Murrysville council unanimously denies petition seeking rescission of subsurface leases for borough parks

Murrysville council voted unanimously Oct. 15 to deny a citizen petition from Protect PT asking the borough to rescind three subsurface leases that would allow drilling beneath Duff and Kovalchick parks.

The petition prompted a series of public comments from residents and environmental advocates who said the leases pose environmental risks and raised questions about whether the borough—or the lessees—properly established ownership of mineral rights. Tom Pike, an environmental policy advocate with Protect PT, told the council the petition included roughly 330 verified Murrysville signatories and read parcel IDs he said are in dispute. "Please resend these 3 leases," Pike said, urging the council to avoid exposing taxpayers to potential litigation.

Other residents reiterated concerns. Danny Westfall said he opposed subsurface leasing under Duff Park and urged the council to choose the "harder" path of rescission to protect community parks. Robert Allman warned of "unclear records of ownership of the mineral rights" and said rescission would avoid potential taxpayer liability.

Council solicitor Wes advised that the leases the borough signed do not warrant title to oil and gas and that resolving title quality is the responsibility of the lessees (Olympus or Apex, depending on the parcel). He cautioned that the borough faces contractual obligations: "It is certainly my recommendation as your solicitor that we cannot rescind the leases because we cannot put ourselves into a position avoiding or violating our obligations under the contract," he said, adding that rescission could result in additional damages to cover what the companies spent in reliance on the leases.

The timeline of debate included assertions from residents that the council made the lease decisions quickly (some said actions occurred in December) and calls for environmental reviews and public hearings; Steven Parker cited municipal code sections (he referenced "Section C 90" and "code 3405") and said an environmental impact statement and consultation with the Environmental Advisory Council should have occurred. Council members and staff responded that title issues and liability are complex, that the borough received signing bonuses from the companies, and that litigation risk and contractual exposure counseled against rescinding executed leases.

Following council discussion, a motion was made to deny the Protect PT petition (item 13a), the motion was seconded and carried unanimously. The minutes record the vote as approval of consideration in denial of the petition; individual roll‑call votes were not recorded in the transcript.

What happens next: The council took no action to rescind the leases at this meeting. Staff and the solicitor will retain their legal positions that the borough could face contractual liability if it attempts unilateral rescission; petition organizers said they will continue to press the issue through public engagement and legal review.

Authorities and provenance: The petition process was presented under the borough Home Rule Charter §C46, which staff cited as requiring council consideration within 60 days; petition signature counts were reported at "at least 321" by staff and about 330 verified Murrysville signatories by Protect PT volunteers. Protect PT and residents read specific parcel IDs into the record, and the solicitor and council discussed possible contract and title liabilities before the vote.

The meeting closed after several routine agenda items.