State Police legislation would rob Valley

By Amanda O’Rourke
The Daily Item

SUNBURY July 04, 2009 10:39 pm

— Pennsylvania municipalities that rely on state police may soon face a hefty price tag for the service.
A per-capita tax for municipalities that don't have their own police force is under consideration in the state House of Representatives after narrowly passing the State Government Committee Wednesday by a single vote, and without any Republican support.
House Bill 1500, known as the State Police Municipal Patrol Services Act, would impose charges on the 20 percent of the state that relies solely on state police coverage. In the Valley, that tax would affect the vast majority of the 82 municipalities in Montour, Northumberland, Snyder and Union counties.
Township officials late last week said they knew nothing of the pending legislation that would cost $52 per capita for the first year, $104 for the second year and $156 for the third and subsequent years, generating "” at the bill's maturity "” about $14 million from the Valley alone.
David Hassenplug, chairman of the board of supervisors in Kelly Township, a Union County municipality with a population of 4,502, said the panel would likely be forced to raise taxes significantly to pay for the fee, which in its third year would surpass $700,000.
"There's no other option," Hassenplug said.
Robin Bieber, secretary in Penn Township, Snyder County, was shocked by news of the legislation, saying she had no idea how the township would pay a fee to the state that would "” at about $560,000 "” nearly wipe out the township's annual revenue of between $600,000 and $700,000.
The only option would be to raise taxes in the township, which currently does not levy a real estate tax.
"They'd like to keep it that way," Bieber said of the board of supervisors.
Delaware Township, Northumberland County, with a population of 4,341, would be required to pay about $677,000 in the third year, which would essentially erase the township's revenue stream, township secretary Bill Michael said.
"I can't see the Legislature passing such a bill," Michael said. "It would bankrupt the township."
The bill, sponsored by Rep. Mike Sturla, D-Lancaster, will go before the Democrat-controlled House for approval, but must also gain approval before the Senate, which is Republican-controlled.
A similar measure, which would have imposed a $100-per-resident tax on the largest municipalities that do not have their own police forces, died in the last legislative session.
Rep. Russ Fairchild, R-85 of Lewisburg, said he hopes the same happens this time.
"I think it's going to have an awful lot of votes from ... some of the larger cities and it may be close, but I just don't think that it will pan out," Fairchild said.
The bill has drawn criticism from groups such as the Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors on the grounds that residents in townships affected by the legislation would essentially be taxed twice for state police services, both taxes being levied by the state.
It's a position Monroe Township supervisor Dean Davis, a 28-year veteran of the Pennsylvania State Police, agreed with. And Davis balked at a stipulation of the bill that allows for municipalities to opt out, but dictates that those choosing to do so would lose state police patrols and instead pay on a per-incident basis.
"Patrols "” that's a basic function of the state police," Davis said. "I don't know how they could do that. How are you going to get from Selinsgrove to Shamokin Dam without patrolling Monroe Township?"
Sturla, the bill's author, said the legislation would generate about $450 million by the third year of implementation, $20 million of which would help pay for state police operations, new state police cadets, equipment, cooperative police pacts, and to maintain Pennsylvania's highways and bridges.
According to Sturla, 90 percent of the remainder of the money would go to the Motor License Fund, while the final 10 percent would be allocated to the Department of Community and Economic Development for grants and studies for cooperative policing arrangements.
But Fairchild said he believes some legislators may be overlooking the fact that if residents are now being required to pay heftily for state police services, they will likely come to expect more boots on the ground "” literally.
"If this would be mandated, then how many more state police officers and the whole gamut of resources to support the increase of patrol officers (would be needed)?" Fairchild said. "It would be a significant figure and I'm not sure anyone's really looking at it. Because, by golly, if you or I are paying, we're going to want something for our investment."

Copyright © 1999-2008 cnhi, inc.