Municipal, Land Use & Zoning

By: Amanda J. Sundquist

In Trefelner v. Burrell School District, the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania issued a temporary restraining order to compel a school district to permit a parochial school student to participate in extracurricular activities offered by the school district, including marching and jazz bands. Pennsylvania’s Public School Code (“School Code”) permits home schooled students or, in certain situations, students who attend charter schools to participate in extracurricular activities offered by their school district of residence.

In Trefelner, the Court analyzed the student’s claim under the Free Exercise Clause framework. The Court found given the secular exemptions created by the School Code and the lack of similar religious exemptions, the student may be able to demonstrate that the school district’s extracurricular activity policy was not neutral and that it was not narrowly tailored to advance compelling interests. The Court issued a temporary restraining order. While Trefelner was ultimately settled by agreement between student and the school district, the issuance by the Court of the temporary restraining order indicates that courts may be willing to consider participation in public school activities by parochial school students.

If your school district requires assistance updating its extracurricular activities policy or addressing issues relating to the participation in extracurricular activities by home schooled, charter school, or other students, please contact Amanda Sundquist.

By: Amanda J. Sundquist

The Department of Community and Economic Development has released its report “Earned Income Tax Consolidation Best Practices Report.” This resource may be helpful to school districts and municipalities which are navigating through the consolidation of the earned income tax collection system. For assistance utilizing information in the Report or planning for consolidation, please contact  Amanda Sundquist.

By: Amanda J. Sundquist

January 2010 marks the first anniversary of the implementation of the new Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law. The past year has been a year of firsts for local agencies, requesters, and the Office of Open Records as the law has been implemented and interpreted. Sixty-five determinations by the Office of Open Records have been appealed to common pleas courts throughout the state, with a number of such decisions awaiting decision by the Commonwealth Court. The Commonwealth Court’s Order granting the preliminary injunction to stop the disclosure of public school employees’ home addresses and subsequent advisory by the Office of Open Records stopping the disclosure of all public employees’ home addresses continues to be one of the most significant developments under the Right-to-Know Law in 2009.

As your municipality begins the new year, please contact Amanda Sundquist to update or create municipality specific forms, for assistance with challenging requests, or to receive guidance as the courts of common pleas and the Commonwealth Court continues to issue decisions.

By: Kimberly P. Venzie

Despite attempts by the City of Philadelphia and Fox Chase Cancer Center to make alternate use of a portion of Fairmont Park, their efforts have failed to date based upon a recent decision reached by the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court. In In Re Estate of Ryerss, -A.2d – (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2009), the City of Philadelphia and Fox Chase Cancer Center (the “Appellants”) sought authorization to discontinue the use of nearly 20 acres of Fairmont Park as parkland and lease those acres to the Fox Chase Cancer Center for expansion of the cancer center’s medical facilities. The portion of Fairmont Park at issue was devised to the city in 1889 to be used as a park for the use and enjoyment of the public. Arguments by the parties in this case centered around the act known as the Donated or Dedicated Property Act (“DDPA”), 53 P.S. §§3381-3386. The court determined that based upon the DDPA, the Appellants failed to show that the continued use of the property as parkland was no longer practicable or that the use of the property as a park had ceased serving the public interest.
Although the court acknowledged that the expansion of the cancer center might benefit the city, the court rejected a “balancing test,” stating that “[if] it did permit such balancing, every donated park in the Commonwealth would be at risk of being leased so that cash-strapped municipalities could balance their budgets…it would likely discourage individuals from donating their property to be used for public purposes in the future.”

For more information on this case and how it relates to local governments and developers, please contact Kimberly P. Venzie.