Oct 5, 2004 By Patty Shultz 4 min read

CONNELLSVILLE – While there appears to be no discussions by the Connellsville Area School Board to roll back a recently imposed tax hike, directors are considering allowing property owners to divide their tax payments to ease the financial burden. In addition to criticizing the panel for raising the real estate tax, the proposal for an installment program has been an issue raised at several meetings by taxpayers hoping to avoid the current lump sum payment that many have told the board is burdensome in light of the 32 percent increase.

Board solicitor, attorney Linda Cordaro, said that the law does permit the “taxing body” or school district to establish a schedule for the payment of taxes.

“We are still in the very early stages of discussing the issue,” said Cordaro, noting the schedule for the current payment of taxes will remain intact. “If the board takes action it will not take effect until next year.”

School district property tax notices were distributed by the 10 local tax collectors in late July and included the board approved tax hike.

“At first (the taxpayers) thought it might have been a mistake,” said Louis Bell, Bullskin Township tax collector. “I probably received 200 telephone calls. I had to explain that it was not a mistake.”

Bell attributed the misunderstanding to past assessment values where an imposed 3-mill increase would translate into an eight percent increase in the respective tax bill.

“I had to explain to them that this was an unprecedented tax increase,” said Bell.

Judy Keller, tax collector for the City of Connellsville, has received numerous notes attached to recently received payments that detail the property owner’s disdain for the hefty tax increase.

“The notes essentially state they are paying the due amounts, but they are protesting the increase,” she said. “Many are saying that they believe the added amount is because of the new turf installed at the football stadium.”

Currently, the taxpayer is permitted a four-month period to remit the one installment only payment. During August and September, a 2 percent discount is given while the ‘face value’ must be paid during the months of October and November.

After Nov. 30, a 10 percent increase is added to the tax bill.

Those property owners who do not forward the due taxes by Dec. 31 will then be turned over to the county tax claim bureau for collection.

The school district receives 64 percent of its operational funds from the state, 30 percent from local tax dollars and 6 percent through federal funding, according to district business manager Eugene Cunningham.

The June property tax increase was attributed to higher insurance costs for district employees, contractual pay increases, increased retirement contributions, escalating utility costs and lower education and transportation subsidies from the state.

Emiline Weiss, president of the state Tax Collectors Association, said few school districts across the commonwealth use the installment plan process, but speculates more may consider the option with escalating property tax bills facing homeowners.

“It will be a lot of bookkeeping for the tax collectors, but it makes it easier for the taxpayers,” she said.

Weiss said her local school district recently increased property taxes by 7.9 percent which translated into an additional $220 for the average taxpayer.

The increase, she said, is to defray costs associated with land acquisition and construction of a new high school.

“We have a lot of senior citizens and only a few businesses to help with the tax base,” said Weiss. “I’m sure this (property tax increase) is happening across the state.”

Cordaro, meanwhile, said that the board would have several items to consider, including the number of installment payments that would be permitted, delinquent dates and associated penalty fees for those who fail to make payments.

Bell said that the new system could turn into a “bookkeeping nightmare,” but believed that taxpayers would welcome a payment installment plan.

“It might make our job harder, but it is not about us,” he said. “It is about a convenience for the taxpayer.”