500 JAMES HANCE COURT and Knauer and Gorman Construction Co., Inc. v. PENNSYLVANIA PREVAILING WAGE APPEALS BOARD
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Decided Nov. 23, 2011.
Argued March 9, 2011.
33 A.3d 555
Accordingly, I concur with the majority affirming the dismissal of Appellant‘s complaint.
Carl A. Ammerman, Jay R. Lantzy, Richard C. Lengler, PA Department of Labor & Industry, Harrisburg, for Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Appeals Board.
Joseph J. Dougherty, Lyons, Dougherty, Shaffer & Schneider, LLC, Chadds Ford, Joseph T. Doyle, Brian LeGrow, Law Offices of Vincent B. Mancini & Associates, Media, for 500 James Hance Court, L.P. and Knauer and Gorman Construction Co. Inc.
Samantha Sherwood Bononno, Thomas Richard Davies, Harmon & Davies, for Appellee Amicus Curiae, Keystone Chapter Associated Builders and Contractors, Inc.
Kevin Michael McKenna, Latsha, Davis, Yohe & McKenna, P.C., for Appellee Amicus Curiae, PA Coalition of Public Charter Schools.
OPINION
Justice SAYLOR.
The issue of public importance centering this appeal is whether, under the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act, a pre-development lease involving a charter school may implicate wage regulation in the ensuing construction of the leased premises.
I. Background
A. Parties and Interested Entities
The appellant is the Bureau of Labor Law Compliance (the “Bureau“), a unit of the Department of Labor and Industry (the “Department“), which is the Commonwealth agency charged with administration and enforcement of the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Act.1 The appellees are 500 James Hance Court, L.P. (“Developer“), which operates as a commercial real estate developer, and Knauer and Gorman Construction Co., Inc. (“Contractor“) (collectively, with Developer, “Appellees“).
The Collegium Foundation (the “Foundation“) is a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation which acts as a support organization for the Collegium Charter School (the “School“). The School, also a non-profit corporation, operates a charter school within the West Chester Area School District under the Charter School Law.2
B. Prevailing Wage Law, Generally
Under Section 5 of the Wage Act, “[n]ot less than the prevailing minimum wages as determined [under the Act] shall be paid to all workmen employed on public work.”
C. Procedural and Factual History
On September 25, 2006, Developer entered into a construction management agreement with Contractor pertaining to the erection of a building at 500 James Hance Court, situated within the Oaklands Corporate Center in Exton, Chester County. According to the agreement, the contemplated, 68,000-square-foot structure was to be used as an elementary charter school, and the project was denominated “Collegium Charter School.”
On October 1, 2006, Developer and the Foundation entered into a long-term, pre-development lease pertaining to the above building,3 containing an option to purchase after five
On October 2, 2006, Contractor entered into a subcontract with Pancoast & Clifford, Inc. (“Subcontractor“) for the physical construction of the building.
Soon after the lease and related contracts were executed, the Bureau notified the School that it was investigating the project to determine whether prevailing wages were required. In this regard, the Bureau explained that charter school construction is treated the same as a traditional school project for prevailing wage purposes. See Letter from Deputy Chief Counsel for the Bureau to the School Solicitor (Oct. 4, 2006), reproduced in Supplemental Reproduced Record (“R.R. Supp.“) at 1b-3b. See generally Mosaica I, 836 A.2d at 189.
In its response, the School represented that Developer had intended to construct an office building at the 500 James Hance Court site before the Foundation and School expressed an interest in occupancy. See Letter from the School Solicitor to the Bureau (Oct. 24, 2006), reproduced in R.R. Supp. at 4b. Furthermore, the School observed that Developer bore the
On October 27, 2006, the Bureau issued a determination that prevailing wages were required for the project. The agency relied on the Foundation‘s involvement as the lessee; the intended use of the building as a charter school; rental payments by the School exceeding $600,000 annually; the option to purchase after five years; the $1.6 million “security deposit,” which the Bureau had learned was to be financed by bonds issued in 2004 by the Chester County Industrial Authority; and the Foundation‘s obtaining of a leasehold mortgage (apparently as a condition to the use of the bond monies), as authorized under the lease terms. See Letter from Deputy Chief Counsel for the Bureau to the School Solicitor (Oct. 27, 2006), reproduced in R.R. at 14a-15a. By way of analogy, the Bureau explained that, under a federal prevailing wage law known as the Davis-Bacon Act,4 a lease may implicate prevailing wage regulation. The Bureau referenced a multi-factored test employed by the United States Labor Department‘s Administrative Review Board to assess whether a long-term lease is a disguised public-works contract. See In re Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Mgmt., ARB Case No. 01-010, 2001 WL 944696 (June 29, 2001), reproduced in Brief for Intervenor at App. 4. This test, referred to below as the Phoenix Field Office test, examines: (1) the length of the
On December 7, 2006, Appellees responded by lodging a grievance with the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Appeals Board (the “Board“), under Section 2.2.(e) of the Act. See
As noted, however, the existing lease made no such distinction between shell and interior construction, but rather, merely provided for the allocation of a $1.6 million “security deposit” to procurement of materials and equipment primarily for use in the interior construction. In their papers, Appellees did not discuss this “security deposit” arrangement under the existing lease or the discrepancies between their representations and the terms of such lease. Indeed, while purporting to provide this lease to the Board, see Exhibits on Behalf of Grievants, In re 500 James Hance Court, L.P. & Knauer & Gorman Constr. Co., No. PWAB-8G-2006 (PWAB Jan. 12, 2007), in fact, they provided a different, unexecuted lease which mirrored their litigation position depicting a bifurcation between shell and interior construction. See Letter from Appellees’ Counsel to the Board, No. PWAB-8G-2006 (PWAB May 19, 2008) (explaining that Appellees previously had provided an “unsigned copy of the Lease” and offering a subsequently-executed, modified Lease as the intended exhibit).6
Of additional significance, Appellees averred in their grievance that their plans to construct a building at 500 James Hance Court predated the Foundation‘s involvement. Appellees’ proposed findings of fact were also to this effect.
On March 1, 2007, Developer and the Foundation consummated the amended lease embodying a bifurcation of shell and interior construction activities. The amended lease indicated that the security deposit provision was “[p]urposefully deleted.” Amended Lease at ¶ 5 (Mar. 1, 2007). By this amend-
To facilitate the Board‘s disposition of Appellees’ grievance, and consistent with the applicable procedural regulations, the Bureau and Appellees executed a stipulation of agreed-upon facts on May 19, 2008. See
Pennsylvania prevailing wages were requested for construction of the “fit out.” The Bureau issued rates for the project on August 25, 2006, Serial Number 06-6040.
Stip. at ¶ 16.10
Notably, as well, the stipulation was silent concerning Developer‘s asserted commitment to construct a building at 500 James Hance Court prior to the Foundation‘s involvement.
In their pre-decision briefs, Appellees’ primary position was that the Charter School Law‘s extension of the Wage Act to “contractors of charter schools,”
The Bureau, for its part, posited that the stream of lease payments to be provided by the Foundation or School was tantamount to construction financing. The Bureau‘s core position was that:
[T]his Project requires prevailing wages because it is undertaken for the sole purpose of constructing a building for an entity subject to prevailing wage requirements. The building‘s shell and interior are being constructed for the sole purpose of a[sic] building a charter school. The absence of other tenants, the lease containing the building‘s specifications and the Foundation‘s operation and payment for this building clearly indicate that charter school funds are being expended for the purpose of operating a charter school. These lease provisions mirror the provisions of leases for construction requiring federal prevailing wages. The lease is a construction contract.
Brief Opposing Grievance, In re 500 James Hance Court, L.P. & Knauer & Gorman Constr. Co., No. PWAB-8G-2006, at 16-17 (PWAB Feb. 12, 2007). To this end, the Bureau again invoked the Phoenix Field Office test. Furthermore, the Bureau contested Appellees’ position that construction would have occurred without the Foundation‘s involvement. See
After oral argument, and with the stipulation and accompanying documents serving as the factual record, the Board issued its final decision and order on June 30, 2008. The Board determined that the Wage Act applied to the entire project and denied Appellees’ grievance. Its factual findings tracked the parties’ stipulation, including the misleading assertion that prevailing wages were requested of the Department for the interior construction in August 2006.
In its reasoning, the Board discussed the relevant statutory terms, see supra Part I(B); indicated that the Act‘s purpose is to protect workers on public projects from substandard wages; and observed that the enactment is a remedial statute, as to which exceptions are to be construed narrowly. See Final Decision & Order, In re 500 James Hance Court, L.P. & Knauer & Gorman Constr. Co., No. PWAB-8G-2006, slip op. at 6 (PWAB June 30, 2008) (citations omitted).11 Additionally, the Board explained that, under prevailing law, the burden of proof in a grievance proceeding is on the grievant. See id. at 7 (citing
The Board proceeded to discuss the Mosaica line of cases. From Mosaica I, it drew the proposition that charter schools are to be treated the same as traditional public schools for purposes of construction projects, see Mosaica I, 836 A.2d at 189, as well as the subsidiary proposition that the Wage Act‘s
As to Mosaica II, the Board differed with Appellees’ argument that the decision controlled the outcome of their own grievance proceedings. Whereas in Mosaica II the Commonwealth Court had found no evidence that the charter school had any role in determining space and performance goals for the project, see Mosaica II, 925 A.2d at 187, in the present circumstances the Board emphasized that it was undisputed that the Foundation and/or School controlled one of the two core phases of the project (i.e., the fit-out), and that public monies would be used to pay for the construction in that phase. Accordingly, the Board related, prevailing wages pertained at least to that phase. Furthermore, the Board reasoned, had the project proceeded under one contract, as originally structured, “the combination of work covered by the Act, with other work, would have subjected the entire project to the Act, without any need to determine if the other work independently qualified as public work.” Final Decision & Order, No. PWAB-8G-2006, slip op. at 10 (citing Borough of Ebensburg v. PWAB, 893 A.2d 181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)); see also id. at 11 (“At argument, [Appellees] commendably conceded that the project was broken up into two contracts to avoid application of the Act, characterizing this as a fair assessment.“).
Thus, the Board placed particular emphasis on the timing of the bifurcation of the project, which occurred five months after the property already had been committed to use as a charter school, under the October 1, 2006, pre-development lease. According to the Board, existing Commonwealth Court decisions suggest that “contracts cannot be artificially separated to avoid prevailing wage requirements.” Id. (citing Borough of Ebensburg, 893 A.2d at 186); accord
Focusing on the pre-development lease scenario, the Board suggested that, as a general proposition, rent payments may be viewed as indirectly paying for construction costs, which
On one hand, it would be absurd to suggest that construction of a high-rise office building is subject to the Act because one of many prospective tenants happens to be a government agency. On the other hand, a construction contract could be cleverly redrafted as a lease to circumvent the Act‘s coverage.
Id. In resolving this dilemma, the Board agreed with the Bureau that the Phoenix Field Office test offers “probably the most comprehensive and cogent [analysis] balancing these concerns.” Id.
Assessing the Phoenix Field Office factors against the present circumstances, the Board ultimately determined that they weighed in favor of requiring prevailing-wage coverage for the shell because: the lease is for twenty-four years with an option to purchase after five years; the lease payments will pay for the shell‘s construction costs within six years;13 the building is to be used exclusively for a charter school; 23.7 percent of the total construction costs are for customizing the facility, i.e., for the fit-out; Developer admitted that the project was bifurcated to avoid prevailing wage requirements for the shell; and, although the Bureau made a less-than-compelling argument that the shell would not be generic, the plans and specifications were not included in the Stipulation, a critical omission since Appellees had the burden of proof in the proceeding as a whole under the applicable regulations. See id. at 14-20 (citing
The Board did not resolve specifically the parties’ dispute concerning whether or not Developer would have proceeded with construction absent the pre-development lease with the Foundation. Presumably, it so refrained since the parties had
A divided panel of the Commonwealth Court reversed in a published opinion. See 500 James Hance Court v. PWAB, 983 A.2d 792 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). The majority opened its legal analysis with a review of Penn. National I, where this Court accepted the possibility that the Wage Act‘s applicability might be limited to a stage or stages of a multi-phase construction project. See Penn. Nat‘l I, 552 Pa. at 398, 715 A.2d at 1074 (“Nothing in section 5 of the Act mandates that an entire construction project be covered by the Act.“). The majority then accepted the bifurcation of the Collegium Charter School project without further critical analysis, based primarily on the conclusion that the building shell was not to be paid for in whole or in part from the funds of a public body. See 500 James Hance Court, 983 A.2d at 799. In this respect, the majority criticized the Board for suggesting that the financing of the shell construction was not entirely private, but rather, was secured by the Foundation‘s rent payments. See id. at 800 (“The clear and uncontroverted distinction is that the construction of the ‘building shell’ was not ‘public work’ because the project was financed and secured by [Appellees].“).14
Regarding the Board‘s position that the bifurcation of the Collegium Charter School project represented an attempt to circumvent the Wage Act, the Commonwealth Court majority focused entirely on its Mosaica II decision. In material part, the majority highlighted that the contractual relationship between the charter-school management company and the charter school, in Mosaica, did not arise until after the management company had contracted for renovations to the building. See id. at 801. The majority considered the circumstances to be the same in the present case, because the contractual relationship between Developer and the Foundation “was con-
Without discussing the Phoenix Field Office test, which lay at the heart of the Board‘s determination or the associated concern with the potential for public works disguised as lease arrangements to avoid wage regulation, the Commonwealth Court majority pronounced that rent payments simply are not the equivalent of construction funding. It emphasized that the lease reflected Appellees’ intent to maintain control over its property and not to sell the property to the Foundation;17 payment of rent by the Foundation in consideration for use and occupancy; and Appellees’ reversionary interest in the property. See id. at 803-04. According to the majority, “[t]he Board provided no guidance to this Court, neither by statute nor by case law, to justify its conclusion that the rent was somehow synonymous with or tantamount to payments for the construction of the ‘building shell’ leased by the Collegium Foundation.” Id. at 804.18
[T]he entity of 500 James Hance Court, LLC, intended to construct a facility solely for the Collegium Charter School and had a formal relationship with the school. Originally, construction of the building shell and fit out for Collegium Charter School were established under one contract, which was entered into on September 25, 2006 ... The lease for the charter school was entered on October 1, 2006. The various leases and construction contracts all listed the project as the “Collegium Charter School” before the work was divided in March 2007. This building would not have been built but for the Collegium Charter School occupancy.
Id. Further, the dissent observed that exceptions to prevailing wage coverage should be narrowly construed in light of the Act‘s remedial nature. According to the dissent, such an approach compelled application of wage regulation to the construction of the entire building, including both shell and the fit-out works. See id. at 804-05.
The Bureau sought reargument, suggesting that the Commonwealth Court majority merely framed and rejected a series of straw-man arguments while ignoring the central position of the Board and Bureau grounded on the Phoenix Field Office test for assessing the role rental payments play in financing a public work. According to the Bureau‘s petition, the majority opinion “allows circumvention of payment of Pennsylvania prevailing wages through legal and financial development lease arrangements which thwart operation of prevailing wage laws, including the Phoenix Field Office line.
This Court allowed further appeal to address the Board‘s and Bureau‘s salient position. See James Hance Court v. PWAB, 606 Pa. 502, 999 A.2d 589 (2010) (per curiam).
II. The Parties’ Presentations
A. The Primary Briefs
Presently, the Bureau maintains its core position that: the Collegium Charter School project was “artificially bifurcated” via a belated alteration of a lease designed to evade wage regulation; the result is to undermine the legislative policy dictating that cost savings on construction projects financed in whole or in part by public funds are not to be achieved at the expense of workers; the Commonwealth Court inappropriately ignored that there are many avenues, in today‘s sophisticated business and legal environments, for thwarting the Wage Act‘s requirements; careful screening by administrative and judicial tribunals is essential to guard against abuses; and the Phoenix Field Office test is an appropriate litmus to ensure effectuation of the salient legislative objectives. The Bureau also continues to advance its factual assertion that the building was a directed-purpose project from the outset. See, e.g., Brief for Intervenor at 14 (“This project was designed to be completed as the Collegium Charter School from the start.“). Additionally, the Bureau frames its position on this point in terms of the allocation of the burden of proof to Developer. See id. at 15 (“Developer had the burden of proof in this proceeding and failed to point out anything in the record that the project was not a custom-built facility.“).
In response, Appellees reiterate their position concerning the propriety of and common instance of bifurcation to accommodate tenant needs; the concomitant separateness of the public and private financing aspects of the Collegium Charter School project; and the legitimacy and accouterments of the lease relationship between Developer and the Foundation. From the broadest frame of reference, Appellees’ position remains that a private developer assumes and retains substan
Appellees also place substantial reliance on the following explanation from Penn. National I:
Nothing in section 5 of the Act mandates that an entire construction project be covered by the Act. On the contrary, section 5 is a limited requirement that workmen be paid prevailing wage only on “public work.” The legislature could have crafted the definition of “public work” to include work that was not paid for in whole or in part with funds of a public body, but instead it chose to limit prevailing wage to be paid only on that work that satisfies the four element definition of “public work.”
Brief for Appellees at 10-11 (quoting Penn. Nat‘l I, 552 Pa. at 398, 715 A.2d at 1074). Appellees maintain that Developer planned to construct a generic commercial building on the premises prior to the Foundation‘s involvement, albeit they provide no response to the Bureau‘s observations that this is not a fact of record and that the burden to create a record to support such a contention rested with Appellees.
Appellees’ amicus, the Keystone Chapter of Associated Builders and Contractors, agrees with Appellees that bifurcation into shell and fit-out is a common business practice and suggests that applying what it terms an “overreaching” interpretation of the Act could have a detrimental effect on development in Pennsylvania and the construction industry, and make developers less likely to offer their space to public users. Brief for Amicus Keystone Chapter of Associated Builders & Contractors, Inc. at 3. Appellees’ other amicus, the Pennsylvania Coalition of Public Charter Schools, maintains that it would be improper to use the multi-factored test developed by a federal agency under the Davis-Bacon Act in the present circumstances, because nothing in the Charter School Law or the Wage Act suggests that the General Assembly intended that such a test be applied with respect to charter schools. It
B. The Supplemental Briefs and Record
Upon our initial review, we found it difficult to address a number of the parties’ arguments on the basis of the stipulation they presented, and we directed them to provide correction or clarification per Rule of Appellate Procedure 1926. See Order, James Hance Court v. PWAB, No. 49 MAP 2010 (Pa. Aug. 5, 2011) (per curiam). In particular, we were concerned with the absence of lease attachments containing material terms governing the Foundation‘s and Developer‘s contractual relationship. We also questioned the accuracy of the indication, in the parties’ stipulation, that there was some early request for prevailing wages for the fit-out.19
The implication [of the stipulation] seems to be that the lessee or the lessor (or at the very least someone besides the Bureau) considered interior construction to be subject to the Prevailing Wage Act prior to August 25, 2006, and requested prevailing wage rates in that time period per the Act. This is consistent with various representations made by the appellee[s] throughout the litigation. See, e.g., Brief for Appellants, James Hance Court, L.P. v. PPWAB, 983 A.2d 792 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008 [2009]), 2008 WL 7276625, at *15 (“[F]rom the outset, there has never been a question whether prevailing wages were mandatory for the fit out performed by the Foundation since public funds were used to complete this portion of the project.“). Nevertheless, Bureau correspondence dated October 27, 2006, seems to con
In response, a supplemental record was provided containing some of the exhibits to the leases, including Exhibit E to the October 1, 2006, lease. As previously noted, Exhibit E confirms that the $1.6 million “security deposit” to be provided by the Foundation was allocated largely to funding the procurement of materials necessary to the building fit-out. The parties also supplied documents confirming that the School took the position from the outset that no part of the project was subject to prevailing wage requirements.
The Bureau and Appellees also filed supplemental briefs. The Bureau explained that the stipulation was materially inaccurate in its suggestion of an early request of the Department for prevailing wage rates. In fact, according to the Bureau‘s supplemental brief, the first actual request for rates (other than the Bureau‘s own request upon its determination that the Wage Act applied) occurred on May 11, 2007. On this point, Appellees’ brief responds to this Court‘s query as to who—other than the Bureau—requested prevailing wage rates by acknowledging “somewhat of a mistake” in the existing stipulation. Supplemental Brief for Appellees at 4. Unhelpfully, Appellees phrase their remaining explanation, again, in the passive voice, stating: “[P]revailing wage rates for the construction of the ‘fit-out’ work . . . were requested on November 20, 2006.” Id.20
Appellate review of the Board‘s decision is limited to determining whether a constitutional violation, an error of law, or a procedural irregularity has occurred, and whether the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial evidence. See
A. Streamlining the Issues and Contentions
This appeal is substantially more convoluted than it should be as a result of a very modest factual record omitting important details, such as material terms of the leases; imprecision and/or artfulness in the depiction of the factual circumstances both in the stipulation and in the briefs; repeated extra-record assertions; and a failure, on the part of the Commonwealth Court, to provide a complete and creditable analysis of the Board‘s rationale and the Bureau‘s arguments on their terms, see, e.g., supra notes 14-18. In this disordered landscape, we offer the following preliminary comments to clarify our own decisional focus.
Initially, there appears to be a fair degree of intermixing of several different, albeit overlapping, questions. First—and the issue of greatest public importance in this appeal—is the question of whether, or under what circumstances, a pre-development lease implicates regulation under the Wage Act. The second question concerns the degree to which parties which have entered into a lease incorporating a public funding
The first of these questions represents our main concern, given its wider significance, and is the subject of our main discussion below. The second, at least in its broadest frame, has not been squarely presented by the Bureau, which is the appellant at this stage of the litigation and therefore bears the responsibility to frame the issues it wishes to be heard. See, e.g., Commonwealth v. Reed, 605 Pa. 431, 438, 990 A.2d 1158, 1163 (2010) (referencing the ordinary rule that the appellant bears the obligations of issue preservation and presentation). By way of further explanation, a subtext of this appeal arises out of the questionable behavior of the Foundation and/or Developer in styling the tender of $1.6 million in public funds to be used to finance construction materials as a “security deposit,” while failing to request a determination from the Department of prevailing wage rates, and denying any involvement of public (or charter-school) funds when the Bureau opened an investigation. The Bureau, however, has participated in generating a factual presentation in this litigation which downplays the particulars of the October 1, 2006, lease. For example, the stipulation comprising the core factual record in the case simply passes over this lease, omitting it from its chronological sequence in the recitation of the material facts.
Indeed, there seems to be an overall reluctance on the part of all the parties to develop the role of the $1.6 million “security deposit” in these affairs. Furthermore, the Bureau has not offered legal authority to support any sort of estoppel theory, by which Appellees might be considered to be bound to the circumstances prevailing under the initial lease. Thus, consistent with the manner in which the appeal has been
As to the third question, absent some sort of estoppel, there does not appear to be any reason why parties to a contract or lease cannot modify their relationship to account for legal requirements (such as prevailing wages) which may attach to one, but not another, manner of transacting.22 Addi
We agree with the Bureau, however, that Penn. National I‘s holding does not answer all questions arising in pre-development lease scenarios, as such setting presents its own unique concerns in the application of the Wage Act. Thus, our main focus, going forward, is on whether the Phoenix Field Office test, or some other appropriate litmus, should pertain to screen against artful drafting of contracts to evade wage regulation.
B. Pre-Development Lease Scenarios
In terms of the Wage Act, the pre-development lease scenario most closely implicates the element entailing payment, in whole or in part, with public funds, see
Nevertheless, we agree with the Bureau that the labels appended to transactional documents do not exclusively determine the applicability of regulation under the Wage Act, as the potential for evasion and artifice is too great. Rather, as in other settings, the economic reality of the transaction should control. Cf. Frank Lyon Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 561, 573, 98 S.Ct. 1291, 1298, 55 L.Ed.2d 550 (1978) (explaining, in the context of federal tax regulation, that “[t]he Court has never regarded ‘the simple expedient of drawing up papers’ as controlling . . . when the objective economic realities are to the contrary.” (citation omitted)). Thus, the question legitimately arises whether the stream of rental payments required under the Foundation/Developer lease arrangement are tantamount to construction financing.
The Phoenix Field Office test provides one method for considering the economic reality associated with a pre-development lease. Most of the prongs of the test, however—i.e., lease length; government involvement; private versus public use; recapture of construction costs; and evasive drafting, see Phoenix Field Office, Bureau of Land Mgmt., ARB Case No. 01-010, slip op. at 8-11—offer only very generalized guidance. The last factor (evasive drafting) is the only one which would seem to bear substantial independent significance if proven. Given the unlikelihood that evasiveness will be conceded, however, in most cases the proofs must circle back to a consideration of the overall circumstances.
In view of the looseness inherent in the framing of the Phoenix Field Office factors, we do not believe it would be useful for us to adopt them here. We realize that the Board felt differently, and we acknowledge the substantial deference generally afforded to the interpretation of an enactment rendered by the agency charged with its administration. See Rendell v. Pa. State Ethics Comm‘n, 603 Pa. 292, 306, 983 A.2d 708, 716 (2009). Nevertheless, we need not defer uncritically, particularly if we find that the interpretation is impru
In particular, we do not believe that the prongs of the Phoenix Field Office test account sufficiently for a key aspect of business transactions, namely, the allocation of risk. Notably, in assessing the economic realities of a particular lease transaction (albeit for purposes of federal income taxation), the United States Supreme Court placed particular emphasis on the risk undertaken by the lessor. The Court explained as follows:
Here, . . . most significantly, it was [the lessor] alone, and not [the lessee], who was liable on the notes. . . . Despite the facts that [the lessee] had agreed to pay rent and that this rent equaled the amounts due from [the lessor] to [the secured creditor], should anything go awry in the later years of the lease, [the lessor] was primarily liable. No matter how the transaction could have been devised otherwise, it remains a fact that as the agreements were placed in final form, the obligation on the notes fell squarely on [the lessor]. [The lessor], an ongoing enterprise, exposed its very business well-being to this real and substantial risk. The effect of this liability on [the lessor] is not just the abstract possibility that something will go wrong and that [the lessee] will not be able to make its payments. [The lessor] had disclosed this liability on its balance sheet for all the world to see. Its financial position was affected substantially by the presence of this long-term debt, despite the offsetting presence of the building as an asset. To the extent that [the lessor] had used its capital in this transaction, it is less able to obtain financing for other business needs.
Lyon, 435 U.S. at 576-77, 98 S.Ct. at 1300 (footnotes omitted).
We agree with the United States Supreme Court (and Appellees) that risk allocation should be a prominent consideration in assessing the economic reality of a business transaction and, in particular, a lease, and that such analysis appro
Presently, we will not attempt to hypothesize the range of circumstances which might counterbalance a prima facie case in the pre-development lease setting. Rather, we believe it is enough to conclude that the Bureau has not gone forward with the evidence to a sufficient degree such that the ultimate burden should shift back to Appellees.
For example, there is little indication that the lease payments by the Foundation were designed to be anything other than compensation for use of the building. To support its contrary finding, the Bureau highlights that, at oral argument, Appellees indicated that the lease payments would allow con
The record fails to establish that the rent payments were the equivalent of funding for the construction of the “building shell.” A review of the lease between [Developer] and the . . . Foundation supports [Developer]‘s position that it intended to maintain control over its property for a leased term of years and not to sell the property to the . . . Foundation. The rent paid by the . . . Foundation was in consideration for the use and occupancy of the land or building. [Developer] at all times retained a reversionary interest in the property under the lease as the landlord. . . .
500 James Hance Court, 983 A.2d at 803-04 (footnotes and citation omitted).26
The Bureau and Board have supported their position, moreover, by reference to the Foundation‘s option to purchase the shell after five years. See id. at 14-15. In this respect, they appear to overlook that the price would not be nominal, but rather, would be based on the shell‘s market value at the time of purchase. See Amended Lease at § 3(b), reproduced in R.R. 516a (setting the option price as the appraised value of the property minus the cost that the Foundation incurred in constructing the fit-out). Thus, even if the Foundation exercises its option, its lease payments will have already nearly paid for the cost of constructing the shell, including financing costs, and the sum of its lease payments and the purchase price will be nearly twice the construction costs. It is therefore difficult to argue that the five-year purchase option supports the concept that the underlying arrangement is really a contract for construction, and that the Foundation was merely trying to save money by avoiding the need to pay prevailing wages on the shell. See generally In re Buehne Farms, Inc., 321 B.R. 239, 245 (Bankr.S.D.Ill.2005) (“[I]f only
The Bureau and the Board additionally have failed to account sufficiently for various other aspects of the lease that seem inconsistent with its being a disguised build-to-suit contract. For example, once the fit-out is complete, the Foundation is not permitted to make any further alterations to the premises without the prior written consent of Developer. See Amended Lease at § 15, reproduced in R.R. 521a. Additionally, the Foundation must allow Developer to make routine, periodic inspections of the premises during business hours and during any emergency. See id. at § 25(d), reproduced in R.R. 525a.
Finally, the Board‘s reasoning failed to give effect to the ordinary proposition in civil litigation that at some point a party bearing the burden of proof will have adduced sufficient evidence such that, in the absence of something else from the opposing party, he should prevail. See supra note 25. Long ago, this Court adopted the following perspective on the point:
In every lawsuit, somebody must go on with it; the plaintiff is the first to begin, and if he does nothing he fails. If he makes a prima facie case, and nothing is done by the other side to answer it, the defendant fails. The test, therefore, as to the burden of proof is simply to consider which party would be successful if no evidence at all was given, or if no more evidence was given than is given at this particular point of the case; because it is obvious that during the controversy in the litigation there are points at which the onus of proof shifts, and at which the tribunal must say, if the case stopped there, that it must be decided a particular way. . . . Now that being so, the question as to onus of proof is only a rule for deciding on whom the obligation rests of going further, if he wishes to win.
In summary, we conclude that the Board‘s determination that the lease is, in reality, a disguised construction contract for the building as a whole, is based on legal error and essential findings which lack substantial evidentiary support. Facially, the project is rationally divisible according to major phases of shell and fit-out construction. As to the shell, Appellees established the private character of the funding. Furthermore, in terms of economic reality, Appellees presented a prima facie case that Developer‘s only relationship with the Foundation and School was per a bona fide pre-development lease. The Bureau failed to go forward with sufficient evidence to the contrary to overcome this prima facie case.
In the above assessments, we have not lost sight of the questionable aspects of the lease transaction, particularly in relation to the original “security-deposit“-based financing arrangement pertaining to the interior construction. As to such feature of this litigation, we merely note that the limited role in our analysis is on account of the factual and legal presentation by the litigants.
For the above reasons, the order of the Commonwealth Court is affirmed.
Chief Justice CASTILLE, Justices EAKIN, TODD and ORIE MELVIN join the opinion.
Justice BAER files a dissenting opinion, in which Justice McCAFFERY joins.
Justice BAER, dissenting.
I commend the Majority Opinion for its thorough recitation of the history of this case, especially considering the confusing state of the record and the admittedly “questionable aspects of the lease transaction.” Maj. Op. at 274, 33 A.3d at 577. Respectfully, however, I must dissent from its determination that the Prevailing Wage Act does not apply to the construc
As noted by the Majority, the Prevailing Wage Act requires that “[n]ot less than the prevailing minimum wages as determined hereunder shall be paid to all workmen employed on public work.”
- there must be certain work;
- such work must be under contract;
- such work must be paid for in whole or in part with public funds; and
- the estimated cost of the total project must be in excess of $25,000.
Penn. National I, 715 A.2d at 1074. In this case, all agree that the construction project involved is certain, under contract, and in excess of $25,000. The dispute concerns whether the project is “paid for in whole or in part with public funds.” Id.
In regard to “public funds,” although charter schools are not public bodies utilizing public funds in the traditional sense, it is uncontested that any funds paid by a charter school for construction would be governed by the Prevailing Wage Act because the Charter School Law mandates compliance with the Prevailing Wage Act.
Although the Appellees/Grievants1 in this case initially contended that no part of the construction project was subject to the Prevailing Wage Act, all parties now agree that the funds paid by the charter school for the interior “fit-out” trigger the application of the Act. The dispute thus involves whether the construction of the shell of the building should also be deemed a public work based upon whether it will be “paid for in whole or in part” by the charter school. Penn. National I, 715 A.2d at 1074. I find it unquestionable that had the lease not been amended to separate the funding of the shell from that of the fit-out, the entire project would have been subject to the Prevailing Wage Act because the entire project would have been “paid . . . in part” by the charter school. Id. As found by the Pennsylvania Prevailing Wage Appeals Board (“the Board“), the Appellees/Grievants admitted that the restructuring of the contracts was intended to avoid the application of the Prevailing Wage Act. Final Decision and Order, June 30, 2008, at 19.
Nonetheless, the Majority Opinion asserts that “there does not appear to be any reason why parties to a contract or lease cannot modify their relationship to account for legal requirements (such as prevailing wages) which may attach to one, but not another, manner of transacting.” Maj. Op. at 264, 33 A.3d at 570. In support, the Majority relies upon precedent involv
“[A] transaction, otherwise within an exception of the tax law, does not lose its immunity, because it is actuated by a desire to avoid, or, if one choose, to evade, taxation. Any one may so arrange his affairs that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which will best pay the Treasury; there is not even a patriotic duty to increase one‘s taxes. Therefore, if what was done here, was what was intended by [the statute], it is of no consequence that it was all an elaborate scheme to get rid of [estate] taxes, as it certainly was.”
United States v. Carlton, 512 U.S. 26, 35-36, 114 S.Ct. 2018, 129 L.Ed.2d 22 (1994) (quoting Helvering v. Gregory, 69 F.2d 809, 810 (2d Cir. 1934)).
The Prevailing Wage Act, however, is not a statute imposing taxation which is to be strictly construed. Instead, it is a remedial statute subject to an opposite rule of statutory construction. It is to be liberally construed to effectuate its objective to protect workers’ rights to adequate pay when engaged in public work projects.
As previously stated, this Court has already ascertained the clear intent of the Act: “[T]he primary underlying policy of the Act is to protect work[ers] employed on public work projects from [receiving] substandard pay by ensuring that they receive prevailing minimum wage[s].” [Penn. National I], 715 A.2d at 1072. Indeed, the Act imposes a duty upon every public body (
43 P.S. § 165-4 ), every contractor and subcontractor performing public work (43 P.S. § 165-6 ),and the Secretary of Labor and Industry ( 43 P.S. § 165-7 ) to implement by different means the specific mandate of the Act that “[n]ot less than the prevailing minimum wages as determined hereunder shall be paid to all work[ers] employed on public work.”43 P.S. § 165-5 . There could be no clearer mandate from the General Assembly that for all public works projects under contract exceeding $25,000, prevailing wages are to be paid to the workers on those projects. . . .
Borough of Youngwood v. PWAB, 596 Pa. 603, 947 A.2d 724, 730-731 (2008) (emphasis in original). Accordingly, I respectfully reject that the tax case relied upon by the Majority is appropriate precedent to guide the decision herein. Contrarily, under well-established statutory policy, it is improper to permit form to trump substance and allow parties to structure a transaction to avoid the Prevailing Wage Act, as Appellees/Grievants acknowledged they did.
Even assuming arguendo that such transactions are allowable in theory, I must also dissent from my colleagues’ method for determining which leases, including those intentionally structured to avoid the Prevailing Wage Act, are not subject to the Act. In creating its test, the Majority rejects the test utilized by the Board and instead looks to the risks allocated to the owner/mortgagor as a “prominent consideration in assessing the economic reality of a business transaction.” Maj. Op. at 268, 33 A.3d at 573. The Majority describes its analysis as follows:
Therefore, a grievant which presents evidence that it is incurring the risk and obligations of an owner/mortgagor in construction, that there is no public-financing component in the work (or, under, Penn. National I, in the relevant major phase of construction), and that its relationship with the covered entity is as a lessor under a facially legitimate lease, has established a prima facie case that wage regulation is not implicated under the prevailing statute. At such point, we find it appropriate to allocate the burden to the Bureau to go forward with the evidence to establish that the economic reality of the transaction is different from its appear
ance. Where the Bureau does so sufficiently, the ultimate burden should rest with the grievant.
Id. at 267-70, 33 A.3d at 573-74 (internal footnotes omitted). Interestingly, the Majority does not cite any prevailing wage precedent involving consideration of risk allocation.2
Rather than utilizing the Majority‘s test relying upon risk allocation and a “facially legitimate lease,” I would adopt the multi-factor Phoenix Field Office Test3 utilized by the Board to determine whether a long-term lease is in reality a construction contract for a public work in disguise. I view this test, detailed below, as appropriately looking to the totality of the circumstances surrounding the lease, with an eye to considering whether the transaction is an attempt to avoid the remedial purpose of the Prevailing Wage Act. Accordingly, I see no reason not to afford the Board‘s adoption of the Phoenix Field Office Test the substantial deference generally accorded to agencies in areas under their expertise. See Penn. National I, 715 A.2d at 1073 n. 8 (“[J]udicial deference is to be given to interpretations of statutes by those charged with the administration and enforcement of such laws“).
The factors of the Phoenix Field Office Test set forth in the Board‘s decision are (1) the length of the lease; (2) the extent of government involvement in the construction project, such as whether the building is being built to government specifications and whether the government has the right to inspect the progress of the work; (3) the extent to which construction will be used for private rather than public purposes; (4) the extent to which the costs of construction will be fully paid for by the lease payments; and (5) whether the contract is written as a
Applying the Phoenix Field Office Test to the facts of this case, the Board concluded that the factors weighed in favor of application of the Prevailing Wage Act. In regard to the length of the lease, the Board observed that the lease was for a period of almost twenty-four years, with an option granted to the charter school to purchase the real property after five years, which weighed in favor of the application of the Act as “long-term leases of custom built facilities are a common technique used by enterprises (including governments) to acquire new buildings.” Id. at 14. Turning to the second factor concerning the extent of government involvement in the construction project, the Board opined that the evidence presented did not favor either position clearly, but noted that the burden of proof was on the Appellees/Grievants to demonstrate that the project was not a custom built facility. Id. at 15-17 (citing
As to the third factor, the Board considered the extent to which the construction would be used for private rather than public use. It observed that the charter school would be the sole tenant, which favored the conclusion that the building is for public rather than private use. Id. at 18. The Board noted that the fourth factor also weighed in favor of application of the Act because the lease payments would pay off the costs of construction within a mere six years, while the useful life of the building was at least the twenty-four year length of the lease. Id. at 19. Finally, the Board found that the Appellees/Grievants “conceded at argument that it was a fair assessment that the contract was split into separate contracts to avoid application of the Act, or more accurately to minimize the Act‘s application to the ‘fit-out’ or custom work.” Id. at 19. The Board found this to constitute evidence of an intent to evade the requirements of the Act for purposes of the fifth factor. Id. at 20.
Accordingly, after considering all five factors, the Board concluded that the Prevailing Wage Act applied to the construction of the shell of the charter school building. Given the
Justice McCAFFERY joins this opinion.
ESTATE OF Anna E. FRIDENBERG, Deceased
v.
Appeal of COMMONWEALTH of Pennsylvania.
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.
Argued March 8, 2011.
Decided Nov. 23, 2011.
Notes
Stip. ¶ 16.Pennsylvania prevailing wages were requested for the construction of the “fit out.” The Bureau issued rates for the project on August 25, 2006, Serial Number 06-6040.
Our citation to a tax case for the above proposition is perhaps unfortunate, as it has generated a collateral dispute with the dissent based on the fact that strict construction is involved in the tax arena. See Dissenting Opinion, at 276-78, 33 A.3d at 578-79. In any event, as we read Helvering, it has little to do with strict construction of tax laws (which is not a homogenous proposition internal to the law of taxation in any event, see, e.g., Lynnebrook & Woodbrook Assocs., L.P. v. Borough of Millersville, 600 Pa. 108, 115, 963 A.2d 1261, 1265 (2008)). Rather, it merely reflects that the written specifications and limitations inherent in any statutory or regulatory framework will define its scope. See generally Ratzlaf v. United States, 510 U.S. 135, 145, 114 S.Ct. 655, 661, 126 L.Ed.2d 615 (1994) (“Courts have noted many occasions on which persons, without violating any law, may structure transactions in order to avoid the impact of some regulation or tax.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). In the case of the Act, it simply does not compel private parties who undertake construction projects to do so with public funding, and this limitation exists regardless of the Act‘s status as remedial legislation or the societal goals it seeks to achieve. Cf.
It is significant, moreover, to understand that this is not a situation where a party entered into a construction contract for a public work, then, after a Bureau determination that prevailing wages applied, attempted to recast such a contract as a pre-development lease. Rather, the present scenario always involved a lease relationship, albeit with the original, questionable injection of a public funding component via the “security deposit” term of the October 1, 2006, lease. This perspective removes some force from the suggestion that the lease amendment perpetrated a subterfuge. Rather, if anything, it appears that the amendment served to remove a potential subterfuge (i.e., the $1.6 million “security deposit“/financing term).