At a June 18 preview meeting staff introduced a proposal to establish a government study commission and a home-rule charter ordinance and led a discussion about how a home rule charter could affect local taxes, fees and procurement rules.

Why it matters: Adopting a home rule charter can change which local tax and fee options are available, alter procurement and bidding rules, and affect how the borough advertises procurements and applies for grants. Those changes affect municipal revenues, administrative processes and legal exposure.

Staff and council members discussed a number of issues that would be affected by home-rule authority or that require clarification before any charter changes. On taxes, staff said the earned-income tax (EIT) has a 1% statutory limit and that the municipality currently receives half of that 1% (staff phrased it as “it’s a 1%, but we only get half of it”), noting that the borough is at its current authorized level for that tax. Participants also asked whether there is a cap on the real estate transfer tax; staff said they could not confirm a cap from memory and that the state typically constrains some local tax powers.

On procurement and bidding, staff described how a home-rule community can codify modern procurement practices—such as using requests for proposals and adjusting bid bonds and performance securities—where borough code currently prescribes separate prime contracts and manual advertising steps. Advertising requirements were highlighted as a local cost driver; staff noted that some communities advertise once rather than multiple times to lower costs. Council members and staff discussed that administrative fees must be justifiable: excessive administrative fees can be treated as an unauthorized tax and subject to refund claims if challenged. Staff said there is a statutory process that allows petitioners to seek refunds (including interest and penalties) if a fee is found to be an unauthorized tax.

The meeting packet also listed a number of proposed code changes and fee adjustments, including updates to residency-resolution waivers and revisions affecting mandatory dedication of land or fees in lieu, but participants requested additional financial analysis before adopting fee changes. Staff said some fee figures in the packet reflect rates set many years ago (one example cited was a $200 residential zoning application fee set about 20 years prior) and recommended further analysis on administrative cost recovery and whether proposed increases reflect administrative costs rather than revenue generation.

Participants noted potential grant-eligibility concerns and asked whether becoming a home-rule community would limit access to grants; staff answered they are not aware of a blanket restriction but recommended verifying grant program rules case-by-case. The packet included references to borough code, the Municipalities Planning Code, PennDOT policy interpretations on drainage, and other statutory frameworks discussed during the meeting.

Ending: The council took no formal vote on a charter or code changes; the introduction of a government study commission and the home-rule charter ordinance was informational and the discussion identified areas for follow-up and further legal and financial review.