September 28, 2026 · LOCAL GOVERNMENT · 3,558 words · 9 speakers · 87 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Good morning, everyone. I'd like to call to order this meeting of the House Local Government Committee and first and foremost to welcome everyone back to Harrisburg into session. This is our first meeting of the committee this fall. I don't know if we'll have a second one, but we do have some legislation to take up today.
Before we get any further, I'd ask Christina to please call the roll.
Sure. Chairman Freeman. Here.
Representatives Borowski.
Vote by designation.
Donahue
Vote by designation
Fleming
Vote by designation
Haddock
Hambage
Vote by designation
Kazeem
Vote by designation
Madsen
Vote by designation
Monroe
Vote by designation
Probst
Vote by designation
Prokopiak
Valsbury Vote by designation. I think she will be online.
Sappy
Vote by designation
Smith-Wadell
And vote by designation.
Chairman Miller Here.
Representatives Banta.
Vote by designation.
Cooper.
Fink.
Jones.
Vote by designation.
Kozak.
Vote by designation.
Kuzma.
Vote by designation.
Margatus.
Here.
Reichard.
Ringcabage.
Vote by designation.
Weakneck.
Wendling.
Vote by designation.
Okay, a quorum being present, we can proceed. Before we do, I'd like to call upon Chairman Miller to please lead us in the Pledge of Allegiance. Would everyone please rise? Pledge of Allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, to the republic for which it stands, a nation, your God, indivisible, liberty and justice for all. Thank you, Chairman Miller. We do have a couple of introductions to make before we proceed with our agenda today. I'll turn to Chairman Miller for an introduction of a new research assistant. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate it. And it my privilege to introduce to you all our new policy analyst Emma Henry who she is a poli graduate from Colorado Christian University and was a fellow at the John Jay Institute in Langhorne Pennsylvania And she proudly declares that the local government committee is the finest committee in all of the world. So we look forward to her contributions to the whole committee, and we welcome her and say thank you. Welcome to the committee. With those great insights, I think you're going to do extremely well in this committee. So thank you. I also have an introduction. We have an intern in our office, Ryan Altalton. Ryan, if you want to be recognized. He's participating in the House Legislative Fellowship Program this fall semester and has been assigned to our committee. He attends Lebanon Valley College, where he's on track to graduate in December. He's working on a Bachelor of Arts degree in political science with a minor in environmental studies. Good combination. And he is resident assistant as well as an editor for the school's newspaper. And he's a native of Upper Allen Township in Cumberland County and previously completed an internship with Representative DeLozier's district office in the 88th Legislative District. So it's good to have you on board, and I hope you enjoy your time with us. That being said, we will now move on to our agenda. Our first order of business is bringing up House Bill 2721, sponsored by Chairman Miller. I'll call the bill up for consideration and call on Emma, I guess, to give an overview of the bill. A summary.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. House Bill 2721 is a local government commission bill, as you stated, sponsored by Chairman Miller, And it makes two amendments to Title VIII. Regarding Section 905, this bill ensures that borough councils alone have the discretion to qualify temporary auditors and determine their duration in office. And as for Section 1310, this bill requires borough councils to pass balanced budgets that do not exceed all available estimated revenue. The Local Government Commission has worked on this bill to address local government feedback regarding ambiguity in the current language of these sections. House Bill 2721 would ensure that borough councils responsibly exercise their authority by qualifying temporary auditors, determining appointees' time in office in accordance with current law, and producing balanced budgets. the Pennsylvania State Association of Boroughs and the Pennsylvania Municipal League support this bill. And the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania are neutral with no opposition identified at this time.
Thank you very much for that very thorough summary. Appreciate it. We also have Chris Gasey with us, who is the Executive Director for the Local Government Commission. Chris, did you want to make any comment?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for calling up this piece of legislation. Unless there are any questions, the only thing that I think that I would say about it is that both of these provisions are largely for clarification and code consistency between the other codes, specifically as to the balanced budget language. There's never been an expectation that a borough could adopt an unbalanced budget, just as the other codes do provide. The borough code is the only code that has the temporary auditor provision Typically under the other codes there is language that you can fill a vacancy for an auditor But there has been this provision that in addition to filling a vacancy under the traditional language you could fill a vacancy with a temporary auditor. But that was not really a well-defined term in how to use it. So we are trying to put some guideposts and procedures in for that. So happy to answer any questions if there are any.
Thank you very much, and thanks again for the great work of the commission. Always do an excellent job, very professional. I will make a motion to report the bill. So the committee will report the bill, House Bill 2721, but we do have some questions. Representative Haddock, you wanted to raise a question.
Thank you, Chair. And I understand, as a former mayor myself, about the budget and doing a balanced budget. But I just wanted a clarification when I read this.
I think, unless I'm missing something, on line 25, budget restrictions of total appropriation shall not exceed estimate revenues as available for the fiscal year.
it says revenues in that line that says revenues is that including fund balances because it
yes so that's understood it's the same language that's in in uh one or more of the other codes i don't have the other codes in front of me um but we we did debate the language for that very particular point, that language is utilized to speak to the existing fund balances. So, of course, if you have a capital fund and you're planning to make a transfer as part of keeping your budget balanced, you would be able to do so.
Again, you're saying capital fund, but sometimes you just have a balance in a regular fund.
Oh, sure, sure, sure, sure. I didn't mean, I was just offering that as an example.
Okay, thank you for the clarification. Thank you.
Okay, I thank the gentleman for his question. Are there any other questions before I call upon Chairman Miller for some comments? Seeing none, Chairman Miller, would you care to address your bill? Sure. Thank you very much. Yeah, much has been said about this bill already, and I just want to emphasize this. This is a local government commission bill by Cameral Bipartisan passed through the commission and is presented here to fix the items that were referenced to clarify what the boroughs association approves in PML. And I think it's going to be a good clarification to help our boroughs so they know what's happening, particularly the item. And I think that was a very good question, because the idea of making sure that our budgets are in line with our revenues is very important. That's what our taxpayers expect. So this is a good bill for clarification, and I would urge a yes vote. Thank you. I thank you for your comments. We now will move on to the question before us. Will the committee report the bill? Is there any further discussion by the members regarding the legislation? Seeing none, are you okay with the voice vote? All those in favor of reporting the bill as committed, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Are there any negative votes? The bill will be reported unanimously. Congratulations.
Congratulations.
Our next order of business is, let me catch my agenda, is Senate Bill 1269. The prime sponsor is Senator Bacchosi. I will make a motion to bring up the bill and ask for Kyle to give a summary of the legislation Thank you Mr Chairman Senate Bill 1269 by Senator Picozzi creates the Commercial and Non Products
Property Protection Act to provide for the installation and use of electronic security fences on non-residential commercial properties. The bill permits an entity authorized to conduct business in the Commonwealth and a sole proprietorship to install an electrified security system. The bill further requires an electrified security system to have an energizer driven by a commercial storage battery that does not exceed 12 volts direct current, have an interface with a monitored alarm device that transmits a signal to the installer or a person that is monitoring or otherwise instructed to notify a public safety agency of the alarm, be located four inches to eight inches behind a non-electrified perimeter barrier, and have a height of either two feet higher than the non-electrified perimeter barrier or 10 feet, whichever is greater, be located on property that is not designated exclusively for residential use, be clearly identified with warning signs containing the international warning symbol for electric shock at intervals of not greater than 30 linear feet. The installer of the security system must notify the municipality that the security system has been installed, and the notice shall contain the name of the alarm company, the business entity, where the system is installed. The bill allows municipalities to require registration of an alarm system for the security system and prohibit an electrified security system that does not meet the requirements of the section. The bill states that nothing is meant to apply to a security system that does not attach to a security fence system capable of delivering an electric pulse. And the bill passed the Senate unanimously, and the Berks Association and the Municipal League are neutral on this bill. Thank you.
Thank you for that summary. I will make the motion to bring the bill up, Senate Bill 1269, for consideration by the committee and to report the bill. We do have the prime sponsor with us, Senator Picozzi. Please take a seat. You're welcome to address the committee regarding your legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for considering this bill. I want to thank all the committee members for being here.
Is your microphone on?
Oh, it is on. I'm just not close enough to it. Well, good morning, everyone. And I also commend you, Chairman, for starting your meeting with the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't really see that much in the Senate, but I'm going to do that for my committee going forward. I think that's incredible. But thank you for having me here today. I'm happy to speak on Senate Bill 1269. Under this legislation, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania will join 29 other states in removing regulatory ambiguity, allow modern state-of-the-art perimeter security systems in non-residential areas. This legislation will help business owners secure their property, equipment, and inventory, will keep workers safe at their jobs, and will help law enforcement with faster response times. Today, we ensure that our Commonwealth does not fall behind in keeping our businesses and workers secure. I ask that the committee approve this legislation, and thank you again, Chairman Freeman, Chairman Miller, for moving this bill forward for consideration to your committee.
Thank you for your comments. Are there any questions or comments regarding the bill in chief before we move on to our amendment? Seeing none, we will then move on to the amendment before us, and I will make a motion to bring up my amendment, Amendment A04234. and call upon Mr. Cazelli to give us a brief overview of the amendment.
Okay, amendment A04234, sponsored by, or offered by Chairman Freeman, would stipulate that nothing in the act shall be construed to preempt a municipality's power to regulate non-electrified fences. And this would be the, referring to the non-electrified perimeter barrier that would surround an electronic security system. There's nothing in the bill that stipulates what that should be, that is traditionally or a prerogative of the municipality, and this would just preserve that authority. Okay.
Are there any questions pertaining to the amendment? Chairman Miller. Thank you. Not a question, but just to affirm that Senator Picozzi's office reviewed this amendment and they're okay with the amendment and we're supportive of it. That is our understanding. And there's a thumb-ups from the senator, so. that makes it official. Thank you for that clarification. So the question before us is will the committee agree to the amendment? Any further discussion? Being no, we'll take a vote. All those in favor of the amendment, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
Any opposed? The amendment is adopted unanimously. So the question reoccurs. Will the committee report the bill as amended to the House floor? Any further discussion? Okay, seeing none, all those in favor of reporting the bill as amended, please signify by saying aye.
Aye.
All those opposed? Carriers unanimously will be reported to the House. Senator, congratulations. Our last bill for consideration is Senate Bill 1287, sponsored by Senator Kiefer. I will make a motion to call the bill up for consideration, and we will call upon Kyle for an analysis or a summary, rather, of the Senate bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Senate Bill 1287 by Senator Kiefer amends the municipal planning code to require evidence of adequate water supply be submitted prior to the final approval being granted for any subdivision or land development plan. The bill does not change current law minus requiring this evidence to be presented prior to this approval. Under current law, developers are required to present evidence that their proposed development will receive water from a public utility, Bonafide Cooperative Association of Lot Owners, a municipal corporation, or a municipal authority. However, the law does not state when this evidence must be presented. Currently, the evidence would be presented after final approval. The boroughs association is neutral. The National Association of Water Companies supports. Municipal League is neutral. And the Municipal Authorities Association supports the legislation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you for the summary. We do have the prime sponsor with us, Senator Kiefer. It's good to see you back on the House side.
Thank you. Other than an individual private well, the applicant must provide evidence that the development will be served by an appropriate water provider. It's called a will serve. Many of you may be familiar with that. But it doesn't dictate when that will serve has to be presented. Senate Bill 1287 just clarifies that the applicants must present this evidence to the governing body before the final subdivision or land development approval is actually granted. That distinction is very important right now. Local governments need reliable information when making development decisions, and developers need a predictable approval process. And utilities need development approvals to be coordinated with their actual ability and commitment to provide that service. This bill helps bring those interests together and before a municipality gives final approval to a development that depends on public water or other non water system the municipality should have the documentation necessary to know how that development will be served. This provides greater certainty for municipalities, the developer, and the utility. It also encourages responsible economic development. Ultimately, Senate Bill 1287 improves a balance between local control, private investment, and responsible stewardship of our infrastructure and water sources. So I proudly support 1287. I respectfully ask for everyone's support on this legislation.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, Senator. Thank you for your fine comments. I should note, too, I know the meaning or intent of the bill at a broader range than a topic I'm going to touch on, But I think it's very timely given concern over data centers. You know, one of the things they consume is a large volume of water for their cooling process. So this should be a nice add-on to making sure we're doing the right things as those proposals proceed. And that's partially what triggered it because I did reach out to some water companies and asked what their involvement was. Did they, you know, did that have to be presented? And he said it does. A will serve is required but not necessarily before a project is approved. And it is critical to have that information beforehand, obviously. Well, thank you for that. Appreciate it. I know Representative Reichert had a question.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Not so much a question as a comment. Just echo your comments and to thank the senator for this legislation. You know, having a little bit of some background in planning and zoning and that sort of stuff. This is one of those critical things. It really provides a much fuller picture of what's going on rather than just kind of piecemealing it together. So thank you for this legislation. I fully support it, and it provides the municipality with the information they need at a critical point. So thank you. Thank you.
Okay. Chairman Miller. Thank you. Thank you, Senator Kiefer. I appreciate this. This is a very good piece of legislation. My question is based kind of on a scenario situation. The last thing a developer wants or a municipality wants is you get to the 11th hour and, oops, we have a problem. That's not helpful for anyone. Are there any particular scenarios that you have seen or heard about throughout the Commonwealth that helped foster this legislation?
So, again, what triggered it for me was just trying to understand the process and talking to the utilities. Now, I do have a – had an issue with energy generation, right, where something was approved to begin with the process without the energy being there. But not necessarily saying, you know, that we have an example today, but we have had other municipalities have come forward and said, you know, we approved it. We didn't think about – we knew it was part of the process but didn't think about it logically in the steps. So projects have been held up until they could secure the water that was necessary.
Yeah. This is absolutely essential. The people who are making the decisions need to have all that data. And water, knowing the source of the water and that it can accommodate the development, whatever it is, is very important. So this is good legislation. I appreciate it. And thank you. Thank you. I thank the chairman. We do have present in the audience today, too, Seth Rolko, attorney and senior manager for government affairs for the Pennsylvania American Water Company. Seth, did you want to step forward and make some comments? Because I understand you actually experienced something similar to what Chairman Miller was referring to Please speak into the mic
Thanks. Wasn't sure I was going to be speaking today, but happy to provide some comments. Appreciate it. So we actually had a developer that came to us in Senator Kiefer's district that said that they were ready to begin a project, but we did not yet provide them with a will serve letter. So that was really the the case that we brought to Senator Kiefer's office and said, hey, you know, this information is needed, but it would be nice to have the municipality, the developer, and the utility all coordinating together prior to approval for a project. So it was actually an instance where a developer came to us and said, all right, we're ready to begin work, but we had not provided that will serve letter yet. So that's really one case in Senator Kiefer's district. but there were some other examples as well across the Commonwealth of this happening, so this really helps clarify what needs to be done and the steps to take place.
Thank you for your comments and bringing that to our attention as well. Are there any other questions by the members regarding the legislation? Seeing none, I will then reiterate the question. Will the committee report Senate Bill 1287 to the House floor for consideration? All those in favor of reporting the bill, please signify by saying aye.
Aye. Are there any negative?
The bill will be reported unanimously. Congratulations. That concludes our agenda for today, unless there is any new business to be brought up. Chairman Miller, anything? Okay. I thank the members for their attendance today and appreciate your participation in today's meeting. We are now adjourned.
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. . Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Thank you. Thank you.