Live courthouse data across 10 states. Pro users get alerted instantly on every filing. Get started

The Boro of W. Chester, Aplt. v. PASSHE

Docket 9 MAP 2023

Court of record · Indexed in NoticeRegistry archive · AI-enriched for research

OtherAffirmed
Filed
Jurisdiction
Pennsylvania
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Type
Concurrence
Case type
Other
Disposition
Affirmed
Judge
Brobson, P. Kevin; Mundy, Sallie; Wecht, David N.
Docket
9 MAP 2023

Appeal from the Commonwealth Court decision upholding a determination that the Borough’s stormwater charge is a tax rather than a fee.

Summary

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice concurred with the majority in holding that the Borough’s stormwater charge functions as a tax rather than a fee because the proceeds fund broad, community-wide projects (tree planting, street sweeping, regrading alleys, rain gardens, curb extensions) that benefit the public generally rather than providing specific, measurable services to West Chester University. The concurrence explains that when charges fund generalized environmental and beautification projects remote from the university, the nexus to runoff from university property is too thin to qualify as a fee. The justice reserved judgment on different fact patterns where proceeds are spent solely on direct stormwater remediation or where charges are closely tied to individual property runoff.

Issues Decided

  • Whether the Borough’s stormwater charge is a fee for services or a tax when proceeds fund general community projects.
  • Whether using stormwater charge proceeds for projects remote from the university breaks the necessary nexus to characterize the charge as a fee.
  • Whether a municipality may be deemed to have taxing authority over Commonwealth instrumentalities absent an express legislative delegation.

Court's Reasoning

The court reasoned that a fee must reflect a specific exchange of value between the payer and the service provided; here the stormwater charge funds generalized public-benefit projects rather than services of specific value to the university. Because many funded projects are remote from and not specifically tied to runoff from the university, the connection between payment and distinct benefit to the university is too attenuated, making the charge a tax. The opinion notes that different factual arrangements—funds used solely for direct remediation or charges proportionate to each property’s runoff—could support a fee characterization.

Authorities Cited

  • Lewiston Independent School District No. 1 v. City of Lewiston264 P.3d 907 (Idaho 2011)
  • Commonwealth v. Dauphin County6 A.2d 870 (Pa. 1939)
  • Delaware County Solid Waste Authority v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals626 A.2d 528 (Pa. 1993)

Parties

Appellant
The Borough of West Chester
Appellee
Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education
Appellee
West Chester University of Pennsylvania of the State System of Higher Education
Judge
Justice Mundy

Key Dates

Commonwealth Court decision date
2023-01-04
Argument date
2024-09-11
Supreme Court decision date
2026-04-30
Trial testimony (recorded)
2020-10-15

What You Should Do Next

  1. 1

    Assess stormwater charge allocations

    The Borough should review and document how stormwater revenues are spent and consider restricting funds to direct remediation projects if it wants to support a fee-based charge.

  2. 2

    Consider revising fee methodology

    If seeking to characterize charges as fees, the Borough could adopt a formula tying charges to each property's runoff contribution and maintain records showing the direct benefit to paying properties.

  3. 3

    Consult counsel about legislative options

    The Borough or others may consult legal counsel and policymakers about seeking an explicit legislative delegation authorizing taxation or specific fee authority for Commonwealth properties.

Frequently Asked Questions

What did the court decide about the stormwater charge?
The court treated the Borough’s stormwater charge as a tax rather than a fee because the money funds broad public projects, not a specific service provided to the university.
Who is affected by this decision?
The Borough, West Chester University (and other Commonwealth instrumentalities), and borough taxpayers are affected because the charge cannot be justified as a fee under these facts.
Could the same charge be a fee in a different situation?
Yes. The justice reserved that a charge might be a fee if proceeds fund only direct stormwater remediation or if charges are calculated based on how much runoff each property causes.
What happens next procedurally?
Because this is a concurrence supporting the majority outcome, the affirmed characterization stands; further litigation would only arise if parties present different facts or statutory delegations.

The above suggestions and answers are AI-generated for informational purposes only. They may contain errors. NoticeRegistry assumes no responsibility for their accuracy. Consult a qualified attorney before relying on them.

Full Filing Text
[J-56-2024] [MO: Brobson, J.]
                    IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA
                                  MIDDLE DISTRICT


 THE BOROUGH OF WEST CHESTER,                   :   No. 9 MAP 2023
                                                :
                      Appellant                 :   Appeal from the Commonwealth
                                                :   Court decision dated January 4,
                                                :   2023 at No. 260 MD 2018.
               v.                               :
                                                :   ARGUED: September 11, 2024
                                                :
 PENNSYLVANIA STATE SYSTEM OF                   :
 HIGHER EDUCATION AND WEST                      :
 CHESTER UNIVERSITY OF                          :
 PENNSYLVANIA OF THE STATE SYSTEM               :
 OF HIGHER EDUCATION,                           :
                                                :
                      Appellees                 :


                                  CONCURRING OPINION


JUSTICE MUNDY                                                 DECIDED: April 30, 2026
      I join the majority opinion in the present circumstances, where the proceeds of the

Borough’s stormwater charge are applied to projects remote from the University such as

tree planting, street sweeping, regrading of alleys, and rain garden installations and curb

extensions to increase filtration and slow runoff. The borough manager testified these

types of projects produce cleaner water and a cleaner, more well-maintained borough,

which in turn has public health benefits. 1    Such projects serve the interests of the

community as a whole, but they are not items of specific value that the Borough provides

to the University in return for the money charged. The more a stormwater charge is used

for general projects to address environmental issues, community beautification, or

1 See N.T., 10/15/2020, at 60, 103-111, reprinted in RR. 1208a, 1251a-1259 (deposition

testimony of Michael Perrone).
hazards in public places, the thinner the nexus to runoff from developed properties

becomes – making the charge a tax. See Lewiston Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. City of

Lewiston, 264 P.3d 907, 913-14 (Idaho 2011) (concluding a stormwater charge with

similar benefits to the community was a tax). See generally Brief for Appellees at 46

(positing that because such features are not part of the stormwater system itself – and

they may be located miles from the University – they cannot be relied on as a basis to

conclude the charge is a fee for services rendered).

       I reserve judgment as to stormwater charges in other municipalities where the

proceeds are directed solely to stormwater remediation and measures needed for

remediation, such as ameliorating stream erosion or filtering out toxins carried by runoff.

I also would not foreclose concluding a stormwater charge is a fee where the amount of

the charge is calculated in substantial part according to the benefit accruing to each

property based on the amount of runoff from nearby properties. Cf. Majority Op. at 28

(observing stormwater which neither filtrates nor evaporates naturally runs off one’s

property, and thus, a remediation system’s benefit to each property is a function of how

much stormwater runs off neighboring properties) (quoting DeKalb County, Ga. v. United

States, 108 Fed. Cl. 681, 703 (2013)).

       As a final observation, I note the rule that instrumentalities of the Commonwealth

enjoy immunity from local taxation arises in each case, ultimately, from an exercise in

statutory interpretation. The rule is built on the precept that the power to tax resides with

the General Assembly, which may “by express direction delegate segments of the taxing

power to municipal bodies, whose exercise thereof is confined to the power so delegated.”

Commonwealth v. Dauphin Cnty., 6 A.2d 870, 871 (Pa. 1939); see also Lehigh-

Northampton Airport Auth. v. Lehigh Cnty. Bd. of Assessment Appeals, 889 A.2d 1168,

1175 (Pa. 2005).     Absent delegation, the local government lacks the power to tax




                             [J-56-2024] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 2
Commonwealth properties because the General Assembly did not explicitly provide it.

We have therefore indicated that: any grant of power to tax the Commonwealth must be

express; the scope of an express grant is to be strictly construed; and “such a grant may

not be found by implication.”     Del. Cnty. Solid Waste Auth. v. Berks Cnty. Bd. of

Assessment Appeals, 626 A.2d 528, 531 (Pa. 1993).

       This latter principle – that the power to tax Commonwealth instrumentalities cannot

occur by implication – is thus a judge-made rule that appears prophylactic in nature. I

would be open, in a future case, to consider advocacy suggesting an implied grant of

taxing authority can arise where the municipality is required by state law to spend funds

on pollution-control projects, see, e.g., Majority Op. at 25 & nn.20-22 (referencing federal

and state mandates requiring action by the Borough), at least to the extent the

municipality may be seen to be acting as an agent of the Commonwealth to accomplish

state-level objectives pursuant to state-level mandates. 2 No presentation along these

lines has been received in the present case, as the substantive issue before this Court is

limited to whether the Borough’s stormwater charge constitutes a tax or a fee.




2 Cf., Lewiston Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 1 v. City of Lewiston, 264 P.3d 907, 909 (Idaho 2011)

(“In order to eliminate non-stormwater and pollutant discharge, the Clean Water Act
requires municipalities discharging stormwater into the receiving waters of the United
States to obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit (‘NPDES
permit’). The City’s NPDES draft permit required it to undertake comprehensive
management of its stormwater system to reduce pollutant loads from entering the
receiving waters of the United States.”) (citing 33 U.S.C. § 1342(p)(1)-(6)).


                            [J-56-2024] [MO: Brobson, J.] - 3