On February 15, 2017

The right side of the option tax proposal

Dear Editor,

In response to last week’s letter to the editor from Diane Scappaticci Rosenblum regarding the local option sales tax vote to rescind. First I’d like to start off by saying I have a lot of respect and regard for Mrs. Rosenblum, so Diane, please don’t take this as an attack. While reading your opinion, which I take with respect, I noticed you’re question is: “If the local option tax contributes approximately $400,000-$500,000 to the general fund, who do you think is going to make up the difference if it is rescinded?” You went on to state: “You and me and our property taxes.”
Diane, the fact and the truth is there’s a second part to this proposal of rescinding the one percent option sales tax. I’m not sure if our board or town has clearly explained this other part, which is simple: The town no longer would fund the marketing and events and employees for this department that was created with the option tax funding. So with $400,000-$500,000 less in revenue one must realize in order for this to work there would be $400,000-$500,000 less in expenses.
So, Diane, there may be a difference to make up by taxpayers, but no where near $400,000 to $500,000. The truth may be under $100,000, as I see it. But let’s remember, we’re not allocating money as expenses for our town manager and other departments spending time with special events, marketing and other items hidden in the budget away from EDT. Sorry, I had to do this in a letter to the editor, but your letter went out first without the understanding of the expense and revenue side. Once again, just making sure that we are looking at all sides of the equation.

Thanks,
Jim Haff, Killington

Do you want to submit feedback to the editor?

Send Us An Email!

Related Posts

The magical mythical equalized pupil

May 15, 2024
By Tom Evslin Editor’s note: Tom Evslin, of Stowe, is a retired high-tech entrepreneur. He served as transportation secretary for Gov. Richard Snelling and stimulus czar for Gov. Jim Douglas. The Vermont Legislature is playing an expensive shell game — and planning worse. The “equalized pupil” is the shell under which the pea is hidden.…

Tell the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to protect the Connecticut River

May 15, 2024
Dear Editor, It has been 12 years since the relicensing process began for five hydroelectric facilities on the Connecticut River, and until May 22, there is an opportunity to comment to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC).  The last time these hydro facilities were licensed was in 1979, and once the new licenses are issued,…

UVM, don’t punish student protesters

May 15, 2024
Dear Editor, As a pastor, I feel it is my professional and moral responsibility to speak to the crisis of conscience facing our nation and state. As of this writing, the civilian death toll in Gaza stands at around 34,654 according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health. A third of these casualties are children. I do…

H.289: Good intentions on renewables but one big flaw

May 8, 2024
By David Bittersdorf Editor’s note: Dave Blittersdorf is the president of All Earth Renewables in Bristol. The Vermont General Assembly — in attempt to move the state to 100% renewable energy — is making changes to how the state’s utilities buy energy. Within the next couple of weeks, the Senate Natural Resources Committee will consider…