similar to the fees at issue in and because it does not raise Wheeling City of Philadelphia money for the general welfare or contribute to the general fund of either the Commonwealth or the municipalities. Accordingly, the ALJ rejected argument PIOGA’s that the impact fee is a tax. R.D. at 30. The ALJ also considered argument pertaining to the Building SBI’s Ass’n decision. In the Commonwealth Court reversed a lower court decision Building Ass’n, that a trade association lacked standing to challenge a municipal tax authorized by the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) imposed on developers and based, in part, on the amount of vehicular traffic a proposed development would generate. The Commonwealth Court also observed that the MPC defined the impact fee in that proceeding as a charge to generate revenue for funding the costs of transportation capital improvements. The ALJ found that the definition of impact fee in the MPC in Building was inapplicable to this case. R.D. at 30. Ass’n Additionally, the ALJ determined that argument that the Act 13 SBI’s impact fees can be used by municipalities to offset or reduce taxes was not persuasive. According to the ALJ, any non-tax source of revenue received by a municipality could be considered an offset or reduction of taxes. The ALJ concluded that the mere fact that funds are available to reduce or offset general revenue taxes does not convert those revenues to taxes. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that PIOGA and SBI failed to persuade him to change the conclusion in the which found that the impact fees S.J. Order were not taxes and that SBI was not entitled to have the definition of stripper well strictly construed in its favor. Id. Next, the ALJ addressed request to direct SBI to pay additional I&E’s impact and administrative fees, interest and penalties for the years 2011 and 2012 for the unreported wells. The ALJ explained that I&E presented evidence establishing that SBI owed $390,250 in additional impact and administrative fees for 2011 and 2012. According to the ALJ, neither SBI nor PIOGA presented any evidence challenging the
similar to the fees at issue in Wheeling and City of Philadelphia because it does not raise money for the general welfare or contribute to the general fund of either the Commonwealth or the municipalities. Accordingly, the ALJ rejected PIOGA’s argument that the impact fee is a tax. R.D. at 30. The ALJ also considered SBI’s argument pertaining to the Building Ass’n decision. In Building Ass’n, the Commonwealth Court reversed a lower court decision that a trade association lacked standing to challenge a municipal tax authorized by the Municipalities Planning Code (MPC) imposed on developers and based, in part, on the amount of vehicular traffic a proposed development would generate. The Commonwealth Court also observed that the MPC defined the impact fee in that proceeding as a charge to generate revenue for funding the costs of transportation capital improvements. The ALJ found that the definition of impact fee in the MPC in Building Ass’n was inapplicable to this case. R.D. at 30. Additionally, the ALJ determined that SBI’s argument that the Act 13 impact fees can be used by municipalities to offset or reduce taxes was not persuasive. According to the ALJ, any non-tax source of revenue received by a municipality could be considered an offset or reduction of taxes. The ALJ concluded that the mere fact that funds are available to reduce or offset general revenue taxes does not convert those revenues to taxes. Accordingly, the ALJ determined that PIOGA and SBI failed to persuade him to change the conclusion in the S.J. Order which found that the impact fees were not taxes and that SBI was not entitled to have the definition of stripper well strictly construed in its favor. Id. Next, the ALJ addressed I&E’s request to direct SBI to pay additional impact and administrative fees, interest and penalties for the years 2011 and 2012 for the unreported wells. The ALJ explained that I&E presented evidence establishing that SBI owed $390,250 in additional impact and administrative fees for 2011 and 2012. According to the ALJ, neither SBI nor PIOGA presented any evidence challenging the