The police services agreement between Slippery Rock Borough and Slippery Rock Township expired April 30, with the two sides no closer to a new accord than they were two months ago.

Tuesday's borough council meeting reinforced earlier indications that it could be a long time before a new accord is achieved — perhaps not until faces change in the respective municipal governments.

The borough, which maintains a part-time police department, is sticking by its opinion that a new pact with the township must include a bigger financial outlay by that municipality. The township paid the borough just $916 in 2009 for police services.

Meanwhile, the township, which has no police department and which has relied primarily on the state police to respond to calls, wants to pay the borough an hourly rate for borough police services as needed in the township.

On Tuesday, the borough rejected the township's proposal, putting the issue again in limbo.

Township Supervisor Paul Dickey offered to negotiate with the borough as often as needed in an attempt to achieve an agreement, but it would seem that unless the township is willing to significantly beef up its proposal, or the borough decides to significantly relax its current stance, which seems unlikely at this point, the odds of reaching a quick settlement are remote, if not impossible.

But it must be noted that dialogue between the two sides provides at least a glimmer of hope.

As was noted in a Butler Eagle editorial on March 8, it's puzzling how township residents can feel comfortable with the prospect of having only the state police, who are based in Butler Township, as the first responders to calls in their municipality.

Meanwhile, it's to be hoped that everyone in Slippery Rock Township knows that the police services agreement expired on April 30 and that their first calls for assistance should go to the state police. Critical time could be lost if they attempt to reach the borough police first for quick assistance.

Concerns voiced at Tuesday's council meeting about the liability to the borough if police go outside the municipality without an agreement in place are justified.

But under what situations the borough police would or should respond to state police assistance calls when a police agreement is in place should be left to the police to decide. It's reasonable to conclude that the state police wouldn't ask for assistance if they didn't need help — at least until additional state police personnel arrived to take charge at a crime or accident scene.

The borough has been seeking about $53,000 per year under a new police contract — $10 for each of the township's 5,300 residents, based on the 2000 census. By comparison, the cost to each borough resident to maintain the borough's department currently is more than $100.

It can be argued that the borough should have, from the start, proposed a less-radical immediate cost increase for the township — perhaps a schedule of gradual price increases to the township.

But the bigger problem is that the township wants police service "on the cheap" — paying the borough a pittance, with taxpayers from across Pennsylvania paying for the township's state police protection.

However, as the March 8 editorial noted, the township's adamant opposition to a reasonable financial outlay for ensuring that police are close at hand could someday prove to be a big mistake.

Borough resident Frank Monteleone made a good point Tuesday in arguing that he cannot pay an hourly rate for as-needed services such as fire control or insurance.

"We need to get the hourly rate out of everyone's mind and get back to the negotiation table," he said.

That's probably the best advice regarding this ongoing debate. Both sides must be willing to give — and give significantly.

The two communities are not adversaries; they're neighbors.

Friction has erupted over a proposed merger or consolidation, but that debate should remain outside the realm of the police issue.

Merger/consolidation is a long-term undertaking; law enforcement service is a daily concern.

The two sides should rethink their positions and continue talking. Hopefully, faces won't have to change in order for that to happen.