ShareThis Page
Irwin postpones amusement tax, will work with Lamp Theatre officials on issue |

Irwin postpones amusement tax, will work with Lamp Theatre officials on issue

Joe Napsha
| Tuesday, February 5, 2019 11:46 p.m

Irwin debates amusement tax

After a heated discussion that at times turned into a shouting match, Irwin officials this week decided to table a controversial proposed amusement tax that would slap a 5 percent charge on tickets sold at entertainment venues such as The Lamp Theatre.

Instead of potentially voting on the tax at its Feb. 13 meeting, council will first form a working group to meet with representatives of The Lamp concerning the issue. No action was taken on the tax in January, and the matter had been off the agenda since October.

Council President Rick Burdelski said Tuesday at a workshop meeting he never agreed to and would not support a 5 percent levy on tickets or entry fees. The proposed ordinance would exempt organizations that have nonprofit charitable status.

“There are a lot of issues that have to be worked out,” Burdelski said.

He pointed to confusion over the criteria determining which entities are subject to an amusement tax, including wording that indicates charitable organizations must “relieve the government of a burden” to be exempt from the tax.

“I’m not going to vote for something I can’t understand,” he said.

Mike Caralli, a Lamp Theatre board member on the venue’s programming and oversight committee, asked council to take “baby steps” in implementing any tax.

“We have to fight back here. Five percent’s ridiculous. We’d rather see a flat fee,” possibly starting at 50 cents a ticket, Caralli said.

If the 5 percent tax had been implemented in 2018, the estimated $572,000 the Lamp received from ticket sales would have generated about $28,600 in tax revenue.

The Lamp attracted almost 30,000 patrons last year, Caralli said. That would have generated about $15,000 for the borough if a levy of 50 cents per ticket had been in place.

“That means we would pay more taxes than anyone in this borough,” Caralli said.

Council last year discussed changing the amusement tax levy to a flat $1 fee on tickets.

Mayor William Hawley maintained that the proposed tax would not hurt attendance at events and that The Lamp should “pay the piper a little bit.”

“We as a borough have a lot of sweat equity in that building,” Hawley said. “I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill.”

Caralli replied that The Lamp can’t afford the 5 percent tax.

“You guys are trying to compare us — a 350-seat venue — to Pittsburgh. We’re not having Lady Gaga here,” Caralli said.

The Lamp has two full-time managers who are “underpaid” and one part-time employee, Caralli said. It relies on a group of volunteers to operate.

“We just have to make money to stay alive,” Caralli said.

With the success of The Lamp helping neighboring businesses, other communities, such as Greensburg, want to duplicate the model of downtown Irwin, said Terri Yurcisin, Lamp board vice president.

“This is something everyone would want in their municipality,” said Yurcisin, whose parents, George and Catherine Rebich, once owned The Lamp.

“I want to create a little Lawrenceville here … where people can walk the streets” and patronize businesses, Caralli said.

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252 or

Joe Napsha is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Joe at 724-836-5252, or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Westmoreland
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using 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.