On February 7, 2017, Governor Wolf proposed a 2017‑2018 budget for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania (“Proposed Budget”) based on reduced expenditures and a more modest revenue increase than seen in Governor Wolf’s prior budget proposals. He would cover a $3 billion deficit with, among other things, (1) a Marcellus Shale natural gas tax, (2) lease of the Pennsylvania Farm Show Arena, (3) consolidation of four agencies into a Department of Health and Human Services, (4) elimination of business tax loopholes, and (5) a user fee of $25 per person on municipalities that use services of the Pennsylvania State Police and do not contract for or provide their own police force (each a “State-Only Municipality”). Republicans initially offered faint praise including House Speaker Mike Turzai who said that the proposed $2 billion in spending cuts and efficiencies shows that “the Governor certainly took a few pages from [the Republican] play book.” On March 24, 2017, however, Rep. Jason Ortitay (R-Washington/Allegheny), member of the House Appropriations Committee, asserted that the Proposed Budget does not have the stated $2 billion in budget cuts but rather increases spending by $805 million and promised to deliver an alternate budget. The increasing costs to operate the Pennsylvania State Police (“State Police”) will recur and be addressed in any budget adopted for 2017-2018 and successive years. This article discusses the $25 per person user fee in the Proposed Budget (the “Proposed Fee”).
According to Colonel Tyree C. Blocker, Commissioner of the State Police, State Police operational costs total $234 per year per person served in the approximately 1,300 State-Only Municipalities based on a $600 million annual operating cost. Another 400 municipalities provide for some police services and receive part‑time service from the State Police. By that measure, $25 per person per year is a bargain, although the Commissioner refrained from taking a position on the Proposed Fee in recent budget hearings. The overall 2017‑2018 budget for the State Police is proposed at $1.2 billion with $700 million coming from the Motor License Fund whose resources are regularly considered for alternate uses such as road and bridge work. Clearly, some argument could be made for a fee for service by the State Police in State-Only Municipalities, but how it is levied and on whom the burden falls comprise much of the ongoing debate.
The two largest State-Only Municipalities are Lower Macungie Township in Lehigh County and Hempfield Township in Westmoreland County. They would pay approximately $790,000 and $1 million, respectively, in 2017 if the Proposed Fee is adopted. In the East Penn Valley, most communities are State-Only Municipalities other than the Boroughs of Kutztown, Fleetwood, Hamburg and Oley and the Township of Tilden. Some local communities would pay the following in 2017 under the Proposed Fee: Lenhartsville Borough $4,550; Lyons Borough $14,000; Topton Borough $53,000; and Maxatawny Township $190,850.
What are the inequities of the Proposed Fee? The Proposed Fee would be assessed on the municipality which in turn would levy a millage tax increase on its residents. Because the only tax authorized to municipalities to cover the Proposed Fee is general use millage, landowners alone would pay the tax directly. This excludes the fairness of placing the burden on a greater section of the population who might not own real estate but who do consume State Police services. Under former Governor Ridge’s administration in 1999, a similar fee was proposed but it addressed larger municipalities (populations over 5,000) and sought more per capita ($100). Similar proposals were made in the 2008 and 2010 budgets. According to Holly Fishel, Policy and Research Manager, Pennsylvania State Association of Township Supervisors, “[Advocates of] this [Proposed Fee] view municipalities as a source of revenue rather than as a partner in service to residents.” With a general fund authorization tax capped at 14 mills in Townships of the Second Class and reduced state subsidies for sewage management and enforcement, by example only, some municipalities would have to sacrifice other services to fund and pay the Proposed Fee. State-Only Municipalities suggest that their citizens already pay taxes and fees for the State Police and that the Proposed Fee results in an unwanted “double taxation.” Perhaps it would be more equitable for users of State Police services to pay (a) a fee by the incident, not per capita, and (b) if the user is the municipality, with taxing authority in municipal codes adequate to cover a State Police assessment.
What are the equities of the Proposed Fee? Citizens in municipalities with dedicated or part‑time police service (each a “Local Police Municipality”) pay state taxes and fees to cover the State Police and pay millage taxes to cover their own police. They already pay the “double taxation” resisted by State-Only Municipalities. The Proposed Fee might be more equitable for State-Only Municipalities if they could rely on police coverage as a Local Police Municipality relies on its own force. State Police coverage is a relative cost benefit to State-Only Municipalities but the service they receive can be delayed due to the remoteness of the nearest State Police barracks. Further, State-Only Municipalities receive uncompensated police service from Local Police Municipalities. According to Chief Craig M. Summers of the Kutztown Borough Police Department, his force provides unreimbursed service to State-Only Municipalities. By example, on March 25, 2017, the Kutztown police responded to a “burglary in progress” call in an adjoining State-Only Municipality when the State Police barracks in Reading advised that it could not timely cover the incident. In this example, Kutztown landowners paid taxes and fees for the State Police readiness services that they did not consume and paid millage taxes for the operational costs of their own force responding to this incident. The equity of a fee for State Police services provided in this example might have enabled the State Police to increase its available Troopers to respond timely to the incident and would have relieved the burden of tax from Kutztown landowners as to the State Police and its own force.
Governors and legislators have advanced some form of the Proposed Fee since at least 1999 and the sources of State Police funding will continue to be considered for other uses. The Proposed Fee could generate about $63 million for the State Police. Governor Wolf has also asked the State Police to find $24.3 million in cost reductions. The State Police must attract more candidates to meet present demand for present and future services. On February 14, 2017, the State Police announced that candidates no longer need an associate’s degree or 60 hours of college credits before applying to be cadets at the State Police Academy, thus opening candidacy to more potential cadets whose training will cost more money than presently allocated. Whether the Proposed Budget goes forward or Pennsylvania adopts an alternate budget, State Police funding will have to be addressed.
© 2017 Robert J. Hobaugh, Jr.