Oct 17, 2002 By Paul Sunyak 4 min read

The Uniontown Hospital Association got half of what it wanted from the Fayette County Tax Assessment Appeals Board on Wednesday, while the Bruderhof Communities in Pa. Inc. failed to convince the board to make all its residential housing tax-exempt. The appeals board comprised of Jim Killinger, Joe Dorazio and Lloyd Moser agreed to back off the county’s plan to tax half of the value of The Uniontown Hospital, located at 500 W. Berkeley St.

Under the reassessment set to go into effect in 2003, the county had planned to tax the hospital at 50 percent of the assessed value as determined by Cole Layer Trumble, the firm that conducted the first countywide reassessment since 1958.

The move would have slapped a $10.6 million assessment on the hospital, which has historically been entirely tax-exempt.

During Wednesday’s appeal hearing, hospital attorney Robert L. Webster Jr. and chief financial officer Steven Handy said the hospital easily fulfills all five of the criteria laid out in state law for an organization to be considered a purely public charity.

Those criteria were: advancing a charitable purpose, donating or rendering gratuitously a substantial portion of its services to the needy, benefiting a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity, relieving the government of some of its burden and operating entirely free from private profit motive.

Handy noted that between two-thirds and three-fourths of the hospital’s services are rendered to those who qualify for government assistance, primarily through Medicare and Medicaid.

James A. Hercik, CPE, the county’s chief assessor, asked how the hospital handled its emergency room, X-ray and laboratory operations.

Hercik said the county had been under the impression that those services, while contained within the hospital building, were being performed by private business entities that leased the space.

Handy said that those three areas have always been owned by the hospital, but are now staffed by private contractor physicians who are not official hospital employees. He said that those physicians bill independently for professional services, which may have been the source of confusion.

Webster said that in the 336,377-square-foot hospital, only two areas are leased to entities not officially tied to hospital operations: the 836-square-foot gift shop and a 542-square-foot office leased to the doctor who heads the physical therapy department.

However, the appeals board rejected the hospital association’s attempt to have the adjacent Medical Arts Building declared tax-exempt.

Located at 30 Delaware Ave., that building houses the hospital’s computer training offices and its billing department, and the basement is used for storage, said Handy.

“Our long-term intent for that building is to tear that building down” to make room for hospital expansion, added Handy.

Based on the board’s rejection of the tax-exempt claim, that building will be carried on the tax rolls with an assessed value of $740,576 for 2003.

The Bruderhof tried in vain to get the appeal board to approve tax-exempt status for its residential housing units at New Meadow Run and at Spring Valley in Wharton Township.

Attorney Jeffrey R. Jankowksi and corporation vice president Matthew Domer put forth the position that the Bruderhof communal lifestyle means that its living units are used “solely for religious purposes” and therefore should be tax-exempt.

Domer also said that since residents take a vow of poverty, obedience and chastity – and thus can own no property – they have an unconventional living arrangement similar to a monastery.

“I think what’s key is the integrated nature of our way of life,” said Domer. “All members have taken lifetime vows of poverty.”

Jankowksi said that the county exempts from taxes the residential housing located at Mount St. Macrina, the Jumonville Methodist Training Center and the Vincentian Sisters of Charity.

He said the Bruderhof properties should be added to that list because “the Bruderhof activities mirror the activities going on at these other places.”

Appeals board member Dorazio noted that in his mind, there was an exchange of services going on in the Bruderhof communities, with its residents working in income-producing enterprises and getting free rent in return.

Dorazio said that the main difference is that people outside the Bruderhof earn and keep their money, then are responsible for paying for their own housing, food and clothing.

“We have to go to work and our property is not exempt from taxes,” said Dorazio.

“I find (your position) a little bit of a problem.”

Domer noted that only two of the Bruderhof’s 16 parcels were under appeal, and that real estate taxes are paid on the other 14 parcels.

At the end of the day, however, the appeals board issued a “no change” for the Bruderhof properties, keeping the 2003 assessed value for 195-acre New Meadow Run at $3.06 million and for 123-acre Spring Valley at $2.17 million.