In this case the Commonwealth Court was asked to further elaborate on its holding in City of Reading v. Iezzi, 78 A.3d 1257 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Iezzi held that a municipal recycling fee covering all costs associated with a municipality’s recycling program violated Act 101. Specifically, the issue was whether a partial fee was also in violation of Act 101. While the court remanded the matter for further analysis by the trial court based on its recent decision in Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 107 A.3d 273 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015), the court did hold that a home rule municipality may rely on powers granted to it under its previous governing statute, in this case the Third Class Cities Code.
This blog features case law related to real estate, land use, zoning, and municipal law in Pennsylvania
Category: Municipal Law (Page 6 of 9)
In this Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) case the Commonwealth Court was asked to weigh in on situations where one agency holds a record containing information about another agency or another agency’s personnel, and who may decide to release or withhold such information if requested under the RTKL. Specifically addressing bills for the cellphones of several judges that were paid for by the county government, the court determined a RTKL request for these records must be directed to the respective judicial agency to determine whether to release the records.
This case presents a matter of first impression regarding the timeframe within which an agency may demand prepayment under § 1307(h) of the Right-to-Know Law (RTKL). The court found that while a prepayment demand does not have to be made in an agency’s first response to a RTKL request, it can only be made after a full legal review has been completed.
In this interlocutory appeal from a decision of the Office of Open Records (OOR), the Commonwealth Court held that government entities withholding information subject to a Right-to-Know Law (RTKL) request must provide affidavits with sufficient information to demonstrate why the information is non-disclosable or OOR has broad discretion to order in camera review of the information at issue.
Sukenik was the Manager of the Township of Elizabeth (“Manager”). He became involved in a dispute between the Township Board President and the Chief of Police. The President attempted to micromanage police affairs and disrupt the administration of the police department, eventually calling for a 4-year forensic audit of the department. On several occasions the President unilaterally directed the Manager to oppose the Chief’s decisions. Following an executive session of the Board, from which the Manager was excluded, the Manager drafted a letter to the Board reiterating his concerns about interfering with the police department and that the forensic audit would be a substantial waste of taxpayer funds. After initially authorizing the audit, the Board eventually abandoned it. Approximately two months later the Board terminated the Manager.
In this case out of Pike County, the Commonwealth Court determined that a current Board of Auditors could not rescind a past Board of Auditor’s approval for supervisor-employees to participate in a Township pension plan, despite not being presented with the specific pension plan adopted by the municipality. Further, the court held that such pension plans were not compensation of the elected office and therefore supervisor-employees who adopted the plan did not have to be reelected to participate in it.
In this case the Supreme Court held that businesses that obtain all of their income from leasing property can be compelled to pay business privilege tax (BPT), despite a provision in the Local Tax Enabling Act (“LTEA”) prohibiting municipalities from levying, assessing, or collecting “any tax” on leases or lease transactions.
In a highly publicized case involving state employees sending and receiving pornographic emails, the Commonwealth Court ruled that such communications were not required to be disclosed under the State’s Right-to-Know Law (RTKL).
In this case out of Northampton County the Commonwealth Court weighed in on what constitutes a “substantial amendment” to a proposed ordinance, such that it must be re-advertised prior to being adopted. In finding that the municipality should have re-advertised a change to the number of hours digital billboards could be illuminated, the court appeared to establish different standards for such appeals brought by applicants and those brought by adjacent landowners.
In this dispute between the Borough of West Chester and a former industrial discharger of wastewater, the Commonwealth Court held that the industrial discharger could not be required to make perpetual payments for operational and maintenance costs of waste water facilities when it no longer discharged any wastewater.
Published By:
