PA MUNICIPALITIES SHOULD CONSIDER MERGING

 

Pennsylvania is divided into 67 counties and features a remarkably high number of local governments. Each parcel of land within the commonwealth falls into a specific city (57), borough (956), incorporated town (1), or township (1546).

The large number of municipalities resulted from early settlement patterns that were fragmented by challenging mountain terrain and rivers. For centuries, under Pennsylvania law, small groups of residents could petition to split off and form their own localized government.

The time has come for financially distressed municipalities to consider reversing this historical trend. The small size of many Pennsylvania local governments presents major structural and taxpayer challenges. According to the last census, half of our municipalities are home to fewer than 1,893 people, and about 22% have fewer than 800 residents. Neighboring communities duplicate administrative services and public works.

Because municipalities rely heavily on local property and earned income taxes, wealthier suburbs thrive while neighboring “rustbelt” boroughs and cities (Pittsburgh, Washington) experience declining tax bases.  In much of Pennsylvania, small borough and township governments operate with part-time elected officials or a one-person administrative staff to oversee complex audit, legal, environmental, and financial regulations.

As a result of declining tax bases and unforeseen financial setbacks, at least twenty-seven municipalities have sought relief under Act 47, The Municipal Financial Recoveries Act. While the Act has kept distressed municipalities from completely melting down, it has rarely placed them back on solid financial footing.

There is another alternative that is now being considered and adopted across the commonwealth.

On June 23, the Post Gazette announced that “Adams Township and Mars Borough (Butler County) are one step closer to becoming one municipality. Township supervisors unanimously approved an ordinance to adopt a joint merger agreement.” In the November election, voters will decide via referendum whether the proposal will merge the two municipalities.

In early 2026, the City of DuBois and Sandy Township (both in Clearfield County) officially combined to form a single, unified City of DuBois. This was the largest consolidation of its kind in the state.

What is the legal authority for these actions?  Municipal mergers and consolidations in Pennsylvania are governed by the Municipal Consolidation or Merger Act. The process requires municipal boundaries to be contiguous. It must be approved by a majority of voters in each affected municipality. Mergers are more common. Under this model one or more municipalities are absorbed into an existing entity. With consolidations, two or more communities dissolve and create a new municipality.

What are the challenges to merging?  The potential loss of local identity and local government jobs, often dissuades residents and public officials from backing these proposals. The debate reminds me of the similar mindset when a public school district seeks to close underused campuses.

The remainder of this commentary will consider the question of whether Pittsburgh and Allegheny County should merge into one entity. On a smaller scale, much of the discussion would also apply to the City of Washington and Washington County.

Over the years, the Pittsburgh Foundation and the Pennsylvania Economy League (and others) have supported efforts to combine the two entities. Allegheny County is a region with more local governments per capita than any other metropolitan area in America with one million or more people. Allegheny County’s poorer municipalities, including Pittsburgh, are confined to tax bases with limited prospects for growth. They struggle to pay for public safety, road maintenance, and other basic services with little hope of improving their financial standing.

What can be done? A report by the RAND Corporation found that with a city-county merger, “the region would gain unified leadership, more focused policy, and better coordination, which could have ‘a generally positive effect’ on economic development.”

One result of a city-county merger is that the city’s population would balloon overnight, catapulting it up national rankings. Pittsburgh would trade its 67th ranking for a spot among the 10 largest American cities without having to add a single person. Dennis Unkovic, an international corporate attorney was quoted on the topic, “Being four times bigger would be an enormous change in how we are perceived. And perception is the essence of what it is to be seen as a bigger, more powerful city.”

In reviewing all of the literature, my conclusion is that the largest obstacle to a city-county merger are the wealthy suburbs which are disinclined to allow their well-endowed tax bases to absorb all the legacy costs (city pensions, large non-profits who are not taxed) found in Pittsburgh (and Washington). These voters will not support a merger, notwithstanding all of the employment opportunities, cultural events, entertainment and sports venues, health care facilities, and social service organizations they rely on, located within underfunded city limits.

Suburban voters are happy to work and play within the city. They like to complain about the cost of parking, homeless people, and deplorable road conditions and then return to the country club. The Pennsylvania Economy League has noted it does not matter to suburban voters that, “municipal borders in the region often no longer reflect actual economic needs or the residents' ability to pay for services.” The League concluded that, “these boundaries restrict tax bases while concentrating poverty in a cage."

Urban mergers are a difficult sell and are complex to implement. This should not stop smaller, struggling communities from exploring the merger option to achieve cost savings and tax relief.