April 13, 2026 · HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT · 6,836 words · 17 speakers · 118 segments
Thank you. Thank you. Thank you Good morning everybody I call this housing and and community development committee voting meeting to
order Dean and can you please take attendance mark has it here on leave Designation. Boyd. Designation. Brown. Designation. Cephas. Designation. Green. Designation. Rajewski. Designation. Madsen. Designation. Mays. Designation. Powell. Designation. Probst. designation Smith-Wadell here Diversio designation we've been joined by Rep Diversio is here okay and Waxman Irvin here Ashline designation Jones Kephart in his way Mackenzie Designation Major Rosel Rossi Designation Schaefer Gordzik Walsh Weakneck Thank you, Dina.
I call up House Bill 2109. Jim, can you please describe the bill?
House Bill 2109 prevents arbitrary limits on unrelated roommates unless true health and safety standards apply.
Rep Kahn, you're up.
Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, Chairman. Thank you, members of the committee. It's an honor to work on this bill on a bipartisan basis. This bill that we have, what we call the Golden Girls Bill, removes unnecessary regulations that restrict who can live together. The bill that we have basically looks to make sure that we are respecting health standards and safety standards, but it gets away from worrying about who's related to who. I'll give you an example about why this is important. When I graduated college, I lived with three other guys. Two-bedroom apartment, three guys. So that's four unrelated people living together. And in certain places in Pennsylvania, depending on how it's zoned, that setup is actually illegal, which means that you can't actually rent out for that. And it's actually unlawful to be living in that situation. So as a commonwealth, we look to get rid of unnecessary regulations, cut red tape. We look to do it in a bipartisan way. This is a great example. This is a bill that's going to help with folks that are struggling to afford rent. I'll be honest. When I was living right after college, it cost me about $500 a month. It's about 75% of my paycheck. $500 a month is actually a pretty good deal if you can find it here in the Commonwealth. And we have to make sure that we are increasing housing options. We have to increase the supply. This is one of those common sense bills that gets rid of unnecessary regulation while respecting health and safety standards. So honored to be working on this bill on a bipartisan basis and I appreciate your consideration of it Thank you Thank you Rep Kahn We will now go to the co
Major. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Rep. Kahn. In this committee, I think we are always looking for ways to create more affordable housing. One of the common complaints I hear in my district is from senior citizens about the cost of living. and how hard it is for them to afford to pay their bills every month on fixed incomes. This bill would help address both of these issues by removing a potential barrier that would prevent non-familial citizens from living together. This would solve both those issues. The ability for them to share those living expenses by living together and opening up the residences that they are moving from for new families. It is a win-win situation, and I encourage a yes vote from the committee. Thank you.
Okay, thank you. Chairman Irvin.
Thank you, Chairman, and I think we're definitely going to need a roll call vote on the amendment.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Now, I call up A-02848. Jim, can you please describe the...
Amendment 02848 clarifies applicable building or construction codes adopted by the Uniform Construction Code and makes a technical change.
Mr. Chairman, any comments on the amendment? Dina, can you please take the vote on A02848?
Markosik? Apney? Designation, yes. Boyd? Designation, yes. Brown? Designation, yes. Cephas? Designation, I'm yes. Green. Designation, I'm yes. Brzezinski. Aye. Designation, I'm yes. Madsen. Designation, I'm yes. Mays. Designation, I'm yes. Powell. Designation, I'm yes. Kropes. Designation, I'm yes. Smith-Wadell. Yes. Versio. Yes. Waxman. Yes. Irvin? Yes. Dashline? Designation, yes. Jones? Kephart? Mackenzie? Designation, yes.
She's actually here. Oh, she's here. Right over here. On our side. Sorry, I'm sorry. Sorry.
Yes. Brazel? Rossi? Designation, no. Schaefer? Gortzik Walsh Weaknet and Major
Amendment A02848 is adopted at 2528 a singular vote of no I now call up House Bill 2109 as amended. Rich, do you need a roll call?
Yeah.
Apologies.
Rep, I'm Schaefer. I strongly support making housing more affordable and creating more options for housing in Pennsylvania. And I commend the makers for trying to do that. However as a I used to be a township commissioner and Ross Township 32 person township borders the city of Pittsburgh and I even board president for a term spent a lot of time dealing with zoning and planning issues. And I can think of situations where, yes, you may want four people living together. I can also think of situations that I dealt with in Ross Township where this would create a number of issues. The township has people on the planning commission, on the zoning commission, that put a lot of time into deciding where, and according to Pennsylvania law, every 10 years we have to do a new comprehensive plan, and we must look at where do we want single-family homes, where do we want apartment homes, where do we want other homes. So I have some questions. One concern I have is basically this bill would allow any single-family home to essentially become a de facto small apartment building. And if you had a single-family home and you get rid of the occupancy limits for unrelated people, and then you fall back on the health and safety items. So then I pulled up Allegheny County's health and safety requirements, which I represent. Then you take a 2,400-square-foot home. You could potentially have 18 unrelated people living there based on square footage of maybe up to 100 square foot per person, the way I interpret the laws. And then you have questions related to group homes being put in there. I've dealt with issues with parking on streets, with noise complaints. And I've never once had an issue with a number of senior citizens wanting to live together, which I know you refer to this. But I did have issues with eight college students in a townhouse and the issues that created with trash and with parking and a number of other issues that really changed the whole character of that neighborhood. and to completely take away the option for any reasonable restrictions. I guess I'm not able to support this bill, so I'd like to understand. And I appreciate – I've worked with you on other bills, so I appreciate your –
No, I appreciate it. Thank you, Representative Schaefer.
Yeah, this is something actually we talked about before I worked on with Rep. Major on this bill, on that concern about fraternities and sort of the college students. and actually we actually have language in the bill that we actually change. Executive Director Dawes, can you talk about the language that we include in the bill to sort of address that big concern?
Well, we tightened up the code aspect. We didn't necessarily get into the fraternity aspect, so we can work on that for the floor.
Yeah, so basically in the bill we sort of tightened up what could be allowable. So, for example, if there was a fraternity, Because I think that was one of the major concerns is that it would basically allow fraternities to sort of start popping up in areas where they don't really want that, the concerns about the trash, concerns about noise. So we have included language in this bill that would address that issue. I think in terms of the concern about overall sort of blowing up zoning requirements, that's not this bill. This bill is very targeted toward taking away those restrictions that are basically related, whether someone is related. So because currently, if you know, this is really this bill is related. and intended to just address the idea that when people are unrelated, that there is no artificial enhancements on that. There currently is a limit of what is safe for families. So you couldn't just have, you know, 18 relatives move in with you. That's not actually safe. That would be challenged in any municipality and would still be able to under this law. So this law basically removes that requirement that the folks can't be related. So if that scenario, if you had 18 cousins that wanted to just move into a big house that you had, currently I think that you would run up against health and safety, which I think is the concern of this bill, of the concern that you're having with this bill, would be health and safe for a community. Yeah, well, I guess my point was that I think people would be surprised how many people are allowed in a single-family home based on existing health and safety rules. Like you could literally put, the way I read the Allegheny County rules, like 18 people in a single-family home. And I guess getting back, I wasn't totally clear on the college student one. The issue I was dealing with was not necessarily an organized fraternity, but just kind of eight students in an apartment in a townhouse facility. It wasn't clear. Or would that be allowed or would that not be allowed? Again, I think it still goes back to the health and safety standards that apply. So that's what's sort of going to limit how far it really could go. So they would have met the health and safety. So the only thing I had is, okay, so that would be allowed. This would enable that. And I guess the second question would be, I deal a lot with group homes. You know, we would have people buy us house in a single-family area. Now, some of those are protected by federal law. And I'm not a lawyer, but, you know, if there's a protected class, they could override our zoning laws based on that. But then on other ones, for example, if it was – well, if it wasn't a protected class, if it was like just a homeless, a de facto homeless shelter, Or if it was a landscaping company putting in a seasonal crew of 12 people into a house, would this now enable both of those as before like a township or a city would be able to not allow that?
Yeah.
Yeah. I would have to take a look at what is allowed per city ordinance about having like 12 people live in one house. That sounds like a shortening amount of people living in one house. So I don't think that is specifically would be allowed in this bill because that doesn't sound safe to me to have that many people living in one house.
Would it be – I'm actually pretty sure it would be allowed. I mean –
Yeah.
Well, if it's currently allowed, yeah, we can address that, but I'm not sure that this bill – like this bill doesn't touch what currently – so if you have 12 people who are related that are living in one house, and if that's currently legal, that's sort of outside the scope of this bill. Yeah, so the related, like me, I've got five kids. I got seven perfectly. If I had even more, which I'm not planning to, but yeah, I mean, I know big families. You could easily have 12 people in a single-family home. That's perfectly legal health and safety standards. But the only mechanism that a municipality might have is the unrelated occupancy one to help prevent a situation where you have, like I've described, where you have 12 or more people go into a single family home. You have to address I mean I lived and dealt with this as a past person So I really appreciate your effort I would be very willing to work with you on amendments on this So I leave my comments there Thank you.
And I can say, Rep. Schaefer, I appreciate that.
And absolutely, let's work together and let's see on the floor if there's something that we can do to sort of tighten that. Because that is clearly beyond the scope of what we're intending for this bill and wanting for this bill. So if that is sort of, you know, enabled by this and that could be that could happen, we want to prevent that. Our goal is to not have, you know, 18 unrelated people living in a house. That's not the goal. This is to help, you know, generally increase what's what's allowable and really get government out of the way, which we've seen bad policy has gotten in this problem where we have houses that are so expensive, rent that's so high and actually lack of housing and folks experiencing homelessness because they can't actually find a place to live. Thank you.
Thank you, Rep. Schaefer. Next, Representative Mackenzie.
Yes, I understand the issue of affordable housing, and I think that the bill has a good intention. However, I serve a community, a district of very many varying communities, And, you know, I think just overall state government is not a one-size-fits-all kind of a thing. So I am very much in favor of keeping it on a local level and allowing the various communities to decide what kind of affordable housing they want to entertain in their jurisdiction. So I'm going to have to vote no on the underlying bill here, but I just would like the people closest, the closest elected officials to the housing in their areas to be allowed to decide what is and what is not allowed. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Representative.
And I appreciate the sentiments of that. What I will say is that we're finding ourselves in a situation where housing is becoming more and more out of reach for too many people. And I think the reason why we've gotten to that is because we've made the burden on local municipalities to sort of be the bad guy. And in order to sort of please everyone, we have very restrictive housing codes and violations that make things impossible, like, for example, which is outside the bounds of this bill, but accessory dwelling units, things that people should be able to build on their own, I think. So and it's because of that, I think that we have to look on a state level to address these these problems and increase the the span of housing as we had before. All these bills started coming out again. I think it's just more regulation that we don't need. And sometimes I think we need to step in. And so that is this attempt. And, you know, to the representative's point, we want to make sure that we're doing this right. And we're not just like opening Pandora's box, doing it in a responsible way. So we'll definitely work work together for that. Thank you.
Thank you, Rep Khan. Seeing no other further comments, Dina, can you please take the vote?
Markosik? Yes. Abney? Boyd? Brown? Designation, yes. Cephas? Designation, yes. Green? Designation, yes. Krijuski? Designation, yes. Madsen? Designation, yes. Mays? Yes. Powell? Yes Probst Designation A Smith Yes Diversio Yes Waxman Yes Irvin. Yes. Bashline. Designation, yes. Jones. Kephart. McKenzie. No. Major. Major. Brazel. Rossi. designation no Schaefer Gortzik Walsh Weakness
The bill as amended passes 19 to 7 Thank you members of the committee Thank you Thank you chairs our second order of business. I call up House Bill 711. Jim, can you please describe the bill?
House Bill 711 exempts community homes for adults with an intellectual disability or autism from automatic sprinkler requirements. Thank you, Jim.
We have the prime sponsor with us. Please, Ripa. Please. Thank you very much.
Good morning. Thank you to both chairmen. Thank you for calling this up the opportunity to speak on House Bill 711. This bill addresses a pressing issue that affects community homes serving individuals with disabilities and autism. Pennsylvania's uniform construction code requires automatic sprinkler systems only in single family homes or duplexes when they are designated as community homes for adults with intellectual disability or autism. Homes that are not designated as community homes, even if identical in structure and occupancy, are exempt from the sprinkler requirement. In November 2024, the U.S. Department of Justice filed suit against Pennsylvania's Department of Labor and Industry and Human Services. The DOJ asserted that this requirement unlawfully discriminates under the Fair Housing Act by imposing costly and unnecessary mandates on people with disabilities that are not applied to others. automatic sprinkler systems in small homes cost on average about ten thousand dollars and may cost up to three times more in rural areas needing separate water infrastructure beyond the financial impact rental property owners often decline installations installations of sprinkler systems and further reducing the housing options for those that need it most these combined economic and operational barriers threaten the viability of existing community homes and deter the development of new ones, which limits the access to residential support for individuals with disabilities. And this is where this legislation comes into play. House Bill 711 proposes a clear, focused solution by defining the community homes for adults with disabilities and autism in statute that exempts these homes from automatic sprinkler requirement currently applicable under the code. The exemption aligns the community homes for adults with disabilities or autism with similar sized houses, removing the unfair burden while maintaining all other essential safety measures. It preserves uniform health and safety standards, such as fire drills and smoke detection. House Bill 711 is a correction that removes the discriminatory barriers without compromising safety of those in our community which is the most important issue that we need to be fighting The housing for those with disabilities needs to make sure that they secure and they safe And I respectfully urge the committee to advance this bill, ensuring that Pennsylvanians with disabilities have equal opportunity for community-based housing and support. Thank you to both, Chairman.
Thank you. And I'll call up A-02850. Jim, can you please?
describe the amendment. Amendment 02850 offered by Chairman Irvin clarified the definition of autism, that a foster care residence must be approved and a facility must be licensed. Thank you, Jim. Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Chairman, and thank you, Rep. Delosier, for bringing this bill forward. This amendment makes a few minor technical changes to the bill so that terminology and definitions match what exists between Department of Human Services regulations, and it does not substantially change anything in the bill. My understanding is with this amendment, the administration, Department of Human Services, Department of Labor and Industry will be supportive of the bill if amended. So I would ask that all members give an affirmative vote. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would also urge our colleagues to support A02850.
With that, Mr. Chairman, do we need a roll call vote?
No, I think all Republicans will be yes on this.
Seeing that, on our side we will be as well.
So A02850 passes 2620. Zero. I now call up House Bill 711 as amended. Rich, do you need to roll on?
We'll all be a yes on this bill.
On our side, we will do the same.
Congratulations. The bill, as amended, passes committee 26 to zero.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Our next item, I call up House Bill 558. Jim.
House Bill 558 imposes a cap on rental application fees. Thank you, Jim.
I call up A02832. Jim. Are there any comments? We'll go to the prime sponsor first. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Chairman and members of the committee. the committee. Excuse me. I'm really excited that we're taking this bill up. I've introduced it a couple terms now as we have been dealing with housing crisis and affordability and accessibility and a lack of housing stock as people are moving and trying to figure out where they're living. They are are increasingly being charged application fees. It used to not necessarily be so, but it has become more and more the practice. And certainly, even if you pay an application fee, it doesn't guarantee you're getting the housing and then you've lost, and this has become an added expense as people are considering and trying to move into housing. And this measure is trying to make it a little more affordable. I truly thank the staff for working with the stakeholders to come up with this amendment so that we can have hopefully unanimous, but if not, support from both sides as we move forward. We're certainly going to be continuing to work on this bill. A lot of people have a lot of opinions on it. But as we're going through the budget process now, as scheduled this week, I certainly appreciate this bill being called up, moved out of committee so that it can hopefully move forward as we're all in session the next couple months. So I really would appreciate an affirmative vote on the amendment and then on the bill in chief. Thank you.
Thank you. I accidentally jumped ahead there, so I apologize. I now call up A02832. Jim, can you please describe the amendment again?
We'll do it again. Okay. Amendment A02832, limits a fee to actual administrative expenses incurred for rental application and prohibits fees at the general revenue source. Okay.
Mr. Chairman, any comments on amendment?
Yeah, I think I appreciate the maker of the bill working with us on this amendment. I think it makes the bill much better. I don't believe that landlords should be making any money off of application fees, but I do felt that the original bill set it a little too low, and I don't want to have landlords losing money on the application process. So I think this is a good compromise. On the amendment, we will be a all yes vote.
Okay, perfect.
On our side as well,
So the amendment passes 2620. Thank you. And I now call up House Bill 558 as amended. Rich, do you need a roll?
Yes, we'll need a roll call vote on this.
Okay.
Dina? Markosik? Yes. Abney? He's a designation, yes. Boyd? Brown. Designation, A.S. Cephas. Designation, A.S. Green. Designation, A.S.
I apologize. Sorry.
Krijuski. Designation, A.S. Mattson. Designation, A.S. Mays. Yes. Powell. Probst. Designation, A.S. Smith-Wadell. Tabersio. Waxman. Urban. Yes. Dashline. Designation, yes. Jones. Kephart. McKenzie. Major. Designation, yes. Brazel. Rossi. Designation, yes. Schaefer. Gordzik. Walsh. Week net.
The bill, as amended, passes 2323. Thank you, and thank you all for your consideration. Thank you. Okay I now call up House Bill 2186 Jim.
House Bill 2186 removes barriers to the creation of accessory dwelling units.
We have been joined by the prime sponsor of the bill, Rep. Ingalls. Please.
thank you chair markosick chair ervin and members of the housing and community development committee the opportunity to speak on house bill 2186 pennsylvania is facing a significant housing affordability and supply crisis that is impacting families seniors and young people across the commonwealth from 2017 to 2023 pennsylvania ranked 44th in the nation in housing production In that same period, the average rent in the 23 Pennsylvania counties tracked by Zillow's rent estimate increased from $1,013 in 2017 to $1,476 in 2023, a 46% increase. Today, the governor's housing action plan estimates we need at least 185,000 additional homes to meet current demand and support future economic growth. When we fail to build enough housing, prices rise, competition decreases, and more Pennsylvanians are priced out of their own communities. Pennsylvanians across political and geographic lines see housing costs and availability as a critical and pressing issue. Recent statewide polling conducted by YouGov found that 84% of voters believe housing costs are a major problem, and an equal share believe that the legislature should take action to address affordability and availability. When asked to choose between building more homes or preserving neighborhoods from change, a clear majority, 61%, prioritized building more housing. Additionally, 67% of voters say there are not enough homes that average people can afford, and 56% report that housing costs have negatively impacted their ability to save. Key driver of this shortage is outdated and overly restrictive land use policy that limits the development of modest, attainable housing options. In many communities, accessory dwelling units, small secondary homes such as basement apartments, garage conversions, or backyard cottages are either prohibited outright or subject to costly and uncertain approval processes. House Bill 2186 offers a practical and balanced solution by establishing clear statewide standards that allow homeowners to build ADUs by right, while still maintaining existing zoning, permitting, and health and safety requirements. ADUs are a proven tool to expand housing supply in a way that is both efficient and community-friendly. They provide stable housing, serving as a primary residence in approximately 80% of cases nationwide, while offering flexible options for multi-generational living, allowing families to care for aging parents or support younger relatives. They create opportunities for homeowners to generate supplemental income, helping offset rising costs, and they do so without requiring direct government subsidies. It also promotes smarter growth by utilizing existing infrastructure, helping to protect farmland and natural areas by reducing outward sprawl.
In fact, legalizing ADUs through clear statewide standards is the most common action policymakers in other states have taken to make lower-cost housing more feasible to build. To date, 18 states have authorized homeowners to construct and rent ADUs, ADUs reflecting bipartisan recognition that modest flexible housing options can expand supply without placing new burdens on municipalities. This strong bipartisan and geographic support also extends to the specific policy solutions proposed in House Bill 2186 66 of all Pennsylvania voters support making it easier to build accessory dwelling units That support spans political parties, with Democrats backing the proposal by a plus-51 point margin, Republicans by a plus-33 point margin, and Independents by a plus-63 point margin. Just as importantly, support is consistent across geographic regions, with the proposal being supported by a plus 49 point margin in urban areas, a plus 41 point margin in suburban areas, and a plus 46 point margin in rural areas. This level of broad cross-partisan and statewide support demonstrates that expanding housing options through the common sense reforms like ADUs is not only good policy, it is exactly what Pennsylvanians are asking their elected officials to prioritize. At its core, House Bill 2196 is about empowering property owners. reducing unnecessary regulatory barriers and government red tape and allowing more flexibility in how land is used while still preserving important safeguards. It represents a meaningful incremental step towards addressing the housing shortage and improving affordability across the Commonwealth. By legalizing and standardizing ADUs, we can expand housing opportunities, support families at every stage of life, and take real action to ensure more Pennsylvanians can afford to live in the communities they call home. I respectfully urge an affirmative vote on House Bill 2186, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thank you, Representative Ingalls. I call up A-02831. Jim?
Amendment 02826 clarifies, oops, sorry, Amendment 2831 removes the ordinance requirement, simplifies the application section, adjusts square footage restrictions, and makes other technical changes.
Thank you, Jim. Mr. Chairman, any comments?
I believe we can...
Do we need roll call on the amendment?
Okay, we can yes on the amendment.
Not an amendment, we'll make it nice and easy. On the amendment, the amendment passes 26 to 0. On the bill, do we have any comments as amended? Rep. Jones.
Thank you. So just a quick question. Definitely appreciate the attention to producing more housing. We have a housing shortage. We have a housing affordability issue in Pennsylvania. And so these efforts are good. My concern with this, having been a township supervisor myself, being a firm supporter of local governance and local decision-making, especially by our elected officials in our municipalities across Pennsylvania. My concern is, am I correct to say that planned communities such as HOAs, if they have rules prohibiting ADUs, that their rules still apply? while the municipality rules are superseded now. But with this, legislation would basically override local municipalities' ordinances regarding ADUs. However, an HOA, their rules would still apply prohibiting the ADUs. Is that correct?
Yeah, that is correct.
Is there a reason why that carve was granted to homeowners associations I just curious as to the reason for that Jim Okay. Yeah, I'm happy with the amendment in that it, I mean, And when it comes to EDUs, hookups to sewage systems in our more rural areas, we only have certain capacities. And so by allowing ADUs, those concerns, I'm glad to see that those. And then also when it comes to our environmental concerns, such as stormwater, I mean, if we're going to put a lot more impervious surface on a property, those are obviously concerns. But I thank you for the amendment. However, again, being a firm supporter of local decision-making, if we're going to allow HOAs to make those decisions, I believe we should allow our elected officials back home to make those decisions as well. But thank you for the effort.
Thank you, Rep. Jones. Rep. Schaefer?
I'll echo some of Representative Jones' comments. I appreciate the initiative behind this. I do think we need to look at how we can build housing more quicker or quicker and at more affordable rates. Having been a past local elected official, I also think we have to be careful when we strip local control and try to do a one-size-fits-all statewide. I will say I hope we get to see some other bills coming up because just thinking about in my area, what's really impeding development and what could actually move the needle on providing housing for people. The permitting process oftentimes is the big obstacle. Sewer fees, stormwater regulations, even things some of the municipalities I represent have shade or tree canopy ordinances. So if you want to cut down a tree of a certain size, it has to be replaced. There is a litany of ordinances that combined drive up the cost for new development very greatly. And I feel like these, the two bills that we did today with the ADUs and allowing non-familial persons to live in the same thing, we're kind of nibbling around the edges. But if we really want to move the needle, we need to move on some of those. I might have an amendment or two on this particular one that could make it more palatable because I think some municipalities do that I represent have regulations related to ADUs. They don't prevent them, but they actually want them to be certain sizes and certain styles that fit in with the type of home structures that they have in their municipalities. One concern I have with this is that basically wipes away all of those things and sort of establishes a statewide regulation that might not work for every municipality, even those that allow ADUs currently.
Thank you, Rep. Schaefer.
Again, I'm going to have to say that I'm for local control. I'm a senior citizen myself, so someday I might love to live in a tiny house on one of my children's properties. But I also know that in my area, like in the historic city of Bethlehem, where the old houses are closer together and only thin, very thin alleyways connect various properties, they have voted against. against having ADUs because they don't have the infrastructure, and even an ambulance can't go down the alleyway to, you know, come to the rescue, say someone in a tiny home in the backyard is in need of care, and certainly no fire truck could get to them. So, again, I think it's something that each area and their, you know, closest elected officials should have the ability to discern whether or not it would work for them. So I love the idea of possibly having a tiny home someday. But, again, I don't think that a blanket bill should be put into effect that would dictate what everyone has to do in the Commonwealth. Thank you.
Thank you. Chairman Irvin.
Thank you, Chairman. I'm supportive of this bill. I do believe that this bill is worth moving forward for discussion on the House floor. I think to thank the maker for the bill. I think some of the major reasons that you've mentioned and even Rep. Schaefer has mentioned today is the fact that the cost of building housing, new housing, is right down to federal, state, and even local government ordinances, municipalities, permitting process. And that is a true underlying issue that's driving the cost of housing up. But I like local control. I like the local control more so than I like state control. But I think what I like more than local control is property owner rights. And I think if an individual wants to put an ADU on their property to help with their mortgage costs and rentals, I am supportive of it. And I think that's one of the reasons why I'm voting to move this bill forward out of committee. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I now call up House Bill 2186 as amended. Dina, can you please take the vote?
Markosik?
Yes. Abney? Designation, a yes. Boyd? Brown? Designation, a yes. Cephas? Designation, a yes. Green? Rajewski? Designation, a yes. Madsen? Designation, a yes. Mays? Powell? Probst? Yes. Smith-Wadell? D'Bursio? Waxman. Irvin. Yes. Bashline. Designation, yes. Jones. Kephart. McKenzie. Major. Designation, yes. Roswell. Rossi. No. Schaefer. Kordzik Walsh Week next Week next Bordzik Walsh Weaknep
As amended, passes 1927. Thank you, Rep. Ingles. Our next item on the agenda, I call up House Bill 344.
Jim. House Bill 344 makes parking fees transparent for tenants.
Representative Green, on your bill. If you could have set the mic. Oh, that's probably what no one said. Good morning. Good morning, everyone. Good morning. Oh, there we go.
Thank you, Chairman McCusley, for allowing me to speak a few words. On this bill, I introduced this bill to ensure that tenants are aware of the parking available to them and the fee associated with that parking. In my district back in Philly, many condos, and I want to say many, many, many condos, have been recently built, and the residents of those condos do not use the parking available to them. Instead, they park on the street and take away spots from other residents who really need them. My bill hopes to fix this issue by making parking options more transparent in leases before they sign the lease, not afterwards. I ask for an affirmative vote on this bill to allow clear, precise language to all tenants.
Thank you, Representative Green. I now call up A-02826, Mr. Chairman, on the amendment.
I believe all Republicans will be a yes on the amendment.
I apologize. I accidentally got ahead of myself. Jim, can you please describe the amendment?
Yep, amendment 2826 clarifies parking disclosure and provides landlords flexibility on parking availability changes. Thank you.
Sorry, I'm getting all... So, since on the amendment, everyone's good, so we will do a fast roll. So, A02826 passes 2620. I know call up House Bill 344 as amended. Are there any comments or discussion on the bill? Mr. Chairman?
Thank you for the maker of the bill. I live in rural Pennsylvania. Parking is not normally a big issue where I'm at. But I can understand you know if you in the cities and you know to define it in the lease I can appreciate that And therefore I will be supportive of the bill And I believe all of our Republican committee members will be supportive of the bill as well Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Seeing that, we will do a fast roll, and the bill as amended passes 26 to 0. Thank you, Rep. Green. Thank you, everyone. Our next item, I call up House Bill 2355. Jim?
House Bill 2355 increases penalties for housing discrimination.
Thank you, Jim. I will now go to the unprime sponsor.
Thank you, Chair Markozyk and Chair Irvin. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about House Bill 2355. I've introduced this bill to strengthen the Fair Housing Act because too often landlords, especially repeat violators, are not held accountable for their actions. So I'm hoping that with this bill that we can increase the civil penalties to discourage housing discrimination all across our Commonwealth from occurring in the first place. And for those who think that the civil penalty increases are too high, I just want to note that these amounts are set by the federal HUD agency every year. So my bill also gives victims of housing discrimination more time to file their complaint from 180 days to a full year, 365 days, to make their complaint known for the housing discrimination that they face. I ask my colleagues to vote yes on this bill, and I appreciate your support and happy to answer any questions. Thank you so much, Chair.
Thank you, Rep. Mace. Are there any other comments or questions on the bill? Mr. Chairman?
All Republicans will be a no on that.
Okay. All Democrats will be voting a yes, so we will speed things along and do a quick vote. So the bill passes 14 to 12. Thank you, Rep. Mace. Thank you, Chair. And I'll call up House Bill 2357.
Jim. House Bill 2357 prohibits housing discrimination based on a tenant source of income.
We are joined today by the, I'm prime sponsor of the bill, Representative.
I don't have as much flex as Ronnie Green, so I'm going to stay right here. That said, I want to thank the committee for considering this. When a person has income from alimony or child support payment or a voucher program, including the Veterans Affairs Supportive Housing Program, they should be able to access housing if they can pay rent. And so this bill seeks to protect housing as a fundamental right for moms and people with kids and people who have been divorced and our veterans who may find themselves in the position of being unhoused Thank you Thank you Are there any other comments or questions on the bill Mr Chairman All Republicans will be a no on the bill Okay.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. All Democrats will be voting in favor. So we will do a fast vote, and the bill passes 14 to 12. Congratulations, Rep. Smith. Wait out. And our final bill of the day, I call up House Bill 2367.
Jim. House Bill 2367 expands use of redevelopment assistance capital program for housing projects.
Thank you, Jim. We are joined by Rep Boyd, who is the prime sponsor.
Rep Boyd, you may proceed. Thank you. Proceed. Thank you, Chair. Everyone, I think, agrees this conversation has been really wonderful today to acknowledge that we do need to increase the housing supply in Pennsylvania. So I introduced this bill to provide maximum flexibility for housing projects in the Redevelopment Assistance Capital Program. So as a result, we can better utilize this program to help address housing shortages. So I hope that you can join me in supporting this legislation.
Thank you, Representative Boyd. Are there any other questions or comments on the bill? Chairman Urban?
Yeah, thanks, Rep. Boyd, for bringing this bill forward. I think our concern with this bill is not that we're not admitting that there is a housing crisis out there and we do need it, but I think this moves away from the original intention of the RCAP program. and the Republicans will be a no.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Democrats will be voting in favor, so we will do a fast vote, and the bill passes 14 to 12. Thank you, Rep. Boyd. With that, I'd just like to say thank you to all folks here today. I appreciate our dialogue. And as was noted, a lot of these bills are, you know, we're trying to get the ball going forward here. And I appreciate Chairman Irvin, Jonas, for really being a part of our conversation. And I look forward to seeing these bills go on the floor. And this is not the excuse me. This is just the start of the process for for these bills. So I look forward to going forward. So with that, we are adjourned. Thank you. Thank you.