[OPINION]

By: Brad Flynn

Originally posted July 15, 2023

It seems each year for a long time, a touchy playwright is unveiled by the state: the Pennsylvania legislature stirs the imagination to charge municipalities a fee for State Police coverage. Upending decades of providing free PSP services to those municipalities that ask for the help. To fee or not to fee? The controversial question in a drama that never seems to hit the mainstage of approval. The latest to try is House Bill 684 (HB684).

Maybe it’s time for a new script. The Borough of Bath has a play. It won’t be popular. But sometimes the right thing to do is never initially popular.

Pennsylvania has the most municipal police departments of any state in this country. Of Pennsylvania municipalities, 67% rely on free PSP patrol coverage. Bath Borough being one of them. Amazingly, of Pennsylvania municipal police departments, 83% are staffed with under 10 police officers. On to HB684.

The latest reasons to amend the state law imposing a PSP fee is, in part, because PSP patrols 82% of the Commonwealth’s land mass, and the free coverage only benefits 25% of the state’s population. The proposal aims to reduce the annual $641 million in free PSP coverage, of which $500 million is offset from the state’s Motor License Fund, which is for other state purposes. What’s overlooked however, is that in most cases, PSP is providing police patrol in municipalities with lower assessed property values. Bath Borough being one of them.

Why does that matter? Assessed valuation is tied to property taxes and ultimately a municipality’s revenue strength in providing public services. If a municipality has a lower assessed property value, it limits the overall budget power to pay for things such as police services. Especially when a municipality’s budget struggles to properly fund scheduled and unscheduled infrastructure improvements or to maintain a robust capital asset management plan.

While on the topic of taxes, local service and earned income tax revenues are other factors of a municipality’s ability to provide a wide range of public services. Bath receives 56% of its revenue from property taxes and another 26% from taxes such as local service and earned income. The borough pays enough for providing public services. It is hard to keep up with the mandate loading from Pennsylvania.

The cost shifting game between the state and its municipalities is commonplace, and normally one-sided. There seems to be no problem issuing new unfunded mandates like storm water protection or PSP service fees. It is not often the state legislature creates new or expands revenue tools that will help municipalities keep up with unfunded state mandates.

In 2017, according to research supporting HB684, it was estimated that PSP was providing police services to municipalities, without any local police, at an average price tag of $234 per capita (per person living in the municipality). If that’s the PSP patrol service benchmark price per capita, Bath would have to pay $657,072 annually. While the fee seems to change so much, it’s hard to tell what the state will settle on. Either way, Bath doesn’t have the tax base for that kind of cost. This would cripple the borough’s budget and is why Bath opposes such legislation.

Piling on another fee doesn’t address other core issues. Imposing a new fee on municipalities and not providing a means to collect new revenues, only breeds new financial woes for places like Bath. Here are some problems with having a discussion or proposals on a PSP fee scheme in a revenue vacuum:

First, there are no Commonwealth mandates requiring timelier county-wide tax re-assessments. Tax re-assessments are essential to generating municipal revenues capturing economic growth in real-time or near real time. Pennsylvania has counties that haven’t performed property re-assessments in decades.

However, Bath Borough does work with county assessors and there is a proactive approach to capture ‘triggered events’ prompting re-assessments with properties that undergo change of use, certain remodeling, etc. Re-assessments don’t necessarily always mean a tax rate increase for a property owner. Re-assessments do flesh out whether a property is under-assessed, over-assessed, or if it should stay the same dependent on current market values.

But 28 years without a countywide re-assessment? That’s right! The last time Northampton County conducted sweeping property re-assessment was around 1995. Growth over that time remains largely unrealized. It is hard to tell where Bath’s actual assessed value should be today had re-assessments been completed every 1, 3, or 5 years. There could exist a property tax revenue shortage in the Borough.

Second, Pennsylvania authorizes municipalities collect additional revenues from a local service and earned income tax code dating back to 1965. These taxes are dubbed ‘Act 511’ taxes and the code hasn’t been revised in its 58-year existence. A lot has changed since then: a loaf of bread was 49 cents in 1965. Bread doesn’t cost 49 cents now. How can a municipality provide services with revenue streams based on tax code practices written 58 years ago?

Lastly, counties in Pennsylvania (except for Alleghany) do not have the legal authority under the state to form county-wide policing agencies. Something widely accepted in other states. Where the ability to centralize policing service reduces duplicative and expensive public safety efforts. County-wide, or Sheriff Department police patrolling is rarely a consideration in Pennsylvania.

Although maybe times are changing relative to county-wide policing philosophies. In a recent borough community survey, of 183 respondents, nearly half (47.54%) agreed or strongly agreed to the question of whether the Northampton County Sheriff’s Office should provide police patrols where municipal policing doesn’t exist. Another 32.79% were unsure how to respond. Perhaps there is room for persuasion. Only 19.68% of the respondents disagreed with the idea.

Unfortunately, for now, more state fees are considered. More unfunded state mandates are considered. Consideration only to continue resisting conventional wisdom. To continue drafting HB684s. No one wants to talk about these other issues. In political circles, these issues are the ‘third rail’ of politics. Mentioning it can have deadly career consequences. The Borough of Bath has no problem getting the discussion started.

Why resist conventional wisdom? HB684 creates PSP fee exemptions for municipalities operating part-time police departments–some of these agencies with less than 10 personnel. The state continues to enable what’s been long understood since the 1960s-70s that small police departments should be absorbed into larger departments. This is because smaller agencies can work hardships on other jurisdictions, still consume state resources, and those agencies can’t provide a full range of police services because of its limited size and minimal staffing.

When legislation like HB684 cooks in these special carve-outs and exemptions, it signals localism will stand as another roadblock in the quest for better solutions. Exemptions build consensus. Especially from these smaller municipalities, since the amendment wouldn’t affect their operations or local budgets. For the other municipalities: remain part of the contradiction without saying a peep. Not hardly.

Bath officials want to see more action in this drama. Maybe even ask tougher questions. State legislators should approach the PSP patrol service fee discussion while also questioning the tax code; questioning policies on re-assessing property, and maybe even questioning whether authorization should be given for county-wide policing systems. Otherwise, why discuss this issue at all. Because after all these years, the same song and dance are getting old. HB684 and the like are exhaustively redundant and boring.

To fee or not to fee? And is a PSP fee the question we should be asking?

If other municipalities agree with Bath, show support by passing similar Resolutions and share with state representatives.

Borough of Bath Council Resolution #2023-010 (passed on Monday, July 10, 2023, by a 6-0 vote, one member was absent.):

The viewpoints expressed in this article are that of Brad Flynn and not necessarily the viewpoints of Borough Council; other than the borough’s official position stated within Resolution #2023-010, duly adopted by a majority of Borough Council in lawful public session.