I would like to clarify a few items in the news story “All Latrobe departments earmarked for changes” (June 26 and TribLIVE.com) about happenings at the June 24 Latrobe Council agenda-planning session concerning the Latrobe Volunteer Fire Department (LVFD):
• The LVFD receives tax dollars from the city via the city budget. This financial information for the LVFD was provided to Bill Gaughn, fire consultant for Delta Development Group Inc.'s five-year city management plan.
• Each of the five hose houses in the city is an incorporated entity within the commonwealth.
• These hose houses raise additional funds, on their own, via ticket and sub sales, bingo, etc., to purchase additional equipment necessary to properly, efficiently and safely serve the city and surrounding community. This money is not tax dollars and is not part of the city's budget — and therefore outside Delta Development's scope of analyzing city income and expenses.
• Except for a few pieces of fire equipment purchased with city money more than a decade ago, each hose house has purchased its equipment vehicles, tools, radios, gear and supplies with the money it has raised over the years and through its volunteer efforts.
• The hose houses that are 501(c)3-certified are required, by law, to file federal tax forms each year that detail their respective income and expenses. These filings are public information.
The writer is vice president of the Latrobe Volunteer Fire Department and a Latrobe councilman.
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.