612 Associates, L.L.C. v. North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority, 215 N.J. 3

612 Associates owned a large Union City parcel near North Bergen; development planned a 52-unit condo requiring sewerage connection.
Sewage could flow to either North Bergen MUA treatment plant or North Hudson SA treatment plant; the project connected to Union City lines owned by North Hudson SA.
Dispute arose over which authority could collect the statutorily authorized connection fee under N.J.S.A. 40:14A-8 and N.J.S.A. 40:14B-22; each party claimed entitlement based on different statutory provisions.
Plaintiff deposited escrowed funds representing North Hudson SA’s connection fee to avoid duplicative charges while interpleader issues were litigated.
Appellate Division had previously held that both authorities could charge connection fees and directed apportionment of the escrowed amount; the matter was certified to the Supreme Court for ultimate resolution of statutory interpretation.
Court affirmed the Appellate Division as modified, upholding a framework that allows both authorities to charge a connection fee while ensuring fair, non-duplicative apportionment of costs.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a connection fee can be imposed by an indirect as well as direct connection.	612 Associates contends direct connection only; fee should go to the directly connecting authority.	North Hudson SA contends only direct connection supports the fee; indirect connections are outside the fee.	Fees may be charged by both authorities for direct or indirect connections.
Whether fees must be limited to the cost of the physical connection or can include capital costs and debt service for the system.	612 Associates argues fees should reflect capital costs across the system and be non-duplicative.	North Hudson SA/North Bergen MUA argue for broader recovery of capital costs where appropriate.	Fees must be a fair payment toward the cost of the system and non-duplicative, reflecting each applicable system's costs.
How to apportion a single escrowed fee when both authorities are entitled to fees.	Escrowed sum should be split fairly between both authorities.	Apportionment should reflect proportional use and avoid duplicative charges.	Equitable apportionment, tied to each authority's share of capital costs, is appropriate.
Whether interpleader escrow procedure affects the validity of the statutory interpretation and apportionment.	Interpleader allows marketability by avoiding duplicative fees.	Interpleader should not substitute for statutory apportionment rules.	Interpleader acceptance of escrow does not undermine the statutory apportionment framework.

Airwick Indus., Inc. v. Carlstadt Sewerage Auth., 57 N.J. 107 (N.J. 1970) (connection fees must fairly spread capital costs among users)
White Birch Realty Corp. v. Gloucester Twp. Mun. Utils. Auth., 80 N.J. 165 (N.J. 1979) (extension of Airwick fairness principles to municipal utilities authorities)
S.S. & O. Corp. v. Twp. of Bernards Sewerage Auth., 62 N.J. 369 (N.J. 1973) (limits on fee schedules to reasonable, uniform, proportional shares)