automobiles on that street, pointing to a recent incident involving an injured maintenance worker and the fact that there had been 6 other similar accidents in the previous 15 years. The new campus center would only increase pedestrian traffic on that street. The proposal was defeated by the City Council 5-0. Legal challenges to the college's tax-exempt status In 1993, the Washington County Board of Assessment ruled that the 87 properties owned by the college were exempt from property and real estate taxes. After an appeal to the Board of Assessment Appeals to reverse their earlier decision was denied, the city appealed the Washington County Court of Common Pleas. On August 5, 1994, Judge Thomas J. Terputac reversed the board's decision, ruling in Order No. 93-7033 that the college did not qualify for tax-exempt status. According to the trial court, Washington & Jefferson College was not a "purely public charity", failing four of five criteria in the Hospital Utilization Project case. Specifically, Judge Terputac opined that the college had been founded as a purely public charity, but had morphed into an "enterprise of big business." The college appealed to the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court, which overturned Judge Terputac's decision on September 15, 1995, in a decision written by Judge James R. Kelley. According to that court, Washington & Jefferson College did satisfy the requirements to be considered a "purely public charity." Judges Bernard L. McGinley, Doris A. Smith-Ribner, and Dan Pellegrini dissented. The City of Washington appealed that decision to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which affirmed the lower court's decision on November 20, 1997, in a decision written by Justice John P. Flaherty. According to the court, the lower court was correct in concluding that the college did in fact satisfy the five requirements for an entity to be considered a "purely public charity," a standard that was set out in the Hospital Utilization Project case: "1) advance a charitable purpose; 2) donate or render gratuitously a substantial portion of its services; 3) benefit a substantial and indefinite class of persons who are legitimate subjects of charity; 4) relieve the government of some of its burden; and 5) operate entirely free from private profit motive." The court said that "the record demonstrates that W&J fulfills all of these requirements." Most persuasive was the fact that the college's benefits were open to all and that those served were members of a charitable