Editor’s note: This is the third in a series of articles about
the impact of tax reform known as Act 1, a subject which will come
before voters in the May 15 primary election. Today’s edition also
includes a letter on the editorial page detailing the Bradford Area
School District Board of Education’s complaints about the
proposal.
Not everybody is excited to see the new taxpayer relief act put
into motion even though it does provide benefit to some.
Act 1 has been called complex, confusing, full of ambiguous
language and simply a bad attempt at relieving property tax costs
for homeowners.
In fact, the Pennsylvania Coalition of Taxpayers Association
claims, “Act 1 is a fraud.”
School board directors and district business managers even find
it complicated and difficult to understand, yet they are forced to
learn it and put it out for voter approval on May 15.
In today’s edition of The Era, a letter to the editor is printed
in the Other Voices column from Bradford Area School District
directors explaining their feelings on Act 1.
Board President Paul Ridley said in a recent interview that when
they ran for office to get on the board, their goals were to reduce
taxes, but now they are being forced to raise them.
“We have been able to keep taxes down and this year we were able
to reduce them,” said Ridley.
“It increases taxes and costs that could go toward education,”
added Ridley, who said it is a time-consuming process as well.
“That’s the essence of why we feel it’s bad.”
Board director Richard Roupe said the reason they don’t like the
legislation is because “it’s a facade of tax reform.”
The Rev. Arthur J. Cox, another director, said, “It’s an insult
to our intelligence.”
Also finding the Act complicated are members of the local tax
study commission who met in late 2006 to come up with a
recommendation for school directors to implement.
The commission, which recommended an earned income tax increase
of .5 percent, was made up of four residents and board director
Rita Dincher. One of the members was Bradford resident Dorothy
Frontino.
“I’m not sure what this is going to be. I hope it will do some
good and the homeowners will benefit from it,” said Frontino. “But
they say this will happen and that will happen … and then it
doesn’t … so you never know. It is very complicated certainly.”
State Rep. Martin Causer, R-Turtlepoint, also agrees that it is
a complex piece of legislation, adding “but it’s important to point
out that the goal is to reduce property taxes.”
“I understand (school district business managers’) concerns over
the legislation that says they shall do this and shall do that, but
they (districts) were offered the question before to shift property
taxes … we made the shall aspect so that voters would have the
option to vote on it. The voters should really evaluate it before
they vote.
“It’s one of those things, there’s got to be a shift. I would
have rather seen a shift at the state level,” added Causer.
State Sen. Joe Scarnati, R-Brockway, suggests voters contact
their school districts to be sure they understand the ballot
question before they decide which way to vote.
“Each district will be different in the shift in taxes,” he
said. “There will be winners and losers. The educated voter needs
to take a look and see where they are at in this shift in taxes. We
have been long awaiting tax relief.”
Scarnati suggested there may be some gambling revenues seen this
year, but he is not sure.
“Based on the revenues in the fund, it could be this year –
probably a small amount,” he added. “They (casinos) are not all
open and operating yet.”
A release from the coalition of taxpayers shows just how much
they reject the legislation.
“The PCTA, a group of 23 taxpayer advocacy groups spanning the
entire state of Pennsylvania, has unanimously issued its third
demand for repeal of Act 1,” the release said.
“Not one piece of this egregious legislation represents property
tax reform, and our predictions are being validated before your
very eyes,” said David Baldinger, who runs the Pennsylvania
Taxpayers Cyber Coalition from Berks County.
Part of their anger stems from the Pennsylvania Department of
Education “granting permission to all 210 school districts that
applied for permission to increase property taxes above the
so-called inflationary index – without the need for voter
approval.”
With the signing of the Taxpayer Relief Act in June of 2006,
residents became able to vote on any budget a school district
proposes over the rate of inflation. Regardless of the vote May 15,
taxpayers will retain that right.
Wednesday’s Era erroneously stated that votes on the ballot
question would determine the capability for voters to approve or
not that back-end referendum.
Those 210 districts gained the department’s approval because of
certain exceptions including health insurance costs, special
education and rapid enrollment growth. There are no McKean County
school districts included in that exception.
The coalition sees the department’s action as additional proof
that Act 1 is a “fraud on the taxpayers of Pennsylvania and must be
repealed.”
Their release also suggests that taxpayers may unwittingly vote
for the piece of legislation believing it cuts taxes, but actually
may cause an increase in taxes.
Tomorrow: The expansion of a tax and rent rebate program already
in place in Pennsylvania as part of Act 1.
