No action was taken on a request by an attorney representing a Bowmanstown official to postpone his client having to pay a tapping fee for her bed-and-breakfast.

Attorney Armin Feldman attended the council meeting this week on behalf of Councilwoman Kara Scott, who owns Gypsies Suite Retreat, 422 Ore St.

Scott previously filed a complaint against the Bowmanstown Borough Authority over an invoice for a tapping fee.

Feldman said he filed a lawsuit regarding the authority fee, and is willing to file a civil lawsuit with the borough.

“I don’t think the authority is correct in their decision,” Feldman said.

Borough solicitor Lisa Pereira said council was not prepared to answer Feldman’s questions this week.

Feldman asked if they could temporarily hold the $3,333 tapping fee.

Council did not take any action on Feldman’s request.

The borough’s solicitor will meet with the sewer committee to go over the ordinance that covers the tapping fee, and will contact Feldman.

In January, Scott filed a complaint in the Court of Common Pleas of Carbon County against the authority for what she believes to be improper fines that have been levied against her bed-and-breakfast; specifically a $3,000 fee plus a monthly Equivalent Dwelling Unit.

Scott owns the house, which before 1999, had rooms on the first floor of the house, which included a bathroom and a kitchen and could serve as an apartment. After 1999 and to present, the unit has not had a kitchen, and the house has been treated as a one-dwelling unit.

In 2021, Scott decided to have a bed-and-breakfast at the house, and applied for a special exception and a variance.

A public hearing was held before the zoning hearing board on Aug. 23. The board said the house was still considered a one dwelling unit with the additional use of the house as a bed-and-breakfast, and there was no cooking facility in the unit.

The zoning hearing board granted Scott a special exception and variance.

By letter dated Oct. 20, the authority’s solicitor informed Scott that the authority determined that the house was going to be treated as two equivalent dwelling units based on the authority’s interpretation of a resolution.

A section of the resolution outlines how the authority is supposed to determine the number of equivalent dwelling units, which exist on a property.

According to the resolution, each EDU necessitates a $3,000 tapping fee, and EDUs are determined by actual metered flow that’s used to determine tapping fees for a nonresidential improved property.

Scott was billed for a second tapping fee, and the authority’s solicitor made it clear he was going to pursue legal proceedings against Scott if she did not pay that fee.

Scott paid the added tapping fee of $3,000, under protest, and has also been required to pay an additional $58 per month due to the second EDU.

Scott’s argument is that the authority and its solicitor have acted in bad faith for the sole purpose of harassing and injuring Scott, who is seeking a civil penalty, attorney’s fees and costs.

Scott is asking for the court to declare that in accordance with the resolution, the authority was not permitted to treat the house as two EDUs; that the house is to be treated as one EDU; that the authority return to Scott $3,000; and the authority return all additional charges paid by Scott due to the added EDU.