Bucks County Services, Inc. v. PPA, Bucks County Services, Inc. v. PPA

BCS holds a partial-rights certificate to operate taxicabs in parts of Philadelphia; the Philadelphia Parking Authority (Authority), through its Taxicab and Limousine Division (TLD), sets an annual assessment per cab.
TLD notified BCS on August 15, 2014 that the FY2015 assessment was $1,457 per cab, totaling $17,484 for 12 cabs, due September 15, 2014; BCS did not pay by the deadline.
After an investigation, TLD issued a citation for failure to pay the assessment; BCS requested a hearing and admitted receipt of the notice and nonpayment but said it had disputed the amount and would pay whatever was lawfully owed after resolution.
The Hearing Officer sustained the citation, relying on the Parking Authorities Law provision that filing a petition challenging an assessment does not relieve an owner of the obligation to pay on time, and imposed a $250 penalty.
On appeal to the trial court, BCS failed to file a brief as ordered (obtained an extension but still did not file), so the trial court affirmed the Hearing Officer’s decision; BCS then appealed to this Court.
This Court affirmed, holding BCS waived its constitutional challenge to the assessment statute by failing to preserve and develop the issue below and by not filing a brief identifying its issues for appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether BCS preserved a facial constitutional challenge to the assessment statute	BCS asserted the assessment/budget scheme (53 Pa. C.S. §§ 5707–5710) is unconstitutional and argued it was not required to raise that challenge before the Authority	Authority argued BCS failed to preserve or develop the constitutional claim below and thus cannot raise it on appeal	Court held BCS waived the constitutional challenge because it did not raise or develop it at the first opportunity before the Authority or trial court
Whether failure to file a brief before the trial court precluded appellate review	BCS attempted to rely on a companion party’s brief at oral argument and later raised issues in a Rule 1925(b) statement	Authority argued that failure to file the required brief and to identify issues amounted to waiver; trial court had discretion to treat it as such	Court held the failure to file a brief (and absence of record development) justified finding waiver and affirmed the lower court decision

Orange Stones Co. v. City of Reading, Zoning Hearing Bd., 32 A.3d 287 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (issues not raised before the trial court cannot be raised for the first time on appeal)
Bd. of Supervisors of Willistown Twp. v. Main Line Gardens, Inc., 155 A.3d 39 (Pa. 2017) (trial court discretion to treat failure to comply with briefing requirements as waiver)
Lindros Taxi, LLC v. Phila. Parking Auth., 143 A.3d 443 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (scope of appellate review when trial court takes no additional evidence)