Playing Politics with State Police Services

My attention was caught by this rather disturbing article last week : Surcharge looming for police coverage - Susquehanna Independent Weekender, which stated "Under House Bill 1500, municipalities that rely solely on state police for its law enforcement would be charged based on its population. During the first year in effect, the fee would be $52 per person. It would rise to $104 per person the second year, and $156 each year after that."

For a 750 person township, the annual tab starts at $39,000 rising to $117,000 in three years. But why do this? There is a very good case that 2nd class townships already pay enough taxes for the level of State Police services needed and actually received. I have seen very few troopers drive past my farm in the last 10 years -- maybe one every 2-3 years on average. The last time was a night when they were looking for some fugitives from a Vestal area robbery who had fled down Route 267.

So, if this bill is not needed to pay for excessive street patrolling, why is it being considered?

You can read House Bill 1500(pdf) here. It passed the State Government Committee on 1 July 2009 with 13 Democrat votes in favor and all 11 Republicans and 1 Democrat voting against. It is now in the Rules Committee.

OK, so we know it is a strongly Democrat partisan bill. And we know that the House just passed a budget bill that spends far more than the House Republicans proposed or than the Senate passed in their SB 850.

Governor Rendell and the Democrats want to increase spending in the face of a severe revenue shortfall. If you won't cut spending, then you have to raise taxes directly or indirectly by forcing others (counties and towns) to pay for mandated services that can reduce state funding obligations.

This makes HB 1500 look like a bargaining chip for an upcoming House - Senate budget conference that will be needed to get a consolidated budget bill passed and signed. I believe that is a key reason for this bill being pushed now by the Democrats. But not the only reason.

A town can avoid the HB 1500 mandated fees by having a 24/7 full time police force or joining in a regional police force. A town can reduce the fee to one third the full charge by having a part time police force or participating in a regional one. Could this bill be another State Government push to force townships to consolidate services - whether needed or not?

Who gets the money collected from townships by HB 1500?

Well, the first $20,000,000 goes to a special account to fund "additional" State Police cadet classes. That's interesting. I wonder do they think they will need more classes and State Police to provide the same services as now and that towns will opt to pay the fees rather than join regional police forces? Or do they just hope that there will be enough up front money for a while to cover some budget reductions in normal funding for those classes?

After that $20 Million set aside, the rest is split 90% to the Motor License Fund and 10% to DCED. DCED is required to use its funds for "assisting and encouraging municipalities to enter into cooperative arrangements to provide police services".

So, the money follows the political goal of consolidating townships, or their services, into regional arrangements. All accomplished by State mandates that withdraw money from townships and offer to return a portion if they follow the State's political guidance. Note that the State can not force township consolidation without modification of the constitution; but the same result can approached by these means.

How likely is this bill to pass and how likely is "consolidation" to be forced on townships?

I do not have even a cloudy magic ball to foretell political events. But I suspect HB 1500 will go nowhere beyond being a pawn in the big budget battle. Remember that it passed committee with 100% Republican opposition and with 1 Democrat joining the Republicans. The Democrats may control the House, but not the Senate.

As for "consolidation", I think there will be continued pressure as long as the Democrats have the Governorship and at least one legislative body. I also think it can be successfully resisted.

Many township officials came back from the April annual PSATS meeting in Harrisburg concerned about a strongly pro-consolidation speech given by the Acting Secretary of DCED. Some took his speech as threatening consolidation. The resultant political backlash caused Gov. Rendell to place a full page "Message" in the July edition of PSATS Township News proclaiming he has "no intention of calling for the merger, consolidation, or elimination of townships."

Of course, Gov. Rendell also recognized the "efficiency of shared services and cooperation, but that should be encouraged, rather than mandated." That is a good policy statement. The key issue is making sure that the State's encouragement is not coupled to unfunded service mandates or reductions.

HB 1500 crosses that line - just like the DCED Acting Secretary's consolidation speech did. And just like that speech, voter and township pressure can keep the State "consolidators" at bay. We just need to keep fighting back and making our opinions known to our representatives.