What is a Municipal Authority?

If you live in Pennsylvania, odds are that you’re within the service area of at least one municipal or joint municipal authority.

It has been estimated that Pennsylvania has roughly 2,000 active municipal authorities. Whether for water distribution, wastewater treatment, sewer, school, hospital, mass transit, recreation, business development, or some other purpose, most citizens get some sort of service (and, as importantly, receive bills or special assessments) from a municipal authority.

But what exactly is a municipal authority? Many see the word “municipal” in the title and assume it’s an arm or agency of the municipality in which it is located. However, a municipal authority is not an agent or representative of a municipal government, but is instead an agency of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Municipal authorities are formed under and governed by Pennsylvania’s Municipality Authorities Act, and are considered independent corporate agents of the Commonwealth.

What can a Municipal Authority do?

The Municipality Authorities Act dictates a municipal authority’s powers and limitations. They have the ability to exercise governmental, as well as private, corporate powers, in assisting the Commonwealth in meeting the needs of its citizens. Municipal authorities are often set up to facilitate the acquisition, operations, financing, and construction of projects, from stormwater management to wastewater treatment to construction of school buildings. In pursuing these purposes, municipal authorities have certain unique powers, including the ability to incur debt, own property, and finance their activities by means of issuing revenue bonds (independent of the municipality), fixing and collecting lease rentals, or other charges or assessments.

There are, however, some limitations on what a municipal authority can do. The projects it undertakes must be in the proprietary fields of government, must be in the public interest, and must be self-sustaining. The Act sets forth 18 different kinds of projects that an authority may undertake. The Articles of Incorporation of many municipal authorities can include a specific limiting purpose and/or specific projects, in which case no other projects may be undertaken than those specified. And in the case of municipal authorities created to provide business improvements or administrative services, their power to charge assessment fees is further limited by a requirement that all business improvement plans and proposed methods of assessment must be formally approved by the municipality in which the project is located.

How are Municipal Authorities different than Municipal Governments?

Municipal authorities differ from municipal governments in the following key aspects:

  • A municipal authority has many more limitations on the exercise of its power than general purpose governments, which have general police powers to protect the public safety, health and general welfare;
  • A municipal authority is limited to project-related revenues, like user charges, connection fees, or special assessments as provided in the Act, while municipal governments have broader general taxing authority;
  • Municipal authorities generally have fewer restraints and restrictions on operations, budgetary and personnel practices than municipal governments;
  • An municipal authority’s board is not elected, but appointed by the local municipal government(s);

This last point is one of the most important differences. The extra layer of insulation from political pressure allows municipal authorities to undertake certain long-term projects and raise and spend money without having to face voters – who may have seen large increases in user charges or special assessments – at the ballot box.

This freedom from political pressure also has other side effects, like allowing qualified professionals to be appointed to serve on the board who would likely not be interested in running for elected office, allowing for greater continuity of leadership, and being more attractive to quality employees with the promise of stability and tenure.

How can you challenge the charges or assessment fees of a Municipal Authority?

The negative side of a municipal authority board being appointed and insulated from political forces is that property owners or developers may not feel they have much recourse if charges or rates are increased, or they believe an assessment is excessive or improper. Though property owners may not be able to exert political pressure on a municipal authority, there is some recourse available to dispute or challenge a charge or assessment.

The Act gives municipal authorities broad discretion and empowers them to assess and collect charges in their service area “at reasonable and uniform rates to be determined exclusively” by the municipal authority. However, the Act also authorizes “[a]ny person questioning the reasonableness or uniformity of a rate fixed by an authority or the adequacy, safety and reasonableness of the authority's services, including extensions thereof, [to] bring suit against the authority in the court of common pleas of the county where the project is located․”

Whether you’re a developer or property owner wishing to dispute a water or stormwater authority’s cost of water or stormwater construction or operating costs, customer facilities fees or tapping fees, or a property owner in a business improvement district wishing to dispute the assessment on your property, a diligent attorney will be able to guide you through the complex requirements of the Act and assess whether bringing suit would be beneficial to your interests.

Our experienced municipal government team at High Swartz has in-depth knowledge and experience in the Municipality Authorities Act and related case law, and [can] counsel both municipal authorities and property owners in navigating the law and protecting or asserting their sometimes competing interests.

High Swartz named among 2019 ‘Best Law Firms’ by U.S. News – Best Lawyers

Full-service law firm in Bucks and Montgomery counties recognized for prowess in Family Law, Municipal Law, Real Estate Law and Litigation - Real Estate, Land Use and Zoning

High Swartz LLP, a full-service law firm with offices in Norristown and Doylestown, Pennsylvania, is pleased to announce that it has been named a “Best Law Firm” for 2019 by U.S. News – Best Lawyers®, achieving a Tier 1 ranking in the Philadelphia Metropolitan area in the practice areas of Family Law, Municipal Law, Real Estate Law and Litigation - Real Estate, Land Use and Zoning and National Tier 2 ranking for Land Use and Zoning Law.

To be eligible for a Best Law Firm ranking, a firm must have at least one lawyer included in The Best Lawyers in America©. Attorneys are neither required nor allowed to pay a fee to be listed. For 2019, 9 High Swartz attorneys were named among Best Lawyers:

Best Law Firm rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

The highest honor, a Tier 1 ranking, is based on a firm's overall evaluation, which is derived from a combination of its clients' impressive feedback, the regard that lawyers in other firms in the same practice areas have for the firm, and information that the firm provided to Best Lawyers via a survey.

High Swartz Welcomes New Municipal Law Attorney

Full-service law firm High Swartz LLP is pleased to announce that Kathleen M. Thomas has joined the firm’s Municipal Law practice.

Kathleen brings more than twenty-five years of legal experience, and concentrates her practice in the areas of municipal law, small business and non-profit law, and civil litigation.

Recognized as an expert in the areas of Pennsylvania Act 511 taxation, Kathleen serves as Special Act 511 Tax Counsel to the Townships of, Lower Merion and Abington, among others.  She also serves as the Act 511 Hearing Officer to multiple municipalities in Montgomery and Delaware Counties.  She is a regular speaker at the meetings of the Pennsylvania Business Privilege and Mercantile Tax Collectors Association.

Kathleen’s expertise extends to issues of corporate governance and other matters related to non-profit organizations, churches and other religious entities, including the Philadelphia Baptist Association.

“We feel very fortunate to have someone with Kathleen’s breadth of municipal experience join our firm.  Her reputation for dealing with issues involving municipal taxation, particularly in the area of Business Privilege Tax, is outstanding.  Her expertise in representing non-profit entities also meshes well with the extensive work our firm already does in that area”, said partner Gilbert P. High, Jr.

Thomas  earned her law degree from Temple University Beasley School of Law. She holds a Bachelor of Arts from West Chester University in Business Administration. She lives in Warminster, Pennsylvania.

High Swartz LLP is a full-service law firm serving clients in the Delaware Valley and throughout Pennsylvania from offices in Norristown and Doylestown. Established in 1914, High Swartz serves the needs of businesses, municipalities, government entities, nonprofits and individuals. With offices in Bucks County and Montgomery County, the firm provides comprehensive counsel and legal support to individuals and business entities of all sizes across a broad spectrum of industries throughout Pennsylvania and New Jersey. For more information, go to www.highswartz.com.

# # #

How can municipalities control the AirBnB trend within their neighborhoods?

The online marketplace for short-term lodging is proliferating well beyond Jersey Shore and Poconos rentals.  AirBnB’s are becoming a popular trend in suburban Philadelphia and, in some townships, an unwanted land use.  Since this trend started, the municipal and zoning lawyer in me has wondered how this seemingly unregulated ability to rent out your house for a few days complies with local zoning and other township codes.  Well, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court recently agreed to hear a case that might provide some new insight.

In late February 2018, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court agreed to review the Commonwealth Court’s June 2017 decision in Slice of Life, LLC v. Hamilton Twp. Zoning Hearing Bd.[1]  In the case, Hamilton Township in Monroe County issued a violation notice to a property owner stating that the owner’s use of the property in question for short-term rentals violated the township’s zoning code.  The property was in a residential zoning district in which only single-family residential use was permitted.

The Township’s zoning hearing board, and then the Court of Common Pleas, agreed that the use violated the zoning ordinance, finding that the owner was not operating a single-family dwelling but rather a commercial short-term transient lodging business motivated by profit.

On appeal, the Commonwealth Court reversed those decisions, finding that the Township’s violation notice was an attempt to expand the language of the Township zoning ordinance to impose an unwritten policy against short-term rentals.  The Commonwealth Court analyzed the defined terms in the applicable ordinance sections and concluded that the Township was reading undefined terms into the ordinance language when the law requires that any ambiguity in the written language be interpreted in favor of the property owner.

The Commonwealth Court also rejected the Township’s argument that short-term transient rentals threaten the health, safety, and welfare of single-family residential neighborhoods, essentially explaining that neighborhoods sometimes have bad neighbors regardless of whether they are renters or owners.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court will now review the Commonwealth Court’s decision, which could provide some insight on how local zoning codes may be interpreted with respect to these evermore common short-term rentals of single-family homes.

So what can municipalities learn from the analysis provided by the courts so far?  The devil is in the details.  The court's focus on the defined and undefined terms in the applicable zoning ordinance is ultimately what controlled the outcome of the Slice of Life case and others that preceded it.  Recognizing that online services such as AirBnB have expanded the possible uses of single-family dwellings, the courts have pointed out that townships wanting to control these new uses must do so by amending their zoning ordinances, rather than attempting to restrict the uses through broad interpretations of existing language.

If municipalities feel that short-term rentals pose a threat to their neighborhoods, they should review their ordinances and make the necessary changes to restrict such uses to certain zoning districts.  In the coming months, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court should provide some guidance to municipalities on what types of changes are necessary in order to properly address these emerging uses within their communities.

If you have any questions about zoning ordinances, please contact Mark R. Fischer, Jr. at 610-275-0700 or mfischer@highswartz.com.  Our Bucks County and Montgomery County Municipal & Government Law attorneys have knowledge and experience in all facets of zoning issues.

[1] 164 A.3d 633 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2017).

The information above is general: we recommend that you consult an attorney regarding your specific circumstances.  The content of this information is not meant to be considered as legal advice or a substitute for legal representation.