Assembly failed to provide any direct appeal mechanism under Act 13 to challenge a claim that additional impact fees are owed. Rather, Act 13 provides that unpaid and disputed impact fees would be recovered under the rules of practice and Commission’s procedure relating to complaints and enforcement. Further, SBI contends that the General Assembly set up a system requiring the Commission to promptly distribute all impact fees collected, but did not provide a refund mechanism for any overpaid impact fees after the funds are distributed. at 14-15. Id. The lack of a refunding mechanism, SBI asserts, creates a dilemma for the Respondent: it must either pay the impact fees and, if successful in challenging the payment, be deprived of a refund; or it must withhold the impact fees and pay a substantial automatic interest and penalty if the challenge is unsuccessful. The Respondent argues that the risk of an unsuccessful appeal resulting in a mandatory imposition of sanctions would impose an unconstitutional condition. at 16, 20 (citing Id. 324 A.2d 452, 460-62 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (Quarles); Com. v. Quarles, Com. v. 250 A.2d 811 (Pa. 1969) (Littlejohn); Littlejohn, Koontz v. St. John’s River Water 133 S.Ct. 2586, 2594 (2013) (Koontz); and Management Dist., Memorial Hospital v. 94 S.Ct. 1076 (1974) (Memorial Maricopa County, Hospital)). Replies to Exceptions In reply, I&E asserts that arguments ignore the plain language of SBI’s Sections 2308(a) and (b) of Act 13, which clearly state that the Commission “shall” assess interest and penalties. R. Exc. at 10. I&E incorporates the arguments from its Main and Reply Briefs in support of its Replies to Exceptions. Id.
Assembly failed to provide any direct appeal mechanism under Act 13 to challenge a claim that additional impact fees are owed. Rather, Act 13 provides that unpaid and disputed impact fees would be recovered under the Commission’s rules of practice and procedure relating to complaints and enforcement. Further, SBI contends that the General Assembly set up a system requiring the Commission to promptly distribute all impact fees collected, but did not provide a refund mechanism for any overpaid impact fees after the funds are distributed. Id. at 14-15. The lack of a refunding mechanism, SBI asserts, creates a dilemma for the Respondent: it must either pay the impact fees and, if successful in challenging the payment, be deprived of a refund; or it must withhold the impact fees and pay a substantial automatic interest and penalty if the challenge is unsuccessful. The Respondent argues that the risk of an unsuccessful appeal resulting in a mandatory imposition of sanctions would impose an unconstitutional condition. Id. at 16, 20 (citing Com. v. Quarles, 324 A.2d 452, 460-62 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1974) (Quarles); Com. v. Littlejohn, 250 A.2d 811 (Pa. 1969) (Littlejohn); Koontz v. St. John’s River Water Management Dist., 133 S.Ct. 2586, 2594 (2013) (Koontz); and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 94 S.Ct. 1076 (1974) (Memorial Hospital)). Replies to Exceptions In reply, I&E asserts that SBI’s arguments ignore the plain language of Sections 2308(a) and (b) of Act 13, which clearly state that the Commission “shall” assess interest and penalties. R. Exc. at 10. I&E incorporates the arguments from its Main and Reply Briefs in support of its Replies to Exceptions. Id.