E. Schock v. City of Lebanon
2017 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 556
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2017Background
- Lebanon sought to create a Business Improvement District (a type of Neighborhood Improvement District, “NID”) and circulated a final plan listing 358 properties within the district; 280 were to be assessed and 78 were tax-exempt.
- The City received 146 written objections from property owners; after rejecting 13 defective objections, it counted 132 valid objections (one from a tax-exempt owner).
- The City counted objections against the full set of 358 properties and concluded 132 objections (36.8%) did not reach the 40% veto threshold; Objector contended only the 280 assessed properties should be the denominator.
- Objector filed for declaratory relief arguing Section 5(f)(2) of the Neighborhood Improvement District Act (the Act) limits "affected property owners" for veto purposes to those assessed; the City argued "affected" includes all property owners within the district (assessed and non-assessed).
- The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, finding (based on statutory text and affidavits showing non-assessed properties benefit) that "affected property owners" includes all property owners within the NID; the Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Objector's Argument | City’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who counts toward the 40% veto under §5(f)(2): only assessed property owners or all property owners within the NID? | "Affected property owners" means the subset who will be assessed (those who pay); only assessed owners should count because assessments require a "rational nexus" of benefit and only payers have a stake. | "Affected property owners" means all owners within the district who are acted upon/benefited by the BID, including tax‑exempt/non‑assessed owners; the statute uses broader terms and does not limit veto to "assessed." | Affirmed: "affected property owners" includes all property owners within the NID (assessed and non‑assessed); 132 objections did not meet the 40% threshold. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hammet v. Philadelphia, 65 Pa. 146 (Pa. 1869) (special assessments justified only by benefits to assessed properties)
- S.O.L. Club v. City of Williamsport, 443 A.2d 410 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (special assessment principles regarding benefits to assessed property)
- Pace Motels, Inc. v. Twp. of Loyalsock, 409 A.2d 459 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (assessment must be tied to benefits conferred on assessed properties)
- Malt Beverages Distributors Ass'n v. Pa. Liquor Control Bd., 974 A.2d 1144 (Pa. 2009) (statutory construction: ascertain and effectuate legislative intent; plain language controls)
- Pyeritz v. Commonwealth, 32 A.3d 687 (Pa. 2011) (summary judgment standard and review on appeal)