Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Electrified Security Fencing topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee reports bill to let commercial property owners install electrified perimeter systems after floor amendment filed
Summary
House Bill 1871, allowing commercial and industrial property owners to install electrified security systems, was reported by the Commerce Conference Committee with members raising concerns about undefined terms and vague land‑use limits; sponsors filed a floor amendment to address drafting problems.
Chairman Lawrence called up House Bill 1871 (printers number 2323) on Oct. 7, a measure sponsored by Chairman Conklin that would authorize commercial and industrial property owners to install electrified security systems to enhance perimeter protection.
Supporters said the bill responds to differing municipal zoning rules across the Commonwealth that can hamper consistent approaches to perimeter security. Critics said the bill as drafted contains vague and inconsistent definitions that could invite litigation.
"This bill is constructed in such a way that it only applies to commercial entities," a committee member said after reviewing the draft. The member pointed out the draft defines "commercial entity" but not "industrial entity," leaving the latter to judicial interpretation, and questioned whether sole proprietorships or unregistered partnerships would be covered.
The same committee member said other language in the bill links permissibility to the owner's intent and bans installation in areas "designated exclusively for residential use," which the member described as subjective and likely to generate disputes. He said the bill needs substantial redrafting and that amendments were required before final passage.
Chairman Conklin told the committee an amendment had been drafted and filed online and would be introduced on the House floor the following day. "It is filed online, ready to go," he said, asking members to review the amendment before the next day's session.
The committee voted to report the bill to the full House. The ayes were 14 and the nays were 12.
Committee members said the filed floor amendment aims to correct the inconsistencies and definitions noted in committee but the committee did not consider the amendment itself.
Because the bill's definitions and standards could affect zoning enforcement and private landowner rights, members urged review of the filed amendment prior to the floor vote.
Votes at a glance: Committee report — Ayes 14, Nays 12.
