OPINION OF THE COURT
In June of 1969, appellee, Frank Carducci, was appointed by the mayor of the City of Williamsport to a five year term on the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Williamsport. In June of 1974, upon the expiration of Carducci's term, the mayor appointed appellant, Earl Herriman, to succeed Carducci as a member of the Authority. This appointment was also for a five year term. Appellant then filed an action in quo warranto requesting that he be declared the rightful holder of the office of member of the Redevelopment Authority. Following the close of pleadings, appellant and appellee both moved for judgment on the pleadings. The trial court granted the appellee's motion. Appellant then appealed to the Commonwealth Court. That court transferred the case to this Court. See the Act of July 31, 1970, P.L. 673, 17 P.S. § 211.202(2) (Supp. 1977-78). For the reasons that follow we reverse and remand with instructions that judgment be entered for the appellant, who legally holds the office of member of the Redevelopment Authority.
The only issue presented is whether the appointment of the appellant as a member of the Redevelopment Authority can legally be made by the Mayor alone, or whether the appointment requires the consent of the City Council of Williamsport.
It is undisputed that state law does not require the consent of city council but provides for appointment by the Mayor alone. Section 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Law, 35 P.S. § 1705 (1977), reads as follows:
Appellee, although conceding that § 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Law does not require that the mayor's appointees be approved by city council, contends that the statute was legally superseded by an ordinance adopted by the Williamsport City Council one month prior to the appellant's appointment. That ordinance, § 175.01 of Ordinance 4640, provides:
In effect, appellee claims that this local ordinance allows city council to vest itself with a power specifically withheld by the General Assembly in the Urban Redevelopment Law. We cannot agree with that position.
Appellee argues that the Optional Third Class City Charter Law applicable to Williamsport contains a grant of power authorizing the City Council of Williamsport to nullify § 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Law. Section 301 of the Charter Law refers to "the grant of powers and the limitations, restrictions and regulations hereinafter prescribed. . . ." 53 P.S. § 41301 (Supp. 1977-78). The hereinafter grant of power to the City of Williamsport is contained in § 303 of the Charter Law. The relevant portion of that section provides:
One "limitation" referred to in § 303 appears in § 305 of the Charter Law and states in pertinent part:
We cannot agree with appellee that city council's power to nullify § 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Law flows from the Charter Law. Section 303 only grants to the city of Williamsport the power to "organize and regulate its internal affairs." Although the phrase internal affairs is quite general, we have no doubt that the appointment of a member to the Redevelopment Authority does not concern "the internal affairs" of the city of Williamsport. The Urban Redevelopment Law § 4, explicitly states that an authority, once created, "shall in no way be deemed to be an instrumentality of such city," and is in no way "engaged in the performance of a municipal function." 35 P.S. § 1704. An authority under the Urban Redevelopment Law is an agent of the Commonwealth and not of the local government body. Id. § 1709. As can be seen, the legislature in no uncertain terms has made it clear that a redevelopment authority is a completely separate entity from the city. The fact that the mayor of the city is authorized to make the appointment of its members does not make an appointment a matter concerning the internal affairs of the city.
We are mindful of § 304 of the Charter Law which provides that the grant of power in § 303 is to be liberally construed in favor of granting power to the city. That section, however, does not mean that a power not contained in § 303 should be included therein.
Even if we were to assume that the appointment of a member of the Redevelopment Authority comes under the category of "internal affairs," we would still have to hold that the local ordinance did not supersede § 5 of the Urban Redevelopment Law. This is because § 305 of the Charter Law contains limitations on the grant of power contained in § 303. The effect of § 305, previously quoted, is that no city shall exercise powers contrary to acts of the General Assembly if such acts are "applicable to all the cities of the
Appellee relies on Greenberg v. Bradford, 432 Pa. 611, 248 A.2d 51 (1968), and Lennox v. Clark, 372 Pa. 355, 93 A.2d 834 (1953). Neither case, however, is controlling in the matter before us. Greenberg, which arose under the same Charter Law applicable in this case, held that § 303 of the Charter Law granted to a third class city the power to regulate its own employees. Here we are not concerned with an employee of the city. Greenberg also held that the § 305 limitation on the grant of power in § 303 was not applicable because the state statute superseded was only applicable to third class cities and not to all cities. In this case the state statute is applicable to all cities and therefore falls under the limitation contained in § 305.
Lennox was concerned with a different enabling act, the First Class City Home Rule Act, an Act similar to the Charter Law so far as the issue before us is concerned. Like Greenberg, Lennox was concerned with a city's grant of power over its own officers and employees. Lennox also held that § 18 of the Philadelphia Home Rule Act, a provision similar to § 305 of the Charter Law, did not preclude the City of Philadelphia from regulating its own officers and employees. Therefore, neither Greenberg nor Lennox controls in this case, which involves a member of the redevelopment authority who is not an officer or employee of the city of Williamsport.
We also note that § 607 of the Charter Law, applicable to this case, specifically states: "Council shall determine its own rules of procedure not inconsistent with ordinance or statute . . . ." 53 P.S. § 41607 (Supp. 1977-78). In this case, the ordinance purports to establish a rule of procedure which is in direct violation of § 607.
The order of the Court of Common Pleas is reversed and the matter is remanded with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of the appellant.
JONES, former C.J., did not participate in the consideration or decision of this case.