I’m not sure how I feel about this decision, which nullified a state plan to required the 89 rural communities without police departments to pay the state for State Police coverage.
The plan, which would have cost the towns $12.6 million (a sliver of the $87 million the state says it costs to police those towns), was part of a larger effort by the state to make smaller communities understand the actual costs of continuing to function as independent municipalities. The state’s argument has been that state law enforcement has allowed these towns to receive police protection without having to pay for it — unlike towns with their own forces or those that may have contracts with neighboring communities.
The cost to the state is relatively minor, but the new cost in small towns would have meant higher property tax bills.
The problem, as I see it, is not the governor’s plan — which seems fair when you consider that residents of Rocky Hill, for instance, pay for State Police services out of their state income tax, the same as I do, but they get to use state cops as their primary law enforcement option. I have to pay additional money for local police.
At the same time, we all rely on the State Police for a lot of things, and these small towns have been operating in this way for years and years — so this is not the easiest of issues to resolve.
The issue raises some basic questions about the vast number of towns in this state and whether we should be pushing them or forcing them to band together as larger communities so that services can be provided and provided using an economy of scale.
The questions of police protection, of library spending (i.e., Jamesburg), recreation programs, school funding, etc., have to be addressed within a broader context. We can’t keep dealing with each of them in a vacuum.
Hank Kalet 
Well stated. When I first heard about this plan, I thought it was a Good Thing. It seems only fair for small towns to pay for their services, and if this means they have to band with other communities for regional services, or even merge municipalities, them\’s the breaks. But you (and the court) raise good points regarding the practical implementation. The state can\’t suddenly spring a huge cost on these towns, but I think it should phase out the support (in the form of surcharges) over a period of time, perhaps longer than in the original plan.