Municipal Law

Subscribe to Municipal Law

As the executive and legislative branches of County government, the County Commissioners are responsible for most of the work of the County. However, County government is also served by a number of independently elected row officers, who are also vested with significant authority. That includes the authority to hire, fire and supervise employees within the office, even over the objections and direction of the County Commissioners. Continue Reading County Row Officers, 1620 Rights, and Arbitrating Arbitrability

Earlier this year, our colleague Claudia Shank blogged about the revival of the Environmental Rights Amendment (the “ERA”) after the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s decision in Pennsylvania Environmental Defense Fund v. Commonwealth, 161 A.3d 911 (2017). The PEDF decision breathed new life into the 1972 amendment to the Pennsylvania Constitution, but also left many unanswered questions about the ERA. One such unanswered question of particular interest for municipalities and developers was the meaning of the revived ERA in the land use context.

Last week, the Commonwealth Court took a first step in answering this question, when it handed down a decision in the case of Frederick v. Allegheny Twp. Zoning Hearing Board, 2018 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 593 (Commw. Ct. Oct. 26, 2018). Head on over to the McNees Land Use Blog for an analysis of this decision by our colleague Jon Andrews.

On October 11, 2018, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania (“Court”) vacated the Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission (“PUC”) Order approving the acquisition of the wastewater system assets of New Garden Township and New Garden Sewer Authority (collectively “New Garden”) by Aqua Pennsylvania Wastewater, Inc. (“Aqua”).[1]  Aqua’s Application sought PUC approval of the acquisition, a Certificate of Public Convenience to furnish wastewater service to customers in and around the service territory of New Garden, and, approval of a rate base predicated on the acquisition price, rate commitments and transaction costs.[2] Continue Reading Commonwealth Court Requires Reexamination of PA Monetization Deal

The Pennsylvania Public Official and Employee Ethics Act has been in effect since 1979 and must be carefully followed by state and local officials and employees.  Mainly, the Act requires that public officials file annual statements disclosing their financial interests, but it also prohibits activities that have been deemed a violation of the public’s trust.  The Act is enforced by the State Ethics Commission, which is comprised of seven politically appointed commissioners assisted by a staff of investigators and prosecutors.  Repercussions for violating the Act include administrative penalties, civil fines/restitution, and sometimes criminal prosecution. Continue Reading Criminalizing Politics: Ethical Obligations of Pennsylvania’s Public Officials

Act 33 was enacted and signed into law on June 18, 2018 to provide counties with greater flexibility in combating blight. The new law, which takes effect 60 days after signing, allows a county to designate a redevelopment authority as the land bank for its jurisdiction.

Since 2012, counties have had the ability to establish land banks under the Pennsylvania Land Bank Act. Land banks are independent public entities created to expedite the process of acquiring and rehabilitating blighted, dilapidated and abandoned real estate. They often work together with redevelopment authorities to help eliminate blight in local communities. But while land banks have been crucial in this fight, many Pennsylvania counties have had active redevelopment authorities performing similar functions for over half a century. Continue Reading Law Allows Counties to Designate Redevelopment Authorities as Land Banks

In a prior post we highlighted a recent podcast that McNees real estate attorney Kandice Hull recorded on eminent domain. Interested to know more about this topic? You can find her additional thoughts, including on the Supreme Court’s decision in Kelo v. City of New London, below.

Did you miss part 1 in this series? You can get caught up here. And, be sure to subscribe to our blog – as part 3 is in the works!

A recent Commonwealth Court decision affirmed that municipalities within Pennsylvania are not immune from claims of adverse possession.  In City of Philadelphia v. Galdo, 181 A3d. 1289 (Pa. Commw. 2018), the Commonwealth Court held that the City of Philadelphia had lost title to a property that it had previously condemned to an adjacent property owner who adversely possessed the property. Continue Reading Municipalities Can Lose Property Through Adverse Possession

On May 23, the Pennsylvania House of Representatives approved Senate Bill 234, which creates the Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) Program. SB 234, which was approved by the Senate in January of this year, would help owners of agricultural, commercial and industrial properties obtain low-cost, long-term financing for energy efficiency, water conservation and renewable energy projects. The program would not include multifamily housing or other residential property. Continue Reading Pennsylvania Legislature Approves New Municipal Alternative Energy Program

On Monday, May 14, the United States Supreme Court announced its eagerly awaited decision in Murphy v. National Collegiate Athletic Association and, as many expected, struck down the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (“PASPA”), a federal law that prohibits states from authorizing and regulating sports wagering. Continue Reading Supreme Court Opens Door to Sports Betting in all Fifty States