White Birch Realty Corp. v. Gloucester Tp. Municipal Utilities Authority
| Decision Date | 11 June 1979 |
| Citation | 402 A.2d 927,80 N.J. 165 |
| Parties | WHITE BIRCH REALTY CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant. The KORMAN CORPORATION, a Pennsylvania Corporation, Plaintiff-Respondent, and White Birch Realty Corporation, Plaintiff-Intervenor, v. GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP MUNICIPAL UTILITIES AUTHORITY, Defendant-Appellant. |
| Court | New Jersey Supreme Court |
David C. Patterson, Berlin, for defendant-appellant (Maressa & Wade, Berlin, attorneys; Joseph A. Maressa, Berlin, of counsel and on the brief; David C. Patterson on the briefs).
William S. Greenberg, Trenton, for respondent The Korman Corp. (Greenberg & Mellk, Trenton, attorneys; Ezra D. Rosenberg, Trenton, on the briefs).
John A. Sweeney, Mount Holly, for respondent White Birch Realty Corp. (Dietz, Allen & Sweeney, Mount Holly, attorneys).
The opinion of the court was delivered by
At issue in these appeals is the reasonableness of the method of calculating the sewer connection fees charged two real estate developers by defendant Gloucester Township Municipal Utilities Authority (Authority), a municipal authority organized pursuant to the provisions of the Municipal and County Utilities Authorities Law, N.J.S.A. 40:14B-1 to 69. The trial court, finding that the connection fees charged were unreasonable, entered judgments for each developer. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the judgment for one developer, but remanded that of the other for recalculation of the amount of its award. We granted the Authority's petitions for certification primarily to review the methodology used to compute the extent of the overcharges. 78 N.J. 403, 396 A.2d 589 (1978).
The Authority, originally created in 1958 as a municipal sewerage authority under N.J.S.A. 40:14A-1 to 37, was reorganized in 1964 as a municipal utilities authority pursuant to N.J.S.A. 40:14B-1 to 69. It commenced operations in 1963 when, with the receipt of a federal grant-in-aid of $611,000 and the proceeds from the sale of $3,490,000 principal amount of bonds (Series A Bonds), it acquired for approximately $620,000 two privately owned sewage collection and treatment plants and a municipally owned sewage treatment plant. The balance of the funds, after payment of expenses and financing costs, was used for the repair of the two private systems, reconstruction of the municipal treatment plant, construction of a new sewage treatment plant and construction of about 45 miles of new collection mains. At this point in time the Authority was serving approximately 2200 customers.
The Authority's principal sources of revenues were twofold. First, there were service fees for providing sewerage service. These funds were available and used for meeting operating costs, satisfying bond interest and amortization, and paying for major repairs, renewals and improvements.
A second source of revenue was the connection charge assessed against new customers. This charge reflected not only the cost of tapping the sewerage main in the street and the cost of installing a lateral from the main to the curb, but also served as a basis for having new customers pay a part of the original cost of the plant. Under the terms of the bonds, the receipts from the connection charge were intermingled with the service fees and became a part of the general funds of the Authority. As such, they were in fact used for the same purposes as the proceeds of the service charges.
A customer's annual service charge depended on the number of service units ascribed to the nature of his usage. Single-family homes, each living unit of multi-family houses, and each rental unit of an apartment house were classified respectively as one basic service unit. Motels were scheduled at 3/5 of a unit for each rental unit, while restaurants were scheduled at three units for each seating capacity of 50. The initial annual service charge in 1963 was $44 per unit. This was increased to $50 in 1969 and $60 in 1971.
In 1963 the Authority charged $100 for a connection fee, provided the lateral pipe did not exceed a 6 diameter. Whenever the pipe was of a larger size, the Authority would negotiate the amount of the fee. In 1969 the standard connection fee was increased to $200, and in July 1970 it was raised to $250. At this latter time, the provision for negotiable connection fees for multi-family and nonresidential structures was discontinued, and the connection fee for a multi-family structure became $250 per living unit. In 1973 the residential unit connection fee was increased to $450.
Plaintiffs, The Korman Corporation (Korman) and White Birch Realty Corporation (White Birch), were two real estate developers in Gloucester Township. In 1969 Korman began construction of a development of single-family houses, townhouses, and garden apartments on a 370-acre tract. Between 1970 and the early part of 1974, Korman paid to the Authority $250,000 for about 1000 connections at $250 each.
White Birch's project consisted of approximately 200 single-family houses and 850 apartments. Between 1972 and 1975, White Birch paid for 361 connections at $250 each (total $90,250) and 425 connections at $450 each (total $191,250), or a total of 786 connections at a cost of $281,500.
In August 1972 Korman filed this suit against the Authority asserting, among other things, that it had been subjected to discriminatory treatment in that other developers had paid lower connection fees, and that the connection fees were arbitrary, capricious, unreasonable and unlawful. Korman sought declaratory and injunctive relief as well as a refund of the connection fees which it had paid.
In November 1973 White Birch, making similar charges, sought to intervene as a plaintiff. Its motion was granted. However, when the trial commenced in July 1974, White Birch's cause of action was severed when it was not prepared to move its case.
The Korman proceedings clearly established, and the trial court held, that the Authority unjustifiably discriminated among prospective customers until at least the implementation of its July 1970 rate schedule which eliminated negotiations in fixing connection fees for laterals. Other Korman claims for reimbursement for the cost of certain facilities were held to be premature or were dismissed on the merits by the trial court. These determinations were subsequently affirmed by the Appellate Division and are not before us.
The remaining question and the one with which we are concerned is the relationship of the amount of the connection charge to the connector's fair share of the construction cost theretofore paid by prior users. All parties and both the trial court and Appellate Division accepted the principle enunciated in Airwick Industries, Inc. v. Carlstadt Sewerage Auth., 57 N.J. 107, 270 A.2d 18 (1970), app. dism. and Cert. den. 402 U.S. 967, 91 S.Ct. 1666, 29 L.Ed.2d 132 (1971), to the effect that a connector was obligated to pay his proportionate part of the cost of the system so that a new customer would stand on a footing comparable to existing customers.
Korman attempted to demonstrate that the Authority's connection fees were not calculated in accordance with the Airwick test. It produced as witnesses the Authority's members, counsel, engineers, and accountant. Their testimony made clear that the Airwick standards were not followed. For example, one former attorney for the Authority testified that the purpose of a connection charge was "(t)o provide funds for the Authority," and that he never "was called upon to consider that question for the Authority." A former member of the Authority testified that the $250 fee was used to discourage apartment buildings, and that the number was "picked" rather than calculated. The Authority's accountant indicated that, at least in 1970, the need for revenues and a comparison with rates charged by other authorities were the determinative factors.
Korman's principal expert witness was Kenneth White of the accounting firm of Price Waterhouse & Company. Under White's proposal the amount of past capital contributions was calculated by subtracting total operating costs from total service charge revenues from inception of the system on January 1, 1962 to date. That amount was then divided by the number of users on the line at the beginning of the year in question. The result was said to equal the contribution previously made by users for amortization and interest on the debt. Predicated on what he conceived to be the reduction in the Authority's debt before the respective Korman units were attached, he calculated that Korman had overpaid $130,262. His breakdown was tabulated as follows:
Number of
The Korman
Corporation's Connection Proper
Year ending units charge connection
February 28 connected paid charge Overpayment
----------- ----------------- ---------- ---------- -----------
1971 100 $250 $115.15 $ 13,485
1972 470 250 111.65 65,024
1973 170 250 120.84 21,957
1974 261 250 135.84 29,796
-----------
Total overpayment $130,262
The Authority's expert was Herbert Krugman. He determined that the new plant and improvements to be made with the proceeds of the bond issue would increase the system capacity so that an additional 5500 service units could be added. Excluding the $417,000 expended by the Authority for the private facilities existing in 1963 when the Series A bond issue was floated, he applied the balance of the proceeds from the bond issue, $3,073,000 to the contemplated 5500 additional service units and found that each new unit would entail a capital cost...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Meglino v. Township Committee of Eagleswood Tp.
...a development, was not fair and equitable. 62 N.J. at 383-84, 301 A.2d 738. Finally, the theme was repeated by Justice Schreiber in White Birch Realty, supra: "[t]here may be any number of ways in which a computation of a fair share can be fixed, and a utilities authority is free to adopt a......
-
Luv Condominium Ass'n v. Borough of Stanhope
...paid by the actual users for principal and interest on the bonds. [at 122, 270 A.2d 18] In White Birch Realty Corp. v. Gloucester Tp. Mun. Util., 80 N.J. 165, 402 A.2d 927 (1979), the Supreme Court reaffirmed the Airwick principal "that a connector [i]s obligated to pay his proportionate pa......
-
Urban League of Essex County v. Mahwah Tp.
...fees, as they affect market rate units, must be reviewed in light of the methodology approved in White Birch Realty Corp. v. Gloucester Tp. Municipal Utilities, 80 N.J. 165, 402 A.2d 927 (1979) and must be waived entirely for subsidized units. See also Luv Condominiums Ass'n. v. Stanhope, 1......
-
H.P. Higgs Co., Inc. v. Borough of Madison
...Thus we are not concerned with a question of equitable allocation of costs among users. See White Birch Realty Corp. v. Gloucester Tp. Municipal Utilities Auth., 80 N.J. 165, 402 A.2d 927 (1979).4 Of course, an electricity user owning tax exempt property would be aided by a reduction in ele......