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."