Click here to read this editorial on the Gazette.net web site.

I wish to respond to Mr. Kent Johnson's Feb. 24th letter concerning "FALSEHOOD's" he suggested the FACC supplied in its article of the prior week introducing Senator Kittleman's visit to the community. It was completely fair to report that Senator Allan Kittleman did indeed cast the deciding vote against the tax, as with the 3-4 vote, any member of the delegation who actually voted against the measure, could have technically swung it the other way.

It's not a secret that our elected Senator, Sen. Robert Kittleman, Allan's father had supported the transfer tax, which makes Sen. Kittleman's vote all the more decisive. This may also explain why Sen. Kittleman was pressed to defend his vote to assembled FACC members on Feb. 17th, as was reported by the press.

Sen. Kittleman's defense of his vote was based on his review of operational revenue budgets, which made him conclude that the Commissioners had raised some taxes earlier in their administration and therefore, in his opinion, a new tax was not necessary.

As was pointed out by Commissioner Dean Minnich, operational budgets have no bearing on capital budgets for schools and roads for example, where the transfer tax proceeds were to be designated, but perhaps Sen. Kittleman failed to recognize this. Carroll schools, for example, are facing a $60 million construction-funding deficit.

FACC reported that Sen. Kittleman "admonished" the Commissioners for increasing taxes and suggested instead that they undertake a strategic budgeting exercise designed to look for ways to eliminate waste. This is not an unfair statement, as Sen. Kittleman had no idea of the mess that this Board of Commissioners inherited in 2003 or what measures have already been taken over the past couple of years to reorganize county government to serve citizens more efficiently. Sen. Kittleman's giving the Commissioners the Governor's strategic budgeting book and suggesting that they read it so they can determine how to live with less was actually more a cold slap in the face than an "admonishment."

Finally, the transfer tax was indeed broadly supported as a new source of revenue to the county and by the majority of FACC members, as was obvious on the 17th at the meeting with Sen. Kittleman.

More importantly the transfer tax was also seen as a way to fund our lagging infrastructure, without raising property taxes on all homeowners. If I remember correctly, I believe this same Mr. Johnson wrote recently about having to perhaps move out of the county because of his increased assessments and their impact on his household budget. If the Commissioners are forced to raise our property taxes again to fund our capital needs, I hope that Mr. Johnson won't forget to send Sen. Kittleman a note of thanks for his vote against the transfer tax along with his change of address.