Imposing a fee for service on municipalities for municipal patrol services provided by the Pennsylvania State Police and providing for State Police patrol services agreements, for allocation of money, for fees for intermunicipal police response and for penalties.
HB2284 would create a new chapter in Title 44 governing “municipal patrol services” and require municipalities that rely on Pennsylvania State Police patrol coverage to pay a fee for that service. The bill distinguishes between full-time and part-time State Police patrol services, sets a per-capita fee structure, and directs the Commissioner of the Pennsylvania State Police to determine which municipalities are covered, invoice them annually, and publish annual service reports. It also exempts distressed municipalities and certain small municipalities that maintain minimum levels of local part-time patrol coverage.
The bill further requires municipalities that eliminate local police coverage after the effective date to enter into one-year State Police patrol services agreements on terms set by the commissioner. Those agreements would include a “reasonable” fee schedule based on factors such as population, square mileage, and crime rates. Money collected under the bill would be deposited into the General Fund for State Police operations, with a corresponding amount allocated from the Motor License Fund, and municipalities that fail to pay could lose eligibility for certain transportation-related funding until they are current.
HB2284 would also allow municipalities or regional police forces that are asked by the State Police to respond to incidents in another municipality to charge a per-incident or hourly fee. In addition, the bill authorizes payment extensions during declared local emergencies and applies prospectively to State Police patrol services provided in the calendar year after the act takes effect. Overall, the measure would shift part of the cost of State Police municipal patrol coverage from the state to the municipalities receiving that coverage, while creating a formal billing and reporting framework.
Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, there is no documented debate history to gauge formal support or opposition. Based on the bill text, the likely general sentiment is policy-driven and fiscally focused: the measure appears designed to recover costs from municipalities that depend on State Police patrols and to encourage restoration or maintenance of local police services. The main points of contention are likely to be the fairness of charging municipalities for State Police coverage, the impact on small or financially distressed municipalities, the use of Motor License Fund-related penalties, and the commissioner’s broad discretion in setting agreement terms and fees.
HB2284 would amend Title 44 of the Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes by adding a new chapter that imposes a fee-for-service system for State Police patrol coverage provided to municipalities. It would create new statutory duties for the State Police Commissioner to classify municipalities, bill them, issue annual reports, and manage agreements for municipalities that discontinue local police services. It would also create new payment consequences tied to transportation funding and authorize intermunicipal reimbursement when local police respond outside their own municipality at the State Police’s request.
No committee discussion or vote record was provided, so there is no direct evidence of legislative sentiment from hearings or roll calls. From the bill’s structure, the measure appears to be framed as a cost-recovery and accountability proposal, suggesting support from those concerned about municipal reliance on State Police services and opposition from municipalities that would face new charges. The overall tone of the bill is fiscal and administrative rather than punitive, but the fee mandate and funding penalty likely make it controversial among affected local governments.
The most likely points of contention are whether municipalities should be charged for State Police patrol services at all, whether the per-capita formula fairly reflects actual service costs, and whether smaller municipalities or distressed municipalities can realistically absorb the new fees. Another likely dispute is the commissioner’s discretion to set agreement terms and determine “reasonable” fees based on population, geography, crime rates, and other factors. The penalty provision tying nonpayment to ineligibility for certain funds may also draw criticism, as could the requirement that municipalities entering or leaving local police coverage negotiate formal agreements with the State Police.