May 16, 2007 By Patty Yauger 5 min read

Voters within the area’s 13 school districts said nay to a proposed tax shift referendum question posed to them on Tuesday’s primary election ballot, which will retain the current taxing structure within the respective districts, according to preliminary election results. The referendum question, which was different for not only area voters but also those across the state, evolved from legislation passed last year in Harrisburg.

Of the 501 Pennsylvania school districts, 498 convened a tax study commission to study their respective tax structures and then determine what tax – earned income or personal – would be enacted or increased and the amount of the increase.

Pittsburgh, Philadelphia and Scranton school districts were exempt from taking part in the costly and time-consuming initiative mandated upon the others.

According to the Pennsylvania School Boards Association, approximately 90 percent of the school districts opted for increasing the earned income tax that is levied against employment income.

A personal income tax can be garnered through the taxation of earned income, interest, dividends, lottery winnings and other types of income.

School boards could reject any recommendation made by the study commission and determine the tax to be increased.

Of the 13 local tax study panel recommendations, only five remained intact for the Tuesday ballot.

With 39 percent of the vote counted in Fayette County, the districts defeated the measure by the following margins:

By an 805 to 367-vote margin, Albert Gallatin Area School District voters said no to an additional .4 percent increase to the .5 percent in place of an earned income tax now paid by school district property owners, according to unofficial results at press time.

The tax study commission had recommended a .1 percent increase.

Although the tax study panel for the Brownsville Area School District recommended no change to the district’s taxing structure, the board moved to asked voters to approve an additional .6 percent earned income tax to the already .5 percent rate.

District voters cast 314 ballots in support of the additional tax and 691 votes against the measure, according to unofficial results.

The Connellsville Area School District voters did not support the tax study commission and board approved .5 percent earned income tax increase, which now stands at .5 percent.

Of the precincts supplying tallies at press time, 412 voters supported the measure with 1,192 casting dissenting votes.

By a 186 to 70-vote margin, Frazier School District voters said no to an additional .5 percent earned income tax increase to the .5 percent tax rate currently paid to the district, according to unofficial results.

The tax study commission had recommended no change to the district tax structure.

Although the Laurel Highlands School District tax study panel recommended no increase to the in-place .5 percent earned income tax rate, the school board asked the district voters to pay an additional .8 percent.

Voters, however, said no to the increased rate by a 1,356 to 664-vote margin in unofficial results.

The Uniontown Area School District asked voters to consider an additional .4 percent earned income tax to be added to the .5 percent rate now in place. However, the voters, by a 391 to 157-vote margin said no to the measure, according to unofficial results.

The study panel had recommended no change to the tax structure.

The results were mirrored in Greene and Washington county school districts.

The Carmichaels Area School District voters did not support the tax study commission and board approved .5 percent earned income tax increase, which now stands at .5 percent.

Of the precincts supplying tallies at press time, 221 voters supported the measure with 329 casting dissenting votes.

The Central Greene School District cut its tax study commission recommendation of a .55 percent earned income rate increase to a .47 percent increase. The current rate is .5 percent. Voters, however, said no to the additional amount by a 307 to 200-vote margin, according to unofficial results.

The Jefferson-Morgan School District voters did not support the tax study commission and board approved .6 percent earned income tax increase, which now stands at .5 percent.

Of the precincts supplying tallies at press time, 390 voters supported the measure with 637 casting dissenting votes.

By a 586 to 382 vote margin, Southeastern Greene District voters said no to an additional .46 percent earned income tax increase supported by the district board of directors and tax study panel to the .5 percent tax rate currently paid to the district, according to unofficial results.

Although the Bethlehem-Center School District tax study panel recommended no increase to the in-place .5 percent earned income tax rate, the school board asked the district voters to pay an additional .4 percent.

Voters, however, said no to the increased rate by a 748 to 282-vote margin in unofficial results.

The California Area School District voters did not support the tax study commission and board approved .5 percent earned income tax increase, which now stands at .5 percent.

Of the precincts supplying tallies at press time, 173 voters supported the measure with 431 casting dissenting votes.

Although the Belle Vernon Area School District tax study panel recommended no increase to the in-place .5 percent earned income tax rate, the school board asked the district voters to pay an additional 1 percent.

Voters, however, said no to the increased rate by a 152 to 49-vote margin in unofficial results.

Dr. Beverly A Cigler, National Academy of Public Administration Fellow and Penn State – Harrisburg professor of public policy and administration said the tax shift proposition

was not tax reform and chided the state legislature for “passing the buck” to the school boards.

“If the state dealt first with restructuring the state income tax (with) a slightly higher rate and a more progressive system; the state sales tax, by broadening the base to match our current services and knowledge economy; and perhaps the option for increasing the tax slightly based on choice within the counties, there would be ample opportunity for reduction in residential property taxes in a way that would allow for more winners in property tax reduction,” she said.