|
Wetmore supervisors oppose bill on police patrols |
|
Written by Publisher
|
|
Wednesday, 02 September 2009 |
Photo by Ted Lutz
This new sign stands in front of the Wetmore Township municipal building on Spring Street. A second new sign is located on Route 321 at Spring Street. Jerry Clark of Sign Design of Westline built and installed the new signs.
By Ted Lutz
Republican Staff
Proposed legislation to charge municipalities for State Police patrols is raising the ire of several Kane area townships.
"Our people already pay state tax for the State Police," Wetmore Township Supervisor Dave "Chip" Peterson said Tuesday. "There is no way the people in this township can afford to pay more taxes."
The legislation, introduced by State Rep. Mike Sturla (D-Lancaster), is moving ahead in the state House after the House State Government Committee voted 13-12 last month to send the proposal to the Rules Committee.
State Rep. Kathy Rapp (R-Warren) and State Rep. Matt Gabler (R-Treasure Lake) were among those committee members to oppose the move to advance the legislation. State Rep. Marty Causer (R-Turtle Point) also opposes the proposal.
Under the proposed legislation, "every municipality that relies solely on the State Police would be required to pay an annual per capita fee of $156."
Those municipalities that do not have a certain level of "local patrol services" would be obligated to pay $52 per capita.
Under the proposal, municipalities could "opt-out" and pay for State Police services on a per-incident basis. All fees would be phased in over a three-year period.
The proposal would affect Kane area townships, including Hamilton, Hamlin, Highland and Jones, in addition to Wetmore.
"All residents of Pennsylvania are taxed for police patrol services, but only 20 percent of the state population utilizes these services," Sturla said in a statement issued to justify his proposal. He said about 72 percent of the state's population "does not solely rely on State Police patrol services," but still pay between $100 and $400 per capita annually for their own local police.
Sturla said his proposed bill would "generate" about $450 million in the third year of implementation.
Peterson said Wetmore is "a small rural township" that can't afford additional taxes to pay for State Police patrols. He said he hopes the measure lands "in the trash bin" at the House.
The McKean County Redevelopment and Housing Authority is going to bat for the county's municipalities, which could be affected by the proposed bill.
"This legislation would severely financially impact our rural townships," Dusti Pantuso said in a letter to the Wetmore Township Board of Supervisors. Pantuso, the executive director of the authority, said "we feel that this legislation needs to be fought from the ground up" through contacts with elected state officials.
Pantuso said the authority is "willing to assist our county townships by putting together a submittal package to our elected officials."
The Wetmore supervisors agreed Tuesday to notify the authority that the township is more than willing to participate in the stance against the proposed legislation.
Although the authority's link with townships is mainly for funding from the federal community-development program, Pantuso said the agency is willing to take the lead in planning opposition to the Sturla bill.
"We thought it was the right thing to do," Pantuso said, because the proposal "will cost the townships more money."
"None of our townships are independently wealthy," she said.
She said the authority is hoping the townships will "join together" and form a united stand against the legislation. She said townships already are contacting the authority because "they're all interested in fighting this."
The authority plans to schedule a meeting to discuss the proposed bill. No date has been set for the forum, Pantuso said.
|
|
Last Updated ( Tuesday, 20 October 2009 )
|
