The House Local Government Committee met for two hearings last week to discuss legislation to radically restructure local government in Pennsylvania. On Tuesday, the committee heard testimony on Senate Bill 1357 (PN 1969), which seeks to create a state boundary commission to review and recommend changes to local government borders in Pennsylvania. Under the bill, the commission could deem a municipality as nonviable based on a number of subjective criteria, including the “inability to provide adequately for the health, safety, and welfare” of its residents, and objective criteria, such as declining population or a population of less than 400. All recommendations for mergers, consolidations, or other boundary changes would be sent to the General Assembly for a vote and would take effect if approved. The bill, however, would put two places out of the commission’s reach: Pittsburgh and Philadelphia. At the hearing, legislators also reviewed Senate Bill 1429 (PN 2107) which would make some adjustments to the current Merger and Consolidation Law, mainly as it pertains to referendum and home rule procedures, and would provide funding to assist municipalities in their merger or consolidation efforts.
Speaking in favor of the boundary commission bill were Fred Reddig, director of the Governor’s Center for Local Government Services, Joanne Denworth of the Governor’s Office, Gerald Cross of the Pennsylvania Economy League, Mayor Salvatore Panto of the City of Easton, and representing the business community, former secretary of DCED Dennis Yablonsky. Providing technical information on the legislation were Beverly Cigler, Ph.D. of Penn State-Harrisburg, David Young Miller, Ph.D. of the University of Pittsburgh, and Alan Kugler, president of PA Futures. Appearing in opposition to SB 1357 were David Sanko, executive director of PSATS and Ron Grutza of the Boroughs Association. The Township Commissioners Association submitted testimony opposing the bill as well.
A general refrain among the bill’s proponents was that SB 1357’s intention was not to do away with local governments but rather “to make them stronger.” Mr. Reddig gave an overview of the legislation, saying that its main component, the boundary review commission, originated out of discussions of the State Planning Board. “[SB 1357 represents] a common sense approach to eliminating barriers and providing new tools for municipalities to run efficiently in difficult economic times as well as flourishing times,” Redding said. “They are not sweeping reforms; however, they represent steps in the right direction to begin tackling the issues confronting our local municipalities today.”
In her testimony, Ms. Denworth sought to provide no doubt that the State indeed has the legal authority to order municipal boundary change. “Nothing shall prohibit or prevent the General Assembly from providing…methods for consolidation, merger, or change of boundaries,” she told the members, referencing Section 8 of the state’s constitution. She said that SB 1357 does not seek to create “big government” and its process would include input from local government officials during the merger/consolidation process. She finished her testimony by criticizing opponents of the bill saying that it was “unfortunate” that newspapers have recently published “mischaracterizations” of the legislation.
In his testimony, Mr. Sanko said that numerous studies have shown that forced consolidation is not the solution, but providing incentives for cooperation is the better way to achieve the desired result of economical service without losing local control. He said that PSATS does not oppose voluntary mergers and consolidation, but the justification for these efforts must be “based on a demonstration of valid community interest in all participating communities.” He continued that PSATS was strongly opposed to SB 1357 because it would “seriously erode” local democracy “by taking away residents’ input and preferences into the process and placing it in the hands of an unelected commission.”
Mr. Sanko also said that the legislation is unnecessary because intergovernmental cooperation is alive and well in the commonwealth, pointing out that 83 percent of townships recently told PSATS that they are currently involved in collaborative regional projects ranging from code inspections to recycling and from land use to snow removal. “The flexibility of our system of local government provides local officials with the opportunities to determine the best way to provide a service to their residents,” he said.
He cautioned against the mandatory regionalization of services against the will of elected officials and their constituents. “Whether services should be provided by individual municipalities or combined through voluntary intermunicipal cooperation is a decision that must remain with each local government and its citizens,” he said. “Townships are creative in their delivery of services and should retain the ability to decide how best to serve their residents.”
The next day’s testimony focused exclusively on House Bill 2431 (PN 3570), which calls for a constitutional amendment to establish counties as the basic level of government in Pennsylvania. It would fundamentally change the way Pennsylvanians are governed by making community-based local government unconstitutional and giving counties oversight of all municipal operations, including roads, land use and zoning, sanitation, health and safety, and law enforcement.
Appearing before the committee in support of HB 2431 was the bill’s prime sponsor, Rep. Thomas Caltagirone (D-Berks), who likened his idea of merging municipal governments to gardening, saying, “One plants a seed and hopes it grows.” He told the committee that he introduced HB 2431 after learning about how other states have “saved money through consolidating local governments at the county level.” He said that townships provided a valuable service in the past, but “keeping townships and boroughs says our needs have not changed in 200 years.”
Despite commending Rep. Caltagirone for introducing the bill for discussion purposes, Rep. Jerry Knowles (R-Schuylkill) said that he completely disagrees with its intent and pointed out that it is largely cities and boroughs not townships that are suffering. When asked by Rep. Knowles how the transition to a county-based government would be accomplished, Rep. Caltagrione admitted that he was not exactly sure how the process would work or how much money HB 2431 would save. He said though that amending the Constitution is a long and involved process and that those issues would be addressed during this process. As for the current situation of cities and older boroughs, Rep. Caltagirone said that Pennsylvania is an aging state and is losing population because of “oppressive local government ordinances.” Chairman Bob Freeman (D-Northampton) expanded on Caltagirone’s remarks, warning Rep. Knowles that cities are not always at fault for their issues and failures, but rather they are in a bad position because they have no tax base.
Professor Ciglar of Penn State-Harrisburg appeared again before the committee and told the members that the focus should not be on “structural reform” but rather an emphasis should be placed on reforming “big things” like tax reform issues. She continued that counties might not necessarily be willing to take on municipal responsibilities in addition to their current duties. She warned that Maryland, often referenced by county-based government advocates in Pennsylvania, has had problems with its form of government.
David Sanko criticized the bill, saying that HB 2431 will replace local government “with an out-of-sight mega bureaucracy with jurisdiction over all municipal operations,” and that the proposal is “a slap in the face to our Founding Fathers.” He said that township officials are overwhelmingly opposed to HB 2431 and that a “one-size fits all” approach does not fit the specific needs of localities and that bigger government does not necessarily mean better government.
“Proponents of HB 2431 in particular, and regional-based governments in general, claim that consolidating municipal functions at the county or regional level will eliminate duplication of public services and increase the efficiency of their delivery, all at a lower cost to taxpayers,” Mr. Sanko said. “These contentions are some of the more pernicious myths that are presented to support regional government, and are not based on any solid evidence.”
He noted that currently township officials perform the work that many more and higher paid bureaucrats will do upon consolidation and pointed out the already high level of municipal cooperation and joint efforts that townships undertake. He emphasized that local government allows for increased participation in the political process and is made up of underpaid public servants.
He offered that if proponents of HB 2431 were truly concerned about the cost of government, they should support the removal of current barriers placed on local governments. He called for arbitration reform, allowing for electronic advertising, amending the Prevailing Wage Law, and others, saying, “These common sense reforms, and many others…would provide real, measurable benefits to local government and our mutual constituents.”
Following Mr. Sanko, Betty Ann Moyer, second vice president of the Boroughs Association, said that her association opposes HB 2431 and would never support any legislation that would force municipalities to merge or consolidate. She said, “[The Boroughs Association] does not oppose the idea of locally initiated and locally validated municipal mergers and consolidations,” but warned, “local community leaders and their constituents do not want boundary changes forced down their throats by Harrisburg. All decisions should start local and finish local.”
Usually lost in this debate are the counties themselves. Seeking to add some light on where county governments stand was Doug Hill of the County Commissioners Association of Pennsylvania. He said that even though CCAP opposes HB 2431, the county commissioners feel that its “underlying purpose, a vigorous public debate on the viability of Pennsylvania local governance, is correct and appropriate.” He advocated for retaining local autonomy and the removal of barriers to allow for more efficient delivery of services, but he further noted that CCAP has supported some “limited transfer of service from municipalities to counties, all on a case-by-case basis and all in response to specific problems or issues.” He concluded his comments by saying that due to Federal and State mandates, “[Counties] have been the fastest-growing level of government…in the commonwealth.”
Last to testify was Reading Mayor Thomas McMahon who presented as evidence of his city’s participation in the Act 47 recovery program that the “writing was on the wall” that Pennsylvania’s current local government structure “no longer supports healthy communities.” While noting that it is not currently feasible for counties to take on municipal functions, he said that local governments must “look beyond the 19th century” and towards the future. When asked by Rep. Knowles who would be responsible for Reading’s municipal debt after a proposed merger, Mayor McMahon said that everyone must come together and find solutions because some municipalities and cities are not far behind Reading’s financial situation.
The Township Commissioners Association also submitted testimony vehemently opposing HB 2431.
PSATS thanks all of our members (over 800 of you from 66 counties) who provided us with resolutions to oppose forced mergers and consolidations. We even have a few from some boroughs and first class townships. We are not sure if or when these bills will be considered this session, but there is something that is absolutely unmistakable, this issue will not be going away and will only intensify. For this reason, we still encourage you, if you have not already done so, to pass a resolution and provide it to your legislators and a copy to us. A sample resolution is attached to this WIR.
