June 17, 2026 · LOCAL GOVERNMENT · 10,242 words · 12 speakers · 109 segments
. Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call this meeting of the House Local Government Committee to order. Before we go to the roll call, we do have a new member who is joining us, who's been assigned to the committee, and I'll ask Chairman Miller to please introduce him.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, everyone. I'm pleased to be able to introduce our new member, George Margitis, who hails from your county, the 196th District. Many of you would remember Seth Grove, and he is a very capable replacement, and he has done the smart thing. His very first decision here in the General Assembly is joining the absolute best committee, the local government committee. So we welcome you and are glad for you being here and look forward to your contributions.
Yes, George, welcome to the committee. I think you'll find it's a very good committee, as the chairman alluded. We try to work in a very bipartisan manner if we can, and we try and look more at policy than we do at partisan politics. So I think you'll find it's probably one of the better committees to be on. And as the chairman said, I have to agree, it's probably the best committee. But thank you for joining us. I do also want to take this opportunity to introduce someone who's been assigned to my office who is an intern with the Legislative Fellowship Program. If you'd rise, Alex. Alex Dash is attending the University of Pennsylvania, and he's in his junior year. He is a double major in history and political science, which is what mine was as an undergrad. And he is the politics editor for the school's newspaper, The Daily Pennsylvanian, a native of Warwick Township in Bucks County. Last summer he completed an internship in Representative Brian Monroe's district office as well. So you're getting a good resume over the course of time. Thanks for being an intern with us, and we look forward to working with you. Okay, before we get to the roll call, I'd like to call upon Chairman Miller to lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Would everyone please rise? Thank you Chairman Miller Okay, let us proceed to the roll call. Christina, if you will, thank you. Chairman Freeman. Here.
Representatives Borowski. Designation. Donahue. Here. Fleming. Here. Haddock. Designation. Hambridge. Designation. Kazeem. Designation. Madsen. Designation. Monroe. Designation. Probst. Designation. Procopiat. Here. Salisbury. Designation. Sappy. Smith-Wadell. Designation. Chairman Miller. Here.
Representatives Banta. Here. Cooper. By designation. Fink. Jones. By designation. Kozak Kuzma Margetus Reichard Brinkabbage Weakneck Wendling
Let the record show that Representative Salisbury has joined us. Oh, I'm sorry. Representative Probs. Didn't see you sit down. I apologize. One of my favorite members. Oh, and Representative Jim Haddock, too. okay well quorum being present we can proceed with our agenda for today we do have a number of bills to call up and we do have a change of order due to representative freel's schedule we are going to take his bill first house bill 2496 and then following that representative mahaffi's 911 i will call the bill up for consideration and i would like to turn to mr costelli to give us an overview of the bill before we ask for comments from representative Friel.
House Bill 2496 introduced by Representative Friel would amend the municipality's planning code to allow a municipality through the adoption of a resolution to enact a 180-day pause on the submission of applications for data center developments. During the pause, the municipality may adopt, amend, or repeal parts of its zoning ordinance relating to data centers. and the pause would be retroactive to when the municipality gave public notice of the meeting as required under the Sunshine Act.
Representative Friel, welcome. Would you like to make some comment on your proposal?
Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Chairman Miller, and members of the committee, and thank you for accommodating my schedule. I much appreciate that. I think as everyone here knows, across Pennsylvania, municipalities are facing a dramatic increase in proposals for large-scale data centers. We are told that these facilities can bring economic opportunities and investment. However, they also present unique challenges related to land use, energy consumption, water resources, infrastructure, emergency services, and the community character. The reality is that many local governments are being asked to evaluate these proposals before they've had sufficient time to understand their impacts or develop zoning ordinance tailored to this rapidly evolving industry. House Bill 2496 provides a practical and I think balanced solution. The legislation gives municipalities an option, not a mandate, to establish temporary 180-day hold on data center applications while they review local conditions engage residents and develop appropriate zoning strategies to meet this emerging industry This bill does not prohibit data center development nor does it encourage it It does not increase red tape. Instead, it empowers our communities, our local governments, to make informed decisions that ensures that growth occurs responsibly and in a manner that reflects the needs of each of our communities. Pennsylvania should welcome innovation and investment, but we should also ensure that our municipalities have the tools and time necessary to protect public safety, infrastructure, and quality of life. House Bill 2496, I believe, strikes that balance by respecting local control and promoting thoughtful planning rather than reactive decision-making. And I respectfully ask for your support, and I appreciate you bringing this forward.
Thank you very much for that overview and for your proposal before us here today. Before we get into the bill in chief, I think we should move to our amendments first, and we'll have a discussion and debate on those, obviously. The first amendment to be brought up is Amendment A03718. It's an omnibus amendment dealing with some changes to address concerns that stakeholders had. I'm the prime sponsor, and I'd like to turn to Mr. Castelli to give us an overview of the amendment.
Okay, Amendment A-03718, offered by Chairman Freeman. The amendment would make the following changes. It would clarify that the pause authorized by the bill would be on the consideration of data center applications rather than the submission of applications. Replaces mentions of zoning ordinance with land use ordinance to broaden the scope of the bill to include subdivision and land development. Adds clarifying language to provide that during the pause, no statutory time limits provided in the MPC shall be triggered or accrued. Changes the retroactivity of the pause from the publication of the meeting notice to the publication of the meeting agenda under the Sunshine Act's 24-hour notice rule. prohibits a municipality from considering a data center application that was not on the meeting agenda under the majority vote exception to the Sunshine Act's 24-hour notice rule, clarifies that an application submitted to a municipality during the pause shall be deemed received the day after the pause ends, and finally changes the definition of data center to tailor the bill toward hyperscale data center developments. And I would note that this definition was used by this committee when it considered House Bill 1764, which pertained to developments of regional significance and impact.
Thank you for that analysis and rundown. Are there any questions or comments regarding the amendment? Chairman Miller?
Thank you, and thank you for bringing this bill up. I have a question about the amendment, particularly lines 10 of the amendment, whereas the bill undertakes to pause the consideration of an amendment as opposed to the submission of an amendment. My question has to do constitutionally. I'm very much in favor of this bill, but I definitely want it to comport with the Constitution. So my question is this. Under, I think it's Article 16 of the Pennsylvania Constitution, whereas individuals have vested rights, otherwise known as the remedies clause once rights are vested can the general assembly then step in and take those rights away in other words if someone has already submitted an application for a land development process can the general assembly after the fact come in and say we changing the time frame of consideration of your plan It's a constitutional question, and that's why I'm asking how that does apply here, because I'm in favor of this, but I don't want it to run in foul of the Constitution. and so that's my question. I appreciate your sensitivity to whether
there are any constitutional concerns. I guess my reaction is that it doesn't really take away those rights because it's a pause. Any application that is put forward cannot be brought up during that pause but the legislation, and John correct me if I'm wrong here, does have it in the pipeline to be brought up as soon as the pause ends. So the right to be able to submit is not really taken away. The right for consideration is not really taken away. What it does do, and I commend Representative Freel in this, is give that pause to be a breathing space to make sure the municipality in question has the proper ordinances, the land use ordinances in place, to be able to wisely deal with a proposal for a data center. In the absence of that, you can have a situation where the data center can pretty much offer whatever they want, whether it's good policy or bad policy. And under the way that zoning is handled in the Commonwealth, if you zone, you have to zone for every conceivable use. So to not be able to have any reference to data centers, where they go, how they're regulated, would pretty much put the municipality at risk of having the data center proposal dictate the terms. Again, keep in mind that under the amendment, but also under the bill in chief, if a proposal comes in during the period of pause, that gets to be brought up for consideration once that pause ends. But it will have to be in compliance with the regulations that occur in the land use ordinances as a result of the revisions in the pause. Does that answer part of your concerns?
Yes. my question has to do with this and i'm making up time frames let's say someone has already submitted an application in march of 2026 and this passes and it now that application is paused they've already they submitted under zoning ordinance that exists in march and now it's paused for consideration, the municipality passes a new ordinance, does the applicant have vested rights in the existing zoning ordinance in March? Or are they subject to the new zoning ordinance that gets modified, let's say, in July or August. Are there constitutional vested rights in that application?
Well, first and foremost, because they have submitted, once the pause ends, that then gets taken up for consideration. To the question of whether the new ordinance would have some ability to maybe alter that, I believe that's the whole point of the bill. You want to make sure that the ordinance is properly drafted to address the issue of the data center. That doesn't negate the ability of the applicant to amend their application or resubmit as well. So I don't think they're being deprived of any due process in terms of the process. But it would make sure that the municipality can be in a position of making sure that they have a proper ordinance at hand to regulate. Representative Probst, you had a question.
I don't think it's any different, Chair Miller, like if you, only because we're from the same hometown. Like in Stroudsburg, it's a historic district, so you can't put a shingle on your roof until you get it approved by the Historical Architectural Review Board. and they meet once a month and sometimes there's not a quorum and believe me people get really frustrated because sometimes you know they need that roof and it takes four to five months before everything is even approved because once it gets approved by harb then it has to go in front of council i don't think this is really any different it's it's an application and it doesn't mean that it's going to be approved anyway um there can be changes and the only reason that i really like this bills because so many small municipalities that don't have the manpower, we're not cities, you know, and they need to really look at the model ordinances that were put out, decide what they have to do. And there are really good actors and there are real bad actors when it comes to data centers. And the real bad actors are the ones that are going into these little municipalities and just steamrolling over them and their communities. And I think that those communities deserve a little bit of a pause to figure out what they can and can't do. But I don't think it's a constitutional issue at all. It's no different than going in front of zoning or going in front of the HARB. So it's a good point, but I don't think it's a constitutional issue.
Points well taken. Representative Haddock, did you have a point? Question.
Now I'm confused. To Chair Miller's question, if So if somebody submits a, because I'm not going to submit one, so if somebody submits a data center application on March 1st, and then the borough said, or the municipality said, fine, we're going to hold a pause. I'm under the impression that if it's in on March 1st, the application, and the borough takes action, municipality takes action on the 2nd, that original application should proceed. And that's the clarification I'm looking for.
If the applicant beats the pause, I'm under the impression that that application must go through constitutionally. They get the opportunity to be considered once the pause is lifted, and they are first in line to be considered in that regard. But the whole intent of the legislation is to prevent applications being submitted in an unprepared municipality. If you don't have that provision to say, you know, we're putting this on hold, then you can have all the damage that comes from not having a well-considered ordinance. But they're not deprived of their ability to submit an application. And again, once having submitted it before the pause, that would be considered after the pause is lifted. The question is whether they need to amend it in light of the changes to the ordinance. Does that answer your question? We can ask.
It does. It clarifies, I had a misconception that I thought if they applied on March the 1st and something was unchanged by the government on March the 2nd, unfortunately that application I was under the impression would proceed And if I hearing right you saying no They apply on March 1st and the borough or the municipality takes action on March 2nd to oppose a pause, then that application is not grandfathered, you're saying, if I hear you right, Chair.
I'll defer to Mr. Costelli to give you maybe a more thorough.
We were just talking with the legal counsel. If it were submitted the day before the pause was effective, the municipality would consider it under the existing zoning and land use ordinances. But if it's covered by the pause, and remember, this is retroactive to the 24-hour agenda notification of the meeting, like 24 hours before the meeting where the pause is being considered. If it's submitted during that period, it's paused and it's deemed received the day after the pause ends and it's considered under the new statutes. All right.
So to clarify that.
Sure. Better yet, one week before, instead of the 24-hour window, So if somebody puts an application in one week before the pause, does that original application continue?
I believe it would, but I'll defer to Representative Field. I can speak to intent. That way maybe it'll add some clarity too. One of the things I hope to solve for the retroactive to the 24-hour notice period of Sunshine Act is typically the Sunshine Act, you put out your agenda, and there's a 30-day window before you have your meeting and take action. And under current, like a curative amendment, for example, is you have 30 days or 60 days for your meeting, then land development applications come in to try to kind of beat the intent of this. So we want to not trigger the starter gun and say, hey, we're going to go do something, make a change, get all your applications in, right? so the intent of the legislation is that once we announce we're going to take this action on this agenda, that's when we freeze it. That wasn't really my intent or my thought in writing the legislation. It wasn't, oh, the stuff that happened a week ago and they already submitted to try to capture that. It's really just, okay, municipalities want to take action. We're going to take action. Freeze from that point on. That's the intent of the – and hopefully we captured that part of the language if that adds clarity. At the time it's posted on the agenda for consideration. Correct, at the time it's posted, so there's not a sort of window to try to rush something in. Which has happened to some communities. It really has.
Any further questions or debate? Okay, Representative Riker. I'm sorry. And Representative Fink, did you want to follow him? No. Okay.
Representative Riker. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I think to Representative Haddock's point, I guess the concern is that – and I agree with the purpose of the bill, and I'm fully supportive of the 180-day pause. I guess the question is that government doesn't operate at the speed of light, right? So the fact is that this legislation hopefully will be passed and signed into law. when that occurs a municipal municipality may not have a meeting to vote to enact a pause 180 day moratorium for perhaps a week or two weeks but in the meantime applications for data centers could be submitted to that municipality and I guess the question is the municipality has not had an opportunity yet to enact the moratorium would an application that was submitted prior to that be considered under the current or the non-existent regulations or would they then be considered under after after regulations or zoning changes that were adopted after the hundred and eighty or after the 180 day pause. I guess that's the question is, which would they be subject to if they beat the pause
or not? Just to answer your question, so in your scenario, your hypothetical, if they sunshine it and they say, hey, we're going to have this meeting in 30 days, but they've sunshined the agenda that says we're going to consider this, then if you submit the application after that's been sunshine that we're going to consider this pause, then it would be under the do. That's the intent, to close that loophole. Now, if they submitted it before we pass this bill and they submitted an application and there's no notice that we're going to consider this, then I would imagine that would be considered under the existing zoning statutory regulations. So you would be considered that way. That was how I understood to write the bill. Whether I got it right or not, I'll leave that to the committee. That'll be
up to, you know. That's how I read it, too. By putting it on the agenda, that begins the pause prior to actual voting on it, but it begins the clock. So if it's before, it's on the agenda, you're governed pre-pause. But if it's on the agenda, the clock starts ticking from that point forward. Representative Probst.
I'm watching it happen as we speak. It's the curative amend. I'm trying to think. Yes, The Securative Amendment. That municipalities are changing their zoning. So where before it would be only 200 feet from a structure, with these data centers, they're making them now like 1,500 feet. So it's happening as we speak. So that's why their application when it comes in, just because it's in – I mean, that's like me saying, okay, I'm going to go to Stroudsburg and put in an application for a skyscraper. because one day if they're not ready for it, I'm doing it. And then 10 years from now, like, suddenly I'm grandfathered in. Like, no, there's ways to make them follow the new zoning. And that's how I've always known it. And that's how I've, you know, been a part of it. So even if that application is in, because they went everywhere and put applications in everywhere to catch people with their pants down. sorry about the reference, and they did, they absolutely will have to follow whatever the new zoning will be in that district. So I'm watching it happen in Smithfield Township right now.
Are there further questions by the members? Chairman Miller, and then we really need to move on because of time.
So I just want to be clear. I am very much in support of this bill. I just am raising these constitutional questions. And the question for me hinges on the issue of the word consideration of or submission of. So they very distinct points in time very distinct actions The MPC is very clear that when an applicant applies for some land development application submits a land development application the clock starts ticking and the specifications in the MPC are very clear. My question is this. Does this bill stop? I believe that, as I read the bill currently that the bill stops the consideration thereof, and that's a pause for 180 days, which I think is fine. And anyone that comes in the timeframes that were discussed here, I think is also constitutional. My question is this, though. Let's say someone put in an application in March, and then this bill passes. Municipalities are now authorized, and then they go ahead and put a pause, starts the clock for 180 days, this person who started pre-pause, when they go back into effect, if the municipality changed their zoning ordinance, are they subject to the old ordinance that was in effect in March, or the one that's in effect, let's say they pass it in August? That is the constitutional question. And I would just add this. We talk about costs for municipalities. I do believe municipalities would be very wise to be working on this right now. But the other thing is applicants have lawyers, and they will sue. And I would be concerned about a huge lawsuit against municipalities if developers write – you understand what I'm saying. I just don't want to see that crushing burden come on in municipalities just the same. That's why this question is important.
I appreciate that. I think it might be helpful if we call members from the local government commission staff to maybe clarify some aspects. In particular, they were very helpful in the draft of this omnibus amendment, and we altered from using the term application to consideration. Chris, do you feel comfortable just referencing the logic behind that?
Chris, Gazi, legal counsel for the local government commission. I don't have a packet. Can I? Yeah, I understood the priority of switching from submission to consideration on the basis of it's very difficult to stop someone from handing you an application and saying, here it is. And that's the purpose of it. I do think that it is entirely possible to add additional clarifying languages to the exact effect if there would be a desire to do so. I understood the goal here of being that it's about dealing with the rights of applications received during the pause, not pre-existing the pause. So that's my generalized understanding here of the amendment and the proposal as it was laid out, which I think was consistent with what Representative Friel was laying out.
Yeah, that was my understanding, too. And, you know, we will obviously consider potential amendments for clarification on the floor if we get to that point. But I think we're in a good position to move forward. Are there any other points before we take up the amendment and then move on to the other amendment? if not did you want a roll call vote or did you want a voice vote okay we'll do a roll call vote Chairman Freeman
Representative Borowski Designation yes. Donahue. Fleming. Haddock. Ambage. Designation yes. Kazeem. Designation yes. Madsen. Designation yes. Monroe. Designation yes. Probst. Prokopiak. Salisbury. Sappy. Smith-Wadell. Designation yes.
Chairman Miller. Yes.
Representatives Banta. Yes. Cooper. Yes. Bink. Jones By designation yes Kozak By designation yes Kuzma By designation yes Margatus Reichard Rincavage By designation yes Weakneck Winling
26-0 Okay, the amendment is inserted by unanimous vote of 26-0. That brings us to our next amendment to bring up for consideration, and that would be Amendment 03674, sponsored by me, Chairman Freeman, changing the effective date of the proposed legislation. And with that, we will have John give a brief overview, although I think I just did that.
Amendment A03674, offered by Chairman Freeman, would change the effective date of the legislation from 60 days to immediately. and i should note that this was actually recommended by holly fisher from the psats organization concerned that if you wait 60 days in which to have to to take up consideration of adopting this locally you're adding another window of opportunity for data center to come in without the proper regulation so there's nothing mandating they have to take it up but if we say immediately as opposed to 60 days, municipalities would have the option.
Are there any questions or concerns?
Chairman Miller. Just to say that we will be in support of the expeditious application.
Are we good with a voice vote? Okay. All those in favor, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. That brings us to Chairman Miller's amendment A-03697, which he brings up for consideration. Chairman Miller, did you want to defer to Kyle?
Amendment A-03697 amends the bill to include a city of the first class in the definition of a municipality for this section of the MPC. Chairman Miller.
Thank you. Yeah, this bill, as I understood, it only applied to everyone but our first class city. I thought it should apply to all the state. And the good chairman here referenced the fact that I omitted, unfortunately, the second-class city here. But I still think that this bill would be good for the entire state, not just first-class counties or, as described, second-class townships and so forth.
Thank you for that explanation. If we could have Chris come back to the microphone just to give us an overview of – sorry. Sorry. We're making you earn your pay today. I know there was some thought given to the impact of this in terms of the municipality plain codes jurisdiction, how this would fit in with the current standards and statutes. So if you could address that, that would be great.
Yeah so we do have examples where very often Philly or Pittsburgh are brought into a statute that doesn otherwise apply to them And the individual nature of Philly is always a little bit strange because its Home Rule Act is different than in general. So when you look at the Home Rule statute that applies to everybody but Philadelphia pretty much, it excludes land use planning under the MPC because the MPC applies regardless. Philadelphia's land use is under the provisions of the Philadelphia Code. So Philadelphia has the ability to enact something along this line if they wanted to. That said, there is, I mean, the General Assembly can still tell Philadelphia what to do. Don't tell them I said that. but you can have a directed statutory rule so if you include Philadelphia in this it does apply to them the question is to what extent and to how much do they need to rely on it one thing that would change if city of the second class were added to the definition and therefore it would apply in every part of the commonwealth is then it would actually specifically supersede the language of the Philadelphia Home Rule Law, because whenever there is a statutory rule that applies in every part of the Commonwealth, for example, the murder statute, murder is murder everywhere, it would apply in every part of the Commonwealth. So if, say, Philadelphia adopted a statutory pause or moratorium or something along those lines,
and they picked 185 days, but then this applied in every part of the Commonwealth, while the pause limit would be 180 days because this would supersede it. This would essentially give Philadelphia an additional power to look at, but because the uniform applicability rule isn't there with the exclusion of Pittsburgh, I would suspect that they wouldn't be bound to its limits, if that makes sense. So I'm not totally sure exactly how broad its application would go, but it doesn't seem to me that it would either frustrate the existing powers of Philadelphia and it would apply to whatever extent it would be helpful, I believe.
So just to clarify, Philadelphia would have the ability to do this now on their own?
I don't know of a reason why they wouldn't. I'm not a specialist in Philadelphia law. It is an interesting universe.
Sure.
But I don't see a reason why Philadelphia couldn't use their existing land use regulation power to adopt a similar thing, because they do have plenary authority to do so. Or even to expand the time period that they chose.
Right.
But if this becomes part of a statewide statute, then you're bound by the limitations of the statewide statute. Only if it was expanded to include every part of the Commonwealth. So right now, not including Pittsburgh, they wouldn't be limited by it, is my understanding, because that statewide applicability rule wouldn't attach, but they would at least be able to point at it and say, well, we have a home rule power, and on top of that, the General Assembly has said that this option for a pause exists here, too. And keep in mind the option for a pause is just that, an option.
Correct.
It's not a mandate. The municipality determines whether they wish to invoke it.
Right. Representative Friel is the prime sponsor. Do you have thoughts on the amendment? Are you supported? Do you think we should hold off until we have more time on the floor to deal with it? Or what are your thoughts?
No, I appreciate the amendment. I think I didn't know that about Philly. And does this mean that now all the data centers go to Pittsburgh? Because, you know, I'm East Coaster, so that's fine with me. In all seriousness yeah I would support doing it statewide as long as it doesn have a negative effect on somebody else So I think yeah I appreciate the amendment Honestly, I would have done it had I thought of it, but I didn't think of it. So thank you, Chairman Miller.
So you would prefer that we insert it, if possible?
I would be happy to have it inserted. Yes, sir.
Okay. Any other debates or concerns need to be raised? Okay. It is before us. We could take a roll call or we could do a voice vote. Is there a preference? Voice vote? Okay. All those in favor of the amendment being added to the bill, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Those opposed? Motion carries. It will be added to the bill. This brings us to the bill in chief, and we are running a little low on time, so I need to move this along for us. But is there any other comments or issues regarding the bill that you'd like? If we can keep them brief, I'd appreciate it. Representative Fink and then followed by Representative Weicker. I just want to thank the sponsor for bringing this forward.
Congratulations. I think you've hit on a topic that we can all agree on here in the local government committee. Hopefully we can convince our colleagues on the floor to jump on board with this. But this pause, I think, is really necessary for our municipalities to just get all their ducks in a row. We have a lot of municipalities that are making the ordinances right now. But as we see different ones creating their ordinance, we're seeing the ones who already have written theirs saying, oh, I didn't think about that. So the changes are necessary. So I just want to thank you for stepping up and introducing this bill. I think it's an excellent bill, and it's going to give more power back to our local government who needs to make sure that everything is in line before moving forward. So thank you.
Thank you for your comments, and I'm in total agreement. So Representative Reichert.
Likewise. Thank you. I really appreciate you bringing this up. I mean, this is absolutely critical. I think local governments are best suited to regulate and manage their own land use, and I think this gives them the tools and the opportunity to kind of pump the brakes, think a little bit more thoughtfully about what this would look like in their own municipalities and ensure that data centers in those municipalities are reflective of what the community needs and how they can best work together. So this is absolutely critical legislation, and, you know, when you think about an ordinance takes 45 days just for advertising alone, I mean, this six-month period is going to go by in a blink. So, you know, I think the previous comments that, you know, municipalities certainly need to be thinking about updating their zoning and land use today, this will just give them another tool in the toolbox. So, again, thank you, sir.
Thank you, Chairman, for bringing this up. very, very critical legislation to enable our municipalities to properly regulate these data centers. Thank you for your comments. If there's no further debate, we'll take the vote. All those in favor of reporting the bill as amended, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any negative votes? It will be reported unanimously. Thank you, Representative Freel. We really do, yeah. That brings us to the next item on our agenda. Representative Mahaffey's House Bill 9-11. If you'd come up, I will call the bill up for consideration and I guess defer to Kyle Schaefer to give an overview of the bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 9-11 by Representative Mahaffey amends Title 53 to establish rules for extending benefits to families of police officers killed in the line of duty. If a police officer dies in the line of duty, the surviving spouse shall be entitled to full health benefits for the remainder of his or her life. Further this legislation provides full health benefits for life for a disabled officer and their spouse in which the officer was disabled in the line of duty The provisions of this bill apply retroactively to surviving spouses that were widowed before the passage of this bill Any dependent of the officer shall be entitled to full health benefits until they reach the age of 26, provided they are not eligible for another employer-sponsored health plan. Lastly, the bill requires a municipality to assist a surviving spouse with navigating all claims and payments related to these benefits. The bill takes effect in 60 days. The Burroughs Association, the Pennsylvania Municipal League, and PSATs oppose the legislation.
Thank you for that overview. Representative Mahaffey, would you care to make some comments on it before we proceed with the amendment?
Sure. Thank you, Chairman Freeman, Chairman Miller, and members of the committee. This is a really important piece of legislation, and House Bill 11, as was discussed earlier, would ensure the dependence of a fallen police officer or that they would continue to receive their health benefits. It would provide insurance to a surviving spouse for his or her lifetime and the children to be covered to age 26. You know, sadly, this came to me because this happened to a constituent in my district. I was a member of the Lower Swaterra Township. Never would have thought of this. Never would have even thought that we wouldn't provide these kind of benefits as a township to a fallen police officer's family. But unfortunately, you don't want to ever think about losing a police officer, so it really doesn't come up. But when it does and you see what has happened, and especially with what happened in York with the three police officers that were unfortunately lost their life in the line of duty, this becomes real. And we want to sit and we want to give them condolence resolutions and we want to thank their families for their service and all the things that go on. and then all of a sudden the families are left with no health insurance, which to me is something that we should not be doing, and we want to make sure that this happens. Look, the state police and other municipalities do provide, okay, in some of the CBA contracts, the collective bargaining agreements. But the one thing that scares me is collective bargaining agreements can change. They can be renegotiated, and this benefit can be taken out. I think by doing this piece of legislation, House Bill 9-11, we will be able to solidify and make sure that the spouses of loved ones that lost their life in the line of duty will be taken care of. This is traumatic to a family. Health insurance is extremely expensive, and this is something that they shouldn't have to deal with. Now, I've heard stories upon stories upon stories of what can and happens to these widows and widowers, and it can destroy their family after losing that loved one. So I think this is so important to do. I want to thank you again. I want to thank everybody that was part of this and helped make this come to reality today as far as working with us and coming up because this isn't an easy piece of legislation. This is something that took a lot of time and a lot of effort from a lot of people. So I just want to thank them. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Representative Mahaffey, and thank you for bringing forward this very good idea. We'll proceed with the amendments. So we will bring up first Amendment A03723, sponsored by me. It's an omnibus amendment which addresses a lot of stakeholder concerns that need cleaning up. And I'll call upon Mr. Costelli to give us a brief overview.
Amendment A03723, offered by Chairman Freeman. The amendment would make the following changes. It would clarify that a police officer who is disabled as a result of the performance of their duties shall receive health benefits under this legislation under the law. only if the disability renders them unable to perform any police duty for which the officer is reasonably suited by education, training, or experience. Provides for the termination of municipal-provided health benefits to a surviving spouse if the spouse remarries or receives equivalent health benefits from their employer. It would clarify that recipients of municipal-provided health benefits under this legislation shall utilize Medicare as their primary health benefit when they become eligible for it. and stipulates that such recipients be provided supplemental Medicare coverage through the carrier providing coverage at the time of the police officer's death. It would clarify the retroactivity provisions in subsection G under applicability. Further, it would define the term full health benefits as the same level of health insurance coverage from the same carrier that a surviving spouse of a law enforcement officer or dependent of a law enforcement officer received at the time of the law enforcement officer's death, And finally, it would provide additional definitions and make editorial changes.
Thank you for that overview. Are there any questions regarding the omnibus amendment? Chairman Miller? Thank you. I greatly appreciate this amendment. First of all, it does, in fact, I think, address a lot of the stakeholders' concerns. Secondly, I had a number of questions, too, that this also answered. The amendment does, however, conflict with one section of the bill, which we can describe later. But overall, we can maybe work on fixing something related to that later on. But overall, I think it's a good amendment. I urge you yes. Thank you, Chairman. Is there any other discussion or debate? Seeing none, we'll proceed on the vote on the amendment. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? The amendment is adopted unanimously. There is an amendment by Chairman Miller, but I think we may have actually covered many of the provisions. It's another indication of great minds think alike. Well, thank you. I'm going to withdraw the amendment because there is some overlap there, and I think in light of your amendment now, when I drafted my amendment, I didn't know all your language, but it covers some of it, but we can do it better. So we'll work on that after the fact. I thank the gentleman very much. Thank you. If there are clarifications, we can possibly amend them on the floor. With that being said, we are now going to take a vote on the bill in chief. Is there any discussion before we proceed? Yes, Representative. What? I'm sorry. Sorry, I apologize. Yeah, I apologize. This piece of legislation really hit home with me.
I actually lived this situation when I was sheriff in Berks County. I had a deputy sheriff who was killed in the line of duty, shot in a fugitive manhunt. It was June 30th. His wife was two months pregnant with their first child. According to the language of the health care that the county had, she would have lost her benefits July 1st. It was not in their collective bargaining agreement, so we went to the commissioners, and we had a very good group of commissioners who agreed to cover her health care until the birth of the child. Later on, we went back after the birth of the child, and they did agree to cover her for a period longer. But without this piece of legislation, they could have said no, and this piece of legislation would at least clarify that where she would have been covered. We not looking at a giant number as far as line of duty deaths which is fortunate This year we at two so far Last year we had a total of five four of which were from one incident in New York County 2024, there were two. 2023, there were five. 2020, 2021, there were 22, but 19 of those were COVID-related illnesses. That's why the number jumped. So, I mean, we're not dealing with a lot of those, and a lot of the larger police departments now have it as they're in their contract, so the municipalities would be, you know, covered by that as well. So, I'm supportive of this. I do think there are some questions that some of the members have as far as, you know, retroactive and stuff like that.
Thank you for your comments. I think this is a very good piece of legislation which addresses a real need. Are there any further comments? Representative Salisbury? Oh, I'm sorry, Representative Probst. Oh, Salisbury.
Could someone help me out with what is the statutory definition of Pennsylvania in the line of duty? Mr. Caselli,
do you care to answer that? Or maybe there isn't a statutory definition, there's a common law definition. Oh, yeah. In the legislation, it states that the following may make a line of duty death determination regarding a law enforcement officer in regard to the section. a police department, a regional police force, Department of General Services, and the Bureau of Justice Assistance at the federal level.
So it's a case-by-case determination? Yeah.
It's one of those things where it's pretty clear when you see it happen. But I think they would have the ability to define it more clearly. Right. I mean, you gave a very clear-cut example
of if someone is shot literally running after a suspect or something of that nature that's obviously very clearly in the line of duty. But I'm thinking, for example, in my area we had a recent situation where a police chief committed suicide during his shift in his vehicle, and I could see that being a question of did they die in the line of duty. I could see someone perhaps being exposed to chemicals and then years later developing cancer and saying, that injury was inflicted in the line of duty that led to the death, for example. So I'm kind of wondering if we can do something to clarify that, because leaving it up to a case-by-case decision does, I think, make it challenging and puts the burden on others to look into specific circumstances and based on their particular sentiments at the moment or how they felt about the individual or perhaps how they feel about his or her family, then that could result in very, very disparate results from municipality to municipality, even if you had similar circumstances. I believe in the example of suicide that has already been ruled as line of duty,
if it's related to a line of duty situation. Okay. But no, I'm more than happy to have us entertain amendments to this. if that's something you want to work on. We be happy to work with you if you feel it needs further elaboration Yeah I just know from local government things sometimes you do have to make that decision for certain circumstances
And I would like to see consistency of if someone has an officer pass away in York versus in Allegheny, they would have similar outcomes.
The only thing we'll have to be careful in crafting that if we proceed with that approach is you want to definitely have something that might list what would be line of duty more specifically, but not limit it to that, simply because things arise that might not be covered by the language.
Representative Probs. I think I wouldn't even question this until you gave the numbers when you said COVID, and I was like, did they all die on their shift of COVID-19? So I was very confused. So you're right. It's kind of like if you have a heart attack in your sleep, is that in the line of duty? I mean, now you opened Pandora's box, and thank you, because it's things that you don't even think about.
Representative Weedman? Yeah, from the Officer Down Memorial page, the line of duty deaths for COVID, because they met the federal standards of COVID restrictions or death benefits, so that's why that number was so high. right and i i believe there has to be a definition of that um i know the uh officers down memorial page does give information on that what the criteria is i don't know if they just did that as an organization or if they did that according to law yeah again i'm more than happy to entertain more specific language we feel is necessary but i think we want to make sure that we do allow for other considerations that might not be covered by the specific language simply because things are revised.
Representative Mahaffey, did you have any thoughts on that?
No. I'm always open to talk about whatever that needs to be to make the bill better. I understand there's always going to be, no matter what bill we do here in the General Assembly, we always have open-ended questions. It just is what happens. but in this situation I think line of duty calls for line of duty when they're whether they were unfortunately shot in the line of duty or serving in the line of duty or whatever that is the line of duty means they're working and and unfortunately you know officers work a lot right and their their job sometimes goes into when they go home unfortunately but I understand the case by case and I understand, but the one thing we don't want to do is narrow this down to a point that, you know, a family loses their health benefits. You know, if that officer was working, their family would be afforded those health benefits. You know, no one ever wants to think about someone passing away and dying in the line of duty, and then just like the young lady that lost her husband and was 10 weeks pregnant. I mean, there's a situation where the commissioners did for a period of time extend that. But if an officer finishes their term, they usually get health benefits for them and their family after retirement. So these are things that municipalities, and I being one who was an elected official, you know, we have challenges. But at the same time, we have to respect and understand what police officers do day in and day out. and their families, it's not just the officer, it's their families. And that spouse doesn't know if their loved one is coming back that day. And that goes on day in and day out here So number one I not a police officer and I chose not to be But those that did we need to make sure that we taking care of them and their families So I think it's of the utmost importance to get it right, and I'm all open for amendments. I'm open to talk to Chairman Miller. We were talking about it yesterday. And if we can make this better, I'm for that.
Thank you for that. Any other questions? Representative Fink.
so in your county the last two years we have lost four officers in the line of duty and we want to do everything that we can to support our police our law enforcement obviously i cannot describe the the pain that and suffering that these families are going through and not having that insurance on top of all of that is just it's incredible our prayers continue to go out for them. I will be a yes in committee. I think it's an important legislation. I'm not sure where I'll be on the floor. Hopefully we can fix some of those definitions that Rep Salisbury brought up and some of the other concerns. I think it's a very good intent. I want to be a yes, so hopefully we can get those issues. And with the payment, with coming from the township, we can get all that worked out. I would look forward to being a yes when we get those things sorted out. So thank you, Representative Mahaffey.
Thank you. And I do believe we can further – any further discussion is always good discussion.
So I'm always open to have that and to work through it. Now, we don't always agree. We can agree to disagree on different things. But at the same time, the intent of this is to make sure we're taking care of families, of fallen officers. So I want everybody to make sure that we understand that this – There is money issues in government, but this goes well beyond a money issue. This is making sure that people are taken care of, especially in time of need, as an officer's loss. I unfortunately never had that happen when I was a local official. But I did have a young man lose his life as far as working for the township, and it is awful. to go through with the family, the loved ones everything that goes along with it now he was not married and did not have a family but that doesn't matter, he still had a mom and a dad and the trauma that they go through you can't even imagine what goes through and where it's at and I didn't happen, that hasn't happened to my family but those that have we want to make sure they're taken care of and we appreciate your legislation
Chairman Miller has the last question and we have to move on to the rest of our agenda Okay, well, for time's sake, I want to first thank you for bringing the bill and reference as was started that the municipal associations opposed this bill. And I think from there it's not because of lack of heart. It's just some of the complications, particularly in the retroactivity.
I want to reference a memo from the Pennsylvania Municipal League, and Amy Sturgis is here, wrote this memo to all of us we would have seen. But here are some of the questions that we're going to have to grapple with in addition to some of the other ones. Does the retroactivity allow a spouse and dependents to collect payments from a municipality to repay them for health care costs incurred before this legislation was enacted? Second, are health insurance carriers legally able to insure non-employees, or to put it another way, will municipalities be able to apply for coverage for people not in their employ? Third, future changes to the health insurance carrier may change the coverage, as could changes to future collective bargaining agreements. Are municipalities required to keep the surviving spouses' coverage the same if the rest of the insurers are under a new policy and or a new carrier? Fourth, health care, spousal benefits, and disability benefits are collectively bargained items with the pension laws also coming into play. How does this legislation fit with Act 111, Act 600, the third-class city code, and other municipal codes? And fifth, the provision regarding health care benefits for the life of disabled officers is very broad. what does it stop an officer from receiving disability and health insurance benefits from working full-time in another field of work? So those are some of the questions that we can continue to grapple with and hopefully find some answers to and solutions and language to address these.
Yeah, it's clear we may have additional language being put forth. With that being said, I'd like to move to the vote unless there's something seriously that has to be asked. Okay. And I guess we'll take a voice vote. But all those in favor of reporting the bill as amended, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed?
It will be reported to the floor for consideration. Congratulations. Thank you very much. We can run very quickly through the remainder of our agenda. Our next bill to be brought up is House Bill 2629 by Representative Davidson. And I'll call upon Mr. Castelli to give us a brief overview of the bill. And then we'll hear from some comments from Representative Davidson.
House Bill 2629, sponsored by Representative Davidson, would amend the municipality's planning code to clarify the content of zoning enforcement notices. Specifically, the bill would require notices to explain that failure to comply with them constitutes a violation and that an additional penalty may accrue for each successive day the violation exists.
Thank you for that overview. Thank you Representative Davidson did you want to give us a brief background or overview of the legislation and your reason for introducing Yes thank you Chairman Freeman Chairman Miller for considering House Bill 2629 today
It's a simple change to our Pennsylvania Municipality's Planning Code, and it's about transparency and clear communication from our local governments to their constituents. I like to say that the best ideas that we have and debate in this building come from our constituents, and that's the case here. my neighbor Jeremy in Camp Hill Borough. And he brought to my attention that he received a local zoning violation notice in the mail. And, you know, after looking at the paperwork, he saw a $500 fine, and he, you know, figured he had some time to make the change on his property. But as it turns out, he wasn't aware that that fine would accrue daily going forward. And at the end of all of this, he had accrued thousands of dollars in fines that he was unaware of. He thought it was a one-time fine. And he had to hire a lawyer, eventually settled, paying $2,500 to the municipality, in addition to the lawyer cost for a lawyer. And they don't work for free, as I checked. And so that experience had me look under the hood and take a look at some of our statutes and see if there's something we could do to provide some clarity to our constituents. So this bill just simply requires that those municipalities, when they send out these notices, are clear and explicit with any additional fines or accruals, be it daily or monthly or whatever, when they send that communication to their constituent. So it's a pretty simple fix, and I hope the members will consider it and vote in the affirmative. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for offering the bill. It's a good clarification. Is there any questions? Are there any questions or any debate?
if Representative probes If it wasn clear why he still have to pay the lawyer could have argued that Well that was a settlement I mean the fine was larger than that It should have been $500 if it wasn't clear is my point. And I only say this because sometimes people do get notices and they don't read. They literally don't read. And I want to make sure that your neighbor really read it.
Oh, yeah. He went back and looked. And he checked after the fact when he realized that the fines had been accruing. You went back and looked on that paperwork, and there was no indication that there would be a daily accrual. So this will actually make sure that's not going to happen again in the future. That's correct.
Representative Reichert.
Real quick, thank you for this. This is my previous career as a zoning officer. Just something to mention, each violation itself is also, right? So you might have one thing that's $500, another thing that's just something to think about with maybe a possible amendment is including the fact that each separate violation also accrues as well. So you might have a $500 penalty for one thing, and then there might be something else that's wrong that's also a $500 penalty. Each of those grows at the same rate. So just something to keep in mind.
Yeah, I'd be welcome to a floor amendment. Let's talk with our committee staff and get together, and maybe that's something that will make the bill a little better.
Representative, very quickly, we're running out of time. I apologize, very quick.
So does this say that you can't charge more than a $500 fine or that their notice has to be clear that it's $500 a day?
Yeah, this doesn't deal with the amount of the fines or whether they accrue daily or not, whether it's a one-time fine or an accrual. It just is about clear communication to the constituent about potential for additional fines.
Okay, that being said, let's take this to a voice vote. All those in favor of the bill please signify by saying aye Aye Any negative votes No negative votes The bill will be reported as committed Thank you We have two bills that are very similar on the rest of our agenda Senator Kearney Senate Bill 972 and Senator Kiefer's Senate Bill 993. They both deal with granting the municipalities the ability to provide for memorials honoring first responders. They deal with different codes, but unless there's an objection, I thought we'd take both bills up at the same time in the interest of time. and we have done the house versions actually it's true so I call the bills up is there any discussion or debate Representative Salisbury
I was unaware that there was any impediment to boroughs and townships engaging in this practice previously well I think it was because there was no clear
grant of authority this was a way of protecting them by saying they can do it I don't know if we've just been doing it illegally for years. Okay. I can't imagine anyone objecting, but this will make it perfectly clear. Any other comments or debate? Seeing none, all those in favor of reporting both bills to the floor as they came to the committee, please signify by saying aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. That will be reported unanimously to the floor of the House for consideration. I thank the members for their patience and for attending today's meeting. This committee stands adjourned. Thank you.