More 'research' needed
A recent letter to the editor (“Research the candidates,” May 11) claimed to help voters to be informed of the qualities of the candidates, stating qualities in terms of Connellsville's financial situation while conveniently, it seems, failing to expound upon the factors that contributed to the situation and city council's course of action.
Due to circumstances beyond the city's control, the former tax-collection agency, CENTAX, went out of business, resulting in a loss of revenue to the city. Council basically had two options to consider to maintain the level of services to residents without a work disruption: either raise taxes or increase our tax-anticipation note and work to resolve the budget shortfalls in the forthcoming years. Some neighboring communities have raised taxes to eliminate their tax-anticipation note. I might add that the tax rate in those communities is more than double that of Connellsville's. We chose to increase the tax-anticipation note perusing legal remedies, hoping to recoup the lost revenues to the city.
The city has contracted with a new agency, which, if current trends continue, will meet collection expectations for this year. The collections were slow to start but have steadily grown each month, totaling around $116,000 for the first quarter. The last reported monthly collection was up to $54,900. So $54,900 multiplied by nine for the remaining year equals $494,100 plus $116,000 equals $610,100 and $550,000 was projected in anticipated collection of Earned Income Tax this year.
Raising taxes with the current economy and an older population in the city was not a viable option. There is no disaster in the city, as proposed by some — just a situation being dealt with by rational, experienced and, may I add, qualified elected officials.
The writer is a Connellsville City councilman and a candidate for Fayette County treasurer.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Gas industry obfuscates the truth
- Unhappy returns
- Slots payments’ source
- Low blow
- School funding
- Out of ‘other people’s money’
- Care for our children first
- Ex-Im & Westinghouse
- Wolf & ObamaCare
- Getting bad advice
- Buffer zones needed II