Advertisement

May 23, 2013

GH&C’s Paul Schneider Prevails Before New Jersey Supreme Court

Adopting the legal analysis advocated by Paul Schneider on behalf of the New Jersey Builders Association, the New Jersey Supreme Court ruled that developers may not be required to pay duplicative sewer connection fees.  New Jersey statutes permit utilities authorities and sewerage authorities to charge periodic service fees for those using their wastewater systems.  In addition, an authority may charge a one-time connection fee or tapping fee for each new connection of any property with the sewerage system.  The purpose of the connection fee is to permit an authority that has developed a wastewater collection and treatment system to recover the capital costs and related debt service associated with developing the system.  It is designed to create a mechanism to permit these costs to be fairly spread across all properties that connect with and use the system.

Sometimes the connection involves a single authority that operates both wastewater collection and treatment facilities.  Other times, a local authority only operates a collection system and the wastewater is then sent to a treatment facility operated by a second authority.  Less typical but not uncommon is the situation where the authority to which the new development is “directly” connected and the authority to which the new development is “indirectly” connected both operate collection and treatment systems, yet the first authority only provides collection services to the property while the second authority provides actual treatment of the wastewater.

It is this latter situation that the Supreme Court addressed in 612 Associates, LLC v. North Bergen Municipal Utilities Authority.  The Court was presented with three competing interpretations of the statutes.  One authority argued that only the authority to which the property “directly” connects may charge a connection fee, and that it may require the developer to pay a fee based on the costs of both its collection and treatment facilities, even when the authority does not provide the property with waste treatment services.  Another authority contended that both authorities could charge their full connection fees calculated on the costs of both their respective collection and treatment systems.  In other words, these authorities claimed the non-treating authority may require new development to contribute toward the capital costs of a wastewater treatment plant to which the development will not connect and will not use.  On behalf of the New Jersey Builders Association, Paul Schneider of Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla contended that allowing both authorities to charge a full connection fee would unfairly burden developers with duplicative connection fees and result in a windfall to the authorities.

Adopting the position advocated by Mr. Schneider, the Supreme Court decided that while each authority that serves a property, whether through a direct or indirect connection, is permitted to charge a connection fee, the fees must be apportioned so that the charge to the developer reflects the property’s use of each system and is not duplicative.  That is, each connection fee must be tied to the cost of that part of the system that the particular property uses, so that a property that merely has wastewater transported through the collection system of one authority will be assessed a connection fee based solely on the cost of that authority’s collection system, but will not be charged for the cost of that entity’s treatment system that it does not use.  As stated by the Court, “fairness and equity demand” such a result.

© 2013 Giordano, Halleran & Ciesla, P.C. All Rights Reserved

About the Author

Shareholder

Mr. Schneider, co-chair of the Litigation Practice Area, focuses his practice in environmental, redevelopment, land use, regulatory, real estate and affordable housing law, and litigation. Mr. Schneider also handles a wide variety of redevelopment matters as well as corporate and commercial litigation. In addition to handling major litigation before both the state and federal courts and the Office of Administrative Law, he has extensive experience before the New Jersey Supreme Court and the Appellate Division.

Mr. Schneider represents real estate developers and other businesses in...

(732) 741-3900

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.