All States › Evidence
Neutral Court Opinion May 18, 2026

Reserve at Paxton Creek, LP v. Susquehanna Twp. Authority

── Reserve at Paxton Creek, LP v. Susquehanna Twp. Authority ── Court: Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania Date: May 15, 2026 Author: Covey Category: General IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Reserve at Paxton Creek, LP : : v. : : Susquehanna Township Authority, : No. 55 C.D. 2025 Appellant : Argued: April 13, 2026 BEFORE: HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge HONORABLE STELLA M. TSAI, Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY FILED: May 15, 2026 The Susquehanna Township (Township) Authority (Authority) appeals from the Dauphin County Common Pleas Court’s (trial court) September 3, 2024 order (docketed September 4, 2024) granting the Reserve at Paxton Creek, LP’s (Reserve LP) request for mandamus and declaratory relief. The Authority presents three issues for this Court’s review: whether the trial court erred by: (1) both failing to find that the Authority uses a flat-rate billing system for residential customers, and by concluding that 180 gallons per day (gpd) was the amount the Authority billed under Act 43 of 2021 (Act 43);1 (2) failing to defer to the Authority in 1 Act 43 added the following language to Section 5607(d)(9) of the Municipality Authorities Act (MAA): The owner of multiple residential units that are served by a single water meter may periodically request the authority to adjust the amount billed by showing a minimum of [5] consecutive years of actual usage data to determine if the amount billed exceeds the actual usage by 30% or more. If the usage data shows that an adjustment is needed, the authority shall appropriately adjust the billing and use the adjusted amount going forward. When calculating the new amount, the authority may include up to 10% determining the sewer rates and actual water usage by the Township’s residential users; and (3) finding that the Authority did not follow a reasonable and informed approach to effectuate Act 43. After review, this Court reverses. Reserve LP owns a multi-family apartment complex in the Township known as Reserve at Paxton (Paxton). Paxton currently has 160 apartment units and one clubhouse that are connected to the sanitary sewer system run by the Authority. Paxton also has a single water meter for use in water billing. On January 9, 2023, Reserve LP filed an application (Application) seeking a sewer rate reduction under Act 43, which provides, in relevant part: The owner of multiple residential units that are served by a single water meter may periodically request the authority to adjust the amount billed by showing a minimum of [5] consecutive years of actual usage data to determine if the amount billed exceeds the actual usage by 30% or more. 53 Pa.C.S. § 5607(d)(9) (emphasis added). On May 8, 2023, the Authority denied the Application, explaining: A thorough review and analysis of the water usage data and billing invoices submitted on behalf of [Paxton], which consists of 160 apartment units[] was . . . undertaken. The [Authority’s] Board finds that such data establishes an average of 82.6 [gpd] with respect to each residence. A review was then also made of Capital Region Water and Suez Water Pennsylvania, now known as Veolia, water usage for all residential customers in [the] Township service area for the [5]-year period in question. The Authority has determined that on average each domestic residence (i.e. [Equivalent Dwelling Unit] (EDU) in [the] Township uses 89 [gpd].
CourtListener · May 15, 2026
Original link
Share on X Share on Facebook
{# E23 (Nick, ruling section 1 answer 10): quoting a bill or a court opinion works the way quoting a news article works. Select a passage above and the same panel opens: the passage goes to the official you choose, with this document's own address as its source and its own type. #}