Pennsylvania House Bill HB765

Pennsylvania 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/3/25
• Refer: 3/3/25

Caption

Amending the act of June 25, 1931 (P.L.1352, No.332), referred to as the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Compact, providing for veto power by the Governor over certain actions; further providing for audits; and providing the Governor of each state with power to ratify or veto certain actions taken by commissioners.

Impact

The proposed changes to the compact are designed to empower state governors to have a more significant role in the management and decision-making processes related to toll operations and bridge management. This includes a stipulation that the governors can veto any actions taken by the commission that involve representatives from Pennsylvania. Such amendments could lead to a more centralized form of governance that may align decision-making with state interests while also maintaining a systematic review process through required audits.

Summary

House Bill 765 aims to amend the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Compact, originally enacted in 1931, to provide enhanced oversight and authority to the governors of Pennsylvania and New Jersey over actions taken by the Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission. The amendments include establishing a veto power for the governors regarding specific actions and decisions of the commission, enhancing accountability. Additionally, the bill mandates audits of the commission's finances and operations to ensure transparency and effectiveness in its operations.

Sentiment

Discussions around HB 765 indicate a mixed sentiment. Proponents argue that these changes will enhance governmental oversight and accountability, potentially leading to better management of the toll bridges and financial practices. Critics, however, may express concerns about the implications of increased state control, fearing it could disrupt current operations or complicate cooperation between Pennsylvania and New Jersey regarding toll revenue and bridge management.

Contention

Notable points of contention include the implications of the veto power, particularly how it may affect the collaborative nature of bridge management between the two states. Some stakeholders might worry that this increased authority could hinder timely decision-making and create bureaucratic red tape. Moreover, the bill's audit requirements could be viewed as either a necessary measure for accountability or as an unnecessary burden that complicates the commission's operational efficiency.