Opinion
Argued October 5, 1976
December 16, 1976.
Municipalities — Sewer construction assessment — Benefits — Front-foot rule — The Borough Code. Act 1966, February 1, P.L. (1965) 1656 — Outside contributions.
1. The Borough Code, Act 1966, February 1, P.L. (1965) 1656 permits a sewer construction assessment for costs and expenses to be calculated according to benefits or according to the front-foot rule. [545]
2. A municipality receiving contributions from outside resources to assist a sewer construction project should apply such contributions to reduce the total cost of the project and assess property owners on the basis of the new net cost. [546]
Argued October 5, 1976, before President Judge BOWMAN and Judge CRUMLISH, JR., WILKINSON, JR., MENCER, ROGERS and BLATT. Judge KRAMER did not participate.
Appeal, No. 1824 C.D. 1975, from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County in case of Borough of Northampton v. Lars Knauss and Theresa Knauss, Frank J. Yandrasitz and Catherine Yandrasitz, Edward D. Brader, Lois J. Landis, Richard J. Greb and Shirley D. Greb, John A. Meltsch and Catherine Meltsch, Eugene F. Meltsch and Jane Meltsch, Frederick W. Schock and Angelina Schock, and Joseph Grabarits and Patricia Grabarits, Nos. 87359, 87361, 87370, 87375, 87376, 87377, 87379, 87380, 87384, 87385 April Term, 1975.
Municipal claims filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County. Affidavit of defense filed. Reassessment ordered. PALMER, P.J. Municipality appealed to the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania. Held: Reversed.
Clayton T. Hyman, with him Sandor Engel, and Coleman Hyman, for appellant.
Wesley M. Wasylik, with him Donald B. Corriere, and Haber and Corriere, for appellees.
The sole issue for our resolution is whether the sewer assessment charged against the Appellees is proper.
The Borough of Northampton (Appellant) installed sanitary sewer mains and a sewer system abutting the property owned by the various Appellees. The total cost of the project for the installation was $203,615.96. Appellant then received from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a $50,000 grant which was to be used for the sewer project and for no other. In utilizing this grant, Appellant applied $12,523.08 toward payment of assessable costs and $37,476.92 toward payment of non-assessable costs. The trial court found this allocation to be inequitable and an abuse of discretion by Appellant. Consequently, it ordered that "[Appellant] must reduce the total assessible cost of improvements by the $50,000.00 state grant and then assess the property owners according to this net figure." (Emphasis added.) Appellant argues this order is inequitable and an abuse of discretion. We agree.
This cost was categorized as follows:
Total assessible cost $141,301.61 Total non-assessible cost $ 62,314.35 Total maximum assessible feet 7,692.87 feet
Appellant has the authority to lay out, ordain, and construct sanitary sewers and to assess the costs and expenses of such a project. This assessment can be calculated in two methods: first, according to the benefits, or second, according to the front-foot rule.
Section 2001 of The Borough Code, Act of February 1, 1966, P.L. (1965) 1656, as amended, 53 P. S. § 47001 (Code).
Section 2002 of the Code, 53 P. S. § 47002.
Section 2003 of the Code, 53 P. S. § 47003.
Since the ordinance adopted the front-foot rule, the question here involves the interpretation of two terms, "costs" and "expenses." Appellant contends there are three possible assessments — the two previously noted and the deduction of the $50,000 grant from total cost of $203,615.96. This reduced cost will then be allocated in accordance with the ordinance and resolution of Appellant.
Appellant adopted Ordinance No. 884 on October 17, 1974, which provided for the assessment of costs and expenses. On December 12, 1974, Appellant approved Resolution No. 17-74 which provided for the front-foot assessment.
The latter, or third, is the most equitable. For when a municipality receives contributions from an outside resource in order to construct improvements, this benefit should inure to the public by reducing the total cost of the improvement. Accordingly, Appellant must subtract the amount granted by the Commonwealth from the total cost and then assess the property owners in accordance with this new net cost. Accord, Stockdale Borough v. Astle, 419 Pa. 257, 189 A.2d 152 (1963).
Reversed.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 1976, the order of the Court of Common Pleas of Northampton County is reversed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Borough of Northampton assess the cost of the said sewer system improvement in a manner consistent with this opinion.