SHARE THIS

There was no motion made at Monday’s council meeting to discuss reducing the senior citizen age, that would allow more West Easton residents to get a discount on their sewer and garbage bills.

While I wasn’t expecting a decision to be made on the matter, I had hoped Councilman Tom Nodoline would make a motion for the Finance Committee to investigate the possibility of reducing the age from 65 to something lower. Something he told me he intended to do and I wrote about (reducing the age).

You’ll hear me reminding Mr. Nodoline of the subject at the 50:14 mark in the video of the council meeting.

“Not yet,” was the response.

After the meeting, I caught Tom and asked why the subject wasn’t addressed.

He is now concerned that too many people might qualify for a discount if the age is lowered and it might not fit into the next budget. Rather than looking at the ages of our population, the factor to be considered is the amount of homes that would qualify.

I got the impression it needed to be discussed in an executive session. That is my impression from reviewing the recorded council meeting, not something Mr. Nodoline told me.

According to city-data.com, the 2010 census shows West Easton as having:

Houses: 481 (450 occupied: 332 owner occupied, 118 renter occupied)

Though there have undoubtedly been changes since then, I would venture to say the changes aren’t significant, so let’s use these figures as a starting point.

A home that is being rented out shouldn’t qualify for the discount, so that leaves homes actually occupied by the homeowner.

I hate working with odd numbers, so let’s assume that since 2010, 18 new homes were built that didn’t exist 4 years ago. (What vacant land was available for new homes I have no idea, but I’m trying to err on the high end.) That makes an 350 homes occupied by homeowners.

We already know the median age of residents in West Easton is about 39 years old (39.1). West Easton’s population is actually getting younger than it was when the 65 discount age was instituted. Older residents are either dying or selling to young couples when moving. Those who die leave their homes to their children who usually sell, or rent out the home.

Of the residents between the ages of 60 and 65, how many are couples living in the same household? While reducing the age for a discount might bring more people into the equation, it won’t result in the same amount of homes that qualify for the discount, as the amount of people in that age bracket.

Personally, I don’t think it would result in more than 20 homes qualifying for a discount at a lower age, but again, I’ll err on the high side. Let’s imagine 50 additional homes are given a discount because the age is lowered to 60, rather than 65.

The discount would result in $80/yr savings to the homeowners.

$80/yr x 50 homes = $4000

My argument is that reducing the age from 65 is indeed “do-able.” Even if it results in a decision to propose an age of 62 1/2 for the discount.

We all got slammed with a mill rate increase and I’m resigned to accepting some improvements that increase is supposed to satisfy, but I’d like to see a little of that money used to help those on a fixed income.

Older residents will benefit from a discount on their sewer and garbage bill far more than they will from two old jeeps being money pits.

Hopefully, the Council makes a decision that reflects that thought.