Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout97-1103 CivilBOROUGH OF MOUNT HOLLY : SPRINGS, : Plaintiff : vs. : 97-1103 CIVIL : DEBRA MARSH, : Defendant : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA IN RE: NON JURY TRIAL BEFORE HESS, J. ORDER AND NOW, this 2 ? ' day of April, 1998, we find in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $107.68 together with interest at the legal rate from September 18, 1996. Keith Brenneman, Esquire For the Plaintiff Debra Marsh, Pro Se Defendant BY THE COURT, K~/A. Hess, J. :rlm BOROUGH OF MOUNT HOLLY SPRINGS, Plaintiff VS. DEBRA MARSH, Defendant IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA : : : 97-1103 CIVIL : : : CIVIL ACTION - LAW IN RE: NON JURY TRIAl. BEFORE HESS, J, OPINION AND ORDER The defendant, Debra K. Marsh, has refused to pay her water, sewer, and trash bill as required by the roles, regulations, and ordinances enacted by the plaimiff, Borough of Mount Holly Springs (the "Borough".) The Borough subsequently brought suit against the defendant, and a district justice entered a default judgmem in favor of the Borough. Ms. Marsh appealed that judgmem to a board of arbitrators, who also ruled in favor of the Borough. The defendam then appealed the award of the arbitrators to this court. We now find in favor of the plaintiff. The defendant owes the Borough $107.68 for the June 17, 1996 through September 18, 1996 billing cycle, including $5.00 for water, $52.00 for sewage, $31.80 for trash, a 10% penalty, a $10.00 administration fee and $50.00 for the filing fee before the district justice. Ms. Marsh refuses to pay her bill because she claims that it is unfair to charge her for services that were not used or requested. She sent a notice to the Borough requesting that her municipal services be terminated, but her notice reached the Borough after the June 17th billing cycle had started, and they refused to honor it. The Borough bills quarterly for municipal services and, for administrative and financial reasons, does not honor requests to 97-1103 CIVIL terminate service after the billing cycle has started. Additionally, a $50.00 administrative fee is also charged to terminate services. The charge for water is an access fee that must be paid regardless of usage. Trash collection is performed on a contract that is negotiated based on the number of residential units in the Borough. The charge to the citizen is the bid price of the contractor divided by the number of residents. Section 53 of the Municipal Authorities Act gives municipalities the power to charge and collect rates in the area served by its facilities. Section 306B(h) states in part that every Authority is empowered to "fix, alter, charge and collect rates and other charges in the area served by its facilities at reasonable and uniform rates to be determined exclusively by it, for the purpose of providing for the payment of the expenses of the Authority..." Section 53 also gives the Borough the power to regulate the removal of garbage and other refuse material by "the imposition and collection of reasonable fees and charges." 53 Pa.C.S. Section 46202(11). It is well established that boroughs and municipalities may charge reasonable and uniform rates for municipal services. The question in this case, however, is whether the plaintiff may charge a property owner for water, sewer, and trash services available to the property even though the services were not utilized. The principal case in this area is Coudriet v. Township of Benzinger, 49 Pa. Comw. 275,411 A.2d 846 (1980), which held that property owners that have never tapped into a sewer system can be forced to pay sewer rentals, justifying this result by reasoning that: "...to allow individual property owners to elect not to tap into a sewer system accessible to it would circumvent the statutory 97-1103 CIVIL purpose behind the imposition of sewer rentals and undermine the financial soundness of a municipality's sewer system. The rental charges are utilized to meet many fixed costs incurred by the township; costs such as operation expenses, maintenance, repair, inspection and depreciation which are incurred whether or not a particular individual is tapped into the sewer system." Id. at 278, 411 A.2d at 848 We believe that the reasoning in Coudriet applies directly to the case sub judice. The same concerns over costs and financial soundness of a municipality exist where a property owner refuses to pay for municipal services that were made available but not used, as well as when a property owner refuses to tap into a sewer line. Municipal Authorities need to know how many people are going to be using their services so they can plan administratively and financially. The charge for trash collection, for example, is based on the number of residential units in the Borough, and the charge to the citizen is the bid price divided by the number of residential units. The defendant's property was used in this calculation. Therefore, the charge for trash collection assessed to the defendant was reasonable. Likewise, the charges for water and sewer services were also reasonable, for they represent the many fixed costs incurred by the Borough. To allow a property owner to terminate these services after a billing cycle has begun would be financially unsound. The rules, regulations, and ordinances of the Borough clearly state that in order to terminate municipal services, a property owner must give notice before the next billing cycle has started and pay a $50.00 administrative fee. These two requirements are fair and 97-1103 CIVIL reasonable given the financial concerns of the Borough and the fLxed costs it incurs while providing municipal services to its residents. AND NOW, this ~-. 7- b day of April, 1998, we f'md in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the amount of $107.68 together with interest at the legal rate from September 18, 1996. BY THE COURT, Keith Brenneman, Esquire For the Plaintiff Debra Marsh, Pro Se Defendant Ke~. Hess, J. 4