
(11) Mountain View provided no evidence as to the makeup of its student body
regarding race, religion, national origin, or gender
2
CONCLUSIONS
Mountain View seeks a declaration that its real property is exempt from taxation
under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4) as “lands owned . . . by . . . other public schools.” Mountain
View asserts that any member of the public could send his or her child to the school;
therefore it benefits an “indefinite class of persons.”
Under Vermont law, any statutory exemption from property tax is to be strictly
construed against the taxpayer. Berkshire School v. Town of Reading, 172 Vt. 440, 442
(2001). The exemption under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4) for public uses or public schools
requires the plaintiff to show that the use of the subject property confers a benefit upon an
indefinite class of persons who are part of the public. Brattleboro Child Development,
Inc. v. Town of Brattleboro, 138 Vt. 402, 404 (1980) (overruled on other grounds by
American Museum of Fly Fishing, Inc. v. Town of Manchester, 151 Vt. 103, 110-11
(1989)). Thus, the same test applied to land used for public uses, also applies to public
schools—the use of the property must confer a benefit on an indefinite class of persons.
For a property to be entitled to tax-exempt status as a public use, it must meet the
following criteria: (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
person directly served; and (3) the property must be owned and operated on a not-for-
profit basis. American Museum of Fly Fishing, Inc., 151 Vt. at 110. The purpose of the
exemption under § 3802(4) is to “free from taxation land that is being used to serve some
public purpose.” Sigler Foundation v. Town of Norwich, 174 Vt. 129, 134 (2002). “The
underlying principle behind the Court’s definite/indefinite class distinction is the intent to
3
distinguish uses that benefit the public from uses that benefit only a selected few.” Sigler
Foundation, 174 Vt. at 134. In determining whether a use benefits the public, the
Vermont Supreme Court has stated:
[i]t is the inquiry into the character and quality of an
organization’s “choice,” “selection,” or “judgment” criteria
used to determine its beneficiaries that informs the question
of whether or not the organization’s use of its property
benefits an indefinite class that is part of the public and,
thus, confers a benefit on society.
Id.
Here, the only evidence Mountain View provided as to its admissions process is
what is printed in its 2007-2008 Handbook. The admissions language in the Handbook is
vague as to the “mutual process” that occurs between a parent and the Board of Directors,
and Mountain View provided no testimony to clarify the process. Also, Mountain View
provided no evidence as to how many students it has accepted and denied since its
inception in 1994. Furthermore, Mountain View provided no evidence as to the makeup
of its student body regarding race, religion, national origin, or gender.
Mountain View has provided no evidence as to the character and quality of the
“choice,” “selection,” or “judgment” criteria it uses to determine its beneficiaries. See
Sigler Foundation, 174 Vt. at 134. Thus, Mountain View has not shown that its primary
use directly benefits an indefinite class of persons who are part of the public. See
American Museum of Fly Fishing, Inc., 151 Vt. at 110. Any statutory exemption from
property tax is to be strictly construed against the taxpayer. Berkshire School, 172 Vt. at
442. Mountain View has not carried its burden and it is not entitled to declaratory relief
in the form on an exception under 32 V.S.A. § 3802(4).
4
ORDER
Plaintiff Mountain View Community School, Inc.’s request for declaratory
judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff is not entitled to tax exemption under 32 V.S.A.
§ 3802(4).
Dated at Rutland, Vermont this _____ day of ________________, 2010.
____________________
Hon. William Cohen
Superior Court Judge
5