Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
County of Camden v. Pennsauken Sewerage Authority
Citations: 28 N.J. Super. 586; 101 A.2d 361; 1953 N.J. Super. LEXIS 670
Court: New Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division; December 15, 1953; New Jersey; State Appellate Court
The court, represented by Judge Freund, addressed an appeal by the plaintiffs, who claimed discrimination by the defendant in the imposition of sewer service charges. The plaintiffs operate the County Detention Home and the County Vocational School within the Township of Pennsauken, which are funded by the county and receive additional state and federal support. Historically, the Township charged these institutions nominally for sewer services, while exempting its own public schools and buildings. In 1950, the Township created the Pennsauken Sewerage Authority, transferring ownership of the sewer system, valued over $2.5 million and funded by taxpayers, to this authority. The authority established a schedule of sewer service charges in 1951, exempting township-owned public buildings from these charges in a 1952 resolution. The plaintiffs contended that this exemption violated R.S. 40:14A-8, arguing that either all public buildings should be exempt or all should be charged, asserting the resolution constituted arbitrary discrimination. The court noted that the Sewerage Authority is a municipal agency and that the creation and funding of the sewer system were for the benefit of the Township. Prior to the authority's establishment, the township's policy had been to exempt public buildings from such charges, and the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate any financial contribution from Camden County towards the sewer system. The court also highlighted that, while public utilities are not obligated to provide reduced rates for public entities, such preferential treatment is not necessarily against public policy if it alleviates financial burdens, and without specific legislation, such practices cannot be deemed illegal. Public utility and municipal corporations are permitted to provide free or reduced services to public, municipal, charitable, or religious entities without constituting unlawful discrimination. The Sewerage Authority Law, as outlined in R.S. 40:14A-35, is to be interpreted liberally, allowing the sewerage authority discretion in setting service charges and classifying customers. This includes the authority to exempt township properties from sewerage service charges. It is reasonable for a municipality to exempt its public buildings from such charges to avoid using taxpayer funds for services rendered to itself. The township's distinction between its buildings and county institutions, which serve a broader population, does not reflect unlawful discrimination since the funding sources differ. Although the statute does not explicitly mention exemptions, it grants the authority substantial discretion, which has not been abused in this case. The judgment is affirmed.