Preview:

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA The Scott Township Sewer and Water Authority and Scott Township v. Ease Simulation, Inc. d/b/a, Ease Diagnostics, Appellants : : : : : : : : : : : :

No. 2291 C.D. 2009 Submitted: April 23, 2010

BEFORE:

HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JIM FLAHERTY, Senior Judge

OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FLAHERTY

FILED: August 6, 2010

Ease Simulation, Inc. d/b/a, Ease Diagnostics (Ease) appeals from an order of the Court of Common Pleas of Lackawanna County (trial court), which entered judgment in favor of The Scott Township Sewer and Water Authority and Scott Township (collectively, Authority) and ordered Ease to pay $16,000.00 in unpaid charges for water, sewer and fire protection. We affirm. The Authority instituted this action for the collection of unpaid charges for water, sewer and fire protection. Ease challenged the fee The parties

imposed by the Authority, claiming it was unreasonable.

submitted a stipulation of facts, an expert's report and also presented witness testimony at the non-jury trial. The trial court determined that the Authority adopted a rate structure which encompasses both water and sewer service and the availability of water for fire protection purposes. Of the monthly fee

charged by the Authority to Ease, $147.16 represents the fire protection portion of the rate. The Authority charges Ease a base sewer and water rate of $750.00 per month, which includes the first 20,000 gallons of water used/consumed. Ease's average monthly water usage for the period of

January 1, 2007 through July 31, 2007 was 3,429 gallons per month. The Authority is providing sufficient amounts of water to meet the needs of Ease and is able to meet the projected future water needs of Ease, if they were to increase. In addition, the Authority's fire protection system is fully functioning. The Authority's fire hydrant locations, while not ideal, do not disqualify them from providing Ease with adequate fire protection and the fire hydrants meet the standards required to provide fire protection to Ease. The trial court concluded that the rate charged by the Authority is reasonable, that the Authority's system offers appropriate service to Ease's property in the event of a fire and ordered Ease to pay the Authority $16,000.00 in unpaid charges for water, sewer and fire protection. This appeal followed.1
Our review of a trial court decision as to whether an authority's utility rate is reasonable is limited to determining whether the findings are supported by substantial evidence and whether the law was properly applied to the facts. Allegheny Ludlum Corporation v. Municipal Authority of Westmoreland County, 659 A.2d 20 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).
1

2

Initially, the first issue we address is whether the rates charged by the Authority are reasonable as required by the Pennsylvania Municipal Authorities Act (Act), 53 Pa. C.S.

Download 2291cd09-8-6-10.pdf

Pennsylvania Law