PSATS Week in Review

It was only a matter of time, but legislation was reintroduced this session to levy a fee on most municipalities that rely solely or partly on the State Police for local patrol services.  HB 1228 (like House Bill 1500 from last session) would impose a fee for full-time State Police patrols at a rate of $52 per resident for the first year, $104 for the second year, and $156 for the third and subsequent years.  Similarly, fees for part-time coverage would be as follows: $17 per resident for the first year, $34 for the second year, and $52 the third and subsequent years.  Some municipalities, based on their population and local coverage, or financial distressed status, would be exempted from some fees.  However, failure to pay any charge would result in the forfeiture of state municipal allocations, such as liquid fuels payments.

While PSATS  is still reviewing the new township census figures and analyzing revenue projections under HB 1228, it can be safe to assume that this legislation would bring in an enormous windfall to the state Treasury.  Last session’s bill would have garnered between $400 to $500 million (see what your township would have owed under HB 1500 here).  However, with a nine percent increase in population in second class townships over the past decade, it can be assumed that the state’s revenue figure for HB 1228 would be much higher.     

While their fee amounts and impacts are the same, there are some differences between the two bills.  The vast majority of HB 1500’s revenue would have gone into the state’s Motor License Fund.  HB 1228’s revenue would instead be deposited in the state’s General Fund.  While HB 1228 includes provisions stating that money should be used for State Police cadet classes or assistance to regionalize local police departments, the fluidity of the uses of General Fund money should give all township officials pause.   

According to author of both bills, Rep. Michael Sturla (D-Lancaster), HB 1228 “is not an attempt to simply generate revenue.”  He says that HB 1228 would free up money in the Motor License Fund to support transportation projects across the state.  However, as was the case under HB 1500, there is little guarantee that this money would actually be used for projects that would assist those townships paying the per capita service fee.  This would issue would be even more acute under HB 1228’s requirement that places the money in the state General Fund. 

However, beyond this particular matter of contention, HB 1228 would still mandate a double tax on residents residing in municipalities with no local police departments.  Nothing has changed since last session, residents in municipalities that rely on the State Police already pay for this service through state taxes.  The argument that the vast majority of residents in municipalities with local police are unfairly taxed twice does not hold water because residents in those municipalities have weighed the benefits of having local police protection and have chosen the extra cost of such service.  There is no choice in HB 1228 – you just pay, with no guarantee of additional service from the state. 

Furthermore, if the State takes a position to begin charging municipalities for basic state services, such as State Police protection, what is next?  PennDOT services?  DEP assistance? 

Stay tuned for more information over the next few months concerning HB 1228.  In the meantime, please contact your House members and remind them that local governments should not be used as a revenue source to fill holes in State government operations, and that all legislators should oppose this scheme or any other similar type of legislation.

Webmaster

Leave a Reply