The House Local Government Committee voted 14‑12 to report House Bill 17‑64 to the full House after debate over whether the measure duplicates existing local tools or fills a gap that leaves neighboring communities with little say.

House Bill 17‑64, described by committee staff as adding a new Article 6A to municipal planning codes, would require applicants for specified large developments to submit an impact analysis when a development could affect regional traffic, sewage capacity, watershed contribution, or other regional infrastructure. The bill would allow potentially affected municipalities, counties, or regional planning commissions to request an impact analysis, require a public hearing by the host municipality, and mandate a mitigation plan if the development is found to be of regional significance. Appeals of host-municipality decisions would be filed in the county court of common pleas and limited to parties that participated in the municipal hearing.

John (committee staff) summarized the bill’s requirements, saying the impact analysis must "analyze the effect of the proposed land development on the host municipality and other affected municipalities" and include financial impacts on emergency services, environmental effects, housing opportunities and transportation infrastructure.

Committee members debated the need for the new statutory process. Representative Reichert argued the legislation duplicates existing regional tools and would "increase time, increase cost" and could impede housing development; he urged the committee to reject the bill. Chairman Freeman countered that many regional planning bodies are advisory and local zoning decisions currently give neighboring municipalities little formal input. Freeman said the bill is a measured, study‑and‑mitigation approach and cited a proposed 1,000,000‑square‑foot warehouse in his district adjacent to inadequate roads as an example of the kinds of regional impacts the bill targets.

An amendment (A02262) offered by the chair was adopted unanimously to add data centers to the list of developments requiring an impact analysis and to define "data center." Freeman said the change was important because "we've seen an increase in data centers, and they can consume quite a bit of energy off the grid and have an impact beyond where they're located." Committee members asked whether energy and water analyses would be required; staff said those subjects would ordinarily be part of a comprehensive impact study and of any mitigation plan.

The committee completed a roll-call vote on the bill itself and approved reporting HB17‑64 to the House for future consideration, 14‑12. The committee record does not show conditional amendments beyond A02262; the bill will proceed to the House calendar for further action.