A. Ziegler v. City of Reading and Reading Area Water Authority
142 A.3d 119
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Reading is a third-class city operating under a home-rule charter; it delegated solid-waste planning to the Reading Area Water Authority (RAWA) and historically ran a mandatory curbside recycling program.
- From 1991–2012 Reading charged a curbside recycling/service fee; it suspended fees in Nov. 2013 after this Court’s Iezzi decision, then enacted Ordinances 20-2014 and 21-2014 (consolidating fees into a $303.10 “curbside waste collection fee” that embedded a $91.83 recycling service component) and resumed collection in April 2014.
- Reading funds recycling from (1) the municipal fee (~$2.3M), (2) DEP Act 101 grants (Sections 902 & 904), and (3) sale/marketing of recyclables (under $100k); grants and market revenue do not cover program costs.
- Residents filed a class action seeking declaratory relief that Reading’s ordinances/fee are preempted by Act 101 and unlawful because (a) Act 101 does not authorize local user fees and (b) Reading’s home-rule status means it cannot rely on Third Class City Code amendments.
- Trial court upheld Reading’s ordinances, reasoning the fee does not cover all costs, is supplemented by grants and sales, and the Third Class City Code amendment authorizing recycling fees supports the fee; this appeal followed.
- Commonwealth Court vacated and remanded for further proceedings, directing additional analysis consistent with this Court’s recent en banc decision in Waste Management regarding whether the fee undermines Act 101’s goals of financial self-sufficiency and program efficiency and noting the need for DEP input and sustainability analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reading’s curbside recycling/service fee is preempted by Act 101 | Fee is preempted: Act 101 provides specified funding mechanisms and does not authorize local property-owner user fees; prior precedents strike comparable fees | Fee is not preempted as applied: the fee does not cover all costs, supplements grants/market revenue, and is otherwise authorized by statute (Third Class City Code amendment) | Vacated and remanded: Court requires further analysis (per Waste Management) on whether the fee adversely affects financial self-sufficiency or program efficiency and to obtain DEP input |
| Whether the City may rely on Third Class City Code authority while operating under a home-rule charter | Home-rule status displaces the Third Class City Code; Reading cannot ‘pick’ code powers to authorize fees | Home-rule cities retain broad authority and may exercise powers formerly provided by their code; Third Class City Code amendment authorizing recycling fees can be invoked | Held that Reading may rely on that statutory authorization, but fee still must be tested for inconsistency with Act 101; remand required |
| Whether consideration of other municipalities’ funding practices was improper | Other cities’ practices are immaterial and differ by charter/code; cannot justify Reading’s fee | Comparative data shows many cities rely on fees and grants alone are insufficient; such evidence is relevant to feasibility | Court held trial court did not abuse discretion in considering other cities’ experiences; that evidence is admissible but not dispositive |
| Whether Reading ignored available alternatives (grants, alternative program models, resource recovery, or opting out) | Reading failed to exhaust alternative funding/mechanisms and could discontinue program under Act 101 defenses | Alternatives are limited, often inapplicable, or insufficient (grant limits, ineligibility, Section 1501(h) conditions); discontinuation is only an affirmative defense, not a right | Court found Residents did not prove alternatives would cover the deficit; nevertheless remand required to evaluate whether Reading sought/considered viable alternatives and sustainability measures |
Key Cases Cited
- Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Protection, 107 A.3d 273 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (remanded to evaluate whether novel funding/support undermines Act 101 goals of sustainability and self-sufficiency)
- Pennsylvania Waste Industries Association v. Monroe County Municipal Waste Management Authority, 80 A.3d 546 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Act 101 preemption explained; municipal fees allowed only if not inconsistent with Act 101 and otherwise authorized)
- City of Reading v. Iezzi, 78 A.3d 1257 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (service fee covering all recycling costs held inconsistent with Act 101)
- IESI PA Bethlehem Landfill Corp. v. County of Lehigh, 887 A.2d 1289 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (unauthorized county recycling-related fees preempted by Act 101)
- Pennsylvania Independent Waste Haulers Association v. County of Northumberland, 885 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Act 101 preempted counties’ duplicative administrative fees)
- McSwain v. City of Farrell, 624 A.2d 256 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (home-rule city remains a third-class city but may exercise broad home-rule powers)
- Hartman v. City of Allentown, 880 A.2d 737 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (home-rule municipalities may exercise powers granted by former municipal codes in appropriate circumstances)