Vol. LVII Allentown, PA Friday, March 24, 2017 No

Vol. LVII Allentown, PA Friday, March 24, 2017 No. 39

1 THE COURT The Hon. Edward D. Reibman, President Judge The Hon. Carol K. McGinley, Judge The Hon. Robert L. Steinberg, Judge The Hon. J. Brian Johnson, Judge The Hon. Kelly L. Banach, Judge The Hon. James T. Anthony, Judge The Hon. Maria L. Dantos, Judge The Hon. Michele A. Varricchio, Judge The Hon. Douglas G. Reichley, Judge The Hon. Daniel K. McCarthy, Judge

LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL (USPS 309560) Owned and Published by THE BAR ASSOCIATION OF LEHIGH COUNTY 1114 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18102 www.lehighbar.org MICHELLE M. FORSELL, President SARAH M. MURRAY, President-Elect JAMES J. KOZUCH, Vice President ROBERT P. DADAY, Secretary BUDDY M. LESAVOY, Treasurer SUSAN G. MAURER, Historian THOMAS F. TRAUD, JR., Law Journal Committee RAY BRIDGEMAN, Executive Director GRAIG M. SCHULTZ, Case Editor Copyright © 2017 Bar Association of Lehigh County

The Lehigh Law Journal is published every Friday. All legal notices must be submitted in typewritten form and are published exactly as submitted by the advertiser. Neither the Law Journal nor the printer will assume any responsibility to edit, make spelling corrections, eliminate errors in grammar or make any changes in content. The Law Journal makes no representation as to the quality of services offered by any advertiser in this publication. Legal notices must be received at 1114 W. Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18102, before 4 p.m. the preceding Monday. Telephone (610) 433-6204. Advance issues $100.00 per year. Single copies $2.00. Payment of annual dues to the Bar Association of Lehigh County includes year’s subscription to Lehigh Law Journal. Printed at 206 S. Keystone Ave., Sayre PA 18840 Periodical postage paid at Allentown, PA 18102 and at additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address changes to The Lehigh Law Journal, 1114 W. Walnut St., Allentown, PA 18102.

~HECTOR ROSADO Y ORQ HACHE~

Saturday, May 6th, 2017 10PM-12PM

Hector Rosado brings his Latin jazz salsa group back to Allentown Jazz Fest for a late night salsa dance party!

Tickets are $10 in advance/$15 at the door. www.allentownjazzfest.org

21 years of age and older.

1114 Walnut Street Allentown, PA, 18102 3 4 5 ATTORNEY DISCIPLINARY / ETHICS MATTERS

Representation, consultation and expert testimony in disciplinary matters and matters involving ethical issues, bar admissions and the Rules of Professional Conduct James C. Schwartzman, Esq. Vice Chairman, Judicial Conduct Board of Pennsylvania • Former Chairman, Disciplinary Board of the Supreme Court of PA • Former Chairman, Continuing Legal Education Board of the Supreme Court of PA • Former Chairman, Supreme Court of PA Interest on Lawyers Trust Account Board • Former Federal Prosecutor • Named by his peers as Best Lawyers in America 2015 Philadelphia Ethics and Professional Responsibility Law “Lawyer of the Year”

1818 Market Street, 29th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 751-2863

The BALC Facebook page is updated regularly with meeting reminders and event notices, and includes photo albums, discussion boards, links, and much more. “Like” us at www.facebook.com/BarAssociationLehighCounty

6 LEGAL ASSISTANT City of Bethlehem Law Bureau seeks full-time paralegal with broad experience, capabilities and organizational skills to provide support to solicitor staff. Primary task is answer- ing Right to Know Law requests. Tasks also include clerical duties, correspondence, contracts preparation, insurance claims processing and special projects as assigned. Experi- ence with municipal government law and PA Right to Know Law preferred. Send resumes to City of Bethlehem Law Bureau, 10 East Church Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018 or e-mail to [email protected]. Submission deadline April 14, 2017. 3-10, 17, 24, 31 ——————

NOTICE TO THE BAR Judge Michele A. Varricchio’s weekly walk-in civil motions court for Monday, May 22, 2017 is cancelled. 3-24

7 410 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. ALLENTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENT ZONE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, PETITIONER vs. CITY OF ALLENTOWN, ALLENTOWN SCHOOL DISTRICT, LEHIGH COUNTY AND LEHIGH COUNTY BOARD OF ASSESSMENT APPEALS, RESPONDENTS

Board of Assessment—Economic Development Financing Law—Neighborhood Improvement Zone—Tax Immunity.

The Lehigh County Board of Assessment (the “Board”) determined four properties located within Allentown’s Neighborhood Improvement Zone (“NIZ”)—an arena, a retail unit condominium, and two parking decks—were subject to the imposition of real estate property taxes by the Allentown School District, the City of Allentown, and the County of Lehigh. The Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Development Authority (“ANIZDA”) appealed the Board’s determination that the property was taxable and requested that it be deemed immune from taxation. The Board denied ANIZDA’s request for tax immunity, and an appeal to the Court of Common Pleas followed. The Court ultimately held that all four properties were immune from taxation because the properties fall within the geographic confines of the NIZ, and each of the properties is owned and leased by ANIZDA to promote and enhance economic development. In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County, Pennsyl- vania—Civil Division. Nos. 2015-C-1488, 2015-C-1489, 2015-C- 1490 and 2015-C-1491. Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Development Authority, Petitioner vs. City of Allentown, Allentown School District, Lehigh County and Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals, Respondents.

Zachary J. Cohen, Esquire, on behalf of Petitioner.

Scott C. Holbert, Esquire, on behalf of Respondent City of Allentown.

Raymond P. Wendolowski, Jr., Esquire, on behalf of Re- spondent Allentown School District.

Lucas J. Repka, Esquire, on behalf of Respondents Lehigh County and Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals. MEMORANDUM OPINION

Reichley, J., May 20, 2016. This matter comes before the Court as an appeal by the Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Development Authority from a determination by the Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals on May 1, 2015 that four 8 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 411 properties are subject to the imposition of property taxes imposed by the Allentown School District, the City of Allentown, and Lehigh County. The properties are located at 701, 701-4, 701-5, and 701- 7 West Hamilton Street, Allentown, Pennsylvania. Respectively, these properties constitute an arena, two separate parcels that constitute two parking decks, and a separate condominium parcel that is leased to two privately operated restaurants adjacent to the arena property. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY These four properties are located within the geographical contours of what is designated as the Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone by legislation enacted in 2011. The arena constitutes the centerpiece of an urban redevelopment initiative in Allentown, and has been promoted as a catalyst for other economic redevelopment in the downtown Allentown area. The parking decks are adjacent to and contiguous with the arena and the restaurant parcels. The parking decks are open to not only patrons of the arena and the restaurants, but for the convenience of anyone patronizing the downtown Allentown area. The Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone Authority (ANIZDA) oversees the Neighborhood Improvement Zone (NIZ). This body was created under the language of the Economic De- velopment Financing Law, 73 P.S. §371 et seq., otherwise referred to as the Financing Law. The ANIZDA was crafted as the successor to the Allentown Commercial and Industrial Development Authority (ACIDA). The ANIZDA was authorized by statute to finance and monitor economic development within a district of 128 non-contiguous acres located in the downtown area and along the riverfront in Allentown. See 72 P.S. §1901-B et seq. (NIZ law). Under the Financing Law, the ANIZDA was created for the purpose of “acquiring, holding, constructing, improving, maintaining, owning, financing, and leasing, either in the capacity of lessor or lessee, [development] projects.” 73 P.S. §376(a). The Financing Law further directs the ANIZDA shall “promote the use of urban and commercial centers by, among other things, providing parking, convention, tourism, recreational and sports facilities.” 73 P.S. §372.1(10). 9 Lehigh 7-17 op 412 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. On February 8, 2012 Mayor Edwin Pawlowski endorsed the Articles of Incorporation establishing ANIZDA. These Articles of Incorporation were filed with the Pennsylvania Department of State on March 23, 2012, and the Certificate of Incorporation was granted on the same date. Within the Articles of Incorporation (attached as Exhibit 1 to the Stipulated Facts filed by the parties on March 4, 2016), it states under paragraph (c): The Authority shall have all the powers and authority granted to an industrial and commercial development authority pursuant to the Financing Law, which shall include but shall not be limited to acquiring, holding, constructing, improving, maintaining, owning, financing, and leasing, either in the capacity of lessor or lessee, industrial, specialized or commercial development projects and serving as successor to the Allentown Commercial and Industrial Development Authority (ACIDA) for purposed [sic] of administering, providing financing for and undertaking all other activities related to the Allentown Neighborhood Improvement Zone (NIZ) established pursuant to the law governing Neighbor- hood Improvement Zones ... In its role as successor to ACIDA for purposed of [sic] administering the NIZ, the Authority’s powers shall be limited to development activities within the NIZ. (Stipulated Facts, filed March 4, 2016, Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).) On October 2, 2012, ANIZDA obtained all the properties owned by the ACIDA located within the boundaries of the NIZ. These properties included those four parcels which are the subject of the current litigation. Within the Asset Purchase Agreement between ACIDA and ANIZDA (attached as Exhibit 2 to the Stipulated Facts), the language of the Articles of Incorporation for ANIZDA is in large part replicated. Specifically, in the fourth paragraph of the first page of the Agreement, it states, “In its role as successor to Transferor [ACIDA] for purposes of administering the NIZ activities, the Transferee’s [ANIZDA’s] powers shall be limited to development activities within the NIZ.” (Id. Exhibit 2 (emphasis added).) 10 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 413 On February 11, 2013, ANIZDA designated the properties located within the 700 block of West Hamilton Street as a condominium and converted the parcel into nine separate development units. The ANIZDA maintained legal ownership of the development units, including the four properties which were eventually developed as the arena located at 701 West Hamilton Street; Unit Four, the North Parking Deck, located at 701-4 West Hamilton Street; Unit Five, the South Parking Deck, located at 701-5 West Hamilton Street; and Unit Seven, the Retail Unit, located at 701- 7 West Hamilton Street. Pursuant to an agreement entered on December 9, 2011, ANIZDA entered into a fifty-year lease of the arena facility and retail unit to BDH Development LLC, with an effective date of August 14, 2014. The primary use of the arena is for a franchise of the American Hockey League to play games there. The arena is also used for musical concerts, trade shows, and other types of entertainment options. The lessee is also encouraged to “promote tourism, and encourage economic growth and development of the Lehigh Valley metropolitan region.” (Joint Exhibit 4, at 27.) The retail unit is leased for operation of dining establishments along Hamilton Street directly adjacent to the arena. Both the arena and the restaurants are open to the public. ANIZDA contracts with the Allentown Parking Authority to operate and maintain the two parking decks in question for use by the general public without regard or limitation on whether the patrons of the parking decks are going to the arena or the dining establishments, or if those using the parking decks are patronizing establishments outside the physical confines of the NIZ. The Lehigh County Board of Assessment determined the arena, the retail unit condominium, and the two parking decks are subject to the imposition of real estate property taxes by the Allentown School District, the City of Allentown, and the County of Lehigh. ANIZDA appealed the Board’s determination that the property was taxable and requested that it be deemed immune from taxation. The Board conducted a hearing on April 29, 2015 to consider ANIZDA’s application for tax immunity. On May l, 2015, the Board issued a “Board Decision Notice” denying ANIZDA’s request for tax immunity. 11 Lehigh 7-17 op 414 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. ANIZDA filed an appeal from that decision with respect to the four properties in question on May 8, 2015, claiming that because the four properties are owned by ANIZDA, a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the properties are immune from any form of local taxation, including school district property taxes. Conversely, the School District argues the enabling legislation which created ANIZDA did not specifically exclude the properties owned by ANIZDA from property taxes. Furthermore, the School District alleges the leasing of the four properties goes beyond the legislatively authorized purpose for ANIZDA to engage in economic development, and that the appeal by ANIZDA should be denied. For the following reasons, the decision of the Lehigh Coun- ty Board of Assessment Appeals is REVERSED. The Court finds the arena, retail condominium units, and two parking decks within the NIZ are immune from taxation by local governing bodies. DISCUSSION The elementary premise underlying taxation is that the power to tax is exclusively vested within the legislature. Common- wealth v. Dauphin County, 335 Pa. 177, 179, 6 A.2d 870, 871 (1939). It cannot be presumed that general statutory provisions giving local subdivisions the power to tax local real estate were meant to include property owned by the Commonwealth, since to allow such taxation would upset the orderly processes of government. Id. at 179, 6 A.2d at 872. In order to tax property owned by the Com- monwealth, a local subdivision must establish that it has the authority to tax such property. Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority (SEPTA) v. Board of Revision of Taxes, 574 Pa. 707, 719, 833 A.2d 710, 713 (2003). As an initial determination, it must first be established if ANIZDA is a public authority or entity which would not ordinar- ily be subject to imposition of property taxes. Tax immunity is distinct from tax exemption. Delaware County Solid Waste Author- ity v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals, 534 Pa. 81, 85, 626 A.2d 528, 530 (1993). Tax immunity refers to a circumstance where the taxing body lacks the authority to levy a tax. Id. On the 12 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 415 other hand, tax exemption carves out specified property from taxation by a taxing body which otherwise has the authority to tax. Id. As a result, the primary distinction between “immunity” and “exemption” is simply that “[t]he ordinary presumption against exemption does not apply where the property involved is owned by the Commonwealth, since such property has for reasons of public policy been consistently recognized as free from taxation.” Dauphin County, supra at 182, 6 A.2d at 872-73. The parties have agreed the case before the Court is one of tax immunity as opposed to tax exemption. (See Appellant’s Brief: p. 7; Appellee’s Brief, p. 13.) Furthermore, the parties have agreed ANIZDA is an instrumentality of the Commonwealth of Pennsyl- vania. The Economic Development Financing Law which was enacted on August 23, 1967 declared that “[e]very industrial and commercial development authority incorporated under this act shall be a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth.” 73 P.S. §376(a). On March 23, 2012, the City of Allentown formed ANIZDA as a development authority by filing Articles of Incorporation with the Pennsylvania Department of State. As stated within the Articles of Incorporation: [ANIZDA] shall have all the powers and authority granted to an industrial and commercial development authority pursuant to the Financing Law, which shall include but shall not be limited to acquiring, holding, constructing, improving, maintaining, owning, financing, and leasing, either in the capacity of lessor or lessee, industrial, specialized, or commercial development projects and serving as the successor contracting authority to the Allentown Commercial and Industrial Development Authority (ACIDA) for purposes of administering, providing financing for and undertaking all other activities related to the Allentown Neighborhood Im- provement Zone (NIZ) ... . (Stipulated Facts, filed March 4, 2016, Exhibit 1 (emphasis added).) In 2012, ANIZDA acquired properties formerly owned by ACIDA for purposes of the development and construction of the 13 Lehigh 7-17 op 416 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. arena. ACIDA was also a duly recognized public authority. The Appellee School District does not dispute that ACIDA was a public instrumentality of the Commonwealth. As such, the School District could not impose property taxes upon any property to which ACIDA had legal title. The parties have agreed the transfer of properties from ACIDA to ANIZDA did not alter the fact the properties are owned by public authorities. ANIZDA contends the four properties in question are immune from imposition of property taxes because of the specific language of the Financing Law. ANIZDA points to the wording of the statute which provides that public authorities such as ANIZDA, “shall not be required to pay any taxes or assessments upon any property acquired or used by them ... and ... shall ... be free from taxation within the Commonwealth of Pennsylva- nia.” 73 P.S. §385 (emphasis added). The difficulty with this assertion is that ANIZDA has failed to include the entire statutory provision. The particular portion to which ANIZDA refers actually reads, The effectuation of the authorized purpose of authorities created under section 4 ... of this act ... shall and will be in all respects for the benefit of the people of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, for the increase of their commerce and prosperity, and for the improvement of their health and living conditions; and, since they will as public instrumentalities of the Commonwealth be performing essential governmental functions in effectuating such purposes, authorities and the financing authority shall not be required to pay any taxes or assessments upon any property acquired or used by them for such purposes, and the bonds issued by any authority or by the financing authority, their transfer and the income there- from ... shall at all times be free from taxation within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. 73 P.S. §385 (emphasis added). The plain effect of this statutory language is that properties owned or acquired by ANIZDA are free from taxation only if they are acquired for the purposes designated within the enabling language of the Financing Law. ANIZDA mischaracterizes the language which it asserts precludes taxation. It is the bonds that are issued by ANIZDA, and any income derived from said bonds, which 14 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 417 are free from taxation based on the wording of the statute, not the properties themselves. See id. The School District argues the properties owned by ANIZDA therefore are not in fact immune from taxation, and have not been granted any specific legislative exemption from the imposition of property taxes. This is not an accurate characterization of the enabling legislation either. Based on the section of the Financing Law stated above, the properties owned by ANIZDA may be immune from taxation if they are “acquired or used” by ANIZDA for the purposes identified within the statute, namely the increase of commerce and prosperity, and the improvement of the health and living conditions, of the people of the Commonwealth. 73 P.S. §385. The School District contends the leasing of the properties contravenes the purpose for which ANIZDA was created. Both ANIZDA and the School District referred the Court to several cases which have addressed the degree to which properties owned by public authorities are subject to property taxes. ANIZDA asserts that property owned by a public authority is presumed to be immune to taxation. “In short, Commonwealth property is presumed immune, and the local taxing body bears the burden to demonstrate taxability.” Lehigh-Northampton Airport Authority v. Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals, 585 Pa. 657, 670, 889 A.2d 1168, 1176 (2005). Furthermore, ANIZDA argues all doubts whether a property owned by a Commonwealth entity is immune from taxation must be resolved in favor of the public agency. Id. at 669, 889 A.2d at 1176. In Delaware County Solid Waste Authority v. Berks County Board of Assessment Appeals, supra, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court held that property owned by a Commonwealth agency is not given “blanket immunity” from property taxation. “It is well settled that property owned by the Commonwealth and its agencies is beyond the taxing power of a political subdivision. Thus, absent an explicit statutory grant of authority, property owned by the Com- monwealth is immune from taxation.” Id. at 85, 626 A.2d at 530-31. However, the Supreme Court added, “If an agency acts outside its authorized governmental purposes, then its immunity is not auto- matic.” Id. at 87, 626 A.2d at 531. 15 Lehigh 7-17 op 418 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. Within the Delaware County decision, the court referenced an earlier decision in Municipal Authority of Borough of West View, 381 Pa. 416, 113 A.2d 307 (1955), which involved a municipal authority leasing out a portion of a building owned by the authority to three commercial tenants. The court in West View Borough found the portion of the building which was rented out to commercial concerns was not exempt from taxation. In referring to West View Borough, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiter- ated, “we read West View as consistent with the proposition that property which is not acquired or used for authorized governmental purposes will not enjoy governmental immunity.” Delaware County, supra at 87-88, 626 A.2d at 532. Echoing concerns which were raised by the Allentown School District in the current matter, the Delaware County decision noted the concern of the Board of Assessment Appeals when it stated, “The concern of the Board is that a Commonwealth agency should not be able to take land that is not being used for the benefit of the public off the tax rolls.” Id. at 88, 626 A.2d at 532. “If a municipal authority can lease one residential property for revenue, and thus keep it off the tax rolls there is no reason why it might not acquire an entire residential section of a township against future use, and in the meantime, make it the course of similar income without liability for property taxes.” Id. (quoting Appeal of Municipal Authority of West View Tax Case, 175 Pa. Superior Ct. 641, 107 A.2d 130 (1954), aff ’d, 381 Pa. 416, 113 A.2d 307 (1955)). The court shrugged off the assertion that tax immunity should have been limited in the Delaware County case to only those portions of the acreage specifically used for purposes of trash dis- posal. “We do not find that the immunity is limited to the absolute minimum of property necessary to operate the Landfill. Rather, the immunity covers property that was acquired or used for an authorized purpose.” Id. at 88-89, 626 A.2d at 532. The School District also directs the Court to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court’s opinion in SEPTA v. Board of Revision of Taxes, supra. In that case, SEPTA purchased a twenty-story office building in downtown Philadelphia. The agency used most of the building as its headquarters but leased out a portion to commercial 16 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 419 tenants. When the Board of Revision of Taxes of the City of Philadelphia determined the property had a fair market value of over $225 million dollars, SEPTA applied for a real estate tax exemption on the basis the property was immune and exempt from taxation. The Board granted a partial exemption and exempted eighty-five percent of the building’s assessed value from taxation, corresponding to the portions which were used by SEPTA and other government or nonprofit entities. This reduced the tax value of the property to $1.2 million. SEPTA appealed to the Court of Common Pleas. Interest- ingly, the parties in SEPTA agreed the parts of the building oc- cupied by SEPTA and the other public entities, as well as the parking areas, were not subject to taxation. The only issue then before the court was whether the portions leased out to commercial tenants was taxable. The Court of Common Pleas held the leasing of parts of the building to commercial tenants rendered those same parts exempt from taxation on the grounds the transportation agency used the revenue from the leased properties as a means of raising revenue and reducing expenses, thus fulfilling a public purpose. The Commonwealth Court reversed the trial court on appeal by the Board of Revision. The Commonwealth Court held the agency is immune from taxation so long as it acts in accordance with the powers granted to it. The purpose of SEPTA was to operate a transportation system. The leasing of the real estate solely to raise revenue was not an activity connected to that purpose. Therefore, the Commonwealth Court concluded, the excess property leased to the commercial tenants was not immune from taxation. On appeal by the agency, the Supreme Court found SEPTA had acted outside its authorized statutory purpose when it leased out portions of the office building which SEPTA purchased. The Court articulated that in a tax immunity, as opposed to a tax exemption case, the “authorized purpose” test as explained in Delaware County was the appropriate lens through which to analyze SEPTA’s assertion for tax immunity for the entirety of the office building it owned. The court found that SEPTA was a statutorily created municipal authority, and as such, exercised powers as a Common- wealth agency and instrumentality. Because SEPTA was an 17 Lehigh 7-17 op 420 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. agency of the Commonwealth, the property owned by SEPTA was presumed immune from taxation. Additionally, the court found language within the statutory authorization for SEPTA gave express powers “to sell, lease as lessor, transfer, dispose of or otherwise convey any franchise, right or property, real, personal or mixed ... which are useful for its purposes.” Id. at 718, 833 A.2d at 716. The authorizing statute even went so far as to empower the transportation agency, “[t]o explore alternative means of raising revenue or reducing expenses, including, but not limited to, real estate leases and rentals ... .” Id. (emphasis in original). In reviewing the propriety of SEPTA leasing out property to commercial entities, the Supreme Court concluded it was necessary to consider whether the excess property which was being leased was used for SEPTA’s operations. As opposed to the factual situation in Delaware County, the Supreme Court determined the leased portions of the office building were “being used for something ‘other than’ as part of SEPTA’s operation.” Id. at 710, 833 A.2d at 717. Very simply, SEPTA is acting as a commercial landlord, which is clearly distinct from acting as a ‘metropolitan transportation authority’ pursuant to 74 Pa.C.S. § 1711(a). We cannot agree with SEPTA’s argument that because the excess property is being used to raise revenues and reduce SEPTA’s expenses, such use is equivalent to being part of SEPTA’s operations simply because the legislature ‘authorized’ such action. Id. The Supreme Court found leasing out portions of an office building was not within the defined purpose of the agency to operate a metropolitan transportation system and that therefore the portions of the building owned by SEPTA which were leased out to private entities were subject to property taxation. Id. at 719-20, 833 A.2d at 717. Although the School District seems to have latched on to the fact there is a factual similarity between the SEPTA case and the matter currently before the Court because of the leasing of prop- 18 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 421 erty by the public authority, the Supreme Court did not focus on whether the public authority leased property it owns. Instead, the court has looked to whether the leasing of the property was consistent with the purpose for which the public agency was authorized by legislation. See id. ANIZDA countered with the argument that several arena or stadium projects throughout Pennsylvania have been developed under the supervision and ownership of public authorities. ANIZDA pointed out stadium or arena facilities in Philadelphia, Scranton, Hershey and even in Allentown were constructed and are operated by public authorities. It is true that all these facilities were developed under the auspices of a public authority in a specific region or metropolitan area. Each of those facilities or venues though is different from the arena project and the related commercial development in this case because of the unique statutory language which authorized the acquisition of land and the construction of the arena and other leased portions. The Financing Law authorized the ANIZDA to promote industrial, commercial and other economic development. ANIZDA is permitted to promote and encourage retail establishments, and to promote the use of urban and commercial centers by providing parking, convention, tourism, recreational, and sports facilities. These various functions of ANIZDA are to be performed without regard to whether the specific project, project applicant, or project user is a public or private actor, or is done for a profit or nonprofit purpose. See 73 P.S. §§372.1(1), (9), (10), and (14). Under the statute, “project” is loosely defined as any facility or activity “which promote[s] any of the public purposes set forth in section 2 ... or 2.1 ... of this act ... .” 73 P.S. §373 (footnotes omitted). Under Section 376 of the Financing Law, ANIZDA is broadly authorized to conduct activities related to the overall goal of promoting economic development. These activities include acquiring, owning, or leasing land necessary or convenient “for carrying out the purposes of th[is] authority, and to sell, option, lease as lessor, transfer and dispose of any property or interest therein at any time acquired by it.” 73 P.S. §376(b)(4). Under Section 376(b)(9), the Financing Law goes even farther to explicitly empower AN- IZDA to enter into lease agreements as long as the leases do not 19 Lehigh 7-17 op 422 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. extend beyond the term of the existence of ANIZDA under the statute. See 73 P.S. §376(b)(9). Accordingly, the statute creating the NIZ and ANIZDA gives clear and express permission to the authority to acquire, develop, and lease out property it has purchased as long as the acquisition, development, or leasing of the land is consistent with the overall goal of economic development as broadly defined by the Financing Law. Therefore, because it is conceded ANIZDA is a public authority of the Commonwealth, and that any land owned by such a public authority is immune from taxation as long as a property is acquired or used consistent with the statutorily designated purpose of economic development, the properties owned or leased out by ANIZDA are immune from taxation by any local authority such as a school district, municipality, or county. The upshot of this determination is that the arena itself and leased condominiums which house retail or restaurant operations are immune from the imposition of property taxes. The arena and the related food service businesses fall within the clear definition of what ANIZDA was directed to pursue under its enabling legislation. The Financing Law authorized ANIZDA to promote economic activity with the development of a sports recreation and entertainment facility, as well as enabling ANIZDA to lease land which it had acquired for the purpose of fulfilling that legislative directive to promote economic activity. Because the arena and the retail condominium units are owned or leased for that legislatively authorized purpose, the appeal by ANIZDA with regard to those two properties is granted, and the determination by the Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals in case numbers 2015-C-1488 and 2015-CI491 is reversed. The status of the other two condominium units which house the parking decks is subject to different considerations. Initially the Court raised concerns over the tax immunity of the parking decks because of the inability of ANIZDA to define the economic impact of the decks strictly within the NIZ. While it is clear the parking decks themselves are physically located in the NIZ, this Court was troubled by the fact the parking decks may be used by persons patronizing businesses outside the NIZ. It is arguable the 20 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 423 authorizing legislation only provided a basis for tax immunity for those properties enhancing economic development within the NIZ itself, not as an economic development tool for locations both within and outside the defined geographic boundaries of the NIZ. ANIZDA argues the construction and leasing out of the parking decks is as much within the statutorily authorized purpose of economic development as is the construction and operation of the arena and the retail units. ANIZDA points out the language found at 73 P.S. §§372.1(10) and 376 specifically empowers ANIZDA to provide parking. Those same statutory sections expressly permit ANIZDA to operate parking decks or to lease out the parking decks for operation by other entities. ANIZDA contends that because the provision of parking is one of the statutorily approved purposes of the economic development mission of the Financing Law, the two parking deck condominium units also enjoy immunity from the imposition of any local property taxes, even if leased by ANIZDA. As is the case with the opposition by the School District to ANIZDA’s argument for immunity from taxation for the retail unit condominium, the School District contends the development and leasing out of the two parking decks is beyond the statutorily designated purpose described for ANIZDA under the Financing Law. “[A]ny parcel—or part thereof—which is ultimately adjudged to be outside of the scope of the Authority’s tax immunity will then be subject to local real estate taxes ... .” Lehigh-Northampton Airport v. Lehigh County, supra at 676, 889 A.2d at 1179. The School District also refers this Court to the unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court in Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education v. Indiana Area School District, 2012 WL 8667893 (Pa. Commw. 2012) (unpublished memorandum), aff ’d, 620 Pa. 558, 69 A.3d 236 (2013). In that case, a portion of a building on the campus of a university within the State System of Higher Education was leased out to a local business incubator. The business incubator was part of a program in the University’s Col- lege of Business to provide assistance to start-up or developing businesses in the county. It was further argued the business incu- 21 Lehigh 7-17 op 424 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. bator provided a community service and education to the students about the development of actual businesses. Even though the college building was located within a Key- stone Opportunity Enterprise Zone (KOEZ), where properties were “exempt” from property taxes, the Indiana County Assessment Office determined the leasing of a part of the college-owned building to a commercial tenant subjected the entire building to the imposition of property taxes. The local school district and county taxing authorities argued that even though the university building was owned by the Pennsylvania State System for Higher Education (PSSHE), an agency of the Commonwealth, the property in question was not automatically entitled to be immune from taxation. The school district and assessment agency claimed that leasing a portion of the college building was outside the educational purpose of the university. PSSHE contended the local taxing authorities were legislatively prohibited from assessing a tax against the property, and that as a property owned by an agency of the Common- wealth, the university building was immune from taxation. The Commonwealth Court found that while it is well- established that real estate owned by the Commonwealth is not subject to taxation by political subdivisions absent express statutory authority, tax immunity for properties owned by agencies or instrumentalities of the Commonwealth is not unqualified. Tax immunity only applies to property which is acquired or used for an authorized governmental purpose. Id. at *3. “The burden is on the taxing authority to establish the lack of immunity by showing that the Commonwealth agency or instrumentality acted outside the scope of its authority in acquiring and holding the property.” Id. The Commonwealth Court noted the analysis from the SEPTA decision which clarified that when applying the government use test in a tax immunity analysis, a court must look not only at whether the agency or instrumentality was given authority to hold or lease property, but also to whether the holding or leasing of property is within the agency’s or instrumentality’s governmental purpose. Id. at *4. When applying the SEPTA decision to the Indiana Univer- sity case, the Commonwealth Court found PSSHE’s activities in 22 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 425 leasing a portion of the university building to a business incubator were more like that of a commercial landlord. Therefore, PSSHE was not absolved from paying property taxes on the portions of the university building utilized for such commercial ventures. Id. at *5. The Commonwealth Court concluded the leasing out of the portion of the college building to a business incubator fell outside the educational purpose for which PSSHE was statutorily created, in much the same way the Supreme Court concluded that leasing out of portions of any office building owned by SEPTA fell outside the statutory purpose of a metropolitan transportation agency. The case before the Court is different from both the PSSHE and SEPTA cases because the legislation which created and em- powered ANIZDA specifically and explicitly authorized ANIZDA to acquire and develop or lease property consistent with the goal of economic development in specified areas with the 128 non- contiguous acres of land within the City of Allentown designated as the Neighborhood Improvement Zone. As a result, from its very inception, ANIZDA was statutorily distinct from SEPTA or PSSHE in the purpose for which the authority was conceived and enacted. However, this does not end the Court’s analysis to determine if the construction, operation or leasing out of the parking decks is so squarely within the defined governmental purpose for which the ANIZDA was created to entitle the two parking deck condominium units to tax immunity. Whether the land acquisition and development undertaken by ANIZDA was for the purpose of construction of an arena or retail and commercial business operation, the one constant requirement was that the land being purchased and developed or the facility being constructed was within the physical and geographical confines of the 128 non-contiguous acres defined as the NIZ. The Financing Law detailed the funds supporting the purchase of land by ANIZDA and bonds financed by ANIZDA would encompass all state taxes generated from the development and operation of businesses within the delineated boundaries of the NIZ, and only those businesses within the specific contours of the NIZ. The statute did not permit state taxes generated from businesses located outside the precisely designated boundaries of the NIZ to subsidize the financial operations of ANIZDA. See 72 P.S. §8902-B (defining “Earned income tax” 23 Lehigh 7-17 op 426 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. as “[a] tax or portion of a tax imposed on earned income within a neighborhood improvement zone ... .”). Similarly, any property purchased by ANIZDA outside the designated boundaries of the NIZ would not be entitled to the tax relief to which ANIZDA asserts it is entitled. Id. (defining “Neigh- borhood improvement zone” as “A neighborhood improvement zone designated by the contracting authority for the purposes of neighborhood improvement and development within a city,” and “City” as “A city of the third class with, on the date of the designa- tion of a neighborhood improvement zone by the contracting authority, a population of at least 106,000, based on the most recent Federal decennial census.”). However, while the authorizing legislation and the Articles of Incorporation for ANIZDA specifically delineated the purchase, ownership or leasing of properties was limited to only those parcels located within the boundaries of the NIZ, neither the statutes nor the Articles of Incorporation limited the field of economic development to be circumscribed by the same physical dimensions of the NIZ. ANIZDA is legally empow- ered to purchase and even lease properties situated within the NIZ to private commercial entities, but the authorizing language did not so narrowly define the ANIZDA’s purpose of enhancing economic development to the same boundaries. See 73 P.S. §372.1(14) (identifying promotion of the health, welfare, and safety of the residents of the Commonwealth through the promotion of economic activity as a legislative policy objective in enacting the Fi- nancing Law). If one were to accept the premise that the scope of economic development, for which any property owned by ANIZDA would be entitled to tax immunity, must be limited to those areas within the physical boundaries of the NIZ, it begs the question of why the revitalization or development of any property other than those specifically owned by ANIZDA but located within the NIZ would not also violate the authorized purpose of the NIZ Law and the Financing Law? Such an interpretation of the statutes would constrain the Court to find ANIZDA was only fulfilling its legislatively authorized purpose if the economic development activities it undertook were limited to benefit only the specific parcels owned 24 Lehigh 7-17 op ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. 427 by ANIZDA. The Court finds such an interpretation would be unreasonable based on a fair reading of the relevant statutes. While the clear mandate of the Financing Law was to enable ANIZDA to purchase, own and lease properties within the NIZ, the fact that the development, renovation, and ownership of properties by ANIZDA, even those properties leased to outside private entities, may engender the development, revitalization and ownership of properties outside the boundaries of the NIZ does not subject the properties owned by ANIZDA to local taxation. This interpretation is a logical extension from both language of the NIZ Law and the Financing Law’s policy objective. 72 P.S. §8902-B; 73 P.S. §372(14). Consistent then with this Court’s interpretation of the statutory authorization behind which ANIZDA may purchase, develop, or lease land within the NIZ for the purpose of engendering economic activity, the Court also concludes that the acquisition, development, ownership or leasing of acreage within the boundaries of the NIZ renders those properties immune from taxation by local authorities, including the imposition of school district property taxes. The Financing Law and the Articles of Incorporation do not circumscribe the authorized purpose of ANIZDA to the promotion of economic development solely within the confines of the legislatively designated areas. The Court is cognizant of the potential consequence of this interpretation on the question of future acquisition of properties within the NIZ by ANIZDA. It is not inconceivable that specific parcels located within the boundaries of the NIZ may become available on the market or become financially distressed. It is also foreseeable that a body such as ANIZDA would then step in to purchase those same properties, either to retain the properties for possible sale to third parties or to lease them out to other private commercial entities. The potential ownership of those properties by ANIZDA will render those same properties immune from taxation. This immunity from taxation would continue until such time as the properties are sold by ANIZDA to an entity which does not have the same status as a public instrumentality qualifying for tax immunity. Although neither party could cite any specific intent 25 Lehigh 7-17 op 428 ANIZDA vs. City of Allentown et al. announced by ANIZDA to undertake such an effort, the potential exists for ANIZDA to hold properties for the duration of its authorized existence, or until the year 2062. The prospect that the Allentown School District, one of the most financially distressed school districts in Pennsylvania, would be faced with large portions of the district immune from taxation fosters a concern the School District could become even more fiscally hard-pressed. The advisability of such a consequence though is an issue for the General Assembly to determine, not this Court. The question before the Court today is narrowly tailored to the consideration of whether duly enacted legislation and authorizing documents allowed for the properties which are owned and pos- sibly leased by ANIZDA as a public instrumentality of the Com- monwealth to be immune from taxation by local governing bodies. Having so determined the properties are in fact immune from local taxation because they are owned and leased within the authorized purpose of ANIZDA to promote and enhance economic development, it is for the other branches of government to decide if the enabling legislation needs to be amended in the future. CONCLUSION Because the properties Defendants are seeking to tax fall within the geographic confines of the NIZ and the legislature has established immunity from taxation for those properties located within that geographic area and owned by ANIZDA, the decision of the Lehigh County Tax Assessment Appeals Board entered on May 1, 2015 is REVERSED.

ORDER

AND NOW, this 20th day of May, 2016, upon consideration of Petitioner’s Appeal from the decision of the Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals, filed May 8, 2016, IT IS ORDERED the decision of the Lehigh County Board of Assessment Appeals entered May 1, 2015 is REVERSED for the reasons set forth in the accompanying Memorandum Opinion. 26 Lehigh 7-17 op LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL ESTATE AND TRUST NOTICES Attorney: Barbara Kern Diet- Notice is hereby given that, in the rich, Esq., 22 Hilgert Ave., estates of the decedents set forth Reading, PA 19607. below, the Register of Wills has granted letters testamentary or of Himmelwright, Lester D., Jr., administration to the persons named. dec’d. Notice is also hereby given of the Late of Bethlehem. existence of the trusts of the deceased Executor: Keith L. Himmel- settlors set forth below for whom no wright c/o Law Offices of Law- personal representatives have been rence B. Fox, P.C., 1834 Penn- appointed within 90 days of death. sylvania Avenue, Hanover All persons having claims or de- Township, Allentown, PA mands against said estates or trusts 18109. are requested to make known the Attorneys: Law Offices of Law- same, and all persons indebted to rence B. Fox, P.C., 1834 Penn- said estates or trusts are requested sylvania Avenue, Hanover to make payment, without delay, to Township, Allentown, PA the executors or administrators or 18109. trustees or to their attorneys named below. Irvine, Barbara C., dec’d. FIRST PUBLICATION Late of the City of Allentown. Ahn, Evelyn J., dec’d. Executors: James A. Irvine and Late of Macungie. David J. Irvine c/o Robert V. Executor: S. Edwin Ahn, III c/o Littner, Esquire, Littner, Desch- Judith A. Harris, Esquire, Nor- ler & Littner, 512 North New ris, McLaughlin & Marcus, P.A., Street, Bethlehem, PA 18018. 515 W. Hamilton St., Suite 502, Attorneys: Robert V. Littner, Allentown, PA 18101. Esquire, Littner, Deschler & Attorneys: Judith A. Harris, Littner, 512 North New Street, Esquire, Norris, McLaughlin & Bethlehem, PA 18018. Marcus, P.A., 515 W. Hamilton St., Suite 502, Allentown, PA Lewis, Laura W., dec’d. 18101. Late of Upper Macungie Town- ship, Allentown. Brezak, Joanne Christy, dec’d. Executor: Herbert B. Cohen c/o Late of Emmaus. Mary C. Crocker, Esquire, 1296 Executor: Mark A. Brezak. East High Street, Pottstown, PA Attorneys: Donald LaBarre, Jr., 19464. Esquire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 111 E. Harrison St., Suite 2, Attorney: Mary C. Crocker, Es- Emmaus, PA 18049. quire, 1296 East High Street, Pottstown, PA 19464. Durn, Willis H. a/k/a Willis Durn, dec’d. Lewis, Laura W., dec’d. Late of South Whitehall Town- Late of Upper Macungie Town- ship. ship, Allentown. Executrix: Sharon Y. Fisher, Laura W. Lewis Living Trust 2528 W. Walnut St., Allentown, Dated February 6, 1993, As PA 18104. Amended. 27 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL Co-Trustees: Herbert B. Cohen Personal Representatives: PNC and Scott J. Frazin, 1790 Ma- Bank, National Association and plewood Lane, Allentown, PA J. Craig Porter c/o Kirby G. 18103. Upright, Esquire, One West Attorneys: Mary C. Crocker, Broad Street, Suite 700, Beth- Esquire, Crocker & Crocker, lehem, PA 18018. P.C., 1296 High Street, Potts- Attorneys: Kirby G. Upright, town, PA 19464. Esquire, King Spry Herman Freund & Faul LLC, One West McCarthy, Edward J., Sr., dec’d. Broad Street, Suite 700, Beth- Late of Allentown. lehem, PA 18018, (610) 332- Executor: Edward J. McCarthy, 0390. Jr. c/o Daniel G. Dougherty, Esq., 881 3rd St., Suite B-3, Renninger, Foster C., dec’d. Whitehall, PA 18052. Late of Lower Macungie Town- Attorney: Daniel G. Dougherty, ship. Esq., 881 3rd St., Suite B-3, Executrix: Vivian L. Edinger c/o Whitehall, PA 18052. Charles A. Waters, Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, 125 S. Moser, Gloria a/k/a Gloria Lou- Walnut Street, Suite 210, Slat- ise Arlene Moser, dec’d. ington, PA 18080. Late of South Whitehall Town- Attorneys: Charles A. Waters, ship. Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, Co-Executors: Jeffrey F. Moser 125 S. Walnut Street, Suite 210, and David T. Moser c/o Bruce Slatington, PA 18080. W. Weida, Esq., 245 Main Street, Emmaus, PA 18049. Riseborough, Ursula E., dec’d. Attorney: Bruce W. Weida, Esq., Late of the City of Allentown. 245 Main Street, Emmaus, PA Executrix: Karen M. Kresge, 18049. 285 Susquehanna Trail, Allen- town, PA 18104. Moyer, Hertha E., dec’d. Attorneys: Steiger & Steiger, 56 Late of Emmaus. South Main Street, Mercers- Administratrix: Charlotte E. burg, PA 17236. Vargo, 752 Frank Drive, Em- maus, PA 18049. Schuler, Francis X., Jr., dec’d. Late of Allentown. Phillips, Minnie A., dec’d. Administrator: James D. Booros Late of 350 S. Cedarbrook c/o Rebecca M. Young, Esq. Road, Allentown. and Lia K. Snyder, Esq., Young Executrix: Darlene Dietrich, & Young, 119 E. Main Street, 131 South Laurel Street, Kutz- Macungie, PA 18062. town, PA 19530. Attorneys: Rebecca M. Young, Attorney: Lee A. Conrad, Es- Esq. and Lia K. Snyder, Esq., quire, 3 North Main Street, Young & Young, 119 E. Main Topton, PA 19562. Street, Macungie, PA 18062.

Porter, Betty G., dec’d. Steiner, Wilma E., dec’d. Late of Center Valley. Late of Bethlehem. 28 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL Executor: Robert F. Steiner c/o Davis, Patricia R., dec’d. Andrew V. Schantz, Esquire, Late of the Township of White- 645 Hamilton Street, Suite 510, hall. Allentown, PA 18101. Executrix: Lori Ruth McLaugh- Attorneys: Andrew V. Schantz, lin c/o Ellen M. Kraft, Esquire, Esquire, Davison & McCarthy, 4510 Bath Pike, Suite 201, P.C., 645 Hamilton Street, Suite Bethlehem, PA 18017. 510, Allentown, PA 18101. Attorney: Ellen M. Kraft, Es- quire, 4510 Bath Pike, Suite SECOND PUBLICATION 201, Bethlehem, PA 18017. Berresford, James N., Sr., dec’d. Decker, Dolores N., dec’d. Late of Allentown. Late of Allentown City. Executrix: Ann E. Schmidt c/o Executrices: Barbara A. Decker, Robert Van Horn, Esquire, 123 Maryann S. Muschlitz and Mar- North Fifth Street, Allentown, garet A. Decker c/o C. Thomas PA 18102. Work, Esq., P.O. Box 679, Read- Attorney: Robert Van Horn, ing, PA 19603. Esquire, 123 North Fifth Street, Attorneys: C. Thomas Work, Allentown, PA 18102. Esquire, Stevens & Lee, P.O. Box 679, Reading, PA 19603. Bodnar, Mary a/k/a Mary M. Bodnar, dec’d. Gall, Darlene Marie, dec’d. Late of the Township of White- Late of 4551 Oak Hill Road, hall. Emmaus. Executor: Michael W. Bodnar, Executor: William M. Gall, Jr., 4187 Cartier Drive, Allentown, 1637 W. South Street, Allen- PA 18104. town, PA 18102. Attorneys: Peters, Moritz, Pei- schl, Zulick, Landes & Brienza, Gery, Robert Paul, dec’d. LLP, 1 South Main Street, Late of Allentown. Administrator: David A. Dopso- Nazareth, PA 18064. vic, 2504 Pinoak Lane, Reston, VA 20191. Bodock, Catherine, dec’d. Late of Allentown. Jones, Evelyn E. a/k/a Evelyn Executor: David Grow c/o Mi- Hague Jones, dec’d. chael D. Recchiuti, Esquire, Late of Allentown City. 1502 Center St., Suite 202, Executor: Willard Jones, II, Bethlehem, PA 18018. 3063 Athena Drive, Bethlehem, Attorney: Michael D. Recchiuti, PA 18017. Esquire, 1502 Center St., Suite 202, Bethlehem, PA 18018. Lance, Alice W. a/k/a Alice M. Lance, dec’d. Brady, Jeanette M., dec’d. Late of 225 N. Sterling Street, Late of Bethlehem. Allentown. Executor: David R. Brady, 32 Personal Representative: Robert Leonard Terrace, Roseland, NJ H. Lance c/o James A. Ritter, 07068. Esquire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 29 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL 111 E. Harrison St., Suite 2, Executrix: Michele J. McLaugh- Emmaus, PA 18049-2916. lin c/o Noonan Law Office, 526 Attorneys: James A. Ritter, Es- Walnut Street, Allentown, PA quire, Gross McGinley, LLP, 111 18101-2394. E. Harrison Street, Suite 2, Attorneys: Noonan Law Office, Emmaus, PA 18049-2916. 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, PA 18101-2394. LaSalle, Antonio Felix, dec’d. Late of Allentown. Wetzel, Vicki a/k/a Vicki M. Administratrix: Leticia LaSalle Wetzel, dec’d. c/o Rebeca Torres, Esquire, 432 Late of Wescosville. N. 7th Street, Allentown, PA Executrix: Michele Friedman. 18102. Attorneys: Jeffrey S. Fleischak- Attorney: Rebeca Torres, Es- er, Fleischaker Law, LLC, 825 quire, 432 N. 7th Street, Allen- North 12th Street, Allentown, town, PA 18102. PA 18102. Merlo, Antoinette Rose a/k/a THIRD PUBLICATION Antoinette R. Merlo, dec’d. Late of Orefield. Bachman, Holly D., dec’d. Personal Representative: Mi- Late of Slatington. chelle M. Moyer c/o Peter P. Executor: George B. Bachman Perry, Esquire, 1600 Lehigh c/o Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, Parkway East, 1E, Allentown, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, PA 18103-3097. P.O. Box 219, Center Valley, PA Attorney: Peter P. Perry, Es- 18034-0219. quire, 1600 Lehigh Parkway Attorneys: Fitzpatrick Lentz & East, 1E, Allentown, PA 18103- Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse 3097. Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Val- ley, PA 18034-0219. Merz, Marlene N., dec’d. Late of Allentown. Executor: Matthew J. Merz c/o Cadwell, Elizabeth R. a/k/a Charles A. Waters, Esquire, Elizabeth Rhue Cadwell, Steckel and Stopp LLC, 125 S. dec’d. Walnut Street, Suite 210, Slat- Late of 5290 Northwood Drive, ington, PA 18080. Center Valley. Attorneys: Charles A. Waters, Administratrix: Kathlyn Good- Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, win a/k/a Kathlyn Louise 125 S. Walnut Street, Suite 210, Goodwin, 607 Jefferson Ave., Slatington, PA 18080. Jermyn, PA 18433. Attorneys: William G. Mal- Oswald, Ruth Irene, dec’d. kames, Esquire, Malkames Law Late of Allentown. Offices, 509 W. Linden Street, Executor: David S. Oswald, 608 Allentown, PA 18101, (610) N. 41 St., Allentown, PA 18104. 821-8327.

Roth, LaRue K., dec’d. Christman, Bessie A., dec’d. Late of Allentown. Late of Allentown. 30 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL Executor: John O. Stover, Jr., Heights Blvd., Suite 2B, Allen- 537 Chestnut Street, Emmaus, town, PA 18104. PA 18049. Attorney: Jamie Michael Mc- Attorney: John O. Stover, Jr., Fadden, Esq., 3055 College Esquire, 537 Chestnut Street, Heights Blvd., Suite 2B, Allen- Emmaus, PA 18049. town, PA 18104.

Conway, Mary E., dec’d. Fischer, Carol E., dec’d. Late of Macungie. Late of the City of Allentown. Administratrix c.t.a.: Laura Executor: Frederick H. Fischer Knopf c/o Noonan Law Office, c/o Bradford D. Wagner, Es- 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, quire, 662 Main Street, Heller- PA 18101-2394. town, PA 18055-1726. Attorneys: Noonan Law Office, Attorney: Bradford D. Wagner, 526 Walnut Street, Allentown, Esquire, 662 Main Street, Hel- PA 18101-2394. lertown, PA 18055-1726, (610) 838-6563. Coyne, Nancy Lynn a/k/a Nancy L. Coyne, dec’d. Grossman, Naomi R., dec’d. Late of Whitehall. Late of South Whitehall Town- Executor: Martin J. Coyne, Jr. ship. c/o The Roth Law Firm, 123 Executor: Seth Grossman c/o North Fifth Street, Allentown, Wiener and Wiener LLP, 512 PA 18102. Hamilton Street, Suite 400, Al- Attorneys: Larry R. Roth, Es- lentown, PA 18101. quire, The Roth Law Firm, 123 Attorneys: Wiener and Wiener North Fifth Street, Allentown, LLP, 512 Hamilton Street, Suite PA 18102. 400, Allentown, PA 18101.

Cressman, Lois E., dec’d. Hart, Gail Evelyn a/k/a Gail E. Late of the Township of White- Hart, dec’d. hall. Late of the City of Allentown. Executor: Daniel D. Cressman Executrix: Valerie Springfield, c/o Dionysios C. Pappas, Es- 55 Catawba Place, Jim Thorpe, quire, Vasiliadis & Associates, PA 18229. 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Attorney: Michael J. Garfield, Bethlehem, PA 18020. Esquire, 2588 State Route 903, Attorneys: Dionysios C. Pappas, P.O. Box 609, Albrightsville, PA Esquire, Vasiliadis & Associ- 18210. ates, 2551 Baglyos Circle, Suite A-14, Bethlehem, PA 18020. Hayes, John S. a/k/a Jack Hayes, dec’d. DeSanctis, Vincent H., dec’d. Late of the Borough of Em- Late of the Township of Upper maus. Macungie. Co-Executors: Marianne D. Administratrix: Jennifer Lynn Hayes, 1006 Liberty Street, Em- DeSanctis c/o Jamie Michael maus, PA 18049 and John M. McFadden, Esq., 3055 College Hayes, 7987 Salem Bible 31 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL Church Road, Macungie, PA Allentown, PA 18101, (610) 18062. 395-8634. Attorneys: Edward A. Fedok, Esquire, Stevens & Lee, 840 Otter, Monica M., dec’d. West Hamilton Street, Suite Late of Heidelberg Township. 521, Allentown, PA 18101. Executor: Gerald Otter a/k/a Gerald N. Otter c/o Eric R. Holzbaur, Sallie, dec’d. Strauss, Esquire, Worth, Magee Late of Allentown. & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Executor: Scott Holzbauer, 274 Avenue, Allentown, PA 18104. Meany Rd., Wrightstown, NJ Attorneys: Eric R. Strauss, Es- 08562. quire, Worth, Magee & Fisher, P.C., 2610 Walbert Avenue, Jacobs, Jeffrey M., dec’d. Allentown, PA 18104. Late of North Whitehall Town- ship, Schnecksville. Seagreaves, Angela a/k/a An- Executors: Stacy A. Stevenson gela A. Seagreaves, dec’d. and Jeffrey H. Jacobs c/o Late of the Township of Upper Charles W. Stopp, Esquire, Macungie, Orefield. Steckel and Stopp LLC, 125 S. Executors: Scott C. Bruder, Walnut Street, Suite 210, Slat- 2681 Summerbrooke Drive NW, ington, PA 18080. Kennesaw, GA 30152 and Don- Attorneys: Charles W. Stopp, ald H. Seagreaves, 5919 Chap- Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, mans Road, Orefield, PA 18069. 125 S. Walnut Street, Suite 210, Attorneys: Neil D. Ettinger, Es- Slatington, PA 18080. quire, Ettinger & Associates, LLC, Peachtree Office Plaza, Knerr, Mary Y., dec’d. 1815 Schadt Avenue, White- Late of Lynn Township. Co-Executors: Robert Knerr hall, PA 18052. and Barbara Mantz c/o Charles W. Stopp, Esquire, Steckel and Sell, Robert W., dec’d. Stopp LLC, 125 S. Walnut Late of Allentown. Street, Suite 210, Slatington, PA Executor: Glenn R. Sell a/k/a 18080. Glenn Robert Sell c/o John O. Attorneys: Charles W. Stopp, Stover, Jr., Esquire, 537 Chest- Esquire, Steckel and Stopp LLC, nut Street, Emmaus, PA 18049. 125 S. Walnut Street, Suite 210, Attorney: John O. Stover, Jr., Slatington, PA 18080. Esquire, 537 Chestnut Street, Emmaus, PA 18049. Krause, Nancy L. a/k/a Nancy Krause, dec’d. Shoemaker, Byron L., dec’d. Late of 7190 Heather Rd., Ma- Late of Allentown. cungie. Co-Executors: James M. Wood Executor: Scott B. Krause, 1017 and Nancy L. Matyascik c/o S. Krocks Road, Allentown, PA Fitzpatrick Lentz & Bubba, P.C., 18106. 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Attorney: William G. Malkames, Box 219, Center Valley, PA Esquire, 509 W. Linden Street, 18034-0219. 32 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL Attorneys: Fitzpatrick Lentz & NOTICE OF INCORPORATION Bubba, P.C., 4001 Schoolhouse Lane, P.O. Box 219, Center Val- NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that ley, PA 18034-0219. Articles of Incorporation were filed on March 2, 2017 pursuant to the provisions of the Pennsylvania Nonprofit Smerek, Stella, dec’d. Corporation Law of 1988 by the fol- Late of Upper Saucon Town- lowing nonprofit corporation: ship. The name of the corporation is: Trustee: Rodney Slota, 3880 TRAINING MISSION Hopewell Drive, Center Valley, AVIATION, INC. PA 18034. FITZPATRICK LENTZ Attorney: T. Benjamin Traud, & BUBBA, P.C. Esq., 3055 College Heights 4001 Schoolhouse Lane Blvd., Ste. 2A, Allentown, PA P.O. Box 219 18104. Center Valley, PA 18034-0219 M-24

Smith, Victor G., dec’d. CHARTER APPLICATION— Late of Washington Township. NONPROFIT Co-Executors: Timothy F. Gei- ger and Deborah A. Geiger c/o NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Zator Law, 4400 Walbert Ave- Articles of Incorporation have been nue, Allentown, PA 18104. filed with the Department of State of Attorneys: Christopher M. the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania McLean, Esquire, Zator Law, at Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, for the 4400 Walbert Avenue, Allen- purpose of obtaining a Certificate of Incorporation pursuant to the Penn- town, PA 18104. sylvania Nonprofit Corporation Law of 1988, as amended. Tettemer, Ramona A., dec’d. The name of the corporation is: Late of the Borough of Coopers- ARISE & SHINE ARTS burg. & ENTERTAINMENT Executrix: Elizabeth McDonald, (ASAE) MINISTRIES 41 North 7th Street, Coopers- The Articles of Incorporation (fil- burg, PA 18036. ing date) October 28, 2016. Attorney: Kristofer M. Metzger, The purpose or purposes for Esquire, 6666 Passer Rd., Suite which it was organized are as follows: #3, Coopersburg, PA 18036. To help Christian emerging/master artists, creatives and leaders involved in Arts and Entertainment by provid- dec’d. Wood, Claire E., ing Christ-centered ministry, healthy Late of Upper Macungie Town- community, skill-enhancing educa- ship. tion and equipping resources. Executrix: Gail E. Hertzog c/o M-24 Amanda Racines Lovett, Es- quire, Gardner, Racines & CHANGE OF NAME NOTICE Sheetz, 3968 Maulfair Place, Allentown, PA 18103. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on February 14, 2017, the Petition of Attorneys: Amanda Racines Karl Josef Eisenhart, Tammy Joy Lovett, Esquire, Gardner, Ra- Eisenhart, and MacKenzie Anna Lang cines & Sheetz, 3968 Maulfair was filed in Lehigh County Court of Place, Allentown, PA 18103. Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court Divi- 33 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL sion at No. A2017-0005, seeking to CHANGE OF NAME NOTICE change the name of Petitioner Mac- Kenzie Anna Lang from MacKenzie In the Court of Common Pleas of Anna Lang to MacKenzie Anna Eisen- Lehigh County hart. Civil Action—Law The Court has fixed April 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. (Call-of-the-List), NO. 2016-C-3705 in Courtroom No. 5C at the Lehigh NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that County Courthouse as the date for on March 17, 2017, the Petition of hearing of said Petition. All persons Ramon Antonio DelaRosa for a interested in the proposed change of Change of Name has been filed in the name may appear and show cause, above named Court, praying for a if any they have, why the prayer of Decree to change the name of Peti- the Petitioners should not be granted. tioner from Ramon Antonio DelaRosa M-24 to Jose Antonio Adames. CHANGE OF NAME NOTICE The Court has fixed April 28, 2017 at 9:30 A.M. in Courtroom No. 1A, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Lehigh County Courthouse, Allen- on February 14, 2017, the Petition of town, Pennsylvania, as the date and Karl Josef Eisenhart, Tammy Joy place for the hearing of said Petition. Eisenhart, and Gage Vincent Lang All persons interested in the proposed was filed in Lehigh County Court of change of name may appear and Common Pleas, Orphans’ Court Divi- show cause, if any they have, why the sion at No. A2017-0006, seeking to prayer of said Petitioner should not change the name of Petitioner Gage be granted. M-24 Vincent Lang from Gage Vincent Lang to Gage Vincent Eisenhart. NOTICE The Court has fixed April 13, 2017, at 9:30 a.m. (Call-of-the-List), Proceedings have commenced in in Courtroom No. 5C at the Lehigh Lehigh County Court of Common County Courthouse as the date for Pleas regarding a 2012 Ford Fiesta, hearing of said Petition. All persons VIN 3FADP4BJ6CM194213. This interested in the proposed change of vehicle is located at 555 Spring St. in name may appear and show cause, Bethlehem. Any with an interest in if any they have, why the prayer of this case should report to courtroom the Petitioners should not be granted. 1-A on May 8, 2017 at 9:30 a.m. M-24 M-24

34 LEHIGH LAW JOURNAL

35 D E L I TO: V E R

PERIODICAL PUBLICATION * Dated Material. Do Not Delay. Please Deliver Before Monday, March 27, 2017