HomeMy WebLinkAbout95-06484
, '
'I
',i,1
01,
,) 1-"
I, d,
, ,
1
'i' .VI.,
;1
>I
:'J
.
..,' ,
1/
,
.r,'
J'
"
, ,
I,
"
',i
"1,
';-1 .
,iii__
;'iV,I,,-'I': ri,!""
t <\' I' I, -,,'
,II' ,ll)!i\ ..
',','tI I. I
, ;.1_'
I
I'
!I
I,"
"
,
111
,
-I, ,
"
,"
If "
"
'I
"
";1'
"
, I
,
"
.J.
"
,
r
,
"
"
I'
,'I
"
,'II
,
y
,
lot .
'1"
'i:"
Iii It
;,1
..
,
,
"
"
;,'1
/,
"I
"
',I
I
'.,'
,
,
,
,
,
",
"
"I
" ,f
"
, "
, "
!,'I,
,1-1
I:
,"
j',
,I"
I':
"
. I
'\)1
il
"
,
I
"
"
,
"
"
1
"
I
"
..
.
"
',' ~
"
, ,
,/,:
"
I II.
,
"
"
"
!
,
"
'I"
" It
,
, '
','
,
"
""L
1I,lilf(.
''1
,
.',
,.,
J~
'it.'
J,~, I,
I
,
"
"
"
" I I.r, II
,'I
"
,. i
;,
"I
,'I
,
,
'~
,I
,
"
,
"
,
I
,I
, ,
'1_;
"
I'
,
"
"
,
"
,
";
'"
"
,I
"
,
,
"
1'1'
, '
, ,
i'
1;,1;\
;1'
"
,
I'
'I
,II
I'll
I
,
Ii'
il
,
,,'
,,'
, ,
I'
IJ"
,I
"
,.
I
'J,
"
,
,
,
"
IIF!
1,1,
,i
,
II,
"
,
.)1
,>I
'"
1
,
,
,
,
If!
',I',
1.\' IF'
, '
,I
I'
-I.,
il
"
,"
1,',1
"
,Ii
I
"
iI
"
r ~
,II
1
t:.
,",', I:'
,
"
'I jl
,
'ii,
.11
"
'II
,
I.
, '
,\
"
'I '!
"
,
..
"
I,
1,',\ /,
.I I" ,ih'
Ii 'j
"'I,,
"
i!
I'
"
!,
, '
I,
'I
"
-,','
Ii II
"
"
.
1
I':
,
',I
i''',lt
"
,
"'Ii
\ I'!
-I,
"
,
,
\
;'.iJ
"
I
'jl
'01 'I',
,
,
.',Ii
,
"
',",
,\'
"
;) II
"
,
~ 11 ' '
I'
"
:.,
'\1-,'
'I
"
"
"
'I
'Ii II
,'II
,<I
, ,
I
I'
:i
"
',1 1';1,
'1,.1
',;1
"'"
',t;""
1
"
'\.,'
,
';1
d,
"
"
rI,,_
"I'
"I
"
,i
,
,,' I,
,I,.r.
,
I,,;
"
'I"
"
,
"
Ii
"
"
~l
,
~:,
1',1
COURT OF COMMON I'LEAIS
OF CUMDERLANO COUNTY,I'ENNSVl'v ANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
('
,
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trlndlc Rand
Cllfllwlc, Pcnnsylvwtlu 17013
Plaintiff,
NO. 95-6484
vs,
BOROUGH OF SHlPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shll1pensburg, Pennsylvunlu 17257
DelendWlt,
DECLARATORY JUDOMENT
INJUNCTION
I
"
ANSWER AND NEW MAnER OF DEFENDANT
BOROUGH OF SHlPPENSBUIHl
,1
i AND NOW. comes the Defendunt. Borough of Shlppensburg, by its Solicitor, Forest N.
Myers, Wld answers the complulnt us follows:
ShipPClUlburll. Code ofthe 1l0rllUIlh ()fShlllpen~burll. Chapter 87, E"i~tlnll Structure~ IH t~l promote
the hellllh. IIlItety lIlld welfllJ'e of the citll.en~ of the BortlUllh of Shlppen~burll by provldlnll hou~ing
unll~ whieh lire ~afe wId nol deteriorated,
14. Admitted
IS. Adllllllcd
16, Admllled
17 Admllled
COURT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF
18. No re~pon~lve an~wer Is required, Sec answers to Paragraphs 1-17 which are
incorporated herein by refercnce.
19. Denied, On Ihe cOlltrary the annual Ice in the UlllOUllt of $50,00 for licensing and
illllpeclion I~ reasonable ood nece~Hary lor the administration of the program WId represenltlthe IiCtual
costneeessW')' lor the administratioll of the program.
20, The allegations of I'aral!ruph 20 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or dcnial.
21, The allcgations of Paragraph 21 ore conclusions of low and do 1101 require cither an
admission or denial.
22. 'rhe allegations of Paragraph 22 are conclusions of low and do not require either an
admission or denial.
WHEREAS, Dcfendwll. Borough of Shipp ens burg requests your lIonorable Court to dismiss
the Complaint of I'lainlllt'. and aHsess costs of suit and allorneys Ices against I'lalntll1', J, Michael
Adler,
{:OURT II . INJUNCTION
23, No responsive answer is required, See an~wcrs to Paragraphs 1-22 which are
Incorporated herein by relerence,
24, The allegations of Paragraph 24 arc conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or deniul.
25. The allegutlons ofPW'agraph 25 are conclusions llflaw and do nOI require either an
admission or denial.
26 Thl: ullegullul1~ of I'urugruph 21\ url: eOI1c1u~iol1~ uf luw und dUl1l11 require either IIn
Udlllls~hlllor d':lllul. lIy wuy of furlher un~wer~, IM'cndllnl beliew~ IInlllherel'lre IIrells IhUllhe
I'lulnlltrhu~ udequute rell1edle~ IIvulluhle lu hlll1,
27, Adlllllled
28, The ullegullllll~ or purugruJlh 28 ~lre eUI1c1u~luns uf IlIw IInd donlll require either un
udllllsslonl1r denlul.
29 The ullegulluns of )'urugruph 29 ure eoncluslon~ ur IlIw IInd do nol require ullher UI1
udmluslonor denlul,
lli:W MATTER
30, Purugruphs Ilhrough 29 ~Ire Il1eurporuted herein by rcl'crenel:,
31, Def'cndulll WIIS Ulllllllllle releVUl11 herelo WIIS ,he owner of renlul Jlroperlle~ u~ sel
forth ubovc,
32, Plulnlll1' lI1ulled 10 Del'cndlll1t rel1ll1llieense IIppliellllun for elleh unit liS required by
Ihe Code of Ihe lIorough or Shlppensburg. Chllplcr 87, Existing Struclure, Arllcle III, Renlul
Ueense,lorlhe yellrs 1991,1992, 1993. 1994l1nd 1995,
33, Del'cndllnl relurned Ihe required IIppliclltlon for 1111 renllll units us required,
34. Defen<lulll hilS fulled to PIlY the required t'cell which now ullluunllo $2,400,1111.
WHEREAS, 1'lullltil1'requesls youl'llonornhlc COUl'l 10 enler judglllenl ug~llnsl Del'cndunl
In Ihe Ulllounl of $ 2,400,110 logelher wllh eosls uf suit IInd interesl.
- --\-- '* ,..j\.
FOREST N, MYERS<::r-
10000 MOLLY PITCIIER IIICiIIWA Y
SHIPPENSBlJRCi. PA 17257
ATTORNEY I.D, NO, 180M
(717) 532.9046
I verify Ihut the slutelllents Illude In Ihis CUlllpllllnlllre true IIl1d correcl. I underslund thut
false sllllelllellts herein ure suhJecllo the penllllles uf 18 pll, C ,S. Scctiun 4l)()4 relullng 10 unswom
1i1lSlticntlo~ to uUlh~rilles, . ". . n..... ~ 0
Dute:__-1..~.Clb 1_bkI,..Q_J4h&~~-
Mlchlld Plmenlll!. President
, t
MAACH, HURWITZ, I)tMARCO It MITCIll!U" p,C,
BYI LEB A. STIVALB, BSQUIRE
ATTORN BY I,D, NO. 44511
11 WIlST THIRD STItBI!T
P.O. BOX 101
MIlDIA, PBNNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 565.3950
IN TilE COURT OF COMMON Pl.EAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trilldle Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plalnllff
NO. 9,s., I..,J./f"l (!lu/{tfll."1
vs,
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W, Burd Slreet
Shlppcnsburll, Pennsylvnnlll 17257
Dcfelldunt
DECLARNrORYJUDOMENT
INJUNcrlON
NOTICE
You have been sued In Court. If you wish to defend ugullllitthe c1ulm set forth in the
following pagcs, you must take action within twenty (20) dnys ul\cr this Compluintund Notl~'C
Bre scl'o'cd, by entering a wrlllen nppcurancc pcrsollully or by ullorney and I1l1ng In writing with
the Court your defenscs or objections to the c1uims sctli.lrth lIgulnsl you, You ure wurned thul
If you fall to UllSO the ensc muy proceed without you und a judgment muy be entered agllinst
you by thc Court, without furlher notice, for uny money c1nlmed in the Complulnt or for all)
other claim or relicI' requ'lsted by the Plalnllff, You muy lose mOlley or propci Iy or other rlghls
Important 10 you,
YOU SIIOULD TAKE TillS PAPER TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT IIAVE
A LAWYER OR CANNOT AF.-GRD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPIIONE TilE OFFICE SET
FORTII BELOW TO t"lND OUT WIIERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL IIEI,P.
Lawyers' Referl'lll Service
Cuurt Adlllllllstrlltor's Office
Cumherllllld Cuullty Cuurthouse
4th "'Ioor
ClIrllsle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL
A1TORNIWS AT LAW . 17 WI'$!' 'l1\1llD STltHI,!' . 1',O,Il0X lOll . MEI>IA. PENNSYJ.VANIA 19063
"
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHEl-L, P.C.
BY: LEE A. STIV ALE, ESQUIRE
ATfORNBY I.D, NO, 46511
17 WEST THIRD STREET
P.O, BOX 108
MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 56.5.3950
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION '. LAW
,I"
~ I
1.1
,
;I
J, MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trlndle Road
Carlllle, Pennlylvanla 17013
Plallltlff.
NO. 9s-I..,I-f"A.{ c.::/~ I t ((IV')
VI.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W, Burd Street
Shlppenlbura. Pennlylvanla 172S7
D~f~ndant.
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
COMPLAINT
THE P~RTlESI
l. Th~ Plaintiff. J. Michael Adl~r (hereinafter referred to al "Adler') II an adult
Individual with a notice addrell at 1442 Trlndle Road. Carlisle. Pennsylvania 17013.
2, Adler is the fee owner or equitable owner of the following real properties located
at:
(a) 10S Sprinahouse Road, Borouah of Shlppensbura,
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania; and,
(b) 18 Hollar Avenue. Borough of Shlppensbura.
Cumberland County. Pennlylvanla; and,
(e) 341 East Fort Street. Borough of Shlppensbura.
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania,
(d) 343 East Fort Street, Borouah of Shlppenlbura.
Cumberland County. Pennsylvania.
The propertlel delcrlbed In subparlliraphs 2(a)(b) and (c) shall collectively be referred 10 IU Ihe
"Rental Properties,"
4. The real property located at 105 Sprlnihouse Rolld, Boroullh of Shlppensbur., Is
Improved wllh . slnllle family, detached dwelllnll and at all times relevwlt has been leucd for
residential occupancy.
5. The real property located at 18 Hollar A venue, Borouah of Shlppensburi, Is
Improved wllh five slnale family dwelllna units located In two bulldlna structures, and III all times
relevant have been leased for residential occupancy,
6. The real property located at 341 East Fort Street, Boroullh of Shlppensbura, Is
Improved wllh residential duplex property, and at all times relevant has been leased for residential
occupancy,
7. The real property located III 343 East FOlt Street, BorouSh of Shlppensbura, Is
Improved wllh resldentlaltrl-plex property, and at all times relevant has been lensed for residential
occupancy.
8. Defendant, Boroush of Shlppensburs, (herelnaf\er referred 10 as "Shlppensbura")
II a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. havlnll
an address of 60 W. Burd Street, Shlppensburll, Pennsylvania 17257,
BACKGROUNQ:
9, On May 19, 1987, the Defendant, Shlppensburs, enacted Ordinance No. 552 and
codified the same u Chapwr 87, Exlsllnll Structures, of the Code of Shlppensburll, A true and
correct copy of Ordinance No, 552, as currently amended, Is allached herelO as Exhibit" A,"
:1
,I;
10. Artlclo 10 of Chaplltr 87, I!lllstlna Structures, provides In pertinent part:
ES.lOOO.1 Rontal Llcenlle: No perllOn shall rent residential propertlu union he or
lhe holdl . vllld current operallna IIcenIC luued by the code offlclal for the
IpeClned named or numbered reaulaled residential property.
(a) A IIcenlC shall be obtained by the owner(s) havlnaa legal or
equllable Interell In the followlna forms of rented residential
premises: slnale-famlly dwellings, slnale-famlly dwol\lna units. . ,
(b) POCI for realstration and Inspection shall be III follows:
(I) Inlllal reglstrllllon and Inspection Including
relll5pectlon, If unll palles: fifty dollars ($~O.).
(2\ Follow-up relnspection of unit fa\1lng Initial
Inspection: Code Enforcement Offlcer's actual time
spent, al the .'ate of twenty-five dollars ($2~,) per
hour, or part thereof, portal-to-portal.
... .
(~l If the renlal fees are not paid by August 31 of
ellCh yoar as required by Section ES-lOOO,l(b) and
ES.lOO2.3 hereof, the Code Enforcement Officer
shall condemn the property as unlawful struclure and
Illhall be vacated If occupied,
11. Tho Rental Properties are "Regulated Residential Properties" and are lubJecI 10
Inspection and llcenllng under Chapter 87, Ellistlng Structures, of the Shlppensburg Borough Code.
12. Shlppensburg conducts periodic Inspections of Regulated Residential Properties not
more frequently than annually for the purpose of licensing the same under Chaptet 87 of the
Shlppensbura Borouah Code.
13. The purpose of the Inspection program and certification of dwelling unitl In rental
properties under Chapter 87. Existing Structure, of the Shippensburg Borough Code 15 to aeneratc
aenerallall revenues for the Defendant and 15 not rationally related to promote the health, safety or
welfare of the relidents of the Defendant.
14. lbo Defendant's administration of lhe Inspection proaran\ and certlf\callon of
reaulated rental properties under Chapter 87, Elllstlna Structures, of lhe Shlppensbura Borouah
Code, violates the Plalntlfrs rlahtto equal protection under lhe United Slates Constitution and lhe
Constitution of lhe commonweallh of Penmylvanla,
1', The Renw Properties were lilt Inspected by lhe Code Enforcement Orncer u
follows:
(a) 105 Sprlnahouse Road. July 1995 ; and,
(b) 18 Hollar Avenue. January 6, 1995; R1\d,
(c) 341 East Fort Street, . September/October 1995,
(d) 343 EIIt Port Street, . September/October 1995,
16. To date, none of lhe Renlal Properties Is subject to a notice of violation under lhe
Elllsllna Structures Code of lhe Borouah of Shlppensburg,
17. On or about September 26, 1995, Shlppensburg through Its solicitor, provided lhe
Plaintiff wllh written notice lhllt Plaintiff had failed to "properly reilster" lhe Rental Properties and
failed to pay atolal $550,00 for Renlal License and Inspection fees for year 1994.9'. A true and
correct copy of lhe September 26, 1995. notice, are auached hereto as Ellhlblt "B".
COUNT I: DECLARATORY REJ,.IEF
18. ParagraphS one (1) lhrough seventeen (17) are Incorporated by reference as lhouah
fully llet forth Ilt lenalh,
19. The annual Inspection fee and fee for licensure In lhe amount of fifty dollars
($50,00), Imposed under Article 10, Chapter 87, Elllstlng Structures, Shlppensbura Boroullh Code,
for each residential renlal unit Is ellcesslve and Is not commensurllte wllh nor reasonably related to
the actual expense I Incurred by Shlppensburg In the administration and performance of the
In.pectlon program of the residential rental 'mltslll\d In the Issuance of licenses.
20. The annu.llnspectlon fee and fee for Issuance of the operating license In tho lU110unt
of fifty dollars (550.00) for each residential renllll dwelling unit Is Invalid, Illegal and
unconstltutlonal because It Is Imposed by ShlppeMburg for the sole purpose ot raising general
revenulll for II. aovernmental purposes.
21. The annual Inspection fee and fee for lS5uance of an operating license for residential
rental dwelllna unltl Is excessive, unlawful and Illegal and creates a financial hardship upon the
Plaintiff.
22. The annuallnslNclion fee and fee for Issuance of the operating license under Chapter
87. Elllstlna Structures, of the Shlppensburg Dorough Code 15 Invalid, Illegal and unconstitutional
because It constitutes a special, discriminatory and unlawfultllX,
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an Order:
A. Declaring Invalid, unlawful and unconstitutional the annual fee for the
Inspection and Issuance of an operating IIcp.nse under Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the
Shlppensbura Borough Code, as amended; and
B. The Court grant such other Order and such other and further relief II may
be just and proper Including COSlS and fees,
L:U1JN'L Ii: JNJlIl'i'IlOIi
23. PIII'IJnphl IJllil (I) IImlUllh IWCIllY IWu em arc Incorporated by reference.. thouah
fully 101 forth IIIlonlth,
24, lihlpllenlburl lIurllullh'l rUllula\llry IdlOlII' fur the Irllpectlon and IlIuance of
operllllnl IICllIIIlOI for relldonllal dwolllnaUlIl1I In renlalllrupertlOlalld the collection of fees thereon
II anunlawl'ul and IIlIconllltul"'lIIal enerclle of ruaulalury authority,
25, Tho Inlpecllun 111'0111"11I oUllblllhcd and cunducllld under the authority of Chapter 87,
l!lllltlnllitructurOl, of tho lihlpllelllburallorllullh Cnde II an unlawful and unconstitutional violation
of the prohibition lIIalnltauverllmonlllaulhurltles charlllna of uce5llve fees,
26, Tho l'lllnllff duoI nnt have an adequale remedy at law to require 1I1at the unlawful
.,Id uncunltltutlnnal vlolallnnl under Chulller 117, I!xllllnll Structurel, be ceased,
27, 'Ille IJ4fond.nt, Sbl111lOnlbul'Il. In III notices of violation, Exhibit "0'. provides In
pertinent part, Ihat 'Curront IIllruullh Ordinances prnvlde that a property may be condemned and
vlCaltd, If payment II not made on rental unlls,"
28, 111e l'lalntlff will luffer h'reparable Injury which II not compensable by Ihe award
of d.mIllOl. Includlnalhe putellllal for criminal arrest and Incarceration, should Injunctive relict' not
be Iranted and Shlppensbura lIuruullh Is permllled to continue Its unlawful and unconstitutional
InOlctlon or lallation fnr aeneral revenues under Ihe aulse of an Inspection proaranl.
29, Pendlna relulutlon uf this malleI' by this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff, and his
tenlll1t OCCUPIll1II, will lufrer Irreparable Injury which Is not compensable by the award of dlll113aes,
Includlnl Iho potential action nf Shlppenlbura Borouah "condemning" Ih~ rental property and
dllpollOnlnatho residential occupanu of a home and shelter shuuld Injunctive relief not be aranted
and Shlppenlburl IJorouah II llOrmltted to continue lIS unlawful and unconstitutional Infliction of
tlutlon for aenerll revenue a under Ihe aulac of an Inspection program,
f.
,
,
"
I,'
WHEREfORE, Plalnllffa pray lhlll this Honorllble Court enter on Order:
A. that Shlppcnsbura Borouah. III p.mployeel ond represenlatlvea. be enjoined
and relualned from 'aaulna or In any other monller enforclna the fee provlllons of Chapter 87,
Exlatlnl Structures, aaainll him ond his tenonl occuponlS durlnll the pendency of this malter and
permanently thereafter.
B. and such other equllllble relief as may be deemed just ond reasonllble.
MARCH, HURWIT~. DeMARCO 8l MITCHELL
')
BY:
,
"
"
"tI., r'q,''i. ~
'-,
.
.J
! fjf1mll ~; JIll f Ii: ~
hfJf~1 JI !! Sf 1 . 1~J.~ I
R 11'S..,_ ,~.:_ ]L. IH i
....~ ,Ill 1~ ft~ t ~ I ~
,,11 11 i J! ~~ J ~lit ,: 1
1 Iii "ow "J~ ' 8 ,SH
i 1 JIM, ~ ~b ~ ~J,;i ! < d
.,.
Q
1M
II
f l'
lid.
fl~'
i, ~ ~ ~ ~
, ... ... ... ... ...
GOd
a~s
'8;1
, J~l
:1 Ji i
~ ;~
~ r rJ
1 II ~
I j ~1~]
! ~ ;1 JI
.
.~
~
'of.' '~/.
ti ajJf~i~ ~
~: .flIP
Jd.~ j
~ dlh. j
1'1 lSf"J ~ I.. i
~i Ii! 1 ]~i
J~ '& ~ ~ ' 1 f
fI ~ !~hJfj
~dll:Zt \6-9C-Ol
,
I .
.
'-
..
~ "8JI' itf ~BJJ ~ l,t' a i 11 I "":I ~
... , ~ I, f'lS '5 ' liB) f 1 J JIB I:' ~
a d~1kJ~J I. !HI Ii !l:I~Hf f~1
J I) r'I'. I a ~ ; A t ~ I 8 B 6 J I ~
''rl.,tl~,l~ ~ f 3" i · 1
II lB. Ifi I ~ &.J
~
...
. ...... ~_....., .. .-... ...
! .f II' .ti~ ~~3Jll IP 'f~1 '=~IIIJllJ 3' B --J" ~
'1 t , 1 J i f fl j ! !! J 1 ~ fff · ! f ~ i J ~ ,( j , ~
f lI~~jl~J'j jSj'ltj ~' l ,~'f fIll
t, lJ.., ....~f t'GIII]: ~ .8 ....; '..3'1
~ i J J f 1$ rl ~ i :'1 ~ 11 i i] i i ,J i l' I i l ~
!
~
...
(Od
Wdl n I SHe -0:
I
, '
! If.. J f ~ 1 f ~ 1 i ~ '~f ~ fil iii, If;
t t t ,I ~ 1 · ill '~I J 1 k ~ ! 't I ~
't IlfJ~il · i I~H ~iUi i:J !iJjl!
~ t IJJ' n= f ,P;k nn~' 1 :~I' ,I,
11,il ,Ju. ~ !h,f 3 a
~ III
...
~ l~fi~mJ W !UJ~mj, 1m . HI! !
n h ~ III J Ii ! ~ I ~ J1 i E i · !f} l ~ ; 1 11 L 1 ~ I ~
B m~: kH dn :III nnh!i ntH! If!t
B
,~
'..
tOd
~dL~:,1 ~6.9(.O:
II
1
r/
I
, '
, ,
, ,
, '
'I
, ,
, I,
, ,
I
.
" I
, I
.
\
\.
,
, '
"
"
; 1~1! ., .., ~',. tit 1ft.....,
I, . ..
.. ..
,', '",
. Jlil..
~
t I'll "
,. .,,,
I; "
hl~1 ' " s'
I
.
",1'
"t.:
; , , " ,
.'
..
, '
Lad
NdLt:21 S6-90-01 ·
"
,'.1,,\, '''I " '
,mhHtJl''J. ?~~'l'I'I-I" _;_-.-i~:I:j','I,.
",..~'_' !r
POZ
~ ,
fl.
-~ ,. ~
.L ~
'\'1
\'.
.\ 09-26-96 II :63AM
tjEP ~ 6 1995
I'
I
..." ......1
Fore.1! N. Mser.
10000 MIII\lI P'IO"'~ HIII"W~ ''''ptI'n.bul'9, "'M~lv."" 11..1
111/lIa. - 80'"
'1M 111/113'-8878
lIepIImbtr 12, 1"5
Mr, MltllleI M....
PU!KOLD BNTllPPJSBS
144:& TrlnlIt. RoI4
Carllal., PA 17013
IItI VIOLA nON 0' tit. CODE 0' tb BOROt1GH ofS1UPP1N8Bt1RG
Doll Mr. Adltl'1
You have falltd!XI "pI'(l,-ly" ",.1.. )'Ollr IllllAl unllllooaIN atlllJollar Ave.lllllld 3411111d
:t431:ut fort ItJttt,ln the DOROUGH ofSHIPPENSBURO, In leconlln~ with Ordl"ln~ No. 552.
JI.ont&l fell In thD lIlIount of 5800.00 for thl )'ell' 1994-95 I'tmaln unplld, Additlonllly, we reqllin
the com,llllI .lltOullon of,' "",/11/ ~p/lcllllo/l, which w. havo provided hmln. for )'our COIIvtDl.l\Ilt.
Currenl Borouah OnllnlllCtl pIOvld. thlll proplit)' mlY be cond.mllld and vleawel, IfpaymtDl
II nat made 01\ renttl unlll, Thll Ordinance II Ivallabl. for your rev low Illha BOROUOH OFFICE, 100IleII
It 60 WMt Burd SIl'Iel, IIhlppllllbura,
Thl. I. to nolll')' you, thlt unl... re.llltrtd wllllln (15) day. upon I'ttIlpt of Ihll Itlttr. the
BOROUOH Inttnd. to belln le..1 action to .nforcelte Onllnance,
Your prllmpt Ilttllllon to till. matter will be IPpl1CIIlId,
SIIICII'II)',
.....~,,~~
PORBSTN. MYIlRS
Solloltor
BOROUOHofSHWPBNSBURO
PNM:t.
BnoloeUN
lIOt William W. Wolfe
BorouIh MIIlII"
f"",t.\..,I..I+ ., 13"
-.
02/18/ue7
PAG.ll 1
"
,
INSPECTION REPORT
,JRMIT NO. 16~.0
PROPERTY LOCATIONI 18 HOLLAR AV
OWN liS NAMa I
PO BOXI
CITY I CARLISLE
PERMIT TYPII MULTI-FAMILY
IN8PICTION II CYCLE~l
INITIAL I 04/13/1993
rOLLOH-UP INSP. 11 09/09/1993
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 31
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 3.
DATE PASSED I 09/09/1993
NIXT INS'. I SEPTEMBER
STILL A RENTAL? Y
WHY NOT A RENTAL? UPDATED WITH RENTAL APPL.
STREET 1
BORTl 'I
& 491 NEFF AVENUE
FREEHOLO ENTERPRISEB
1442 'fRINDLE ROAD
STATE I PA ZIPI 17013
CURRENT INRPECTION ~OMPLETBI N
1996
SUBMITTED, e-1B-e6.
INSPECTION I CYCLE 2
INITIAL INSPECTION-DATE I 09/1Q/1996
rOLLOW-UP INSP. 11
FOLLOW~UP INSP. 21
FOLLOW~UP INSP. 31
DATE PASSED 1
,.
MISC. INFO. 1
INSPECTION II
INITIAL INSPECTION DATE I
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 11
FOLLOW~UP INSP. 21
FOLLOW~UP INSP. 31
DATI PABSEDI
MISC. INFO. 1
il 80LLAa lVIHUI
SICTION 011
CODB
A'T. 1 I - 'ROHT KORTH ROOK (BIDaOOM)
.
..
,
15-603.3
1.
O'l'.IR
IS-904.4
UIIII.1f'l'
IS-303.8.1
1.
1.
l.'l'. 1:1
IS-303.8.1
'ROIf'l' ROOK
BS-602.3
1.
O'l'HBR
18-904.4
lP'l'. 11 - KORTH ROOK
18-602.3
411 H."lVIHUB
A'T. 11 - KITOHIH
28-602.3
IA'l'DOOK
28-602.3
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
COMPLITB
Y/N
DATI
COMPo
Open ground (receptacle on the
north room).
9-9-93
y
No smoke detector.
9-9-93
y
No handrail on the basement stairway.
9-9-93
y
Handrail broken to second tloor.
9-9-93
y
1.
Hot & neutral reversed (receptacle on y
the Bouth wall) .
9-9-93
1.
No smoke detector.
y
9-9-93
1.
The water line must be bonded to the
street side ot the water meter using
proper ground clamps & wire size tor
the service.
9-9-93
y
1.
Receptacle has toreign material in
ground leg (appears to be the ground
leg trom a plug)
9-9-93
y
1.
Missing switch cover plate.
9-9-93
y
"
..
"
11'l'1.IQ.
18-302.4.4 1. No oloacr on the atorm door 10 mi.ainq Y 11009-93
bottom ~anel.
IS-301.1 2. Old cha r , bedaprinqs on rear porch. y 11009-93
alT. 'I
18-601.3 1. No drain line on the pressure reliet Y 9-9-93
valve on the hot water heater.
18-601.3 2. The drain line on the second hot y 11-9-93
water heater must be the same aiz~
pipe aa the valve, not down sized
as it presentlY is.
'.'l'IIROOM
ES-402.3 1. Exhaust fan doosn/t work. y 9-90093
0'11111.
18-904.4 1. smoke detector doesn/t work. y 9009-93
"
" '
,
,
I,
, ,
, I,
, I
,
,
,.
I
IMI..CTIOM D~'l"1 '-10-"
J,
SECTION OF
CODE
"
\
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
COMPLBTE
Y/N
DATE
COMP,
18 HOLLAR AVENUE
APT. III
KrrCHEN
PM-604.3 1.
PM-305.3 2.
BEDROOM
PM-30~.3 1.
PM-604.3 2.
PH-305.3 3.
APT. If2
FRONT ROOM
PM-604.3 1.
PM-305.3 2.
KrrCHEN
PM-305.3 1.
Broken reoeptaole (reoeptacle beside
the sink, right side).
carpet on floor is tilthy, torn,
etc. (needs replaoed).
Door & door jam damaged.
Hissing junction box, oover plate
(north wall near ceiling) .
Carpet dirty.
Hot & neutral reversed (reoeptaole
on the west wall) .
Damaged wall (south wall) .
Ceiling damaged (over rear
window) .
REAR NORTII ROOM
PM-604.3 1. Hot & neutral reversed (receptacle
on the rear wall) .
APT. 113
BA'llIROOM
PH-604.3 1.
PM-305.3 2.
Open ground (receptacle in light
above mirror).
Wall damaged (above bathtub).
..
..
REAR NORTH ROOM
~M-604.3 1. Misainq rsceptacle COVQr plate
(recaptacle on the north wall).
PM-604.3 ~. Misaing rscept&cle cover plate
and broken receptacle (receptacle
on the aoutn wall).
"
'I
r
i I
l
,
"
EXTERIOR
PM-304.6
PM-304.6
PM-304.11
1'M-304.7
1.
All area. where existing paint
ia peeling must be scrapped and
painted (window frames, sashes,
poroh dacks, etc.).
Rear porch facia boards rotten
(Ileod replaced).
Loose bricks on rear porch stbirs.
Missing gutter (front porch root) .
:to
3.
4.
491 NEFF AVENUE
EXTERIOR
PH-304.6
1'H-702.9
1.
All areas where existing paint
is peeling must be scrapped
and painted. .
Handrail required on stairs trom
the alley.
:I .
,I,
, ,
A
,
,
INSP~CTION OATEI 1-6-95
SBCTION OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
COMPLETB
Y./N
DATB
COMPo
V,<;OMPLAINT INSPECTION
18 HOLLAR A VENUE
API'. #2
FRONT ROOM
ES-602.3
'I
P50-U-915
1.
The three-way switoh tor the ceiling
tan and the receptaole on the east wall
next to the entranoe door does not
work properly.
The wires to both three-way switches
(No. 1 above) have too much bare
conductor exposed at the switch
connections.
'I
P50-U-915
ES-602.3
2.
KITCHEN
BS-303.3
1.
ceiling and the wall of the kitchen
in need of repairs (loose and damaged
plaster and peeling paintl araa above
the two double hung windows) .
Y.
9-19-95
NOTE I
The items in the front room must be corrected within two weeks.
The ceiling and wall of the kitchen must be repaired within 90
days.
I will reinapect thia unit on rebru.ry 1, 1995, .t 10100 ....
, .
lurallyh af Ihlp"qluburu
ItAt.,n,nt Q' I"COInIl And hfJl:nul
O,n".l lund
lor lho IW.lvt monlh p,rlod end,d OECEHOEK 31, 1991
p"conl 0' Rt,""Inll1l
~n"u.l IU"i.1 currl.'nt 10'" ",0011 ~'Vlu.l Buditl luditl
410.145 I.~H"U 10 HCYRPO 141,921,00 45.160,09 541,921.00 100.0 .00
4/0'116 IPICI~L POLIU DOO,OO ,00 132.00 104.0 '31.00
'10.311 I ~HO 0 IHII/I.HCI Z,500,9Q ,00 ,00 ,0 2.500.00
loul (I) I 545,211.00 I 45,160,09 I 541,753,00 99.1 I Z,UI.OO
,I.. Otptr'...n'
411.164 1000000H'1 WORKIR'I CONP, 3,Z6Z,00 ,00 3,262,00 100.0 .00
4" .165 IWIPI' I/ORKER'I COHP. 1,017.00 ,00 0,017,00 100.0 ,DO
411-130 lUlL OIL ,00 ,00 ,00 ,0 .00
111.150 ILOO. H~IH'. IUPPLIII .00 ,00 .00 ,0 .00
411-317 RADIO H~IHIEH~HCI 600,00 19,44 474.01 79.1 115. 19
411.337 ~U'O ~LLOU.HCI .CHII' 600.00 .00 600,00 100.0 .00
111.311 'IRI I LI..ILIIY IHI. .00 ,00 .00 .0 .00
411.352 C.SUAL'Y IHI. .00 .00 ,00 .0 .00
411'360ILIC'RICIIY .00 ,00 .00 .0 .00
411'310 IUILOIHO ",IHIIH.HCI .00 .00 ,00 ,0 ,00
411.420 DUll, pUll, cONV. IXP. ,DO .00 .00 .0 .00
411.'40 CQHIRIIU,QRY II.PIHO 51,500.00 ,00 53,404.00 91.4 ',016.00
411.711 HIW VIHICLII ,00 ,00 ,00 .0 .00
111'74' ",10<< IOUIPHIH' & PROIICII COICX) ,00 ,OQ ,00 ;Q .00
10'"1 (I) I 70,979.00 I 19,44 I 65,137.0\ 9Z.0 I 5,141.19
flMlnt, lonlnt, cod, In'ore_nl
414'100 COOl IH'CHI. OIIICIR 27,171.00 2,090.62 27,170.04 100.0 -.04
414.143 COOl IH'CHI. CLIRICAL 24,D94,00 1,920.00 24,039,00 96,6 Dl'.OO
414.152 OIHI~L IH'UR~HCI 790.00 ,00 760,00 96.3 19.Z0
I II .1S6 IC/II 0,349,00 676.10 0,113,20 91,2 m,DO
'11'\17 HIALIH & WlLIARI 1,313.00 133,00 1,596.00 116,Z . 2n .00
41'.151 UII IHI, 229,00 19,20 221.40 96.7 7,60
414'161 IOCI~L IICURIIY 4,350.00 306.02 3,UD.Zl ID,Z 111.79
11"162 UHIHPL. CONP. 313 .00 ,00 239,91 71.' 93.0Z
114'164 WORKIRI' COMP. 655,00 ,00 ,00 .0 6ll,OO
114-1" OIIIRRIO COMPIHIAIIOR IZ3.00 023,00 823.00 100,0 .00
114.ZII COOl IHICY. IUPPLIII 600,00 ,00 6 I I. 76 101,0 ,11,76
414-Z31 GAIOLIHI 200.00 13,36 204.51 101.3 '4,51
411.21' VIH. ",IHI. IUPPLIII 200.00 ,00 Ill.D7 76.9 16,13
414.313 IHOIHIIR/HARI ARCHIIICI 3,500.00 50.00 1,129,20 32,3 2,370.10
414'311 IOLICIIOR '111 2,500,00 017 ,50 6,003.75 240.2 '3,'03.7'
414.316 IHIO<<CIHIHI COil. IIOIWALKI 1,000.00 167.64 4D5 . 79 U.6 514.21
114 - n, POll ~Ol 300.00 ,00 295.5 7 9D.5 4,43 ..
414'310 ADVIRIIIIHG & COURI IlIHOOR~PIIIR 700,00 469.90 1,944.65 m,D ,1. ZI4 .65
414'342 "~RI COlli 600,00 ,00 59,00 9.1 541.00
411'3'2 C~IUALIY IHI. 614.00 .00 ,00 ,0 611.00
414-374 VIHICLE ",IHI. 400.00 ,00 439,15 109.1 ,39. IS
411.420 WO<<KIHOP 1I1I & IKP. 200.00 ,00 .00 .0 200.00
411.711 HIW VIIIICLI .00 .00 ,00 .0 .00
414.750 HIHOR IOUIPMEHI ,00 ,OQ ,00 ,0 ,DO
loul (I) S 79,780.00 , 7,4D7,14 S 7I,I36.D8 97.9 , 1.651.12
plA>lIe Work. Opo,'1l ron. Conllr
416'250 PW ILOO, IUPPLIII 2,200,00 105.00 2,206,55 100.3 '6.n
U6.nl PW OLDO. IUIPIIOHI Z,200,00 01.54 1,005.17 45.7 1,194,13
" ,....\-.. I
\~!;I:il~( ; : ;', ,..
: ';J.~,.j'I..'.!' .;'
!'d'it,\","! , '1.1
l,q1r h'hL_.
l~l~:~rV'W~k~}:J'r, :
.;,
I,"
"
lil
!'
(
"
I,:
~'
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSVI.Y ANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
, J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trlndl. ROld
Carllll., PA 17013.
IILAINTIFF
CIVIL ACTION
"
V.
NO. 1995.6484
:'
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSDURG
60 W. Burd Street
Sblppensburl. PA 172S7,
DEFENDANTS
DECLAltATOItV.JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
, .', .
. 1 "
, ~
1 ,
, , ,
l:' , !
" .
CERTIFICATE OF SEltV,a
r ~ '
" I certify that August 8, 1996, a true and correct copy of the An~wer llI1d New Maller of
, Def~dant WllIl served by first class mnll. postnge prepaid on the allomey for the Plaintiff:
I
,'" ',I
Lee Stivnle, Esquire
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL
17 W. Third Street
P.O. Box 108
Medin, PA 19063
Dated: August 8, 1996
~
\ '-lr .....~
Forest N. Myers
SoHcltor. Borough of Shippensburg
., 'I "
Jri .'
,I'H'.IIII-I!lll
, ~ ' . .
I,"n'''' dot'
11111111 ItAl'IOH HIII'\IIT1 IJIIHM'1l0..",,'rCHlIL,..
I noli III allll 0."'11
~!
,
,
"
\ 'It'I'IC:A'rlON
1,1. MfC 'Al\I., ,)LHrt, ~hH~ Ih~ rll~IS ~cll
'llrllglllllll ( '1Il1lpllllnt IIn: 'rue
" I'III~ Illlhl: 1Il1sIIllmy knllwlcll~c, inhlrlllllllllll" IIUIlIlI, I UUdttlhl1
..II rub!:
SIIIlI',; .. hl'r~ln I.,~ 1I11111c ~lIhjl.'l:' III II . ~1I""h.'S Ill' I' ' , {',S /, 'III)IM. fl'IIIIHlIIIU
UII~Wll/ll 'U'\II"'lllhlllln RlIlhullllus,
r- ~ A I ~ ,-'
..-l , ~
i:1iic".f,\riL Anl.lilt
[),I/.,I
; ,
)0'- \0" o\~
,-- .,--.
"."a
~
.:rE~
~~ ...,.
fiR -r,-<:t ~ ~
~~ ~
. \,)'0 0-
, .,
:'~ ..,' ~" t'- ,....
" " " ..
< 1 ,-, ~
", '. .': " ~
,,., t '., ~~
.~. , g
, " ,
,', " .. 1t
I,; '.'., ~
r- ", '. ," ~l.tj ,
.,..t_
'.. ,\ I~j ~ .Ii.
.~ J .L Jt r:J.
;:, 'lJ
,','.
, ,
"
"
1,111111 ~
II~ 1(1 lIT 111'111111,111'1\ UIIIIlIIIIIIT'I
1111111011'1 ,II \1 1i~1I\ \~',1I1
,
t
IN THE COURT OP COMMON PLl!AS Of CllMUI!IU.ANr> COUNTY, IlI!NN$VLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION. LAW
J. MICHAEL ADI.ER
Plalmiff,
NO 95.6484
vs,
BOROUOH OF SHJPPENSDURO
Defendant,
DECLARATORV IlJl)(IMBNT
INJUNCTION
S'I'Il'ULA'rION OF FACT$.
NOW COMES, Foresl N, Myers, Esquire. soh~ltor of Ihl! lIoroullh or ShIPJllln.~hurp",
Defendant, J..c:c A. Snvale. Esquire, attorney for J. Michael Mler. Plaintiff and sripulalC 10 lhe
foUowing:
I, J, Michael Mler Is lhe fee owner or equitable owner uf Ille following real propcrlics
localed al:
(a)
10S Sprlllghouse Road, Uoroullh of Shlppensburp"
Cumberland Coumy. Pennsylvania', and.
(b)
18 Hollar Avenue, l.iorough of Shlppensburg,
, Cumberland County, Pen/lJlylvania; Bnd,
341 COM 11011 Slree!, Uorough of' Shlppen.~bllr8,
Cumberland County, l'en/lJlylvlIIlia,
(c)
(d)
343 Easl Fori Slrect, lloTl1l1p,h of Shlppcnsburg.
ClIlIlherlalld CounlY. l'erlllsvlvBllin,
II~ Iii 'tiT liEU 1111 II 1'\\ 11l11lIllllll7r,
Ui""1 In I ,I ,.1\',11\ \'1'.111
I,'l Hill
,I
Th~ above lIaled flroflcrrlcl will be ~Ullc~livcly rel~rrcd III liS "RclIllIl I'roJ1l!r1ics"
2, 'nlll I'call"ol'cl'lY 1"~alcU ul IlJ~ Sflrinp,hollw RUlIu. !Iorollp,h of SllIl'l'cnshurM. IN
Ul1flrllvcd wllh II Hlnp,l~ fBIHlly, dclil~hcu uwelllnl\ und BI .,11 lillles relcvlIlII 11116 h~I\1I Icuscd lor
realdenllal occuflllncy,
), The reul flroflerlY hlCnrl!d or III Hollul' Avcnuc. lloronp,h of Shil'pcnsl1l1rjl, Is
IlIIproved wllh flve all1llle family dwelllnp. IInlrs I~UII'd In 11'10 hUlhhn~ NlTllCnJrM, IIndul nlllllncH
rclevlIlll hllv~ been lused fur rcsl,lenll.lI 0l~1~\IpUlI9
4, The reul fl"'flI!r1Y locnll!d III 141 1:1151 !'url Sll'eel. Ilorolll',h <1f ShippclLshurll. IS
Improved willi realdenllal duplex I,roflerly, IInd III nil IllIIe~ rclcvanl hilS bcen lellsed for rC6idcnllul
occupancy,
S, The real properly locared at 343 Easl FOrl Sll'eel, llorollp,h of Shlppcnsburg. Is
improved with resldenliollrl.plex property, and nl1111 tirnes rclevant has been lellsed for rc!ldellliul
occupancy,
6, Defendlllll, Ilnrolll!,h of Shippcnsllllr~. Cumberland ul1d "rankJln CallnlicR,
Pellllsylvanla. is a municipal Cllrporalion IlICor1l0raled under the geoerallnw of Ihe COllllllonwcllllI1
of Pennsylvania, having an address of 60 W Burd Slreel. SlllpperlJlbllrg. Pennsylvllnl~ I7l57
7, On May 19, 1987. Ihe Defendalll, ShlppeDsburg, el\aciA!d Ordinance No, 552 and
codified rite SlIme AS Chapler 87. ElIislil1M Structures, of Ibe Code af Shlppembur& Pursuanl 10
Ordmancc S~2. Ihe Boronp,h adopled hy refelcncc dl~ I:luildinll (lI'fICIIIIs And ('ude AdlllinimalOI S
(DOCAllmernaliol\al. Ine, Nllllonlll Exlsling SrnlClIIrCS Cad,~, SecOlld !;dlllun, 1'1114, IIml cOllil'tcd
same 115 Chapler 87 of Ihe Codc <If Ihe [lorou~h of ShlppelLlburK, PennsylvAnia,
8, Robert Weaver Is lI1e Codc EllforccllIenl O(flcl\r or Shippellsburll Uorou~h lAnd Is
reRpalllllble for cal\duelinp, inspcclinnR ur IlcllUllllcd Ilesldclllial Properties in rhe BarouC,h under
Chapler 87,
..
J, MICHAEL ADLER,
PIBlntllf
I IN THE COURT Of COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL, ACnON . LAW
1)~.64H4 CIVIL TERM
\/n,
I
BOROUGH OF SHlPPENSDURO, :
D~f~ndllllt
DECLARATOIW Jl.JDOMENT INJUNCTION
IN REI PIU!TRIAL COjllFERENCE
A pr~trlal c<mf~r~nce WOK held by tclcphone cunference clIllon MondLlY, December I),
1996. RepreKentlng the plLlilltlft' iK Lee Stlvllle, EK'Iulrc. ForeKt N. Mycn, EKqulre, L1ppCLlrK for
the dcfendLlnt,
This Is II dedLlrlltury judgment L1cllon in which the pllllnliff questions the vlllldity IInd
L1mount of IllInulIl relllKtrLllloll IInd Inspeelloll fees for rental units in the Borough of
Shlppensburg.
The validity of the questioned fees appellrs 10 he eSlllhllshed in the appellllte C<lIIrU. It Is
anticipated, therefore, thlltthe central quesllon lit the trllllof the ellse will he Ihe reBSol1llbleness
of the $SlJ,lJO fee ehllrged by the Borough, Counselngreed thlltl1\ueh of the factual reC<1fd of the
case can h~ ndduced hy ndpuhltlon,
The plaintiff intenLls to supplemcnt his wltncss list 10 Include other IlIndlords. Other than
that, there nppeLlr to be no other logisliclll C<\IIKidcrntlllllK prior to trilll.
Trlnl herein will commence on WednesdllY, Februllry II), \1)97, IItl):3lJ 11,11\, The court hilS
reserved the morning of February 2lJ, 1997, In the evenlthllt more lime Is needed, Counsel
should mc trinlmemurnndn with Ihe Court notles! Ihlln two dllYs prior to the dnte set for trllll.
December 9, 1996
,
.
J
LeI! A. StlvlIle, Eiqulre _~~.
For the' PllIlntiff tn' .1)
. l~~."'"
Foreat N. Myers, Eiqulre ,.,l~ ,1""
For the Defendant \
Irlm
'I'
,
,
"
"
,/
"
I
,
"
II II
I
,
I, I
"
, I
,
"
q
'I
"
.
-
I
,
c
,
J. MICHAEL ADLRR,
Plaintiff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OP
CUMBERlAND COUNTY,I'ENNSYLVANIA
I
va. I CIVIL ACTION - lAW
I 95-6484 CIVIL TERM
BOROUOH Of SHIPPENSBURO, :
Defendant DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INJUNCfION
ORDER
"
AND NOW, this
:z II" dllY of November, 1996, II pretrllll eunfc,rence in the
above captluned nunJury trllll is set fQr MundllY, December 9, 1996,1119:15 lI,m., IInd Is 11.1 be
conducted by telephune Cllllference. Mr. Sllvllle, C<lunsel fur Ihe pllllnllff, will Initiate 8111d
conference ellll,
BY THE COURT,
/lJ
Lee A. Stivale, Esquire
Por the Plalntlff
~~u 1I1,,(,I~".
..s7f',
Forest N. Myers, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
.'
~l,
V,
;!
FltFD ,OFFI(;I:
",'W 1',1'" '''',(WrnY
("
.; ~ .
% !lr'.' ti f il :'~Ildl
('l'" "I 'I' I" "J'II)'
\1 )f..'",,~ 1\. ' I', j ,Iitll I'
PENlx[;)YLV/\J'llA
I, ) I
,,11
,
jl!;;
"
"/
~,
"
"
I;
I
I,
'I
11,
I'
,
"
"
"
I'
I,
"
I.
.'
, ,
I,
"
J
I,
"
'.
11
"
, '
, ,
I,
!
!
I
"
'"
,'i
~
~~~
.-,~
\,
~
&
1:
:1
"
"
"I'
'I
\,1,
'..
~
'.
"
.l ...
"
,
.:'
,.
,
1'1
,
,
,
VilIFICATION
,I
I, J. MICHAEL ADLER, verify that the facts set forth in the
foreQoinQ Answer to New Matter are true and correct to the best of
my knowledqe, information and belief and that said statements are
nlade subject to the penalties of 16 Pa, C.B. 4904 relatinq to
unsworn falsifioation to authorities.
Ii
I,
Date4:
10 \ \~qG
,
-:\, illAJ~ h,LQ ,.AJO~\
J. MICHAEL ADLER
.1
"
i'
"
I,
~ Q '-
I,.
N ~
.. '~
..7 I'~~
I~ :If: '- r/f'
0.. :J~i
C' m "~
"" 'IJ ,
FL.: ~~; '-; i,l
r-~: ~ a I,
15 \,t)
11\
.1
.
"'
.'
,1'1
'I
, I
, ,
lA, '
'/
I'"~
"
" I , ,
"I ,
I,
,
" I
( 'I
"
I~:, , , I' ,f' .t'
'~ 11". ~.~ "I
I In
,~i, ~r;"
Ii f C~"l "
1 .r..
( :r: . t',lt
Q.. c'~r;!
1, r"
(,' ~ .'!J .
,,' - "'r; I
. I
." to.. I,',", ~
/!,' l'e'~l tr: ll~ -J
~, F '4t~- 0.. i'
"'~ ,
I) ~ lof.! 1'1
ell t;:; , ,
l
,,; ,I ,
\i iJ
(:/ "
~
I
" .
.
,
'I , .
, ,
,
I
, , . ,
'I
, '
"
, '
'I
. \,
,
.
1
,
I .
.
Since 1988, Shlppenlburl Doroulh hili been In Ihe bUllnell of Inlpecllnl homel for II PI'Ofll,
a very larle proflt. Becaule of It I monopoly IIIIIUI, Shlppenlburl DOl'ouah hili eXlOrted Inlpecllon
feel which are many Ilmel III actUlI calli 10 Implemcnlthe Inlpl!cllon proaram and lilY reuonllble
elllmlllC front the prlvale leclOr for III equlvlllenl aervlce,
The current Doroulh Inlpectlon ordlnMce requlrel the owner of II relldenllll renlal un II 10
pay fifty ($50.00) each year for 110 Inlpecllon which occun once every Ihrec yean. Therefore, rhe
effective call for each Inlpecllon of one dwelllnlll one hundred flfty ($150.00) dollarl.
In camparllon, the rellonllble e5tlmllle of COil 10 perform 110 equlvlIlenllnlpecllon from Ihe
prlvale leclOr Is Iwel\ly flve ($25.00) dollllrs for each Inspection, Hence, the Doroulh hili been
charllnllll clll:r.enl Ilx Ilmelthe prlvale sector rille,
III Condse Statement of the Facts
On May 19, 1987, Ihe Defendanl, Shlppensburg, enllcted Ordlnllnce No, 552 IInd rodlfled
the lame al Chllpler 87, Exlsllng Slruclures, of Ihe Code of Shlppensburg, Article 10 of Chllpler
87, exllllnlllruclures requires the IInnulIl licensure of Regulated Resldenlllll Properties, Prior 10
199O,lhe IInnual fee WIIS Iwenly flve ($25,00) dollllrs for ellch renllll dwelling, The IInnual fee was
Increllled In 1990 to flfty ($50,00) dollllrs per dwelling unl!.l
Approxlmalely one IhOUIMd IWO hundred I1fty (1,250) Regulated Relldenllal Renllll Unl15
are locllted and licensed wllhin Shlppensburg Borough, The Borough of Shlppel\sburg, despile
I Prior 10 1990, the Dorough charged an annual Inspection fee of $25,00 for each renlal
dwelling. From 1988 to 1990. the Cumberland County Redevelopmenl and Housing AUlhorily
performed the annual Inspections of the Regulated Residential Dwellings under Chapler 87 for
the IIOnual consideration of $10,000.00, The Redevelopmenl AUlhority, for Ihe Slated IIOnual
consideration of $10,000,00, was required 10 Inspect between 600 and 750 dwellings annually,
Hence Ihe cosl to Ihe Borough for each Inspecllon performed ranged from $13.34 to $16,67,
In or about 1990, Ihe Dorough assumed the in spec lion responsibilities IIOd doubled the
annual Inspection fee from $25,00 10 $50.00,
, ,
.
chll'llnllhe $50,00 annupl IIcenllnl and hllpecllon fec, hl.peCII ellch renlal dwelllnl only once
every Ihrec yearl. 'Therefor"" Ihe effective feo for each Irlonnlallnspecllon II $150,00.
The Boroulh derlvel appro~lmalely $60,000-$65,000 annually from relldenllallhe annual
Inapectlon\lIcenslnll fecllIn 1,250 relullled renllll dwelllnll. However, Ihe 8oroulh only expendl
a Imall percenla&e of Ihe fee revenues 10 u\llfy the dlrecl COlli of the Inlpectlon and IIconlure
proaram,
VI IlIuNc
IS TIlE ANNUAL INSPECTIONILlCENSE FEE m" $50.00 110R EACII RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO TilE DlRECI' COSTS INCURRED BY TIlE BOROUGII TO
IMPLEMENT TilE INSPECl'ION SERVICE UNDER CIIAPTER 871
IS TilE ANNUAL INSPECTIONILlCENSE FEE m" $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO TilE REASONABLE CIIARGE FROM PRIVATE SECfOR
INSPECTION SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT TilE INSPECfION SERVICE UNDER
CHAPTER 87?
VI D1sculllonl
A. THE ANNUAL INSPECfIONILlCENSE FEE m" $50,00 FOR EACH RENTAL
l)WELLlNG IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO TilE DlRECI' COSTS INCURRED BY TilE BOROUGII TO
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER CIIAPTER 87.
l. The power and lImlla or the Boroulh 10 Tax,
The power of tllXIllon, In all forms IInd of whatever nalure, lies lolely In Ihe General
Anembly of Ihe Commonweallh IIcllng under aegis of Ihe Conslllutlon, Absent an e~press grllnt
or delelatlon of power 10 tllX from Ihe Generlll Assembly, no munlclpllllly, hilS IIIlY power or
authority 10 levy, IIsseSI or 10 collect laxes, To delermlne whelher II munlclpllllly pOlSClSCS the
power 10 tax IIIld, If 50, Ihe e~lenl of such power, recourse musl be had 10 Ihe IIcls of Ihe Generlll
. ....\- ....'
.
Allembl)'. MUltaRRelo v. Buckley, 433 PII. 352,250 A.2d 447 (1969), The power to levy leneral
or lpeclll tuOI mUlt be plainly III\d unmllwably conferred III1d nul found by Impllcltlon; IIId that
tu 11IIlI1e1 Ihould be conltr\led Iltletly with III doubl. belnl re&olved qllnlt the tulnl body.
Price v. To Review Board or the CII)' of Phlll,. 409 PII, 479, ,187 A,2d 280, 282 (1963),
followlnl, To Review poard v, D.H, ShllDlro Co., PII, . 185 A,2d 529 (1962).
Shlppenlburl Boroulh II not lawfully enabled 10 ralle leneral or lpeclal tu revenues
throulh feel for Inlpectlonl of private relldenllal dwelllnll for heallh, Ilfet)' and welfare purpolel,
'Tho Boroulh II 11m lied 10 levy and collecltlx revenuel for the enumerllted rellonl under 53 P,S,
Section 46302, none of which Include I lues for Inlpecllons,
'The Borough II lawfully enllbled only 10 ", , , prescribe reasonllble feel for lervlces of their
[III) orflcen. , . " Borough Code of 1966, Feb, I, P,L, (1965), No, 581, Secllon 1202, liS
amended, 53 P.S, Section 46202 (I) (1997),
2, The Lawful Limits or Municipal Fees,
A fee which Is delermlned unreasonllble II II vlolllllon of IlIe Boroulh Code. s= Generally
Rldh:y ..vms. Inc. v. Township of Ridley, PII, ,531 A,2d 414 (1987), When the license fee
IcnerBteI more than Ihe amount commenlurate with the expense of the IIdmlnlslratlve llcenle, the
license fee ceml 10 be valid and Is deemed \0 be an unlllwful generlll or special tax, In Ihe CIISO
of MllIltln,elo v, Bucklev, the Pennsylvanlll Supreme Court deflned II IIcenle fee and Itllled:
A license fee Is alum ancned for Ihe granllng of II privilege, In mOlt Inllancel,
where a license Is Iranled Ihe Clly Invariably Incurs expenle such lIS the COlt of
relllltatlon and Inspection; IIII only proper Ihlllthe one who seekl and recelvel a
license Ihould bear Ihls expense, To defrllY Ihis cost of a license II fee II charled
10 the licensee; however. this fee must be commensurlllC with the expenle Incurred
by tho City In connection wllh Ihe Issullnce and supervision of the Ilcenle or
prlvllele,
MastranJelo, at ,250 A,2d at 464.
.
Pollowlnalhe llcenae Ie.t 101 forth In MUlran,elo, Ihe Comlnonwelllh Court In Ihe cI.e
of TalIllY v. Commonwealth, 123 P'I Commw. 313,553 A,2d 518 (\989) .1IIed:
A llcen.. fee I. dl.tlnaullhable from I tax thlll II . revenue produclna mellure
characterized by Ihe production of I hlah proportion of Income relative lA) the co.t.
of collection and .upervl.lon. (cllIllon. omitted,) ThUI, If a llcenae fee collecll
more than an .Illount commenlurate wllh Ihe expenae of admlnl.cerlnalhe llcenae,
It would become. IIX revenue and celIO lA) be . valid llcenle fee.
I.IlIu, III ,553 A,2d III 520.
The munlclplllty I~ liven BOme IlIlllude 10 ellablllh reuonable charael lA) cover Ihe
anllclpated expenaellO be Incurred In Ihe Inlpectlon prolram, Com, ex rei Hinel v, Winfree, 408
P.. 128, 182 A.2d 698 (\962). However, liS II rule of IImllallon, Ihe melllure of Ihe COlts relllled
10 an &dmlnlltrBlive llcenle fee prolrllm arc only Ihe ~ COlli Incurred by Ihe municipality,
Martin MedIa v, Hempfleld Tw:p, ZHB. PII, Commw. .651 A,2d 1111171.
3. The Burden In this Case.
The party chllllenglng Ihe license fee hilS Ihe burden of proving Ihllllhe fee Is unrelllonable,
See, I*, Bl , 553 A.2d at 520.
4. The Economic AnalYII..
The Plalnllff will be prelenl evidence concerning Ihe charges IInd Ihe direct COltl 10
Implementlhe Dorough Inlpectlon prolram, The Pllllntlff relpectfully sUlllestl Ihat Ihe evidence
will demonllrate Ihat Ihe IOlal direct costs 10 administer Ihe Inspection program Is approximately
one-half of Ihe fees belnl charged by Ihe Doroulh.
111e evidence will allo demonstrllte Ihatlhe Borough subsldlres Ihe mllnY Dorough bulldlnl.
plllnllinlllnd code enforcement functions wllh Ihe revenues generated from Ihe part time Inspection
of Ihe relldentllll renlal units, The subsidy, or profll, derived from Ihe Inspecllon program provides
Ihls Court wilh lawful foundation 10 declare Ihe Ordlnllnce unlawful.
B. THE ANNUAL INSPECTIONILICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACII RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT RF.ASONABL'V
COMMENSURATE TO TilE REASONABI.E ClIARGE FROM PRIVATE SECfOR
INSPECTION SERVICES ,'0 IMPLEMENT TilE INSPECfION SERVICE UNDER
CHAPTER 87.
I. Private Sedor Comparllon,
Governmenl mUlt be fair and rmonlble In lu charle for lervlce$ Ihll It dlctatel upon Its
clllzenl, 'If government cannot provide aervlcel IIlml of a qUllllly IlI\d II a COlt commenlUrll1e
with Ilmllar scrvlcel provided by private enterprlle, IIII by definlllon, unrclllonlble 10 utilize IIIX
dollarl for Ihat purpole. Ridley Arms. Ine, v, Townlhlp of Ridley, 531 A,2d 414. 418 (Pa, 1987).
The Supreme Court In RidleY Arms held IhalII l1lunlclpal fee for Irash collecllon at more thalllwlce
Ihe COlt of equlvlllenl private leclor violated Ihe sllllue aUlhorlzlng firsl clBSllownlhlpl 10 Impose
relllonable fees for ,hilt purpole, Ridley Arms. tnc, v, Township of Ridley, 531 A.2d 414, 418
(Pa, 1987).
1, The Evidence,
The Pllllnllff respectfully luggests Ihat Ihe evidence will demonslrllte Ihat Ihe Dorough WIIS
provldlnllhe inspection services 10 liS clllzens for a COil leu Ihlll\ $20.00 per dwelling Inspecllon;
IlI\d furlher thllt private seclOr charges for equlvlllenl Inspecllon services would be no more Ihlln
$25,00 per Inspecllon, In compllrlson, Ihe Borough charges $150,00 for ellch Inspecllon performed;
six Ilmellhe prlvllte seclor charge IlI\d more Ihlln elghllhllcS Ihe cosllhe Borough Incurred prior
10 It I termination of Ihe Inspecllon conlract with Ihe Cumberlllnd COllnly Redevelopment IInd
Houllng Authority I
IV Damaaes Claimed
Should this Court declare Ihlll Ihe Borough Inspection fee Is unreBsonllble IInd Ihereforc
Invalid, Ihen all fees pllld by the Plaintiff shall be reimbursed 10 him, See Rldlcy Arml. Inc, v,
TownshlD of Rldlcy, 531 A,2d 414, 418 (Pa, 1987).
"')
, .'
In the Inltant mlllOr. the Boroulh lOOk judllnent qalnlt the Plllntlff for uncollecled
lnapectlon feel I 11111 Court II requelled to enjoin the Boroulh from eltecutlnl upon IUch judlment.
CONCLUSIONl
It II relpectfully requelted Ihat thll Court flnd Ihlll Shlppenlburl Boroulh abuaed III
IlAlwardihlp by charllna eltorbltant feel for the Inlpectlon of rental homn The revenue I derived
from the Inlpectlon prolram unlawfully lublldlre mlllY bulldlnl IInd pllllnlnl prolraml In Ihe
Boroulh.
Michael Adler requelll the provision for feel under ChllplAlr 87 of Iho Boroulh Code be
declared vold,
Relpectfully lubmltted.
LEE A: STIV ALE, ESQUIRE
Auorney for Plalnllff
J, Mlchllel Adler
J. MICHAEL ADLER,
Pllllnllff
IN TIm couln OF COMMON PUlAS OF
CUMI3E1UAND COUNTY, Pf.!NNSYLVANIA
I CIVIL AenON . LAW
'1~.MH4 CIVIL TEHM
YR.
130ROUOH OF SHlPPENSllUIW, :
Dcfcl\llllllt DECI.AI~ATOHY JUDGMENT INJUNC"ION
IN REI ACTION IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
llEFOlU! HESS. J,
OIWEH
AND NOW, Ihls
41"
<lilY of April, 1997, the pruyer of the plullltlff fur
dcclllrlllllry Judglllcnlund Injunctive relief IN OI~ANTED, Thc cuurt declnrcs Ihlll whllc un
annulIl fcc fllr Ihc Inspcctlun IInd issuuncc of IIn uperutlng IIcensc undcr Chuplcr H7, Exlsllng
Structurcs, of Ihc Shlppcnshurg Duruugh Clldc, us IIl11cndcd, Is IIIWful, the un\llunl uf Ihe currcnl
fcc Is cllccsslvc und, ucmnllngly, Invulld, Thc Ordlnunce uf Ihe lmrough <If Shlppcnshurg sclllng
Ihe nnnuullnNpecllun fec In Ihc IIll1uunt of $50,00 fllr cud\ rcsldcnlilll unllls declured void and
the borllugh Is hereby enJulncd frol11 thc collcctllln uf SUI1lC,
BY THE COUHT,
~Ad-
Lee A. Stlvalc, Esquire
For thc Pllllnllff
I',~_' n,,~..L 't/"'/'1'l
,~ -u--- ,.oS I:>,
Forest N, Myers, Esquire
For the Dcfendnnl
:rlm
rA
,
"
,
hi
<" r."_O'i'W~~' 1ft,-J
,'It.':'-' ,,~'lr\'.lfll .n'
.;.\,:t~. VI\! ).' . "
1\\\ 1r:\1 \i Ij
,.,
!' I
0\:
q1 ~~~ -"I
1',,1
, \ '. ~', J .1 '. I ~ I
C\.l'I'\V~\~i~~;~U~~J.\
l,t,\)
..-"
I
, r
. ~ ...
f" .,
j
J. MICHAEL ADLER,
Plllintlff
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OP
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, Pl!NNSYI.VANIA
CIVIL ACTION -I,AW
lJ~,MH4 CIVIL. TEltM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INJUNCnON
VS,
BOROUOH OF SHlPPENSBURO, I
DcfcmJllnt
IN REI ACTION IN DECl.ARATORY JUDGMENT
IlliFORE I'IESS, J,
QfINION AND ORDElt
Thc plaintiff, J. Mkhnc\ Adlcr, commcnccd this dcclnrlllory judgmcnlnndlnjunclillU
.
IIction on Nuvcmbcr 14, I lJlJ6 I Thc cnsc rnlscs twolssucs for dClcrmlrullion by thc Cllurt. Thc
flnt is whcthcr n municlpnlily nlllY CJlllctnnd cnforcc un ordinnncc which Imposcs Iiccnslng
rcgulntiuns on rcnlnl housing 6\ruclurcs nnd units nlld rcqulrcs pllymcntof IIn nnnulIl fcc, If thc
cnllclmcntuf such nn urdlnnncc Is IlIwful. thc sccond qucstlon bccomcs whcthcr thc fce Imposcd
upon rcntnl unils within thc horough of Shlppcnshurgls rCllsonnblc, AI our rcccnttrilll of this
casc, thc following fllcts wcrc IIdduccd.
In Ihe pllSI dcclldc IIndll hnlf. thc horough of Shlppcnsburg hilS ohscrvcd II lurgc incrclIsc
in Ihc numbcr of housing unils in thc borough which wcrc hcing rcntcd, This hilS hccn
IItlributcd, in Inrgc mcnsurc, tolhc numhcr of Shippcnshurg University studcnts who livc off
CBmpus. In Ihc mid IlJHOs II bccllmc IIppllrcntthntlllorc unlls in thc borough wcrc rcnlcdthun
wcrc (){',cuplcd by uwncrs, Sccklng lu rcvcrsc n Ircnd of dClcrlorlltlon In ils housing, Ihc Boruugh
Council of Shippcnsburg IIdoptcd Ordinllnce No, ~~2, This ordlnnncc implcmcntcd thc BOCA
Existing Structurcs Codc, SCI:ond Edition IlJI)7, wilh ccrlnln IImcndmcnts, Thc ordlnllnce
rcquircd n Iicensc 10 opcrlltc rcnlillunlts within thc borough of Shlppcnshurgllnd imposcd u
$25.00 fcc pcr unit. Thc ordinnncc wus Inltllllly cnforced on II Pllrl-tlmc hllsis hy personncl frum
....,
, "
, .'
lJ5.64114 CIVIL
the Redevelulll1lcnt AUlh~lrhy llf Cumhcrlund Cllllllly, IIndl'r ctllllrucllu lhc 11ll1'1lUllh, In 1l)l)(I,
fnr relllnnK which !ltllltinuc III hc ulldcllr, Ihc ll11rollllh CllUllCIl ~\luhled the fee III $S(I,O() per
unit, A trlennlullnKpcctlun prullrul1l wus udupted, mcunlnglhul eueh unllls Inspected In full
cvcry Ihlrd YCM, Allhc sume tlmc, II wus decided lhul huruugh personnel wuuld lulmlnlsler und
cnfnrcc Ihe prugl'lllll. A pnlellculupplicUllulI uf lhese fucls reveuls u ke uf $150,(10 pCI' Iricnnlul
hlllpcetlun.
Thc Inspcctlon prugrllm etlllllnucs 10 he IIdmllllslered hy Roherl Weuvcr, the Burough
Cooc Enfurccment Officer. Mr, W\~lIvcr hlL~ II c\erlclllussistllllt. The slllllry uf Mr. Weuver IInd
hil lecrctllry, lugclher wilh ulluf Ihelr heneflls IIl1d cumpellsutlun Insurllllce, lotllluppl'uxlmlllely
$73,OOO,(){), Mr. Wellver IInd his secrelllry hllve numerous olher respunsihllllles hesides the
IIdmlnlKtrutlun uf Ihe renlllllllspeeliulI progrllm, Thruugh 1995, Mr. Wellver wus IUIIIIIg
Iccrctllry. AJ; zunlllgofficcr hc rcvlcws hulldillg permlls IIIllI respunds tUlunlng cumpllllnts, He
il lIuthnrlzed tu Issue dlllliuns IIl1d prusecutc CIISCS, lie hllndles nuisllllcc complilints, Including
abandoned vehlclcs, weeds, rcfrigenllOrs IInd Irllsh IlI1d gllrhllge complnlnls, Hc hus Illsu ~;crvcd
as plannlngleerelllry 11I1d hilS hecn Invulved In reviewing suhdlvlsluns, He ultends ull rhll1nlng
Commlsslun meelings. He Is, Inuddlllon, "existing Slruelllrc" seeretllry liS well us sccrelury 10 the
HIlturlculund Arehitecturul Review BOllrd, A porliulI uf his sulllry Is ulso hume hy thc
sanitation hudgct III kcepillg with his rcspunslhilllles In thllt rcgllrd,
Both sldcs huvc give II tcstimony III 111I effort tu equlltc Ihc IIccIIslngund Inspcetlun fce IU
Ihc IIclual !It)lluf thc udmlnislrutlun uf Ihe prugrum, Withuut helllhurlnglhc lIumhers hcfurc us,
we bcllevc Ihutlhc plllintlff rcuehcs thc more IICCllrtllc conclusion. The progrum Itself gcncruhls
apprnxlmlllely $6S,OOO,OO In unnUllllncol\le to Ihe horough, GIvcn Ihllt Ihc Inspeetlun progrul\l Is
by lIumCllnl Mr. Wellvcr's solc responslhility. pllllnllff suggests, und we ugree, thullhc costuf
2
. '
, 95.64tl4 CIVIL
the pnlllrlllU Illlhc bOrllugh II IIpproxlllllllcly hiliI' thc II1ll1lUfllOl' IllOflCY gCflcrlllcll, Ifllllllllllofl,
the pllllnlill'. cxpcrl, JlIbn J, Mlllhm, IClllflcll crclllhly Ihlllllfl hllpcclor would bc wcll pllllllll
$35,00 pcr InKpccllon, Doubllnglh" Ilmounl hlllllow for I'ollow.up uflll uvcrhcull woullI rCKult In
II chllrllc uf IIppJllxhnlllcly $75.00, or $25.0() pcr YCllr uflllcr ShlppcflKhurll'H Irlclmlul KYHlcm.
AIlBln, lit $511.11() per YCllr Ihc l'hllrgc woulllllppcur 10 be Iwlce whlltll Khould bc,
AlIlIrcKKlnglhe flulljucKllon rlllKcll hy Ihc pllllnllffl, wc cOflclullc Ihlll Ihc horuugh of
Shlppenahurgla cnllllelllolmpoKc IIl1ccflle I'cc for Ihc InKllcclllIflol' rCKlllcflliul rCflllll UI1IlK
pUrHUBntlu 53 p,S, SeclIllfl 462112 (I) (11/1/7). Sccllon 462112 Htlllcl Ihulu hurllugh muy "prcKcrlbc
rellaonllhle fcel for Ihc SClvlccK 01' Ihl'ir offlcerK IIfllllo Cl1l'llrcc Ihc pllymclllol' thc Kllmc," Thc
aort of fee In thla Cllle, Ill1cellKC fcc, IK morc cXlcllKlvcly lIcKl'rlhclllfl M,IIKlrllI1llclq v, Bucklcy, 433
PII. 352.250 A,2lI 447 (11/61/):
A IlceflKc I'cc IK II Kum uKHcKKclI 1'1Ir Ihc gruflllflgol' U
prlvllcgc, In mOHllnKlunccK, whcrc 1IIlceflKc IK
grllnlclllhc Clly Invllrlllhly II1CUrH cxpenKC Huch UK
Ihc CtIHtof rcglHtrullol1 unllll1Kpccllofl; II II only
propcr Ihullhc Onl! who KcckK ullll rccelveK II IlceflKc
Khoulll hcur IhlH cxpcnKc. Tollct'ruy IhlK Ct)Hlol' u
Ilcel1Jic u I'cc II churgclllolhc IIccllKcc. howcver,
IhlK fcc mual hc Ct)mmCI1KUrnlc with Ihc cxpcnKc
Incurrcll hy Ihc Cily III CtlllnCCllol1 wllh Ihc IKlUllllce
1I1111 KupcrvlHlol1 of Ihc IIcel1KC of prlvllcge,
Eaacnlilllly, IIl1ccnl.l fce mllY hc cnl'orced hy Ihc hqroul!-h, hutlllllUKI hc rcuKonllhlc, In I'lIcl, thc
PennlylvBl1l11 COlllnlol1wcUllh Courl hllK l'ounlllhul"lt' u llcenlc I'cc colic ciS morc Ihlll1 un umounl
commcnaurntc with thc cxpcnsc of II1ImlnlslCrll11l thc IIcellsc, II would hccolllc IIIIIX rcvenuc' 1I1111
CClUC to hc 1\ vllllllllcenKc fcc," )'lllley V. COlllllloflwellllh. \23 PII.CllInmw\lh. ,lI3, 553 A,211 5\11,
A horough II IImllclllo Icvy 1I1111 Ctlllccl IIIX revcnues for Ihe cnumcrlllcll rCllsonK
undcr 53 P,S, Sccliol1 462112, wblch 1I0es nol Inclullc IIIXCS for Inspccllonl.
3
"
.',
,
115.64H4 CIVIL
511} (1I}H9), The pllrly chullenglng Ihe IIccn~e fe~~ IHI~ thc burden of proving Ihlll the fee I~
exceNlive, li III ,~~3 A.2d ul ~2(),
Bllsed on the te~llmony we hllve outlined IIbove IInd Ihe documcnlllry cvldcncc ~ubmlllcd
by the plalntlffj II I~ our \~mcluslon Ihullbc fcc churgcd by Ihc boruugh I~ c1cul'ly unreu~onublcl
The IInnual fce WII~ orlglnully $2~.IK) f'Jr cuch rcntul unit, hut In 1'I9() II wus Increuscd 10 $~().lK)
per unit, Approximately I ,2~() I'cgululcd I'c~ldcnllul rcntlll unlls ure luculcd und llcen~ed within
the borough of Shlppcnsburg, und, thereforc, Ihe borough hu~ cullcctcd bctwccn $6(),OlKI,IKI IInd
$6~,OOO.()O unnuully In Ihe pll~t ~evcrul ycur~,
The Implementullonof Ihc Inspection und IIccu~lng prugrum Is relatively simple, The
entlre progrum Is uperlltcd by Ihc Inspcctor und hlK KCCI'ctury, IlIK Ihe buruugh'K puliL'Y lu
InslICela rcntul unit unce cvcry thrce yeun, und thcKc Inspcctions gcncrully tuke leKS than hull' un
hour and, In wme CUKCS, much Icss, Thl\ cumblncd unnuul KuhlrlcK of Ihc Inspcctor und ~ccrclllry
togelher with ulher upcflltlng cUKtS uvcrugcd $71,~O(),Ol) pCI' ycur ovcr Ihc pu~tlhrcc ycur~,
While Ihls amuunt Cilllcspunds wllh Ihe uppruxllllulely $65,O()O,Ol) ruiKcd by Ihc Iiccnslng fees, II
Is erltlealtu nule Ihut, 1111110SI, hIliI' uf Ihe inspcctlun ufficer's IInd his sccrclury's til11c Is Kpcnton
the licensing progrllm, In othcr wordK, Ihls umounl IncludcK thc cntlrc salllry of thc Cude
EnforCl:ment Officer IInd his sccrctllry who dlschurgc numerous olher rcsponsibilitlcs hllvlnglo
do with building, zonlngllnd plunning,
From our l'evlew of Ihe casc~, we urc ~1I11~flcd Iblltlt Is nut our rolc, Imlay, tu declllre
whatlhe fee shuuld he, Thus, It I~ unly IlgflltuiluUS obKelVlltlon lhut whcn the fcc wus doubled
In 1990, II wus then thlltthc burough llIuy hllVe crossed Ihl\ Ruhlcon In this CIISC, Such IIn
express finding, however, Is nol necc~~ury to Ihe rcsolullon uf Ihe Inslllnl mallcr.
4
ljlt "'-;_,.
'" .
.i
95.6484 CIVIJ.,
9~DEI~
AND NOW, this
~,
day lll' April, JlN7, thc prllycr 01' Ihe pllllnllt'l' for
deelllrlltory judamenl and InJunclive, rclict' IH GRANTED I The Cllurl dcclllrcH Ihlll while an
IInnual fee for the Inspection and Issullncc of IIn opcmllngliccnsc undcr Chllptcr 87, Exlsllng
Structurcl. of the Shlppensburg Borough Codc, liS Ilmcndcd, Is Illwflll, thc IImounl of tbo currcnt
fec Is cllCCsslvc and, accordingly. Invlllid, Thc Ordlnancc of Ihc borough 01' Sbippensburg setllng
I
the IInnullllnspecllon fee In Ihe 1II1101lnlof $5U,U{) for eueh resldentllll unil Is declnred void IInd
Ihe borough Is hereby cnJolned frol1llhc collection of SIlIllC,
BY THE COURT,
~.A/L
K7A' Hess, J,
Lee A, Stlvalo. Esqulrc
for the Plaintiff
forcst N. Mycrs, Efiquirc
For thc Defendanl
:rlm
5
v.
NO, 1I)I)!I.6484
COURT OF COMMON l'U:A!l OF 'I'm:
NINTH JUm(:IAL DIN1'IUCT OF l't:NNNY1N ANIA
(:lJMIIF.IU,ANI) COlIN'!'Y
J. MICHAEL Al)LER
1442 Trlndlu ROld
Carll.le, PA 17013,
I CIVIl. AC'I'ION
PLAIN1'IFI<
DOROUGH OF SIUPI'ENSIIUlW
110 W. Durd Street
Shlppenlburg, I' A 17257,
DEFENI>ANTS
I
~ m:Cl,AltATORY ,JUI>GMENT
IN,JlINC...ION
TIUAL mm:F (W
l)En:NI>ANT
DOJUlUGll (W SHll'l'ENSIUmG
This case prcscnts IWO Issucs which thc Courl will dctcrmlnc, Thc Ihrcshold Issue which
must be IIddrcsscd 15, whethcr R munlclpRlity nmy enRetllnd cntill'Ce un Ordlmmcc which Imposes
licensing regullllions on rcntRl housing struclurcs und units Rnd requlrcd puymcnlof un unnuullee
for \hilt privilege" It'thc Court delcnnlnes Ihut munlclpullty nmy rcgulule rcnlRI housing structures
und units within ils corporule limits, Ihen thc sccond Issue to be uddrcsscd 15: whethcr Ihe rcntal fee
Imposed upon rentul unhs whhln Ihc Borough llf Shlppcnsburg Is rcusonablc?
FACTS:
Thc Borough ofShippcnsburg Is u smuli, rurul community which slrRddles thc Cumberland
IIOd Frllnklin Counly Iincs, Adjllccnl to Ihc Borough is Shlppensburg Township which hosts
Shlppensburg University. R member Inslltutlon of Ihe StRIC System of lligher Educallon, The
University hlL~ un undergrnduRte sludcnt populRlIonof upproxlmRtely 6000 sludenls nbout 4500 of
which III'C "resldcntial" slUdents. meRnlng Ihey do not conllnule dully III Ihelr ucudemlc clusscs, but
reside In dormitories or prlvule housing units In Ihe township und surrounding municlpulitles.
primarily Ihe Borough.
In the early 1980's Ihe Council of Ihc Borough ohscrvcd u lurgc Incrcuse inlhc number of
housing units In Ihc Borough which wcrc belng rcnlcd, lhls trcnd conlinucd such thut Inlhc mid
1980's more l\f Ihc housing units In the Borough werc l'cnlcd Ihun occuplcd by owners
(lIpproxlmately 55 %), Council ulso nolcd IhuI muny of thcsc renlul housing units were
deterlorllting. so much so thul Ihc Commonwcuhh or Pennsylvunlu dcclllred Shlppensburg a
"Dlsllllvunllll!cll Community" mukln~ It eligible 1\11' gl'unls 1111I1 I<HIII I'rlImlho: Conllllonweullb. One
oflhe erllerhl u6ell10 muke Ihull!etermhulllon WIIS the lluullty of Ihe housln!! stock,
Boroullh Council, In 19Sfl,lIetermlned 10 seck wuys hI I'IIVCI'NC Ihe tl'end ot'the deterlorullon
oflts 11IIuslnll stock, prhllurily renlul; und begun hllnvesllgulc enuctmenlof un Ol'dlnunce udopllng
Ihe Existing Slruelures Code of Buillling Ol11ciuls und COLic AlIminlstl'lllllrs. The 1I0rough ('llundl
lIeslrelllo enuclOll ortllnunce which would promote sufe, und heulthy housing ti,r ulllts dli~.cns, II
dclermlned thlll enuetmentofleglslutlon culling till' the licensing nnlllnspeclionol' I'entul housing
unlt6 within the horough woulll help to promote II Mule nnll heulthl'ul enVil'llllmenllilr lenunls,
In 1987, Ihe Borough Council udllpted Orlllnnnce No, 552, clldllied Inlhe Code of the
Borough of Shlppcn6burg, ul Chupter 87, This ordinunce hllpletllenled Ihe BOCA Existing
S\l'uclures Code. Second Edition 1987. with certuin ulllendlllenls, II required u license looperute
rentul unlt6 wlthlnlhe Borough of Shipp ens burg unll llIlposellulwenly-!ivc ($25,00) dollurs Ice pCI'
unll. This ordlnunce wus inltlully enlllrced on u pnrHime bnsb by pel'Sllllnel from Ihe
Redcvelopment Authority of Cumberlund Counly, under contrncl hI the Borough,
In 1990, Ihe Council snw (Ineelllllr increused inspecllon services nnd devclopelln plunlo
provide Ihe licensing unll inspc,ctlonof renlul houses hy boroul!h personnel. The progrum culls lilr
inspection of renlul houses within the bOl'ough upon their iniliul conversion to renlul units und on
II three yeur cycle Iherenller. unless n comphllnl is l1Iell with Ihe borough, The prollrulll Is
IIdmlnistered by Ihe Code Enli.,rcetllent Ofticer. who Is nsslsled by u c1erlcul employee.
As Ihe number ofrcnlulunlts gl'ew, reuching 1254 units In 523 struclurl~S by 1<)95. Council
In 1990 incl'eused Ihe Ice 10 !illy ($5t)'(JO) dollnrs per unil. ndoptcd nlri-nnnuulllliipcclion progl'Um.
mewling euch unllls inspccted In full every Ihird yeur, (lIId used borough personnclto udmlnister und
enforce Ihe progrllm.
The PlninlllT, J, Mlchucl Adler, owns, clther In lel!ul or equitublo: 1111e. live slruclures.
cOnllllning cleven (II) renlul units, Mr, AlIlel' hilS lulled to puy the rentlll fee IiII' Ihese units In Ihe
umount of Five Hundrell Fit\y ($550.00) Dollurs.unnunlly since npproxlml1lely 1991, NOlicc wus
scnllo Mr, Adler requesllng puymcnlol'lhe ull10unl due. nnd indlcutlng legul uCllon would be Inken
10 cnforce Ihe ordlnunce upon his lullure 10 puy Ihe sums due, Adler hus lulled to puy Ihose fees us
well us Ihe fees for Ihe units Illr 1995 und 19%, currcllIly owing $3,100,00,
Sui I wus instiluled on bchulf of Mr, Adlcr In 1995 seeking 10 huve Ihe ordinunce declured
unconstilutlonul und unenlorceuble nnd un injunctloll isslled to prevenl enlorcement ot'lhe Ordinance
aglllnsl Ms, Adler, By ugreemenl ofCounscl, Ihe Borough stuyed nny further ellilr\ to colleellhe Ices
due from Mr. Adler, pending the delenninullonot' Ihls courl.
The muller is now ripe Illr decision und this brief is provided on behulf of the borough. for
Ihe Irial oflhe muller,
Issm:s
Mil)' Il munl~llllllll)' IldOllt IIn Ordhlllll~~ r~'1ulrlllK r~Kulllllonl or r~nllll 1I0u.lnK unlll
Ilnd InlpullnK II r~~ ror 1lllllllnhlK Illl~~nl~ 10 1l11~1'1l1~ r~lIll1l houllnll unll. "
The 1IIltlul Chllllelll!e of PllIllltlll'is to Ihe cllnslilutlonlllily III' Chllpter H7 of the Code of the
Botllul!h of Shlppenshlll'l!, PI 111111 111' eltes 110 pl'lIvlslon III' the l'ollslltulllln, !Jnlted Stllles or
l'elllls)'lvulllu. which Is violuled hy the 1I0roul:!h's enllctmentofthe Fxlstlnl:! Slructul'es Code, II CUll
ollly he nssumed Ihlll 1'1111111111' helieves the I lrdlnllllce Is unconstltutlonlll under the (I) Fourth
Amendmenl (lJnluwl'ul Sellrch IInd Seizures), !J,S, Constitution Fourth Amendment; (2) vlolllles the
Fllurtellluh Amendment (Fquul11roteetlon CllIuse) lJ,S, Constltullon 14th Amendmenl: or deprives
Ihe owner of struclures due process In vlolullon of Ihe due proccss, ('Iuuse of the United Stlltes
Conslllullon. Fourteenth Amendment.
These Issues IHlve heen IIddl'essed b)' lhe Courls of the ('ommonwelllth, und the Federul
Courts, mostl1!cenlly Inlhe United Sillies Dlstricl Clllll1, Middle !llstrlcl ul' Pennsylvllnlll in the cu.~e
of I.ock l/awlIl'/'Opmy OIl'III!I'.1 A,\'.mclrllloll, I!I ai, \" ( 'IIY of/.ock lit/Wil, IJI II,: 8/11'P, 155 (M,fJ.
I'cI1995), The lucts Inlhls euse lire slrlklnl!ly slmilllr tolhose In the clIse III bill', There the City of
l.oek IllIven udopted II rentulunltl'el:!lstl'llllonlll'dlnllnce I'equlrlnl:! lhe inspectlonllnd licensing uf
rentlll units In the munlclpulity nnd Imposing n licensing Ice,
tf'I
Pl'opel'l)' ownel's soul:!hlto sel nslde the ordlnllnee ~ conslltutlunul gl'llunds, nrgulng Ihulthe
ordlnllnee vlolnles the Fourth Amendment ngulnsl i1lel:!nl seurch nnd selzurc, the Fquul Protecllon
Cluuse of Ihe Fourleenth Amendmenl nnd the due pl'Ocess pl'llvlslons of Ihe Conslitutlon, umlllll:!
olhers, The ('ourl nddressed und rejected ellch of these nrl:!uments,
With respeel to Ihe Fourlh Amendmenl chnilenl:!e, the ('ourt f(lund thutlhe Ordlnunce in
question withstood the chnilenge to Its Conslltullollllllty holdinl:! thulthe Ordlllnnce did nol vlolule
Ihe Fourth Amendment prohibition ngulnsl unluwl'ul reuches nnd seizures, since the ordinunee
provided Ihulthe lundlord (property ownel') knows In ndvunce lhe llminl:! und scope of the inspecllon
und there Is no discretion us 10 the units 10 he inspected,
The Shlppenshurl! procedures slmilurly pl'llvlde IiII' nOlilicutlon uf lhe Inndlord In udvunel'
oflhe inspeellon und the nutul'e nnd scope of the inspecllon nnd which units nre 10 be Inspected,
Likewise the Dislrlcl COUl'l rejected lhe urgumenlthnlthe ordinunce In question revulldute
Ihe Equul Proteellon Cluuse of the Fourteel1lh Amendment. I.undlol'ds urgued thulthe Ordlnunce
unlllwfully c1ussilled oWllers und renters of nun-owner uecupled housing, The Cllurt lilund thUllhe
ehullenl!ed ordinunce did nlll involve tiny disenuble fundulllentul inter(~st und did not ullCCl u
prolecled cluss, und lurther hud u rutiOlllll rclutlllnshlp to II legltilllute stute intenlln the ureu ofheulth,
sulely IInd wellare issues Illlccling u lurge porlilln of the (,llck Ilu\'en pOJ1ulutllln whll were renters,
Cll/nl(, Clly /lll'/l!lJ/lme, Texl/,I' \'. l'Ielll/me 1111/1.1'1111( ('I!II/I!/', 11Il', n J u.s. .fJl, 11158,0, J}.f9, H7
/..('J lei J/J(/9H5)
Court~ hnvc clllJ~I~lelllly held thnlll ", , Jlllrtle~ who chllllelll:!e the cOII~tltlltlollulily of UII
ordlllllllce hClIrN U hcuvy hurdenllllllmllNtovcrcome II JlreNlIllIJlllon'lf conNlltlltlollllllly." Nllflrll/III
1'/'IIII~rlll!,\', /111'" v, Illlrmlllll r,lMrll'IIJIHII!, jlJ:J ,f}rl7.lJ, 10/1 Ila ('all/III \1', 342, IIJIJJ,
"l.el&l~llIlIolI wlllllot he dcclllrcd llncolI~tltllthllJlIllJllleNN It "elCllrly, Jl"IJluhly,
IIl1d pllllllly vlolllle~ Ihe cOIINtltutloll. ",,"11IM )', lI/11mllll/'Il'" 4IJfJ I'a, IIl/fJ", 43fJ
A:1d 111598", Nrlflrlllall'ropl!/'III!,)' I\'II/I/'a ," 348,
The Supreme Court wClltliJrther In the CIINC of RIrIII!Y IIrlll,)', IIIl', \" RIt!II!Y 1,,\VJI.\'lrlp, 51 j /'a
34:1,531 II:1t! 4/4 (/1J87). There the Court held thutthe eluNslllclltlonofreNldellllllllllld cOlllmercllI1
trllsh u~er~ bore n rell~onllble rcllltlUllNhlp lothc 1:!0Vcl'lllllcnllll pUlJllI~C of the sllte IInd cconomlclIl
collcCllolI of reliJ~e, thu~ Ices IllIp')Ned wcrc unrellsonllhlc, In II lilOlnOIC to the IIhovc the ('ourt
slRted:
"Our delerllllnullolltodllY . , ,doe~ nol reducc the hl'UlId 11Illtude which I:!IlVCl'lllllCl\t
lrlldltlonlllly hll~ enjoyed under IIn E4uul Prolectlon unulYNls In dctennlnlrll:! which
services It deems essenllullo Jll'Uvlde li)r IIN cltlzcn ","
Ridley Arllls, 515 I'u ut 54'1 n. 6; 531 A2d n.6
SlllIlIurly In IImllcl! /Jilt! '/01111 I'hllllp,\' )1, III1/'o/lllh rt!l'l/knltl, 4IJ3 II 2d I'N, 44 I'a ('oll/mw
1/3, 197IJ, the Comlllonweullh COUl't held" Anordlnunce lillllnl:! within the Jlollcc power ofu horOlll!h
Is presullIed to he InliJrtherunce of the helllth, wetfurc, sulcly or 1lI0mls," 44 I'u COlllmw, At 85. Thc
Borough Codc, AClof Fehruury I, 1966 (1965 P.I.. 1656, N, 581) us untcndcd, 53 P,S, ~45000,
uuthorlze~ Ihe Jlowcrs which Borl1ughN possess, Scclion 1202 Jll'Uvldes:
"SJlecll1e Powers, - The power of the bOl'Uugh shull he vcsted lolhe cOI'Jlorllte
uuthorltles, Among lhe specific powers Mthe horough will he the following,
und In the exercise of uny such proce~s Involving the enuelmelllof uny ordlnunce
or Ihe muklng of IIny regulullon, restrlcllonor Jlrohlhitlon, the horough llIuy
provide Illr the enloreemcntthereof und muy Jll'escl'lhe Jlcnultles lill' lhls
vlolllllonthrough or lor the lilllure 10 eonlill'ln thereto,"
(24) Building, housing und plumbing rel:!ulullons, To enllCI und enlorce l1I'dlnllnee relutlng
to bUildings 'lIld housing, , ," 53 P,S, ~46102
The Boroul:!h of Shlppenshurl:! udoplcd the Existing SlrUClure Code, Ordlnullce No, 552
(Codc oflhe Borough ofShlppcnshurg, Chuptcr 87) In rcsJlonsc 10 Ihe detcrioratlng housln!! stock,
pnrtlculllrly among thosll housing units which wllrll Icnanl occupied. The purpose of lhe ordlnuncll
was to upgrudll rental unils In the horough und Insure the sufcly und heulth of thll clt17.cns who
occupy such housing.
Clllurly, the Borough hus the uuthorlty 10 cnncl ordinunces regulUllng rlllllul housing und
requiring inspllctlons und licensing of those unils,
I)lIel the IllIr1Iuah or Shlppenlhllra'N ree ehArKed undef the t:x1.t1nK Strueturt. elide
reprelfntll till fathef thin IIl1eenlll rel! 'f
Ilornullh govcrnmcnt Inl'cllllHylvanlu IH II crcaturc of the ICIlIHlature IInd aK Huch haH only
those powers which Ill'C Illvcnto thcm by thc ICIlIslalurc, Thc 1\1lrtlUllh Codc. Act of FcbrulIry I.
1966 (19651'.1..1656, No, 591). 531',8. ~45101 KCts Illrlh thc framework within which u borOUllh
corporllllon mllY lill1Cllon, Scctlon 4(,20 I prescribeH Ilcllcrul powcrs which a UUl'tlUllh posscsse~ allll
Section 46202 lists spceillc powcrH tu cnaclllnd cnlhn:c ordinanccH which rclutc tu houshlll and
bulldinlls. 53 1'.S,~46202(24),
As pm uflhc Ilcncrul police power posHeKsed, Iccs may bc churgcd fm' scrvlccH which nlllY
be required or Illr "prlvllcgcs" which huvc ccrtuin churaclcrlstlcH, A Iiccnsc Icc has bccn dcscrlbed
lIB ". . I[A) sumllllscsscd Ihr thc I!raming ofu prlvllellcl" Mo,I'II'o"I(~/o v, /JI/L'kley. 4331'0, 352, 2511
A,2d 447 01 4M (/969). The Court cited Nol/0l1oll/l.l'L'I//1 ('0" II, Clly r!/I'ltllmMflllio, 374 1'06(14,
98 A 2d / H2.( /953) to dcl1nc a IIccnsc Icc, Quollnlllhc opinl\ll1 of ChicI' Justicc Slcrn liS Illllows:
"The dlsllnllulHhlng featurcs uf uliccnHe Ice arc (I) Ihallt Is applicable only
10 a type of business or uceupation which Is subject 10 supervislllnllnd
rcgulutions by Ihe licensing authorily under ils policc powers; (2) lhal such
supl:rvlslon and regulations an: In facl conducted by the IIcensinll aUlhorlty;
(3) Ihallhe paymenl of Ihe Ice Is a collection upon which the license is
permitted 10 lrunsact his business 01' pursuc his oceupatlun; and (4) thatlhc
Icgislutivc purpose in cxacthllllhc churl!C Is to reimbursc the Iieensinll
aUlhorlly lor the expcnsc of the supervision and rellulation conducted by II."
Nollonol/ll.vclIll, Co,. ,\'/Ifll'rI 01615-6/6,
Thc Iicensc Ice imposed by Ihe Boroullh of8hippensburll plll'SUanllo Its Existhlll Structures
Code meels Ihe above crltcrla, Thc Ice applics only tu rentnl huushlll units. which have been
subjecled 10 rellulatluns pursuunt to the Existlnll StrllclUres Codc, Code of Ihe Boroullh of
Shippensburll. Chapter 87, adopted under the authorily Mthe Burtlul!h Cude, 53 I',S, ~46202 (24),
The Borough does In lacl rCllulalc and supervise rental housing within Its corporale limits, and the
payment of the Ii:e is a condilion upon which one Illay operate renlal hOlJsinll within Ihe Boroullh.
Finally, Ihe purpose of the Ice is to recouplhe expenses incurred by the Il<lWUllh inlhe opel'Utlon
of the renlal housinll pWllrBm,
I'lalnlill' urges this Court to find thUlthe rcntal fce chnrged by the BOWUllh is not reasonably
relllted 10 Ihe costs Incurred by the prollram, This conlenlion hus been addressed by Ihe Courts of
Ihe Commonwealth, In a case remarkably slmilur 10 the cuse heliJre the Court, McKee v, Upfler
Darby 7'owll,I'hlp,33 D&C 222, CD, D~Ic/lvC/I'e Cmll1ly, /9H2, affirmcd, Fmllk A. !vh'Kee el 01 v,
Upper Dorby 7'mvll.rhlp. 4HII A, 2d /2/6, HH 1'" ('olllmw, I /9H5, In McKee Ihe lower eourl rejected
McKee's arllumcnts thut Ihc rentul Ice charlled wns to recovcr costs ulready provided by the
lownship and pnid lilr hy pluinlitl'lhrll1illh renl e:;tnte tnxes and Ihntthe Ices exceeded the cost
necessury lor Ihc cnllJrcemenl. The Court of Delaware County Illund Ihal inspection <lfrental houses
was u "special" scrvice and nOllleneral us ellIimed, The first C<lurt further rejectcd Ihe nrllument
Ihatlhe Ice exceeded the costs, holdinll:
"
", I ,IT]h~ Ic~ chur~~d nccdnul he csuetl)' cunllllen~urulc wllh th~ ~crvlcc~
tl!nd~Nd; rUlhcr thc towlI~hip mu~l bc l!ivcnlulltllLlc UlIlllhc Icc llIu~lonl)' hc
reM.onabl)' related tOlhc cuM~ Incurrcd h)' Ihc tuwn~hlp. ('oII/l/I,mlwolll,
~xrllllf/lleH WII!//'I!II, -IIJ,~ 1'1/ I lH, I Hl .." ld ()IJH (/lJfll), , ,
", I IlFJunhcl'lllllN, th~~c nl!ur~~ do lIollnclullc ,jcpurtmcnllllluwIIIICC~ IiII'
Inspel:tors' I11l1clIl!~, frinl!~ b~ncnl~ uf thc Ilculth I>cpUrll11Cnl cl11plo)'c~~,
lel!lIllce~ lor entorclrll! Ihc urdlnllncll, CIC." Md~l/l/. ,\'/If//'tI1/1 nfl-l}7,
l//IIfllrC/.l'/,v lidded,
Th~ pllrt)' chllllcnl!lrll! Ihc rCII~unublcnc~~ of IIcclIsc Iccs hllvc thc burdcn of provinl! their
unNllllllnublencss, III CUl11l11onw.:ulth cx rcl I1lncs, ~uprn, (1962) thc SUpl'CI11C Cuurl held
"IT]hll purl)' chullclIl!llIl! IIl1ccnsc fce hu~ Ihc hurdclI uf prllv I III! lhllt il Is
unrclIsollublc, All dQubts musl be reMolved In fllvor of Ibe rCMsonMblcncu
of the fee ~Incc thc l11ulllclpulll)' I11U~1 bc I!Ivcn r~usunublc 1IIIltudc in
unllelplllhll! Ihc ~XpCI1SC of cnlorcll1l! Ihc ordlnullcc."
Commrmwl/t/ll/r I/X 1'<1/ I fillll,l' v, Wllf/I'III/, -IIIH 1'1/ / lH, / H2 A, 2d 61J8 (/962)
The Boroul!h onHnunce Is nul culculutcdlO pruducc cxccssi W UI1lUUllls of I'CWIIUC ill relation
10 the co~l~ of rel!ulUllolI~ IIl1d scrvlccs provldcd. /11 (i/'l!1I11111'I'1I,\' Af/III'IIIIII/II.\', //lC, , v, IM.\'/rI1
7'owII.I'/rlp III ai, -IH2 lI,ld IJ56, H5 I'll, CO/ll/IIIV. 572 (/98-1), thc COl11l1lullwculth Court found thllt
on Ordlullncc rCI!Ullldll1! rellllll Ulllts and usscs~Ing UII ulllluullcc lilr IlIspcctloll und rcgisll'lIllol1 of
Ihe unit wus pCl1nlsslble, In Grl!I//Ir/cI'I/.\', ,1'///,,'1/ upproxil11utcl)' 20 10 40 pcrcenlof the rentlll units
Inlhe lownshlp wcre Inspeclcd ycurly, Appcllunlurgcd thlll ~Iucc nolullunil~ wcre inspccled cllch
)'ellr Ihe fces collcclcd wcrc uClulIlI)' 11 I1lClln~ to rulsc rcvcnuc, In rcJccting thi~ nr/,\Ul'llCnllhc
Contmonwllllhh Court ~Iulcd:
"Acccptlng thc Appcllunl's cvldcncc us III )'ield us corrccl, ills uppurcnllhc
lccs collcctcd urc nol purluf un Invlllld rcvcnuc mislng I11CIISUrC, A IIccnsing fcc,
of coursc, Is II churgc which Is Impuscd, pur~uunltu u suverelgn's pullcc power
for thc prlvilcgc ofpcrlimning ccrtlllnucls, und whkh Is inlcndcd 10 dcfro)' Ihc
cxpcns~ of rcguludon, II is lu hc disllngui~hcd IhJl11lltUX, or rcvcnuc producing
Il1CIISUrC, which Is chllrllclcrl~d b)' thc pl'olluctionuf IlIrgc illCOI11C IIllll II high
proportion OflllCOI11C rcllltivc to thc costs of collcclionllnd supcrvision,"
GrIlI!IIC1Crl!.\' ,1'//1'1''' III 575,
In Ihe prcsenl cusc thc Borough of ShlpPCllsburg, fllcell w\lh a evcr illcreuslng number 01'
Nntol units, IInd detcrlorulionof Its housing Sh1Ck, thc cxcrclsc of Ihc powcrs il possc~sed cnacted
the Exlsling Slruclure~ Codc provllllllg Illr Inspccliollllccnsillg of rcntlllunil~. Thc cvidencc will
show thlllthe Borough inspccts upproxll11utcly olle-Ihlrd of \Is rcnllll units IIIlIlUIIII~ IInd thallhe
revenue produc~d is nol disprllportlonlltc 10 Ihc costs lISS0cilllcd with Ihc IIdminislrolion of thc
progrllll1
The Borough will show thut Ilti Existing Slructure Code und the Ice UKliOclllled wllh the codu
Is IIllcenae fcullnd not IItllX IIIlllllscrWd by Ihe 1)llIlnlll1',
Rcspecll\illy Submllted,
, Dllted: February 14~ 1997
~
~-
Forest N. Myers
Altomey ID II 18064
10000 Molly Pilcher Highway
Shlppellsburl!, P ^ 17257
(717) 532-9046
(717) 532.8879 (FAX)
, ,
I'
"
I'
,
,
I'
,
"
.'
"
COURT OF COMMUN I'LEA!; Olf1'm:
NINTH JUDICIAL mSTRIC'1' OF PENNSVL,v ANIA
ClJMI1ERLANI) COUNTY
J. MICHAEL AI>LER
144:Z Trlndle Itoad
Carllale, PA 17013,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTION
v.
NO. 199!!.6484
DOROUGH OF SHIPPENSDURG
60 W, Durd Street
Shippen. burR. PA 17Z!!7,
I>efendants
DECLAltA'I'OItV JUI)GMENT
IN.JUNCTlON
CERTIFICATE OF SElWin:
I, Forest N. Myers, Esquire, cerlify thai I served a Irue and corrcct copy of the whhln Trial
Brief of Defendllnt by first class mall, postage prepaid on counsc!li.lr the Plalntill':
Lee Stivalc. Esquire
Robert Jllnles Assoclates,I',c'
Two Mills of Viclllria
1489 [lallimore Pike
Springfield, PA 19064
Dllted: 2 - \ ~- ~1
-;-:-~ N(r- ~_
Forcst N, Myers. Esquirc
Attorncy ID 1118064
10000 Molly Pllehcr HIghway
Shippensburg. P A 17257
(717) 532-9046
(717) 532-8879 (fax)
Since 1988, Shlppenlburl Uoroulh hili been In \hc bUllnell of Inlpecllnl homel for a profil,
I very III'IC pronto BeuuIC of III monopl)ly IlalUl, Shlppenaburl Boroulh hili ntorted Inlpecllon
feel which 11'0 many dmel III lCtUal COlli to Implcment the Inlpecdon prolram and II\Y reuonllble
elllmllle from the prlvllle acctor for 11\ equivalent acrvlce.
The currenl Ooroulh Inlpectlon ordinance rCljulrCl the owner of I relldentlal renlal unlllO
pay fifty ($50,00) each year for 11\ Inlpectlon which occurs once every \hree yearl. Therefore, \he
effective COlt for each Inlpecdon of one dwelllnlll one hundred fifty ($150,00) dollarl.
In comparllon, the reuonable elllmate of coUIO perform an equlYIIlenllnlpecdon from Ihe
prlvllle lector II twenly five ($25.00) dollill'l for ellch Inlpectlon, Hence. the Borough hili been
charllnllll clllzenl Ilx dmel the private IeClOr rille,
111 Condie Slatement or the racta
On May 19. 1987, the Dcfendllnt, Shlppenlburl, enllcted Ordlnllnce No, 552 and codified
the IIIItIC III Chapter 87. Exlltlng StrUcturel, of the Code of Shlppenlburg, Anlcle 10 of Chllpter
87. exllllnl ItrUClurel requlrel the annulIl IIcenlure of Regulllted Relldenlllll Propenles, Prior 10
1990, \he annual fee wllllWenty five ($25,00) dollarl for each renllll dwelling, The annulIl fee was
Increased In 1990 10 fifty ($50.00) dollill'l per dwelling unit I
Approximately one thoUland two hundred fifty (l,250) Regulated Relldenlhtl Renllll Unlll
are locllled and Ucensed wlthln Shlppenlburg Borough, The Borough of Shlppenlburg, delplle
I Prior to 1990, the Borough chllrged an annual inspection fee of $25,00 for each rental
dwelling, Prom 1988 to 1990, the Cumberland County Redevelopment and Housing Authority
performed the annual Inspections of the Regulated Residential Dwellings under Chapter 87 for
the annual consideration of $10,000,00, The Redevelopment Au\horlty, for the Slated annual
consideration of $10,000.00, was required to Inspect between 600 and 750 dwellings annually I
Hence the cost to the Borough for each Inspection performed ranged from $13.34 to $16.67.
In or about 1990, the Borough IIIsumcd \he Inspection responsibilities and doubled the
annual inlpection fee from $25,00 to $50,00,
charline the 550,00 lMualllcen.lna Ind In.pectlon fco, Inlpecll each renlal dwelllnl only once
every three year. I Therefore, the effective fco for eWllrlennl811nlpecllon II $150,00,
The Ooroulh derive. approxlmlllely 560,000-$65,000 lMually from ruldenllll \he IInnual
Inlpecllon\lIcen.lnl fco. on 1,250 relulaled renlal dwelllnas, However, \he Ooroulh only expendl
I .mall percentqe of \he fco revenuCl to 1IIIIIfy the direct COlli of \he Inlp<<tlon IInd licensure
proararn.
VI l..ueu
IS THE ANNUAL INSPECfION\LlCENSE FEE OF 550.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO THE DlRECf COSTS INCURRED BY THE BOROUGH TO
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECfION SERVICE UNDER CIIAPl'ER 87'/
IS 1'HE ANNUAL INSPECfION\LlCENSE FEE OF $50,00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO THE REASONABLE CHARGE FROM PRIVATE SECfOR
INSPECI10N SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT TilE INSPECl'ION SERVICE UNDER
CIIAPTER 871
VI D1scull5lonl
A. THE ANNUAL INSPECTION\LlCENSE FEE OF $50,00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO TilE DlRECf COSTS INCURRED BY TilE BOROUGH TO
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECfION SERVICE UNDER CIIAPl'ER 87.
1. The power and limits or the Borouah to Tax.
The power of taxation, In all forms IInd of whalever nlllure, Ilea lolely In \he General
Allcmbly of the Commonwealth aClina under IICgll of \he Conslltutlon. Absent IIn express arllnt
or deleaation of power to tax from \he General Assembly, no municipality. hilS IInY power or
authority to levy, IIIICSI or to collect taxes, To delermine whe\her a municiplllity possesses \he
power to tax and, If so, \he exlent of such power. recourse must be hlld 10 \he acu of the General
A..ombly, ~ulr&l\I,lo V, Buckley, 433 PI, 352,250 A.2d 447 (1969). Tho power to levy generll
or 11*11111I01 mUll be plllnly and unmllllkably conferred and nol found by ImpllclIlon; Ind \hIt
tax ItIlUtel Ihould be conlwed Ilrlctly with III doubu belnl relolved ..unit \he !Ulnl body.
Price v. Tax lllvlllw Board of \hll Clly or PtJIII., 409 Pa, 479, ,187 A,2d 280,282 (1963),
following, Tilt RevlelY Board v, D,H. ShllPlro Co., PII. ,185 A.2d 529 (1962),
Shlppenlburl Borough II nol lawfully enabled 10 rall'.l general or lpeelll !U reYolnUCl
throuah feel for Inlpecllonl of prlvllc relldenllll dwelllnas for helllth, lafelyand welfare purpolel,
The Boroulh II Ilmlled 10 levy and colleclllll revenuel for \he enumerated realom under 53 P,S,
Section 46302, none of which Includelluel for Inlpecllonl,
The Boroulh 1IIIwfully enabled only 10 " . . prelcrlbe reasonllble feci for lervlcel of \heir
[Ill) Ortlcers, , . . Borough Code of 1966, Peb, I, P,L, (1965), No, 581, Secllon 1202, II
anICnded, 53 P.S, Secllon 46202 (1) (1997),
1. The Lawful L1mllll or Municipal Fees.
A fee which II determined unrellonllble 1111 vlolllllon of the Doroulh Code. ~ Generlll\y
Ridley Anns. Inc, v. Township of Ridley, PII, ,531 A.2d 414 (1987), When \he llcenle fee
generllcl more than \he amounl commenlurllte wl\h the upense of the admlnlllr81lve license, \he
IlcenlC fee ceUCI 10 be valid and II deemed 10 be 11I1 unlawf\JI seneral or lpeclal tax, In the clle
of Mulranlelo v, Buckley, the PeMlylvanla Supreme Court defined a llcenae fee and llated:
A llcenlC fee II I lum IlIlClled for the granllns of 8 privilege. In mOlllnllancel,
where a Ilcenae I, granted the City Invariably Incurs expenlC luch II the coSIOI'
rellsltation and Inlpectlon; II II only proper thai \he one who leekl and recelvel a
Ilcenle should bear thll expense, To defray thll COil of a license a fee II charged
10 \he Ilcenaee; however, thll fee mUll be commenluralC with the expenle Incurred
by the CIlY In COMedian wl\h \he Inuance and lupervllion of \he llcenae or
privilege.
MUlr-.p,elo. at ,250 A,2d at 464,
Pollowllll tho Ilce/l.lO te.1 IIOt tOM In MUlran,lIlo. \ho Commonwealth Court In the CUll
of1lUlll' v. Col1\Qlllnwulth, 123 PI, Commw, 313,5.53 A.2d 518 (1989) .1IIed:
A llcenae fee I. dlltl/lllllllhlblo from I tax thll II I revenue produclna meuure
charlClerlzed by tho production or I hlah proportion of Income relallvo to the COIIJ
of collection IIll1 .upervlllon, (chlllonl om11ted,) Thul. If I llcenlll tee colleCla
more than an IIllOUnl commensurate with \ho expenao or IIdmlnllterlnl the llcenao.
II would become I tax revenue and ceUll to be I valid llcenao ree.
IIIIu. II .553 A.2d 11520.
Tho municipality II liven IOme IlIlblde 10 ellablllh reuonable charlOI lo cover \ho
anllclplled oxponaollo be Incurred In the Inlpoctlon prolram, Com. ex rei Hlnel v. Winfree, 408
PI. 128, 182 A.2d 698 (1962). However, al a rule or Iimllallon, the melllllre of \he COlli related
lo an IIdmllll'lrlllvo llcenao fee prollram are only the dloo coslI Incurred by tho municipality.
Martin Medii v, HemDfleld Two, ZHB. PII, Commw, ,651 A.2d 1111171.
3. The Burden In ibis Case.
The party challenllnl\he llcenao fee hili the burden or provlnl thlll\he fee II unrelllonable.
See, IIl1ax, II . 553 A.2d It 520,
4. The Ealnomlc Analysis.
The Plalnllff will be prelenl evidence concerning \he charlel and the direct COSII lo
Implement the Boroulh Impllctlon prolram. The Plalnllff relpectfully IUllel1l thlll\he evidence
will demollllrlle \h81\he lolll direct COIlS lo admlnlller \he Inspection prolram II approximately
one-half of the fccs being chll1'led by the Boroulh.
The ovldence will alia demonllrate \hat the Boroulh sublldlus the many Boroulh bulldlnll.
plannllllllll1 code enforcemenl functlonl with the revenuel Ilenerllled from the pan time Inspc<:llon
of the relldenllal renlal unlll, The IUblldy, or profll, derived from the Inlpllcllon prolram provides
thl. Court with lawful foundltlon to declare the OrdlnWlce unlawful.
8. THE ANNUAL INSPECI10N\LICENSE FEE OF $SO.OO FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO THE REASONABLE ClfARGE FROM PRIVATE SEcroR
INSPECI10N SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT. TilE INSPEC110N SERVICE UNDER
CHAPl'ER 17.
I. Prinle Sector ComparlJon.
(Jovernment mUlt be fair and reuonlble In III charle for aervlcel \hat It dlctatel upon III
cltlr.elU. 'If lovemment cannot provide aervlces at least of a quallly and at a COlt commenlurllle
wldI similar servlcel provided by prlvlIIe enterprise, It II by deflnlUon, unrelllonable 10 u11li7.e lax
dollan for \hat PUrpOIlC, Ridley Arms. hlc. v, Township of Ridley, 531 A.2d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987),
The Supreme Court In Ridley Arms held \hal a munlclplIl fee for trlllh collecllon lit more \hllll Iwlce
die COlt ofequlvalenl private IICctor violated \he IIatIJo\l! authorlzlna flut c1I1U IOwnlhlpllO Impale
reuonable feel for \hit PUrpollC. Rldley Arms. Ine, v. 1'0wIlshlD of Ridley, 531 A.2d 414, 418
(Pa. 1987).
2. The Evidence.
The Plalntlff relpectfully luaaelll\hallhe evidence wlIi demonstrate \hlltlhe Boroulh Will
provldlna\he Inspection aervlcellO III clllzenl for a coltleulhan $20.00 per dwellina Inlpecllon;
and further lhat private leelOr charael for equlvlllent InlpecUon lervlcel would be no more \hllll
$25,00 per Inlpectlon. In comparllon, the Borough chargel $150.00 for ellch Inlpectlon performed;
lilt tlmel\he private leclOr charge and more \han eilht tlmel the cosllhe Borough Incurred prior
to III termination of \he Inspection contract wl\h lhe Cumberland County Redevelopment and
Houllng Au\horlty.
IV Damqes Claimed
Should Ihll Court declare lhlll \he Borouah Inspection fee Is unreasonable and lherefore
Invalid. \hen all feel paid by \he Plaintiff Ihall be reimbursed 10 him, See Rldh:y Arms. Ille, v,
Townlhlo of Ridley, 531 A.2d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987).
, .
. '
.
III thI \nItint 11\IIIII', thI Borouah lOOk Judament ..a1na~ Ihe PlaIntI" for uncollected
I/IJpIe:doP feel. 11111 Court II nquutId to ol\Joln die Borouah l'rom oueutlnl upon IUch Judlmenl,
CONCWSIONI
It II rolpOClfully roquqted thll thll Court l\nd thll Shlppenlburl Borouah IbuICd Iu
IUlWItdIhIp by charllna OJIorblllllt fell for die lnapocdon of ronlll homel. The nvenuel derived
from tho lIIIpectlon prolrl/1\ unlawfully IUblldlr.e many bulldlnl and plannllll proll'lInl In the
Borouah.
Mlchlll Adler reqwllU the provlllon for feel under Chapter 87 of \he Borou&h Code be
doclued void.
RelpeclCully lubmlued,
LEE A. STlV ALE, ESQUIRE
Attomoy for Plaintiff
J, Mlchlel Adler
,
. ~~
hl'l'l II II IJ 1 . I!J~ I
R u,Sih ,'.:i ]L. tq t
!~~ till 1~ is t. " ~
,1111 ij! !J :1.. ,r I ~
.Ill G!. ~ ~ J ~ J .t i ' i
! J JIM, ! 'If ! ,Mi !' 8
I
'.
"
,- -...--.-.,
;
, ...
a~;
'I~t
. J~l
· f JiJ
a f'l ,~J
g t J -" &
l I ~
! fill
, ' "a ~
II..
, ~, ~ ~ ~ ~
I ... ... ... ... ...
ZOd
'..1
e
. of', ,~,~
.t' .jJf~i~ ,;
II~ l,d~ ·
Ii fl. J
I iJfh I
I, nH~~I~~ i
" ! t~J1J'f
f) ~ <,,~f f]
"dLt:ZI 96-90-01.' I
.
,
\ '
, ,
~
,
i ,.afl'''I~ "8~- II 8 ~ If I.... !
... J l' f'" I 1 J I J "1 J J 1" · ':' ,~
J811 · a ..B If If W ~ ~ ItA1 ~..t
.. I ~ ~ J; 1-. I ~ ~ t ~ t ~ t e 8 6 t I f
J jf If 11t'li f i,. ~ J,1
~
...
.. ,
"' .... --...... -. .--- -.
! 11' 'f1! -13~11 If1;.r'1'1.J11,JJl)J !~,ijl .~
f t ,ft~iJffJ. JJ..JJ~ffl 'Jrf i J I .
f -, aD 1" J,] R )':W If Ii' f. ~ ~.J ~ iI, f
..J 1 J.. ~ "~t " II'''~ .II ..' ~ a..
· nil: .JJ:f, hf!ll~U ,H dfl.i: ' I
B
~
...
tOd
mt:21 ~6-90-01.' ,
,
.~, . ,
,
! I fI:W 1;!iJ J.~UlF :~ Ii 1
RIa 1." l . ~ J h [! J""/
, f~qfl: I q I JIJfi Jf~IJf. II Jllhfl
11 :i.ffJm I . · ndl ; It 3 fis ,
~ Id
...
..,
! l~ti~li!IISI 1,lj 1~:Jii ," ~!i. . 'ill!i
. JflfJl, JlI..1 a If 1.1 ,~ aJ~ ,II f
ow J " 1~' I' ~ .II t 1 II
J 'a If ~ I '1'1 f f 1 j ~ i 11 J ~ I,
f I d --I ~ 1 11. ..' II It J 1 J
B
.~
...
tOd
mt :ZI S6-90-01.' I
~
'.-.
.'
.
! llin~Jtnr U!.UIi If! f
If.UbJrW! f:" II,' If 'I ! I
11, {f,'1 I i 111 fl(l f 'I
f. .Ihlll ~ l.elJi Iii. ~! ~' 3 3 3513 I
I
I
~
..
! JilT OJ !'iaj, Wli :JIlli I '11' .1
Iw .f "fJt!i III .. mH h. B
I 1 " Jl J J I'. . ~ .. d ~ .J ~! H ] 11 I" J.
B !!! I ~".&"t~ Ii.
, g , ;J
iI
SOd "m:ZI SHO-OI.' I '
I,
""
. '
; '-1.1 If..;al~1B'' 1.lIJltotalj ,dJlJl'lfJ !
... ~. J )f,lflJIJf' '1f- "'lfJ ~ 2111 4 ,I
I : ffl,W' , .. '~J/' J ~~.W
R (!I 'h'dl.' ,!tllhid ~ ..lf~tJ
'II ..I' 1 I J.jJ ~~ II 1 ' II" I ' :11
a ~ h dftllf "J" i~!f ".".," ,
!, ! I ~ lJ1J
'1' till/II' J .111 R 1 B ill ~ 8 J ,~ J ~.to J i J ' .. .111 ~ i ~.I ' ·
! . . ~., ~d tl fir. t 1 J ii' ': I ~ Ii. n I ~ J ~ ' j
I & "lfl~ dU, l~81~t! {.: J;I III '. i
e!w ~;JnI!~~fh!l~lk dt,]e, I 1U B
3 ~ :g :x3
, ~~
~
gOd
ftdLt:ZI ~6-90.01: · '
. -
" "I
EXISTING STRUCTURE INSPECTIONS
FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PURPOSES
.
YEAR 1893
Inltlellnlplctlonl
Cycle Onl Inlplctlonl
Rllnlpeetlon
TOTAL 18831N8PECTION8
1 1
90
an
424
, '
YEAR 1994
Inltllllnlplctlonl
Cyell Onl Inlplctlons
Relnlpletlon
Cycle Two Inlpeetlons
TOTAL 1884 INSPECTIONS
30
156
177
1&4
4157
YEAR 1996
Inltlellnlpectlons
Cycle One Inspsetlons
Relnspectlon
Cycle Two Inspllctlons
TOTAL 1996 INSPECTIONS
17
7
241
.wi
903
YEAR 1996
Six Monthe commencing 01/01/96
Ending 06/30/96
Inltl.,lnspectlons
Cycle One Inspections
Relnepectlon
Cycle Two Inspections
TOTAL 1988 INSPECTIONS to 08/30/88
11
3
123
121
284
Exhibit p.
'.'.....-"
,-~,IJ"r.. I"
~.'.'"
.,.,.." I '
~
'1'1 f7
6(f
. p
- . , .
, .
, '
MEMORANDUM
TOI
PROHI
Willi.m W. Wolt., Borouqh M.n.q.r , Borouqh Counoil
Rob.rt w..ver,~~de Entoroem.nt ottioer
DATE I Janu.ry 11, 1995
SUBJBCTI ElChtinq Struoture. InsploUon. trom O.o.mb.r 1, 1!iIU, to
D.o.mblr 31, 1994
Initial In.peotions
(n.w units) ,
P....d Initi.l Inspection
Cyol. On. Initial In.p.
P....d Cyole One In.p.
Rein.p.otions
P....d leinspeotion
Compl.int Inspection
P....d Compl.int Insp.
Unit. cond.mned
cyol. Two Initial In.p.
P....d Cyole Two Insp.
No. Units
:I
Year-to-Oat.
30
1:1
56
18
117
1:14
7
2
o
194
118
1
o
o
a
18
1
o
o
86
6:1
,I
from
JANUARY 8
.
~..
_...._'_"',. ,7 7
,~_....,_..-...__' ._,___'_.,_ 7..'6..,.., 716
,31L_.___....'__"_____.... _....,' 7)0.. 730
7 46 7 46 7 46
,___...._-,..,--,.,--,....,.... L ~
8~____m_' ..__..._.....-,..8 I~, ll6
I~.!!_____ __ ,_,____...-' 830 ....1,30
846 8 46 8 46
9 ..____._._.._.'__"__.._ ,9 ,,-.'---'"-''' !j,
~"6 __,__"-,-,-,,,-,.-- ,_.._.___,'!.I.~.,.,--- ,___..,._... . ,.., _..__.__..'_' ,916....----.
?J9_-----,-----.--,~~L------- ,..." "" ,-,------ ,9,~0.. .,.-'
946 946 946
IL__,....,____ 1Q <::i' ~j J~"'_U!.t~I,,:J".LbJjt~L ':~'6-" ' ,_._r I
:~1%-:----~-'::.~":,.~"...--- .,l~~"..i.,-,b;~.-h .lli~3~(rIo30' I
1046 1046 ," . ,. ,., '1046 '
:t~.._----:::.::=:..::.:... ,- :H~E,,~..;.-, y~,~~, ,', :" ';l;;~';;' ~r"'J:!lItif,:-~=:-~~~ ~ '.
'i~ ,---,--..,..,-'--....- -'I'I-4i~"-J:I""" ':" r'''''' 1146-- .,--..-------.
.1L_-------'-,....,..--.. 12.......,- ,,\1 \\,...,Q J~-.......----,---=I
'l:!L_---..--,..,-.-'---...-' 1110 1216 ..-..,--.,----'
lNO ____.____'__'._.... '?c.39,....., '?30...--,-,.-,--..--' I
12'46 1246 1246
_,:'6 G,~\ ~f:-=--lJ;B~~-:::= '-b,:=:,::::- ",_,__. 3,6,.:r::.::=::Jitq'~:;~~~4~ I
H~ ,...._-_,-...:-~~..,-' 'i~~hJ-'):4c.,,~~~J'~ ~!WJJJ~L_- I
~'6 .,'-'''--- ~-d",W.Il-L;:;f\~;;p,.;:;;'f"".'~ \6
NO ---==='::'-:-':=.:':.. i30:-_~=,~:\~-:j\ -, "'..-, ,- ,130
2,46 246 1 46
_ ~'6 .___.,-~~::==.....:-.::: 1:f~'~.L_~~\~;bi'l;.'j r ;':)Uj~:::",=.. t1j..~=:l':.-'=J4)==='-~,...:
,~~ -,--.-,----------m-....=~ .---+~~~O!.'.~/0,ft$\: ~ R,,~~
~,6-'::::::..:=..:,'-.:- :~]~-~H0-t ,";,c.'.1 "i~ 5 rk~?_~_:~: i6:::::.:..=.::.:~!~:::.:--'---'-.
430 _-.-,------ _4..~.o,_ ' ,____.4,39.---- ..-,.,...------
4,46 446 4 46
_..!.-,_-,...-.---'--- ,~___..---,-, ....__.,.___- 5 _--
6,16 _----.----..----..,..,---AI~ ...___,__.__' _~6,..,_,___..__..
6,30 _____,..._......____'._ 630 ......-.. ,630
&46 6 46 6 46
__~_ __' __,__. ., _..' ,..6., ." ---------' 6..,_"___..._.______,
..k'.L_-_u---. ,__,. ..._ .,__ _" 6 16,_, ~,1~ _u___________'
..21.<L-----.--- ,____.__- 63.0." 6,3..0...,_____..___,_,__
6'46 64~ 646
..1__,...__ ' __... 7" .77-,~-~-!~{,C-:.Jt'- ('C!.I.'.!L!d.~J:~--'
,7.,_',~_.._,_, _ _'___'" 7 16 u
:J.1L------.- _, _ 73Q 7 30':='=:'~~--'---'
),46 7 46 746
. e,_, ' 8 e ,
..!!~___,____'_._' ._._ 8'6 B ~~-----
,_UlL-.--, _.___ __'u.,. 830 830
846 846 846
lUnDAY, JNU "..,
.,. .,.-_._._~..---'--_.-
..~--".,..,._---_.
PLAlNTIR>e
ElCHIBlT
'Y-
&,~~ 77
.d<:t
J .,11
I .,30
,".a
9
I "Ia
I ',30
"..
I 10
, ,o:,a
10,30 I .
,- '0,..
1 CI I I
'~a
":30
too, ,,:.a
.2
t '2:,a
'2:30
1- 12,..
.
I ',Ia
':30 C.
1-- I," -
1_ 2
2:'&
2,30
. 2:"
3
. 3:'&
3,30
. 3,..
;=Fk
.:30
. .:.&
II
arta
&:30
a:..
6
&"a
6,30
6:"
FEBRUARY 4
IANR~AV'
,_,.,___ -"1....._._,....,...__,.___
,...__.,'_ 1 I~.__,_._,..,
,,, ,39.. _.__ ' .. .. ."""___'
,.&
"._,-- -" --,---- ,-----,,---
,'" _ __ ,_..' ,. J:'&, -"'--"---
.. ,....___, -':10_____......___
N&
9
_._._'__ _.__0 ,..,_.____ ,_4"_.___ .-~-'.,,~---..-- .---.,-,-,------~---..
___ ':1&_..____..,..,._ "&...,.. -~--,. ,.-----..--.
,_ ~., .,.,___._ ,.,. ' 9,39 _. ' ..,.... .." ..___ ---,
,. ,..
1Q..______,____ ..._'....,._,_ ,__.._..._,,, JQ.___,_, .-,---..
'o:!,L-_______" ",. ,'_.....__ 10~I,~__..__
.,. 1 40:30 _.,._______ _u . _______ _'.~L~!L...__.
10'.& 1046
,,, '..,~,:..,_ ,U, .lir.., ~ .11..._,_,. .,-,--'.-'"
11'1& " 16
"-,,,-'- -if~.('i./:~,~_,~3ir;l.r;:ir~E~ JiIIL.:~:::-
II 46 II 46
.2 y....r. l ,_ ,_ ,.....'_....__,_,.__...__'_ !.L.....___
,~_,____,..,'_.,_,__,_____ 12J!..___
J~----_.-..---- _, ,--..------ _tJJ,L_____
lN6 1246
J___,_,_.,._..- L",___..
H& H6
:~~-S't,~j.;:-~.~--;r~l- '{('?>:~li,~rftt::-i~ :-'- ..:-:==,=--=-----'-----'
2_______ (
!t!!-..----.--,.--.----------- ,~:~.__,__m__'_ I
230 _______.._..___'. . _.. ___,_,__,__.132______..__,
H& 246
.. J__m_______...,., , .., _....__ ,._,_, _3___....,_..,___.__________...._____,1,
3:16 3:16 '
..--,- -3:'30------..,.--' -..--,---- '3'30'''-'''''-- ,--....-'....' -------,---',
3~-'--.,-'-.--------- 3:46"-'---..----------.
::Iq llXu.,'Q:2 4 1\ M'Juk_,~.~12 r-e.-,p..S __A..__..,,=~",.__,.. ,---
, 4:16 4:16 - ----
;30 s"lU:>4--=-.... J'?_?-:-a,~' .~J9:=~--=~:-==--=:=-==-..------,-
4:46 4'46
II ..____,___ II
6:16 .........,_._'____ J,:,~_.
6:30 ,____ __,.. _,___,.___ &:30
6:46 ' ;; ',:'
6
6:16
6:~0
--~----.-- ,--'.._._----'-..~-- --....~.__..-.,-"..-._----------..-._--
6:<16
It, 'D. a ~:m
J~,..__,____..__.. '-' ~.
':~~_.__ _.....- ..'--' '
N&
...__'_ 1------.......-,.- -.,--
_ a"&__,._..__,..,_ _... _ h ,.
.,30 ...._____w.'. _,..._ _ '
1,.&
-\
0-1 ,
"
.,
"
'.
.
"
.
---\
~1...~:~~),Cftl .: ',\.
...d ._,___..~__'_. --.....-'....'
__."..___,.__..~__.______ ______ ,___'.'n~___...,___.________.
li
-.,..--"'--'-
1:1&
1:30
1:"
e
8:1&
8:30
N6
-.--'---
--'- _.~--_.,,-- .-._- --.,..---------..,-------.'--..
--....------' ---..--.,-.-.-------
~-------_._-- -.--...---
.....-
..-....
1 1
716 LI.6_,.....
730 730
7 ~6 7 ~6
8 ~.
6 16 8 16
ew 8W
80 80
9. __,_ . ., "u,.. .9, , . "
Y 16~,~6,
Y 30 Y3Q
Y~6 YA6
10 10
10.16 1016
10 30. 10. JQ' '" ,k.L"~,,I:i....:...J;:~lt.
IQA6 IQA6
11 "_,,, ., JJ ,"
11 16 IU6
11 3Q=_11jOJ,;'~';':':::"5j~-==..tl~;1;;r:.
1\ A6 1146
1~-" ,1~
121,~, '____m_._-- ___ ...~,16.,,_ ......u..__,___.._.
!.:1.lQ___._ ,_, ______u___.u. .., .__.. _,11,~,..._.._.._.._.____,_,__,_____
1246 1246
1 D.. \ h, f;, .....p,uu.\ + ~ flZJ1, ,t
116 116
1 30. _1.30._ ..
1 A6 146
.~1t)_~~~L~.~,,-\J~I~,i- ,_,~L... .'--,! :'':+:.--. -~...-.
230...'::=:.::==__.___. _..__~::..~:L= _~~{J1~~=;~::.=.~.::.;j:1i~ '
20 2~
3 3
316 316 ,._ _. ,_.._....cJ,J~. <
J 30 d~ ~9~'~J~l~~ t)Ll.u..\__~ _~_J.i IU II'ecrjr ,.~ ~
3~6 346
.. .-~16..---.."--..--..--...-..- ..1'1dC,!,e-j<:hbtu..~'.) '_'_~"'-.,:J.L
.-..,.---.... '4.30----..---- . -.....-----.-,....--..-.----- .-A.-30-i(~.~~.~~..I~---.- 1:",#, ,;..-b vJ
--.. --------..,- -A ~6 ......u ,-" ,- -.----.-.- 4d6-----.-+------"".:{;yl<r
.---.-......-..--- --.. - !?, -_."--'- -'~ ,-, ,--,-'
____,___....____ ,.61.6_,_ ...,_,_...,_._,___' .. __,.._ .__, ...., __'_ 616.,,__,___..___,
..,_,u____. 6,30._.__...___..., ,_._..,..u____'.. ____ 6,3.0_____,
6A6 6A6
,___,_,____,.......__'_ _n _6, ..'__,___ ,_"__,, ..,,__ ,__ 6_., ,,-...,-,----,
,_____'m_'___..'n_ 616..__.. ..... .. .,........, __'''___ ..~J_6____._,__,_..
;0. ....____,_..,_...___ 630. .__ ,63.0 - , -.------,---..----
6 A6 0 46 , '
}1~-_===~__ :::=:.:=_... -__~__~ 1~6= !J~~~Jl:7--~.t\\i~jl'l~ ,
.7,!Q..___ _, .._..____'_ 730 _ ...,___,_'
7 A6 7 A6
8... 8
8 16 8 I~
83q 830.
8 46 e 4~
I
119,.:.---'- --'
,tit
1..__------..-..,--'----..
16_____..___....._ .____u_....
lO
116
I) ,,'_'"__'''
16..,.._..._,_,
. 30
, -~--~---'--
46
,
, 16
, 30
, .16
1
.6
30.
46
.____~________"~_u__~ ..__.
.- .------~---~. .-,., - .-+--,.~+
.--.+------
,~
.....,~--..'-n..-.....--.n.','" -"f"
'0...1 , 'Ie r 1- ,j'
. mj.~ I./+_+_.__.L. u__J.__L'....L.l..__~, .
II
\6
)0.
,16
._--------~-."-
,&
,0
,\6
\6
)0
,---_.~..
,'5
\6
10.
45
16
,16
~__+___.,_m______ ________+.
.6_,------------ __,..._,.
10
46
.,----.----'-.----.-.-'.".
.-.----~-_.._--- -.--..-..-'. '-"--".
15
}O_,___..________.__n
46
from
FEBRUARY 12
TUESDAY, FE8, 13 "'1322,
WEDNE5DAV, fEl, 1~
ylJl"~\ht\....~y.
lit:
'-~
-.
~
M'."'.!!!!!!-~J_______ L_.._ "..' ,
',Ia.____.......__.. _.._.."
NO
':A
_ L___,.._,_____..
J~_-,___-
~c3,L,.. ..
a:A&
9;1;-------.--
!!!9 --.... - ,
9,Aa
.., .~,.--_.._------
5: 40:1& . ,____ ,,__,
/2JL~~t . 1030 ....,__,__ _ - .
r 40,A&
· ~ ~.:.r..t 1t
44,1
44,3
14,A&
12
12'4&
42,'0
42,Aa
1
411a
1:30
I:A&
.--
\)
IO,4a
401~ B' ~....\.
40,Aa ,.
11 0
"da
",~ tr
",.a
12
12,4&
4,~
12,01&
.
!I
'"
( t'<, <
2,4& 2,1&
2,~ 2,30
2:Aa 21Aa
~
3,1a 3,4&
'I~ , 3:30 S
3,A& 3:Aa
. I oJ,):, .
.:4& A,la
=- AI~ A,'O
A,oI& A,oI&
. 6 II
ada &,11
. a:30 a,30
&,01& &IAa
III 6 6
6,1& 6,1&
. 6,~ 6,~
6,A& 61Aa
7d 711a
71~ 7,30
101& 7,A&
',4a a,la
.:~ &:30
:01& ':A&
,u.,...,_____, J:I_~__,__.,...
_.__._ ..?;3~_,
9:Aa
1Q__
\01&
10 3~
10 ~&
11.
H:16
.....____'.__.u,_.
..._ ___..._ u_ ,._. _1.1_3,0, u'
H A&
,.._'... .12 "
____no' _ '. m__ ,Itl~_______.
.__n.'......_._...._.___..___..,.
_.___,.______ ~2_3.~_._ __,___ __..____,____,_,_u_,'..
124&
1
~----.---~-. 'i-'4&-~ ...-..----....----.---------.-----~...........'..:
1tlm.,._.!1:l,_~r-g;;..d.~.T :1.3T-=.~:~ _u~ ___-~~~~~~==-=___::;
I~ '
__...... .._, _t, .......u,, ,_ _,m ,-, _
, 21&
" ,~=-:=--_..-----' ,:3ii-----'..,----..--..,----"
2:~&
3
3:1&
1'.1.\..,_,. _ ~d:..C;; r- "3)'(---.--.
346
4
, 4:1&
""'-T"-- ,-
5JLt:..___J!.L~ .._ ~_3.C!____
( 4:4&
Y-e>: ..---' {~!S,._--'
-- ._--- ..,.."", - -..-.,.-------. .---------_.---_.
630
...~
'0"--;\-' _~~. I..
"'l.li!;.l(,. ,I~ ~-:-~,-=~-=..
-.
h'_' _______" ____.' __.________~
-----.--.
.,
,
-. -...---.,.,.------.---------".
---"._---- ..-------'
- ....- .-,.".-. -_.,..~-_..
. .-.-._--~._-,--_.
.. -,..-.,-- -~,-----~-~....
~
"~i!:..:'lI,'J;I').\i, .'..j, j.,1 ,,';! ~~. '
.- . -.".-..---.,---....' -,-,.'-_._._~'.-_._.._-
--_._-~----.,------- -.-,-.,.---.--
.....-
l,~
, '
. .
!.
J
"
,
"
.......a<<Sl
,,,..1\.1.'
lttO .1'"
1..1-
ua.U16
.JOHN I.IIA' rL'N
64,.....DrlH
Brla\ N.w J.... OS?"
tpOB) g:HUSH
D8VJIB
...,....""
MJ.&LA-*' IIDD.
JlIaJIr ~ I .. ..,.....
. ......___- b&ll4I'IIa?"'lI""
. Pwba'" nMn far 0DlII 00"'11"-
. 0.--' f ...........j,f~-ofc,~
~ OM.... twr . _t'w to....
DJDCI'Oa 01 COD& &fIIJ()ICUII1If
But '--T~.....BI -'w ~~ I
IlIaJIr . Ifll If ....--
. h1VioG........At1Jdoa oil.'
, 0.... ....... ofbl.~ ..........,.... ...-..-1IIIl
wrrr '...~
,,..... ....._~I... om-
. ~""'-' 11 ..........._ .,..11-....
~ IJ(JOIICDIDT omcDfI'O'WlUIII MANAPI".
BriId TWf~ lAViaDMI. r ..,Mala
JlIaJIr fII'.I~WlI"'"
, P\..~ .~oIIklIal
. ,.~.1IaU Llp...oIIAlar
~ AAnt[-! I 1Il~..,Jl.LM -'"
. ,......to'WlIIbIp---..(I919)MI. ~1or...lf...ll-of
__-L~"''''''! 1. .....I.l~.._to_..... ~of"
IOWDlIIaIp
COLUGI pcmgp, ADI1JI(Cl' Il'IIJ.JdJCI'OR
...... .-. eo.&y ColI.., 1!dIr\. NIW.JIrIIY
MaJer. Irf.r......~
. It,... 1 -IL.I-' lor III-'., .. ..... 1117 .......... of ~/el1IndoDI ollD
ooIl..W.......
, .~ u-Ior ...-~ ofpl...". .riII......, ~ 11III'"
(~",.I- '1'y95~)
, I.... ...,...,Ior _IT............. of'" ocllhr buI.....- I\IlWdII
. ,...... iaIIrUlltar (1'" -1915) ..._&llS ClClIlIIIO ",..,-1IIIl ~
.... pria& IV....... ".AIIIII'I~ 1l.41 ;1/9"
. r...,AI'IdoIl of cII.t- bo.GIt ~.....
. " ". r'.':'~", u ,,,'
...,
11M" ~--1.
"2
lf7I.l_
am .1,.,.
IDI1CA'I1ON:
. __I......
PIOIICI' INGINIIIIICONBl'ICI'ION MANA.GD
Va CIoofR.,i/- . AIIOCIltl J. 811III tllr'lk. NIw...,
......11 U'I--''IoI....
. 1fT '""fOlllllPlD1l.r . 'l~ror...-'tIIy_MMl'"
IIGOilMIDlllbl....
. "-W' MMlI~olproJegll"lI; oaa.....~. .~.
In' ~"""'P'.......lIIIIlIlIlbl"Il&Idoa"'~ 1IIII.aa.ry
-....
. IupIrM IMporJdoa rAaII OD ""'~ pnIjecU
IIJI.D u~cnCJllflRJPDll'ft'ENDEl'fI'
S1IdIIr CooaInIlldOD Owlr-Y, NIwIIk, Now JIftI)'
IlIaJer rJl'I--''IoII~
. ~..... J ..~ OD 0llIIIInIllIi0a ofiDdullrial, NVKonowdIlMMl
olllco blll~
. r--u..... ..~-.dl ~. to... ooalpil_- widl ~<Mld_
, LayoaI oflilolllll..-tLtl.. 'MIlt
Dqaae in Civil RIlI'- uiDI T~
CIIrI'IIICA.'I'ION8: lIIaior Ai.' uq r", .....J..d. (CiriI), N,LC,B,T. LMllV
BOCA: 'AuI1dhw ~1rocIPIIaI Rwan,lnor
1.2FIlllilyD~ '~BuiI.tI...~
I " 2 FIIIIIi1y DMIIJDc Mm '-.w,..11IIIpOllIOr
S8C(,"(: g."IdI"I~ P. I. or
l..MDasl
8CI&o of New Jtnoy:
, Bul...... r., [ilU HJ18,
, F. PDDcCioa ~b ILKS,
. Suboodo 0IIkUI, ~tdIfII " F. P,<<eodoa
, CoaIIIucidoa 0fticlaI
. F. ....~ OfBDiIIIPlro IIIIfIc cIor
0IKWQZA110N8J
, AmcIil:IIl SociIII)' ofJl"ll--iaa r-s...w-
. AdviIory ClC.......IUeo. r...:J..-oIo&Y ProIfIm, liMY' III: CoIl.
, B.O.C.A
. N'p'p,A
. A.S.Ut.
. B.O.A.NJ.
. P.B.N,N.B,O.C.
, C,NJ,C,O.
. U,9. CollI o.ns A"w1I1~
~.
~,'
/
.
';
. .. .. ..tot .,
CONTRACT ,
BY AND BETWEEN THE
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
AND
THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
, '(\00-
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this 1(1 day of Qrv.A.v.. , 1988 by and
between the BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG, cumberl~~d ~nd Franklin countie.,
penn.ylvania hereinafter referred to as "BOROUGH" and the
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF C;UI~BERLAND, hereinafter
referred to .. "AUTHORITY".
WITNBSSETH THATI
WHERIAS, the Borough of 6hippenspurg has adopted the BOCA Existing
Struotures codel and
WHERBAS, the Borough of Bhippensburg desi~es to continue to obtain the
.ervioe. of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Cumberland to
enforce .uch Codel
NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound the parties do mutually
agree ae follows I
A. SCOPE OF SERVICE6
The Redevelopment Authority shall serve as the code official
for the Borough and, as such shall be responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the existing structures
code of the Borough, Ordinance No. 552. and shall cooperate
with the Borough Solicitor in the enforcement of said
ordinance.
The .pecifio scope of services shall include,
1. Systematic code enforcement of rental units
. Development of code "checklist"
. preparation of letters to building owners
detailing code deficiencies
, Follow-up inspection of units when conditions
have been corrected
. preparation of monthly report to Council on
units inspected
2. Code enforcement inspections of all other units in
response to complaints
Preparation of letter ~o building owner detailing
code deficiencies
. Follow-up inspection of unit when condition ha.
been corrected
,.., '
il'l
" " ',,' ,,'.
,
,
"
, .
"
P,
Page 2 of ~
The AUTHORITY will oomm1t the time of one (1) hou.ing 1n.peotor,
trained in the BOCA Ix1.t1ng Structure. Code, a total of 11,5
hour. per week. One (1) day (7.5 hour.) would be .pent in the
field (in.pecting un1ta), .pprox1mately four (4) hour. each
we.k would be .pend ccmpleting forml, eto.).
The AUTHORITY anticipate. in.peoting 12 - 15 rental unit. ea~h
w..k, However, during tho.. week. when the in.pector i. on
vacation (up to 3 week.) no .y.tematio oode enforcement .ervice.
will be available.
B. COMPENSATION
Th. total compena.tion under th1. Iqreement ahlll be '5,000.
Th. AUTHORITY ahall aubm1t monthly billing. to the BOROUGH
office in the amount of '833.33,
C. T~
Th. term of thia agr.ement .hall be a .ix (6) month p.riod
beginning July 1, 1988 and ending December 31, 1988.
D. TBRMINATION
Thi. agreement may be terminated by either perty upon
.ixty (60) daya notice. If the parties mutually agre.,
thi. agr.ement may be terminated upon thirty (30) day.
notice.
" ,
.'
" '
I ,
., ,.\
,'.
,
.' "
'0"
',r" '
,
,
-,
" .
-,
CONTIIAC'l'
B't AND BE'l'WBEN THE
BOROUGH OF BIIIPI'ENSDURG
AND
THIJ RI3D2VBLOI'MEN'l' AU'1'HORITY O~' '1'IIE COUN'l'Y OF CUMBERLAND
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this ,'-,'" day of Iv~V" ,'...,. , 1988 by and
between the BOROUGH OF SHIPp~NBaUHG, Cumberland and Franklin Counties,
penn.ylv.nia hereinaner referred to as "BOROUGH" and the REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORl'1'Y or THE COUNTY Oli' CUMDERLANll, het'einafter referred to IU
"AUTHQRITY" .
WITNBSSBTH ~HA'1'1
WHBRBAS, the Borough of Shippensburg has adopted the BOCA Existing
Structure. Code, and
WHBRBAS, the Borough of Shippensburg desires to continue to obtain the
.ervlce. of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Cumberland to
enforce such Code,
NOW, THBREFORE, intending to be legal.ly bound the parties do mutuslly
agree .s follows I
A. SCOPE OF SERVICEB
The Redevelopment Authority shall serve as the code official
for the Borough and, as such shall be responsible for the
admlni.t~ation and enforcement of the existing lltructures
code of the Borough, Ordinance No. 552. and shall cooperate
with the Borough Solicitor in the enforcement of said
ordlnance.
The speclfic scope of services shall include I
1. Systematic code enforcement of rental units
Development of code "checklist"
. Preparation of letters to building owners
detailing code deficiencies
, Follow-up inspection of units when conditions
have been ~orrected
, Preparation of monthly report to Council on
unlts inspected
:'
PROFIT FROM HOUSING INSPECTIONS
1893
1994
199&
Avereg.
FEES
$61,910,00
$64,326.00
$64,900,00
$63,711.67
COSTS
(34,392,721
(36,726,471
(37,624,361
(36,881.181
PROFIT
27,617,28
28,698,63
27,376,66
27,830.49
PROFIT/FEES
44.4%
44,4%
42,1%
43,6%
" .
, ,
"
"
DIRECT EXPENSES BUILDING, ZONING, AND PLANNING I
I
.1iU 1IUI.4 1J.Il1i AVERAGE
SALARIESl
Code Enforllement $30,606.00 $31,676,00 $31,974.00 $31,418,33
Clerlcel 23,816.00 24,648,00 24,960,00 24,474,67
Dentel 199.93 667,86 760,80 642.86
BC/BS 6,762.00 6,284,90 8,113.20 7,060,03
Health/Welfere 1,299.69 1,126,66 1,696.00 1,340,41
Life Ineurence 134,08 173.70 221. 40 176.39
Soclel Security 4,163.21 4,308,79 4,366.46 4,276,82
Unemployment Comp, 239.98 79.99
Workere' Compensstlon 408.00 400,00 269,33
Deferred Compenslltlon 960,28 823,00 691.09
$67,377,81 $70,236,17 $73,043,83 $70,218,94
OPERATING EXPENSES:
Supplies $617,17 $306,71 611. 76 611.88
Gasoline 166,66 186,68 204.61 182,22
Vehicle Meln, Supplies 77.89 126.47 163,87 119,08
Po stege 266,00 300.00 296,67 283,86
Vehicle Insurence 300,00 300.00 300,00 300,00
Vehicle Mslntenancs 439,16 146.38
$1,407.62 $1,217,76 $2,004.86 1,643.41
DIF4ECT COST SUMMARY:
Salaries @60% $33,688.91
Oper. Exp. @60% 703,81
$36,117,69
608,88
$36,621,92
1,002,43
$36,109,47
771.71
$34,392.72
$36,726,47
$37,624,36
$36,881,18
fILAIHnIn
E>>*IIT
/ () . fJ
tJ!r
ROBERt' JAMES JACKSON ANsoeIAt'!!!, ".C.
LAW OFFICES
Two Mill. of Vlclorla
1489 OaUlmore Pike
Sprlnafteld, Pennsylvania 19064
Ilubert IIIIIlIJ IlIIIkltln
'I'onll..ce CIVllllih'
. "'~AIM"JlJlllt'llAl"r.
I'''.'''.'
t...utJII,IJIt.AWln~AlllJ"1
Leu ^II/I Kllvlllt
'I'elcphllnu 1610) 604...911)
t'lll! (610) 604...915
Pebruary 13, 1997
The Hononble ludle Kevin A, lieu
Cumberland County Court of C"mmon Pleu
I Court Houae Square
CarlI.Io, PA 17013
Rei Adllr y, ShlpgeDlbu~ Borou'"
Dear ludiC Hen:
Enclosed Is a Trial Memorandum for your Honor's revlcw,
Coplea of mOlt of the cited casel are enclosed for your Honor'l convenience.
~
LAS/mtf
Bnclo.uro
co: Poreat N. Myen, Esquire (w/enc. Trial Memorandum)
i' I
MARCH, HURWITZ, D~MARCO & MITCHELL, P.C.
BY: LEE A. STIVAL~, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 46Sll
17 WEST THIRD STREET
P.O. BOX 108
MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 565-3950
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CML ACTION. LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plaintiff
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Defendant
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against the claim set forth in the
following pages, you must take action within twenty (20) days after this Complaint and Notice
are served, by entering a written appearance personally or by attorney and filing in writing with
the Court your defenses or objections to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that
if you fail to do so the case may proceed without you and a judgment may be entered against
you by the Court, without further notice, for any money claimed in the Complaint or for an)
other claim or relief requested by the Plaintiff. You may lose money or property or other rights
important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO A LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO NOT HAVE
A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE OFFICE SET
FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Lawyers' Referral Service
Court Administrator's Office
Cumberland County Courthouse
4th Floor
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 240-6200
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL
ATTORNEYS AT LAW * 17 WEST THIRD STREET · P.O. BOX 108 ,, MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL, P.C.
BY: LEE A. STIVALE, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 46511
17 WEST THIRD STREET
P.O. BOX 108
MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 565-3950
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plaintiff,
VS.
NO. ~,,~-/_~q ~ q
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Defendant,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
THE PARTIER:
1. The Plaintiff, J. Michael Adler (hereinafter referred to as "Adler") is an adult
individual with a notice address at 1442 Trindle Road, Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013.
2. Adler is the fee owner or equitable owner of the following real properties located
at:
(a)
Co)
(c)
(d)
105 Springhouse Road, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and,
18 Hollar Avenue, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and,
341 East Fort Street, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
343 East Fort Street, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
The properties described in subparagraphs 2(a)(b) and (c) shall collectively be referred to as the
"Rental Properties."
4. The real property located at 105 Springhouse Road, Borough of Shippensburg, is
improved with a single family, detached dwelling and at all times relevant has been leased for
residential occupancy.
5. The real property located at 18 Hollar Avenue, Borough of Shippensburg, is
improved with five single family dwelling units located in two building structures, and at all times
relevant have been leased for residential occupancy.
6. The real property located at 341 East Fort Street, Borough of Shippensburg, is
improved with residential duplex property, and at all times relevant has been leased for residential
occupancy.
7. The real property located at 343 East Fort Street, Borough of Shippensburg, is
improved with residential tri-plex property, and at all times relevant has been leased for residential
occupancy.
8. Defendant, Borough of Shippensburg, (hereinafter referred to as "Shippensburg")
is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, having
an address of 60 W. Burd Street, Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257.
9. On May 19, 1987, the Defendant, Shippensburg, enacted Ordinance No. 552 and
codified the same as Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the Code of Shippensburg. A true and
correct copy of Ordinance No. 552, as currently amended, is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."
10. Article 10 of Chapter 87, Existing Structures, provides in pertinent part:
ES-1000.1 Rental License: No person shall rent residential properties unless he or
she holds a valid current operating license issued by the code official for the
specified named or numbered regulated residential property.
(a) A license shall be obtained by the owner(s) having a legal or
equitable interest in the following forms of rented residential
premises: single-family dwellings, single-family dwelling units...
(b) Fees for registration and inspection shall be as follows:
[1] Initial registration and inspection including
reinspection, if unit passes: fifty dollars ($50.).
[2] Follow-up reinspection of unit failing initial
inspection: Code Enforcement Officer's actual time
spent, at the rate of twenty-five dollars ($25.) per
hour, or part thereof, portal-to-portal.
[5] If the rental fees are not paid by August 31 of
each year as required by Section ES-1000.1(b) and
ES-1002.3 hereof, the Code Enforcement Officer
shall condemn the property as unlawful structure and
it shall be vacated if occupied.
11. The Rental Properties are "Regulated Residential Properties" and are subject to
inspection and licensing under Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the Shippensburg Borough Code.
12. Shippensburg conducts periodic inspections of Regulated Residential Properties not
more frequently than annually for the purpose of licensing the same under Chapter 87 of the
Shippensburg Borough Code.
13. The purpose of the inspection program and certification of dwelling units in rental
properties under Chapter 87, Existing Structure, of the Shippensburg Borough Code is to generate
general tax revenues for the Defendant and is not rationally related to promote the health, safety or
welfare of the residents of the Defendant.
14. The Defendant's administration of the inspection program and certification of
regulated rental properties under Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the Shippensburg Borough
Code, violates the Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the United States Constitution and the
Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
15. The Rental Properties were last inspected by the Code Enforcement Officer as
follows:
(a)
Co)
(c)
(d)
105 Springhouse Road - July 1995; and,
18 Hollar Avenue - January 6, 1995; and,
341 East Fort Street, - September/October 1995.
343 East Fort Street, - September/October 1995.
16. To date, none of the Rental Properties is subject to a notice of violation under the
Existing Structures Code of the Borough of Shippensburg.
17. On or about September 26, 1995, Shippensburg through its solicitor, provided the
Plaintiff with written notice that Plaintiff had failed to "properly register" the Rental Properties and
failed to pay a total $550.00 for Rental License and Inspection fees for year 1994-95. A true and
correct copy of the September 26, 1995, notices are attached hereto as Exhibit "B".
COUNT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF
18. Paragraphs one (1) through seventeen (17) are incorporated by reference as though
fully set forth at length.
19. The annual inspection fee and fee for licensure in the amount of fifty dollars
($50.00), imposed under Article 10, Chapter 87, Existing Structures, Shippensburg Borough Code,
for each residential rental unit is excessive and is not commensurate with nor reasonably related to
the actual expenses incurred by Shippensburg in the administration and performance of the
inspection program of the residential rental units and in the issuance of licenses.
20. The annual inspection fee and fee for issuance of the operating license in the amount
of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each residential rental dwelling unit is invalid, illegal and
unconstitutional because it is imposed by Shippensburg for the sole purpose of raising general
revenues for its governmental purposes.
21. The annual inspection fee and fee for issuance of an operating license for residential
rental dwelling units is excessive, unlawful and illegal and creates a financial hardship upon the
Plaintiff.
22. The annual inspection fee and fee for issuance of the operating license under Chapter
87, Existing Structures, of the Shippensburg Borough Code is invalid, illegal and unconstitutional
because it constitutes a special, discriminatory and unlawful tax.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an Order:
A. Declaring invalid, unlawful and unconstitutional the annual fee for the
inspection and issuance of an operating license under Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the
Shippensburg Borough Code, as amended; and
B. The Court grant such other Order and such other and further relief as may
be just and proper including costs and fees.
COUNT II - INJUNCTION
23. Paragraphs one (1) through twenty two (22) are incorporated by reference as though
fully set forth at length.
24. Shippensburg Borough's regulatory scheme for the inspection and issuance of
operating licenses for residential dwelling units in rental properties and the collection of fees thereon
is an unlawful and unconstitutional exercise of regulatory authority.
25. The inspection program established and conducted under the authority of Chapter 87,
Existing Structures, of the Shippensburg Borough Code is an unlawful and unconstitutional violation
of the prohibition against governmental authorities charging of excessive fees.
26. The Plaintiff does not have an adequate remedy at law to require that the unlawful
and unconstitutional violations under Chapter 87, Existing Structures, be ceased.
27. The Defendant, Shippensburg, in its notices of violation, Exhibit "B", provides in
pertinent part, that "Current Borough Ordinances provide that a property may be condemned and
vacated, if payment is not made on rental units."
28. The Plaintiff will suffer irreparable injury which is not compensable by the award
of damages, including the potential for criminal arrest and incarceration, should injunctive relief not
be granted and Shippensburg Borough is permitted to continue its unlawful and unconstitutional
infliction of taxation for general revenues under the guise of an inspection program.
29. Pending resolution of this matter by this Honorable Court, the Plaintiff, and his
tenant occupants, will suffer irreparable injury which is not compensable by the award of damages,
including the potential action of Shippensburg Borough "condemning" the rental property and
dispossessing the residential occupants of a home and shelter should injunctive relief not be granted
and Shippensburg Borough is permitted to continue its unlawful and unconstitutional infliction of
taxation for general revenues under the guise of an inspection program.
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that this Honorable Court enter an Order:
A. that Shippensburg Borough, its employees and representatives, be enjoined
and restrained from issuing or in any other manner enforcing the fee provisions of Chapter 87,
Existing Structures, against him and his tenant occupants during the pendency of this matter and
permanently thereafter.
B. and such other equitable relief as may be deemed just and reasonable.
MARCH, HURWITZ- ~eMARCO &~MITCHELL
Attorney for Plaintiff
!0-06-95 12:477M
PO2
10-06-95 12:4?PM
!0-06-95 ]2:477M PO4
:0-06-95 12:47PM
PO5
20-06-95 12:47PM
:0-06-95 ~2:477M PO?
09-28-95 ll:53AM PO2
September 12, 1995
tFores N. M ers
I0000 Holly PitCher H~ghwey 5h~openeburg, !~an~s.ylvania 17257
Mr. Michael Adler
FREEHOLD ENTERPRISES
t442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
Re: VIOLATION' of the CODE of the BOROUGH of SHIPpENSBURG
Deer Mr. Adler:
You beys failed to "p~l~'ly" register your rental units located at 18 llollsr Avenue m~d 341 ~lld
343 Em Fort Street, la the BOROUGH of SHIPP£NSBURG, in accordance with Ordinance No. 5S2,
Rental fees in the amount of $.q00,00 for the year 1994-95 remain unpaid. Additionally, we require
the complete execution of a Rental Application, wh'oh we have prey'dad harem, for your convemanue.
Current Borough Ordinances provide thai a property may be condemned and vacated., if payment
is not made on rental unit~. This Ordinance is available for your review at the BOROUGH OFFICE, located
at 60 West B~d Street, Shippenaburl~.
This is to notify you, that unless registered within (15) days upon receipt of this letter, the
BOROUGH intends to begin legal action to enforce its Ordinance.
Your prompt attention to this matter will be appreciated.
FlqM:eg
Enclosure
xc: William W, Wolfe
Boroush Maaaser
Sincerely,
FOREST N. MYERS
Solicitor
BOROUGH of SHIPP~NSBURC}
gel:~mber 12, ~995
Mr. MJdmel Adler
1442 Trfndle Reed
C
Dear Mr. Adler: VIOLATioN of t&e CODE of the BOROUGH of gH]]~pENgBURG
You have fa/ted to"
aORouQHofSHlpp~x,,.,~.'P.?_-°e~'/,v regbt~rye r .... , .
Renal f~s in ~e amount of $~,00 for ~e y~
· e eomple~ execution n~a ~e,~al~pllcntio~' which 1994-9~ remain uap~d, Rddilio~ily, we
. _. Cur~nt BOrough O~in~s .. . we ~ve P~vtded be~i~ for yo~
~S nor m~e · , Pmvt~e ~at a pm~ ma ~ c
at 60 W~t B~d S~ ghtppenaburg.
aOROuGR int~da ~ mgfs~ w~in (iS) days upon receipt of th~s
begin legal action to ~fo~e its
Your Prom~ a~eation ~ ~is mawr w~J/~ aPPreciated.
PO3
F'NM:eg
Enclosure
xc: Wi/lima W. WOlfe
Borough Manager
Sincerely,
FOREST N. MYERs
$olioitor
BORoUOH of 5p,/PPENS/~URG
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013,
PLAINTIFF
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257, :
DEFENDANTS :
: CIVIL ACTION
: NO. 1995-6484
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
NOTICE
You have been sued in Court. If you wish to defend against
the claims set forth in the following pages, you must
within twenty (20) days after this complaint and take action
served, by entering a written appearance personally or notice are
by attorney
and filing in writing with the Court your defenses or objections
to the claims set forth against you. You are warned that if you
fail to do so, the case may proceed without you and a judgment may
be entered against you by the Court without further notice for any
money claimed in the complaint or for any other claim or relief
requested by the Petitioner, you may lose money or property or
other rights important to you.
YOU SHOULD TAKE THIS PAPER TO YOUR LAWYER AT ONCE. IF YOU DO
NOT HAVE A LAWYER OR CANNOT AFFORD ONE, GO TO OR TELEPHONE THE
OFFICE SET FORTH BELOW TO FIND OUT WHERE YOU CAN GET LEGAL HELP.
Lawyers Referral Service,
Fourth Floor
Cumberland County Courthouse
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 10713
Telephone (717) 240-6200
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plaintiff,
NO. 95-6484
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Defendant, DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
ANSWER AND NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
AND NOW, comes the Defendant, Borough of Shippensburg, by its Solicitor, Forest N.
Myers, and answers the complaint as follows:
1. Admitted
2. Admitted
4. Admitted
5. Admitted
6. Admitted
7. Admitted
8. Admitted
9. Admitted
10. Admitted
I 1. Admitted
12. Admitted
Shippensburg, Code of the Borough of Shippensburg, Chapter 87, Existing Structures is to promote
the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of the Borough of Shippensburg by providing housing
units which are safe and not deteriorated·
14. Admitted
15. Admitted
16. Admitted
17. Admitted
COURT I: DECLARATORY RELIEF
18. No responsive answer is required. See answers to Paragraphs 1-17 which are
incorporated herein by reference.
19. Denied. On the contrary the annual fee in the amount of $50.00 for licensing and
inspection ~s reasonable and necessary for the admunstrat~on of the program and represents the actual
cost necessary for the administration of the program.
20. The allegations of Paragraph 20 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
21. The allegations of Paragraph 21 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
22. The allegations of Paragraph 22 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
WHEREAS, Defendant, Borough of Shippensburg requests your Honorable Court to dismiss
the Complaint of Plaintiff, and assess costs of suit and attorneys fees against Plaintiff, J. Michael
Adler.
COURT II - INJUNCTION
23. No responsive answer is required. See answers to Paragraphs 1-22 which are
incorporated herein by reference.
24. The allegations of Paragraph 24 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
25. The allegations of Paragraph 25 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
26 The allegations of Paragraph 26 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial. By way of further answers, Defendant believes and therefore areas that the
Plaintiff has adequate remedies available to him.
27. Admitted
28. The allegations of Paragraph 28 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
29 The allegations of Paragraph 29 are conclusions of law and do not require either an
admission or denial.
30.
31.
forth above.
NEW MATTER
Paragraphs 1 through 29 are incorporated herein by reference.
Defendant was at all time relevant hereto was the owner of rental properties as set
32. Plalntiffmailed to Defendant rental license application for each unit as required by
the Code of the Borough of Shippensburg, Chapter 87, Existing Structure, Article 10, Rental
License, for the years 1991,1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995.
33.
34.
Defendant returned the required application for all rental units as required.
Defendant has failed to pay the required fees which now amount to $2,400.00.
WHEREAS, Plaintiff requests your Honorable Court to enter judgment against Defendant
in the amount of $ 2,400.00 together with costs of suit and interest.
FOREST N. MYERS~K~ ~
10000 MOLLY PITCHER HIGHWAY
SHIPPENSBURG, PA 17257
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 18064
(717) 532-9046
I verify that the statements made in this Complaint are true and correct, I understand that
false statements herein are subject to the penalties of 18 pa. C.S. Section 4904 relating to unswom
falsification to authorities.
Date:~'-~-- qt:> ~f
~chael P~mental, President -
INSPECTION REPORT
PERMIT NO. 165.0
PROPERTY LOCATION: 18 HOLLAR AV
OWNERS NAME:
PO BOX: STREET:
CITY: CARLISLE
PERMIT TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY
INSPECTION #: CYCLE-1
INITIAL: 04/13/1993
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 1:09/09/1993
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 2:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 3.
DATE PASSED: 09/09/1993
NEXT INSP.: SEPTEMBER
STILL A RENTAL? y
SORT: Y
& 491 NEFF AVENUE
FREEHOLD ENTERPRISES
1442 TRINDLE ROAD
STATE: PA ZIP: 17013
CURRENT INSPECTION COMPLETE:
1996
WHY NOT A RENTAL? UPDATED WITH RENTAL APPL. SUBMITTED;
9-18-96.
02/18/1997
PAGE: 1
N
INSPECTION # CYCLE 2
INITIAL INSPECTION--DATE:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 1:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 2:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 3:
DATE PASSED:
MISC. INFO.:
09/10/1996
INSPECTION ~:
INITIAL INSPECTION DATE:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 1:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 2:
FOLLOW-UP INSP. 3:
DATE PASSED:
MISC. INFO.:
18 HOLLAR ~VENUE
SECTION OF DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
CODE
APT. # 2 - FRONT NORTH ROOM (BEDROOM)
ES-602.3 1.
OTHER
ES-904.4
BASEMENT
ES-303.8.1
APT. #3
E$-303.8.1 1.
FRONT ROOM
ES-602.3 1.
Open ground (receptacle on the
north room).
1. No smoke detector.
1. No handrail on the basement stairway.
Handrail broken to second floor.
Hot & neutral reversed (receptacle on
the south wall).
OTHER
ES-904.4 1. NO smoke detector.
APT. #1 - NORTH ROOM
ES-602.3 1.
The water line must be bonded to the
street side of the water meter using
proper ground clamps & wire size for
the service.
COMPLETE
Y/N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
DATE
COMP.
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
491 NEFF AVENUE
APT. #1 - KITCHEN
ES-602.3 1.
BATHROOM
ES-602.3 1.
Receptacle has foreign material in
ground leg (appears to be the ground
leg from a plug)
Missing switch cover plate.
Y
Y
9-9-93
9-9-93
EXTERIOR
ES-302.4.4
ES-301.1
APT. #2
ES-601.3
ES-601.3
BATHROOM
ES-402.3
OTHER
ES-904.4
No closer on the storm door & missing
bottom panel.
Old chair & bedsprings on rear porch.
No drain line on the pressure relief
valve on the hot water heater.
The drain line on the second hot
water heater must be the same size
pipe as the valve, not down sized
as it presently is.
Exhaust fan doesn't work.
Smoke detector doesn,t work.
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
9-9-93
INSPECTION DATE: 9-~0-96
SECTION OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION
18 HOLLAR AVENUE
APT. #1
KITCHEN
PM-604.3
1.
PM-305.3 2.
BEDROOM
PM-305.3 1.
PM-604.3 2.
PM-305.3 3.
APTo #2
FRONT ROOM
PM-604.3 1.
PM-305.3 2.
PM-305.3 1.
Broken receptacle (receptacle beside
the sink, right ~ide).
Carpet on floor is filthy, torn,
etc. (needs replaced).
Door & door jam~'~amaged.
~issing junction bo~, COVer plate
{north wall near ceiling).
Carpet dirty.
Hot & neutral reversed (receptacle
on the west wall).
Damaged wall (south Wall).
Ceiling damaged (OVer rear
window).
REAR NORTH ROOM
PM-604.3 1. Hot & neutral reversed
APT. #3
BATHROOM
PM-604.3
on the rear Wall).
PM-305.3 2.
(receptacle
Open ground (receptacle in light
above mirror).
Wall damaged (above bathtub).
COMPLETE
Y/N
DATE
COMP.
REAR NORTH ROOM
PM-604.3
1.
PM-604.3
2.
EXTERJOR
PM-304.6
1.
PM-304.6
2.
PM-304.11
PM-304.7 3.
4.
491 NEFF AVENUE
EXTERIOR
PM-304.6
PM-702.9
sslng receptacle _
ec~Ptacle on the ~ plate
and br~u__-~uacle COve
- une south wa~l)~e (receptacle
All areas where existing Paint
is peeling must be SCrapped and
Painted (window frames, sashes,
pOrch decks, etc.).
Rear POrch facia boards
(need re~laced), rotten
Loose bricks on rear pOrch stairs.
MiSsing gutter (front porch roof).
All areas Where existing Paint
is peeling must be
and painted. .-. SCrapped
Handrail required
the alley, on Stairs from
02/18/1997
PAGE: 1
EXISTING STRUCTURES CODE
COMPLAINT REPORT
PERMIT NO. 165.0 INSPECTION NUMBER: COMPLAINT
PROPERTY LOCATION: 18 HOLLAR AV & 491 NEFF AVENUE
TYPE: MULTI-FAMILY INITAL INSPECTION DATE: 01/06/1995
FOLLOW-UP INSPECTION NO.: 1. 05/11/1995 DATE PASSED: 09/19/1995
2. 09/19/1995 NEXT INSPECTION DUE: SEPTEMBER 1998
3.
PROPERTY OWNER INFORMATION:
NAME: FREEHOLD ENTERPRISES
1442 TRINDLE ROAD
CARLISLE PA 17013
MISCELLANEOUS INFORMATION:
INSPECTION DATE: 1-6-95
SECTION OF
CODE
DESCRIPTION OF VIOLATION COMPLETE
Y/N
¢COMPEAINT INSPECTION .:
18 HOLLAR AVENUE
DATE
COMP.
APT.~
FRONT ROOM
ES-602.3
ES-602.3 2.
K~rCHEN
ES-303.3
The three-way switch for the ceiling
fan and the receptacle on the east wall
next to the entrance door does not
work properly.
The wires to both three-way switches
(No. 1 above) have too much bare
conductor exposed at the switch
connections.
Ceiling and the wall of the kitchen
in need of repairs (loose and damaged
plaster and peeling paint; area above
the two double hung windows).
Y 5-11~5
Y 5-11~35
Y ~L~95
NOTE:
The items in the front room must be corrected within two weeks.
The ceiling and wall of the kitchen must be repaired within 90
days.
I will reinspeot this unit on February 1, 1995, at 10:00 a.m.
Sorough of ShippensburB
Statement Of Income And Expenses
Genera[ Fund
For the twelve month period ended DECEMBER 31, 1995
Annual Budget Current
410-145 TRANSFER TO MCVRPO
4~0-146 SPECIAL POLICE
410-351 E AND 0 INSURANCE
C~)
Fire Department
411-164 aOROUGN,S WORKER,S COMP. 5,262.00
411-165 ¥~SPS' WORKER,S COMP. 8,017.00
411-230 FUEL OIL .00
411-250 BLDG. MAINT. SUPPLIES .00
411-327 aAOIO MAINTENANCE 600.00
411-337 AUTO ALLO~ANG£ -CNIEF 600.00
&11-551 FIRE & LIABILITy INS.
411-352 CASUALTY [NS.
411-360 ELECTRICITy .00
411-380 BUlLD.ING MAINTENANCE .00
411-420 DUES, PUBS, CONV. EXP. .00
411.540 CONTRIBUTORY STIPEND 58,500.00
411-741NEU VEHICLES .00
411-745 MAJOR EOUlPMENT & PROdECT$ (OECK) .00
Totat If) $ ?0,979.00
· [nnjng, ZonJng~ Code Enforcement
414.100 EOBE ENFCHT. OFFICER 27,170.00
414-143 COOE ENFDMT. CLERICA~ 24,894.00
414-152 DENTAL INSURANCE 790.00
414-156 ac/Rs 8,349.00
~14-325 POSTAGE 300.00
~14-340 ADVERTISING & COURT STENOGRAPHER 700.00
414-342 HARU COSTS 600.00
41~-~52 CASUALTY INS. 614.00
414-374 VEIIICLE MAINT. 400.00
414-420 ~ORKSHOP FEES & EXP. 200.00
414-7~1NE~ VEIllCLE .00
Percent Of
Year-To-Date Annuat Budget
Remaining
Budget
541,921.00 45,160.09 541,921.00 100.0 .00
000.00 .00 832.00 104.0 '32.00
2~500.00 .00 .00 .0 , 2,500.00
$ 545,221.00 $ 45,160.09 S 542,753.00 99.5 $ 2,~68.00
.00 3,262.00 100.0
.00 0,017.00 100.0
.00 .00 .0
.00 .00 .0
29.44 474.81 79.1
.00 600.00 100.0
.00 .00 .0
.00 .00 .0
.00 .00 .0
.00 .00 .0
.00 5~,484.00 91.4
.00 .00 .0
$ 29.44 $ 65,837.81 92.8
.00
.00
.00
.00
125.19
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
5,016.00
.00
.00
$ 5,141.19
2,090.62 27,178.04
1,920.00 24,039.00
.00 760.80
676.10 8,113.20
133.00 1~596.00
19.20 221.40
306.82 3,838.21
.00 239.98
.00 .00
823.00 8~3.00
.00 611,76
13.36 204.51
.00 153.87
50.00 1,129.20
817.50 6,003.75
167.64 485.79
.00 295.57
469.90 1,944.65
.00 59.00
.00 .00
.00 439.15
.00 .00
.00 .00
.00 ,00
7,487.14 S 78,136.88
100.0 -.04
96.6 855.00
96.3 29.20
97.2 2~5.80
116.2 - 223.00
96.7 7.60
88.2 511.79
72.1 93.02
.0 655.00
100.0 .00
102.0 -11.76
10~.3 -4.51
76.9 46.13
32.3 2,3?0.80
240.2 '3,503.75
48.6 514.21
98.5 4.43 .... '
277.8 '10244.65
9.8 541.00
.0 614.00
109.8 -39.15
.0 200.00
.0 .00
.0 .00
97.9 $ 1,651.12
105.80 2,206.55 100.3 -6.55
81.54 1,005.87 45.7 1~194.13
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE NINTH
JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013,
PLAINTIFF
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257,
DEFENDANTS
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 1995-6484
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that August 8, 1996, a tree and correct copy of the Answer and New Matter of
Defendant was served by first class mail, postage prepaid on the attorney for the Plaintiff:
Lee Stivale, Esquire
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL
17 W. Third Street
P.O. Box 108
Media, PA 19063
Dated:
August 8, 1996
Forest N. Myers
Solicitor, Borough of Shippensburg
V 'R~'FICATiON
i, J. MIC' !AEL, -DLER, state the facts scl t,.,, foregoing Complaint are/ruc
· 'c~ ',ate Io the best of my knowledge, info~ation a,~ Oelie[ I underst; -a~ false
state~:,..,~s hcrei~ a.e ruade subject to tL ,,en,a~ies of 1~ '~ C.S.A. ~1904, relating to
unsworn a s t ca0on to autho:ities.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
J. MI[CHAEL ADLER
Plaintiff,
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
Defendant,
NO. 95-6484
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
STIPULATION OF FACTS
NOW COMES, Forest N. Myers, Esquire, solicitor of the Borough of Shippensburg.
Defendant, Lee A, Sfivale. Esquire. attorney for J. Michael Adler, Plaintiff and stipulate to the
following:
1.
located ar:
J. Michael Adler is the fee owner or equitable owner of the following real properties
(a)
Co)
(c)
(d)
105 Springhouse Road, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and.
18 Hollar Avenue, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania; and.
341 East Fort S~xeet. Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
343 East Fort Street, Borough of Shippensburg,
Cumberland County, Pennsylvania.
112 19 97 UE[/ I 9 11 FiX 611161144fl75 R(IBERT
The above listed properties will be collectively referred to as "Rental Properties."
2. The real property located at 105 Springhouse Road, Borough of Shippensburg., is
unproved with a single family, detached dwelling and at all times relevant has been leased
residential occupancy.
3. The real property located at t8 Hol]ar Avenue, Borough of Shippensburg, is
improved with five single family dwelling units located in two building smmmres, and al all limes
relevant have been leased for residential occupancy.
4. The real property located at 341 East Fort Street. Borough of Shippenshurg, ~s
improved with residential duplex property, and at all times relevant has been leased for residenlial
occupancy.
5. The real property located at 343 East Fort Street, Borough of Shippensburg, is
improved with residential tri-plex property, and at all thnes relevant has been leased for residential
occupancy.
6. Defendant, Borough of Shippensburg, Cumberland and Franklin Counties,
Pennsylvania, is a municipal corporation incorporated under the general law of the Colmnonwealth
of Pennsylvania, having an address of 60 W. Burd Street. ShtPpensburg, Pennsylv,'mia '17257
7. On May 19, 1987, the Defendant, Shippensburg, enacted Ordinance NO. 552 and
codified the same as Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the Code of Skippensburg. Pursuant to
Ordinance 552, the Borough adopted by reference the Building Officials and Code Administrators
(BOCA) International. lnc. National Existing Structures Code, Second Edition, 1984. and codified
same as Chapter 87 of the Code of the Borough of Shippensburg. Pennsylvania.
8. Robert Weaver is the Code Enforcemenl Officer of Shippensburg Borough and is
responsible for conducting inspections of Regulated Residential Properties in ~he Borough under
Chapter 87.
9. The Rental Properties are "Regulated Residential Properties" and are subject to
inspechon and licensing under Chapter 87, Existing Structures. of the Shippcnsburg Borough Code.
10. The Borough registered 1,249 Regulated Residential Properties in 1993.
11. The Borough registered 1,248 Regulated Residential Properties in 1994.
12. The Borough registered 1,251 Regulated Residential Properties in 1995.
13. The Borough issued 528 Rental Licenses in 1993. Each Rental License may include
more than one Regulated Rental Unit.
14. The Borough issued 529 Rental Licenses m 1994.
15. The Borough issued 523 Rental Licenses in 1995.
16. Pursuant to Chapter 87. the Borough charges an annual license and inspection fee
of $50.00 for each Regulated Residential Unit, and derived the following fees:
1993 $61,910.00
1994 $64.325.00
1995 $64.900.00
The Borough did not derive any fees for "Follow-up Inspections" in 1903, 1994, and
17.
I995.
18.
The Borough inspects each Regulated Rental Property once every three years.
Respectfully submit'ted,
Lee A. Stivale, Esq.
L
Fores~ N. Myers, Esqutre
J. MICHAEL ADLER,
Plaintiff
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG,:
Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
95-6484 CIVIL TERM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INJUNCTION
IN RE: PRETRIAL CONFERENCE
A pretrial conference was held by telephone conference call on Monday, December 9,
1996. Representing the plaintiff is Lee Stivale, Esquire. Forest N. Myers, Esquire, appears for
the defendant.
This is a declaratory judgment action in which the plaintiff questions the validity and
amount of annual registration and inspection fees for rental units in the Borough of
Shippensburg.
The validity of the questioned fees appears to be established in the appellate courts. It is
anticipated, therefore, that the central question at the trial of the case will be the reasonableness
of the $50.00 fee charged by the Borough. Counsel agreed that much of the factual record of the
case can be adduced by stipulation.
The plaintiff intends to supplement his witness list to include other landlords. Other than
that, there appear to be no other logistical considerations prior to trial.
Trial herein will commence on Wednesday, February 19, 1997, at 9:30 a.m. The court has
reserved the morning of February 20, 1997, in the event that more time is needed. Counsel
should file trial memoranda with the Court not less than two days prior to the date set for trial.
December 9, 1996 Kev~'~AiHess,/~J.
/
Lee A. Stivale, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Forest N. Myers, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rlm
J. MICHAEL ADLER,
Plaintiff
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
95-6484 CIVIL TERM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INJUNCTION
ORDER
AND NOW, this 2 s ~ day of November, 1996, a pretrial conference in the
above captioned nonjury trial is set for Monday, December 9, 1996, at 9:15 a.m., and is to be
conducted by telephone conference. Mr. Stivale, counsel for the plaintiff, will initiate said
conference call·
Lee A. Stivale, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Forest N. Myers, Esquire
For the Defendant
BY THE COURT,
· Hess, J.
:rim
-OFFICE
CU','., ,~,';-, i C,~,tJh~i't'
pENNSYLV,~'~NiA
09-19-96 02:22 PM TO 71¢53L879" r~ POI
P~RA~CIP£, .FOR LI~TEq~.. CASE FOR TRIAL
{Mua[ b~ ~l~written arl~ submittod ~n duplica£e)
TO TI'Iff PROTHONOTARY:OF CL%IBF..RLAtN'D COUNTY
( ) for 1URY tdal ~[ ~;h~ n~.X~ :e'~m of ,:l. vfl courn
(XXX) for ~
C.~TXON OF CAS~
(e~ti~ ¢.~tm~ mu~ b~ stat~l ia full)
J. Richael Adler
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013
(lqamuIO
Borough of Shippensburg
60 ~, Burd Street
shipPen,,~burg, PA 17257
( ) AuumpsiT
~e~i&la will be hel~ on '.
(Briefs a~a d~a 5 days before
trials.)
(The par=2 liscimg ~his case fo.
s~aI1 9rovic~ fo==h~ith a copy of
~raec~pa ~o all co~se~, pu~suan=
Iocal Rule
~.95-6484
Iadi~a~ the a~com~who ~ ~J~tche p~r~ who'fi~sG'~p~cipe:
Attorney for Plaintiff, 17 West Third St., Media, PA 19063
h~'Wd~IIfOrmbrp~owfl:
Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257
~ ~ I~ rg~d¥ fur real
~:d-19-1996 02: 15P~1'
,. L9
Lee A. , Sttvale~ Esquire,
610-565-3950
Forest N. Myers, Esqu. ire, 10000 Molly Pitcher
Lee A. Stivale, Esquire
Prim NAme;
J** Michael Adler
Attorney for: ...........
P. 01
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL, P'C'
BY: LEE A. ST1vALE, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 46511
17 wEST THIRD STREET
.O, BOX 105 ~
pENNSYLVANIA
~EDIA, pENNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 565-3950
IN THE coURT OF COMMON pLEAS OF C~BE~D coUNTY, cI~L ACTION - LAW
NO. 95-6~84
3. MICheL ADLER
1~2 Trindle Road
Carlisle, Pe~Ylv~a 17013 pla~tiff,
~S.
BOROUGH OF SHiPPENsBURG DECLA~TORY jUDGMENT
60 W. Burd S~eet
Shippe~burg, pe~sylv~a 17257 iN]UNCTION
Defender, ~S~R TO ~W ~T~R OF
~~ BORO~GB OF S~S~
The pla~t~, 3. Michel Adler, ~ou~ its cou~el, ~e A. Stivale, Esqu~e, hereby
responds to ~e New MaKer of Defendant and sm~s as follows:
30. No respo~e necessa~.
31. DeMed. It is a~iaed ~at ~e pi~t~ff was at all ~es relevant hereto, ~e owner
of ~e ren~ prope~ies as described ~ ~e uomplamt-
32. Admitted.
33. Admitted. is a conclusion of law to which no response is required.
34. Denied. The averment requestS this Honorabl~Court to dismiss the New Matter ot
WHEREAS, ]. Michael Adler ...... --i-~,~
Borough of Shippensburg. ~
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL
ATToP. NEYS AT LAW * 17 wEST THIRD sTREET * P.O, BOX 108 * MEDIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
VERIFICATION
I, J. MICHAEL ADLER, verify that the facts set forth in the
foregoing Answer to New Matter are true and Correct to the best of
my knowledge, information and belief and that said statements are
made subject to the penalties of 18 Pa. C.S. 4904 relating to
unsworn falsification to authorities.
J. MICHAEL ADLER
02:22
PRAECIPE FOR LISTL'NG CASE FOR TRIAl
(Must be .~'pewHtten and submitted in duplicate)
TO THE PROTHONOTARY:OF CL.%ISERLAMO COUNTY
Please ',,Lst '~e
(Ch~c~ ,)ne) ( ) tot IURY trial at the next :era o~ :iv~ court.
- ~ ......
(~ ~p~a m~t ~ m[~ ~ ¢~) (~ one)
I442 Trindle Road ( ) rte~p~
Carlisle, PA 17013
( ) T~ (Motor
Borough of Shippensburg
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257
(Defen&~'.0
(.X~)
The trial list w:Lll be aalled on
-- sad
Tr/ala co-~-?nce on
Precris].a will be he].d oa ..
(afters are due 5 clays before pre-,
trials. )
shall prov'id~ forthwi=h a copy of =he
~rae¢ipe Co all counsel, pursuant Co
ocal Rule 21a-1.)
D~eclarqtor~ Rellef/Inj~,,lction
,~. 9~5-6484 C~fl __
lad~a~ the attorney who ~ c~ case for the par~/ wha' ~lcs ~ praecipe: Lee I. Stivale' Esquire,
Att°rn~ird St., Media, PA 19063 610-565-3950
~"d~ ~ ~ for m~er parges ~kaown: Forest N. Myers, Esquire, 10000 Molly Pitcher
Road, Shippensburg, PA 17257 -- , ·
Lee I. $tival.e, Esquire.
Attorney for: _J" Mich, ae..1 Adler
P.01
MARCH, HURWITZ, DeMARCO & MITCHELL, P.C.
BY: LEE A. STIVALE, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEy I.D. NO. 46511
17 WEST THIRD STREET
P.O. BOX 108
i~-.DIA, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 565-3950
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANiA
CIVIL ACI'ION. LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plaintiff,
NO. 95-6484
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Defendant,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTON
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE
I, FOREST N. MYERS, ESQUIRE, counsel for the defendant, Borough of
Shippensburg, hereby accept service of the Complaint filed at the above term and number.
Dated:
FORES~
ROBERT JAMEs JACKSON ASSOCIATES
BY: LEE A. STIVALE, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEy I.D. NO. 46511
MILLS AT VICTORIA, SUITE 301
1489 BALTIMORE PIKE
SPRINGFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
(610) 604-4970
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road : NO. 95~6484
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plaintiff, : Before Judge Hess
VS.
:
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Defendant,
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF, J. MICHAEL ADLER
Procedural Background:
The Plaintiff, j. Michael Adler, commenced this action by complaint on November 14,
1995. On August 6, 1996, the Borough of Shippensburg filed its Answer and New Matter. A
response to New Matter was filed by the Plaintiff on October 28, 1996.
Discovery is complete and no outstanding discovery motions are pending with the Court of
Common Pleas.
By pre-trial Order, this matter was scheduled before the Honorable Judge Hess on
Wednesday, February 19, ~997.
II Summary of Discussion:
Under the guise of the Police Power, Shippensburg Borough owns a monopoly on the right
to demand the inspection of residential rental dwellings for a profit. The Borough resident is
subject to the Borough's discretion to establish the fee and the Parameters of the inspection without
competition from the private sector.
Since 1988, Shippensburg Borough has been in the business of inspecting homes for a profit,
a very large profit. Because of its monopoly status, Shippensburg Borough has extorted inspection
fees which are many times its actual costs to implement the inspection program and any reasonable
estimate from the private sector for an equivalent service.
The current Borough inspection ordinance requires the owner of a residential rental unit to
pay fifty ($50.00) each year for an inspection which occurs once every three years. Therefore, the
effective cost for each inspection of one dwelling is one hundred fifty ($150.00) dollars.
In comparison, the reasonable estimate of cost to perform an equivalent inspection from the
private sector is twenty five ($25.00) dollars for each inspection. Hence, the Borough has been
charging its citizens six times the private sector rate.
III Concise Statement of the Facts
On May 19, 1987, the Defendant, Shippensburg, enacted Ordinance No. 552 and codified
the same as Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the Code of Shippensburg. Article 10 of Chapter
87, existing structures requires the annual licensure of Regulated Residential Properties. Prior to
1990, the annual fee was twenty five ($25.00) dollars for each rental dwelling. The annual fee was
~ncreased in 1990 to fifty ($50.00) dollars per dwelling unit?
Approximately one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) Regulated Residential Rental Units
are located and licensed within Shippensburg Borough. The Borough of Shippensburg, despite
~ Prior to ~990, the Borough charged an annual inspection fee of $25.00 for each rental
dwelling. From 1988 to 1990, the Cumberland County Redevelopment and Housing Authority
Performed the annual inspections of the Regulated Residential Dwellings under Chapter 87 for
the annual consideration of $10,000.00. The Redevelopment Authority, for the stated annual
consideration of $10,000.00, was required to inspect between 600 and 750 dwellings
Hence the cost to the Borough for each inspection performed ranged annually.
from $13.34 to $16.67.
In or about 1990, the Borough assumed the inspection responsibilities and doubled the
annual inspection fee from $25.00 to $50.00.
charging the $50.00 annual licensing and inspection fee, inspects each rental dwelling only once
every three years. Therefore, the effective fee for each triennial inspection is $150.00.
The Borough derives approximately $00,000-$05,000 annually from residential the annual
inspection\licensing fees on 1,250 regulated rental dwellings. However, the Borough only expends
a small percentage of the fee revenues to satisfy the direct costs of the inspection and licensure
program.
VI Issues:
IS THE ANNUAL INSPECTION\LICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONA .
COMMENSURATE T TE AND NOT
O THE DIRECT COST ~,~ ..... REASONABLY
S -~,~t~D BY THE BOROUGH TO
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERV/CE UNDER CHAPTER 87?
IS THE ANNUAL INSPECTION\LICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONA
COMMENSURATE TO THE RE- ...... TE AND NOT REASt'In;a ~ .,,
INSPECTION SERVICES TO IMPLEMENTLE CHARGE FROM PRIVATE SECTOR
CHAPTER 87? THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER
VI Discussion:
A. THE ANNUAL INSPECT/ON\LICENSE FEE OF SS0.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPOR
COMMENSURATE TO TIONATE AND NO
THE DIRECT COSTS INCURREr~ ,,,. _).T~_ REASONABLY
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER CHAPTER 87.
~' ~ IHE BOROUGH TO
1. The power and limits of the Borough to Tax.
The power of taxation, in all forms and of whatever nature, lies solely in the General
Assembly of the Commonwealth acting under aegis of the Constitution. Absent an express grant
or delegation of power to tax from the General Assembly, no municipality, has any power or
authority to levy, assess or to collect taxes. To determine whether a municipality possesses the
power to tax and, if so, the extent of such power, recourse must be had to the acts of the General
Assembly. ~ B~_,__B.B.B.B.B.B.~, 433 Pa. 352,250 A.2d 447 (1969). The power to levy general
or special taxes must be plainly and unmistakably conferred and not found by implication; and that
tax statutes should be construed strictly with all doubts being resolved against the taxing body.
Price v. T Revi w Bo f II~ff'~L~]lJ~, 409 Pa. 479, ,187 A.2d 280, 282 (1963),
following, ~, Pa. ,185 A.2d 529 (1962).
Shippensburg Borough is not lawfully enabled to raise general or special tax revenues
through fees for inspections of private residential dwellings for health, safety and welfare purposes.
The Borough is limited to levy and collect tax revenues for the enumerated reasons under 53 P.S.
Section 46302, none of which includes taxes for inspections.
The Borough is lawfully enabled only to % . . prescribe r~ fees for services of their
[its] officers... , Borough Code of 1966, Feb. 1, P.L. (1965), No. 581, Section 1202, as
amended, 53 P.S. Section 46202 (1) (1997).
2. The Lawful Limits of Municipal Fees.
A fee which is determined unreasonable is a violation of the Borough Code. ~_~ ~
~idl&y_, Pa. , 531 A.2d 414 (1987). When the license fee
generates more than the amount commensurate with the expense of the administrative license, the
license fee ceases to be valid and is deemed to be an unlawful general or special tax. In the case
of~, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined a license fee and stated:
A license fee is a sum assessed for the granting of a privilege. In most instances,
where a license is granted the City invariably incurs expense such as the cost of
registration and inspection; it is only proper that the one who seeks and receives a
license should bear this expense. To defray this cost of a license a fee is charged
to the licensee; however, this fee must be commensurate with the expense incurred
by the City in connection with the issuance and Supervision of the license or
privilege.
~, at , 250 A.2d at 464.
Following the license test set forth in .~t~rane~l~), the Commonwealth Court in the case
°f ~/'322~llP2JYa~Jl~, 123 Pa. Commw. 313, 553 A.2d 518 (1989) stated:
A license fee is distinguishable from a tax that is a revenue producing measure
characterized by the Production of a high proportion of income relative to the costs
of collection and supervision. (citations omitted.) Thus, if a license fee collects
more than an amount COmmensurate with the expense of administering the license,
it would become a tax revenue and cease to be a valid license fee.
Tal_.~le, at , 553 A.2d at 520.
The municipality is given Some latitude to establish reasonable charges to COver the
anticipated expenses to be incurred in the inspection program. ~¢~, 408
Pa. 128, 182 A.2d 698 (1962). However, as a rule of limitation, the measure of the costs related
to an administrative license fee program are only the ~ costs incurred by the municipality.
Martin M i v H m riel T . Z.111A, Pa. Commw. ,651 A.2d at 1171.
3. The Burden in this Case.
The party challenging the license fee has the burden of proving that the fee is unreasonable.
See, Tal.._~/ey, at ,553 A.2d at 520.
4. The Economic Analysis.
The Plaintiff will be present evidence concerning the charges and the direct costs to
implement the Borough inspection program. The Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the evidence
will demonstrate that the total direct costs to administer the inspection program is approximately
one-half of the fees being charged by the Borough.
The evidence will also demonstrate that the Borough subsidizes the many Borough building,
planning and code enforcement functions with the revenues generated from the part time inspection
of the residential rental units. The subsidy, or profit, derived from the inspection program provides
this Court with lawful foundation to declare the Ordinance un/awful.
B. THE ANNUAL INSPECTION\LICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO THE REASONABLE CHARGE FROM PRIVATE SECTOR
INSPECTION
CHAPTER 87.SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER
1. Private Sector Comparison.
Government must be fair and reasonable in its charge for services that it dictates upon its
citizens. "If government cannot provide services at least of a quality and at a cost commensurate
with similar services provided by private enterprise, it is by definition, unreasonable to utilize tax
dollars for that PUrpose. ~, $31 A.2d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987).
The Supreme Court in ~ held that a municipal fee for trash collection at more than twice
the cost of equivalent private sector violated the statue authorizing first class townships to impose
reasonable fees for that PUrpose. ~ v'-~l~[~[~ 531 A.2d 414, 418
(Pa. 1987). ,
2. The Evidence.
The Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the evidence will demonstrate that the Borough was
providing the inspection services to its citizens for a cost less than $20.00 per dwelling inspection;
and further that private sector charges for equivalent inspection services would be no more than
$25.00 per inspection. In comparison, the Borough charges $150.00 for each inspection performed;
six times the private sector charge and more than eight times the cost the Borough incurred prior
to its termination of the inspection contract with the Cumberland County Redevelopment and
Housing Authority.
IV Damages Claimed
Should this Court declare that the Borough inspection fee is Unreasonable and therefore
invalid, then all fees paid by the Plaintiff shall be reimbursed to him. ~
~, 531 A.2d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987).
In the instant matter, the Borough took judgment against the Plaintiff for uncollected
inspection fees. This Court is requested to enjoin the Borough from executing upon such.judgment.
CONCLUSION:
It is respectfully requested that this Court find that Shippensburg Borough abused its
stewardship by charging exorbitant fees for the inspection of rental homes. The revenues derived
from the inspection program unlawfully subsidize many building and planning programs in the
Borough.
Michael Adler requests the provision for fees under Chapter 87 of the Borough Code be
declared void.
Respectfully submitted,
LEE A. STIVALE, ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
J. Michael Adler
J. MICHAEL ADLER,
Plaintiff
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG,
Defendant
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
95-6484 CIVIL TERM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INJUNCTION
IN RE: ACTION IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
BEFORE HESS_~J.
ORDER
AND NOW, this ~'/~' day of April, 1997, the prayer of the plaintiff for
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is GRANTED. The court declares that while an
annual fee for the inspection and issuance of an operating license under Chapter 87, Existing
Structures, of the Shippensburg Borough Code, as amended, is lawful, the amount of the current
fee is excessive and, accordingly, invalid. The Ordinance of the borough of Shippensburg setting
the annual inspection fee in the amount of $50.00 for each residential unit is declared void and
the borough is hereby enjoined from the collection of same.
BY THE COURT,
Lee A. Stivale, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Forest N. Myers, Esquire
For the Defendant
i~A. Hess, J.
:rlm
J. MICHAEL ADLER, :
Plaintiff :
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG,:
Defendant :
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
95-6484 CIVIL TERM
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT INJUNCTION
I_N RE: ACTION IN DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
BEFORE HESS J.
_OPINION AND ORDER
The plaintiff, J. Michael Adler, commenced this declaratory judgment and injunction
action on November 14, 1996. The case raises two issues for determination by the Court. The
first is whether a municipality may enact and enforce an ordinance which imposes licensing
regulations on rental housing structures and units and requires payment of an annual fee. If the
enactment of such an ordinance is lawful, the second question becomes whether the fee imposed
upon rental units within the borough of Shippensburg is reasonable. At our recent trial of this
case, the following facts were adduced.
In the past decade and a half, the borough of Shippensburg has observed a large increase
in the number of housing units in the borough which were being rented. This has been
attributed, in large measure, to the number of Shippensburg University students who live off
campus. In the mid 1980s it became apparent that more units in the borough were rented than
were occupied by owners. Seeking to reverse a trend of deterioration in its housing, the Borough
Council of Shippensburg adopted Ordinance No. 552. This ordinance implemented the BOCA
Existing Structures Code, Second Edition 1997, with certain amendments. The ordinance
required a license to operate rental units within the borough of Shippensburg and imposed a
$25.00 fee per unit. The ordinance was initially enforced on a part-time basis by personnel from
95-6484 CIVIL
the Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County, under COntract to the borough. In 1990,
for reasons which COntinue to be unclear, the Borough Council doubled~ the fee to $50.00 per
unit. A triennial inspection program was adopted, meaning that each unit is inspected in full
every third year. At the same time, it was decided that borough personnel would administer and
enforce the program. A practical application of these facts reveals a fee of $150.00 per triennial
inspection.
The inspection program continues to be administered by Robert Weaver, the Borough
Code Enforcement Officer. Mr. Weaver has a clerical assistant. The salary of Mr. Weaver and
his secretary, together with all of their benefits and compensation insurance, total approximately
$73,000.00. Mr. Weaver and his secretary have numerous other responsibilities besides the
administration of the rental inspection program. Through 1995, Mr. Weaver was zoning
secretary. As zoning officer he reviews building permits and responds to zoning complaints. He
is authorized to issue citations and prosecute cases. He handles nuisance complaints, including
abandoned vehicles, weeds, refrigerators and trash and garbage complaints. He has also served
as planning secretary and has been involved in reviewing subdivisions. He attends all Planning
Commission meetings. He is, in addition, "existing structure" secretary as well as secretary to the
Historical and Architectural Review Board. A portion of his salary is also borne by the
sanitation budget in keeping w/th his responsibilities in that regard.
Both sides have given testimony in an effort to equate the licensing and inspection fee to
the actual cost of the administration of the program. Without belaboring the numbers before us,
we believe that the plaintiff reaches the more accurate conclusion. The program itself generates
approximately $65,000.00 in annual income to the borough. Given that the inspection program is
by no means Mr. Weaver's sole responsibility, plaintiff suggests, and we agree, that the cost of
2
95-6484 CIVIL
the program to the borough is approximately half the amount of money generated. In addition,
the plaintiff's expert, John J. Mallon, testified credibly that an inspector would be well paid at
$35.00 per inspection. Doubling this amount to allow for follow-up and overhead would result in
a charge of approximately $75.00, or $25.00 per year under Shippensburg's triennial system.
Again, at $50.00 per year the charge would appear to be twice what it should be.
Addressing the first question raised by the plaintiffs, we conclude that the borough of
Shippensburg is entitled to impose a license fee for the inspection of residential rental units
pursuant to 53 P.S. Section 46202 (1) (1997). Section 46202 states that a borough may "prescribe
reasonable fees for the services of their officers and to enforce the payment of the same." The
sort of fee in this case, a license fee, is more extensively described in _Mastran~elo v. Buckley, 433
Pa. 352, 250 A.2d 447 (1969):
A license fee is a sum assessed for the granting of a
privilege. In most instances, where a license is
granted the City invariably incurs expense such as
the cost of registration and inspection; it is only
proper that the one who seeks and receives a license
should bear this expense. To defray this cost of a
license a fee is charged to the licensee; however,
this fee must be commensurate with the expense
incurred by the City in Connection with the issuance
and supervision of the license of privilege.
Essentially, a license fee may be enforced by the borough, but it must be reasonable. In fact, the
Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court has found that "if a license fee collects more than an amount
COmmensurate with the expense of administering the license, it would become a tax revenue~ and
cease to be a valid license fee." _Talle¥ v. Commonwealth, 123 Pa. Commwlth, 3~3, 553 A.2d 518,
~ A borough is limited to levy and collect tax revenues for the enumerated reasons
under 53 P.S. Section 46202, which does not include taxes for inspections.
3
95-6484 CIVIL
519 (1989). The party challenging the license fee has the burden of proving that the fee is
excessive. Id_~.at , 553A.2d at 520.
Based on the testimony we have outlined above and the documentary evidence submitted
by the plaintiff, it is our conclusion that the fee charged by the borough is clearly unreasonable.
The annual fee was originally $25.00 for each rental unit, but in ~990 it was increased to $50.00
per unit. Approximately 1,250 regulated residential rental units are located and licensed within
the borough of Shippensburg, and, therefore, the borough has collected between $60,000.00 and
$65,000.00 annually in the past several years.
The implementation of the inspection and licensing program is relatively simpl;. The
entire program is operated by the inspector and his secretary. It is the borough's policy to
inspect a rental unit once every three years, and these inspections generally take less than half an
hour and, in some cases, much less. The combined annual salaries of the inspector and secretary
together with other operating costs averaged $71,500.00 per year over the past three years.
While this amount corresponds with the approximately $65,000.00 raised by the licensing fees, it
is critical to note that, at most, half of the inspection officer's and his secretary's time is spent on
the licensing program. In other words, this amount includes the entire salary of the Code
Enforcement Officer and his secretary who discharge numerous other responsibilities having to
do with building, zoning and planning.
From our review of the cases, we are satisfied that it is not our role, today, to declare
what the fee should be. Thus, it is only a gratuitous observation that when the fee was doubled
in 1990, it was then that the borough may have crossed the Rubicon in this case. Such an
express finding, however, is not necessary to the resolution of the instant matter.
95-6484 CIVIL
AND NOW, this t/·
day of April, 1997, the prayer of the plaintiff for
declaratory judgment and injunctive relief is GRANV]gED. The COurt declares that while an
annual fee for the inspection and issuance of an Operating liCense under Chapter 87, Existing
Structures, of the ·
Sh~ppensburg Borough Code, as amended, is lawful, the amount of the current
fee is excessive and, accordingly, invalid. The Ordinance of the borough of Shippensburg setting
the annual inspection fee in the amount of $50.00 for each residential unit is declared void and
the borough is hereby enjoined from the collection of same.
By THE COURT,
Lee A. Stivale, Esquire
For the Plaintiff
Forest N. Myers, Esquire
For the Defendant
:rim
5
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013,
PLAINTIFF
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257,
DEFENDANTS
: CIVIL ACTION
: NO. 1995-6484
: DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
TRIAL BRIEF OF
DEFENDANT
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
This case presents two issues which the Court will determine. The threshold issue which
must be addressed is, whether a municipality may enact and enforce an Ordinance which imposes
licensing regulations on rental housing structures and units and required payment of an annual fee
for that privilege? If the Court determines that municipality may regulate rental housing structures
and units within its corporate limits, then the second issue to be addressed is: whether the rental fee
imposed upon rental units within the Borough of Shippensburg is reasonable?
FACTS:
The Borough of Shippensburg is a small, rural community which straddles the Cumberland
and Franklin County lines. Adjacent to the Borough is Shippensburg Township which hosts
Shippensburg University, a member institution of the State System of Higher Education. The
University has an undergraduate student population of approximately 6000 students about 4500 of
which are "residential" students, meaning they do not commute daily to their academic classes, but
reside in dormitories or private housing units in the township and surrounding municipalities,
primarily the Borough.
In the early 1980's the Council of the Borough observed a large increase in the number of
housing units in the Borough which were being rented. This trend continued such that in the mid
1980's more of the housing units in the Borough were rented than occupied by owners
(approximately 55 %). Council also noted that many of these rental housing units were
deteriorating, so much so that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania declared Shippensburg a
"Disadvantaged Community" making it eligible for grants and loan from the Commonwealth. One
of the criteria used to make that determination was the quality of the housing stock.
Borough Council, in 1986, determined to seek ways to reverse the trend of the deterioration
of its housing stock, primarily rental; and began to investigate enactment of an Ordinance adopting
the Existing Structures Code of Building Officials and Code Administrators. The Borough Council
desired to enact on ordinance which would promote safe, and healthy housing for all its citizens. It
determined that enactment of legislation calling for the licensing and inspection of rental housing
units within the borough would help to promote a safe and healthful environment for tenants.
In 1987, the Borough Council adopted Ordinance No. 552, codified in the Code of the
Borough of Shippensburg, at Chapter 87. This ordinance implemented the BOCA Existing
Structures Code, Second Edition 1987, with certain amendments. It required a license to operate
rental units within the Borough of Shippensburg and imposed a twenty-five ($25.00) dollars fee per
unit. This ordinance was initially enforced on a part-time basis by persormel from the
Redevelopment Authority of Cumberland County, under contract to the Borough.
In 1990, the Council saw a need for increased inspection services and developed a plan to
provide the licensing and inspection of rental houses by borough personnel. The program calls for
inspection of rental houses within the borough upon their initial conversion to rental units and on
a three year cycle thereafter, unless a complaint is filed with the borough. The program is
administered by the Code Enforcement Officer, who is assisted by a clerical employee.
As the number of rental units grew, reaching 1254 units in 523 structures by 1995, Council
in 1990 increased the fee to ftfly ($50.00) dollars per unit, adopted a tri-annual inspection program,
meaning each unit is inspected in full every third year, and used borough personnel to administer and
enforce the program.
The Plaintiff, J. Michael Adler, owns, either in legal or equitable title, five structures,
containing eleven (11) rental units. Mr. Adler has failed to pay the rental fee for these units in the
amount of Five Hundred Fifty ($550.00) Dollars, annually since approximately 1991. Notice was
sent to Mr. Adler requesting payment of the amount due, and indicating legal action would be taken
to enforce the ordinance upon his failure to pay the sums due. Adler has failed to pay those fees as
well as the fees for the units for 1995 and 1996, currently owing $3,100.00.
Suit was instituted on behalf of Mr. Adler in 1995 seeking to have the ordinance declared
unconstitutional and unenforceable and an injunction issued to prevent enforcement of the Ordinance
against Ms. Adler. By agreement of Counsel, the Borough stayed any further effort to collect the fees
due from Mr. Adler, pending the determination of this court.
The matter is now ripe for decision and this brief is provided on behalf of the borough, for
the trial of the matter.
ISSUES
May a municipality adopt an Ordinance requiring regulations of rental housing units
and imposing a fee for obtaining a license to operate rental housing units ?
The initial challenge of Plaintiff is to the constitutionality of Chapter 87 of the Code of the
Borough of Shippensburg. Plaintiff cites no provision of the Constitution, United States or
Pennsylvania, which is violated by the Borough's enactment of the Existing Structures Code. It can
only be assumed that Plaintiff believes the Ordinance is unconstitutional under the (1) Fourth
Amendment (Unlawful Search and Seizures), U.S. Constitution Fourth Amendment; (2) violates the
Fourteenth Amendment (Equal Protection Clause) U.S. Constitution 14th Amendment; or deprives
the owner of structures due process in violation of the due process. Clause of the United States
Constitution, Fourteenth Amendment.
These issues have been addressed by the Courts of the Comanonwealth, and the Federal
Courts, most recently in the United States District Court, Middle District of Pennsylvania in the case
of Lock Haven Property Owners Association, et al, v. City of Lock Haven, 911 F. Supp. 155
Pa 1995). The facts in this case are strikingly similar to those in the case at bar. There the City of
Lock Haven adopted a rental unit registration ordinance requiring the inspection and licensing of
rental units in the municipality and imposing a licensing fee.
Property owners sought to set aside the ordinance a~ constitutional grounds, arguing that the
ordinance violates the Fourth Amendment against illegal search and seizure, the Equal Protection
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the due process provisions of the Constitution, among
others. The Court addressed and rejected each of these arguments.
With respect to the Fourth Amendment challenge, the Court found that the Ordinance in
question withstood the challenge to its Constitutionality holding that the Ordinance did not violate
the Fourth Amendment prohibition against unlawful reaches and seizures, since the ordinance
provided that the landlord (property owner) knows in advance the timing and scope of the inspection
and there is no discretion as to the units to be inspected.
The Shippensburg procedures similarly provide for notification of the landlord in advance
of the inspection and the nature and scope of the inspection and which units are to be inspected.
Likewise the District Court rejected the argument that the ordinance in question revalidate
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Landlords argued that the Ordinance
unlawfully classified owners and renters of non-owner occupied housing. The court found that the
challenged ordinance did not involve any disenable fundamental interest and did not affect a
protected class, and further had a rational relationship to a legitimate state intent in the area of health,
safety and welfare issues affecting a large portion of the Lock Haven population who were renters.
Citing, City ofCleburne, Texas v. Cleburne Housing Center, Inc. 473 U.S. 432, 105 S. Ct. 3249, 87
L. Cd 2d 313(1985)
Courts have consistently held that a ".. parties who challenge the constitutionality of an
ordinance bears a heavy burden and must overcome a presumption of constitutionality." National
Properties, Inc., v. Borough of Macungie, 595 A2d 742, 141 Pa Commw. 342, 1992.
"Legislation will not be declared unconstitutional unless it "clearly, palpably,
and plainly violates the constitution, "Suder v. Thornburgh, 496 Pa. At 166, 436
A2d at 598", National Properties supra at 348.
The Supreme Court went further in the case of Ridley Arms, Inc. v. Ridley Township, 515 Pa
342, 531 A2d 414 (1987). Them the Court held that the classification of residential and commercial
trash users bore a reasonable relationship to the governmental purpose of the sate and economical
collection of refuse, thus fees imposed were unreasonable. In a footnote to the above the Court
stated:
"Our determination today...does not reduce the broad latitude which government
traditionally has enjoyed under an Equal Protection analysis in determining which
services it deems essential to provide for its citizen ..."
Ridley Arms, 515 Pa at 549 n. 6; 531 A2d n.6
Similarly in Bernice and John Phillips v. Borough of Folcrofi, 403 A2d 194, 44 Pa Commw
83, 1979, the Commonwealth Court held "An ordinance falling within the police power ora borough
is presumed to be in furtherance of the health, welfare, safety or morals." 44 Pa Commw. At 85. The
Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966 (1965 P.L. 1656, N. 581) as amended, 53 P.S. §45000,
authorizes the powers which Boroughs possess. Section 1202 provides:
"Specific Powers. - The power of the borough shall be vested to the corporate
authorities. Among the specific powers of the borough will be the following,
and in the exercise of any such process involving the enactment of any ordinance
or the making of any regulation, restriction or prohibition, the borough may
provide for the enforcement thereof and may prescribe penalties for this
violation through or for the failure to conform thereto."
(24) Building, housing and plumbing regulations. To enact and enforce ordinance relating
to buildings and housing..." 53 P.S. §46102
The Borough of Shippensburg adopted the Existing Structure Code, Ordinance No. 552
(Code of the Borough of Shippensburg, Chapter 87) in response to the deteriorating housing stock,
particularly among those housing units which were tenant occupied. The purpose of the ordinance
was to upgrade rental units in the borough and insure the safety and health of the citizens who
occupy such housing.
Clearly, the Borough has the authority to enact ordinances regulating rental housing and
requiring inspections and licensing of those units.
Does the Borough of Shippensburg's fee charged under the Existing Structures Code
represent a tax rather than a license fee ?
Borough government in Pennsylvania is a creature of the legislature and as such has only
those powers which are given to them by the legislature. The Borough Code, Act of February 1,
1966 (1965 P.L.1656, No. 591), 53 P.S. §45101 sets forth the framework within which a borough
corporation may fimction. Section 46201 prescribes general powers which a Borough possesses and
Section 46202 lists specific powers to enact and enforce ordinances which relate to housing and
buildings. 53 P.S.§46202(24).
As part of the general police power possessed, fees may be charged for services which may
be required or for "privileges" which have certain characteristics. A license fee has been described
as "...[Al sutn assessed for the granting ora privilege." Mastrangelo v. Buckley, 433 Pa. 352, 250
A.2d 447 at 464 (1969). The Court cited National Biscuit Co., v. City of Philadelphia, 374 Pa 604,
98 A2d 182, (1953) to define a license fee. Quoting the opinion of Chief Justice Stem as follows:
"The distinguishing features ora license fee are (1) that it is applicable only
to a type of business or occupation which is subject to supervision and
regulations by the licensing authority under its police powers; (2) that such
supervision and regulations are in fact conducted by the licensing authority;
(3) that the payment of the fee is a collection upon which the license is
permitted to transact his business or pursue his occupation; and (4) that the
legislative purpose in exacting the charge is to reimburse the licensing
authority for the expense of the supervision and regulation conducted by it."
National Biscuit, Co., supra at 615-616.
The license fee imposed by the Borough of Shippensburg pursuant to its Existing Structures
Code meets the above criteria. The fee applies only to rental housing units, which have been
subjected to regulations pursuant to the Existing Structures Code, Code of the Borough of
Shippensburg, Chapter 87, adopted under the authority of the Borough Code, 53 P.S. §46202 (24).
The Borough does in fact regulate and supervise rental housing within its corporate limits, and the
payment of the fee is a condition upon which one may operate rental housing within the Borough.
Finally, the purpose of the fee is to recoup the expenses incurred by the Borough in the operation
of the rental housing program.
Plaintiff urges this Court to find that the rental fee charged by the Borough is not reasonably
related to the costs incurred by the program. This contention has been addressed by the Courts of
the Commonwealth. In a case remarkably similar to the case before the Court, McKee v. Upper
Darby Township, 33 D&C 222, CD. Delaware County, 1982, affirmed, Frank A. McKee et al v.
Upper Darby Township, 488 A.2d 1216, 88 Pa Commw., 1985. In McKee the lower court rejected
McKee's arguments that the rental fee charged was to recover costs already provided by the
township and paid for by plaintiff through real estate taxes and that the fees exceeded the cost
necessary for the enforcement. The Court of Delaware County found that inspection of rental houses
was a "special" service and not general as claimed. The first Court further rejected the argument
that the fee exceeded the costs, holding:
"...IT]he fee charged need not be exactly commensurate with the services
rendered; rather the township must be given latitude and the fee must only be
reasonably related to the costs incurred by the township. Commonwealth
ex tel Hines v. Winfree, 408 Pa 128, 182 A.2d 698 (1962)...
"...[F]urthermore, these figures do not include department allowances for
inspectors' mileage, fringe benefits of the Health Department employees,
legal fees for enforcing the ordinance, etc." McKee, supra at 226-227,
emphasis added.
The party challenging the reasonableness of license fees have the burden of proving their
unreasonableness. In Commonwealth ex rel Hines, supra, (1962) the Supreme Court held
"[T]he party challenging a license fee has the burden of proving that it is
unreasonable. All doubts must be resolved in favor of the reasonableness
of the fee since the municipality must be given reasonable latitude in
anticipating the expense of enforcing the ordinance."
Commonwealth ex rel Hines v. Winfree, 408 Pa 128, 182 A.2d 698 (1962)
The Borough ordinance is not calculated to produce excessive amounts of revenue in relation
to the costs of regulations and services provided. In Greenacres Apartments, Inc., v. Bristol
Township et al, 482 A.2d 1356, 85 Pa. Commw. 572 (1984), the Commonwealth Court found that
an Ordinance regulating rental units and assessing an annual fee for inspection and registration of
the unit was permissible. In Greenacres, supra approximately 20 to 40 percent of the rental units
in the township were inspected yearly. Appellant urged that since not all units were inspected each
year the fees collected were actually a means to raise revenue. In rejecting this argument the
Commonwealth Court stated:
"Accepting the Appellant's evidence as to yield as correct, it is apparent the
fees collected are not part of an invalid revenue raising measure. A licensing fee,
of course, is a charge which is imposed, pursuant to a sovereign's police power
for the privilege of performing certain acts, and which is intended to defray the
expense of regulation. It is to be distinguished from a tax, or revenue producing
measure, which is characterized by the production of large income and a high
proportion of income relative to the costs of collection and supervision."
Greenacres supra at 575.
In the present case the Borough of Shippensburg, faced with a ever increasing number of
rental units, and deterioration of its housing stock, the exercise of the powers it possessed enacted
the Existing Structures Code providing for inspection licensing of rental units. The evidence will
show that the Borough inspects approximately one-third of its rental units annually and that the
revenue produced is not disproportionate to the costs associated with the administration of the
program.
The Borough will show that its Existing Structure Code and the fee associated with the code
is a license fee and not a tax as asserted by the Plaintiff.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dated: February 14, 1997
Forest N. Myers
Attorney ID # 18064
10000 Molly Pitcher Highway
Shippensburg, PA 17257
(717) 532-9046
(717) 532-8879 (FAX)
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF THE
NINTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, PA 17013,
Plaintiff
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Street
Shippensburg, PA 17257,
Defendants
CIVIL ACTION
NO. 1995-6484
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Forest N. Myers, Esquire, certify that I served a true and correct copy of the within Trial
Brief of Defendant by first class mail, postage prepaid on counsel for the Plaintiff:
Lee Stivale, Esquire
Robert James Associates, P.C.
Two Mills of Victoria
1489 Baltimore Pike
Springfield, PA 19064
Dated:
Forest N. Myers, Esquire
Attorney ID # 18064
10000 Molly Pitcher Highway
Shippensburg, PA 17257
(717) 532-9046
(717) 532-8879 (fax)
ROBERT lAMES IACY. SON ASSOCIATES
BY: LEE A. STIV^L~, ESQUIRE
ATTORNEY I.D. NO. 4~511
MILLS AT VICTORIA, SUIT~ 301
1489 BALTIMORE PIKE
SPRINGFmLD, PENNSYLVANIA 19063
(or0) 004-4~?0
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
J. MICHAEL ADLER
1442 Trindle Road
Carlisle, Pennsylvania 17013
Plaintiff,
VS.
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
60 W. Burd Sweet
Shippensburg, Pennsylvania 17257
Defendant,
NO. 95-6484
Before Judge Hess
:
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
INJUNCTION
TRIAL MEMORANDUM OF PLAINTIFF, J. MICHAEL ADLIZ. R
Procedural Background:
The Plaintiff, J. Michael Adler, commenced this action by complaint on November 14,
1995. On August 6, 1996, the Borough of Shippensburg filed its Answer and New Matter. A
response to New Matter was filed by the Plaintiff on October 28, 1996.
Discovery is complete and no outstanding discovery motions are pending with the Court of
Common Pleas.
By pre-trial Order, this matter was scheduled before the Honorable Judge Hess on
Wednesday, February 19, 1997.
II Summary of Discussion:
Under the guise of the Police Power, Shipponsburg Borough owns a monopoly on the right
to demand the inspection of residential rental dwellings for a profit. The Borough resident is
subject to the Borough's discretion to establish the fee and the parameters of the inspection without
competition from the private sector.
Since 1988, Shippensburg Borough has been in the business of inspecting homes for a profit,
a very large profit. Because of its monopoly stems, $hippensburg Borough has extorted inspection
fees which are many times its actual costs to implement the inspection program and any reasonable
estimate from the private sector for an equivalent service.
The current Borough inspection ordinance requires the owner of a residential rental unit to
pay fifty ($50.00) each year for an inspection which occurs once every three years. Therefore, the
effective cost for each inspection of one dwelling is one hundred fit~ ($1:50.00) dollars.
In comparison, the reasonable estimate of cost to perform an equivalent inspection from the
private sector is twenty five ($2:5.00) dollars for each inspection. Hence, the Borough has been
charging its citizens six times the private sector rate.
IH Concise Statement of the Facts
On May 19, 1987, the Defendant, Shippensburg, enacted Ordinance No. 552 and codified
the same as Chapter 87, Existing Structures, of the Code of Shippensburg. Article I0 of Chapter
87, existing structures requires the annual licensure of Regulated Residential Properties. Prior to
1990, the annual fee was twenty five ($2:5.00) dollars for each rental dwelling. The annual fee was
increased in 1990 to fifty ($:50.00) dollars per dwelling unit.~
Approximately one thousand two hundred fifty (1,250) Regulated Residential Rental Units
are located and licensed within $hippensburg Borough. The Borough of Shippensburg, despite
' Prior to 1990, the Borough charged an annual inspection fee of $25.00 for each rental
dwelling. From 1988 to 1990, the Cumberland County Redevelopment and Housing Authority
performed the annual inspections of the Regulated Residential Dwellings under Chapter 87 for
the annual consideration of $10,000.00. The Redevelopment Authority, for the stated annual
consideration of $10,000.00, was required to inspect between 600 and 7:50 dwellings annually.
Hence the cost to the Borough for each inspection performed ranged from $13.34 to $16.67.
In or about 1990, the Borough assumed the inspection responsibilities and doubled the
annual inspection fee from $2:5.00 to $:50.00.
charging the $50.00 annual licensing and inspection fee; inspects each rental dwelling only once
every three years. Therefore, the effective fee for each triennial inspection is $150.00.
The Borough derives approximately $60,000-$65,000 annually from residential the annual
inspection\licensing fees on 1,250 regulated rental dwellings. However, the Borough only expends
a small percentage of the fee revenues to satisfy the direct costs of the inspection and licensure
program.
VI
IS THE ANNUAL INSPECTIONkLICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO THE DIRECT COSTS INCURRED BY THE BOROUGH TO
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER CHAPTER 87?
IS THE ANNUAL INSPECTION\LICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURA'i'E TO THE REASONABLE CHARGE FROM PRIVATE SECTOR
INSPECTION SERVICES TO IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER
CHAPTER 87?
VI Discussion:
A. THE ANNUAL INSPECTION~LICENSE FEE OF $50.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
COMMENSURATE TO THE DIRECT COSTS INCURRED BY THE BOROUGH TO
IMPLEMENT THE INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER CHAPTER 87.
1. The power and limits of the Borough to Tax.
The power of taxation, in all forms and of whatever nature, lies solely in the General
Assembly of the Commonwealth acting under aegis of the Constitution. Absent an express grant
or delegation of power to tax from the Genera/ Assembly, no municipality, has any power or
authority to levy, assess or to collect taxes. To determine whether a municipality possesses the
power to tax and, if so, the extent of such power, recourse must be had to the acts of the General
Assembly. i~~I1~, 433 Pa. 352, 250 A.2d 447 (1969). The power to levy general
or special taxes must be plainly and unmistakably conferred and not found by implication; and that
tax statutes should be construed strictly with all doubts being resolved against the taxing body.
Price v. Tax Review Board of the City of Phila,, 409 Pa. 479, ,187 A.2d 280, 282 (1963),
following, Tax Review Board v. D.H. Shaniro C9,, Pa. , 185 A.2d 529 (1962).
Shippensbnrg Borough is not lawfully enabled to raise general or special tax revenues
through fees for inspections of private residential dwellings for health, safety and welfare purposes.
The Borough is limited to levy and collect tax revenues for the enumerated reasons under 53 P.S.
Section 46302, none of which includes taxes for inspections.
The Borough is lawfully enabled only to '... prescribe ~ fees for services of their
[its] officers... ~ Borough Code of 1966, Feb. 1, P.L. (1965), No. 581, Section 1202, as
amended, 53 P.S. Section 46202 (1) (1997).
2. The Lawful Limits of Municipal Fees.
A fee which is determined unreasonable is a violation of the Borough Code. See n_C~p~0.ra~
Ridlev Arms. Inc. v. T0wn~hln of Ridlcy, Pa. ,531 A.2d 414 (1987). When the license fee
generates more than the amount commensurate with the expense of the administrative license, the
license fee ceases to be valid and is deemed to be an unlawful general or special tax. In the case
of ~,~~, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court defined a license fee and stated:
A license fee is a sum assessed for the granting of a privilege. In most instances,
where a license is granted the City invariably incurs expense such as the cost of
registration and inspection; it is only proper that the one who seeks and receives a
license should bear this expense. To defray this cost of a license a fee is charged
to the licensee; however, this fee must be commensurate with the expense incurred
by the City in connection with the issuance and supervision of the license or
privilege.
~, at , 250 A.2d at 464.
Following the license test set forth in ~llgrgP_g0~, the Commonwealth Court in the case
of Tallev v. Commta~lwealth 123 Pa. Commw. 313, 553 A.2d 518 (1989) stated:
A license fee is distinguishable from a tax that is a revenue producing measure
characterized by the production of a high proportion of income relative to the costs
of collection and supervision. (citations omitted.) Thus, if a license fee collects
more than an amount commensurate with the expense of administering the license,
it would become a tax revenue and cease to be a valid license fee.
Talley, at , 553 A.2d at 520.
The municipality is given Some latitude to establish reasonable charges to cover the
anticipated expenses to be incurred in the inspection program. Com. ex rel Hines v. Winfrq,,, 408
Pa. 128, 182 A.2d 698 (1962). However~ as a rule of limitation, the measure of the costs related
to an administrative license fee program are only the direct costs incurred by the municipality.
Martin Media v. Hemnfleld Two. ZFIB, Pa. Commw. ,651 A.2d at 1171.
3. The Burden in this Case.
The party challenging the license fee has the burden of proving that the fee is unreasonable.
See, Talle¥, at ,553 A.2d at 520.
4. The Economic Analysis.
The Plaintiff will be present evidence concerning the charges and the direct costs to
implement the Borough inspection program. The Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the evidence
will demonstrate that the total direct costs to administer the inspection program is approximately
one-half of the fees being charged by the Borough.
The evidence will also demonstrate that the Borough subsidizes the many Borough building,
planning and code enforcement functions with the revenues generated from the part time inspection
of the residential rental units. The subsidy, or profit, derived from the inspection program provides
this Court with lawful foundation to declare the Ordinance unlawful.
Be
THE ANNUAL INSPECTIONkLICENSE FEE OF $$0.00 FOR EACH RENTAL
DWELLING IS GROSSLY DISPROPORTIONATE AND NOT REASONABLY
N~iPE~.;IION SERVICF, S TO I~rtq F?'~ ........ OR
CHAPTER 87. "'~ J 4,~tv.,v~a I. tig INSPECTION SERVICE UNDER
1. Private Sector Comparison.
Government must be fair and reasonable in its charge for services that it dictates upon its
citizens. 'If government cannot provide services at least of a quality and at a cost commensurate
with similar services provided by private enterprise, it is by defmition, unreasonable to utilize tax
dollars for that purpose. Ridley Arms. Inc. v. Townshio of Ridley, 531 A.2d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987).
The Supreme Court in Ridley Arm~ held that a municipal fee for trash collection at more than twice
the cost of equivalent private sector violated the statu~authorizing first class townships to impose
reasonable fees for that purpose. Ridlev Arms. Inc, v, Townshio of Ridl~/, 531 A.2d 414, 418
(Pa. 1987).
2. The Evidence.
The Plaintiff respectfully suggests that the evidence will demonstrate that the Borough was
providing the inspection services to its citizens for a cost less than $20.00 per dwelling inspection;
and further that private sector charges for equivalent inspection services would be no more than
$25.00 per inspection. In comparison, the Borough charges $150.00 for each inspection performed;
six times the private sector charge and more than eight times the cost the Borough incurred prior
to its termination of the inspection contract with the Cumberland County Redevelopment and
Housing Authority.
IV Damages Claimed
Should this Court declare that the Borough inspection fee is unreasonable and therefore
invalid, then all fees paid by the Plaintiff shall be reimbursed to him. See Ridlev Arms. In¢, v.
Townshio of Ridl~y, 531 A.2d 414, 418 (Pa. 1987).
In the instant matter, the Borough took judgment against the Plaintiff for uncollected
inspection fees. This Court ia requested to enjoin the Borough from executing upon such judgment.
CONCLUSION:
It is respectfully requested that this Court fred that Shippensburg Borough abused its
stewardship by charging exorbitant fees for the inspeOAon of rental homes. The revenues derived
from the inspection program unlawfully subsidize many building and planning programs in the
Borough.
Michael Adler requests the provision for fees under Chapter 87 of the Borough Code be
declared void.
Respectfully submitted,
LEE A. STIVALI~., ESQUIRE
Attorney for Plaintiff
$. Michael Adler
10-06-95 12:47P~
~02
10-06-95 12:47PM
PO3
, 10-06-95 12:477M
PO4
, 10-06-95
~05
10-06-95 J2:47PM
POS
J[
EXISTING STRUCTURE INSPECTIONS
FOR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PURPOSES
YEAR 1993
Initial Inspections
Cycle One Inspections
Reinspection
TOTAL 1993 INSPECTIONS
11
90
323
424
YEAR 1994
Initial Inspections
Cycle One Inspections
Reinspection
Cycle Two Inspections
TOTAL 1994 INSPECTIONS
3O
56
177
194
457
YEAR 1995
Initial Inspections
Cycle One Inspections
Reinspection
Cycle Two Inspections
TOTAL 1995 INSPECTIONS
17
7
241
638
903
YEAR 1996
Six Months commencing 01/01/96
Ending 06/30/96
Initial Inspections
Cycle One Inspections
Reinspection
Cycle Two Inspections
TOTAL 1996 INSPECTIONS to 06/30/96
11
3
123
127
264
Exhibit P-
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Kevin DeFebbo, Borough Manager, & Borough Council
Weaver, Code Enforcement Officer ~C~0
Robert
January 11, 1994
Existing Structures Inspections from December 1,
December 31, 1993
1993,
to
Initial Inspections
(new units)
Passed Initial Inspection 0
Cycle One Initial Insp. 2
Passed Cycle One Insp. 0
Reinspections 19
Passed Reinspection 3
Complaint Inspection 1
Passed Complaint Insp. 0
Units Condemned 0
No. Units Year-to-Date
0 11
0
90
15
323
157
5
2
0
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
William W. Wol~ Borough Manager & Borough Council
Robert Weaver,~Code Enforcement officer
January 11, 1995
Existing Structures Inspections from December 1, 1994
December 31, 1994 ,
to
Initial Inspections
(new units)
Passed Initial Inspection
Cycle One Initial Insp.
Passed Cycle One Insp.
Reinspections
Passed Reinspection
Complaint Inspection
Passed Complaint Insp.
Units Condemned
Cycle Two Initial Insp.
Passed Cycle Two Insp.
No. Units Year-to-Date
2 30
1 12
0 56
0 18
21 177
18 124
1 7
0 2
0 0
86 194
62 118
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
William W. Wolfe, Borough Manager & Borough Council
Robert Weaver, Code Enforcement Officer
January 11, 1996
Existing Structures Inspections from December 1,
December 31, 1995
1995,
to
Initial Inspection~
(new units)
Passed Initial Inspection
Cycle One Initial Insp.
Passed Cycle One Insp.
Reinspections
Passed Reinspection
Complaint Inspection
Passed Complaint Insp.
Units Condemned
Cycle Two Initial Insp.
Passed Cycle Two Insp.
No. Units Year-to-Date
0 17
0 2
0 7
0 2
25 241
25 223
0 0
0 0
1
23 638
19 420
*NOTE: UNIT CONDEMNED WAS DUE TO WATER SERVICE TERMINATION.
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
William W. Wolfe, Borough Manager & Borough Council
Robert Weaver, Code Enforcement Officer
July 3, 1996
Existing Structures Inspections from June 1 1996,
June 30, 1996 '
to
Initial Inspections
(new units)
Passed Initial Inspection 0
Cycle One Initial Insp. 1
Passed Cycle One Insp. 0
Reinspections 10
Passed Reinspection 8
Complaint Inspection 2
Passed Complaint Insp. 1
Units Condemned 4
Cycle Two Initial Insp. 3
Passed Cycle Two Insp. i
No. Units Year-to-Date
4 11
3
3
123
102
7
2.
7
127
62
NOTE: UNIT CONDEMNED WAS 35 NORTH EARL STREET (4 UNITS IN
BUILDING). CONDEMNED AS A STRUCTURE UNFIT FOR HUMAN HABITATION
(WATER SERVICE TERMINATED BY BOROUGH WATER AUTHORITY).
745
45 i*:45
2 12
15
3O
45
1
2 '
15
3O
45
3
45
4
:15
,;:45
?;:30
i 6:45
7:45
8:15
I'":15
1730
!~45
45
2:15
~2:30
12:45 ' :45
1
3:45
.~:.~?
4:45
5:30
5:45
5:30
6:45
7:45
~ 30
45
11
I'15
:45
:30
~ 3O
-~:30
]4 5 6 7 8
118 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30
2 3 4 5 6 7
7:15
.......................................... ~...~ ................ 7:30
7.45
8:15
8:30
9:30
:15
~30
8 ~
.................................................................. 8:15
............................................... ~..' 8:30
10:15
:15
12:30
1.00
O0
]:15
I O0
,0
:15
~'00
4:00
~:45
~:00
600
~'45
~:30
8:45
~:15
....................................................................... 8:30
JANUARY 8
from
7 7
, :30 7:30 7:30
7:45 7:45 7:45
8:t5 8:t5 8:15
8:30 8:30 8:30
9 9 9
9:t5 9:15 9:15
9:30 9:80 9:30
9:45 9:45 9:45
10:45 ~0:45
t2:15 t2:{5 12:t5
~2:30 t2:30 t2:30
t2:45 12:45 t2:45
2:30 2:30 2:30
2:45 2;45 ,~ 2:45
4H5 4:~5 ' / 4:~5
4:30 4:30 4:30
4:45 4:45 4:45
5 5 5
5:~5 5H5
5:30 5:30 5:30
5:45 5:45 5:45
6 6 6
6:~5 6:~5 6d5
6:30 6:30 6:30
6:45 6:45 6:45
7:15 7:t5 7:t5
- 7:30 7:30 7:30
7:45 7:45 7:45
8 8 8
8:30 8:30 8:30
8:~ 8:45 8:45
from JANUARY 22
7:30
8:t5
8:30
9:t5
9:30
9:45
t0:t5
t0:30
t0:45
1t:t5
1t:30
ti:45
t2
12:t5
7:30
7:45
8:15
9:45
10:15
t0:45
t2
7:15
7:4,5
9:t5
9:30
9:45
10
t0:t5
1t:15
4t:30
tt:45
t2
t2:t5
t2:30
t2:30
t2:4,5
1:t5
t :45
2
2:t5
2:30
3:30
12:30
t!15
'[ :45
t2:45
4:15
4:30
4:45
5
5:t5
5:30
4:15
4:30
4:45
5:t5
5:30
4:30 ~ '~"
4:45 · -
5:15
5:30
6:t5
6:30
7:30
6:15
6:30
6:45
7:t5
7:45
L
8:15
8:30
7:45
8
8:t5
8:30
8:45
6:30 - - -
7:t5 --'
7:30
8:45
FEBRUARY 4
7:15 7:t5
7:30
7:45
8 8
8:t5
8:t5
9:30
9:45
8:30 8:30
8:45 8:45
9 9
9:t5 9:t5
9:30
9:45
16:45 ',
tt:t5
ti:30
1t:45
12
t2:t5
t2:30
t2:45
t
t:t5
~ t:45 I /
2
2:t5
2:30
2:45
3:t5
3:30
8:t5
8:30
8:45
9
9:15
9:30
9:45
t0
t0:15
10:30
t0'.45
ti:t5
tt:3o
tt:45
12
t2:t5
t2:30
t2'.45
I
t:t5
I;45
2
2:t5
2:30
2:45
3:15
3:30
3:46
4:30
4:45
t0
40:15
t0:30
t0:45
tt:t5
tt:45
t2 ?~-.~_~..~//~,~.- _
12:t5
t2:30
t2:45
t:15
t:3o ~r~ ~.~
t :45
2
2:t5
2:30
2:46
3
3:t5
3:30
3:45
4:t5
4:45
4
4:t5
4:30
4:45
5 5 5
5:15 5:t5 5:t5
5:30 5:30
5:45
6:t5
6:30
6
6:t5
6:30
6:45
5:30
7 7
7:t5
7:30
7:45
8
8:45
8:30
5:45
7:t5
7:30
7:45
8
8:t5
8:30
8:45
·
FEBRUARY
~n's Bidhaay 7
--
· 7'f5 ~
~ 8:30 8:30
~ 8:45 8:45
~ 9 9
:~5 9:~5 9:~5
30 9:30 9:30
45 9:45 9:45
0 ~0 ~0
J15 t0:15 t0:t5
1:45fl:30 ~0:30 10:30
t0:45 t0:45
~ ~5 tt:15 ~ tt:t5
'
2 t2 12
?:{5 12:t5 t2:t5
h30 t2:30 t2:30
45 t2:45 12:45
45 ~ " ~ ' ~ f:30 t:30
1:45 ' 1:45
~5 2:~5 / 2:t5
30 2:30
45 2:45 2:45
3 3
~5 3:t5 3:~5
4530 3;453:30 3:30~'~
3:45
4
~5 4:t5 4:t5 ~
30 4:30 4:30
45 4:45 4:45
5 5
t5 5:~5 5:15
30 5:30 5:30
45 5:45 5:45
6 6
~5 6;t5 6:t5
30 6:30 6:30
45 6:45 6:45
30 7:30 7:30
45 7:4~ 7:45
8 8
~5 8:t5 8:t5
30 8:30 8:30
45 8:45 8:45
FEBRUARY 18
to 17181920212223
7:t5 7:t5
7:30 7:30
7:45 7:45
8 8
8:t5 8:t5
8:30 8:30
8:48 8:48
9 9
9:t5 9dl8
~""'~:30 9:45 ~ 9:45
~99:45 , ~'"'" ~ 9:30
t0:t5 t0:15 t0:15
t0:30 t0:30 10:30
10:45 t0:45 ~0:45
tt:t5 " ' 1t:45 t1:15
tt:30 11:30 44:30
1t:45 4~;45 1:4~
12 12 t2
~2:45 ~2:~5 - 12:t5
42:30 t2:30 ~2:30
42:~ 12:45 t2:45
1
t:45 t:15 · t:15
' . ,~ ' ,' ~:30 ~ ~ ~,, ~ ~:30
1:45 t:45 t:45
2:t5 2:15/ 2:~5
~:3o 2:~o ~r~t 2:~o
2:45 2:45 2:45
3:30 3:30 3:30
3:45 3:45 ~ ~ 3:45
4:~5 / 4:~5 %+ / 4:~
4:30 4:30 4:30
4:~ 4:45 4:45
5 5 5
5:t5 5:t5 5:15
5:30 ~:30 5:30
5:45 5:45
6 6
6:15
6:45 I 6:45
7 7
7:15 7:~5
7:30 7:30
7:45 7:~
8 8
8:t5 8:~5
8:30 8:30
8:~ 8:45
8:45
9:30
9:45
t0:t5
to:3o
{0:45
ti:45
12
t:30
2H5
2:30
~ij 2:45
3:t5 \
to JUNE 2
7 7
7:t5
7:30
7:45
8
8H5 8:15
8:30 8:30
8:45 8:45
9 9
7:45 I
8
9:45 9:t5
9:30 9:30
9:45 9:45
'~0
t0:t5 t0:15
t0:30 t0:30
10:45
t0:45
ti
tt:15
tt:30
1t:45
1t:45
t2 t2
t2:t5 t2:t5
t2:30 12:30
t2:46
12:45
1:t5
1:30
t:45
2
2:t5
2:50 2:30
2:46 2:45
3
3:t5
3:t5
3:30
3:45
3:45 3:45
4
4:t5 4:t5 4',t5
4:30 4:30
4:45 4:45 4',45
5:t5 5:t5
5:30 5:30
6
6:45
8:45
6
6:15 6:t8
6:30 6:30
7
5:t5
5:30
7:t5
7:30 7:30
7~45 7~46
8 8
8:30 8:30
8:45 8:45
~ncNC~:
19~4 - Pre. it
64 Bayvi~w Drive
Brtc~ 3r~w J~tsey 08725
(OOS9 9~0-
M.J. & L Ass(x:~ In~.
DmRCTOR OF CODE ENFORCEMENT
Major respoudbilitim
1975 - 1982
FieLD ENGll~rU~ONSTRUCTION SUPEBINTENDENT
Major rnpomibilRin
· C,~apmy ~ on ~ca~N~on of ~ ~ ,,~
o~ b~ld/nas
· Layo~ of si~ and b~J,~ m~rk
EDUCATION: I)e~me in Civil ~~ Teclmolo~
CgaTnnCATIONS: Smio~ ~ T0cim~m (Ovid), N.~C.~.T. Low~ W
· Subcod~ Ot~ Buildina & F~ Protoc~i~
· F~ Prwmtiou oec~a~i~ ~uq~or
ORGANIZATIONS:
B.O.C.A
N2~P.A.
B.O~,NJ.
P.E.N.N.B.O.C;
C.NJ.C.O.
U.S. Coast Cmard Au~lln~y
DIRECT EXPENSES BUILDING, ZONING, AND PLANNING
SALARIES:
Code Enforcement
Clerical
Dental
BC/BS
Health/Welfare
Life Insurance
Social Security
Unemployment Comp.
Workers' Compensation
Deferred Compensation
_OPERATING EXPENSES:
.1993 _1994 1995 AVERAGE
$30,605.00 $31,676.00 $31,974.00 $31,418.33
23,816. O0 24,648.00 24,960. O0 24,474.67
199.93 667.85 760.80 542.86
6,752.00 6,284.90 8,113.20 7,050.03
1,299.59 1,125.65 1,596.00 1,340.41
134.08 173.70 221.40 176.39
4, 163.21 4,308.79 4,355.45 4,275.82
239.98 79.99
408.00 400.00 269.33
950.28 823.00 591.09
967,377.81
$70,235.17 973,043.83 970,218.94
Supplies 9617.17 9306.71 611.76 511.88
Gasoline 156.56 185.58 204.51 182.22
Vehicle Main. Supplies 77.89 125.47 153.87 119.08
Postage 256.00 300.00 295.57 283.86
Vehicle Insurance 300.00 300.00 300.00
Vehicle Maintenance 300.00
439.15 146.38
$1,407.62 91,217.76 $2,004.86 1,543.41
CONTRACT
BY AND BETWEE~ THE
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
AND
THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF TEE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this ~~1~ day of .O~ , 1988 by and
between the BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG, Cumberland ~nd Franklin Counties,
Pennsylvania hereinafter referred to as "BOROUGH" and the
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, hereinafter
referred to as "AUTHORITY,,·
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Borough of Shippensburg has adopted the BOCA Existing
Structures Code; and
WHEREAS, the Borough of Shippensburg desires to continue to obtain the
services of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Cumberland to
enforce such Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound the parties do mutually
agree as follows:
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Redevelopment Authority shall serve as the code official
for the Borough and, as such shall be responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the existing structures
code of the Borough, Ordinance No. 552. and shall cOoperate
with the Borough Solicitor in the enforcement of said
ordinance.
The specific scope of services shall include:
1. Systematic code enforcement of rental units
· Development of code "checklist,,
Preparation of letters to building owners
detailing code deficiencies
· Follow-up inspection of units when conditions
have been corrected
Preparation of monthly report to Council on
units inspected
Code enforcement inspections of all other units in
response to complaints
Preparation of letter'to building owner detailing
code deficiencies
Follow-up inspection of unit when condition has
been corrected
Page 2 of $
The AUTHORITY will commit the time of one (1) housing inspector,
trained in the BOCA Existing Structures Code, a total of 11.5
hours per week. One (1) day (7.5 hours) would be spent in the
i ·
field ( nspectlng units); approximately four (4) hours each
week would be spend completing forms, etc.).
The AUTHORITy anticipates inspecting 1'2 - 15.rental units each
week. However, during those Weeks when the inspector is on
vacation (up to 3 weeks) no systematic code enforcement services
will be available.
B. COMPENSATION
The total compensation under this agreement shall be $5,000.
The AUTHORITY shall submit monthly billings to the BOROUGH
office in the amount of $833.33.
The term of this agreement shall be a six (6) month period
beginning July 1, 1988 and ending December 31, 1988.
D. TERMINATION
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon
sixty (60) days notice. If the parties mutually agree,
this agreement may be terminated Upon thirty (30) days
notice.
Page 3 of ~
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and
seals the day and year first written above.
WITNEss:
BOROUGH OF SHIPpENSBURG
NAME :_Jghn Mausert-Mooney
TITLE :_ Secretary
NAME (typed): Rgberr ,F. OEayerz, ....
TITLE:_ Preside,ur, 9f Coun, cil
WITNESS:
NAME. ~i
._ u/ath, y S. Graver
TITLE :--Adminis tra tire Secretary
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY
TITLE: Chairman
CONTRACT
BY AND BETWEEN THE
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
AND
THE REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND
THIS AGREEMENT entered into this ~'%f~' day of Io¢~-c.~,~:~ , 1988 by and
between the BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG, Cumberland and Franklin Counties,
Pennsylvania hereinafter referred to as "BOROUGH" and the REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHORITY OF THE COUNTY OF CUMBERLAND, hereinafter referred to as
"AUTHORITY".
WITNESSETH THAT:
WHEREAS, the Borough of Shippensburg has adopted the BOCA Existing
Structures Code; and
WHEREAS, the Borough of Shippensburg desires to continue to obtain the
services of the Redevelopment Authority of the County of Cumberland to
enforce such Code;
NOW, THEREFORE, intending to be legally bound the parties do mutually
agree as follows:
A. SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Redevelopment Authority shall serve as the code official
for the Borough and, as such shall be responsible for the
administration and enforcement of the existing structures
code of the Borouqh, Ordinance No. 552. and shall cooperate
with the Borough ~olicitor in the enforcement of said
ordinance.
The specific scope of services shall include:
1. Systematic code enforcement of rental units
Development of code "checklist"
· Preparation of letters to building owners
detailing code deficiencies
· · Follow-up inspection of units when conditions
have been corrected
Preparation of monthly report to Council on
units inspected
Page 2 of 3
Code enforcement inspections of all other units in
response to complaints
Preparation of letter to building Owner detailing
code deficiencies
· Follow-up inspection of unit when condition has
been corrected
The AUTHORITy will commit the time of one (1) housing inspector,
trained in the BOCA Existing Structures Code, a total of 11.5
hours per week. One (1) day (7.5 hours) would be spent in the
field (inspecting units); approximately four (4) hours each
week would be spend completing forms, etc.).
The AUTHORITY anticipates inspecting 12 - 15 rental units each
week. However, during those weeks when the inspector is on
vacation (up to 3 weeks) no systematic Code enforcement services
will be available.
B. COMPENSATION
The total compensation under this agreement shall.be $5,000.
The AUTHORITY shall submit monthly billings to the BOROUGH
office in the amount of $833.33.
C. TERM
The term of this agreement shall be a six (6) month period
beginning January 1, 1989 and ending June 30,-1989.
D. TERMINATION
This agreement may be terminated by either party upon
sixty (60) days notice. If the parties mutually agree,
this agreement may be terminated upon thirty (30 days
notice.
Page 3 of 3
IN WITNESs WHEREOF, the parties have hereunto set their hands and
'the day and year first written above.
WITNESS:
BOROUGH OF SHIPPENSBURG
NAME (typed): ~('gd6,aV _.0~,%-.~'7 .~,
TITLE: ~(~(, ~- , ~,~H.~T
seals
WITNESS:
NAME :~ Cat,by, s., .Graver
TITLE :A~d~inistra, t, ive' Se,cret, a.r~y
REDEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTy
NAME (typed): Christophe, r .Gulo, tt~a~
TITLE: Execu. t~iv~e, Di,~ect~o,r .
PROFIT FROM HOUSING INSPECTIONS
FEES
COSTS
PROFIT
PROFIT/FEES
1993 1994 1995
$61,910.00 $64,325.00 964,900.00
(34,392.72) (35,726.47) (37,524.35)
27,517.28 28,598.53 27,375.65
44.4% 44.4% 42.1%
Average
963,711.67
(35,881.18)
27,830.49
43.6%
DIRECT EXPENSES BUILDING, ZONING, AND PLANNING
SALARIES:
Code Enforcement
Clerical
Dental
BC/BS
Health/Welfare
Life Insurance
Social Security
Unemployment Comp.
Workers' Compensation
Deferred Compensation
O._PERATING EXPENSES:
~993 ~994 1995
AVERAGE
930,605.00 931,676.00 931,974.00 931,418.33
23,816.00 24,648.00 24,960.00 24,474.67
199.93 667.85 760.80 542.86
6,752.00 6,284.90 8,113.20 7,050.03
1,299.59 1,125.65 1,596.00 1,340.41
134.08 173.70 221.40 176.39
4,163.21 4,308.79 4,355.45 4,275.82
239.98 79.99
408.00 400.00 269.33
950.28 823.00 591.09
967,377.81 970,235.17 973,043.83
970,218.94
Supplies 9617.17 9306.71 611.76 511.88
Gasoline 156.56 185.58 204.51 182.22
Vehicle Main. Supplies 77.89 125.47 153.87 119.08
Postage 256.00 300.00 295.57 283.86
Vehicle Insurance 300.00 300.00 300.00
Vehicle Maintenance 300.00
439.15 146.38
91,407.62 91,217.76 92,004.86 1,543.41
DIRECT COST SUMMARY:
Salaries @50%
Oper. Exp. @50%
933,688.91 935,117.59 936,521.92 935,109.47
703.81 608.88 1,002.43 771.71
$37,524.35
$34,392.72
935,726.47
$35,881.18