ML20133L726
| ML20133L726 | |
| Person / Time | |
|---|---|
| Site: | Limerick  |
| Issue date: | 10/22/1985 |
| From: | Conner T CONNER & WETTERHAHN, PECO ENERGY CO., (FORMERLY PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC |
| To: | Chilk S NRC OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY (SECY) |
| References | |
| CON-#485-876 OL, NUDOCS 8510240279 | |
| Download: ML20133L726 (36) | |
Text
L AW OFFICES CONNER & WETTERII AIIN, P.C.
174 7 PEN NSYLVA NI A AV EN UE. N. W8Qg g TROY B. CONN ER.J R.
MARK J. W ETTERMANN WASIIINGTON, D. C. 20000 ON ROB E RT M. RADE R DOUGIAS K. 0L50N oEs.rcA H tAvERTv October 22, 1985 MILS N. NICHOLE ROBERT H. PUBL f3021833 3500 E3RNHARD O. BECHHOEFER Q D N[/ . c Ani.E AoDRE55: ATO4t.AW 9 fe e. . %=
el
' c
'~
d
}-
Mr. Samuel J. Chilk b o % 'BSAl1
~
19 M
Secretary --_ 4 d U.S. Nuclear Regulatory @ d Commission o, a Washington, D.C. 20555 In the Matter of Philadelphia Electric Company (Limerick Generating Station, Units l gpd 2)
Docket Nos. 50-352 and 50-353u L
Dear Mr. Chilk:
As a follow-up to my previous letter to the Atomic Safety and Licensing Appeal Board dated June 1, 1984, I am enclosing a copy of the decision of the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania in Daniel J. Sullivan, et al v. County of Bucks, et al., No. 710 C.D. 1985 (October 11, 1985). In that case, the Court sustained the decision of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, thus finding that Bucks County and the Neshaminy Water Resources Authority are obligated to complete the Point Pleasant project. We will provide a better copy when available.
Sincerely, 7
Troy V -
Conner, Jr.
/ .l$L Counsel for Licensee TBC/dlf Enclosure cc: Service List l
P "Mungg, ,
])So3 ]
- O N
I 4 .
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA i
i DANIEL J. SULLIVAN et al. 8 '
- v. I i
COUNTY OF BUCKS and :
NESEAMINY WATER RESOURCES
- AUTHORITY :
NESEAMINY WATER RESOURCES : NO. 710 C.Dt 1985 AUTHORITY, NO. 711 C.D. 1985 Appellant NO. 712 C.D. 1985 NORTE WALES WATER AUTHORITY '
and NORTH PENN WATER AUTHORITY -
8 v.
I NESNAMINY WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY and COUNTY OF :
BUCKS and COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC "
COMPANY <
t NESEAMINY WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY,
- Appellant NO. 713 C.D. 1985
- NO. 714 C.D. 1985 DANIEL J. SULLIVAN and 8 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, NORTE PENN WATER AUTHORITY, and NORTH WALES WATER AUTHORITY j V. 8 COUNTY OF BUCKS and NESRAMINY :
WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY COUNTY OF BUCKS,
- NO. 715 C.D. 1985 NO. 716 C.D. 1985 Appellant : .NO. 717 C,D. 1985 -
6 e
i s
t NORTH WALES WATER AUTHORITY :
and NORTH PENN WATER AUTHORITY
~
v.
- l NESEAMINY WATER RESOURCES '
AUTHORITY and COUNTY OF BUCKS a and COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and g PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY : I COUNTY OF BUCKS,
> NO. 718 C.D. 1985 Appellant : NO. 719 C.D. 1985 .
t ,
DANIEL J. SULLIVAN et al.
- v. :
COUNTY OF BUCKS et al. -
DANIEL J. SULLIVAN, a NO. 1843 C.D. 1984 i NO. 1844 C.D. 1984 Appellant NO. 1845 C.D. 1984 HONORAB';E JAMES CRUMLISH, JR. , President Judge BEFORE: HONORABLE THEODORE O. ROGERS, Judge HONORABLE DAVID W. CRAIG, Judge HONORABLE JOHN A. MacPHAIL, Judge HONORABLE JOSEPH T. DOYLE, Judge HONORABLE FRANCIS A. BARRY, Judge HONORABLE. JAMES OARDNER COLINS, Judge F
l t
I I
t ARGUED: June 5, 1985 t
- . . . , a !,
... . . ... ,1 e .: . '. .,. .. .. _ -..... T-. n s'-a.
l . _.' ' . . .-*h._..._...,_.. . . _ . . _
OPINION OPINION BY .
.r.......,
PRESIDENT JUDGE CRUMLISRi JR. .FILEDs' October 11, 1985 For our consideration and resolution herein are litigcus challenges to the construction of faci.lities to supply water for cooling a nuclear generating station in Limerick, Montgomery County, Pennsy1'v'ania, and mesting the citizens'
.r ~ : : ?.n.. .biy:' & G) - :- . . -
requirements of Bucks and Montgomery Counties. ,
This construction has inspired widespread public discussion and disagreement. Notwithstanding that vocal, philosophical and/or political dichotomy, we are obliged and intend to confine our consideration to the merits of the legal issues presented below.
Bucks County and the Nashaminy Water Resources Authority (NWRA) appeal a Bb=ke County Common Pleas Court order denying their exceptions to its adjudication 'and decree nisi which entered a verdict against them and in favor of the Philadelphia Electric Company (PECO) and the North Penn (NP)
' and North Wales (NW) Water Authorities.
Daniel J. Sullivan, a taxpayer, appeals a Bucks County Common Pleas Court order granting the preliminary objections of Bucks County and NWRA and dismissing his third amended complaint.
, The purpose of the Point Pleasant water diversion project is to construct a system by which Delaware River water coulo be withdrawn by the Point Plonsant Pumping Station and
, *imm
'N ?. f. . .* ' 4 . ** *. _.. * **
Qf , .SN! '.,-@*f{ ;. :l5.&!.R.N.R%%!';,Q:s . ,'
's;" Q *>:f"
,ry. ' -i!;tQ';S
. &:. %,,lr:,?.h.\$]'8cy:' Os y @ L. ~~r-.: -.
- y
~;.n .. .
-, . : 1y'd& .rYfD *Sy , j .r, .; v.
', ;, _ , . '- .- . ej...
__ . ..w :.
pumped through a combined transmission main to the Bradshaw
~
Reservoir and Pump House._ (Bredshaw) g- .whb're' (1) .... water ..
for public
., n. fy, ies would flow through the use by Bucks and Montgomery Count -..- .f north,. branch transmission main and along the Nashaminy Creek to whege it would be ;
treatment plant the north branch water tc NP and NW and (2) supplemental cooling. .
pumped, in part, . . - . . . . . .
water for' PECO's Limerick.. nuclear generatin'gf.c...atat'io'n"would be and' flow puspeditheoughthe
.. ; .:.or k.: @ niu .-
east:beanoh
. .. :. v.& . .r:,. ..
tranamhalon~ main c the Perkiomen Creek to the Perkiomen Pump Ecuse where it would Supplemental cooling be withdrawn and pumped to Limerick.
from using water is necessary because PECO is prohibited Schuylkill River water for several months each year.
a Construction and PECO and NWRA entered into agreed to construct and NWRA operation Agreement by which Pumping' Station and combined maintain the Point Pleasant transmission main, PBC0 assumed responsibility for constructing Bradshaw (where it agreed to store and release water to flow through the north branch transmission main, at no cost to NWRA) sole responsibility for the north . branch
'and NWRA assumed transmission main. The agreement provides that the project's 49 ultimate capacity is to be 95 million gallons per day (mgd),
To the extent necessary to mgd for NWRA and 46 mgd for PECO.
the Point Pleasant Pumping insure operation and maintenance of Station and combined transmission main, this agreement provides The agreement was l for assignment by NWRA to Bucks County.
2.
,.;.:--1,., p,y - .
i.sxq q.h-J,re;D W W,pchU . d y p p.39 f ' '.d 5.:. y .:.:y 3 a@@j ,. .[, .'S r -: .
. _ 3 .. .....-,,.~..
, '. executed' byc thdNrequired majority of the Bucks County
. commissioner 3 .ivg-npi.-
9 '..p r . p . @ s. ;-k pW he:.
yy;.W.
. w2-W .( . ^ . w -_ w
<.- ~ ~ ~- r . , -p:9 fe '
~
'.NWRA, Bucks County and Montgomery County entered into
. .-' . . .. - + ... -
a .Wat.er. '.: Sales .
Agreement by which Bucks County agreed to ,
construct (or cause to be constructed by 1(WRA) the Point Pleasant Pusiping Station and combined transmission main and WWRA ,a
. :,. s re.[:d'.,M.' cow s . . . .a..4M:s.:& w-nstruotl.thChorth.J branch trans. ission r-m kain...:..
m; 25??'* ' ire $fM@s%-6AW$WSM*&t reserved '
43:2h . . ../.W.f-I@E,61?F.
reespea l'or" ~E
. PBCO
.:i:h ~.sm:c=; k pro, vides.T.
a <.-6.Wi.M":: +f.QkQi r,:#::: . . = .. .# that 487 IngdWim - =-
~ . , '"in~'
accordance 'w; i th the Construction ahd. operation Agreement, while 29.4 agd is reserved for Montgomery County and 19.8 mgd is reserved for Bucks County. The trial court found that the water reserved for Montgomery County. was intended primarily fo'r the benefit of NP and NW, both of which entered into contracts for the water with Montgomery County simultaneously with the the Water Sales Agreemei.t.
execution of Montgomery County
, itself operates no water treatment or delivery. facilities.
i Later, Bucks County purported to terminate its Construction and Operation Agreement with PECO, demanded that WRA stop construction of the Point, Pleasant Pumping Station and combinsd transmission main and purported to terminate its obligation to supply water to Montgomery County. Construction recommenced af ter a thirty-day moratorium. However, the Bucks County Commissioners next paused ordinance No. 59 which purported to require NWRA to convey the Point Pleasant project to Bucks County (apparently so that they could stop the project) .
Thereafter, the NWRA ordered a second suspension of 3.
l F
g l . . ., , . m .
. ,.5 .
..,,.,7.........,.,.,,,.,g..,...,.;
. . . I
. .7
4,.l[.'h. . _- $'@/$8$5(:I;$U.hfN!Ehh.Sh.
w - _ g,
. p _m.5.k. $k.h..lhk..h. .h...
. . . . r; f..., h:hh. k.
x 3- .. .-
.<c.,.. ..
.. .m_...
. .: t. =.; . :. . . Y :. :- s- . .?l?R.M.G.Yg'.. ~;
. .. construction ;and passe;.y;:dpa: resolution qu;estioning . the validity
- . .. :. .Q 9 . . .' ,.1: :::M:y;; . ~ lWi1.:. :;.. . . - . %9M=a+ -
MTA M= of . the' coristructlonNnd. Operation _'i and.43at~er'.? Sales ' Agreements 4 .
- y;
- -::;i.' g.4%hyL.;y EQ4.y;*5.3..f;,i. Min' M m..:9 &dnyV .
Finally, .3ucks count . resolution . directing NWRA to
,. nl:itu-l.:k W, yny ; passed y fsshi .a q.Q:m..%.gf.4g. py.. ;
delete..khe project from its. water supply"systen..~.f ~.
.' l
. y 14.': '.'.fe~.. ..; - .
The trial court'sV a'judication d order 6d that (1) RP
. .: n . , .. . . ._
and NW. be assigned ownership .of and complate . the north branch .
.c r . MM transa.944-wees, lihiisd4fsMS'F/cmF.v&Wn*%--c;1- eatment
~ lanta nd :thatJor. tion of a
- V.. .?,FGQtf th0;sw}e$Pdd',.,tssi,on
- .
stera:;r transa u.. so mala _**y,w[ste~'-
esi.enecessary, to':
. ' WA.P n,A5;..
trans
.-MNM-9h'.sq%K4.ato water te IW:and" them N'Jand 'tiha%fh.fsh+' aim &.,'+'-%N.R z.:~. .Q:gg _- l W. ' reimburse- Bucks County and *
~
NWRA for all properly incurred costs of these facilities, (2)
NWRA complete construction the Point of Pleasant Pumping Station and the combined' transmission main and (3)' Bucks county comply with its contractual obligations, under the construction and operation and Watar sales Agreements, to insure completion
~
of the Point Pleasant Pumping 8t,ation and the combined transmission main. '
cur scope of review in equity matters is limited to a detsemination of whether the Chancellor committed an error of
' law or abused his discretion. Sack v. feinman, 489 Pa. 152, 413 A.2d 1059 (1980). We will not disturb his findings unles.s they are ' unsupported by the evidence or demonstrably capricious. Harrisbur0 School District v. Pennsylvania Interscholastic Athletic Association, 453 Pa. 495, 309 A.2d 353 (1973).
The major contentions of Bucks county and NWRA are that (1) the Construction and Operation and Water Sales 4.
.........n. 7.. . ..~, .,,,,...... .~ ....
. . ,. .y.
- ......_...u......._,, _ . ,
Agreements are invalid, not binding and unenforcecble, (2) (a)
PECO is not a third-party beneficiary to the Water Sales '
Agraement, despite its relationship to the Construction and operation Agreement, and therefore has no standing to enforce it and (b) tiP and NW are not third-party beneficiaries to the Water sales .\greement and therefore hnve no standing :o enforce either agreaant, (3) Bucks County and NNRA hava bre* ached neither. agreement, (4) specific Performance not the if appropriate relief, (5) NP and NW are not entitled to assume ownership of and complete the north branch transmission main
, and water treatment plant and that portion of the western transmission facilities necassary to transport water to them and (6) President Judge Carb improperly refused to recuse himself.
Sullivan argues that the common pleas court erred by granting Bucks County and tMRA's preliminary objections and dismissing his third amended complaint.
Wa will examine each legal issue seriatim.1 l
VALIDITY Sucks County and NWRA contend that the project will l predominantly serve the private interests of PECO, allowing it to thwart the public interest of Bucks County. However, we agree with tha trial court's holding that the agreements serve important and legitimate public purposes, specifically supplying water to Bucks and Montgomery Counties, and therefore 5.
l
- . .....a.... .......
are not invalid or ultra vires under the Municipality )
i Authorities Act of 1945 ( Act) ,3 because they benefit the public, and not primarily a private endeavor. See Price v.
Philadelphia Parking Authority, 422 Pa. 317, 333, 221 A.2d 138, 147 (1966) (the parking authority was empowere4 to act only for the public benefit and could not employ its resources for the primary and paramount benefit of a private endeavor). Bucks County and NWRA rely heavily on Price to support their position that PECO would receive the primary benefits of the project.
In that c a s,e , Philadelphia was barred from the joint construction of a parking garage with an apartment bu.ilding developer because the developer, not the public, was receiving the primary benefit. However, this case is distinguishable from Price. Here, the amount of water reserved for PECO (46 mgd) la less than that to be used by Ducks and Montgomery 2
counties.' Moraover, the sale of water to PECO is critical to the viability of Bucks County's entire water management program.5 P!.nally, unlike the developer in Price, PECO i operates in the public sector. Even the water received by PECO j would be devoted to generating electricity for use of the general public.
Bucks County and NWRA also argue that the agreements grant PECO, NP and tF.T an improper loan. Again, ue agree with the trial court's holding that the agreements are predominantly l
l for public purposes and, therefore, do not violate the
. 6.
. . ~ . ......... u......s .
. . . - . J .1
. . : . . .* . . .__ _ . _ . :_ l . . . .
constitutional prohibition, against a government's use of its credit to finance.a private entity.0 sucks County and NWRA further contend that the l Construction and Operation Agreement, in effect, allows PECO to exercise governmental powers. We hold, howeves, that while it allows PECO limited input 7 concerning the implementation of 1* proprietary
- contracts,8 it permits no
- Bucks"."
. ? .\. . County 's.?$piQ. ":.. '.
~*
interfere,nce Swit 'Al b <. discretionary .governmental :: fune.tions and, therefore, constitutes ng improper delegation of governmental authority as proscribed in PA. CONST. art. III, $31.I We hold that both the construction and Operation and the Water Sales Agreements are valid, binding and enforceable.10 .
I STANDING ,
We hold that PECO, NP and NW have third-party beneficiary ~ standing to enforce both interrelated agreements under the concepts of Guy v. Liederbach, 501 Pa. 47, 459 A.2d 744 (1983).
- l Our Supreme Court, in spires v. Ranover Fire 1
Insurance Co., 364 Pa. 52, 70 A.2d 828 (1950), held that to be a trird-party beneficiary entitled to recover on a contract, both parties to the contract must so intend and must indicate that intention in the contract. However, in Guy, our Supreme Court raccgoized that it is unlikely that a beneficiary of a will could ever bring suit under the spires requirements.
7.
. . . , x
..r., .......... ,,.,.... m .....
~ ~ . - . . .
i w. #
. . ,_.;y -2. ..!::.
. .. ! yu -:
e.".r!+
. m. . n . : n. ~ :-
~
.....2...._., .
Seiros was overruled 'by gug "to the extent that it states the exclusive test for third party'. beneficiaries.,' Guy, 501 Pa. at-
. <~ ,;....
60, 459 A.2d at 751 (emphasis added). Referencing the RESTATEMENT (SECOND) 0F CONTRACTS $302 (1979), our Supreme Court in ggy, set forth a "two part test for dete$nining whether one is an intended third party beneficiary: (1) the
..: . .. . . : . . .jp& :: . .. w. . . . . .....
- c.ptght. must be 'appropeist'e to recognition of. the beneficiar
. Qn.V.W' .v.:. ? "^ **- i. y " **
' ; .* @ par t ei. sg'.%
, ' : e .and.
the'<2) ef feokttsks" tho' 'inten"tToF.ai?'p.- ..a. .m.n ..g.. . - -
performance must ' satisfy an obligation of the promisee to pay money to the 1:teneficiary' or 'the circumstances indicate that the promisee intends to give the beneficiary the benefit of the promised performance.'" M. This alternative test, rather than requiring a mutual intention manifested in the contract, "laaves discretion with the trial court to determine whether
~
recognition of third party beneficiary status would be 1
' appropriate.'" g.
With respect to the Water Sales Agreement, the spires
- test . has been met because the parties mutually intended, as l
l manifested in the agreement, that NP and NW would be 1
beneficiaries of Montgomery County's water purchase (in which l
it had no direct intere st) 11 and that PECO would be a major l I
water purchaser. Moreover, the alternative Guy test has also ,
, been met becauce the trial court determined that recognition of '
I the third-party beneficiary status of PECO, NP and NW Was appropriate and the circumstances indicate that the promisee ,
8.
i l
l
.n. .,...........,,.,,,.,..;.,7 i . - .--
'.--.'w_a___.'._,__,. ***'
., ". g'
- *.g. ..,.;.~ .t 14't=<*.
? e i'4-
_. _. ._ ';..m.......
".,I*M'."c'..'..W'.**
--.~..... _ . . - . .
1 (Montgomery County) intended to give them the benefit of the promised performance.12 - -
With respect to the Construction and Operation
. y: ~
Agreement, the Spires test has been met because the parties ., ,,
mutually intended, as manifested in the agreement, that NP and NW would be beneficiaries.13 Further, the alternative Guy test has also beNn"'N3NYMIEN?trTidIfoYuYtkNtE8ibiitied'.
m hith ^-
i
~
r Ni io'n' b arty t '
-~~. . j[, .<.i f p.'* . . ,
the-.
. .QGh.S{.fh?tinsifl.%!h L'; ."~f +.'?.C.;
was appropria,to ofroumstances ' indlaats- that the
- - 7. ' and ; i.
i promisee (PBCO) intended to give them the benefit of the promised p:rformance.14 The standing of PEC0, NP and NW to enforce these agreements clearly follows from their third-party beneficiary
~
status. See Fitscerald v. Kunterski, 318 Ps. 494, 178 A . 385 (1935). ),gg h RESTATEMENT (SECO'ND) 0F CO'NTRACTS S307 (1979).
BREACE Initially, Bucks County contends that its execution of the Construction and Operation Agreement, providing for assignment to insure operation and maintenance of the project, does not cbligate it under that agreement's construction provisions or effect a present assignment. We agree. The trial court held that Bucks County is bound only to the extent that its acceptance of the assignment obligated it to do certain things under the provisions of the agreement. Its 9.
l w v. . . ...s. . . . . . . . . . . . . ..
-.:= 2.:ici .4 V e i s t Q tE P W M F W ---FL E - @-- S.- Y' N '..M d> @ @ A5j'7'E'di M $ P T * 'i-} S
~ '
' adjudication merely orders Bucks County to do all things which it.11s ' contractually obligated to de so .that the' project, as
- i :+;.' ...,.. .,. :.;; w --
contemplated by the agreement, . may be completed. Nonetheless, to the extent that the NWRA is its creature,1 Bucks County has a duty not only to resist 'any impediment to NWRA's contractual ob11gations 16 but also to insist on the means to carry out.the w.- -
.:-. . : q .;. .m . e- <.sz .
.. '.. ~ Constructio. u .n" and erat ~ . reement., ' $e se duties' are T
7,b.,4Kt$@'peo ~ -tp.U; ~7..Op. .
e 44ft-a .' :. 'the Cou$'[1%' .. . ~. - -
' :e." e s /. ole'ar- nt st oblig.p. f'.,ic' under.
iven~- oc
' ^
at'lons '
' . q3.l?i*i. :.;-. 2.=?GW.. *. C ? .; . o,f&c eement.."" "C. ;':. .'%s:::;i.-;i . . .,-
Water Sales.-Agr. .' ..
,'.N -
. .n. .. . -
It ,is abundantly' clear that Bucks County and NWRA breached both agreements by virtue of their failure to proceed expeditiously and their declared intention not to complete the project.17 .
clouded I
Although by a myriad of procedural and preliminary contentions, the major argument of Bucks County and NWRA is that they undertook the project in their governmental capacity and, therefore, have the right to withdraw from or terminate the project. Their theory is that a government of the people must be able to , respond to the changing will of the people. However, we are more persuaded by the contention that we must presently recognize the need for the reliability and .
certainty of contractual relations required to insure the very stability of government. "A municipality is not at liberty to avoid its contractual obligations merely because it deems it to be for the benefit of its citizens to do so." Allecheny County v. Pennsvivanie Public Utility l
Commission, 192 Pa.
l l
- 10. -
as.e m
- c c:...::f c d '-y y. ] ,2 g d', '
. 1 -
.:@,f.-!p3ff,}f.I.'Y-@f,f,'-
. ............ a . ..
t Superior Ct. 100, 114, 159 A.2d 227, 234 (1960) (emphasis I added). As early. as 1790, this. concept was recognised - bv.7
.(< .. . ... c
. . . . , .a..
..s.;
Alexander Hamilton, then Secretary of the. Treasury, who observed that " [e] vary brea'ch of the public engagements,.'
whether from choice or necessity, is, in different degrees, hurtful to public credit" and that " fundamental principles of ,
g'ood faith. : .:..dictlate .- r -ai s tha t av;:y. 4.MWmaiW-c%h%W:M:kt...
Pract 1 esti
.. %.':.t.+
. tog.a..
.2
-w:- $ F 7made, .? i-$ hf.f".
d..
- l';5/My%e scrupu .
us .engageme :i.i' '
. .... ,6 . . . . su >"
s.r. **T Government." q.E::...c .. -:%lg' y' on ' ,'theLB :'M.y.'m.&=-y.i 4:.;, ';? ;i2.:
. First Report.
Publio Credit,; Treasury
- y, Department, January 9, 1790.
.Indeed, our Supreme court adopted.
Alexander Hamilton's observation that " [w] hen a government entsrs into a contract with an individual, it deposes, as to the matter of the contract, its constitutional authority, and exchanges the character of legislator for that of a moral agent, with the same rights and obligations as an . individual.
Its promises may be justly, considered as excepted out of its
- power to legislate, unless in aid of them." Philadelchia v.
Fidelity-Philadelphia Trust Co. , 358 Pa. 155, 168, 56 A.2d 99,
'104-05 (1947) (quoting Alexander Hamilton, Second Report on the Public Credit, Treasury Department, January 20, 1795). This observation is equally applicable to national, state or municipal government. H. at 168, 56 A.2d at 104.
Having found that these agreements are not ultra vires and because PECO, NP and NW relied on them, we also uphold the trial court's conclusion that Bucks County and NWRA are estopped from denying their resulting contractual 11.
.. u . .i+... ...
..;.i_a:.r dLE2 L__;. . ..
. ;= ..
. l. ;.'...s-
.I:.. X..y.;:: M..-5 DIM b N " " '.'....c:':- 9 Y ,
'..f.
- .8 :.y: _. ;
1 obligationsJ Where, c.r 4. Estoppel mis an.: equitable . w.'y doctrine.
. :p . /? - .;-. a,. ..g. -*
as
. . ..in-N- . e-here, parties' proceed. ..in good faith reliance upon the other
....g.5;--
. . g .;. .. " : .
par tie's ' contractual' obligations, , the doctrine will preclude
. :, . . .u . : . . . .. ., .
the other parties from denying their obligations. The fact that ;
- .. m .. _
Bucks , County.
,is .a governmental agency, , and NWRA is its ,
i
... - .- 2+wg4 ...t.....a.a......,.';.+.......
-4 -g w.2 w . . . . . .. . ..p.r-- --<<- a . .. n .<-
'Ir ,l.evan
.,,-- . .ISeer FideliW '3h11'adelphia Trus P.O..r. U: - . w. ~c
.. .r. ea tur.i. ,6.. w-.re
.u h co . . .
6.%gsp$w:an4F 943 Y F she '
- - 'Lw.
vy-T00,Ly,::.uc.;.Nr662
. m.a: "~
m.
17 8'A.
I' M!h.9:;'.9659>.&q.E-hw.EW55:Vtaf4@$$fi
. b@'. , .': 04:
. (1935)ic.
W.auniojpalitys tike 4.. private corporation, . is subject.. -
. .: .o y-:,Q . :n .- p;-:e ;,.A.:: . ..
to the doctrin,e of estoppel.p.:-s ey. -; v. The city of shamokin,
'9. -Albricht 277.Pa. Superior Ct'. 344, 419 A.2d 1176 (1980).
Where -there is good faith . relianc:e on valid agreements, we. must draw the line between governmental adaptability and contractual certainty in such a way as to shield such agreements from political pressure and . uphold the t
will of the people, as delegated by them to their duly-elected representatives, declared at the time the agreements were made.
This is the heart of the democratic process.
REMEDY Bucks County and NWRA contand that damages are the appropriate relief because reasonable alternatives to the Project existed and that delay and/or cancellation of the Project will not further jeopardize a Limerick operating permit.
12.
. . y. . .,.............,.,.....,...w,. ---
.. .. .-.r
a r:- . .
. ; .. ... : ~K.T ? e t. .s ..:: i.. .. .. . . .
n-;: -z': cgi.(:.:;.2ipaiC;
. . JHoweVar, ' 49I decre.58g.%+-Vi%w.wM.-:r n:. k.:..
e . . of . Performance ~ may M:1:.QJ @j~.fL.M. .i:-QtT.&. specific
. . ,; a. ':.^f@Q.n; . - ..
reasonably ascertainable properly be entered
-2.-5.'.rir u.Q-#,J,- fj%png-}f.r-M+...w r;.fsmages ?are. not s.m ym, :,,.
- ~
or are inadequate. .; Clark 'v.' Pen'nsylvania ' State Police, 496 Pa.
g
& 1981N .3pw
, :s .
-- .2d:+:.'1383.b!(c.m .W agree"w..wigm'the( trial court 's -
310, 4 3 6 A. .K i th:.. *
'-'*#NW.t W @:W2%.:+ic
~ " ed * ^ ' ; *: .
holding that specific.. . performance .is appropria.te in this case
.: ...: .. . m .
because the . dama'ges%-m.gO.a. .sudered' by,3;;,s ,PBCOf$.NP. . . . - and...NW .. . . . , . . are not
_...._.s... . . . - . .m . ,1 -
C -.[%iaYcN$k aso,grg .,s gY i b ges. n h. .. ,'a b N N .
i HWa~t T .i-n85 ..Q;.r
.%... soueces p 3 -.. _. E.
":Wdiffi'ou'14yWZin a c.14 % p # M.M> '.4.3J.; .M!i I'O '
ane d ngs enoeiving
. ..i: Pa.. sj c...
11 censure.22 :m.pg.y, . g i ,y3g .. .
pip.x,q&pg.r.
y q p p . g ~3..:-cm g g . grcSg.
g ,.
We further hold that, due to time limitations and unavailability, the failure of PECO, NP and NN to seek I alternative water sources works no waiver of their legal rights. President Judge Garb expressed the apparent dilemma ,
inimitably. when he wrote that they "put all their eggs in one basket because it was the only basket they had." The time-(
consuming and rigorous nature of the regulatory permitting process, alone, is sufficient to absolve PECO, NP and tM from !
any obligation to seek alternative water sources if indeed they l were available prior to the resolution of this controversy.
Moreover, it is the burden of the breaching party to show that !
4 losses could have been avoided by the reasonable efforts of the l damaged party. State Public School Buildine Authority v. W.M.
Anderson Co., 49 Pa. Commonwealth .C t . 420, 410 A.2d 1329 (1980). We hold that Bucks County and NWRA failed to sustain their burdan of 'shouing that PECO, NP and tM could have [
L i
- 13. .
I
..%'?.;: : SQ:.
..lly*;.:*.9 2:.::.:. .:4.;:Q:;:.
. j :'?ft.jp*c'g. .. .'Q
. ,t . . .
l
%z -m
,c.t'r,. ,l
. q. ,p p.ig.7.i.n:,0.q ;.4:a.;.q,:"&
. ~ .
a .~ . . .
- .. J.di-i;%: :Wc i 'OM&. .;. .& E+ly.%t.6 6Ba . .; ::h:k,v.:
mitigated...,s
':their damages '-(secured
. - . , . alternativo%.:
. < . " wma-water ' source's) by '
-reasonably diligeh;. . . :> ,.: . $s ti ff$ ar.. Na :# .b. k @ N M M k . M .TJ-
.,:$.aq1w2295%'h m -
m @ .=<- m v : <~. e.t-Bucks County and NWRA. further _ contend that their failure to ' build would" 3. *%:.:..:a caus~e .. % ' ..: 0L'lif&W+.2W-b.
. PECO$nor.'consequentia? ~..i y-.1. ..-
r, damages /* -
- - .: 5% H.u, . '.:v;. 7 -
because of regulatory problems with..Limeri6k's operation.
Bowever, we
.c.
hold. .that( . althoug.b;f..resulting. .; damages' might be 6 9 4 ~.;'. . ~
ti+ &t%:M. . ': ~ a . ;.
u- ,
.. =:-n W .~ ***:Mmhak$.tc.::&fBE~N ' ' i tithe '.'
te c.it . cafm .. failure to.: 1;;;
- ~
difficul ~- ~
f$g'-
~
" $,b.Y.M build 'woull- .dama .PBC - NMoreover e guqen
.o . i.:.@.n..WyQ ff,@g;-Aupp.& f3ygg t . 'a f. 7. ' ~
,,,. . ,, s@i.r:T:W.*I.s ,c -
degree of3 speelfic performanosf shouldT awa of
-;~. )
p.'.2 ,. .~ py;:y inp; -
Pending regula$ory matters is~Q1f2?.:.MQ@.T&@.re t .
i of this magnitude has to be built one step at a time. If every !
. c.W- ,yi..
..- I permit and requirement were a sine crua "non ; to. the other, i
it ;
could never be built. The parties obviously contemplated that all permits would not be in pl6co at the .ime of construction in light of the construction and Operation Agreement's provisions regarding withdrawal in the event necessary permits are not issued.24 l
ASSUMPTION OF OWNBBSEIP OF WORTE BRANCE The trial court held that, under paragraph 5, ppga,7 of the Water Sales Agreement, NP and NW are entitled to assume 1 1
ownership of and complete the north branch transmission main and related facilities. Bucks county argues that, according to l the agreement's terms, onig n Montgomery County had the option, upon failure of Bucks County and NWRA to pursue the project, to (1) terminate the agreement and I2) complete that portion of 14.
i
(
l
~P. aas %^ 5*1,****
.b- , , , ,g ,)
I L _ _ _ __ _ _ _ . _ - . . - - - - . -- - - - -- -
the project necessary to supply it with water. It further contends that President Judge Garb abused his discration by ordering specific performance in addition to the partial i takeover. We disagree. Having determined that NP and NW have l sttnding to enforce the agreement, we furthers hold that they )
may acquire the rights of Montgomery county to complete the portion of the project intended ~ primarily for the benefit of l
.. M& :-; wi' ~. " . . y;. t. s their consumers. Moreover, we hold that' the , contractual
\
remedy, while available, is not because exclusive such an intsntion is not clearly set fseth in the agreement.
, See Bettincer v. Carl Berke Assoc., Inc., 455 Pa. 100, 314 A.2d 296 (1974).
nacusar.
The major procedural contention of Bucks County and NWRA is that President Judge Garb e'rred in denying their l petitions for recusal.25 Their petiticn for permission to appeal this refusal 26 was denied by this court, and our Supreme court subsequently denied their petition for plenary
' jurisdiction.
l .
Our Supreme court has held that if, upon a review of i the record, an appellate court determines that a fair and impartial trial was had, the alleged disqual'ifying factors of l the trial judge become moot. Rolliv v. SEPTA, Pa. ,
489 A.2d 1291 (1985). Bucks County and minA argue that tha l ownarship of' PECO stock by the estate of President Judge Garb's
- 15. *
'*g* * *
.'*g',',,***'*8,eO.*
, ,, ,, . p .k .
~
.u . . .; ..r . v. : . . . n ,.. . , . ; -
,. ... . 7:. g ,.u:.-..;.p
.?.n,.. .
-- c .
.n.. . f ather from December,,
~- sr ..~;33_.e . . . ;. :, .
21
. ..,93983..
7,:.:g..y .. . -
to. July .13, 1984 and President
. Jddge la'rb's ' servi'oe f as'. 'cliairman of the interim Board of ra6 % ~.; ' ' . . -. <
. . .nElect .v . a sIons:'&_w...v-%.&d.:. %d:'dMW:..? " ;; r.
.of.. Bucks County.t.*has -
' deprived them,'of a fair and impartlal . trial. .- we;- disagree.. Obviously, any interest
.; - . .z. : -:Q.o ...:,. ,.:. :
! Preside.nt ' Judge Garb may, have.' had in the PECO stock owned by -
. .. t his father's. estate could . not have affected his impartiality becans the stock was , sold. ' ri -
.. . ~ . 7,. - > w. 'rM zc.,n w n...,. ... 4. ,. u .to &.e .- . s trial's.
+ .ec,.e.. conclusion
-'a' and,.. ... .v-.;1: .-
_ .: .n . n w . ... ... e wm...:n.
ils.T. %d' ?. elatedi.,Denef_itT f rom 2',Qi:g. .is.;.:
95bWi49?di ee ...% ~R Wi M ?ET S:?%-* + -3 * W
, , .3
- [4 1... There5.is.
i ;T,T:.h - .
- v. :.... .ki to indicate' that
. s. ...y.. . ..
nothing/u!l.'in.;sthe . ,...
record u ,
President Judgd' Garb's service ,on the Board in any way af fected his, fairness and impartiality. President Judge Garb served on the Board pursuant, to Section 301(c) of the . Pennsylvania Election Code,27 the Board's decision to place a non-binding referendum question regarding construction of the project on tha ballot was made in response to various citizens' petitions and the referendum was written in neutral terms.28 i
SULLIVAN'S CCHPI.AINT 1
Sullivan contends that he is a third-party beneficiary, as a taxpayer, to the construction and operation and Water Sales Agreements and therefore entitled to sua for recovery of da:nages to Bucks County (costs of attempting to stop the project, litiga. tion and construction already completed) from its Commissioners and the h"dRA Board members and/or completion of the project and the acceptance by Bucks County of the benefit originally contemplated. Tha trial court l
l l
l t 16.
= ~
m.:. . . ,
e,. . . . . .
.q.p.; .
..w .. .. .. .
. . . . . ~. y .... . ..
. . . . . . .- ...g-
.. v . ..:,. . .g.g a.. t~
gran ted ' .:, .: ..:- :.e:.n.;; gym ,c~;p,=. . . . . .pt; . a::.ysy. .
......'+..;..
the" preliminary:;"ob
. .. ;;.q: a g. ections of... _
. Bucks.
g.: ..y. Countys .y.
. . c..
and NWRA to raised;itsMailure to Sullivan's ..
- . . ' third amendAdicomplainti;.;whiiha..
- y. .:.m 9 . (sgyigna s@ ew .
.and dismissed'it in its entiret The s tate however, courte.
a causerecogn'iie'd
.n -
of ' action,b
--9paaUd J Sull *$'=:.m."'l van'Fatanding-a.s9 : , .Y.;.'"'8*Si:$lhr&N:
a' taxpayer / }
..' - .::n.T.'.b3.~Nei: ...y M-; ?. &..e :'::"' . *~ - '
with respect 'to this ' lawsuit and 'kilowed him to f be considered a l
. p. . c i 1 .e:: =.:.:. . %; . .
-m :; .;c: . .: 1 party to tha compla.in..u.-.'o..f;f7ECO.F ts NP . . - .and. N.W. . . . .. to.. the. extent that . I xn; ... .:; . s _ . ._"-
. .._ . . . . . r, ; .. . . .
k.
g; ;;,r.; ; -- 2..
.-q. g. c. -. .h. e. .,.ae. .i m . e. ath - n 3. ;r.i : ..f.
- 3. ,gi@- 4---%5 7:
S! ..
- % J. , ~
~ ::. z. .. m..,
' ,agra = 6 foour -
us on-. tha &,t. @%N@
- af ..g.. ?.S
- Il@.cip.':$."
. t % N,..s.
despite hLa /shanding
~
fons.SuIliv$@? failedto-#M ds.w
~
i' ng:garC - an
.C :.S-D} % b .,?. k.~.- % Q: Q,Qff.f state a separate causer, of yg.GQt'.)f%%?ff'%%$EG.~-:v.
action- I F his .: x third amended cemplaint.g, .n. ...;. .-
s... ....
.,,.,....i.,
m.,. .
"The right." to amend'should not be w'ithheld where there is some reasonable possibility that' amendment can be accomplished successfully." otto v. American Mutual Insurance Co., 482 Pa. 202, 205, 393 A.2d 450,' 452 (1978).. However, there are some " cases uhare it is clear that amendment is impossible and where to extend leave to amend would be futile."
Id,. Although, unlike PECO, NP and NW, Sullivan seeks recovery
'from the Bucks County commissioners and the NWRA Board members ,
it does not appear that his complaint could be amended to state a cause of action for this special relief.30 We, therefore, hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by ordering that Sullivan be considered a party to the complaints of PECO, NP and NW.
We hold that there in substantial evidenca in the i
record to cupport the trial court's findings and that it i
17.
.=. - , . . . . . .....................g
.. . m :..i.v.
. . . ,.:s - .t .....::.
. ::,... . ; v. .* >.:v.
... . .. v .
.. a . a. . :.Y. n ; +. ...vi..i.iN.v.:.
. .. . i.1, . l. ~..
. . ~ . '. .., ?. W g,2m .:w. _. - ..e .
. . . . . . . . . . ,......: _ . _:, ,, _ . _ . . _2,_ a
,. . . a _ .. . . . . . . . ...
committed no ' abuse ~ of~ discretion' or , error of law in its
..,adj udica tiona g;%--. nz . .- . c.yr.ve
.-c. .
- .. , .. ,.. ....u.
- .c.2 c.......& . q.y. . . n. . .
. g.. ..w..s
.. . :. - ,r m .s. . . .s. . . .
.r * . r,. .p S. g g. A .. e .y . . . ..:- .. ..
Affirmed.
.. .s..
.e..
. . 'o-Date: October.11', 1985 E#
em ,
QN hS.. d.%.#.. : .. in.
- N*
m ;.
g f&.. $-k5, .
s . .c.b5$.5$.?
. .. g.r . . idio .*N$..$4. i .T s;d. h..k. &.R?rfsiden.t r_ JudgeY..(&, : . '.!&&
h'hk.
~
- h. . %,
~
- $.fh .h : . ! k '#--
@.d,W* 'a'.@'-i .TfJMc, . .f.r. '
M,, p th , . * *
.Y
., .. ...ts, X. . -* f.':[4[;.$[5%M'.'..:s..'f'?g,..%
..- g a
- p . .j . , . v.m.9%.g..,ce/ter.~
.-p g.3., W w n
, - - - v 3.. .
. . .;e. n.. ...:....,s.. w.y,
. s c::T..s
.- . .s.,2. gpp. ,;. ,.s ...y p, . .6.j;.;
. ., . . . :,, .b.;.., ) ;,c ,.: . ~ '; ;
. . . .. ., ,c.' .,e'-
,,. : . ct, ,
,- .. ....: e_.. , ,
. :,: ..........n.....
. . . . . . . z ..
. w5 . . . , 3.. , . .
w... . - . . ..,...y
- c. .. -
. .,.. . ., :. .; .. ..... ...1 .+ ., :. o:v~
. m. u, pr. . ,.:,
. .: . :. .a..
. , . ..; . .,. e.
Judge Colins disis~4nts. ' * ~' ~ . '"' '
~
Judge Palladirro did not participate in the decision in this case.
18.
6 3- .... .. .s ,
- .. : : :.W. W . n:p W:
W M.W.M %$ Q i&.l;g.W~i %. %x%. .. j.f Q.. fm$i W
- =. . . -y.x.
. . y!.)...4 i
.r.. ..
> 5 ,.. .; g g. yl'..E00TNOTES?. 6M h n)k dUv; '.M
. s.c..L. .w... :. s w . . . . . . . ..t. .. . . . . .g..r . ' ^ -
,s .
kbh. .h $
Due to sur resolution it is unnecessary .to'addEassi.this'; co. llateral 'of,. these , legal . questions,
. contentions of Bucks 1 Councy and NItRA P'd* N M W .Q D M D ~' c'IM ." '
- W9 I W~ W'M 2-WN Bucks County l' specifically ? ' argues
- that it will ,
receive no benefit.i.from.4 .the- project... ~~However, our review of l the record . reveals "that;.? Buck's ~; count would benefit but .2or, the
. . . ..". . .. r e , .
^~
, e ~ ' ~
' f, "' _ ' 'ciep ifWatgrpgfrpay.i-thebppf .,L'[
. .p EMa oc
- - QC,m;sedar t 9 **.
@ %$%9achl.**
- i..
JL*. Myt%dpon.
.watercyeells evieweerSty. . /s.p
.-:"$th6tf
,wg fJndliW?Misca .
upported. $m n r-
.7 faubat&nti x.evidenos! o ject's744eaign "4' --
.r- tlest ' ..tsp'of& the<.p? %: pro;diQ[gheI
- - ~
- engi,
- e. . rim. '
m :y.6stimonf.7.r.-
. . . . _ . : . ..:. n
.Q..
wA- f,:.m. .
.v .
Ac t o f' . May 382, as amended, 53 P.S.
M= . W:-Q'4*9
~-
4%;~*7.II. -
~
55301 .23*
i s
. r.r. ?. :
. .. .- %.s L Cn~~QL . .w:*%:. &c C Qa- .g. ??: .2h'%. - ~ . .y..-+.:'%'
4 .. :.co-!.- .. :: : :
Buckn Countyi. AndGintEA.'.lil . argument, that the. ; . project doas not provide "public..b'enefit'.. b)ecause. 24.4 mgdr.: ofthe 49 mgd going to Bucks and'J6cntgomery Counties," is recerved for Montgomery County is meritless. Supplying water to either county provides a public benefit. NWRA, as a municipal authority, is an agency of the Commonwealth and acts to benefit the people of the Commonwealth. Section 4A of the Act, 53 P.S.
5306A. '
5 Tha project is part of Bucks County's water supply l system which itself is part of its water management program.
PECO is a major purchaser of water from NWRA and the sale of water is necessary for the retirement of the public bonds sold
.to finance the water management program.
6 PA. CONST. art. IX, 39 provides:
The General Assembly shall not authorize any municipality or incorporated district to become a stockholder in any company, association or corporation, or to obtain or appropriate money for, or to loan its credit to, . any corporation, association, institution or individual.
municipalit This provision has baen construed to mean that a cay not land its credit to a puraly private ontorpriso.y Rettio v. 3oned od County commiasioners, 425 Pa.
274, 220 A.2d 747 (1967) . ~
19.
w . ...... ..
.ln_.:c.N.. .c.M...
i4;hg9y,Qqf,%. ..yy;'. . . , ., yp:5:.ft
,,@%,,6y.,.9.n,.wQ;gty,g.
. . . . . x: ' ;g a~ . . . . . . . . . ,,:jjallx
- 7. . 's M,.g5W
.w....'q.f.w.n.c
- ~
- j . ;p.l. Q *'
~^
?~^~'$....h. " [ *-f -[ *
^
^
a--~. ;n .q._y:. .n
.;.. : .a,. .
, .. . .. : r ya
%': ..S cheMy.iW.@WWMm M
~
. Operation,9 Agreement"?'@J OM..*V W". no t $.. . .p~sw",' '
. . . p '. 4. . Tke~ Construction an does ,.
W J delagateitio PECO the right to construct or. require constructioniW ' <
W-9secoC41,ng' .Siksy. . l kNJagr3esient}ECOfia plana;iF only'^empowere andf de .lo-7(1)C.ap rove idditioidrotirn.vopecificationseg improvements and their associatad. conta n writing. before~ '
charges $toMit' may_ be. inczion' sed.t'anC(2) make . recommendations' " '- '
W n.-: concer51ng7 theile ~ addihiens'1 'and91mprovementsicif ' they. ~ would /72%
- m advaraoly af fect? its 'supp1f. ofJwater.t if Delegation' merelyE of.;;.;.:
details of is Evans.vi West admini s tra ti on.:
Norriton Toh s h ip ' Mu n'i c ip a lnot . constitutionally Authority, 370 prohibited.
Pa. ~ %2 150. 45 J ,24 474 (1952)+.;. Mor eove r ryeyen: these recommendations
~
ol owed gesuir,e q.the.
L.M--- 1 bidd .,qto.violata smenh g: m .g,
.-r _
- =y"p
'-~ g a te reati e arn eg. ort $ .;': i - @
12C8ah4H2M (cushing.a. Ihanc.a' 2 ;heR .to r .berai-7 5 !
O' . distInjuIshable'rfcour. thisK c~aNB The'rNhhe'! SuperidrpowedWis . ' "7 '
. "P 31TS?. i) i tu t-lonalt-del'es a t~
' dnconst' ~~2=of9h.the-Esor6ugM.s'E Cou r t ' held *-
~
that the:. ordinance. went beyond' delegation of. . administrative
.. ~
tasks r.'suking..to *' delegate to otheral the authority, not only toydecid .~up6eyDie< 'matier f ais ~tos.. bs manner .of performing (l the , work and: tho' characteri'/iof. used,s the the Minished result but also_to determine inhat: carbing should'be constructed." ~Id.
at 559, 25 A.2d at 832 (emphasis added).
8 As recognized in the bond indentura docu=ents for tha water management program, the project is only one small part of the program. Although the program could remain viable l
without the project, the project is'a proprietary step toward both the fiscal and substantive realization of the program.
"Proparty employed by a municipality in furnishing water to its l inhabitants la not used for governmental purposes, and in its ownership and operation the municipality acts in its proprietary capacity." Pleasant Hills Borough v. Jefferson
, Township, 375 Pa. 4 31, 4 3 7, 10 0 A . 2 d 7 20, 723 (1953).
We rajset the argument that the Water sales Agreement is invalid because it was entered into by the predecessors of the present Board of County Commissioners. In .Maccalman v.
Bucks county, 411 Pa. 316, 191 A.2d 265 (1963), our supreme court held that if, as here, the County's commitment is characterized as proprietary, the commissionera have the power to obligate themselves beyond the tenure of a particular Board.
Further, the trial court acknowledged the urgent need for water now e*,;parienced by NP and NN as well as PEco. Our Supreme Court stated that:
[Uvan if an agroomant] is 'deemad to l conctitute a contr.ctual impair:.: nt or limicz.uien upon :iu tu r ., county cc: .mia c ione r a
- 20. l
% % . *e se . . . , , . .g ,
a * 4 k h.0 $ $ h h h hi.9,iffi WB. Q Q Q h j.f; y ,j.fff Q :,,yq7g,[.[~\ ,.flh :fS.,. h.: .Q
_ \ ,. l . [
. .c. '~a .. ,. . a: . "'"..^:
~ - - . - - 2.: . . =
~!
77; ' " 9. -
.' . ..'~~~. m~. . Q:....s.,.- w .:; g(. .... w .- ,..?
e . . . . . . . .
..c . a. :..a - . . . .
. :~- -~' ' %$hW,Wr,4N" ;,.&%$cSM:: ih-yd,-;M k.,... .
.. ' " " W "i n' s. le._g stive ore go.vernment 1. .f uno t' ion, " . ,.:...- g . , ,_ ._". .N' - - "
.9?Sf$h-)3f$'6cnsil$iftlonsb;f off' 'ureenev ' 'and c
-$ncessf6E ., spoonpled..with;. o f '.. .4,...
.. ' ";g.5 ore s 67 and S ahsence?;.the ; m .,3 j.. ,13 JS$'W3g0@6
'. Wtipulated((o pu 1c4 .
. fai S ozi4 ulterior. motivation, should T '.' .N. bad 3:h i:6:iiiiitme.nGt:o -be, sustained as an .
N ?.'%.Pyermiti;i" escept oMthe? ,.
~ .:legislati @ody@iVener~a14 EdmunicipalTboard rule V.N having A7. that a . .
e . leg islatiis..-4. author ity,. . ...may" not?" prgperly . o , bind. nits tauccessors!..and. may. not la' sally
-.N enter'. Min 9--6 iM' icon' tract which'...will,
-~ extend .
' h- e m b e r s '. o f .; q.
,, , ,, ,_ g , ..,.:.. .b .
ed -"~ 'otn
.'i , " ^ ....l . ' -$f.
' '~
1NjN is NMo 'ibe j ...l. t'i.&tuti '".. prov - ides ; * '
' . 'c br m.m d sy...:"..,.. fr tpgR.p$np... W i. s i.p; & s m . w s
.~ * ?m.
-% x. wa.< .Theyp GeneraQ;,. Aasembly, shall not
._..., delegated $o any special comm:.asion, private
. corporatios;'$ordl association, any power to
.. .: makeWl@uperyisec. ,orf ittterfare with any
.acnicipald improvement, money, effectaF.df.whether^ held in~ property trust ~ or or otherwise, or to levy taxes or perform any municipal function whatever.
'This provision of the constitution has been held to apply to municipal corporations as well as agents of' the State.
l ES Wilson v. Philadelphia School District, 328 Pa. 225, 195 A. 90 (1937) and Weatherly Borouch. - We hold that the Water Sales Agreement does not surrender control over governmental functions to Montgomery
. County, NP or NW. .That agreement specifically 'gives the power to control and construct the project to NWRA. Moreover, PA.
CONST. art. III, S31 does not prohibit delegation of control over a public project from one municipal entity to another. Further, we find no merit in the contention that NWRA's promise to build violates this provision. Merely contracting to build the project delegates no authority to anyone.
- 10 Bucks County and NWRA argue that they are released from their obligation to perform by the " force mageure" provision of the Construction and Operation Agreement, which reads:
21.
<w . . . . . , . . , . . . ,
s _ . ,
. . _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ , _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . _ - - - _ _ _ . . _ _ . - _ . - ~ . . , - . _ , _ __ _ . _ , . _ _ _ . _ -
~
N}h[hk:fl'.WIIMNNNYTYNk5 . e.g.. ('[Yhk'.N.$M}IM!I. dh' Ikk '.' ' '
~" ... ;?
~ *
.-c.,.~.' > .
9 I *
. . 0 3 :... ' ..c:. % ,. .-
'. '.~* *.Yh.N.
.. - ' . ..' Dl$i.ib$$NiE0: .F.,c$$:~7;hhh.
5
.. -d:SR:'Ap partygy shall;Act...be
..$.YN'5'b
; considered E
- hk$kk$$bN!!N'*V:
in
. r. default h its
- ':-t W
. .-&.Q-l-,z:.ob1'itati'6h;.in?.Tthe' p=beteundegr ' Performance e.:ot5:Anynhtgthem /Mof'- -
o n .w . - the "sexfori& 6thatM3 sef6r'mandeSaof?y :'to q:~~;.+ - .- n i such5- " t' J - i
, obligationsforf anyi of. themmisEprevented .
Otr:idal~ayed Dy erl ~
"'h' fu'turei:( ~ wh16h'a;yanyi: cause,i/.~..:existingif shb~ey'ondWthist'r < re controrlof: suchTpartiM.M
. % -%2..;',4.~-,%%@;G.s.kl@M%*.? .
J:.'". .F J?/' @ m ?' 7'
)
However, ikYsimply' cannot be..said i thak prevention or delay in the1.performancec of.).ther. obligations"of.J Bucks. . County and NWRA, !
.. . -i b a s 4 & g eni.
,thik J6cigh! iprIooseda ithQhei project,1s'. , ?-l
;.W. .I. . . s - - beyo son'ab *?-contentions p. .
qi'tfr$ loii.7.4:andMz "
? JQ'c
"?.Ih@N.7 cpera cons' rifeQPw(i19n6t$?J -
Tl.:'J 5 exonerat ..
' til3;;prioi Edutie~s .: nnder':' the' "' -
..F: isf"ieng~
'~
'C o n s t r u c t~i o n ? a h' '" .
- fg.{ Mg ement,W willsbi-{ (( .jj. disc'ussed "
. -.c BREAC5.
g~' A - M - 11Th"e Water Salesf Agreement makes specific reference ts. UP and NW. .. Paragraph ,14 provides that Montgomery County willprivate not Wall ~ tratari tor an y; municipality or, municipal authority or 'waterToompany ~ or water' utility;.within' Bucks County without the written4.a.approval : .- of,.
~s,,.
Bucks Countyi'. ..
.. m... ! except that it may well water for use in those municipalities which are sently being serviced by a municipal pre.hority aut l located in Montgomery County presently l serving municipalities in Bdeks County. In l no avent, however, shall MCNTGCMERY sell
! water to those Authorities to enable them to extend or expand their existing service areas into BUCKS said service areas are [ sic] shown on exhibit 6 without written
, consent of BUCKS, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
This provision clearly applies to NP and NW because, as found by the trial court, they are the only municipal authorities in Montgomery County which service municipalities in Bucks County. Exhibit 6, which is specifically referred to in that paragraph, is a map of the portion of Bucks County which is serviced by Np and NN. Both are specifically identified on that exhibit. 12 Circumstances which the trial court found to indicate that Montgomery County intended to give HP and NW the benefit of the promised performance include (1) Montgomery County operates no truatment, delivary or sales facilities and had to ba contracting for someone, (2) NP and NW entered into 1 22.
'kn 's i.X *:
- n 1
w-
....v, 1.ucMy.g+&T, p;gp., . m 4;6%:.yg'Q'.f.~ij;,. y. :
* ~~ , .
.5.MW;:j.;j;jp.phs).4Q'UM:hW.WE.G. G.u..e .
b5.N:.K~C .
.;.4 w. .. ;q . M M(~k;$~Y5*D'?:$5hhn;?b$?*$
- ~
.1 contracts'. for water .
tgomergCountyg$6f-VEMMR:ddRd.W simultaneously ' with . the execution"of.4he % fa't f ~ '.'-SaleadAgteameritic"43Fthe.-Nater ' sales" "
- - Ag r e eme n t;...wa sjppendedga%1rr@ agfbffd46U:b&dII_(fyc t a 7b'e tiw e e n1VF'"-
i i Nont'gomery CountyENPiind' Etan&d4PGP.%d*MPwere part"of the frea a very. early project's aeage, -in planning.- and. develop (menttirocesay'tho45 ordeWhi"sidiiTa?p' i(en$egfn tater, would it supplyZand both7ucinif articipatsd with. 'them in'
- the ae 'enda2VoesITotiod'.f*C66nts.~.4n' t(W"W'RjAthej.'d fsehs'sIcn.s . we&
- mt tasporatily' r'scons13e~ red'theirr positilons}.MkSh, x:m
. . . Cir kb .
ch County
~
. ~:p.. . inse
. intanded.h.to.- it' i;' ~ th jgniigad.,,peQogmance. .zu.e.d ,
l .. # Mt '-
'. :4~ ~ -
~
i s t.+ Y. f-
.,, ..n .:;j
?.~.;.: M,
.i ..
?.. .r,.. ..
, cs@3ack s -. ,
. ., . -- 4 MI Mg 3E.NW.?ecannot :5. be.u.e .l "-
Wa3 ~Yeoment- because i# .
.'ther.:
third-party'4edeYiclacian%ckM~wataVEN1tRJsont'gomeryf separataly7c5n'tiaMJd?- county. We disagree. 1ti~thoutith'sTWate_r A centracts would" be"meaningles@sGERNP . 'and' NW. arealais"? more than greementif th i n c id e n t a l b e n e f 161 a'ri e s?. .o f ..tli's.33n c k s._ Co un ty/ NWRA =Mo n tg o m e r y County agreementy ' .fer fitsfr?ien5?'ptoductFe(vater) . always
. was intended to be usedilif;fd7 of the record supports the trial' court'is.?.~ituY' NWtG_gobr;?.rleview:
' f fndirig~ that their' water needs were the sole reason for the existence of the Water sales Agreement and, therefore, they must be claasilled as intended beneficiaries capable of asserting contractual rights. See Department of Transportation v. Bethlehem Steel corp., 28 Pa.
Ccamenwealth Ct. 214, 368 A.2d 888 (1977). 13 The Beiras Court explained that "a third party beneficiary or individually designated." may be in contemplation without baing specifically Spires, 364 Pa. at 57 n.*, 70 A.2d at 831 n.*. Given the major role that the trial court found NP and ;N played in the project's planning and i ' development process, we hold that they were in contemplation l when NWRA reserved 49 m9d of the project's ultimate capacity in
- the Construction and Operation Agreement.
14 The very fact that NP and NW were, from a very early stage, part of the project's planning and development process with PECO indicates that PECO intended to give them the banefit of the promised performance. 15 NWEA is a municipal authority created as an independant agancy by tha Buch County Commission:rs. 16 A party to a cenbehet cannot avoid its conditional contractual oblig.tions by caucing the dailura ci che i 23. 1
~
..fhh'hhhN-M
---- W ' .v. $NN . n ..
-[.h.hfM.Q$$6Mhh.:I,5.jVO@
. p._ :,...,
._ . ~.. :..
,l 5.6% l q,{.[.Q'~.l.y q .- .. ..-- ..- .,..
- - .- - . . . .. r. ..:~ , .:..3..:.
7 . v- -. - [ ..);. .,i-t.- hkDL -I S.h ,, d , D
~
h
~
condition.ghh~p _S,.g Commonwealth v.~Transamerica Insurance co., 462n.3 - cf l ,.p[ # Pa. 268, 274,- J 41. A.2 d 7 4 , 7-7 (1975)., . . - . . - - . ..
..x:..ywW. y. f._.y % g g' 2-et'.?T. 4 2.ta qdq-important:. M trecognize y thj P = % , Pthat'Ple %'.%:
? 4G . It e . .. t trial court n 5 -
did not invade. any - area of discretionary executive. o r ., legislative ' function,. but meiely'. actedRiver' to.. redress the breach of f. Port - Authority 'v v P ?J ; these.: agre5m'ents'. M In. . Delaware - Thornburgh, 500 Pa. 623, 459 A.2d- 717 '{1983) , .our Supreme Court'" '" refused to order , the General: Assembly to m e e't its statutory *, oblications, under the . Delaware. Aiver Port. Authority Compact, -" by fulfilling "an alleged. .' agreement?'.'t'ci.cconstruct. a s .. . . .... Pr,o'vidin(acce's t'el. brid ".bui'it]and'pperated,yucena' highway .t.the % g $
*ff.)h;h h$a > tf 5 WW "
w tT6fWfaakQa
' t,*.2dasiisc..TThiGpe ~ 'De1Eved e inthor inough M tbi d. G :
id ~
~! :e Prlsatrain"the appelieeanallogeCdterf Authorit arance:: with .the: Epiff
'statatutorf^dutie's*and"!toMenkoscE ' orinhee.MM"T,'
app'ellees t ' - of compliance ' with'y' the'ir* statufbrpT4u't1isfFunder FthFCinteirstate T compact, not faerely to compel appelleas performance 'of their duties under a construction..contractd._,Is..j at..634, . 459. A.2d at- :. ~ (emphasis ~ ~added) .: . Ini this' case, t -PECO, ." NPC and QtW seek' 719 merely to compel Bucks County and TARA: to perform .thefr duties under the agreements in question. -
- =J*;c 4 7 ?W'.-
~ S i ,. ;
-:W: . . ..M..s ..M - ' . .r 18Bu:-~ck sCounty argues that it has not breached its contractual obligations because (1) it exercised its power under Section 4A of the Act, 53 P.S. .5306A, to "specify" the projects to be undertaken by the NWRA, by passing the resolution directing NWRA to withdraw and (2) having done so, it is not in breach of its obligations because NWRA is unable to go forward. This argument is unpersuasive. The power to specify undartakings dcas not imply tha powar to withdraw spproval. Bucks County cannot, directly or indirectly, legislate away responsibility for its proprietary contracts.
,See F_idelity-Philadelphia Trust Co.
Ducks County further contends that, because it has tha power to approve certain aspacts of tha projset pursuant to Section 1.02 of the Agreement and Leaae (an agreement between Bucks County and NWRA regarding the total Water Management program) , is free to unilaterally withhold or withdraw such approvals and thus vitiate the Water Sales and Construction and operation Agreements. There is no merit to this suggestion. Under Section 1.05 (a) of the Agreement and Lease, Bucks County is oblicated to consider the matters submitted to it for approval cy NiTRA undar Section 1.02 and to acerove them as submitted or uith changes consistent wTth faderal grnnt i rcquiremonts. 24. w a .. .. 2
. . . -c--
--~- . -:-N, ... - a ..... .. .,...:--... - . ;-
~ ::. . ; v. y- e ~ .&,& [: y s 7-t- ~ ~ -
a.;-w. '
~
-..-. y:.gf E5N5N[ hu;f-N.n.~d W A S.f.0. D Y$$ $$ $
.*b' O
'AbbfG5%' ~
M h. 3ccksJ.j county 4:.andc+: NWRK contend: . that A W i' ~ N WY""D'i N specific
..E Q a;ds'N rdor:sance h . should not be awarded"because it would involve the i e Ws.hMQ;ellopJi-p!f@6dissgreeC" v=a parformance.- - es Initially,'"we- must presume!tihuJ5pgi.';sup' that"""-
Bucks.. County. And -NWRA6 as .. govern =en~. antities, would reau=e
"'pdfo'rmanceMsn$
*l- NConstructio3Dndybp$~4'ird 6 under the ariti'en'.;~apacific;.;and. . Wa tar obligations,
~~ ' "- tara" finalf dacree& Eurthermoraa . cur.Sales Supeeme ; agreaunts Ccurt haa subject b eld' [.
t ha t',- although_ .' courts ,.generallyshesitate to.\ order specific performance whsre execution wof. . the . decree. - requires. extended supervisica2Wsee_$ Edison T-711uminating . ' Co. - v. Rastern , 'l.i.,y Jg_ yg i}Pennsylvanla 7-Powereca. 25h@ Pag 4SJri ~ .A*;.di52 L .fl916Lg.2,yhert * $ yg~ ;t . . h gpubli gestArndp.cenyenippea pig Nt l
* ~'
L d.3---- @jj.Q :y -J.': y - &. ... vm . .. . .:;- e .,.. . Nt29.;*:4% i, W ;.w -
~ ' ., : _4f ~ _ . ha:
" *. .there. is,b. noT$s.:? to accurately " anticipate (1) 'how~ r.any days a . . . '.~: .
sages.".tAS.PRCQJpanncQ. , . . calculated , because' w .. year Limerick .qywould. be shut . down for.. lack of a supplementary cooling watar source, cesptable. alternative' (2) . how much'. time will elapse before an aource. could be secured and (3) the cost
. Ch[Y.w.' environmental , - . m v.s
. impact 's tudy; ' f.g- . p .
; .r. . . .c .
. . . . . n . ~ . - . .
Similarly P the . damages to NP snd? NW cannot be calculated because there is no way to accurately anticipate how long it will take to secure an acceptable alternative water source. . 21 Bucks County and NWRX hava suggested that alternstive water sources (1) for PECO included the Blue Marsh Reservoir, _t r e a ted water purchased from Philadelphia or even the Schuylkill River (if certain temperature restrictions were eliminated) and (2) for NP and NW included impoundeants, the proposed Evansburg Reservoir, sales from other water companies and the purchase of water from Philadelphia. However, there la nothing on the record to indicate that regulatory approval could ba acquired, by either PECO, NP or NW, for any of these uuggasted alternative water sources. PECO's application to the Delaware River Basin Committee (DRBC) for temporary relief during 1985 (which DRSC has not acted upon) does not support the contention of Bucks County and NWRA that PICO would be assured of obtaining an alternative source of supplemental cooling water on a long-term basis. Na hold that the trial court appropriately ruled on various evidantiary submiacions uhareby Bucks County and NWRA
. t hartp ted to prove that pc.cmica could be acquired for uuggested 25.
l s . . .. . . s -
. - -_ - - . - - - - - . - - , , - --~, -n_ _ _ , . - - . - . .~-n, , . - - , - - - . .
~
9 ^.: ~ -- = ~ - .. . .,K_ -: M - , :..
.. s . -- ,..,;'- :'..
. . . , ; '. . -- :; i , ~ . 'f [,= ' .
, y,_ _ . -
- .. .= .~ . : .. .
.~-: .
e El-?l.y $'$ bNW $%.k.Gi:ksk5 alternative u.$;$55$5-Yhfth 5b'EWi'W-s review of $$c
' :.C,hn.~.-:->.u.
l
. vater sources, because., out, the record'W
'f-P ' reveals ~th'at no admi'asible evidence was' * '-
1
.M..D3.P.?pt#g. M W N7f @houg.M F W }h4Md FI
$rfthere v.d.e
- svidence N SMM :'ICU'@i?N 8. offered
" =t h aE t -#DP^-- N
- . . . . . . - Al t show to-"
"' representatives of P300 made,. numerous statements to bond rating . -
~~
agencies, 'such' as-' 8tandard and. Poorr .. ithat .if .the project were ' ' not constkucted'. alternative' sourcesloffcoolingl water would4 be N-7 ~ found, -it- is not surprisingthat PECO'abould"attie=pt' to paint a"' rosy picture for the financial community.:. in ortler to enjoy . a - favorable interest' rating 'in.. the . bond : market 6 We hold that this.' evidence, does~itoki refuteTth.sytFia(",'hourt's finding . as. to? .,.~. ~ . U,g. a _i_4
.pna,t,,1,y,,g g4 sources 5 g
- r. - were :cqt effi C
E . hol y.petitlips ' .,n @A
'r'ee em'ployees. ffikind
~ ~
.M. .-
~ ~ " " agencf asiasdGXE'v@epres eposeaenhatiYe <foiWP3Cof e'mting]iW "inveataent firaP- whIch"wasifiled? af tar ~-?thi' d C deadlinsy.for dj,acdverf7=.W. . .<.-t m?. . . ' W: Cr # . . +ps.h
. . ,4WW:'
. . m. . .. a:j . ~.w$W@.itirfkI66eift a pro
.g.
Despita the . contention of -Bucks' County and NWRA,
~'
there is great uncartainty over whether the Nuclear Regulatory-Co:nmisdion (NRC) would grant an operating permit'- for'* Limerick if the project. ware disallowed, .givanf the. fact that. initial - approval was given taking into consideration the project's operation. 23 Bucks County and NWRA argue , that PECO was aware, at a relatively early date, of strong public opposition to the project and therefore cannot be exc'used for failing to seek alternativo sources of water. Of cour se, PEco had no way of knowing that tha opposition would in fact cause the discontinuance of the project. Furthermore, the trial court found that any alternative for which PEco acught licensing would probably have cet with the same public opposition as
.=ounted against this project.
l 24 Bucks County and NWRA's actions to date, with l respect to ecmmencement of construction, are not " wholly voluntary" merely because all permits have not yet been received. The Water Sales Agreement provides only that: , All maior approvals required by any govern = ental agency for the Treatment Plant, tha Point Pleasant Pumping l Facilities, und th.e Western Transmission Facilities, =ust ba received prior to the award of the construction contracts .... (Emphasis added.) Thwru la substantial evidunce to support tho trial court's implicit conclusion that .111 W or par =1t_ u_r. u.
.. s e g g , W Sf! M - + r.._. f ', v:e- . 2 m _. * . w,g , , . , ,.
.~ v c.u:2. . ... ~ ... . - ' t* . -
2,GN.f,.= c.9.,, . . . .
- H ,' w W9{- .-.".:,
. )$', : , .W ; ; A- . ~
..:.c=- ..-t. .-- ... . ..
_ . . , - - 9 % .:;L L
~
f6p z'&f' n*J;.Q%i2 &',* :" .. '~ ' y
,,'..i,U W'7 0 5 2 - Nf-
b),MP'
; C:s
- J --J. :.?. W W'in*x- p' bO$
lac W
%e.v Ideed'Q, hhMN$N$p.".
thebyery. award of. the construction ~. & contracts
' M <by' . -BucksiCounty Tand' ENRA' is 'stridan'oe ' to thi s end.
kd s c t i av the ; rights ' under ' the .' cancellation . clause? in _ the Water Sales
)
Agreama'nt,Y.whictr3e' uips th'aO ths' exercise thereof "take place S q 1
'Nwithin? thirty $3D)f days"Gf terMtra^"openino of construction bids e 1 for'.~tha.>fesataant@PlarWF(West arn Transmission Facilities) and :
tho' Point- Pleasant' Fa6111tice, .whichever -is 1kst." (Emphasis added.)..c They may,not forestall- seeking . bida. for. one phase of
th( project ~ (theore'th:Ely.1 allowing?them an indefinite ti=e to g unsicon's tr uc tion:,. of. . othe r?pha se a , . L
'M.J.s...boggAscancey,-
Lah..a - )@@.Qavg $., ~ cyideisV2'thatl.T the ' linward:Wef the1'-l ..
.M 22 W4.consefde ridW Whilt O tioW a4Be m snmultaneously ~. m te li.m
"" Tik . r. .
~ ~
- b YY YY Y ,
< ... O u r ? d i s~c u's s f o n ' o f f -
NXRA.'. Ncusal'#petitfons ' is . e th~e', qually_merits - of ' Bucks
' applicable. ~ to~ ' Countv '
Sullivan's *and
- a fallar" pe titio. n M..s Vi'.2 U ... -f fif,F.. ._.: ...- -
- r'M. - ? -"--. ' *
*~
Bucks ' County a'nU NWRA also argue that (1) ~ the claims of NP and Nw should have been submittad to arbitration, (2) the trial court improperly: refused them a jury trial and (3) the trial court erred by ' bifurcating the damage issue from the 2pscific performanow ieJues. We disagree. They argue that the trial court erred by not requiring the submission of NP and NW ' .s claims to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provision centained in the Water Salas Agraament, which provides: ' Any questions in disputa under this Agreement shall be submitted to a Soard of Arbitration .... I l (Emphasis edded.) However, we aru not here concerned with l
' disputes "under this Agreement," but with a dispute as to whether there is an enforceable agreement at all and an attempt j to obtain relief from a total breach.
No hold that the trial court, pursuant to Pa. R.C.P. Nos. 213(b) and 126, correctly bifurcated the damage issue from the specific performance issues because it was virtually
- i=possible to determine what damages flowed from the breaches
! of Bucks County and NWRA. t l Bt:ks County knd NWRA also assert as error the trial court's refusal of a jury trial. The fact that the trial was an equitable action is clear from the trial court's bifurcation order which limited the hearing to " issues of equitable relief including specific performanca." Pa. R.C.P. No. 1513 only 27. l r .-... . . .,. ., .
~ :.s v : n a : . . , . _ .; ., ._.
l
..w--= _
- - v ~
' ~' ~ *
.. ;.~QX
. . ' *i ::u [
' :z. -L',5 X.{ . k . 4: , ;. ,,
.. 1 ..
f.;c;W-A;66!.M 'd M Mf;gyq.G G.wi6Fsrh.g &; Gt.. . .c - -YW A .n .. Q );_ i , ,,;;.9:;m- vi-. :.n
- prov' ides that,;;- in equity actions, di.%p.
ri. .: E gi :w:*yt.p.-m;ci a .)mWc ou r t . .:. . e.,, m a y submit to" a - I
~
trial by jury' any "or.-all.. issues of ~ fa'ct.T. 'Biciuse .this; secti'on"."~ l
.e . . also~providet.;thatm'itlhec.Nersiot, oegthe.; jury'cehairTbehint thew--+4
~
f arm "of fa'nktierasaid.ispecifIVc ue'stionst ind sha.1l'- notube bindingME ' upon i. the .. court,E,. the tr;.a1 - court . determined tha t . the . . complicated '.insu'eiUn' th'is. 'casiEwould'.~JeiitU be . resolved.'* by a ".' ' ~ . . . Chancellor S aitt;ing Pvithou t?%?j uryM wet boldPthatYthe; tria17 T '" court properly exercised its discretiondi Oure conclusion is not+ ' affected by the1 4act that. NP and NW . seek' declaratory relief . because ... (d] eclaratory. , judgmen t.;- no .. . independent 5 rights: toi a duty.ctriafdyrocedurosa. af fordarising/ other .c tban. those .~..
...- froaf th i s h
- Gt., . .-SupeXi e und ICti ' actiond -W~arsiiokleZv3
.1 Arblasteri ti 32QMa.'%:V od P, t
- 1153* __ - ,;
~.C .
# 990 r Kope res M-
~?.3 Y. s..c,
. without N[isi^ con .
rover sfl. . Etl ty av.eg?n o'sgE, ;begaCthg trlay?.',e# ~'
.: (1) .;1ormally?" disposing (;f.$of5tBucks..fCounty5 andr NWRA's '.' ' '
e preliminary objections t'o; RP '.'and'~ NW's~.~ amended ? c6mplaint and. '* declaratory ju'dgment action and (2) providing . for Bucks County and NWRA's filing of an answer and/or new matter to NP and NW'a ' ~" amended complaint. Pa. R.C.P -
......-. .:m .p.
. . . rule's. .: :.. ::S shall.Y*W. Bo .-CT12 6. Provid e s t3 :
" be' . *V11 construed to secure the justrv~ speedy and inexpensive determination of every action or proceeding to which they are applicable.
The court at every stage of any such action or proceeding may disregard any error or defect of procedure which deas not affect the substantial rights of the parties. Our review of the record reveals no effect on the substantial rights of Bucks County and NWRA caused by the trial court's expedited commencement of the proceedings. These arguments by Bucks County and NWRA are meritiess. 6
. President Judge Garb allowed an immediate expedited appeal from his denial of the motions for recusal pursuant to l 42 Pa. C.S. 5702(b) and Pa. R.A.P. 1311. .
27 Act of June 3, 1937, P.L. 1333, as anonded, 25 P.S. 52641(c), provides in part: Whenever a member of the board of county commissioners is a candidate for nomination or election to any public office, the President Judge of the Court of Common Plau shall appoint a judge or an 28.
.. - -,; .__.,.. .. . . . . . . . . ,.. , , . , .....,.' s _ _ ,
w ; a _~g,- u m n y ;cu ~ p -: w :o
- ----"..,q_.-
r
.~,........- -. -=- _
2 _. a"-k; .3_ ;
~G~._ . f.,:. .;' %; .w r...;,;.M.~ ' ' . . .~ sy W;..:.
.s,.,.
.y;W~; g: 7.:.T.~.';:*h . .
m -- - .
-=::
.,.y
., .J.. -
3 ;$ $ $yt'?$+45$$$L';: jkik O*-;p...a... b .....: -: ' + W - W...W. N M W '*"^*
' As..&.r.il'm....Ql,9
. b.@$ - - ,
l electorm.6frcthem countyi'*to .. serve -in .his;
;:.4'# m.:,.
3.H(. .
%iNMy
?.M.,.Qu da.j y
%:-(,N$2:7ateind'.'7.TMYQl$?.i.Si.W Q;. ,3y.;Thog)r!$%9i5ihsb9 aferendusa quest on ,. ,
as followarm- --- Q1.:h < .:
. .s % - . . .
n:.~. a. a. 7 . . .. : . .7 .
.- ' .:. ..... 7 ..n M ig
#.-5LX!!'.i.-Edh;; gg
-J.E;.v'J.'Jf.r -,.,-n-7?-r.T.' governmeatal body or of fioia1? ' .
.By
..'@is'not ' .Your' legally vato on"the',queation
' binding"on any .. below '
.p. 7 .c . and is mersly advisory.. S
-: ,tim- .;3,AE;. :'. ' ';3rN.S..;.Cg .: . ,
< f,U"d.fshou15 Bucks County"g$p'ts stop,i pardici.pation
~. 4 .w Yucht-tWgi timwouldCnotk;Efteot?.theif.ii?atW$' 'I fi .
a;T'*---pt.;.s.3 -
- NN.(. .x.n 4$"'df.moEt(M4o$3ll6untyT oiser and proceed., th 'Philadelphial -
el~~
. d e..
7*' - Electr'io mpariy c. .tos. . with. . the
- ' prowoul $"d . be . subj ect! to : payno't d Tc)M Bucks substantial money' County." most' proba
. .; 1. damages as' atresul.t .of. breach of contractr .
! .r ;.W e -
din l.W'w{40 P. aterFa'the' a neiidr t Buck'ai nagement#P.(e) - theCounty.TJ cost for water of *.the and y
% 7pr* entireN project (t'ahd' 12) .any other factor I'. .' you' believe .ie- appropelate to this
- l. decision?
This question merely provides an objec.tive explanation of the possible consequences of Bucks County's withdrawal from the project. Section (b) merely explains tha: Montgomery County and PECO could simply build the project without Bucks County and Section (c) merely alerts the electorate of the probable (not certain) financial consequences of a breach, .i_ff such were found. 29 Sullivan's complaint contains several allegations
' separate and apart from those charged by PECO, NP and NW.
First, Sullivan's complaint alleges that Bucks county lacks authority to take over the project, under Section 18 (A) of the Act, 53 P.S. $321(A), relying on county of Mifflin v.
! Mifflin county Airport Authority, 63 Pa. Ccmmonwealth cr. 56, 437 A.2d 781 (1981). However, the trial court correctly 1
distinguished that case where, unlike here, (1) provisions in 1 outstanding trust indentures financing an airport limited the county's r ight to acquire the Authority's assets to its l failure, neglect or cassation of operation and (2) compliance with the Local Government Unit Debt Act, Act of April 28, 1978, P.L. 124, as amended, 53 P.S. 556780-1--6780-609, was not shown. This is not a case where a municipal au thor ity is doisting ito dabts upon tha governing body, without its i 29. i
. . . .. , . . . ,.g .. . ..........:....e,.-
JP1Niq9#.ks@+W MMMM*M'?'?"Ti-T -N ^ '#"F*M nW *:5.;' ';' ^7 . . _ D : '..
' h ";;5 ;; .: .~M:% . Q = %'=."~ 3 % W 3 WW & i*":+' W t'5 $ 9.h :;- ' ,*.,; .
!' s
. . c..i2ldsenti?# 5T.*?? j. l $i f. h.. ..OR .
' . & & 3 iG5 % Fli'@ .k $ 1 N W .
9.1 Act'E 53 7. s . $ 317. -
- !!kfEer'an @ UckA fountgiye d@is
' We Mr.9ve._ .the?proj ec t under
.,Q.g-cin,a. -
rei e obt bi;igations,.f ia - _ e e u . m :, - 9.'"- % - s ., w y a n.
.G .. . ,.
MNthkSk[hE.T... <.,ic.'1sNN$YM.I'haye 5715 7 the
. ;G./ limp'less isoCWs(453fenjh5'nedfalleging that the.'
.ih.h!.i'*' [is[tations ] %@f
. T9:t BuckspCountF-Co s'a onere fi terminate the
' 'profect" andi bFeacE.Leh'd IFco'@ntf.ntend5Mtthereby actuaFobligations. .Eowever, we tiliial ourt+.dcorirectly6 refused. . to enjoin i'
af.i:w:: of hold
.implementati6 K that~.?.the".f'I6tiin(@out'
' *gilf'obliga; l'on '" " tha itidyinciuda.the...
(1LBucks' County's e.asumption ,
?"6
. ' Witf "
R.4oon'
"'* ~r. set " . t 51' pach7... (2). it . .. . . ' i@ oirQthepublio6)n,.
E _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ . h89hN - .. '2$^pid19 6 0)-i,9"49.: W Spyrs abq
;CMada gtra cour
. 'interfefe-5w nots assess e,the ithl...
- 5 wisdom.fotMsta' 7 'NE t'anas c/ B'o6Wiev Jai.m352, 250 q
V: A . 2d. .447/. . .. . .(19 c.: 6 -,. 9. -).w.:..et.c,... h.e.-W.nQ. .w., ~ . - r v . ..,.. <.-1m
..e.... a ::,e.:. :::usq:m..s.,.P. . w@,.%.. .P.f '.'
l W T
. - implesentation ~15%EF(e.-Mosplaint Sullivan mt further; . ' alleges that di.byfSections. 4c,12 :and~13 of tbe Act, I ~ 53'P.34f33306Cff raysotedthis'alle{715?f.iiadr 161D&The.itriab coisrte correctly stio~n JeA .i'
. ; .,. .. .x;;.';. " '
".+ :~~;5:QW.k% y'
& '. . -. L,,71'[' * * - ' -' %} ,. ' ^* ~ ~3 --w 1. .
Section 4C provides that the Authority shall have no power to pledge the credit or taxing power of the Commonwealth or any political subdivision, nor shall, any of its obligations be deemed to be obligations of the Conmonwealth or .of any of its political subdivisions. However, 'this is not a case of the ' Authority pledging the credit or taxing power of the County or the Con.monwealth but rather a matter of the County opting to assume the assets an'2 liabilities of the Authority. Construing this section as urged by Sullivan would render Section 18 ( A) , totally meaningless. Sectica 12 provides in relevant part R.a t the Authority shall not' be authorized to do anything which will impair the security of the holders of the obligations of the Authority or violate any agreements with them or for their benefit. NWRA is doing nothing in the matter before us. Here, we are concerned with Bucks County's actions under section 18 (A) of the Act. Lastly, Section 13 provides that "the Commonwealth" will not alter or limit the rights and powers of the Authority in any mannar which vould be inconaistent with tha continued 30. 1
.. .... r
.e , .. .,,,..... . ,
- - - - . - . - . . - _ - . - _ _ _ _ _ - _ _ _ _ - - . - _ _.- n -- -
,-* ._..:-=..., --
... ny . ----------
f :.'
. ..4;q.
j;-M;;b.;; : :: .. , . : a .
" ? _ [.';.. , ,-
~~ -
i= - c -A :%: Es, . )Y.":.'.:1.-d%,@.M
" bM4-pf-ht y f. a! ? .Q .
- e. 0 3. m"..,,'$1G&wd%n
?
- * :: .. . , . , . ,3.Ysv ic M 2 m aintenance:aEf' operiti'on o. f;,_ anygpro act@cJto.: whicht a , Federal
, . e.
asency.. has:. centsibuted tunds) V ornthe? improvemenis-thereofW. r-l':.:.c .j g reeDontaEbe tween'..*th e3'MthIo r iWrin asduetyerf6rmance Thl...W. 'a.'whlegg9qldhheMaconsistantdwithqBa df7TQch?FsderaF~igenc Cofsany f. Obviously)inothing .is ~ contemplated.! . matteiFbefare us#?/'A' " the !." Commonwealth" _.. }:"' ,-: T
- w',t..in . the.[,
i
, .gu.n p.s .-.* mzifc .:--
, .. it.,e. a.w . .-cy.. w. .
Wi. '.~.f-Mk, BuI$1FaMif compi in. . ' Iso ' a l' age 4
~ .
I rightsf under the Fif th and Fourte olation' of hi'a' ' " < ^ states l. constitution and'-42 U.S.cA.enth?l dment(sAmen,st: of the United l court, are ' unable:2:to ; divine anyWloIaWon 31984W 4 W er.i.11ke tho' trial , rights.cansed of cons.titutional
~ -
, j i:': . . ..=: .
;sj:gf..}[. tier sW..p-Q.1i T O. . ...hgr, artW I m 4yerprises,g ..i e g< ,.
y
$. k.z u.. ..u. c' ? $ h N -
,rf)s.aAt ter..' three. . amendment
.;t_ ,.,, l. legations Y of S ullivan 's . , compla int ch a rg ing s fra ndt a 'improperf motive, which are couched *~in insufficient to justify hypothetical;'a,1 judioi review of' Bucksand County .
. a,peculative'.~. are term NWRA's discretionary acts. :iti Larroce'U v.'. ~-van orden,. 21 Pa.
and Commonwealth Ct. 623g; 627-28, 3 4 6 A. 2d . 922,. 925f. (19 75) . The mere refusal to proceed with investments have been made, does not*'necessarily establish the project,' even af ter financial r improper motive. or iinancial judgment Moreover, we will not question the efficiency of municipal officials regarding a construction the wisest course contract where reasonable to follow. men could differ as to Id . a t 628", 3 4 6 A. 2d a t 925. i l l 31.
....,....-s.,
i
. . y . . . . . . . . . . us.yy.,s..., .y n . ,, y , ., ,.
i
** y
\
. . . I IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT 1 0F !
PENNSYLVANIA 1 l DANIEL J. SULLIVAN et al.
- v. : '
COUNTY OF SUCES and NESEAMINY M TER RESOURCES ' AUT50AITY : NESEAMINT O TER RESOURCES NO. 710 C.D 1985 AUTHORITY, No. 711 C.D. 1985 Appellent No. 712 C.D. 1985 ' NORTE WALES WATER AUTHORITY : and NORTE PENN NATER AUTHORITY - - a v. l I NESRAMINT WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY and COUNTY OF : BUCKS and COUNTT OF MONTGOMIRY and PHILADELPEIA ELECTRIC : COMPANY <
' t NESEAMINY WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY, Appellant -
No. 713 C.D. 1985
- NO. 714 C.D. 1985 DANIEL J. SULLIVAN and :
PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY, NORTE PENN WATER AUT80RITY, and NORTE NALES WATER AUT50RITY :
- v. :
COUNTY OF EUCES and NESEAMINY : ' WATER RESQURCES AUTHORITY COUNTY OF EUCKS,
- No. 715 C.D. 1985 ;
NO. 716 C.D. 1985 ' Appellant : No. 717 C.D. 1985
- I
- i . j i
w_ . .,
. ~~ *
*- - "T'. ,t . ..
,
- g:.c. pgy.{,;.. . . . .
* . r.fl .- .
. . , ' . :. y. . :. , ,. .
- -; .:>. .r.,' .'. : .' .. ; BGiK.k$M,
. ?.?!?iQ'W:.+ ..:!*%*$S. $= i.eW: ~' ??N '.~':-M:m*,W.
.M.= *. '
~
.n .e. n:.%n .- . ~~,.m..
c.c :.
. . . .: 9. :p. . <.uagg.y .w3:co...
r.:m. .F. w;.';" . . . ._ze
, _ . ..3.:.v..;- .- '
~ ~ - - . .. . .
.. . WORTR,NALES NATER AUT50RITITM:W c - -
*
- n: ~and ' NO.RTR' PBNN NA. TER..R. UTEOR. I..TER. 4.Fgn.TMii45 s?y. i.: -t W
~
- .* *. .. < , :. . s,+.'.iii. :,x:5 -
. . 1.. '
..:..e
. . . - i ~;: , . - : .; % ,l.
NESEANINY NATRA RE800RCE8% . g.p f'.8 g:;;/.5.
....;.,.-tv' ,
AUTHORITY and COUNTY OF BUCKS - ~ and COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY and 1 PHILADELPHIA ELECTRIC COMPANY.' .,, .
. . . p .. . . . ~ .
COUNTr or'sDC M' M, N..
^
NN1 '
. -Jq 0;ct1; .
M ^% # 3 .7i#W #d No[.' 719 - 718'c.D 'C.'0'19 Di, '19 85 85 '55 .N. -
1 Y.kh, .. p:j.
hkh , yp'y.v,~ ,.,@.?6 ..l
!b?$ '
s.,W n. . $?b.'5.5Y.
. . , - . . . .h'k - .
- .. ,...m ,, ..
.. .v'. n.1.. . .m. p'.ge , .; ' *; v DANIEL. 3.n SULL{ .' . .
p' ' ' VAN.e,.t,4 r J .;.. ..; ;, , . ,.. ....y, . e. .
,, . s. .,
cg .. COUNTY OF BUCKS et al. t
. . .c p .
DANIEL J. SULLIVAN, 'b
- NO. 1843 C.D. 1984 NO.1844 C.D.1984 Appellant : .NO. 18 4 5 C.D. 19 8 4
~
0RDER The orders of the Court of Common Pleas of Bucks County, No. 83-8358 dated February 27,1985 and No. 83-8358 '5 dated May 29, 1984, are affirmed. l Date: October 11, 1985 _ J@.. Crudlish, Jr V
>= .h Pinksident Judge
% . . . ...,w.t a... - . .
- _ ._ . - - - - _ _ -}}