*1 ORDER PER CURIAM. NOW,
AND
21st
day
September,
the order of
See Commonwealth
pleas
the common
court is AFFIRMED.
Robinson,
(2003).
v.
Mark Jo seph Ashdale; Cibik; Marshall; T. Michael A. Catherine Alfred Taubenberger; Wagner; Wrigley, Ap W. Russell R. Karen M. pellees.
Supreme of Pennsylvania. Court
Argued May 2004. Sept.
Decided *4 Feder, Ramos, Esq., Esq., Richard Gerson Pedro Alberto Ewing, Eleanor N. Esq., Philadelphia, Philadelphia. for Eleanor N. for Ewing, Esq., Philadelphia, John F. Street. Nichols, Weldon, Carolyn Jr., H. Dennis Esq., Esq., Gerard Kernodle, Obra Esq., S. for Philadelphia Parking Authority. Bochetto, Esq., G. Alexander for A. Michael Cibik. Melinson, Gosselin, R. Jason
Gregg Esq., Peter Esq., Alfred Putnam, Esq., Bruton, W. David P. Esq., for Philadelphia, Philadelphia Authority, et al. Forney,
Susan for Esq., Jane Ed- Harrisburg, Honorable ward G. Rendell. CAPPY, C.J., CASTILLE, NIGRO,
BEFORE: NEWMAN, SAYLOR, BAER, EAKIN and JJ.
OPINION Justice SAYLOR.
This is a appeal direct from an order of the Commonwealth Court sustaining the preliminary objections of the Governor of Pennsylvania and Philadelphia Parking to a complaint filed mayor, and its challenging legality of certain Pennsylva- amendments to nia’s question Law. The principal presented is whether the General Assembly had enact which, provisions other among things, transferred control of the parking authority from the Mayor of Philadelphia to the- Commonwealth.
596
I. growth, suburban early post-War pattern As as via commuting of individuals large combined with numbers cities, generated had inside private workplaces automobile availability parking in of off-street for an increase the need Legisla throughout the Commonwealth. urban areas ture, a matter of state problem, aware of this considered concern, upon residing finding persons that it impacted wide Thus, the and of the affected cities.1 both inside outside Law,2 en Assembly enacted the General cities, boroughs, townships and first class to create abling administer, collect provide, and parking authorities order from, general types parking various facilities. revenue (recodi ly (relating incorporation) § 344 to method of 53 P.S. 5504). § statute Although as at Pa.C.S. fied amended munici authorizing specified act enabling constituted an resolution, it or such authorities ordinance palities create not be thus would provided any parking authority created instead municipal instrumentality, but would considered exercising corporate and “public body politic, constitute a agency an thereof.” public powers Commonwealth (recodified as (relating powers) § and purposes 53 P.S. findings, Legislature's policy alia: 1. The declaration of reflects its inter (b) through all the streets That the free circulation of traffic of kinds classes, first, second, boroughs, of cities of the second A and third health, necessary safety townships of the class is first city residing or general public [affected whether in the welfare of [it]; to, township], traveling through from or or (c) public greatly use of motor vehicles of That the increased congestion of [these all kinds has caused serious traffic on the streets municipalities]; (d) standing parking of motor of all kinds on That the or vehicles congestion to as to contributed to this such extent streets has seriously primary for the interfere with the use of such streets traffic; [and] movement of (e) standing prevents free parking That circulation such in, municipalities], impedes rapid and through, [such traffic and from fighting disposition police forces ... effective of fires and health, general public[.] endangers safety and welfare of the 5502). (recodified § P.S. as amended at 53 Pa.C.S. 341-356) (as amended, §§ P.S. 2. Act of P.L. 458 June 5501-5517). §§ (repealed at 53 Pa.C.S. and recodified as amended 5505). flowed benefits Several at 53 Pa.C.S. fi- authorities could including designation, limits applica- from the debt free projects nance construction *6 10,12; IX, 53 §§ art. Const, see governments, to local ble Pa. authorities, they 8001-8285, that, like other §§ Pa.C.S. from business-type operations or in engage proprietary could precluded. otherwise be might local governments which Signal, & 161 Pa.Cmwlth. v. Union Switch SEPTA generally (1994). 662, 404, 664-65 400, 637 A.2d as follows.3 dispute are present the underlying
The facts (the Authority”) “Parking Parking Authority Philadelphia Philadelphia City ordinance of the by in 1950 was created (the adopted pursuant was “City”), which 1987, the life the City Law. In the extended 2037, coterminous making span to life Parking Authority Initially, the bond issues. outstanding that of several with parking off-street only operated certain Parking Authority to and are present, continue the operations These garages. In City. particu with through out leases generally carried land lar, to City leases and/or parking garages necessary operate for the latter buildings at City within the and surface lots (the by on land owned “Airport”) Airport International return, City rent Authority pays City. parking opera from these from the revenues received derived $21,500,000 approximately has amounted to tions. This rent majority vast of this years; year past for the several per at facilities located parking has from the money come objections, sustaining preliminary we appeal this is an from the 3. As in well-pled facts set forth the com accept all material must as true 454, 52, 1, Today’s Spirit, 468 A.2d 503 Pa. 55 n. plaint, Graham v. see (1983), only plaintiffs are not if the 1 and affirm order 456 n. together inferences upon with all relief based those facts entitled to Horn, 600, 608, 722 fairly them. See Small v. deducible from 664, (1998). background previous Although has much of the A.2d 668 Auth., summarized, Philadelphia Parking City ly v. been see of Phila. (2002) (concurring Saylor, statement of A.2d 449-52, J.); (dissenting Zappala, A.2d at 173-75 statement id. at Auth., C.J.); Philadelphia Parking 1268- v. of Phila. (Pa.Cmwlth.2003), to review the material it is nonetheless useful appeal. history procedural relevant to this facts and terminals, Airport’s which were built on land owned City and primarily through financed bond issues. Because the government federal provided the grants operate the Airport, City may required segregate the monies received from airport parking into facilities a fund desig- 47107(b). use. See 49 U.S.C. nated for Airport As the Parking Authority Law authorized cities to delegate to their parking authorities responsibility for functions, certain parking on-street some which are reve nue-producing (e.g, issuing parking tickets and collecting meters). money from Such revenues on-street required by functions were statute to be back distributed municipality as provided by ordinance resolution. Thus, City passed giving ordinance the Parking Authority responsibility for much of park on-street services, ing which previously had been handled multiple *7 of departments City.4 the In keeping with the provisions of the ordinance, these responsibilities are fulfilled under an inter governmental cooperation agreement. activities, From such Parking the Authority collected net revenues of approximately $13,000,000 per year during past years. the several These monies formed a of part City’s the operating budget and were accordingly in reported City’s the five-year plan as revenue to balance the City’s budget. existence,
Throughout its the Parking Authority has issued (some numerous tax-exempt long-term municipal bonds of which still outstanding) finance parking-related develop- projects ment within the City and at Airport. of Some these bond issues subsume parking service contracts between City and the Parking Authority which require the City guarantee the debt of servicing the bonds in the event that the Parking Authority defaults. At the time these contracts were installing 4. These activities—which maintaining include and meters, promulgating parking regulations, installing on-street signage, issuing parking permits, fines, collecting parking receipts meter and tickets, issuing parking booting towing illegally parked vehi- alia, previously cles—had separately by, been carried out inter Department, Department, Department Streets Police of Licenses and Inspection, Department. and Revenue
599 executed, effectively Law Parking Authority placed the position to control some of the factors which affected risk, of including composition Parking Authority’s governing board. Law, Authority
Pursuant to Section of 43 P.S. was, § 348 (superseded), Parking Authority recently, until by a governing appointed controlled five-member board (the Mayor 19, 2001, of Philadelphia “Mayor”).- On June however, Ridge then-Governor into Act 22 signed law (“Act 22”).5 22, alia, Act inter codified the Law at through Sections 5501 Pennsyl Title Statutes, 5501-5517, vania §§ Consolidated see Pa.C.S. Commonwealth, 542, v. generally Phila. 582-84 (2003) & n. 590-92 n. 21 & (explaining codification), process statutory amended the Law by adding a special provision—applicable only to Philadelphia—supplanting Mayor’s appointment Parking Authority’s over the governing board and repositing appointment authority in the provision Governor.6 This addi tionally required the reconstituted Parking Authority to trans $45,000,000 up fer itsof earnings retained the Philadel District, phia School similar subsequent annual transfers based upon availability of earnings. Specifically, Parking Authority Law states:
During year its fiscal beginning shall transfer to the general fund of a school district the first 5. Act of June P.L. No. 22. original
6. The appointed by Mayor members of board continue *8 terms, to serve their may appointed out no by but new members Meanwhile, Mayor. immediately the number of board members is eleven, increased to appointed with the six by new members gubernatorial Governor. All of appointees must be residents of City; discretion, appointed upon two are the Governor's own two are by the prepared pro selected Governor a list the President Senate, tempore of the similarly and two are selected from a list prepared by 5508.1(d-f). Speaker of § See House. 53 Pa.C.S. original positions The phased mayoral five are then out appoin- as the expire, ultimately tees’ terms guberna- and the board is left with six Thus, appointees. torial 5508.1(a-j). See 53 Pa.C.S. although the stages, given transfer occurs in appointment the Governor immediate majority positions. over a of board parent municipality portion
class with the coterminous $45,000,000, to which earnings, of its exceed retained ability to meet debt authority’s jeopardize will not outstanding bonds. subse- payments service retire shall the maximum amount quent years board transfer such purpose. it deems available for § 5508.1(q). 53 Pa.C.S. amendments, the statutory Governor
Consistent
these
The
existing
to the
board.
added six members
five-member
Philadelphia County
City
a
complaint
thereafter
filed
Pleas,
naming
appointees
the new
defen
Court Common
validity
The
dants and
amendments.
challenging
new board
injunctive relief to
City
sought
prevent
also
court,
pleas
sworn in.
common
being
members from
The
however,
indispensable
was an
the Governor
concluded
and that
appointment powers,
virtue of his new
party
order dated
jurisdiction. Accordingly, by
lacked
therefore
case to the
trial court transferred the
July
5103(a) of
the Judi
pursuant
Court
Section
Commonwealth
5103(a).
hearing,
holding
cial
42 Pa.C.S.
After
Code. See
for
the matter
lack
the Commonwealth Court dismissed
stay
an
City
emergency
seek
jurisdiction,7 prompting the
Relief
King’s
powers by
this Court.
and the exercise
Bench
City sought
prevent
that the
was denied
extent
board,
this Court did
although
seating
newly-constituted
of the
challenged
amendments.
stay
implementation
further
Auth.,
Philadelphia Parking
Phila. v.
curiam).
(2001)
Thereafter,
(per
Court
A.2d
order, remanded
Commonwealth
dismissal
vacated the
Court’s
merits, and
for consideration on the
lifted
the matter
Phila. v.
previous stay. See
).8
(2002)
Auth.,
(per
curiam
The
A.2d
not,
was
Court
that the Governor
Commonwealth
concluded
fact,
moreover,
indispensable party,
that the
purposes.
agency
jurisdictional
Rather than re-transfer
was
local
for
however,
tribunal,
pleas
Commonwealth
the case
the common
complaint
parties
appeal the
so that the
could
Court dismissed
jurisdictional question to this Court.
summarily
was
reversed
8. The Commonwealth Court’s dismissal order
hence,
order,
setting
majority holding
by per
no
curiam
there was
*9
adding Mayor Street
complaint,
an amended
filed
City then
aas defendant.
Schweiker
then-Governor
and
plaintiff
Mayor Street
City and
filed
complaint,
The amended
counts,
that:
alleging
includes nine
(collectively, “Appellants”),
unconstitutionally
impermissibly
Act 22 amendments
and corre
charter
Philadelphia’s
infringe upon
ordinances;9
legislative
violate
amendments
sponding
Parking Authority
any rights
or limit
not to alter
pledge
City
discharged;
fully
have been
met
until all bonds
Authori
with the
dealings
in its
pledge
on such
relied
into of
entering
and the
of its credit
lending
ty, including
consti
contracts;
out of the
singling
valid,
substantial,
no
that carries
legislation
special
tutes
passed
were
basis;
or local amendments
special
rational
notice;
constitutionally required published
without
functions to
municipal
unconstitutionally delegate
amendments
in a
commission;
passed
were
and the amendments
a special
and parking
authorities
municipal
both
bill that addressed
sin
authorities,
Pennsylvania Constitution’s
violating
thus
Au
and the
rule. The Commonwealth
gle-subject
preliminary
filed
thority (collectively, “Appellees”) thereafter
standing,
lacked
City
objections, contending
complaint.
to all counts
asserting demurrers
granted
Court
An en banc
of the Commonwealth
panel
objections
complaint.
and dismissed the
Appellees’ preliminary
(Pa.Cmwlth.
Schweiker,
A.2d 1217
Phila. v.
City
See
2003).
standing,
challenge
Addressing first the
of the sover
City
is a creature
court concluded
claims of its
thus,
to assert
standing
has no
eign and
(citing
id. at 1222
the Commonwealth.
against
citizens
Commonwealth,
v.
Pa.Cmwlth.
Pittsburgh
City of
(1989)).
(1987),
Turning
counts,
the merits of the individual
the Common
wealth Court indicated that the Home Rule doctrine—which
allows for autonomous self-governance
to municipal
relative
affairs—does not
apply
respect to
Parking Authority,
the
Parking
because the
is
Authority
not an
of
agency
a municipal
rather,
government, but
is an agent of the Commonwealth.
Carducci,
See id. at 1223 (citing
359,
Herriman v.
(1977)).
addition,
A.2d 761
the court stated that Article
Section
of the Constitution specially provides that
pow
ers and authority under home rule charters'
expressly
limited
acts
by
of the General Assembly.
id. (citing
See
Ortiz
Commonwealth,
v.
(Pa.Cmwlth.1995),
Regarding the constitutional challenges, the Commonwealth
Court first explained that there
specific
were no
allegations as
any
to how
contractual obligations were altered
amendments,
moreover,
and
there was no contention
that
Mayor,
the remaining plaintiff
case,
in the
had
into
entered
contracts with the Authority.
court
also
noted
original
that the
legislation
no
created
contractual right
manner
selection of members of
Authori-
ty’s board. As to
special
claim,
legislation
the Common-
wealth Court observed that
School District is
only
such entity in the Commonwealth that
lacks taxes,
directly levy
thus,
and
legislation
bears
a
ensuring
reasonable
purpose
adequate
relation
funding for the district.
the claim that
Addressing
functions to a
commis-
delegate municipal
special
amendments
sion,
explained
the Commonwealth Court
that
commission,
is
special
not a
“public
but
instead
body corporate
politic,
public
exercising
agency
Commonwealth as an
Commonwealth.” See
5505(a)(1);
see
v. Pennsylvania
Pa.C.S.
also Johnson
Hous.
329, 340-41,
(1973)
Fin.
Agency, 453
politic,
PHFA is a
(holding
body corporate
the'
commission).
special
Finally, the Commonwealth Court re-
jected
challenge
single-subject
the constitutional
under the
III,
amendments,
rule Article
reasoning
Section
authorities,
in addressing municipal authorities
*11
topic, namely,
cover one
that
cohesive
“authorities
benefit
Phila.,
City
municipalities.”
York and New were its bonds were finances while Authority’s the Port regarding outstanding)).
II. the issue whether Initially, parties have briefed dismissed the properly Court the Commonwealth bring standing A has party case for lack of standing. actions complained if it is “aggrieved” cause of action litigation of, is, in the outcome if its interest Hickson, direct, substantial, In re and immediate. See (2003). Because interests complaint asserted in the different counts has distinct, Mayor that the Appellees and because concede standing I, standing to Count we will address relative separately issue as to each count.
A. Home rule complaint, Appellants I of aver Count the amended IX, Article rights Act violates home-rule under Constitution, First Class Pennsylvania 2 of the Section Act, and Home Rule Char- Rule Home is an regulation City parking inher- They argue that ter. any state-wide inter- ently local function that does affect count, est, that, Commonwealth dismissing Assembly may not inter- that the General Court overlooked of such activi- governance with a home-rule municipality’s fere *12 City by which the They also state the ordinances ties. con- Parking Authority for expanded provide created and mayoral ap- City authority through tinued control over the cooperation and that of powers, agreement pointment Parking Authority delegates City between to solely Parking Authority responsibilities pertaining specific 22 is They submit that Act parking. on- and off-street Mayor’s as it eliminates the inconsistent this scheme to include Parking Authority’s duties powers expands respond financing City’s public Appellees schools. to this because the doctrine case inapplicable the home rule
605 Authority, inception, agency from its has been of City. They and not of the submit that the the Commonwealth modify was therefore free to the structure and Legislature of Act 22.10 mandate when enacted are creatures of the and have no
Municipalities state own, of see v. powers Naylor Township inherent their of Hellam, 397, 403, 770, (2001); rather, 565 Pa. 773 A.2d they “possess only government such as are express ly granted necessary carry and as are the same [them] 141, 143, Appeal Gagliardi into effect.” 401 Pa. 163 A.2d (14 418, (1960); Fox, see also v. 64 Pa. Smith) (1870). 169, Therefore, 180-81 ordinari municipality lacks ly power except enact ordinances as authorized statute, and any conformity ordinance not with its enabling 629, 633, Taylor statute is void. See v. 422 Pa. Abernathy, 863, (1966). rule, A.2d concept Under the home howev er, locality in question may legislate concerning municipal governance without express statutory warrant for each new ordinance; rather, its ability municipal exercise functions is charter, only by limited Pennsylvania Consti tution, and the Assembly. General See In re Petition to Reese, (1995). Recall 542 Pa. 665 A.2d generally See and Local Municipal Law 3:42 Pa. Jur.2d (2002); McQuillin, The Law of Municipal Corporations (3d ed.2004); French, § 10:13 Gary E. Home Rule in Penn (1977). sylvania, 81 Dick. L.Rev.
The Pennsylvania guarantees Constitution right IX, Const, rule. home art. 2.11 grant Because the Appellees Mayor’s standing do not pursue contest the issues Therefore, complaint. raised in Count I light of the amended and in disposition, unnecessary our ultimate it is to decide whether the standing also has Pittsburgh as to this count. See v. Common- wealth, (1989). 26 n. 516 n. 3 provision 11. That states: Municipalities right power adopt shall have the to frame and Adoption, repeal
home rule charters. amendment or of a home rule Assembly charter shall be provide referendum. The General shall procedure by may which a home rule charter be framed and its adoption, repeal presented amendment or to the electors. If the *13 to and subject procedures home rule right
of such makes Assembly, imposed by limitations the General substantive instance, occur, in accord ordinarily must the first home rule enabling at law enabling legislation to the state level. ing case is the First Class Home Rule present relevant Act”).12 (the terms, this general Act of 1949 “Home Rule which (namely, Philadelphia) to first class cities grants act of local general authority rule charter self- adopt home and including “complete powers legislation government, municipal in to its functions.” 53 P.S. administration relation subject powers This is made “the grant § 13131. limitations, regulations pre and hereinafter restrictions id.; § forth limita (setting express see 53 P.S. scribed.” tions). in question determining pres
A threshold whether the appointment claim is sufficient for relief whether legally ent falls within authority over members noted, Appellees, as contend powers. that, Law clarifies that because the entities, authorities are Commonwealth and instrumentali 345(a) (recodified as at City, ties of the see 53 P.S. 5505(a)), rights has no home 53 Pa.C.S. rule in Parking Authority’s manner which the relative to this support, they point board is selected. For governing Assembly provide, a rule or a General does not so home charter framing presenting may procedure for and a home rule charter be by by governing body presented the electors initiative or may municipality. municipality A which has a home rule charter any power perform any exercise function not denied Constitution, Assembly by its home rule charter or the General at any time. IX, provision placed § 2. The above was into the art. Const, 1968; XV, predecessor, in the former Article Section Constitution similar, adopted substantively was and was as stated given [by Legislature] right power may ... and be “[c]ities adopt their own charters and to exercise the frame however, subject, self-government, to such restric- of local tions, limitations, Legisla- regulations, may imposed by ture.” amended, (as April §§ 12. Act of P.L. 665 53 P.S. 13101- 13157). Carducci, Court’s decision Herriman v. *14 (1977),
A.2d 761 and note that that case also a involved (an entity Commonwealth urban redevelopment authority), the which, determined, control of it was was excluded from the city’s home rule powers. Appellants, hand, on the other stress that is an inherently function, municipal and contend that the City’s powers home rule supersede those of the state functions; to such respect Herriman they distinguish that, observing (the unlike the statute at issue that case Law), Urban Redevelopment the Parking Authority Law spe cifically City allows the to delegate municipal functions to the Parking Authority, something City has through done its ordinances and agreements with authority.
.
Because Herriman is plainly germane
here,
it merits sub
matter,
stantive examination.
In that
Mr. Herriman had been
appointed to succeed Mr. Carducci as a member of the Rede
velopment Authority of
of Williamsport. This ap
pointment was made in accordance with Section 5 of the
Law,13
Urban Redevelopment
§
35 P.S.
which directs
that
mayor
make such appointments. Shortly before the
made, however,
appointment was
the Williamsport City Coun
passed
cil
legislation
requiring
any such appointment
receive
prior
the council’s
approval.
observed,
This Court
initially, that the statute under which Williamsport adopted its
charter,
Optional
Third Class City Charter
Law,14contained a provision
granting
city
“full power to
...
Herriman,
[ojrganize
regulate
its internal affairs.”
the appointment of a member to the Au- Redevelopment thority does not concern “the internal affairs” of city Williamsport. Urban Redevelopment § Law explic- itly created, states that an authority, once “shall in no way 24, 1945, amended, (as May 13. Act of 1701-1719.2). P.L. 991 §§ 35 P.S. amended, July (as 14. Act of P.L. 901 §§ 53 P.S. 41101— 41625). and is instrumentality city,” to be an of such be deemed func- of a “engaged performance municipal no in the way An under the Urban authority 35 P.S. tion.” agent is an of the Commonwealth Redevelopment Law government Id. 1709. As can be body. not of the local has seen, in no uncertain terms made clear legislature redevelopment completely separate that a city is mayor from the The fact that the entity city. does appointment of members authorized make concerning the internal appointment make matter city. affairs of the acknowledged
Id. at
There between Here, Hem- and in as in under review the one Herriman. man, it is enabling the home statute indicates rule See, for control its affairs. only City’s intended of internal admin- e.g., general legislative §§ 13101 and (granting 53 P.S. functions”), in to powers “municipal istrative relation any beyond (precluding exercising authority or busi- any limits or from in engaging proprietary private ness). Additionally, as created just redevelopment authorities Redevelopment under Law not instrumen- city the Urban talities, likewise, to authority created any parking pursuant corporate Law is to be a Parking Authority “body declared politic, exercising powers of the Commonwealth public thereof, an ... shall in to be an agency way no be deemed 345(a). Thus, it city[.]” § instrumentality 53 P.S. that, just Law’s would as the Third Class Charter seem did subsume general grant governance not authorities, so to appointment powers redevelopment relative rule does general grant the Home Rule Act’s of home authori- appointment powers subsume relative ties. factors, out parallel City points
Notwithstanding these Law, that, Redevelopment unlike the Urban Law to dele- specifically municipalities authorizes municipal particu- functions to the created. gate 5(a) states, in lar, Authority Law Section of the part: relevant act, shall constitute Authority, incorporated
The under public body corporate politic, exercising public powers thereof, of the as an and shall be agency Commonwealth or Parking Authority city, borough, known as the of the class, way first but shall in no be township deemed instrumentality city, borough, township be an engage municipal first class or of a performance function, except delegated such as are to it functions municipal pursuant ordinance or resolution to this passed act. 345(a) added) (recodified (emphasis P.S. as amended at 5505(a)). City argues precisely Pa.C.S. this is done, has, ordinance, it has namely, delegated
what that it responsibility carry park- out ing regulation, a matter which this Court has deemed function. essentially municipal See School Dist. Phila. v. Bd. Zoning Adjustment, 417 Pa.
(1965). Thus, Herriman, that, Appellants state unlike Parking Authority’s activities do subsume the internal distinction, affairs. This Appellants urge, relevant be- *16 cause the Home Rule Charter Law explicitly grants City complete legislative and administrative all powers over § functions. municipal P.S.
This that argument City’s authority assumes home-rule that, legislate municipal implies relative to functions when- it of functions to a delegates separate entity, ever some those is City legally entity entitled to remain in control of that convinced, however, regardless of its nature. We are not that In first place, is true. is not a but, noted, department City, agency of the as is an of the to an pursuant enabling Commonwealth which created Act, separate statute from the Home Rule see 53 P.S. (recodified 344(a) incorporation) §§ to method of as (relating 5504(a)), delega- § which amended at Pa.C.S. and receives tion of functions to the same non-home- municipal pursuant 345(a) § (relating purposes see 53 and legislation, rule P.S. 5505(a)). (recodified § as at As 53 Pa.C.S. powers) explained: the Commonwealth Court has that municipal corporations “governmental” Unlike have functions, engage only and authorities “proprietary” latter____ Generally, authorities are established for the managing produc- and various revenue purpose financing a or that ing projects public nature other activities are activities; part governmental not considered to be core venture, they quasi- a business a form of governmental are privatization. Signal, v. Union Switch & 161 Pa.Cmwlth.
SEPTA (1994). increasing 664-65 the avail Although ability City helps congestion— in the reduce parking spaces a is commer municipal that sense serves need—there aspect parking generate cial facilities that operating stream, lots, parking garages, revenue such surface authorities, moreover, airport facilities. in commercial that empowered engage leasing space 345(a) (recodified § they own. See 53 P.S. at 53 Pa.C.S. 5505). governance As not does include functions, proprietary business-type see 53 P.S. it exercising that control an argue is difficult over performs these functions is nonetheless included within which such powers.15 highlights important present
15. This difference between the circum- Phila., Appel- involved in on stances those School Dist. which case, rely. heavily lants that issue was whether the could zoning public buildings, enforce code vis-á-vis school notwithstand- ing precludes regulating public that the Home Act Rule could, alia, reasoning, education. The Court held that inter parking-related zoning requirements City's enforcement of serves the reducing congestion regulation interest in and does not constitute the Phila., public School education. Dist. Pa. at A.2d at of suggest, however, City may 868. That decision does by undertaking projects advance those interests with commercial char- acteristics.
611 if relative to the appointment powers Even general did fall within the home rule scope enacted, Act it powers granted the Home Rule when was Legislature does not follow that the could not such remove body express at a date. That retains constitu later limit of any tional home scope municipality’s 11; Commonwealth, see governance, supra rule note Ortiz v. 288-84, 279, 152, (1996); 545 681 Pa. A.2d 155 v. Cali Phila., 290, 297-98, 824, (1962), 406 Pa. 828 indeed, Section 18 of the Act Home Rule enumerates several such 58 acknowledge limitations. See P.S. 13133. While we Appellants’ citation to a in line decisions which this Court 18 to interpreted signify pertaining Section ordinances matters of local strictly general concern supersede conflicting, laws, ly-applicable Adjust state see Bartle v. Zoning Bd. of ment, (1958); 391 Pa. 137 v. City A.2d 239 Ebald Phila., (1957); Addison, 387 Pa. 128 352 re A.2d 385 (1956); Clark, 272 A.2d Lennox v. (1953), A.2d application those cases lack present controversy, challenged as of Act 22 not provisions generally but applicable, pertain only to-Philadelphia. Nota bly, the not prescribe any particular Constitution does means Assembly in constraining General must utilize home powers. rule Although Section 18 of the Act Home Rule constraints, reflects of imposing one method there is no-reason to suppose that may imposed additional limitations means, other including legislation extrinsic to the Home Rule French, generally Act. See Rule Home Pennsylvania, at 280 (discussing “preemption” of home rule Dick. L.Rev. powers through legislation extrinsic enabling home rule act). Particularly both Home Act Rule the chal lenged provisions cities, of Act 22 pertain first class cities, only that, first class we conclude the extent there is any enactments, conflict these between two Act 22 limits the rights a manner that is consistent with IK, Pennsylvania Article Section of Ac Constitution. cordingly, the Commonwealth did not granting Court err in I demurrer as to Count of complaint. the amended *18 Statutory pledge
B. assert complaint, Appellants In Counts of the amended II-V that, Assembly violated Act the General enacting and 13 of in Sections 12 the binding statutory pledge contained Legisla Appellants, Law. to the According to harm deny parking power to authorities the pledged ture (recodified § bondholders, as security of see 53 P.S. the 5512), not to promised, § also alter at 53 Pa.C.S. and all its outstanding authorities until rights parking the (recodified retired, § as amended were see P.S. bonds 5513).16 22 breach argue that Act Appellants § at 53 Pa.C.S. to Parking Authority’s right by curtailing this the pledge es that in the best earnings of its manner dispose retained health, financial and thereby promotes advances own n security that, in also reli They of its bondholders. contend City: upon promises, ance these created instance; authority first its credit to the Authority in the lent bonds; of its leased marketability to enhance the authority; delegated to facilities and They parking regulations. to on-street responsibility enforce that now at of financial harm the event state risk is. to on due Authority that the defaults its bonds School Dis command subsidize the legislative thus that the amendments under Appellants trict. maintain cite, constitutionally support, and for prohibited, review are substantially which reenacted unmodified Sections 12 and were 16. respectively: provide, under Act Authority operation of its The use the facilities of the and the subject regulations and from time to business shall be the rules Provided, however, Authority adopted Authority; time That impair security anything which will shall not authorized do Authority, any obligations or violate of the holders of [sic], agreements or with them for their benefits 53 P.S. 352. hereby pledge agree any does Commonwealth to, subscribing person, corporation, agency Federal or firm or or acquiring Authority the construc- to be for the bonds issued tion, extension, enlargement part improvement, any project or thereof, rights will not limit or alter that the Commonwealth issued, any hereby Authority all time vested in the until bonds at thereon, fully discharged.... together with the interest are met and P.S. 1, 97 431 U.S. Jersey, N.Y. v. New Trust Co. States United (1977), Supreme Court in which the 52 L.Ed.2d S.Ct. not, could consistent with Jersey that York New held New not to alter Clause,17 statutory pledge violate the Contract entity’s Port while rights outstanding. were bonds to raise this standing lack Appellants counter
Appellees claims to be a issue, nor the Mayor neither exists, that, if no standing even They also aver bondholder. has been broken. statutory pledge no relief is due because rights bondholders’ argue that regard, they built into the statutory safeguards protected by adequately *19 statute. amended that Appellees with the standing, agree
As to we that could be any has discernible interest Mayor not identified counts, in as he harms these alleged the reflected affected in any or manner specify not claim to a bondholder does his been altered. obligations or of office have powers which the Therefore, II-V of the standing lacks to raise Counts he however, that it is asserts complaint. City, and, such, as is Authority’s bonds of the guarantor to to an financial risk due the latter’s subject augmented Philadelphia funds to the mandate to transfer substantial find this sufficient to confer District. We interest School counts of the com upon relative these standing plaint.
Nevertheless, in contained these allegations only portion for relief. The of Section counts are insufficient is Law that the contends 12 of the Authority to these claims is which states relevant impair to do which will anything “shall not be authorized obligations Authority, of the security the holders or for their any agreements [sic].” them benefits violate 352; provision § supra see note While P.S. on Parking Authority’s powers articulates a restriction Const, 10, (prohibiting passing the states from art. cl. 1 17. U.S. contracts). obligations impairing laws statute, they prior existed under the version of the it not does pledge constitute. a on part Legislature never to Marshall, in alter those the future. generally See In re (1949) 69 A.2d (“Legislative 36 make, alter, (internal power power repeal laws.” omitted)). marks quotation if it
Even were deemed to Act 22 pledge, constitute it, places does violate as the act bondholders’ interests above those School District. As recited above, provision the relevant Act 22 prohibits an initial transfer of funds to the such extent action could “jeopardize authority’s ability payments meet debt service or to outstanding retire bonds.” 53 5508.1(q). Pa.C.S. The next in sentence that subsection indicates that fund transfers subsequent years occur may only to the degree that Parking Authority deems the for money “available” use sentence, school district. id. In light preceding is evident that Legislature did not intend for any consider monies for available transfer which are needed to authority’s outstanding meet the obligations. Commonwealth, See O’Rourke v. (2001)
1194, 1201 (indicating that statutory words should be interpreted with reference the context which they ap *20 pear). This is interpretation confirmed the Legislature’s carry decision to 12’s prohibition over Section against parking “do[ing] anything authorities which will impair security the the holders of ... obligations the[ir] or agreements violate new, with them for their benefit” into the codified version 5512(b). Here, the law. See Pa.C.S. “any the term thing” plainly includes transferring funds to the school dis Therefore, trict. we with agree Appellees that the bondhold jeopardized ers’ interests are not Act 22 by amendments.18 token, By requires 18. the same if earnings federal law certain to be use, contend, designated airport Appellants for as cannot, intent, legislative consistent with consider such monies avail- district, for able transfer to the school as this would lead to an 1922(1). unreasonable result. See Pa.C.S. a prior provide Nor does Section 13 version of the law upon basis for relief Contract It is true premised Clause. provision, that unlike an express that Section contains pledge part on the of the Commonwealth not statutory rights “limit or alter” a until all bonds are authority’s noted, however, As already retired. the bondholders’ inter .Therefore, given if primacy. Appellants ests are even correct in that stating Authority’s rights have statutory somehow been command to altered transfer district, funds available to the school not alteration does implicate the that pledge Appellants contend has been breache d.19
Finally,
contention that it was induced
to create the
into
Parking Authority and enter
various con
entity
tracts
that
upon
prior
reliance
state
legislative affairs does
a claim
state
under the Contract
(or any
prohibition),
Clause
other
constitutional
it does not
an
rest
upon
allegation
obligations
of a contract have
Rather,
impaired.20
been
argument sounds
estoppel.
However,
Legislature’s authority
is not constitutionally
constrained by estoppel precepts. See Erie & North-East
(2
(1856) (“A
Casey,
R.R. v.
Casey)
may
statute
valid, no
be
how
matter
is with the
inconsistent
doctrine
Appellants’ argument
point
legal authority
on this
lacks citation to
matter,
apart
from brief discussion of
States
In
United
Trust Co.
however,
disputed legislation
susceptible
interpreta-
was not
of an
i.e.,
beneficiaries,
protect
tion
pledge’s
that would
interests of
particular.
Jersey
bondholders.
In
New
and New York
made
statutory
Authority’s
prospective
covenant with
Port
creditors that
repayment
none of the
funds reserved
secure
of the loans would be
later,
passenger
years
used to subsidize rail
service. Twelve
the two
repealed
retroactively,
states
the covenant
and allowed the reserve
purpose,
be
"totally eliminating
funds to
used for that
impor-
thus
security provision”
outstanding
tant
of the
bond issues. United States
Co.,
interpreta-
Trust
U.S. at
III. acted Having properly that Court found the Commonwealth as to I-V of the Appellees’ demurrer Counts sustaining Appellants and that have abandoned complaint, amended claims, affirm of the Common- of their we the order remainder complaint. dismissing Court the amended wealth concurring opinion. Justice NIGRO files a NIGRO, concurring. Justice agree majority
I with the that the Commonwealth Court Notably, Appellants’ complaint. dismissed properly Commonwealth, however, majority to Ortiz v. cites (1996), for the General proposition A.2d municipali to limit the of a Assembly scope has the (citing at 18 ty’s powers. Majority Slip Op. (1996)). Commonwealth, 152, 155 v. Ortiz my continuing I dissented in on belief there Ortiz based as the proposition to the above insofar General exception Assembly municipality not have the to restrain right does con using home to enact an ordinance rule health, cerning major public safety, problem welfare has a statute itself Assembly where the not enacted General *22 J., Ortiz, 157 (Nigro, 681 A.2d at problem. address here, at Nevertheless, matter issue because the dissenting). Authority, to the i.e., appoint members power I health, problem, or welfare safety, major public not a powers if rule home majority even with the agree authority to had the here, Assembly the General implicated using such thereby 22 and restrain Act enact Authority. members appoint